275 scoring in 50/50

[mwezell]

275 scoring

If I understand the concept right, it's just like what we are already shooting in UBR centerfire matches. There are no x's, and the dot simply scores as another point. It works very well for us and IMHO, is a better indicator of who shot best that day. Much like group shooting, it allows you to make up for a bad shot more than the standard scoring system that is used in most br for score disciplines. The age old question of "who shot better..the guy who shoots a 249-24 or the guy that shoots a 250-0" is an easy one to answer, imo. One bad shot carries an inordinate penalty yet the current system rewards the guy that can't hit a single chigger.

What I've seen is that the point value puts even more emphasis on hitting that dot, every time, than is already there. It really shows up at 200 yards and beyond, in our cf UBR discipline. In IBS and NBRSA at 200 yards, I can recall many times where someone could protect a lead by "playing it safe" and only worrying about keeping all shots in the 10 ring. In UBR, you can't play it safe, as the guy a few benches down may catch a condition and run off 5 or 6 points(x's) on you...passing you by. This simply puts more emphasis on that tiny dot and thus, accuracy.

I know this puts me on the side of the WLM but so be it. It is what it is.

 

[tonykharper]

No answer to my question could possibly be the answer to more shooters. 99 percent of the population has never heard of of rimfire benchrest. Of the 1 percent that have heard of it 99 percent don't know how to get started. I know this forsure because it was me a year ago. We happened across it on the Internet just by luck I guess. I try to get as many involved as I can. I'm not sure a person I've told about it yet even knew there was such a thing. I don't think the rules is as much of a reason of low shooter count as people just don't know about it. The local club we shoot at had 6 shooters when I started a year ago. It probably average three times that now. I try to tell everyone I know to come and try it. I'm probably wrong but if people don't know about it there is no way your going to get new shooters. Todd

Todd,

You have made a very good point as many others have. We need to get the word out every chance we get. Nothing succeeds long without promotion.

The good news is Daniel Smith has volunteered to help get the word out on social media. I don't know where this effort is, but perhaps he will post something to let us know his plans. We can't rely on social media alone. We each need to be actively posting about our matches, getting the stories out, and hopefully others will see them, and choose to join us. Fighting among ourselves defeats our purpose.

This type of shooting only appeals to a very small percentage of the population. We need to reach out to everyone.

TKH

 

[tim]

No answer to my question could possibly be the answer to more shooters. 99 percent of the population has never heard of of rimfire benchrest. Of the 1 percent that have heard of it 99 percent don't know how to get started. I know this forsure because it was me a year ago. We happened across it on the Internet just by luck I guess. I try to get as many involved as I can. I'm not sure a person I've told about it yet even knew there was such a thing. I don't think the rules is as much of a reason of low shooter count as people just don't know about it. The local club we shoot at had 6 shooters when I started a year ago. It probably average three times that now. I try to tell everyone I know to come and try it. I'm probably wrong but if people don't know about it there is no way your going to get new shooters. Todd

OK, while this is somewhat off topic, it is a question worth answering.
As to your first question, simple answer....this goes back over 20+ years to the start if rimfire via BR50 which died and resurected via Milt and Helen Cook as IR 50/50, everything started there and evolved from there.
As to your second question, initially this was all word of mouth, before internet. You know a guy who knew a guy, etc.
Now anybody with a computer can come here, look at the homepage, see where shoots are and come to one to see what's up and talk to guys...pretty simple.

 

[tim]

Tim,

During the Nationals meeting many ideas were presented, but none were put in an actionable format.

The group was formed to come up with ideas, put them in an actionable format, and submit them to Mr. Wills for consideration.

Many shooters seem to think change is necessary to move forward. Others don't. That is the dilemma.

Who knows what, if anything, will come of this effort, but it is worth a try.

TKH

Tony,
Thank you, that much I got. Sounds quite resonable, I simply wanted to inquire as to who is in the group.
Thanks in advance

 

[todde]

Tim, I agree that everyone can see/post with the Internet which should be helping. So what has changed. No word of mouth now? Todd

 

[Hozzie]

One more thing I think could help not only IR50/50, but ARA is to also try and coordinate a bit on matches. Look how well the Triple Crown does. I am not saying combine scores, merely hold them on the same weekend at the same location.

