We all must evolve (grow and change and accept )the equipment as it improves, lest the spear we chuck be limited by a wooden tip tempered by fire rather than lead.Yes, competitive with one-another. But before that, digging WAY deep in Hunter roots, we actually taped over the yardage markings on our front objectives with electrical tape.That completely leveled the scope-advantage playing field; hence succumbed to equipment-freak lobbying.
.
www.airgunnation.com I think limiting the quality of the equipment shooters can use doesn’t serve a purpose other than to (try) and level the playing field. Realistically let the equipment evolve but make the targets harder to hit. IMO.
Ron,Gonna respectfully disagree with this part of your post, Scott.
It was almost completely unheard of that a(ny) Hunter division shooter posted High Overall score in any FT competition when the Hunter magnification limit was 12X; even after the buckets and bipods concession to the loudest voices became the norm. But since I successfully coerced the powers that be to increase the Hunter mag limit (in order to prevent growing unrest evolving to civil war), high overall scores posted at many (if not most) FT competitions are posted by Hunters.
BTW, I was coercing the powers that be to "open up the optics X factor"; but they chose a 16X COMPROMISE solution instead. That quieted the loud voices for awhile; but as I predicted at the time, THEY'RE BAAAAACK!
.
Yes sir but they needn’t be apples and oranges - simply use one gun for <100 fpe and one gun for <20 fpe and one gun for <12 fpe - all could use the same scope. And as you know, with a Ghost this is easy peasy!
Ron,
so we shall agree to disagree
We get and have so many FT shooters who simply can't physically adapt to WFTF or OPEN shooting positions & as such choose to shoot and stay shooting within the Hunter classes.
Remove the thought of this and looking at EYES .. elder eyes for many that support the FT game, Lower power scopes 12-16x shooting increasingly difficult FT courses absolutely would have & benefit from more "X" optics power.
And ... as i eluded too within post #29, Stability and ability to vary how one sits & holds in Hunter IMO is the major advantage the class offers and that advantage has been in play since the Hunter class was introduced, it just took a few years for shooters in figuring it out and applying technique/s to get to where they shoot in more recent years.
The top shooters in hunter likely won't shoot better if choosing to use more X power, and the lets say more struggling elder shooter most likely would better there game..
Just my take on it .. win, lose or draw
And could use sticks while seated if that suited there required shot.
, and doesn't seem to be improving a half-century later 
. I stand corrected. As did Scott H, his son and a few others here on the west side during those years. Guilty of being among the disenfranchised of the era not even remotely able to shoot prone
Guilty of being among the disenfranchised of the era not even remotely able to shoot prone
Bipods is off topic but since it was brought up - Making attached bipods illegal wasn’t the only reason for the exodus of prone shooters. That rule was just the last straw in a series of changes meant to hamper or eliminate prone shooting. The BOG did not want to look like they were doing an outright ban on prone, but they achieved a similar result (almost no one shoots prone these days).Me too, and 'disenfranchised' is a great term for it (and politically correct, to boot). However I'm the MOST guilty of all We The Disenfranchised.
Doug was my best buddy at the time; and he being of similar (warped) sense of humor, I thought him immune to my teasing. Hence I did not criticize or attack prone shooters; but true to my (Texas) nature did tease by calling them 'belly-floppers'.
When the BoG enacted the rule disallowing attached bipods (that ended the prone debate) Doug took mighty offense to losing that advantage, instantly quit field target forever, and our friendship with the statement, "I don't need any more of this belly-flopper BS anyway!"
That's not the only example of why I often make references to FT competitors' EMOTIONAL investments, but is one of the more poignant.
.
So what your showing is unless in those years you shot prone, you by in large were not competitive with your so called best of the best.
interesting. Not exactly, but kinda what I was saying. There were usually still some non-prone shooters in the mix. Is restricting it to only those that shoot a certain way still the best of the best?So what your showing is unless in those years you shot prone, you by in large were not competitive with your so called best of the best.
Take away the position and much of this list of so called best of has faded away ... huh ?
While this thread is not the place for "Constructive" conversations on said subject, we do have the time and space to perhaps converse a bit
Actually, it was me that proposed a new class allowing only single-shot slingshots , squint-eye aiming , and rock ammo (no rounder than the moon, as determined by qualified match directors 
). While this thread is not the place for "Constructive" conversations on said subject, we do have the time and space to perhaps converse a bit
Open class ... On the ground or a 6" tall bag ... No sticks or taller seating allowed.
THAT RIGHT THERE eliminates quite likely 50% or more individuals who make up the ranks of current FT participation .. Oups !!
Now the AAFTA has not had an anwser either in what we might hope is wanting/wishing for growth within the ranks. But then again the "Hunter" classes became reality and has IMO and likely unarguable has saved AAFTA Field target from near oblivion.
With this the Power held by the rotating BOG, even tho "Hunter" has made for a brighter future, there is still a big disconnect on the changes that will keep FT alive for years to come under AAFTA sanction. Many have left, many have joined .. In Hunter mostly which should make a difference in bias of rule vetting and decisions, but does not seem to & correct me if mistaken.
Again thoughts, with staying on the view at this end as Disenfranchised more than not
and hoarse from the long battle, and the BoG was EXHAUSTED
! Consequently, and largely with the retirement of possibly the most proactive BoG Chairman ever that moderated that war to the point of BoG burn-out, there has been an era of ensuing peace; not to be confused with enduring peace. So effectively, the boats floating so let not do a thing until we're bailing water about to perhaps ... sinkA bit (more) historical perspective(s).
Though never an AAFTA governor, I've known most of them over the last quarter-century; and am (or been) close friends of two of the Chairmen. Besides having unique perspectives about the BoG, I've not only lived many of the contentious rules matters (STILL), but have heavily influenced many of those discussions and been instrumental in many rules revisions/changes. In fact I've been accused of having undue influence in rules-making, rightly so.
By the time the Hunter scope mag limit was raised to 16X the loudest voices in that debate were weary
Fast forwarding to today, I have it on good authority that the current BoG acts primarily reactively, rather than proactively. Matter of fact, for the most part they prefer to not address potential or brewing issues, until there is a protest at a GP or Nats. That is not a criticism, simply matter of fact.
Can't say I blame them; despite being a huge believer in proactive (preventative) action in order to avoid or minimize damage(s) done before acting reactively. Regardless, I believe the BoG's current reactive approach answers why "Now the AAFTA has not had an anwser either in what we might hope is wanting/wishing for growth within the ranks".
I'll leave it to others to determine for themselves if that falls under the heading 'no news is good news'.
.
