Drinking & competitive shooting performance edge?...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thread was about the factuality of claimed performance gains achieved through very small doses of alcohol taken before or during shooting competition.

It's a fine theoretical debate. In reality, the problem is very, very few people drink "small amounts." Most drink to get drunk. Also, a small amount effects different people differently.

I'm sure there are folks who can "handle" their liquor and firearms, but unless someone figures out a badge system, I can't pick them out.

We aren't going to come to your club and re-write the bylaws, o.k?

You're welcome to try, but we don't have by-laws at my primary club. We have an operating instruction, so it's law. :p
 
No mixing of guns and alchohol.
Period.
Even if all of the guns were locked up the pics (and there are always pics) of a bunch of shooters drinking at the range would do damage to our cause.
 
I am still trying to understand at what point alcohol was demonized in our culture and how people just lay over and take it. I have a beer a few days a week(that's right 1 beer). I drink for the taste and actually prefer the relaxation of one beer over the intoxication of many. Lets say I had a setup on my property and I wanted to have a beer I wouldn't hesitate to have a drink and shoot. I also have a beer while out on my boat and fishing(legal).
 
The other 40 percent are dangerous with alcohol, and they
don’t drink. But Mexican shooters know who is who.

And if you believe that................ Hey, I'm trying to unload a bridge that I'll sell to you - real cheap. :D

I N-E-V-E-R have alcohol in my system while snowmobiling or shooting. Period.
 
Culture differences?`

First of all you have to consider the German, French, European cultures and how their lives revolve around drinking alcohol on a considerably regular basis. They drink mostly in moderation like we drink pop, water or whathave you. Some of us Americans seem to treat alcohol like an uncontrolable drug that it isn't necessarily. Where I reside for example is the bible belt where dry counties still exist. Teens are taught any alcohol is verboten, the devils tools, whatever. Teen curiousity as it is leads to abuse when suddenly they have the legal ability to partake. I feel terrible when I read about that last teen who died behind the wheel drunk, drowned after driving into the river, etc... but I also feel parents have the responsibility to demystify alcohol just like firearms, the responsibility to teach the concept of moderation and ultimately responsibility. I had an alcoholic father and uncles who themselves could not control their liquor. What I did learn early on was that concept that one drinks to enjoy the flavor of the spirit and NOT to get drunk. If one gets drunk then arrangements need to be made that encourage responsible behaviour. I've been drunk and am no saint but remembering that basic concept has stayed with me throughout college, my service and most of my adult life. I think nothing of having a glass of wine, or beer with dinner and maybe two but should I have to drive like I did the other day for 1 1/2 hours in the pouring rain, I just abstained. What is different between driving and shooting? If anything your ability to hurt people is compounded by that huge weapon called the car. In my case I had my family and my son's friends life to protect and that I did.
Now back to competitive shooting. Shooting NRA airpistol, Action Pistol, I might benefit from the calming effect but it would have to be practiced. Should my shooting involve people closeby while I shoot like USPSA/IDPA on the run, then I doubt I've imbibe, just because that type of shooting relies on moment to moment judgement vs. a set regimen of the previous disciplines whose premiums are on relaxation, trigger control, focus and coordination.
Just my opinion, I do go by the common practice of shooting sober since I'm an American.
Shoot Safe
 
What's the overall point of this OP?

Is it anti alcohol, anti drugs, or anti stupidity (coffee, crack and or what ever)?

If I'm sitting around at home, and I drank 5 beers (Ohh yeah, I shouldn't drink anyways!) , do I need to forget about my 2A to protect myself?!!!!!

Yes, drinking and driving, shooting, and so on is not correct, but I just can't stand the anti's expressing there righteous attitudes.

Of course it's stupid to drink and shoot, or even talk like we know what we are talking about, but, there is many other things we shouln'd do when we are drinking. After all, we are adult's/humans here.

But I degrease.
 
Hell, I always think I'm better looking after a few drinks too.

And stronger, richer, smarter, a better dancer and singer and, apparently, a better shot.

Lets say I had a setup on my property and I wanted to have a beer I wouldn't hesitate to have a drink and shoot.

If I wanted, so would I. What a person does on their own property, that endangers no one else, is their business.

