Short stroke Rugers

[sarcasmn]

I have a set of Rugers I just picked up in .38/357. I want to start shooting gunfighter.  I will have the action job and Blackhawk hammers installed but I am not sure about short stroking them. 
 

Would those of you experienced gunfighters tell me why or why not you like your pistols short stroked.  

[Badlands Bob #61228]

Short stroking your pistols is a fairly expensive project.  Have you shot any short stroked Rugers yet?  

 

Mine are short stroked and I think I'm a little faster with them but it may just be in my head.  The Super Blackhawk hammers do make cocking easier because you don't have so far to reach.  A good gunsmith can make those Rugers a real pleasure to shoot.

[Sarge]

See if you can try a set first.  My OMVs are short stroked as are  a pair of backup Uberti's.  I like them because it seems a bit easier on my arthritis, but it is definitely personal preference. 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Less thumb travel = better times and less movement.

 

Phantom

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Just one old gunfighters Opine.  I've only been shooting Gunfighter for about 25 years.  I just picked up a brandy new pair of .45s with those "Lower, Wider" hammers.  My muscle memory is so set I had to pull the Trix hammers out and go to regular stand up hammers.  I really can't imagine trying those hammers and "Short Stroke" on top of that.

 

TRY BEFORE YOU BUY!!  It's a "One Way Trip"

 

PHANTOM:  Only if ya can make 'em work and in my case, NO WAY

 

OH ALSO A CAVEAT:  I have never been able to shoot Rugers for beans.  Dunno why not.  Just spray lead.

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

And if you have smaller hands...lowered and SS'd is pretty damn beneficial.

 

Phantom

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

My opinion

(from a decent 2nd tier gunfighter).

 

Of course - less distance traveled generally means less time spent doing that traveling.

 

But unlike a short stroked rifle - pistol shooting entails enough variations that the short stroke may not show measurable improvements.

 

Of the mentioned modifications:

I THINK short stroked revolvers are a bigger benefit to the two handed supported shooter.

Why? 

The "shorter pull" is of increased benefit IF the pistol itself is NOT moving - a supported shooter is more likely to have a pistol hold less affected by recoil or grip.

If you are capable of locking in the pistols movement (and as you go up the ranks in Gunfighter - more and more are) then the shorter stroke may come into play - for a lot of us who exercise a fair amout of pistol movement or muzzle flip (or utilize recoil to position the hammer for cocking); the short stroke may not be as beneficial.

 

I PERSONALLY do not like the lowered widened hammers for gunfighter as I (again my opinion) don't like the methodology of pad on top of the hammer spur for cocking.

I prefer laying my thumb into the valley in front of the spur - the shorter (lowered) spurs gives less surface to pull backwards against (and again - I use recoil rotation to position the hammer relative to my hand as opposed to locking the pistol in and "reaching forward" to the hammer)

 

IF you are capable of locking the revolver in place one handed - AND have long enough thumbs to reach forward - AND the hand/ thumb/ wrist flexibility to cock the hammer rearward in that manner.

You may find benefit.

 

But and this is the big one - short strokes or hammer mods are solely that; mods.

They will require proper technique and extensive practice to show any benefit.

They don't win anyone buckles or change a shooters placements without the talent and practice to take advantage of any perceived benefits.

 

Understand; I am NOT trying to talk anyone out of mods - and just because I either am incapable of making use of them (or are too invested in my bad habits to change) does not mean they will not benefit you.

 

If you want them and can afford them - more power to you.

But if the choice is between these mods and five thousand rounds of QUALITY practice under a skilled mentor - no contest.

 

If you can do both - even better

[SGT. ELI 35882 GUNFIGHTER]

I had a new shooter asking a lot of similar questions, I took my SS/SBH main match guns and a couple of pairs that had not been short stroked and had the tall new vaquero hammers, one pair was a set of Jimmy Spurs, other pair I did. On the clock I was faster with both pairs that had not been short stroked or lower hammers.

I suggest you try before you buy. One of my friends is the faster gunfighter out there and shoots no short stroke new vaqueros with standard hammers (not the tall ones)

[Oklahoma Dee]

3 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Less thumb travel = better times and less movement.

 

Phantom

True words.  

