If this sport is supposed to be about hunting-style shooting with hunting-style rifles and hunting style target-range conditions, that is fine. It is obviously a successful sport (because a lot of people seem to have a lot of fun doing it). It may indeed be the case that the rules are well-designed to help keep it that way (fun). I don't know anything about your sport right now, and I didn't live through the "chin-gun" era or any other.

I appreciate as much as anyone that a person can win a national shooting event with an off-the-shelf moderately priced rifle with nothing more than ammo, practice and skill. That is cool, and it is absolutely true that a skilled shooter with average gear can beat a poor shooter with anything.

I am indeed working on a gun with wacky stock layout. I have absolutely no intention of ever entering it in any silhouette match, sanctioned or not. My questions about your rules were meant to enhance my understanding, in case I ever built more than one trigger or stock to go with it. People in your sport (more knowledgeable than myself) have expressed interest in using the trigger or the stock. My reading of your rules said it was a "no go" on the stock, and also, that the trigger could probably be used (if set to the proper pull wt for the class), just not as a palm rest.

I also expressed (and provided actual scientific data) that stocks with rearward-shifted center of gravity displayed better shooting accuracy due to ergonomic effects. This is not my research. For that, I was lambasted, issued "nerdy" emoticons ( ), and called longwinded and illogical because that data didn't conform to the shooting preferences and "common knowledge" of shooters in this sport. Again, everyone in MLB hits with a wooden bat.

I was told that no matter what that data showed, the preferences of a bunch of individuals (competing in a sport with restrictions on stock geometry) is somehow "data," as if a controlled experiment had been conducted with each shooter shooting each variable gun configuration and comparing results to determine optimal ergonomics under some design constraint other than the existing rules.

I was flatly told that the dictionary definition of "statistical significance" is not what it is twice, even after providing a reference. And finally, I was accused of worshipping at the altar of shiny expensive gear for building a home-made gun based off the Ruger 10-22 in a sport where people commonly shoot CZ and Anschutz two to four times as expensive - off the shelf, before adding a Lilja or Krieger barrel, custom Pharr stock, or whatever else the rules allow.

If a guy gets called a spendthrift for building his own 10-22, the economy is worse than I thought. True, I shouldn't expect an MLB forum to enthusiastically embrace an aluminum bat, but I would have expected a shooting enthusiast forum to at least wait for the targets before laughing at the new guy/gun.

Yet another novel with nothing new. Come out and shoot. Then type.

BulZi, unlike many here I prefer a lighter, balanced rifle over a beefy one that's nose heavy. No big thing. But also remember that a lot of this game happens in a shooters' head, so if they think a given rifle shoots better for them, it probably will, science aside. Placebo effect? Maybe, but it works.

BulZi wrote:..... True, I shouldn't expect an MLB forum to enthusiastically embrace an aluminum bat, but I would have expected a shooting enthusiast forum to at least wait for the targets before laughing at the new guy/gun.

Spend what you want, buy what you want, shoot what you want. Its about YOUR experience. Enjoy it.