Some of us Americans seem to treat alcohol like an uncontrolable drug that it isn't necessarily.

For some, it is uncontrollable. I don't recall the exact number, but something like 3/4 million in the US are treated for alcoholism each day.
 
I am still trying to understand at what point alcohol was demonized in our culture

Pretty near the beginning is a good bet, and of course it was banned at the highest level at one point, too, so this is nothing new.

and how people just lay over and take it.

That's probably because people are no longer in any danger of losing the right to drink (or drive, for example), no matter how many instances of and deaths resulting from DUIs there are, rendering the demonizing largely moot. On the other hand, the right to keep and bear arms--namely guns--is always being threatened, despite having one of the Bill of Rights amendments supposedly protecting it, and with guns themselves being so demonized in society now--the real and much more recent tragedy as far as I'm concerned--there is no need to associate guns with something else that is demonized, especially if there is any question of safety. Unlike drinkers and drivers and those who do both at the same time, gun owners can't afford to compromise safety because every negligent/accidental death is another blow to our cause and another step toward losing our rights.

I have a beer a few days a week(that's right 1 beer). I drink for the taste and actually prefer the relaxation of one beer over the intoxication of many. Lets say I had a setup on my property and I wanted to have a beer I wouldn't hesitate to have a drink and shoot. I also have a beer while out on my boat and fishing(legal).

What you can do at home and what you can or should do among others in public are two different matters altogether.
 
I am still trying to understand at what point alcohol was demonized in our culture

Pretty near the beginning is a good bet, and of course it was banned at the highest level at one point, too, so this is nothing new.

Actually, no. Our Puritan and Separatist early founders in New England, and certainly the English planters in the Virginia colony (not to mention the various Spanish, French, Dutch, Norse, Italian, Portugese, and other travellers who established temporary settlements on these shores) had a great fondness of alcoholic beverages -- and it can very truthfully be said that beer and wine were much safer to drink than water in many of the towns and cities they had come from or founded when they arrived.

History indicates that their attitudes about a great many activities were more "liberal" than at any point since, up until perhaps the middle of the 20th century.

The quantities of hard liquor alone that our founding fathers bought and consumed in a year would be staggering. George Washington produced ELEVEN THOUSAND gallons of rye whiskey at Mount Vernon in the year 1799 alone. Thomas Jefferson was an avid consumer and connoisseur of the best French wines and made sure the President's mansion was always well stocked.

The "Temperance" movement of the late 19th Century can be thanked more than anything else for our slow recovery from reactionary attitudes toward "demon rum." During what we now think of as the "Victorian" period, America developed a level of prudity that was, in itself, shocking to folks from other countries. From the stripping from common speech of many very descriptive terms (many of which are still considered unacceptable even today), to the founding of various pseudo-religious mystic health cults, to crippling social censure of any discussion of "biological" matters, to hyper-pious abstention from any substance or activity that was thought to give corporal pleasure -- we went just plain loony for "propriety."

Prohibition was certainly the high water mark for such things, but the effects still can be felt throughout our society -- in the sort of de-facto social stigma against certain substances, to our destructive fascination and counter-culture over-indulgances in them, and the vast hypocrisy that binds those elements together.

Just like today, folks like to find easy answers to social problems by blaming substances or items.

LipsThatTouchLiquorShallNotTouchOurs.jpg


I could never tell if these ladies were making a threat, or a promise.

-Sam
 
Last edited:
Average Shooter said:
Though not directly firearms related, I have a story that relates to the topic.

I minored in Geographic Information Systems (essentially, computer-aided mapping and data management). One of my instructors told the class of a student years ago, before computers were able to assist cartographers. This particular student suffered from moderate tremors in his hands, making it impossible for him to hand-draw the maps required for the course. He knew all the material inside and out, just couldn't physically draw maps. The instructor and student discussed it and the student ended up doing quite well in suppressing the tremors after having a beer or two. Eventually he decided it was difficult to keep up the drinking before class at 8:00 am but has gone on to a very successful career in GIS with the aid of computer software.