[Assassin]

I have a pair of short stroked Vaqueros. They just started having some light strike issues. The springs were cut to accommodate the shorter travel of the hammer, and probably stretched for fine tuning in order to fire Federal primers. I'm replacing the springs with some lighter Vaquero springs.

Don't know if they're  any quicker, probably only advantage is when engaging multiple hit targets.

[Preacherman]

Hi, I've been shooting GG for probably 20 years and have both. Really not much difference for most shooters. Jimmy Spurs will talk you out of short strokes all day long. Shorter hammer travel requires heavier hammer springs all things being equal, so more effort to cock. I alternate cocking. If you double cock it may be faster. Sooo..... who knows for sure. 

[Anvil Al #59168]

All I ever shoot is Duelist or GFer.

Went YEARS without short stroking my pistols.

Much prefer them short stroked. Not sure I am really any faster.

BUT. I did notice not having to do the whole ring around the Ruger anywhere

close to what I did before the short stroke.

You might find it different. I can only speak for myself. 

 

You shouldn't have any problem finding someone in your local club that has some already done.

I'm sure they would be happy to let you try them out. See if you think it's worth the money to have done. 

For me. It was.  

[Randy Saint Eagle, SASS # 64903]

I shoot duelist and I’m old and arthritic. I can only speak for myself but I can shoot faster and more comfortably with my short stroke Rugers. I have a fairly large hand and shoot Bisley Vaqueros and without the short strokes I have to move the hammer a lot lower into my hands than my arthritis liked.  There are lots of good cowboy gunsmiths out there and I would try to handle several before I decided on who to go with if you decide to go with short strokes. 
 

I personally think they are more beneficial to gunfighters and duelists than they are to two handed shooters. I don’t know what part of Georgia you are in but if you come up to Wartrace, Tennessee and shoot with us I can let you try some done by 4 different gunsmiths and get a friend to let you feel some done by a 5th person..  You can also meet a 14 year old gunfighter that became the Southeast Region Gunfighter Champion after shooting Cowboy for 7 months and gunfighter for 3 months.

 

Good Luck but as everyone else has said, try before you buy, one thing doesn’t work best for everyone.

 

Randy

[Bison Bud]

In my opinion, about 90+% of this game is simply what one gets used to and this can apply to a variety stock equipment as well as legal modifications.  Some folks feel that short stroking is a big advantage, but in reality it's probably not much of a difference overall.  If your good enough that a few tenths of a second over the course of fire make a real difference then have at it.  Otherwise, I think spending your money of ammo and practice would show more realistic and lasting results.  While none of my cowboy revolvers are short stroked (USFA's and Rugers), I do shoot a short stroked 73 levergun.  However, comparing times with it and my back up Marlin, which is basically stock, show very little difference or advantage either way (it averages to less than 1 second unless it's just a straight up dump target and that's only a bit over 1 second).  However, I do see how tayloring your guns to fit you can be helpful, especially to us old farts that have to deal with pain in virtually every joint.  Frankly, if it keeps you shooting and especially helps to keep you competitive, then more power to you!  Good luck and good shooting to all.  

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 hour ago, Bison Bud said:

Marlin, which is basically stock, show very little difference or advantage either way (it averages to less than 1 second unless it's just a straight up dump target and that's only a bit over 1 second).

First, Marlins have a shorter stock stroke then a 73

 

Secondly, if the average is just under a second faster and you're at a 12 stage Championship match...that's almost 12 seconds. 12 seconds is HUGE!!!!!

 

So...?????

 

Phantom

[Bison Bud]

20 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

First, Marlins have a shorter stock stroke then a 73

 

Secondly, if the average is just under a second faster and you're at a 12 stage Championship match...that's almost 12 seconds. 12 seconds is HUGE!!!!!

 

So...?????

 

Phantom

While I understand your point, I stand by my statement that "if your good enough for it to make a real difference, then have at it."  When I shot regularly, I considered myself to be competitive and generally placed in the top 20 to 50 overall at the big matches and even won some Gunfighter categories (primarily when Lassiter and/or Mad River Marty didn't show up).  However, there is also a difference in rank scoring and total time scoring.  Most, if not all the big matches I attended were scored by rank scores on each stage and I can't really say that 12 seconds overall (less than a second on each stage) would have made much of a difference in my overall or category score at these matches.  I guess total time is used more in local matches and it might make a real difference there, but all in all it really is more what one gets used to and shooting smart that makes the real difference.  Good luck and good shooting to all.   

