matai
Member
Watching it now too... hate all this dramatic crap.
History Channel's "Top Shot" on Sunday night
- Thread starter Dewey 68
- Start date
- Status
pikid89
Member
public vote lol
ny32182
Member
Watched it for about five minutes.... looks like "Survivor" with guns... no thanks.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
It seems like they picked new shooters, couldn't hit a target at 100 yards with a 1903 using a modified bench? I can hit a target of equal size at 200 yards, offhand, with my mosin much better!
joeq
Member
I can't believe the red team couldn't get a shot on target. Topshot? Yeah, I don't know about that. I think they went through about 30 rounds and couldn't hit a target at 100 yards.
357mag.
Member
Hmmm,hitting a pie-plate sized target at 50 and 100yds with a rifle is not what i'd call being a "top-shot".I'll give it a chance,but from the looks of it i'd say the only people who will be "awed" by the shots made,are people with little/no shooting experience.
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
I sure hope the Bio's on the competitors are fake!!! Here is the guy that couldn't shoot a pie plate at 100 yds with 30 shots 
I feel safer armed with plastic spoon on a flight if this is the best the Federal Air Marshall Service has to offer.
I feel safer armed with plastic spoon on a flight if this is the best the Federal Air Marshall Service has to offer.
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
Thats what I thought, hence the drama, althought they might be given off sighted weapons. Then again they were complaining about their shoulders like it was something new.
Maybe the Air Marshalls train like the regular police do?
Maybe the Air Marshalls train like the regular police do?
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
I thought they might be given off sighted weapons too. But they were given a chance to inspect/shoot before they had to fire shots that counted. How badly screwed up would the rifle have to be, to miss a 12 moa target??? It was a 1903 Springfield,
not firing slugs with a 18.5 inch mossberg with a bead sight.
Did the producers score the barrel and the ammo?
not firing slugs with a 18.5 inch mossberg with a bead sight.
Did the producers score the barrel and the ammo?
joeq
Member
That young guy made some really good shots all the way out to 600 yards. The beauty of the show is you have to be skilled in using multiple weapon types.
Wildyams
Member
Looks like it will be a pretty neat show. However the red teams shooting was suprisingly poor. It would also be nice if they showed some footage of the actual shooting rather than doing a million cuts between the trigger pull then a close up of the target.
3rdChance
Member
Survivor with guns!
I enjoyed it. The promos had me thinking it was all about trick shots, but I liked the challenges. Now to collect one of each gun featured on the show...
I enjoyed it. The promos had me thinking it was all about trick shots, but I liked the challenges. Now to collect one of each gun featured on the show...
Crusader103
Member
I do not want to disparage Mike Seeklander, a person whom I have respect for in many regards. At the same time, I do want to make an honest observation.
A big name, a storied background, and a lot of rounds downrange does not make one the "top shot."
I have found that some of the best instructors are relative unknowns, and I have found that some of the best shooters fire less than a thousand rounds per year. As a long-time instructor, law enforcement officer, military officer, and competitive shooter, I have had the good fortune to meet many greats whom I now call friends. None of their names would be recognized.
Many rounds and a lot of time on the range does not beat quality shots fired and disciplined practice. I can accomplish more in 50 rounds of practice than many others I observe putting 300 rounds down range in the same amount of time. I think this is one of the biggest problems with high round count schools as well (just one reason my courses have much lower round counts). Substituting high round count for quality instruction, often because a student feels if they don't shoot a lot their money is not well spent, is unacceptable in my book.
Thirty minutes of dry-fire practice at home each day will invariably improve a shooters skills more than a day on the range each week (not that that isn't important as well).
Anyway, all I am saying is that your name, the fact that you are an instructor at an esteemed school, and even that you are ranked in one of the shooting sports does not define you as a great. It takes more than that, and in some cases, maybe less than that.
Still, let me reiterate that it is my opinion that Mike Seeklander is better than what we observed on tv tonight.
By the way, I attended the Charleston branch of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Mike Seeklander was not an instructor there at the time) in 1999. This part is for the record; I was NOT impressed with the quality of firearms instructors there. Grumpy, worn out retiree agents, set in their ways, egotistical, "my way is the only way," and "you're doing it wrong"...... until I beat them.... and then they were just offended.
A big name, a storied background, and a lot of rounds downrange does not make one the "top shot."
I have found that some of the best instructors are relative unknowns, and I have found that some of the best shooters fire less than a thousand rounds per year. As a long-time instructor, law enforcement officer, military officer, and competitive shooter, I have had the good fortune to meet many greats whom I now call friends. None of their names would be recognized.
Many rounds and a lot of time on the range does not beat quality shots fired and disciplined practice. I can accomplish more in 50 rounds of practice than many others I observe putting 300 rounds down range in the same amount of time. I think this is one of the biggest problems with high round count schools as well (just one reason my courses have much lower round counts). Substituting high round count for quality instruction, often because a student feels if they don't shoot a lot their money is not well spent, is unacceptable in my book.
Thirty minutes of dry-fire practice at home each day will invariably improve a shooters skills more than a day on the range each week (not that that isn't important as well).
Anyway, all I am saying is that your name, the fact that you are an instructor at an esteemed school, and even that you are ranked in one of the shooting sports does not define you as a great. It takes more than that, and in some cases, maybe less than that.
Still, let me reiterate that it is my opinion that Mike Seeklander is better than what we observed on tv tonight.
