I have noticed this term cropping up more and more here (which may mean that it's been used for years but I'm just now noticing it). and by using context clues, it seems to mean different things every time it's used. is there a consensus on what this term actually means, or if you're one of the people that keeps dropping the term can you tell us what you mean by it?
If this turns into a "what I hate about what some people say on gun forums" thread, it's going to go away.
#RESIST
I'm not sure if that's directed at me or at potential respondents.
Is it wrong to ask people to define their terms?
I have to go cook some popcorn.
That said, a serious shooter is, to my mind, someone who, when they attend the range/competition/shooting event is looking to improve their shooting skills. In essence, anyone who is shooting for skill improvement is a 'serious' shooter, in my book. The key to being a serious shooter, is an open mind that is willing to try new drills, develop new skills, and learn new things. As a result of that, most people interested in improvement, will invest more time, money, and ammunition into their developments. The last part need not be true to have a "serious" shooter, but typically follows a commitment to better shooting.
-Rob
Serious hobbiest:
I just think a serious hobbiest shooter is someone who practices regularly and reads or otherwise studies about it when they aren't practicing; all in pursuit of improvement or just enjoyment. They are well versed in developments in their area of interest.
I don't look for a threshold of quantified volume of shooting as a prerequisite but almost all high volume (say 3K rds a year and up) are pretty serious. They may or may not attend formal classes.
I'm not qual'd to say about "serious" pro shooters ie HSLD Mil etc.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
I think a serious shooters is someone that isn't just a plinker or hobby guy.
People who get full tilt into USPSA, or High Power matches, or training seriously for concealed carry.
Pat Rogers would be an apex "serious shooter", Bubba shootin his DPMS at cans twice a year would not be.
I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
www.agiletactical.com
It's a gentle reminder to all to avoid negativity for negativity's sake. Again, a reminder. Please carry on with the thread.Originally Posted by rob_s
#RESIST
I'd say it's the line between the folks that go out shooting vs the folks that go out to practice. Everything on the practice side of the line will have gradations made up of time, money and other responsibilities. The more time and money they have for shooting and the less responsibilities elsewhere that distract them, the higher the quality of the shooter.
Fairness leads to extinction much faster than harsh parameters.
I'll go with Chuck's definition.
If the shooter participates in one or more shooting sports, he or she has at least one classification that lies on the right side of the bell curve (USPSA B or higher, NRA HP Master or higher, NSCA B or higher, for instance)
I'm not sure where the confusion lies. If I say someone is a serious cyclist, is that something you'd need to parse to understand conceptually? Are you a hard worker? If so, how do you define that?
Are you smart? By what measure?
Etc.
There are two words in "serious shooter." Both words have dictionary definitions. I think those definitions explain the term adequately. Trying to find something more specific (e.g., 10k rounds per year is serious but 9,999 isn't) is just an exercise in derp.
