Drinking & competitive shooting performance edge?...

[EddieNFL]

The generally accepted myth that alcohol lessens all performance isn't true. Alcohol always slows reaction times

Contradiction.

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.

And virtually every drunk driver stopped by police has had more than two drinks.

 

[Sam1911]

Contradiction.

Selective editing to deliberately miss the point.

And virtually every drunk driver stopped by police has had more than two drinks.

And if virtually every drunk driver stopped by police wasn't shooting competitively at the time, then this has nothing to do with the thread at all.

Save the moralizing for when we host a thread on "your opinions on drunk driving." We'd love to hear about it then.

Just a friendly thought!

-Sam

 

[EddieNFL]

I got the point. In one breath he says it doesn't effect performance and in the next admits it slows reaction. I consider reaction a part of performance.

And if virtually every drunk driver stopped by police wasn't shooting competitively at the time, then this has nothing to do with the thread at all.

You were okay with the poster using alcohol and driving when he was agreeing with you. My point is many drinkers won't stop at a few.

Save the moralizing for when we host a thread on "your opinions on drunk driving." We'd love to hear about it then.

No requirement to hear (read) them now.

 

[Sam1911]

You were okay with the poster using alcohol and driving when he was agreeing with you.

I WHAT? No... I'm no advocate of drinking and driving. Did I say that somewhere? I can't find it at the moment, if I did. I don't care whether he's agreeing with me or not.

And, once more, the original post was about competitive shooters using a small amount of alcohol for a competitive advantage. What you think "many drinkers" will do doesn't even remotely touch on that subject a little bit. If you have well-supported position on what "many competitive shooters" might do with alcohol to boost their scores -- or on whether or not it is an effective meas to that end -- then let's discuss that.

Willy the drunk, trying to find his a$$ with both hands at a sobriety checkpoint, doesn't have any bearing on that issue.

-Sam

 

[EddieNFL]

Poor choice of wording. You were okay with the poster using the statistics from drinking and driving. My bad.

What you think "many drinkers" will do doesn't even remotely touch on that subject a little bit.

I disagree. My opinion carry as much weight as your's.

Two rhetorical questions:

I believe alcohol and firearms don't mix. What is the worse that could happen if I'm wrong?

You believe mixing alcohol, in moderation, and firearms is not a problem. What is the worse that could happen if you're wrong?

 

[inherentical]

I believe alcohol and firearms don't mix. What is the worse that could happen if I'm wrong?

An inanimate object is blamed for a lack of personal responsibility.

You believe mixing alcohol, in moderation, and firearms is not a problem. What is the worse that could happen if you're wrong?

An inanimate object is blamed for a lack of personal responsibility.

 

[Sam1911]

I believe alcohol and firearms don't mix. What is the worse that could happen if I'm wrong?

But what does your belief in that principle have to do with the question of whether it would help a competitor achieve a higher score? Your belief doesn't enter into what is, in actuality, a physiological question.

You believe mixing alcohol, in moderation, and firearms is not a problem. What is the worse that could happen if you're wrong?

First off, no, I don't drink and shoot. Second, I don't ADVOCATE drinking and shooting for others, as a general thing. The worst thing that could happen is the same "worst thing" that could to someone who was stone sober. A person is responsible for their actions, drunk, sober, high, or ... uh, low.

My frustration is not with what you believe or how you conduct yourself. But recognize that those beliefs or codes of personal conduct do very little to inform a discussion on the physiology of chemical depressants as used by competitive shooters.

The title of the thread is, "Drinking & competitive shooting performance edge?" The discussion would be advanced by contributions which share information on whether or not some shooters have recorded improvements in their score through "doping" of this kind. If you don't have something to say about the gain or loss of a performance edge, then why post? Jumping in to toss out a few bon mots about drunk drivers is just distracting.

-Sam

 

[EddieNFL]

Didn't mean to distract, offend, or accuse. I thought the thread, and the forum in general was about exchanging thoughts and ideas (opinions). Few, if any of us are in a position to provide test data. The poster above used driving and alcohol which, in your opinion doesn't apply to this discussion, so I guess the discussion is over.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, you're right. He mentioned driving. So, I suppose that opens the discussion up to the drunk driving angle. And that's quite unfortunate.

