TargetTalk

pros and cons of the pistol.
PROS:
1. totally safe. it only gives a flash of laser so it is rated as safe, even for eyes ( assuming someone doesn't look down the barrel and repeatedly pull the trigger). I have 2 young children and can fire with them playing nearby.

2. I set up the target box on a table at the end of my hallway (10m). Can practice at my convenience.

3. the S box ii is used at world competitions - and I have the same setup at home. It records all shots, the time they were taken, and one can check progress over weeks and months etc.

4. the only ongoing cost is replacement batteries ( one AA every 30,000 shots they say).

5. no firearms license needed (unless you live in Australia, apparently)

CONS:
it is not a real gun - with the thrill of handling a lethal weapon...

traderob wrote:..with the thrill of handling a lethal weapon...

I find that offensive. If you want to shoot live guns because of "the thrill of handling a lethal weapon" then please leave the sport.

David Levene wrote:

traderob wrote:..with the thrill of handling a lethal weapon...

I find that offensive. If you want to shoot live guns because of "the thrill of handling a lethal weapon" then please leave the sport.

+1

TenMetrePeter wrote:

David Levene wrote:

traderob wrote:..with the thrill of handling a lethal weapon...

I find that offensive. If you want to shoot live guns because of "the thrill of handling a lethal weapon" then please leave the sport.

+1

+2

Probably don't need the negative PR which comes with violence and crime, to be completely honest.

Better to take the tack of quiet enjoyment of a legitimate sporting endeavour, kind of like a very loud version of Golf.

Also:
Not a real gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Hunt

ah good point.
I suppose then, if the loud noise was important, the manufacturer could add an imitation one. And even artificial recoil.
The only sound with the laser pistol is the click of the trigger. No recoil at all.

It might be that other world bodies move to laser - if the 'real' ( and sad to say, yes lethal) aspect is irrelevant to competitors.
This would suit me as the country I reside in won't license expats.

It is usually of interest to shooters where you come from if you have difficulties. Not many countries require licence for air guns for example but some do and you may get help here. You could put your country of residence in your profile.

I work in the gulf region. Airpistols are fine for anyone - without a license- but not the powder guns, although I can go to ranges to practice with their non-competition style pistols.

anyway no problems for me now with the UIPM using only laser pistols.

BTW fedex delivered it to my door.

David Levene wrote:

traderob wrote:..with the thrill of handling a lethal weapon...

I find that offensive. If you want to shoot live guns because of "the thrill of handling a lethal weapon" then please leave the sport.

Maybe traderob meant the comment to be tongue-in-cheek. Maybe not.

The following doesn't apply to everyone, so no one take offence if you don't feel it applies to you. But I have personally experienced and read the following.

I've heard endless whining and mockery from shooters in different disciplines about what constitutes a "real gun" and what is worthy for competition and what isn't.

CF think .22 isn't "real". Powder cartridge competitors don't think AP and AR are "real". To say nothing about the various types that think certain competitions are "real" and other not.

But many powder competitors, after denigrating low recoil AP and AR, seek out expensive equipment and light loads that reduce recoil to a minimum.

Don't know whether it was here or another forum where there was a long thread whining about political correctness killing the sport when it moved away from silhouettes and coffin shaped turning targets with oblong centre of mass bullseyes.

To me, if the essence of the sport is the fundamentals of grip, aim, stance, and trigger control, laser seems to provide all that. The only things that are lost are the random effects of wind and elements and flyers from ammo and the skill of bringing back on target in rapid fire with the recoil.

Recoil can be added.

So why is it so absolutely critical that the sport of precision shooting include the delivery of lead at high velocity downrange?

The history of all shooting sports is military officers and hunters trying to show who could be the best shot or who had the best training to kill game or enemy soldiers. We have to be honest that for many any primary attraction to firearms is that they go bang and they're dangerous.

And IMO any emotional attachment to powder over air or laser is probably rooted in that initial attraction.

David Levene wrote:

traderob wrote:..with the thrill of handling a lethal weapon...

I find that offensive. If you want to shoot live guns because of "the thrill of handling a lethal weapon" then please leave the sport.

David,

I generally agree with you on many things. And I have learned alot from your posts since I have been on Target Talk, but I don't agree on this one, necessarily.

I get a thrill from shooting period. I shoot rifles, pistols, shotguns. I also hunt with all of the above. I can shoot rats with an LP10 or an air rifle, I can take squirrels and rabbits etc, with a .22 rifle or pistol. For the past 15 years have fairly often hunted with only a handgun. I have taken animals ranging from squirrels to deer, generally with a single shot. To me it is somewhat akin to using the longbow or the flintlock.

Even if we ignore the defensive utility of firearms (and I do not believe that the defensive use of a firearm is a bad thing), they are designed with a consideration toward lethality.

One last thought though. I have owned and used a SCATT for several years. I have helped other to learn to use them as well. And what I have seen with the laser systems with it is that people start counting scores and find themselves disappointed when they shoot live ammunition (whether pellets, cartridges or muzzle loaders).

Mike Davis

jmdavis wrote:Even if we ignore the defensive utility of firearms (and I do not believe that the defensive use of a firearm is a bad thing), they are designed with a consideration toward lethality.

I can understand the thrill of firing projectiles at a target, I can understand (but have never tried) the thrill of of hunting. The thrill in both cases is getting the best out of the gun/ammo/conditions. Lethality? I don't get it.

Then end goal of hunting is to take the animal. Lethality and a clean kill are requirements. I guess this is moving beyond the topic however.

David, it's an American thing. There's a huge tactical defense subculture here. I have personally never been able to figure it out. I'm with you in that I like precision shooting and don't like the other aspects. However, I do recognize the value of a weapon for self-defense, especially in certain lines of work.

I think a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video even more so. This is a parody, but Demolition Ranch is a veterinarian who has a lot of fun blowing stuff up (both figuratively and literally) and making youtube videos about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga-3x01nFEc. This is a more "mainstream" example of US firearm culture. His videos are pretty funny, and have a snarky bent that I enjoy watching.

For a more "family friendly" version, Hikok45 is a good youtube channel to highlight the pleasure of just firing a gun. I respect him immensely. He's a bullseye shooter (some of his earlier videos on a 1911 Les Baer clearly indicate his level of knowledge) and definitely knows his way around what he videotapes, but I get tired of hearing about his sponsors from time to time...

Anyways, point being that lethality is a marketing tool out here, and a lot of people enjoy it. Sometimes too much...