There will always be those guys that are only interested in one or the other, but I think there are some of us who would crossover more if it was convenient, especially for club or state tournaments where there is a bigger turnout anyway. That may be asking too much but if we could shoot an ARA Club Tournament one day and an IR5050 tournament the next, that could be interesting as you only have to travel to the same location. I don't have an IR5050 club within 3 hours of me which is more than I am going to do for a single match. I would consider it for a double match.

It isn't Sporter specific of course, but could encourage some of the ARA guys to shoot some Sporter and IR5050 if they are there anyway.

 

[tonykharper]

If I understand the concept right, it's just like what we are already shooting in UBR centerfire matches. There are no x's, and the dot simply scores as another point. It works very well for us and IMHO, is a better indicator of who shot best that day. Much like group shooting, it allows you to make up for a bad shot more than the standard scoring system that is used in most br for score disciplines. The age old question of "who shot better..the guy who shoots a 249-24 or the guy that shoots a 250-0" is an easy one to answer, imo. One bad shot carries an inordinate penalty yet the current system rewards the guy that can't hit a single chigger.

What I've seen is that the point value puts even more emphasis on hitting that dot, every time, than is already there. It really shows up at 200 yards and beyond, in our cf UBR discipline. In IBS and NBRSA at 200 yards, I can recall many times where someone could protect a lead by "playing it safe" and only worrying about keeping all shots in the 10 ring. In UBR, you can't play it safe, as the guy a few benches down may catch a condition and run off 5 or 6 points(x's) on you...passing you by. This simply puts more emphasis on that tiny dot and thus, accuracy.

I know this puts me on the side of the WLM but so be it. It is what it is.

Mike,

You and Bill Calfee are looking for pure accuracy. Pure accuracy in this case is defined as aggregate of all shots being nearest target center.

The IR 50/50 target has a little gaming built in. The ten ring gives greater reward than deserved. We have all been on both sides of this gaming.

The old 249 22X vs 250 7X argument.

Many say it all works out in the end. Perhaps it does, but does that make it right?

The shooter that places all his shots (aggregate) nearest the center: should he/she always win?

Some say no. If the best shooter always wins he/she will soon be shooting by themselves.

Can we expect shooters to show up at local matches if they feel they have no chance of winning.

Pure accuracy scoring may put us down a rabbit hole we don't want to visit.

While many will agree with you and Calfee, many will not.

Is there a way we can score both ways and appeal to both sides?

TKH

 

[Hozzie]

Tony,

Maybe you could do something like bonus points for numbers of X's. 15+ X's gets you 1 point, 20+ X's gets you 2 (or even just 20+X gets you 1 point). It would provide incentive for X's while still keeping the current base score. It does mean a 749 20X would beat a 250 14 X, but maybe that is ok. Over 3 cards it would allow someone to not be totally out of it with 1 slightly off base shot.

Just an idea.

Edit: You could keep the top score at 750, so one couldn't surpass someone with a 750 no matter their X count, only get a point back if they lost it so it comes down to total X's. Looking at some recent results, even those that shot a 20X, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. I am sure somewhere it would, but I suspect not often.

 

[mwezell]

Mike,

You and Bill Calfee are looking for pure accuracy. Pure accuracy in this case is defined as aggregate of all shots being nearest target center.

The IR 50/50 target has a little gaming built in. The ten ring gives greater reward than deserved. We have all been on both sides of this gaming.

The old 249 22X vs 250 7X argument.

Many say it all works out in the end. Perhaps it does, but does that make it right?

The shooter that places all his shots (aggregate) nearest the center: should he/she always win?

Some say no. If the best shooter always wins he/she will soon be shooting by themselves.

Can we expect shooters to show up at local matches if they feel they have no chance of winning.

Pure accuracy scoring may put us down a rabbit hole we don't want to visit.

While many will agree with you and Calfee, many will not.

Is there a way we can score both ways and appeal to both sides?

TKH

True enough, Tony. A part of the reasoning for using this scoring system in UBR is that most score shooters had already migrated to to lager bullet of the 30br etc, in best edge. Honestly, with the current IBS and NBRSA targets, it was a rare a severe screw up to miss the 10 ring and most winning scores were/are with 21-24 x's. UBR took it a step further and uses caliber neutral targets, making for a level playing field for 22,6 and 30 cal shooters. The biggest difference in the point system shows up at 200, where points are fairly commonly dropped and if you hit half the x's, you typically had a very good day.