Few, if any of us are in a position to provide test data.

But yet several did, or at least shared their recollections of related anecdotes that they'd read.

The frustration comes from taking a thread on theoretical performance advantages gained in competition through moderate use of a depressant and it crashes immediately into acrimonious, off-topic, chest pounding:

drinking while shooting is a big no no drinking when there is access to a gun is a big no no.

And the effect on the performance edge is? Maybe it would improve punctuation?

The last thing I want at the gun range is a shooter next to me that's been knocking down a few.

Because he might out-shoot you?

Last words of a redneck:
“Hold my beer and gimme them shells.”

Larry The Cable Guy has spoken. :rolleyes"

I guess you wouldn't mind if I pointed my unloaded gun at you with my finger on the trigger, would you?

Words fail me...

If a rule prohibiting drinking while shooting is so offensive, sell your guns. That'll show us!

Who? What? What rule? Offending whom? The Mexicans?

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.

Now we're a "cause"? Well, maybe so. But the discussion at hand has more in relation to MLB steroid abuse stories than irresponsible drunks.

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

Then the subject of the thread has N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with you. Period.

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.

Grandpa would be kicking some serious Mexican competitive target shooter A$$, then, I guess. If he was there ... and if they were shooting on his farm. 'Cause if grandpa wasn't with them, and they weren't on his farm, this ain't got SQUAT to do with the discussion.

The subject is quite interesting as an academic debate, to those members who've shot different kinds of competition seriously or who have some background or education in medicine/physiology and who may have experienced some of these effects or would like to know about them. It's just tiresome to wade through so much that doesn't even touch on the subject, especially when so much of it is low, finger-pointing, self-righteous fluff.

IMHO.

-Sam

 

[B yond]

It is important to acknowledge that for the average person, a very mild state of intoxication does not induce massive degradation of motor skills, egregious lapses in judgment, nor catastrophic mood swings. For the purposes of real life, "Impairment doesn't begin with the first drink."

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I've said it before and I'll say it again; There's nothing wrong with drinking and handling firearms as long as you're doing BOTH responsibly.

 

[hogshead]

Gimme 2 bourbons 1 scotch and 1 beer.

 

[geronimo509]

If I remember how the thread started, it was about getting an egde on the competition. With that said, I have been told by a bullseye shooter that some of them use a mild muscle relaxer in small doses. Also, they do not consume any sugar for days before a match. I was told this helps with the nerves and keeping absolutely steady.

I suppose one small beer could do the same. Just enough to calm the nerves without any other side effects of alcohol. I would not be surprised if people in competition drink before a match.

I'm not advocating it or saying it is bad. I have no oppinion other than there are people who cannot control themselves and the rest is history.

 

[BlisteringSilence]

I feel compelled to include this:



While the graph (and comic) may refer to programming skill, I have found this to be true among my friends and myself. No matter the game of skill (bowling, billiards, video games, darts, etc.), we are better (more precise) after a drink or two.

That being said, I've never tried drinking before shooting. Grandpa would come back to earth just to knock me upside the head.

 

[Cosmoline]

The extreme anti-alcohol bias so common in the USA is baffling...but, sadly, I don't see it going away in any of our lifetimes

To many people in the US, drinking = getting drunk. There's no distinction made between the concepts. It's a bad mix of Puritanical and frontier traditions. Thankfully with the microbrew revolution that bar culture is dying off.

In reality, the problem is very, very few people drink "small amounts." Most drink to get drunk.

This is what I was talking about. The fact is that most people, indeed whole cultural groups, drink in moderation. I drink several times a week, but I haven't been drunk since riotous law school parties over a decade ago. If I can't afford the quality I won't buy or drink anything.

On the other hand, in other segments of society the goal is not to appreciate the beverage but to get blotto. Over and over again. The most extreme example I know of are local natives who blast themselves apart with drink after drink until they literally die on the street. They were taught to drink and get drunk by their older friends, who were taught by the wild men who first came up here. Guys who made a point of getting blotto whenever they could get booze. It's heresy to even suggest this, but the best way to save these guys would be to teach them how to drink properly.

 

[saltydog452]

We can mess with our neural system.

