History Channel - "Top Shot" show premieres Sun, 6/6/2010.

[WildBill]

Until you have been in a competition like that you don't realize it. There is a LOT of pressure on you and you will miss shots that you think are normally easy. And the more you miss, the more frustrated you get and you miss even worse. Believe me, choking on something like this is easily done.

In any type of competition, this is what separates the "amateurs" from the "pros".

Yogi Berra: "Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical."

[Keith B]

Until you have been in a competition like that you don't realize it. There is a LOT of pressure on you and you will miss shots that you think are normally easy. And the more you miss, the more frustrated you get and you miss even worse. Believe me, choking on something like this is easily done.

In any type of competition, this is what separates the "amateurs" from the "pros".

You bet. And while some of these may be 'pro's' in one aspect, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. A good example I saw last night is that someone needs to train the lady police officer on how to use a spotting scope. No offense to her, or others there, but there are going to be areas where some of these people have never used the weapon or tool and may not be familiar on the little idiosyncrasies of it. It will be interesting to see some of them when they start using primitive weapons (bows, black powder, older shotguns and even sling shots.) The best thing a team in a situation like this could do is to have each expert in their field start coaching the others on their specialty and vice-versa. They will end up with a better rounded team that will be more in tune with the nuances of the particular tasks they are given if it falls outside of their previous knowledge base.

[WildBill]

Until you have been in a competition like that you don't realize it. There is a LOT of pressure on you and you will miss shots that you think are normally easy. And the more you miss, the more frustrated you get and you miss even worse. Believe me, choking on something like this is easily done.

In any type of competition, this is what separates the "amateurs" from the "pros".

You bet. And while some of these may be 'pro's' in one aspect, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. A good example I saw last night is that someone needs to train the lady police officer on how to use a spotting scope. No offense to her, or others there, but there are going to be areas where some of these people have never used the weapon or tool and may not be familiar on the little idiosyncrasies of it. It will be interesting to see some of them them when they start using primitive weapons (bows, black powder, older shotguns and even sling shots.) The best thing the team could do would be to have each expert in their field start coaching the others on their specialty and vice-versa. They would end up with a better rounded team that will be more in tune with the nuances of the particular tasks they are given if it falls outside of their previous knowledge base.

I was going to add to my last post to say that people who become and remain "pros" in any endeavor are the ones who can consistently overcome their "mental obstacles".

[KFP]

I vote that we form two Texas teams from this forum and pitch it to the History Channel for season two.

[kragluver]

Look here for a blog from Mike - the guy that got voted off the first episode.

http://www.shooting-performance.com/...t_show_98.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I somewhat enjoyed the show but I was disappointed in the "Survivor" format. I would have preferred a stand-up competition of shooting abilities and nothing to do with personalities and who's friends with who.

[74novaman]

I somewhat enjoyed the show but I was disappointed in the "Survivor" format. I would have preferred a stand-up competition of shooting abilities and nothing to do with personalities and who's friends with who.

I agree. A straight up competition would have been nice. But if this is what it takes to get others to watch it by adding drama and maybe get interested in the shooting sports, I'm okay with it.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am watching it now. I like it. The right guy was sent home. That Mike dude couldn't shoot worth a darn.

[Teamless]

The right guy was sent home. That Mike dude couldn't shoot worth a darn

and how could that other guy, the one who said something to the effect of " I cant vote him off.... I would rather go them vote him off".
The team saw 2 shooters, period. how much decision was there really? 1 guy hit, 1 guy missed --- over 30 times I might add.
Gone, bye bye, hasta la vista, sianara, ciao, he needed to go,then and there

[jimlongley]

I somewhat enjoyed the show but I was disappointed in the "Survivor" format. I would have preferred a stand-up competition of shooting abilities and nothing to do with personalities and who's friends with who.

I agree. A straight up competition would have been nice. But if this is what it takes to get others to watch it by adding drama and maybe get interested in the shooting sports, I'm okay with it.

I was sorry I wasted my time watching another survivor show, even if it involved shooting, I will not be watching the rest of them.

I suppose making everyone run some sort of obstacle sourse to get heart rate up is a fun idea, my level three security trainer made us run around the building once to do the same sort of thing, and then he kept flashing the lights on and off on the range, so I turned on my laser grip and flashlight - I got "extra credit" for being prepared.

I think a truer test would have been to have everyone cycle through all the (shooting devices) and none of this elimination stuff.

And then there is the History Channel's usual revisionist history. Lots of '03s were used in WWII, and there was no Garand (ok there was an M14, but it ain't really the same) or M16.

[Keith B]

I vote that we form two Texas teams from this forum and pitch it to the History Channel for season two.

I'm in

Add me. I just want them to provide me a free opportunity to shoot with all those weapons and that house is pretty cool. However, the $100K isn't a bad incentive either.

[skub]

Look here for a blog from Mike - the guy that got voted off the first episode.

http://www.shooting-performance.com/...t_show_98.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I somewhat enjoyed the show but I was disappointed in the "Survivor" format. I would have preferred a stand-up competition of shooting abilities and nothing to do with personalities and who's friends with who.

The link above got truncated - the full link is http://www.shooting-performance.com/top ... ow_98.html

He mentions in the blog that he discovered that the rear sight was loose - if that was the case, who knows where his shots were going. That would certainly explain how someone familiar with firearms could miss so many times at that distance. However, in a competition where the firearm was provided for him, if there were an equipment failure, it seems that he should have been able to call it to their attention, and been given the opportunity to re-run the competition.

[The Annoyed Man]

I watched last night. Must have been a rerun, because it is the one where Mike gets kicked off the show. I didn't pay close enough attention to notice that the Springfield had the ladder sight, instead of the peep sight of a regular '03A3, nor did I realize the sight was loose. I'm no Bob Lee Swagger, but I can hit a 10"x10" steel plate at 200 yards at will using the OEM iron sights on my M1A, which include a rear peep sight. So when I saw a guy struggling so hard to make what seemed like a simple shot to me, I turned to my wife and said, "I could have made this shot. What is this guy's problem?" Well, from what I've read, a normally functioning ladder sight on the Springfield is difficult enough to shoot with; but it this one was loose and moving around, there is no way he could have known the rifle's zero, because the zero would keep moving. Plus, they were shooting into brush, making bullet strikes missing the target very hard to spot, even for the spotter. So he had no reference point against which to adjust his POA.

It's no wonder that, under those conditions, he fared so poorly. I think anyone would have done the same.

[03Lightningrocks]

Look here for a blog from Mike - the guy that got voted off the first episode.

http://www.shooting-performance.com/...t_show_98.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I somewhat enjoyed the show but I was disappointed in the "Survivor" format. I would have preferred a stand-up competition of shooting abilities and nothing to do with personalities and who's friends with who.

The link above got truncated - the full link is http://www.shooting-performance.com/top ... ow_98.html

He mentions in the blog that he discovered that the rear sight was loose - if that was the case, who knows where his shots were going. That would certainly explain how someone familiar with firearms could miss so many times at that distance. However, in a competition where the firearm was provided for him, if there were an equipment failure, it seems that he should have been able to call it to their attention, and been given the opportunity to re-run the competition.

It would be easier to believe the sight loose excuse if he had not missed the targets in the elimination round as well. I bet the scope was loose also. I just think the dude was not a very good shot. If traveling the mean streets of Houston I would want him right beside me. If looking to kill a bad guy long range, I would want someone just a bit more dependable.

[The Annoyed Man]

It would be easier to believe the sight loose excuse if he had not missed the targets in the elimination round as well.

There is that.

What happened to your sense of charity?