By the way, I attended the Charleston branch of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Mike Seeklander was not an instructor there at the time) in 1999. This part is for the record; I was NOT impressed with the quality of firearms instructors there. Grumpy, worn out retiree agents, set in their ways, egotistical, "my way is the only way," and "you're doing it wrong"...... until I beat them.... and then they were just offended.
Last edited:
Rembrandt
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 4,657
Pretty much the same format as Survivor except they use firearms. I'll probably end up watching the entire series, but it's trending more about personality conflicts than shooting.
What's up with the gal who can't see/find a 100 yard target with a spotting scope? Then the guy who is labeled as a "professional shooter" can't hit a 100 yard target with 30 shots? These are the sixteen best they could find?.......
What's up with the gal who can't see/find a 100 yard target with a spotting scope? Then the guy who is labeled as a "professional shooter" can't hit a 100 yard target with 30 shots? These are the sixteen best they could find?.......
Quilbilly
Member
Can not wait to see it. It is only 8 o'clock here in WA so I have to wait awhile.
pikid89
Member
synopsis from next week on history chan website
pretty sure there was a little somthin called the M1911 in there somewhere...pretty much just lost a lot of credibility in my book
pretty sure there was a little somthin called the M1911 in there somewhere...pretty much just lost a lot of credibility in my book
Well, I liked it. If nothing else, this puts shooting into the public eye in a very identifiable format.
Not to disparage, but I am dissapointed at the performance of the shooting instructor (whose bio lists competitive rifle shooter) with the 03A3. I'd like to think it was off-sighted, but the other team mate hit the 50 yard target very quickly with the same rifle.
On the other hand, sort of redeemed himself with the 700, even though he had virtually no chance against his opponent.
Will be interesting to see how the kid does with the 92 next week.
Not to disparage, but I am dissapointed at the performance of the shooting instructor (whose bio lists competitive rifle shooter) with the 03A3. I'd like to think it was off-sighted, but the other team mate hit the 50 yard target very quickly with the same rifle.
On the other hand, sort of redeemed himself with the 700, even though he had virtually no chance against his opponent.
Will be interesting to see how the kid does with the 92 next week.
pikid89
Member
i think i want the kid to win as i can identify as a fellow college age shooter
Sebastian the Ibis
Member
It is TV. Alvin York, Simo Hihya and Carlos Hathcock shooting a Springfield, Mosin and m14 ,respectively, would be voted off by some guy who walks around naked or a nasty bimbo.
Tallinar
Member
Not too impressed with this show so far. The world didn't need another Survivor, IMO.
Feel bad for that guy who couldn't hit his 100 yd target with the '03. Maybe the producers purposely jack up all the sights in order to make it more difficult, because man, even after getting my heart pounding after crawling fast under barbed wire, I'd like to think I could still hit an bull that big at 50 or 100 yds pretty easily.
Wow...just wow. This show lost me immediately when I saw this on their website. Browning is rolling in his grave right now.
Feel bad for that guy who couldn't hit his 100 yd target with the '03. Maybe the producers purposely jack up all the sights in order to make it more difficult, because man, even after getting my heart pounding after crawling fast under barbed wire, I'd like to think I could still hit an bull that big at 50 or 100 yds pretty easily.
Wow...just wow. This show lost me immediately when I saw this on their website. Browning is rolling in his grave right now.
Last edited:
Hawthorne2k
Member
The thing to remember with this show is that we're not the target market: We have Wednesday Night at the Range and Personal Defense TV and everything else on Outdoors Channel and Sportsman's Channel.
The market for this is the casual shooter or the non-shooter. My wife isn't a shooter, but she sat right beside me and watched all of the first episode, something she's never done for any other shooting show. Part of it was Colby, part of it was my connection to the sport and familiarity with a couple of the contestants, but part of it was the "Survivor"-esque elements of the show. If the non-shooting elements get outsiders into shooting (and casual shooters into competition), the show has justified its existence and a possible second season.
And think about how the Winter Olympics were set up this year (and every year). The announcers don't talk about the techniques of how to set up your skis for downhill vs. slalom, they talked about Lindsay Vonn v. Julie Mancuso. Technique brings in the hardcore crowd, personalities bring in the bystanders. What brings people in to the Olympics and non-mainstream sports like shooting is (to turn a phrase) The Human Drama Of Athletic Competition, and this show has both in spades.
Overall, I really liked it, and I hope it does well for History Channel.
The market for this is the casual shooter or the non-shooter. My wife isn't a shooter, but she sat right beside me and watched all of the first episode, something she's never done for any other shooting show. Part of it was Colby, part of it was my connection to the sport and familiarity with a couple of the contestants, but part of it was the "Survivor"-esque elements of the show. If the non-shooting elements get outsiders into shooting (and casual shooters into competition), the show has justified its existence and a possible second season.
And think about how the Winter Olympics were set up this year (and every year). The announcers don't talk about the techniques of how to set up your skis for downhill vs. slalom, they talked about Lindsay Vonn v. Julie Mancuso. Technique brings in the hardcore crowd, personalities bring in the bystanders. What brings people in to the Olympics and non-mainstream sports like shooting is (to turn a phrase) The Human Drama Of Athletic Competition, and this show has both in spades.
Overall, I really liked it, and I hope it does well for History Channel.
Last edited:
I liked it, but it could definitely do without the real-world/lost set up. I hate reality shows, but I'm more interested in the marksmanship aspect. I was kinda glad the 22 year old won actually. Mostly because I am 21 myself and I always hear from my dad and other bystanders that I'm really accurate. I dunno how true it all is but it makes me wonder if I could have been in his shoes right now.
- Status
