The last blog post of Tony

It is a sad day....
Please read
http://tonybrong.blogspot.com/?m=1

Tonys a great guy! I will miss his blog.  I don't agree the reason the NRA made not to use electronic targets was because shooters did not want it, Simply it was the NRA higher ups said no way once they figured out what it would cost them. Thank you Tony for your time and effort you have helped the sport immensely.

I'll definitely miss reading Tony's blog posts. 

To clarify a statement made concerning the target systems at Camp Perry used for the National Pistol Champs.  According to the NRA's Director of Competitions, the CMP owns the turning target systems, and is responsible for upkeep and maintenance.  NRA only leases the system.  Given the discussions surrounding the electronic target systems as a possible replacement for the current turning target system, I was surprised to learn that NRA did not own the current target system.  It is my understanding that the CMP does not have any immediate plans to replace the current turning target system at Camp Perry with e-Targets.

Tony Brong - Thanks you for years of great work with your blog.

I've only read a few of his posts, but enjoyed those.  

Reading this last one, I wondered if there aren't some societal forces playing out in which sports young adults gravitate to today?  With kids (including mine) playing action video games and doing less of the slow muscle-memory sports (bowling, archery, etc.) perhaps they build an inherent preference for the run-and-gun sports (3 gun, IDPA, etc.) which to them feel more like a grown-up's video game.

Can you imagine any kid liking a video game where it takes 10 minutes to take 10 shots?!

The funny thing Ted, 5 years ago, the target system was owned and maintained by the NRA. The question is how and when did the CMP gain control of it? And at what cost?
Seeing as the CMP is the sole provider of KGN targets in the US, would it make sense that they ( the CMP ) could now " force " the move to their e- targets? Only the backlash of over 50% of the shooters, stopped this from happening.... and of corse the continued problems the CMP has been having with both the targets and the rules book haven't helped sway any competitors opinions.
Tony is another vocal competitor that seems to have had enough. I personally thank him for all he has done to promote sport, as I did when Tom stepped away " from the rudderless ship ".
Things have got to change. If they don't, that wayward ship will soon be a sinking one.

Aprilian wrote:
Can you imagine any kid liking a video game where it takes 10 minutes to take 10 shots?!

When you state it that way, it's a wonder that any youngster would take up bullseye.  But then, I attend matches every year where I'm amazed at the number of youth that are on the line. A couple years ago at Perry the shooter to my left was a young lady of about 20 at Perry for the first time,  and the shooter to my right was 75 and had been coming to Perry for more than 50 years.  Both shot very well.

AllAces wrote:

Aprilian wrote:
Can you imagine any kid liking a video game where it takes 10 minutes to take 10 shots?!

When you state it that way, it's a wonder that any youngster would take up bullseye.  But then, I attend matches every year where I'm amazed at the number of youth that are on the line. A couple years ago at Perry the shooter to my left was a young lady of about 20 at Perry for the first time,  and the shooter to my right was 75 and had been coming to Perry for more than 50 years.  Both shot very well.

I have kids who (like so many of their peers) play video games, mostly first person shooter types. Yet when they get to shoot real guns, they like it much better. I think there will always be a draw to that if they actually get to try it.

Aprilian wrote:
Can you imagine any kid liking a video game where it takes 10 minutes to take 10 shots?!

They sure seem to with regard to Air Pistol in Europe. And, I have seen some very good talented shooting at Perry. 

But it doesn't take 10 minutes to shoot 10 shots. It takes two strings of 5. Shoot them as fast as you like. On the other hand watching the best shooters compete, they don't shoot them as fast as they can. Hmm. 

I am reminded of a shooter that came to a couple of coached practice sessions at one of my local clubs. The instructors are a retired distinguished couple and the wife shot NCAA and International for a number of years. The husband joined the 2600 club in his second full year of Bullseye. 

After a couple of sessions the shooter was convinced by his friends that one hand shooting at small targets at 25 yards wouldn't help him in IDPA matches. The last I checked after a year he was still shooting the same kind of scores at those matches. 

If you can't succeed one shot at a time, its pretty hard to succeed 5 shots really fast.

I've noticed that the harder I work at Bullseye, the luckier I get at combat.
In my mind all the shooting sports start with the same basics to be mastered before you can move on.

jmdavis wrote:

Aprilian wrote:
Can you imagine any kid liking a video game where it takes 10 minutes to take 10 shots?!

But it doesn't take 10 minutes to shoot 10 shots. It takes two strings of 5. Shoot them as fast as you like. On the other hand watching the best shooters compete, they don't shoot them as fast as they can. Hmm. 

True, but then you have to wait the rest of the 10 minutes to score and shoot the next strings.   My comment was about the overall pace of a 2700 vs. a video game.

Good points on the kids we do see.  I wonder how many of them are introduced through family members or a high-school shooting team.  When I was a scoutmaster, I saw very few Boy Scout Shooting merit badge recipients retain interest in shooting.