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 minute ago, Bison Bud said:

While I understand your point, I stand by my statement that "if your good enough for it to make a real difference, then have at it."  When I shot regularly, I considered myself to be competitive and generally placed in the top 20 to 50 overall at the big matches and even won some Gunfighter categories (primarily when Lassiter and/or Mad River Marty didn't show up).  However, there is also a difference in rank scoring and total time scoring.  Most, if not all the big matches I attended were scored by rank scores on each stage and I can't really say that 12 seconds overall (less than a second on each stage) would have made much of a difference in my overall or category score at these matches.  I guess total time is used more in local matches and it might make a real difference there, but all in all it really is more what one gets used and shooting smart that makes the real difference.  Good luck and good shooting to all.   

12 seconds makes a huge difference...period.

 

First, Rank Point Scoring is no longer used so is irrelevant to the discussion. But even if RP was being used, 12 seconds would make a huge difference unless one had a grenade run on a real fast stage.

 

Secondly, of course becoming "used" to one's equipment is important. But again, that's irrelevant when we are comparing the actual performance of different equipment. Just as shooting "Smart" and transitions are important to doing well...as is staying hydrated...etc.

 

Look, if you agree that the SS 73 saves time, why not just leave it at that???

 

Phantom

[Shawnee Hills]

15 hours ago, SGT. ELI 35882 GUNFIGHTER said:

One of my friends is the faster gunfighter out there and shoots no short stroke new vaqueros with standard hammers (not the tall ones)

 

To be fair, he'd likely be incredibly fast with whatever he shot.  In fact, we're not 100% sure he's an actual humanoid.  

[Bison Bud]

2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

12 seconds makes a huge difference...period.

 

First, Rank Point Scoring is no longer used so is irrelevant to the discussion. But even if RP was being used, 12 seconds would make a huge difference unless one had a grenade run on a real fast stage.

 

Secondly, of course becoming "used" to one's equipment is important. But again, that's irrelevant when we are comparing the actual performance of different equipment. Just as shooting "Smart" and transitions are important to doing well...as is staying hydrated...etc.

 

Look, if you agree that the SS 73 saves time, why not just leave it at that???

 

Phantom

I actually thought I did originally agree that the Short Stroke 73 was a bit faster!  However, I think our disagreement has more to do with how much difference it actually makes.  While any difference is worth noting, especially in a timed game, I think it's wrong to imply that one can not be competitive without short stroking everything.  This is especially true with Newbies and my initial point was that their money might be better spent on more ammo and effective practice rather than heavily relying on equipment modifications to improve performance.  Again, I agree that equipment does indeed make a difference and setting up ones equipment to best suit themselves makes a heck of a lot of sense, but a short stroked set of handguns and/or rifle is just a small and expensive part of improving one's overall performance and at least in my opinion not nearly the advantage that some here seem to think.  I guess I have been out of it for a while now do to health issues, but I had no idea that they stopped using rank scoring, could you give me some idea when this actually happened, because it was a big issue just a few years back.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

55 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

I think it's wrong to imply that one can not be competitive without short stroking everything.

I'd love to see where anyone stated this...and then of course you'd have to define what is meant by "competitive".

 

57 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

This is especially true with Newbies and my initial point was that their money might be better spent on more ammo and effective practice rather than heavily relying on equipment modifications to improve performance.

Interesting comment...using the phrase "heavily relying". Don't think anyone state here...again...that one should weigh modifications over practice...let alone weigh heavily. 

 

59 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

but a short stroked set of handguns and/or rifle is just a small and expensive part of improving one's overall performance and at least in my opinion not nearly the advantage that some here seem to think.

Can't argue with one's opinion. My opinion happens to differ with yours.

 

1 hour ago, Bison Bud said:

I guess I have been out of it for a while now do to health issues, but I had no idea that they stopped using rank scoring, could you give me some idea when this actually happened, because it was a big issue just a few years back.

