ihmsa forums

high standard 40 wrote: However, I would also like to see some give and take for the smaller clubs that don't have access to 500 meters....or yards. IHMSA recently approved 500M Big Bore and I think that's great, but it is very limited by the availability of 500M ranges. Why can't IHMSA approve what many have referred to as "22 Ultra" which is the 3/8 scale Smallbore targets set at traditional Big Bore distances.

I have shot the .22 Ultra many years ago and it was a lot of fun. Our range is all auto-reset targets so that wouldn't work here. Heck, we can't even get people to come out here to shoot all the regular categories, I doubt having .22 Ultra would increase our participation.

I like the idea of swinger target for small clubs with limited room for targets. One swinger target at each distance ,if space is limited or maybe 5 targets ,if space allows, for each distance. The idea would be to get clubs back to IHMSA and people back shooting silhouettes. There are some clubs in my area that have limited space, maybe to 100yrds, that could be set-up to shoot smallbore,field pistol,or practical hunter. Even Bordello.

I'm all for the idea of trying new stuff, and we ave tried many things at our club in the past. I was one of those that pushed for the addition of Fifth Scale many years ago and we also offered Ultra .22 years ago. My question is this, and I don't have an answer for it.

What makes anyone think that adding Ultra .22 to IHMSA matches would bring in more shooters? Did all those shooters that no longer participate in IHMSA, quit because they deemed all the regular IHMSA disciplines were too easy? Do potential new shooters think that the present game is too easy and they are looking for something harder? We can't get people to show up for our regular matches and even offering free practice days doesn't bring them out. Not trying to be a smart-alec, but I don't know what else to do to increase participation. I guess handgun silhouette isn't the in thing in today's world. I firmly believe that if we PAID shooters to attend the matches, picked them up at their homes, supplied them with guns and ammo, bought them dinner afterwards, they still wouldn't be here...my wife's brother's cousin's sister-in-law is in town, and we can't make it.

Dean, I agree fully. My suggestion to approve Ultra has to be taken in context to the op. My contention is why do we add any 500m option in the hopes of attracting participation, when there are FAR more 200m ranges available for Ultra.

high standard 40 wrote: My contention is why do we add any 500m option in the hopes of attracting participation, why there are FAR more 200m ranges available for Ultra.

Exactly my feeling also.