Top shooters dropping down the pecking order

[Muskett]

Loads of good comments.

Most shooting practices have changed which reflect the equipment being used and the progress in that equipment, all reflected in the targets and course of fire. A lot of equipment has been made to overcome the type of courses of fire encountered. Basically it's an arms race

Was marksmanship better in the 1970/80s? The answer is that it was as highly competitive and the courses of fire and equipment used were different.

In my teens I shot .22LR 25m at a County level. It was all about heart rate control.
In my 20s I shot Service rifle, firstly with iron sights (SLR) and later with optics (SA80/Susat). A load of handgun too. Service Rifle then age did matter, not only for eyesight but also straight forward fitness. Advance to contact. running between target encounters, and timed target exposures, with 50% of targets being from the standing positing, meant youth counted as much as experience. They made the targets smaller with the introduction of optics, but range/drop, wind, and light, all took experience to counter. The rest was how to control any huffing and puffing, in a pressure induced environment.

When targets get too small then heart rate matters. A lot of target shooting has reverted to small targets to make it all the more difficult, so heart rate is a big one; the rest is a steady position and correct let off. The pin point accuracy demanded is such that equipment has to be exceedingly precise too, and has given real progress in rifle accuracy; todays rifles are more accurate and consistent than yesteryear. However, a less accurate rifle means a perfect shot needs a bigger target, so as much is expected of the shooter as a more accurate rifle and smaller target. Basically to get a "possible" with either is just as hard. However, shoot too small a target with a rifle that doesn't match the size of target and scores will fall (Theory of the Group). Whatever, targets size they need to be achievable and not left to luck; a perfect shot will get a bull.

Do people want to shoot actively or passively styled shooting? Inactive pure target or physical more practical? Nothing physical, and no real time limits, favours the old, if they can do "stable".

One bug bear I have is Range Estimation. I just don't understand why have a scope system range finder when progress is lasers. Scope rangefinding takes yonks and a very dependent on equipment, plus getting familiar with it all in varying light conditions. Its still machine/equipment dependent. It is doable but outmoded. True skill would be no rangefinding aid bar no:1 eyeballs. But that can't work with the tiny targets that are presently being used.
Snipers range find with the use of optics, laser rangefinders, maps, and GPS. Hunters keep ranges short, are often familiar with their ground, and can use lasers.
Most target shooting is contrived. Made to suit a competition level playing field. I just say be careful that it doesn't lose its fun factor, or worse any real human input/skill.