Originally Posted by saddler
That's not the point Simon.
If we call your standing position 100%, and you using the alternative seating position gives you a 30% improvement, then you using the alternative position is now 130%.
That's not in doubt, but that's not the point.
Someone shooting with a disability will not be at your 100%. They may only be at 50%.
So, the 30% improvement the alternative position gives only puts them at 65%. That's still well below your 'default' 100%.
The argument, which I think is valid, is how do you determine the % deficit that a particular disability puts a shooter at, and does the alternative position 'improvement' take them above the 100% benchmark.
I believe the sitting position will give me far more than 30% Phil.
ie i missed two standers at gp 2.
so achieved 50% on standers.
pellet testing Thursday i achieved 100% in sitting standers (8 ex8), 4 @ 44 yards and others at 27 yards. so that to me is 100+ %.
If I had hit all my standers sunday i would have been in a shoot off. So that to me as a shooter doing all the Gp's is how critical the displaines are are why the current system is unfair and thus against the rules.