Talk:NRA Precision Pistol

message: Scoring section now included after Ammunition section. Chaney44145 (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right.  I put that up there just because I had it for some other thing.  In any regard, I don't mind it being removed.  That just me.  —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Nearly all of the revolvers that I have seen used by better shots (Experts/Masters) have been fired single-action, even in rapid fire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.122.44 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't change the fact that the shooters use double action revolvers.  I've never seen anyone advertising tuning services for bullseye pistol SA revolvers, but I have seen DA revolvers set up for it.  One telling source is to look at competition style grips.  Randall Fung's NRA style pistol grips are available for S&W DA revolvers, but not any SA models.  Nill grips, which does make grips for most of the Ruger revolvers, only makes "classic" style grips for the SA Vaquero (which comes in .45 ACP, if you get the convertible), but for the GP-100 style (also fits the Super Redhawk), they offer ergonomic grips with palm swell and thumb and palm rest.  scot (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who advertises tuning services for DA S&W revolvers is also advertising, even if they don't explicitly say so, tuning services for S&W SA revolvers.  Smith M14 single action revolvers (which are simply K-frame .38s with the trigger-cocking deleted during manufacture) are wonderful for Conventional Pistol.  I have one as do many revolver enthusiasts.  Thus, all the grip makers cited who produce target grips for K frame revolvers are producing grips for single action revolvers, too.  It is unnecessary and misleading to specify "double action revolvers" in the Handguns section.  It should simply say "revolvers".  I'll make the edit to the article shortly.Benenglish (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Single Action vs. Double Action Revolvers

message: The second paragraph in the Courses of Fire section discusses accuracy requirements.  Unfortunately, I see multiple errors of fact.  
First, it says "Accuracy in NRA bullseye is significantly more difficult to achieve compared to the two-handed grips accepted for use in metallic silhouette...".  This sentence may mean that Bullseye is more difficult because it requires the use of a single hand as opposed to two.  It may also mean that the accuracy required to win is of a higher standard because shooters are required to hit smaller targets.  Neither of these is the case.  
Second, it goes on to say "The bullseye targets are significantly smaller and farther away...".  That is also incorrect.  In a big bore silhouette match, for example, half the targets are smaller (in MOA) than the 10-ring of Bullseye targets.  Also, the longest distance for Bullseye shooting is 50 yards while silhouette targets are placed as much as 200 meters distant.
Third and finally, it says "...shooting begins with an outstretched arm at a 45 degree angle...".  Again, this is an error.  The series of commands issued before a string of fire in Bullseye are done with a consistent cadence that makes it possible for shooters to level their pistols at the targets prior to the command to fire.  Essentially all Bullseye shooters do this for the timed and rapid fire stages.
I'll try to come up with revised language tomorrow and post it here for comments before I edit the main page.Benenglish (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaning towards just deleting the subject paragraph entirely.  It doesn't really have anything to do with "Courses of Fire"; it's just a bit of "this is a difficult task" explanation.  What say others?Benenglish (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections made, so I made the edit.Benenglish (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! None of it had a source anyway. I had to give up Bullseye shooting because the guy with the weedeater kept nailing my ankles as he was knocking down the grass that was growing while I was standing there trying to get a decent sight picture. (that's a joke for those without a sense of humor.)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Characterizing Accuracy

message: The article combines under "Matches" both some information about big matches and some information about records.  They should be separated, if for no other reason than to make easy reference possible by people looking for records.  Also, separation would bring the format closer to most other sports (shooting and otherwise) that list records separately.  I'm going to make this change shortly.
However, I wonder about the records section I'll be creating.  How extensive should it be?  Right now, the text discusses just two records, high score and most national championship wins.  Those are the two big ones and I believe they are adequately served by having just a couple of paragraphs.  However, it's possible to post up a whole range of records for various aggregates and shooter types.  Conventional Pistol, like all sports, has statistics geeks who parse out the results of matches in infinite ways and cite a variety of records.  Is this a valid approach or is it eyes-glazing-over statistical overkill?  If the talk here reaches a consensus that many more records should be cited then it will be necessary to abandon the simple paragraphs now used and insert some kind of table.  I'd be against it but if we have strong support to make the change, I'll be happy to look into the existing records and try to start a discussion about what should and should not be included on the page.  Feedback encouraged before I go off on a tangent here.Benenglish (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has spoken up in favor of a more extensive list of records, I'll just leave that paragraph as it is.Benenglish (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Matches and Records

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bullseye (shooting competition). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617170750/http://www.issf-shooting.org/rules/english/2006/25_pistol_2005_2nd.html to http://www.issf-shooting.org/rules/english/2006/25_pistol_2005_2nd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says that M1911A1 type pistols are sometimes used, in .32 ACP and .380 ACP.  I know that once upon a time there were wadcutter-only 1911 conversions done for match shooting--to the extent that such a conversion was popular, its heyday was around 1955.
Who manufactures such a thing?  Who are the gunsmiths that do such a conversion?
Colt has since around 1970 made a small batch of 9mm 1911s every few years.  They are collectors' items.  I am less certain about other manufacturers.
What is the source for this claim?  I have never heard of such a thing.  Searching the Web reveals nothing but discussion on web forums of possible aspects of a hypothetical conversion and mention that Imbel in Brazil makes a handgun in .380 ACP for the domestic Brazilian market that externally resembles a M1911A1, but which is not exported to the US.  
So--what am I looking at, here, exactly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:8000:7625:6824:E798:8CEA:F880 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handgun types?