I think it's been about 7 years.

 

Phantom

[Assassin]

2 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I'd love to see where anyone stated this...and then of course you'd have to define what is meant by "competitive".

 

Interesting comment...using the phrase "heavily relying". Don't think anyone state here...again...that one should weigh modifications over practice...let alone weigh heavily. 

 

Can't argue with one's opinion. My opinion happens to differ with yours.

 

I think it's been about 7 years.

 

Phantom

I'll throw my 2 cents in, have to agree with Bud.

Short stroked anything will probably only help those that shoot in the top 10-15%. Anyone below that level is still trying to cut seconds rather than fractions of seconds. In order to gain seconds, work on fundamentals. One glitch or hiccup and there goes the time gained with SS'd guns, multiple hiccups adds multiple seconds. Once that goal is reached join the arms race and spend the money on SS's. 

 

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

38 minutes ago, Assassin said:

I'll throw my 2 cents in, have to agree with Bud.

Short stroked anything will probably only help those that shoot in the top 10-15%. Anyone below that level is still trying to cut seconds rather than fractions of seconds. In order to gain seconds, work on fundamentals. One glitch or hiccup and there goes the time gained with SS'd guns, multiple hiccups adds multiple seconds. Once that goal is reached join the arms race and spend the money on SS's. 

 

You guys keep thinking it some kind of Zero Sum game...

 

Want proof? Just go to Land Run results from this year and you'll see that many folks would have placed much higher if all they did was remove the silly 12 seconds from their time. You can skip the first 105 shooters if you want to eliminate the top 10-15%.

 

Your argument is that there are other things that can account for more of a time savings...well...yeah...duh! 

 

Also, the "arms race" is over. SS pistols have been around for a looooong time. The minimum travel distance for the rifle lever was established a looooong time ago. All that might be going on now is...what? Trying to make things...smoother...??? What's left? If there's an "arms race", what exactly are they developing for Cowboy Shootings that'll cause folks to rush out and upgrade their equipment?

 

Please quit Strawmaning us. The fact is that SS's CAN save time. Take that for what it is. It's NOT saying that other things can't save you just as much time or more. Of course they can. But this is not the issue.

 

Phantom

[Cholla]

8 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Secondly, if the average is just under a second faster and you're at a 12 stage Championship match...that's almost 12 seconds. 12 seconds is HUGE!!!!!

Phantom

Exactly. I used to shoot with three top shooters. They were always competing for the top at the local match, urging each other to do their best, putting in long hours of practice, and attending every match they could for more time behind the gun. One was extremely fast and when he shot in EOT he placed third, but was within ten seconds of first and second place. I agree, one second per stage can make or break a shooter that good.

[Shawnee Hills]

If one can save fractions of a second here and there across a stage, won't the seconds take care of themselves?  Sure, a shooter should be searching for lost time by working on fundamentals and transitions but there's no doubt that good, tuned, and slick equipment helps save time.  Toss a set of factory revolvers, rifle, and shotgun at any shooter and it will slow them down . . . well . . . all except the wizards.

[Assassin]

1 hour ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

You guys keep thinking it some kind of Zero Sum game...

 

Want proof? Just go to Land Run results from this year and you'll see that many folks would have placed much higher if all they did was remove the silly 12 seconds from their time. You can skip the first 105 shooters if you want to eliminate the top 10-15%.

 

Your argument is that there are other things that can account for more of a time savings...well...yeah...duh! 

 

Also, the "arms race" is over. SS pistols have been around for a looooong time. The minimum travel distance for the rifle lever was established a looooong time ago. All that might be going on now is...what? Trying to make things...smoother...??? What's left? If there's an "arms race", what exactly are they developing for Cowboy Shootings that'll cause folks to rush out and upgrade their equipment?

 

Please quit Strawmaning us. The fact is that SS's CAN save time. Take that for what it is. It's NOT saying that other things can't save you just as much time or more. Of course they can. But this is not the issue.

 

Phantom

What's  Strawmaning?

So, you're  telling me that the consistent 40 second shooter will miraculously become a 39 second shooter by investing $1000 in short stroking his/her guns. Me thinks, not.

