Just a few years prior to that, Bill Rabbitt won Hunter PCP at Nationals in Michigan with a Marauder (with aftermarket reg) and a Hawke Sidewinder. Sub $1000 total setup.
Upvote 0
Field Target is an arms race.
- Thread starter Franklink
- Start date
Just a few years prior to that, Bill Rabbitt won Hunter PCP at Nationals in Michigan with a Marauder (with aftermarket reg) and a Hawke Sidewinder. Sub $1000 total setup.
Hey Tyler, good to see you chime in. Pointing out exceptions just makes my point.
Factually, what would you estimate the percentage of matches you've attended (any level, local, GP, Nationals) where you've seen someone with an entry level/budget gun(say under a grand like your example) win one of the popularly contested classes?
For me it's 0% because I can't remember seeing the above situation at the matches I attend (mostly monthly club matches). And I do the match reports for some of those clubs so I go over the equipment lists and general stats pretty closely. Sure, guys win with not-a-Thomas, say a $1300-1500 Huntsman with a $400-600 Athlon. But now we're close to or above $2k.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I haven't chimed in here because I think my own thoughts have already been captured by others. I don't see the "arms race" as a problem...more of a natural progression. And because I've picked up a spring gun on the odd occasion over the last few years and shot match high score or beaten 95% of the PCP shooters in attendance on that day, I can pretty confidently say that I could do the same with a relatively inexpensive PCP gun...but maybe that's an experiment to run another time. In general, if folks spent more time purposfully practicing their scores would likely go up. Not much more to it than that in my experience.
To answer your question, before Bill made the switch to Thomas back in 2018 (I think), I would say it was pretty regular that he was winning Hunter PCP at local matches and most GPs he attended. Not like he won everywhere all the time, but you get the idea. So if we took Hunter PCP as our example, and then factored in matches before and after as well....around 3-5% is probably appropriate. Guys like Bill and Philip are the outliers, no doubt. But while the equipment they used and won with made them outliers, the actual reason they were at the top is far more important and something not unique to either of them...they PRACTICE!
Upvote 0
I agree with most of that.
Early on I commented that many don't see it as something that needs to be fixed, it's just the nature of the thing, an integral part of field target.
Combine practice with a rig capable of performing similarly to what other top shooters are using, and a shooter can win.
Upvote 0
Another instance:
2013, second hand Marauder. $350 and came with a regulator installed. I added a $120 UTG scope. It was a $500 rig out of pocket. Won the Nationals and the GP. My son won the GP the next year with the same setup. It had a good factory barrel.
I think Ammon Piat might have used a Marauder to win the Nationals in 2015. And Dan Finney in 2011. Marauders have won the Nationals a few times (if I can remember correctly). 2011, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019. Some were modified and some were nearly stock.
There were fewer PCP and scope options back then. There’s more options now, some of them pricey, so it’s only natural that’s what we see more often these days. People like nice stuff and often have the money to buy it.
Upvote 0
Amon used a Evanix something or other in most matches, including 2015 nationals. I was squaded with him, and Bill Rabbit, with his Benjamin Marauder on day two. I was using, and still break out my regulated(by me) AA S500. In that instance, my rear cap screw came looses after 5 lanes, while their less pricey setups worked flawlessly.
Upvote 0
Proving that the overwhelming majority of championships are won with more expensive equipment only establishes coincidence.
It does not establish a cause. In fact, counter examples build a case that it is not a cause. There is no value in a discussion that only looks at correlations.
FWIW a friend won a couple of local matches last fall using a midrange pcp and a cheap UTG scope. So I don’t see dollars consistently leading to winning around here.
David
Upvote 0
I agree Scott. That comment about getting more enjoyment out of nice toys was made at some point here, and I agree. There's nothing wrong with enjoying nice things.
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
From my perspective/opinion, taking full (or even primary) credit for wins and not giving any recognition to the equipment one is using is incredibly egotistical.
Buy yourself a sub $400 gun, without polishing that turd or re-barelling it, and show up at your next match and see how it affects your scores.
Buy yourself a sub $400 gun, without polishing that turd or re-barelling it, and show up at your next match and see how it affects your scores.
Last edited:
Upvote 0
“There is very certainly a price threshold that must be crossed to get into "competitive" territory.”
I’d put that number around $1500 or maybe $1000 if I get to cherry pick a gun with proven accuracy before I buy it. That makes for a very capable HFT rifle. $3000 or $6000 is not required.
$400 barely buys a scope and rings.
David
I’d put that number around $1500 or maybe $1000 if I get to cherry pick a gun with proven accuracy before I buy it. That makes for a very capable HFT rifle. $3000 or $6000 is not required.
$400 barely buys a scope and rings.
David
Upvote 0
Correlation you say?
I can get on board with the correlation between expensive equipment and winning ft matches. That's what I've been saying all along actually.
Upvote 0
That approach is a logical fallacy.
Dinosaurs didn’t study history and they all died. 100% correlation, no causation.
It’s more likely in my opinion that when shooters put in the practice and event experience to br top, they then invest in top end equipment to eliminate any possibility that they could lose a point. Or they simply reward themselves for their progress. In that case the expensive equipment is the result not the cause.
Upvote 0
Simply an arbitrary number that's not "expensive." Make it $600 if you like, or $800. As we go up in value it supports my stance that matches are easier to win with more expensive equipment.
Any serious competitor is going to choose a Red Wolf or a RAW or a USFT or a Thomas if given the choice between that and anything with an MSRP less than....$1000? The exact dollar amount isn't the significance here, it's the performance level, and there is usually a pretty strong CORRELATION between price and performance (barring a lemon or a bad barrel in a high end gun).
No, it's not causal in the sense that buying an expensive gun = wins. But buying and using an expensive (read expensive as "higher performing than cheap") gun and a quality scope, and pairing that with solid practice will make the wins much easier to come by, versus buying a lower priced (read that as lower performing/less accurate) gun and putting in the same level of practice.
Don't care how big someone's ego is, if their gun isn't as accurate as the people they're shooting against, the dude full of himself will not win that match.
Upvote 0
You changed it.
In this version you're saying that people buy better equipment to eliminate the possibility of losing a point. A statement that suggests the same correlation between price and performance that I've been making all along.
This is the arms race.
Upvote 0
Assume all the guns are more accurate than the shooter using them...in that event, the shooter that has the following is more likely to prevail:
1) More Practice Time with their equipment
2) More match experience with said equipment
3) More Confidence in their equipment rooted in practice and experience
What you'll notice in the above is that money has nothing to do with any of them...but they all have something far more valuable than money in common, and that is time.
1) More Practice Time with their equipment
2) More match experience with said equipment
3) More Confidence in their equipment rooted in practice and experience
What you'll notice in the above is that money has nothing to do with any of them...but they all have something far more valuable than money in common, and that is time.
Upvote 0