 

[tonykharper]

Tony,

Maybe you could do something like bonus points for numbers of X's. 15+ X's gets you 1 point, 20+ X's gets you 2 (or even just 20+X gets you 1 point). It would provide incentive for X's while still keeping the current base score. It does mean a 749 20X would beat a 250 14 X, but maybe that is ok. Over 3 cards it would allow someone to not be totally out of it with 1 slightly off base shot.

Just an idea.

Hozzie,

Thanks for the suggestion. There may be a way to work something like that out, but it will not be easy.

TKH

 

[GordonE]

Tony
Sorry for the sporter mix up. Remington 37 not a 52 Winchester.

 

[tim]

Tim, I agree that everyone can see/post with the Internet which should be helping. So what has changed. No word of mouth now? Todd

I guess one big thing that guys like you that are just starting to take a peek have no way of knowing
.....the rather large number of guys that used to shoot that have died, got old, or dropped out, particularly dropped out for different reasons.
I never counted but it is a big number, a lot of guys shoot for a while, get frustrated, never attain a level they want, etc. and just stop. Too many guys, I think, simply become their own worst enemy.

 

[tim]

Mike,

You and Bill Calfee are looking for pure accuracy. Pure accuracy in this case is defined as aggregate of all shots being nearest target center.

The IR 50/50 target has a little gaming built in. The ten ring gives greater reward than deserved. We have all been on both sides of this gaming.

The old 249 22X vs 250 7X argument.

Many say it all works out in the end. Perhaps it does, but does that make it right?

The shooter that places all his shots (aggregate) nearest the center: should he/she always win?

Some say no. If the best shooter always wins he/she will soon be shooting by themselves.

Can we expect shooters to show up at local matches if they feel they have no chance of winning.

Pure accuracy scoring may put us down a rabbit hole we don't want to visit.

While many will agree with you and Calfee, many will not.

Is there a way we can score both ways and appeal to both sides?

TKH

I'd put this another way. Center fire score shooting has come on big time in recent years vs traditional group shooting.
It is popular whether it is traditional score, varmint for score, and so on.
It is scored EXACTLY with the same methodology regarding points and X's and there is zero debate as to fairness, gaming, at all.
One thing is for sure, the rfire community, at large complains more than probably the entire remainder of precision shooting combined.
Rather perplexing.

 

[mwezell]

I'd put this another way. Center fire score shooting has come on big time in recent years vs traditional group shooting.
It is popular whether it is traditional score, varmint for score, and so on.
It is scored EXACTLY with the same methodology regarding points and X's and there is zero debate as to fairness, gaming, at all.
One thing is for sure, the rfire community, at large complains more than probably the entire remainder of precision shooting combined.
Rather perplexing.

Tim, I guess you didn't read my posts. The point of me replying to this thread was to give an experienced point of view, with UBR, which is centerfire BR for Score and counts the x as a point, and to state that it is working very well for us. UBR in particular, is growing, very much so.

 

[Slick Willy]

I bought the 37!

Tony
Sorry for the sporter mix up. Remington 37 not a 52 Winchester.

I got the Calfee37 Sporter from Tony at The Barn from Tony in 2013 . Tony brought it from PA after I inquired about it a month before ; KSS never had it either . I collect Remington 37`s is the reason for purchasing it and I have never shot it!

 

[tim]

Tim, I guess you didn't read my posts. The point of me replying to this thread was to give an experienced point of view, with UBR, which is centerfire BR for Score and counts the x as a point, and to state that it is working very well for us. UBR in particular, is growing, very much so.

Sure I read your posts. My commentary had nothing to do with your posts. While UBR may well be enjoying nice growth, I believe it still is very much an outlier relative to IBS & NBRSA which seem to be more than holding their own with exactly the scoring methodology IR has.
While I believe no opinion should be precluded, let's remember you don't really have any particular IR50 experience. I understand you're an experienced shooter but that is, hopefully, a fair point.

 

[Tom W]

Back to the future...

Tony..
To me, as a bystander to Sporter, if you want the number of shooters as in the past, you have to duplicate the past.

Very few are going to get involved with the requirements of entering the Sporter class today.
Just think about it..Sporter has become the most sophisticated rifle to have built, weight limitations, specialized Sporter barrels, and very specific stock dimensions. Then you have to have the rifle built at a cost of $3500.00 and above, with a substantial wait time...Not to mention very few gunsmiths are building Sporters anymore. How many new shooters do you think are going to get involved when you and other top shooters are shooting Calfee and Eck Sporters, the requirements are just way too high...

