What causes an Olympic event to get scrapped?

[Gray_Ghost]

@Sam_Stone

The thing about a .22LR cartridge is that it does not have enough power to cause hydrostatic shock, so its lethality entirely depends on hitting a critical place on the body. .22LR is a common assassin’s caliber, because a close-range shot to the back of the head will result in almost instant death, and the gun can be very small and relatively quiet.

As a defensive round it sucks, because the way it kills generally does not incapacitate unless you hit the brain or maybe the heart. People have been shot with a .22 and not even realize it until they collapse from internal bleeding or something. I don’t think President Reagan knew he’d actually been hit until they got to the hospital - he thought the secret service might have cracked one of his ribs pushing him into the limo. I’m guessing that most .22 fatalities are bleed outs after an artery is nicked or a direct shot to the head. But unless you are good enough to shoot someone in the head in a panic situation, don’t expect your .22 to stop someone intent on killing you. You may kill them, but it may take some time for them to bleed out - time they can use to kill you first.

We may be getting a bit far afield from the OP, but your comments are applicable to nearly all handgun cartridges (omitting things like 5.56 x 45 “pistols” and the giant revolvers), not just the .22 LR. See, generally, this brief 1989 paper from Urey Patrick. http://gundata.org/images/fbi-handgun-ballistics.pdf

Keeping in mind the previous parenthetical, all handgun cartridges rely on “hitting a critical place on the body” because none of them propel bullets to a velocity where temporary wound cavity, cavitation, and bullet fragmentation meaningfully disrupt human tissue. The key phrase from the above cite, at page 6 in the .pdf, is:

[T]he crush mechanism, the result of penetration and permanent cavity, is the only handgun wounding mechanism which damages tissue…

Unlike centerfire rifle bullet wounds. It varies depending on the tissue impacted—different tissues within the human body have dramatically different resistances to shear forces—but the projectile velocity where tissue cavitation et al occur is around 2200 feet per second or greater. Which rules out the vast majority of handguns.

Your last sentences are therefore applicable for most situations where a handgun is relied upon to stop a threat of deadly force or serious bodily injury. Again quoting Agent Patrick’s report

Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.

All of which has little to do with the OP. I wonder when the Olympics will go to a lazer tag type system, and leave air-powered pistols and rifles entirely?

[Sam_Stone]

I agree with everything you just said.

Going to a ‘laser tag’ type system would be ridiculous, as it takes away a lot of the difficulty in shooting (wind, bullet drop, etc). It would make more sense to have a completely virtual gun simulation with those factors intact than using laser weapons.

But if we’re going by the lethality standard, they might as well remove archery too. I would much rather be shot by a .22 than an arrow fired from an Olympic bow. Both sports are ‘martial’ sports derived from weapons of war and hunting.

Or, we could just not get crazily hung up over this until there’s a rash of ex-Olympians shooting people.

[Gray_Ghost]

@Sam_Stone

I agree with everything you just said.

Going to a ‘laser tag’ type system would be ridiculous, as it takes away a lot of the difficulty in shooting (wind, bullet drop, etc). It would make more sense to have a completely virtual gun simulation with those factors intact than using laser weapons.

But if we’re going by the lethality standard, they might as well remove archery too. I would much rather be shot by a .22 than an arrow fired from an Olympic bow. Both sports are ‘martial’ sports derived from weapons of war and hunting.

Or, we could just not get crazily hung up over this until there’s a rash of ex-Olympians shooting people.

Drop is going to be already dialed into their sights. AIUI, they shoot each discipline at only one distance. I want to say that the airgun events are usually held indoors, so doping wind isn’t going to be a factor in who wins. Outdoors, at the 50m distance that I think Olympic free pistol was held at, yeah, wind is going to matter a lot. Assuming just subsonic bullets, like I think is the case for most .22 LR target pistol ammunition (this ad for Eley Tenex “Slow Pistol” mentions a muzzle velocity of 1020 fps. https://eley.co.uk/eley-tenex-slow-pistol/) and plugging that into an online ballistics calculator like JBM Ballistics (JBM - Calculations - Trajectory (Simplified)), a 10 MPH full value wind requires 1.2 inches (~30 mm) of windage at 50m. Which is the difference between a 10X and a 9. http://www.usashooting.org/library/Rulebooks/2013_USAS_GTR.pdf (page 25 for the 50m target scoring ring diameters)

Still, for an indoor “precision” event, I’d think a modern lazer tag system could test precise fine motor control and vision under pressure, at least as well as using airguns to do so does now. And would be a further abstraction from the martial origins of several Olympic sports. Which seems to be what many countries want these days.

