All this talk about ways to get the public to move toward S x Ss by having top shooters start using them, or having some TV personalities shoot them, is ignoring the obvious. Top clays shooters will never abandon the O/U for the S x S because ......... their scores will go down. It's a fact. You can deny it all you want, but if you abandon emotion and sentimentality, the O/U wins on points.
I've been a competitive sporting clays shooter for so many years I am beginning to have a problem remembering when I started. I grew up shooting a S x S, so there's no shortage of sentimental attachment to them, for me. I hunt with them most of the time, and shoot them well enough at game that I don't need to switch to something a hair better. I love competing against other S x Ss with mine, and do so in S x S events. I have several that are suited to the sporting game, probably the best suited is the 30" BSS. But, I cannot shoot as high a score with it as I can my MX8 Perazzi. I tried, Lord knows I did. I wanted to be the man who took a S x S and beat the rest with their O/U guns. But I can't, and most others can't, either.
Get out of denial and admit what the rest of the world knows. The O/U is the king of the sporting, and most of the other, clays games. Because it works better for them. It is much easier to shoot in the 90s on a tough sporting course with a good O/U than it is with a good S x S. I know what many will holler ....... "Well, that's just because nobody builds a specialty S x S for sporting clays." Hogwash, anybody can put one together that wants to badly enough, and there are some out there that are already pretty specialized for target work. If you had rather shoot a good round of clays with a S x S than shoot a great score with an O/U I've got no beef with you. My hat's off to you actually. But don't try to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, that a S x S can go head to head with an O/U and come out on top. It may once in a blue moon, but the odds are stacked against it.
The handwriting's on the wall ...... read it and weep. Beretta and the rest of the brilliant Italian makers read it, and acted on it. And ...... they're doing quite well and positioned for the future. My hat's off to them.
Just because you'd rather live in the past does not make it good business.
SRH
Stan, I forgot to qualify my comments a tad.
First, I was basing it on the idea some were putting forth here that there is no real disadvantage to using a SxS. That the value of the single sighting plane is exaggerated and the dominance of O/U has more to do with inertia....that's the action everyone uses because that's what everyone uses so that is the type that gets tweaked for competition.
And second, as long as the competitive disadvantage isn't too great, the top guys will switch if the money makes it worth while. Case in point. In the 1970's, every single top golfer in the world used forged irons. All the PGA, all club professionals, all top amateurs. Everyone. On the PGA Tour, it was common knowledge that the very best forged irons were made by a smallish maker called Ram Golf. Estimates range as high as 70% of all Tour players used Ram irons, even those who were signed to other, bigger companies like Spalding, Titlist, Hogan, Wilson etc. They would carry the bag and tape over the name on the club.
Around that time, cast iron heads started to become popular with higher handicap players because, although you lost "feel", the clubs heads were more forgiving to mis-hit shots. The pros would go on and on about how they would never give up their forged clubs because at their level of play, they needed the "feel".
Until they didn't. Until the amount of money and the demands of the marketing ends of things insisted they play with cast clubs because that's what the companies wanted to sell. You can make a cast head way easier and cheaper than grinding to shape a forging.
Pros can and will use the best equipment they can that also makes them the most money. Then you will likely find that the sliver of advantage afforded by a certain technology is not that critical to their success. Tiger Woods was going to be the dominant player for 15 years no matter what club he played with.
The same is likely true with competitive shot-gunners. Only difference is there is not the same motivation for the companies to change the status quo.