My suggestion would be to return it to the original concept..
A factory only Sporter, with specific weight, barrel, stock, and scope requirements. The rifle would have to be factory built, with production numbers for that model above 1000, only barrels and triggers could be changed. The barrels would have to be of straight contour, no built in bump or tuner. The original stock would have to be used, bedding would be allowed.

New shooters could buy a rifle and jump right in...I think this was what was happening in the past that made it popular. With the sophistication of today's unlimited rifles and ammo requirements this would be a good starting point to bring new shooters into the sport....

Tom

 

[Ed Hosier]

New Structure?

Tony
I don’t know if there is any (correct or good) solution but perhaps a new class structure?

1) Factory guns (modifications to be determined) (I know this was tried/died)
2) Sporter (as it is)
3) Heavy (now 10 ½ & 13 ½)
4) Unlimited (as it is)

You end up with the same number of classes but perhaps picking up new shooters that my already have a suitable factory gun to start with (and may be interested enough to move up later)

Everybody I know already use there 10 ½ gun in 13 ½ class anyway.

Just my thoughts

Ed Hosier

 

[tonykharper]

Tony..
To me, as a bystander to Sporter, if you want the number of shooters as in the past, you have to duplicate the past.

Very few are going to get involved with the requirements of entering the Sporter class today.
Just think about it..Sporter has become the most sophisticated rifle to have built, weight limitations, specialized Sporter barrels, and very specific stock dimensions. Then you have to have the rifle built at a cost of $3500.00 and above, with a substantial wait time...Not to mention very few gunsmiths are building Sporters anymore. How many new shooters do you think are going to get involved when you and other top shooters are shooting Calfee and Eck Sporters, the requirements are just way too high...

My suggestion would be to return it to the original concept..
A factory only Sporter, with specific weight, barrel, stock, and scope requirements. The rifle would have to be factory built, with production numbers for that model above 1000, only barrels and triggers could be changed. The barrels would have to be of straight contour, no built in bump or tuner. The original stock would have to be used, bedding would be allowed.

New shooters could buy a rifle and jump right in...I think this was what was happening in the past that made it popular. With the sophistication of today's unlimited rifles and ammo requirements this would be a good starting point to bring new shooters into the sport....

Tom

Tom,
You make excellent points. It is very true the custom sporter we shoot today is the most highly developed rifle we shoot. Far harder to build, and many less smiths willing to build them.

One problem with going back to factory sporters is the willingness of current sporter shooters. They have come up through the ranks from factory sporter, modified factory sporter, to full on custom sporter, and many are unwilling to go back to factory sporter accuracy standards.

Perhaps we could offer a new factory sporter class. Coming up with a list of rules would not be hard.

But, the new factory sporter class could not become part of the Three Gun Event. Too much history for that to happen. We would have to keep the current (custom) sporter class. Now we would have two sporter classes.

Would there be enough support for a factory sporter class as a standalone?

Can we expect ARA/PSL guys to join us, and shoot factory sporters when they are ready have a sporter class that is all but unused?

Their accuracy standards have been elevated by heavy guns to such a level, I doubt it.

Can we recruit enough new shooters to join this class?

It was so much better back when we were innocent, and unspoiled.

Tom, thank you for your input. I will certainly present your idea.

Come on guys let us hear from everyone.

Would a new factory sporter class be welcomed?

TKH

 

[mwezell]

Sure I read your posts. My commentary had nothing to do with your posts. While UBR may well be enjoying nice growth, I believe it still is very much an outlier relative to IBS & NBRSA which seem to be more than holding their own with exactly the scoring methodology IR has.
While I believe no opinion should be precluded, let's remember you don't really have any particular IR50 experience. I understand you're an experienced shooter but that is, hopefully, a fair point.

Fair enough. Still an outlier, but in 23 states and growing. Something is working. Whether or not you're paying attention is entirely up to you. Yes, the changes, this game vs IBS did cost us a few regular shooters and I truly hate to see that, as every shooter is important in such a small market. But, overall, the numbers are much better than when we were shooting IBS at our few local ranges that I attended regularly.

Change is a tough thing, especially amongst older men who primarily who make up the sport of BR in general. But, youth and new blood is the life and future of the sport. Outdated rules and problems with how rules get changed with other sanctioning bodies are primary reasons for UBR coming into existence.