One must shoot at a certain level or speed in order to potentially gain time. Just because the gun is capable doesn't mean the shooter is capable of shooting or cycling the actions.

 

I'd be happy if any of my POS guns even made it through a match. I should just sell them all and buy a new sawmill. 

 

Most shooters I know aren't  running SS'd pistols. Only reason I have a pair was I wanted a pair of birdheads and I got a good deal and they happened to be SSSS. (stainless steel short strokes). I don't know if they are quicker. Is there a test we can try at the next match.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

1 hour ago, Assassin said:

What's  Strawmaning?

So, you're  telling me that the consistent 40 second shooter will miraculously become a 39 second shooter by investing $1000 in short stroking his/her guns. Me thinks, not.

One must shoot at a certain level or speed in order to potentially gain time. Just because the gun is capable doesn't mean the shooter is capable of shooting or cycling the actions.

 

I'd be happy if any of my POS guns even made it through a match. I should just sell them all and buy a new sawmill. 

 

Most shooters I know aren't  running SS'd pistols. Only reason I have a pair was I wanted a pair of birdheads and I got a good deal and they happened to be SSSS. (stainless steel short strokes). I don't know if they are quicker. Is there a test we can try at the next match.

It's not really a word...I made it up. But if it was a real word it would mean the act of one using a Strawman argument.

 

The degree of time saving will increase over time until until it peaks...then it'll go down hill as one becomes old and arthritic. However, if one's thumb moves less distance with a SS in order to preform the same function, then it's impossible...or shall I say highly unlikely that time will not be saved. This time savings may be infinitesimal. Rifle SS's may have a more dramatic impact on time.

 

Then there's the issue of comfort particularly for folks with smaller hands. So they may benefit from additional time savings. 

 

So I conclude that there is a time savings of varying degrees. To bring up the fact that there are other things that can and do improve one's times is irrelevant to the question at hand. If the question is where to best spend one's money to better one's times...that's a matter of opinion. Going to a lot of matches is probably the best...but if you think THAT'S cheap...the government allows (for business), a write off of 65.5 cents/mile. I drive 160 miles round trip to a local match. So for me to shoot a monthly ends up costing me about $125 + ammo...for 6 stages...about 100 seconds...cheap!!!!

 

Phantom

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

Of course - a TOOL; whether a saw, a sportscar or a short stroked firearm CANNOT perform any function beyond what user is capable or willing to do.

 

A quality saw in Yul Loses hand is capable of creating works of art.

And a person who believes a saw is for driving nails will get zero benefit.

But an average woodworker IS absolutely going to produce greater product with better tools.

 

With Jeff Gordon behind the wheel - a Corvette can dance.

With Stevie Wonder - not so much.

But an average driver behind the wheel will perform better with the Vette than behind the wheel of a Yugo.

 

The same argument stands for firearms. 

 

Maybe I can't build the works of art like Yul.

Maybe I can't drive like Jeff Gordon.

And I definitely can't shoot like the best in our game.

 

But just because I can't get 100% of the potential doesn't mean I get zero of the benefit.

 

To say otherwise is silly.

[Creeker, SASS #43022]

4 hours ago, Assassin said:

So, you're  telling me that the consistent 40 second shooter will miraculously become a 39 second shooter by investing $1000 in short stroking his/her guns.

Me thinks, not.

 

One must shoot at a certain level or speed in order to potentially gain time. Just because the gun is capable doesn't mean the shooter is capable of shooting or cycling the actions.

 

With all due respect - you are absolutely 100% wrong.

 

Even discounting smoothness, reliability or all other factors - if the shooter maintains the EXACT SAME SPEED of operation; it takes LESS time to move less distance.

 

Take my Corvette / Yugo analogy from earlier.

Yes, drive either at 45 mph - it will take exactly the same amount of time to cover 45 miles.

True enough.

 

But a short stroke is by definition SHORTER.

Lets say the throw (travel) is 10% shorter; now the Yugo still has to travel 45 miles - the Corvette only 40.5 miles.

At the exact same speed of operation - the Corvette arrives first.

 

And lets say you travel this same route 60 times (just sheer coincidence thats the number of pistol rounds in a monthly match)

But over 60 trips - the Corvette has traveled 270 miles fewer than the Yugo.