[Merneith]

@Sloe_Moe

Which is why i can’t understand why they should scrap a very old event. If gender participation is the issue, then you’re suppose to ADD events. A 50-meter free pistol weights less than 1 kg and is hardly taxing to a female shooter. Well, you’ve given useful inputs, thanks. I just feel bad is all.

How many viewers and how much television revenue did these events bring in? If they add more shooting events - are they going to need to bump something else if they want to devote more time to the shooting?

Adding events is expensive in terms of needing to pay more for officials and staff and more for event space. More money for housing the athletes across more days. More money for security. Transportation. Medical & emergency services.

I don’t mean to suggest that the sports events or athletes are unworthy in anyway. But the modern Olympics is a corporate marketing event. The overhead of adding 3 more events is complicated, even aside from when you get the bill.

[Spoons]

@Merneith

How many viewers and how much television revenue did these events bring in? <snip>

Perhaps this is a key point. It is hard to draw in television viewers to an event that runs as slow as molasses. Televised poker is more exciting than Olympic shooting.

I say that as a former competitive shooter (smallbore rifle, .22 LR, iron sights). I had 30 minutes to shoot 20 qualifying shots in each heat. I could shoot as many sighting shots as I wanted (on the sighting targets, of course). So let’s see–bang!–no, adjust the windage–click, click–and try again–bang!–damn, now the elevation’s wrong–click–bang!–okay, now we’re ready for a qualifying shot–bang!–dahell? Back to the sighting targets… Lather, rinse, repeat, for half an hour; all while breathing correctly, adjusting my position, and stopping to readjust the kink in the left elbow of my shooting jacket. At which point, I need to start all over again.

Though I found shooting to be an exciting sport for us competitors, I think it would be as dull as dishwater for spectators. There is little to no action, as in other sports; nobody overtaking another in the last lap of a running race, nobody knocking out a boxing opponent, and nobody setting a new high jump record. It’s just shoot, look through the scope at your last shot, reload, shoot, look through the scope at your last shot, reload, and on and on and on. It would not be gripping television.

[That_Don_Guy]

@Spoons

Perhaps this is a key point. It is hard to draw in television viewers to an event that runs as slow as molasses. Televised poker is more exciting than Olympic shooting.

I say that as a former competitive shooter (smallbore rifle, .22 LR, iron sights). I had 30 minutes to shoot 20 qualifying shots in each heat. I could shoot as many sighting shots as I wanted (on the sighting targets, of course). So let’s see–bang!–no, adjust the windage–click, click–and try again–bang!–damn, now the elevation’s wrong–click–bang!–okay, now we’re ready for a qualifying shot–bang!–dahell? Back to the sighting targets… Lather, rinse, repeat, for half an hour; all while breathing correctly, adjusting my position, and stopping to readjust the kink in the left elbow of my shooting jacket. At which point, I need to start all over again.

Though I found shooting to be an exciting sport for us competitors, I think it would be as dull as dishwater for spectators. There is little to no action, as in other sports; nobody overtaking another in the last lap of a running race, nobody knocking out a boxing opponent, and nobody setting a new high jump record. It’s just shoot, look through the scope at your last shot, reload, shoot, look through the scope at your last shot, reload, and on and on and on. It would not be gripping television.

Isn’t that why they added the “final round” to all Olympic shooting events? In, for example, air rifle, they start with 8, take (I think) two shots, then the low score is eliminated, then two more shots, then another elimination, and so on. I think skeet and trap have the top four from qualifying compete in 25-shot shoot-offs.

I do remember seeing “old style” shooting covered in the 1984 Olympics, but more as a “highlights package” concentrating on the winner (and yes, she was from the USA, which is why ABC aired it at all); women’s 10m air rifle, 40 shots each within some time period (90 minutes?) - and IIRC, back then, air rifle wasn’t scored to tenths of a point - and the high score won the gold.