Caffene=fast jerk

Beer=slow jerk

Retention:

Cram all night for a final exam using caffene=not too good

Nyquil and sleep, same final exam, next semester=better

Performance:

Preperation and skill=best

That seems to be the way I remember the relative merits of stimulants and depressants.

salty

 

[wishin]

From an accuracy viewpoint, I really don't see any difference whether I've has a few drinks or not. Then again, I'm not a competetive shooter. I think a lot depends on the person's temperament as to how they handle or tolerate pressure and stress. There was a time when I was drinking 6-8 drinks a day, on average. No doubt, I would have failed a blood alcohol test on any given day. However, I never felt impaired, nor did I or any one who knows me, see any difference in my reaction time or actions while target shooting or driving.

 

[DRZinn]

When I shot competitively, a snort before the line definitely smoothed out the inevitable tremors. Getting a bit less sleep than normal worked just as well and wouldn't get me disqualified if anyone found out.

Depends a bit on the discipline, too, no? IDPA and such would not benefit like long-range rifle.

I have also shot drunk, and did so safely. I did it with only one friend who I also trusted not to be a fool when drunk. Around anyone else I'd clear out.

 

[Bart B.]

Why would anyone want to take depressants before shooting firearms?

All alchoholic beverages are depressants. Ask an anetheseoligist; alcohol ain't much different than ether.

 

[Sam1911]

Why would anyone want to take depressants before shooting firearms?

:banghead: Did you read the thread? Did you? The explanation for the theory behind the use of a depressant drug to enhance some kinds of competitive shooting performance is explained in just about every fourth post in the thread.

Steps for contributing:
1) READ.
2) THINK.
3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 as necessary.
3) Post.

-Sam

 

[Officers'Wife]

I have also shot drunk, and did so safely. I did it with only one friend who I also trusted not to be a fool when drunk. Around anyone else I'd clear out.

Change 'shot' to 'drove' and it sounds like the once a month auto accident justification I hear at the hospital I work.

 

[mack]

Alcohol is a drug, 90% of people use or can learn to use it responsibly. 10% cannot learn to use it responsibly no matter how they try, because they are addicted or alcoholic and their body and brains process it differently.

If individuals drink enough alcohol on a regular basis they develop a physical tolerance, meaning their bodies and brains learn to compensate and function, up to a point, with higher percentages of alcohol. Tolerance is a classic medical sign of alcohol abuse or dependence. Attorneys have tried in the past to use tolerance as a defense in cases of surgeons, pilots, and drivers caught operating/flying/driving under the unfluence, arguing that because they had a high tolerance they were still competant and under control. Those arguments failed because although they were more competant and under control than a person without tolerance, their decision making (particularily when dealing with unforeseen or unexpected problems was still impaired) and their reaction times were still impaired.

A small amount of alcohol could very well improve someones performance as it could help by reducing their anxiety or nerves. However, it is a crutch and there are other ways to learn how to control anxiety and nerves.

As a general rule, I don't feel alcohol and firearms make for a good mix. I say that because of those people who drink regularily, about one in five are alcoholic (based on half of population drinking regularily - once a month or more). Therefore, if I were around a group of shooters where drinking and shooting were common or accepted practice there would be excellant odds that at least one or more of the group would not be safe to be around. The problem would be that for every four in the group that were able to be responsible, there would be one that would not, and that one would not understand or accept or acknowledge that they were not responsible, (as individuals with alcohol or drug problems will typically deny they have a problem and will justify and rationalize their usage).

So, can alcohol improve someones shooting? Yes, for some individuals in certain shooting disciplines, in small amounts. Could the same improvement be achieved without alcohol? Yes, with practice and training.

Can an individual use alcohol and still be a safe shooter? Yes, in small amounts.

Are the majority of firearm owners who use alcohol responsible? Yes.

Of course the nasty problem with all this is that the individuals who do have problems with alcohol or other drugs will use no matter what.

 

[DRZinn]

Change 'shot' to 'drove' and it sounds like the once a month auto accident justification I hear at the hospital I work.

Maybe it does, but it ain't.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Maybe it does, but it ain't.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

 

[DRZinn]

Sure, but "sounds like" and "is" are pretty damn different.