The Corvette has completed the driving SIX hours before the Yugo; not by going ANY faster but simply by eliminating 10% of its travel time.

 

Feel free to extrapolate those numbers as they apply to hammer throw.

 

And eventually another nifty thing happens - our Corvette driver over time realizes how much more confident they feel in the Corvette and soon - instead of 45 mph; they try driving 48 mph.

Now we can both agree that they are still no threat to Jeff Gordon and are in no way utilizing the full potential of their car - but they are getting more out of it than they were prior.

 

Argue if you like - say the shooter takes three seconds to draw - and three seconds to aim.  Say that for that shooter; the shorter hammer throw makes no difference and your argument is still wrong.

 

Because EVERY shooter - fast or slow has a quantitative value of ALL the actions they must complete to finish a stage.

 

Shorten ANY of those actions - and the time is lessened.

 

Draw time + time to cock pistol + aiming + trigger pull = 1 shot time.

 

Draw time + time to cock pistol (MINUS 10% of cocking time) + aiming + trigger pull = 1 shot time with short stroke.

 

This 2nd formula is always going to be a lesser number than the 1st.

Regardless of the numbers inserted.

 

 

[Texas Jack Black]

Short stroke pistols ,rifle and a slicked up shotgun  will not help you if you are not able to  transition or remember the scenario.  They all work together.

 

  Best Wishes

HAPPY NEWYEAR 

[Assassin]

8 hours ago, Creeker, SASS #43022 said:

With all due respect - you are absolutely 100% wrong.

 

Even discounting smoothness, reliability or all other factors - if the shooter maintains the EXACT SAME SPEED of operation; it takes LESS time to move less distance.

 

Take my Corvette / Yugo analogy from earlier.

Yes, drive either at 45 mph - it will take exactly the same amount of time to cover 45 miles.

True enough.

 

But a short stroke is by definition SHORTER.

Lets say the throw (travel) is 10% shorter; now the Yugo still has to travel 45 miles - the Corvette only 40.5 miles.

At the exact same speed of operation - the Corvette arrives first.

 

And lets say you travel this same route 60 times (just sheer coincidence thats the number of pistol rounds in a monthly match)

But over 60 trips - the Corvette has traveled 270 miles fewer than the Yugo.

The Corvette has completed the driving SIX hours before the Yugo; not by going ANY faster but simply by eliminating 10% of its travel time.

 

Feel free to extrapolate those numbers as they apply to hammer throw.

 

And eventually another nifty thing happens - our Corvette driver over time realizes how much more confident they feel in the Corvette and soon - instead of 45 mph; they try driving 48 mph.

Now we can both agree that they are still no threat to Jeff Gordon and are in no way utilizing the full potential of their car - but they are getting more out of it than they were prior.

 

Argue if you like - say the shooter takes three seconds to draw - and three seconds to aim.  Say that for that shooter; the shorter hammer throw makes no difference and your argument is still wrong.

 

Because EVERY shooter - fast or slow has a quantitative value of ALL the actions they must complete to finish a stage.

 

Shorten ANY of those actions - and the time is lessened.

 

Draw time + time to cock pistol + aiming + trigger pull = 1 shot time.

 

Draw time + time to cock pistol (MINUS 10% of cocking time) + aiming + trigger pull = 1 shot time with short stroke.

 

This 2nd formula is always going to be a lesser number than the 1st.

Regardless of the numbers inserted.

 

 

I'll still disagree with your theory. Regardless of how fast a shooter may cycle their action if it takes them the same amount of time to aquire a good sight picture, for them, and break the shot they have gained nothing. It takes them the same amount of time to run a stage. Just because they have the tools doesn't mean they'll be any faster, yes the potential is increased. However, some shooter will never move any faster. Give them the best holsters made and if they still use both hands to pull their pistols and holster they're merely looking better doing it. Guess I'm just saying the better shooters have the most to gain by SS'ing guns and the others have little to nothing to gain unless they can break bad habits and smooth up their shooting skills.

FYI, my Corvette guns are misfiring and are only running on 4 cylinders.

 

[Bison Bud]

18 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I'd love to see where anyone stated this...and then of course you'd have to define what is meant by "competitive".