The bottom line is, small amounts of alcohol may be able to relax a person enough to slightly improve performance. And more does not equal better. Slight amounts of alchol for slight improvements. It isn't a black/white purely objective thing, it will vary from person to person
cavman wrote:
That North Korean guy shooting rifle? last Olympics in China got busted for cheating. He was taking a beta-blocker for heart patients. I heard that a side effect is to reduce micro tremors

I have a condition called "famial tremor". I can take beta blockers to reduce it, and I sometimes will if I am going to shoot pins or plates with buddies. Most other times I just deal with the tremor. I wasn't ever going to be IDPA champ anyways.

Not too sure about mixing alcohol and gunpowder though in that kind of situation. However, I'll have a beer or glass of wine while CCW, as I don't believe that takes away my right to self defense. I also believe that if I have that "bad hair day", a .01 blood alcohol level is going to be the least of my worries.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with having a couple fingers of good Kentucky bourbon while I'm cleaning a firearm. The Four Rules still apply.

Kurt
 
I shoot pool and firearms (slow fire target, not active scoot & shoot kind of stuff) better after a beer or two, but there is definately a point of diminishing returns. Flame on if you will - but it is what it is.
 
Last edited:
Isn't it ironic that the man's name, "Barriga", translated to English is a rough equivalent to "beer belly".
 
Sam1911

we're all glad you lived through it!

Hey, no one's happier than me.:D

BTW, I was able to save face, because DeGaulle kicked us out of France not too long after that.
 
Actually, no. Our Puritan and Separatist early founders in New England, and certainly the English planters in the Virginia colony (not to mention the various Spanish, French, Dutch, Norse, Italian, Portugese, and other travellers who established temporary settlements on these shores) had a great fondness of alcoholic beverages -- and it can very truthfully be said that beer and wine were much safer to drink than water in many of the towns and cities they had come from or founded when they arrived.

History indicates that their attitudes about a great many activities were more "liberal" than at any point since, up until perhaps the middle of the 20th century.

Alright, I stand corrected, although the social stigma over alcohol is still nothing new and I still only want to battle against one stigma at a time if I can.
 
In reality, the problem is very, very few people drink "small amounts." Most drink to get drunk.

I've never been drunk, despite having a better-stocked liquor shelf than most decent bars. My neighbors also partake, though not to excess. We have wine or cocktails with dinner when we get together. Several of us carry guns all the time, and we don't remove them simply because there is alcohol present.

The first few times I drank I did put away all my guns, because I didn't know what effect the booze would have on me. But once I became familiar with the effects I recognized that the amounts I drink do not have a negative or dangerous consequence so far as carrying is concerned.

Would I drive with a couple ounces of alcohol in my system? No, because driving has different requirements than shooting. An impaired reaction time is dangerous in a car, but not so much when carrying (I'm more capable with a drink than I am when I first wake up, and few would argue against keeping a gun on the nightstand).
 
The white rosette (banning alcohol) movement started about the time of the War of Secession. If you listen to historical gossip it was mainly populated by women that had fallen victim to mens' indulgence and the violence that followed.

My view on alcohol and firearms is well known. Plainly stated, I will not remain in the same area as a shooter that is drinking. If you should be invited to visit the range my brother has set up on the farm and have alcohol on your breath you will be invited to leave much less politely than you were invited to come. Under the same condition, my grandfather would demand you case your weapon in his presence and describe the part of your anatomy the weapon would rest had you failed to do so.
 
Alcohol MAY improve performance in some.

As a lawyer who handles DUI cases I've seen data that is not always politically correct. Some drivers improve their driving after one or two drinks. That is measured by scores of defensive driving closed-course tests.

The generally accepted myth that alcohol lessens all performance isn't true. Alcohol always slows reaction times BUT, it also relaxes people to remove nervous tension and shake. For many, 1 or 2 drinks can help them relax, tune out distractions, and perform better even if their reaction times are slower than without alcohol. 60% of drivers' performance measures go down with one drink — which means 40% do not. 80% have performance go down with 2 drinks – which means 20% do not. 95+% of drivers performance is worse with 3 drinks than with none.

The international Olympic Committee has banned all depressants in shooting sports BECAUSE THEY GIVE THE TAKER AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. Alcohol is a depressant.

The Mexicans are correct in that alcohol may help. Being drunk does not. Know the difference and don't let a chance for one drink to help give you an excuse to be falling-down-drunk with a loaded gun in your hand!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top