I was a BE shooter before my son was born. He's been shooting since he was 4 yrs old. He's now 25. He's an excellent marksman with both rifle and pistol. This year he shot his first 1800. He only did it because a friend the same age was shooting the match. He liked it but has hardly shown interest. He shot 2 EIC Distinguished .22 matches and shot 240's with little practice. I've seen him shoot 3" groups at 25 yds with .22 and .38 spl 1911. He could probably break 2600 in a year. Having said all this, he's not interested. He'd rather run and gun instead. So as hard as I've tried to make it easy for him to do, (guns, ammo, pay fees) he's not interested. Shame to see so much talent go unused
Jon

Danehogle wrote:It is a sad day....
Please read
http://tonybrong.blogspot.com/?m=1

  The statement "The NRA will no longer provide volunteers to run their matches nor be involved in cost sharing." needs some context and detail.  I've been a volunteer the last five years; this year we were told the first day that CMP would run their matches without us, and then we were told we would do it after all.  (As for next year, I don't know.  The latest schedule doesn't work for me at all.)


  It is also in conflict with what Dennis Willing wrote in the September SSUSA magazine.  See http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ssusa_201609/#/4 for details.  

Jon Eulette wrote:I was a BE shooter before my son was born. He's been shooting since he was 4 yrs old. He's now 25. He's an excellent marksman with both rifle and pistol. This year he shot his first 1800. He only did it because a friend the same age was shooting the match. He liked it but has hardly shown interest. He shot 2 EIC Distinguished .22 matches and shot 240's with little practice. I've seen him shoot 3" groups at 25 yds with .22 and .38 spl 1911. He could probably break 2600 in a year. Having said all this, he's not interested. He'd rather run and gun instead. So as hard as I've tried to make it easy for him to do, (guns, ammo, pay fees) he's not interested. Shame to see so much talent go unused
Jon

Adopt me!

Richard Ashmore wrote:

  It is also in conflict with what Dennis Willing wrote in the September SSUSA magazine.  See http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ssusa_201609/#/4 for details.  

 Rich,

I went to the link you posted. I read it when it was first published, and I don't see a conflict.

Although, at the time, I picked up the phone and called the author for clarification. It's possible that I might have misunderstood him.

tbrong wrote:

Richard Ashmore wrote:

  It is also in conflict with what Dennis Willing wrote in the September SSUSA magazine.  See http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ssusa_201609/#/4 for details.  

 Rich,

I went to the link you posted. I read it when it was first published, and I don't see a conflict.

Although, at the time, I picked up the phone and called the author for clarification. It's possible that I might have misunderstood him.

Context or clarification is what is needed.  The blog said "The NRA will no longer provide volunteers to run their matches nor be involved in cost sharing," which sounds like NRA decided not to provide volunteers to run the matches.  Dennis' column said pretty clearly that "In January 2016 the CMP advised the NRA that they no longer wanted the NRA to conduct the CMP events at Camp Perry," and "They [CMP] advised that they wished to conduct the events using their own personnel and volunteers," which isn't exactly the same as "NRA will no longer provide volunteers..."  


That is what I see needing some clarification.

Rich, I think you have a valid point. I've slightly modified that portion of the post for better clarity.

Thanks for the input.

Tony,

I dislike saying that I believe you analysis of the NRA's view at large of the shooting sports and the competitors is spot on. Again, I hate saying it, because I too believe we are a very visible, but neglected asset that they largely consider to be a line item cost. I too am sad to see you blog end, but understand completely.  Nevertheless, the way that you have written most of your entries will still have validity for the future.

I have had a number of conversations regarding Camp Perry with folks who have been involved on the Hipower side of things.  Based on those conversations, the past matches were held with CMP paying for the ranges, Ohio national Guard providing the ranges and the NRA doing the conducting of the lines using volunteers who have had 2 meals (breakfast and lunches/brown bag), and lodging at Camp Perry taken care and paid for by the NRA.

Similar conversations lead me to believe in the negotiations for this coming years events that the CMP said, they want to change this by each organization paying for and providing for their portion of the matches.  NRA has agreed, with the caveat of trying to lump all of the events that they put on in one area to provide for less travel cost and logistics by having their staff there all at one gathering.

The apparent subtle clash that exists between the two organizations has been going for a while. Whichever of the two organizations "wins," I am certain that the competitive shooters will loose, and we have been witnessing it by and by.

-Ron

A couple of points need some clarification here, just to help clear things up a little.

First, the NRA never owned the pistol target system at Camp Perry.  Dane is mistaken in this belief.  The NRA was responsible for the maintenance of the system while it was in use at Camp Perry, but because CMP owns the system, they are responsible for anything outside of our six day period.  It has always been that way.

Tony was wrong about the competitors causing electronic targets to go away when they were considered.  The actual reason was that my boss said he was unwilling to spend $2 million on a system that is used for one week in an entire year.  It wasn't cost effective.  However, CMP's original plans included electronic targets for pistol but they too dropped them.  Their reason could have been because the competitors didn't want them but you'll have to ask them to know for certain.

The split between the NRA and CMP regarding expenses will occur at the 2017 matches.  Everything continued as normal for 2016, so yes Richard Ashmore, we did supply volunteers for the 2016 matches, but will not for the 2017 matches.  There's no confusion here.

Denny