 

Interesting comment...using the phrase "heavily relying". Don't think anyone state here...again...that one should weigh modifications over practice...let alone weigh heavily. 

 

Can't argue with one's opinion. My opinion happens to differ with yours.

 

I think it's been about 7 years.

 

Phantom

All in all, we are not all that far apart on this issue and I'm amazed that it has stirred up this type of controversy!  Basically, we do agree that short strokes and even other legal modifications do have the potential to improve one's performance.  However, we disagree on just how much difference that they can and do make overall.  So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!  I did look up last year's scores from Guns of August (our big regional match around here) and it was scored by total time, rather than by rank score, so I concede that one to you and learned something as well.  Anyway, at least in my opinion, if you think someone is beating you because their handguns and rifle are short stroked, then you should probably spend the money on the modifications, but to say that someone can't be competitive without them is just plain wrong.  I know you want a definition of "Competitive" to validate this concept, but this is more up to the individual than not.  If your good enough to win overall at a big match then your definition would be at a higher level than the vast majority of us out there.  Myself, I felt like I was competitive to even place in my Gunfighter category at a big match and a top 20 overall finish was very respectable.  If you feel the need to be "Top Dog" then this sort of thing could indeed make a big difference, for the rest of us it's rather a moot point.  Like you said, one can't argue with someone else's opinion and I guess I'm going to leave it at that.  Good luck and good shooting to all.       

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

12 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

However, we disagree on just how much difference that they can and do make overall.  So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree!

You're right...I believe 12 seconds makes a difference...based on Championship Match Results. You base your opinion on...what exactly?

 

12 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

I did look up last year's scores from Guns of August (our big regional match around here) and it was scored by total time, rather than by rank score, so I concede that one to you and learned something as well.

It's been a SASS rule for 7 years!!!!! Where have you been?

 

13 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

Anyway, at least in my opinion, if you think someone is beating you because their handguns and rifle are short stroked, then you should probably spend the money on the modifications, but to say that someone can't be competitive without them is just plain wrong.

Strawman!!! No one has claimed this. Why do you still?

 

14 minutes ago, Bison Bud said:

If you feel the need to be "Top Dog" then this sort of thing could indeed make a big difference, for the rest of us it's rather a moot point.

Then you haven't looked at EOT/Land Run results. So again you're basing this on what exactly? Just your gut feelings?

 

Or are we in the Cowboy Shooting world now accepting each other's "Truth" as being the law of the land...?

 

Phantom

[Bison Bud]

I will admit that I haven't been competitively active since 2018, due to some severe medical issues, but I did shoot competitively for over 18 years and feel that my experiences do qualify me to comment and have an opinion.  Frankly, I don't really care if you think so or not!  Maybe I haven't kept up with all the rules changes, such as Rank Scoring verses Total time scoring, but I did concede that one and stated that the so called "12 seconds" would make more of a difference with total time scoring.  I guess my primary point here is that these type of modifications do provide some overall performance enhancements, but not everyone benefits as much as some do and that's just the nature of things.  If you believe otherwise, your entitled to your opinion.  However, I also think it's a disservice to Newbies and the game in general to make everyone believe that they can't be competitive without expensive modifications.  I guess it's no wonder that match attendance continues to decline.  I shot the Guns of August Regional with over 400 shooters and according to last year's scores they only had 112.  Frankly, having well functioning and properly fitted equipment is indeed important, but short stroke mods are well down the list in hierarchy of needs.  Geese, it's pricey enough to get started in this game without sending them down that road before they even get started!  So, what's the real beef here anyway?  

[Warden Callaway]

I took a video of myself shoot a typical stage. With my editing software,  I could slice the time between buzzer,  first shot, transition to next gun/position,  shoot again and so on.  The fact is, I spend more time moving from gun to gun than shooting.  So to spend thousands on speeding up my guns won't even be noticed in finial score.  It's more important to make guns and ammo reliable as possible.  Work on transition would benefit me the most but I'm getting slower with age.

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

If the target setup allows the shooter to break each shot the instant they have finished cycling the gun, the short stroke helps more.

If the target setup requires the shooter to hesitate for a split second after cycling the gun to confirm his sight picture before breaking each shot, the short stroke probably matters less.