There are many more factors that enter into longer range, high power shooting, than just breath and trigger control, such as wind doping and handling the recoil, that it's really disingenuous to state that it's just because all that's needed is a measure of the basics.KBCraig wrote:For one thing, there's the matter of facilities: an indoor 50 meter .22 range is easy, compared to a 600 meter outdoor range.NcongruNt wrote:From what I can tell, the non-airgun/non-shotgun competitions are all .22. I have wondered why there is no classification for high-powered rifles. The first reason to come to mind is that in most parts of the world, firearm ownership and use is very restricted, but the shooting sports have been around quite a bit longer than any [abbreviated profanity deleted] the modern gun control restrictions. While .22 is a standard platform for competition, I don't see why there cannot be other competitions in other calibers, such as .223 or .308.
For another, when it comes to the basics of competitive marksmanship (sight alignment, breath control, trigger control), .22 with worst-edge scoring is all you need. It's hard to get more precise than a .224 diameter bullet that has to land entirely inside a .250 bullseye without touching the ring, in order to score an X.
The international shooting sport I am always most impressed with is the winter biathlon. A highly aerobic sport (cross-country skiing), combined with position shooting (while wearing skis!) at targets and distances that would be difficult for most shooters if they were using a bench rest -- having done nothing more exerting than walk to the firing point.
Facilities have not been a problem historically, they just put the shooting venues where there is room for them.
I think the real reason is just a gradual anti-gun erosion of the competition.
There were larger caliber pistol and rifle matches long ago, and they have withered away, it's kind of like when they decided that shooting should not be free of sexual bias.
Men and women used to compete as equals, and women would beat men on a regular basis, which led to objections from the men.
I well remember when Lanny Basham was declared the winner over Margaret Murdock by a wierd interpretation of a tie breaker rule, and he graciously recognized her by pulling her up onto the gold medal stand with him.
BTW, did they change the scoring rules again?