Originally Posted by CharlieM
Berty, my post which Jev quoted was slightly tongue in cheek and whilst I personally have no interest in laser rangefinders I do think we need to consider where our sport is headed "if" we are getting to the point where you can buy a "significant" advantage. That's not a sport of skill. Is a top limit on magnification such a terrible idea if we want to keep rangefinding a competitive element of the sport?
Yeh, but it would have to be 50x cos of all the nikko's and debens around...
There's still a skill in using the scopes, the way i look at is to ask if i think i can beat anyone with a less expensive scope, and if the answer is no, which it is, then i don't see an issue in that respect.
Looking at it another way, i'll probably spend £750 on fuel and £130 on hotels for the uk shoots, + say £1000 for shoots abroad, so nudging £2k for travel expenses for my years shooting... ie close to what my scope cost. Now i don't anticipate changing mine for the foreseeable future, so say i've done 6 years of national stuff, that cost could very well be spread quite thinly assuming i carry on as normal, but the old gluggy stuff will still cost, and will keep rising.
The perception is that the gear does all the work. Granted it might fill in gaps in a shooter's performance envelope, but how many people actually assess their shooting to that degree?... i reckon it's probably the same people who put in the scores that people admire... you hear a lot about people wanting the right rifle, right pellets, right scope, but i can think of perhaps 5-10 people who do look at their shooting skills over and above the kit and they are the ones that pump in the results and i don't think any of them shoot super scopes.
I only have to remember Marc Fisher wiping out the entire open field 2 years ago with a 77k for about 4 GP's in a row, or at least overall (think it might have been a standard stock, cant remember...) to know that it aint done and dusted with kit yet.
It might allow you to catch up, but it wont stick you on the top. It might give you an edge, but it won't make up for mistakes.
With a shooter i'm working with at the moment, the two big gains have been made from fixing an arguably broken scope, or very sub par, and working on gun setup and position. The hopeful remedy of the position work allows the scope to be used better, sticking a march into the equation, or anything else for that matter would have solved little to nothing... indeed early tests showed that. Group size dropped once the position was sorted.
With my own shooting, with the springer, at first when i went back to a custom shop i wasn't happy. But then in comparison with my others, i realised it just wasn't that great, bolted on a deben bought from Holly for £300 and i'm happy as larry. If i was chasing a world or gp springer title where i might dream that it could come down to 1-2 shots, i might seriously consider a march, but for winter league and what ever else i choose to run it in, it's fine because i'm not sharp enough to justify it.
I can see how people get wound up about being beaten by what they perceive is down to the kit, but there would be some who would have to do some really deep soul searching after an expensive purchase when they realised the trophies aren't included inside the box the kit was delivered in. As painful as the perception might feel, I think that feeling would be worse. I would hate to assess a shooter and to end up with the answer that a £400 scope delivers better performance than another more expensive one, but i suspect the biggest problem would be actually blind testing it so the answer was true.