Gulf Coast Region Proposal For Slight Change In Varmint For Score

A few years ago we tried a "fun match" at Dublin for our monthly club match. We used the 100 yard IBS score target at 200 yards. Conditions were relatively good, so this was pretty much a best case scenario. Most shooters had fun since it was not a serious match, but none of those shooters wanted to do it again.

Scores were CONSIDERABLY lower than normal, and there were some pretty good shooters there. I had a very good barrel at that time, and was on a bit of a lucky streak, and won with a 248-10X, but I don't remember very many more in the 240's that day. It did spread the field out as far as tie breakers went, but it would have also caused several of the shooters to not come back if we had done it on a regular basis.

To a newer shooter a 250-16X doesn't seem nearly as far from a 250-23X as, for instance, a 237-5X does from a 248-10X on the "harder" target. It gives the newer shooter hope, rather than making him or her not want to come back to more matches. As an example, when one shooter dominates at a club there is generally a drop off in attendance after a while. I have seen this happen several times now. That said, are we ultimately better off with more noticeable scoring differences (the competitive shooter effect that we are all subject to in some degree), or greater shooter participation (the healthy clubs and sport effect)? It's not nearly as much fun to win if there aren't many shooters there to compete against.

I started off in NBRSA group shooting, as did many of us, but moved mainly to score for several reasons. I won't go into those reasons, but suffice it to say that I am still a "card carrying" member of both NBRSA and IBS to support the continuation of all precision shooting sports. I was hoping that NBRSA score would catch on in this area, but if the target is different some shooters probably won't be shooting it. I am not afraid of competing, but I don't see the present system as broken, and believe that making it harder is likely to be counter-productive to the long term health of the sport. Just my opinion, but based on observation at several clubs over the years :).

Well, so much for me trying to stay out of this discussion ;):D!!

Jim
 
Jim, the proposal would not change the target, just make it so that the shooter has to wipe out the X in order for it to recieve that value. There would be just as many 250's shot as now...........jackie
 
Stats on the 2010 season

An update on the 100 yard statistics for the whole 2010 season so far: There have been 50 matches reported involving 887 shooters. Of these, 402 were involved in tie breakers, or 45%. There was one tie that Creedmoor could not break. There were 28 matches in which the highest tie involved the "wood" positions 1-3, or 56%. If only the matches of 15 or more shooters are counted, 50% of the positions were tied, and at least one of the top three positions were tied 61% of the time. With all due respect to my score shooting friends, a scoring system that has to resort to such an arbitrary tie breaker (Creedmoor) so often could use some improvement.

Jim and George and others may have a good point about new shooters, or even old shooter for that matter, becoming disinterested if they consistently place far behind the winners. So Jackie's idea seems like it could be a good compromise that almost keeps the scoring system as is. The only difference is how x's are counted.

But here is another idea: Use the same targets, count the X's the same, but also count wipe-outs and use them for a second tie breaker. Scores would be like 250-22X-13WO. A relatively small amount of extra work would be involved in scoring each X as a wipeout or not. For the tied shooters to also have the same number of wipe-outs seems pretty unlikely, so if Creedmoor were used for a third tie-breaker, it would be used way less often. We would essentially keep the current scoring system, but with a better tie breaker based on accuracy instead of chance. This system has some precedent in that wipe-outs are now counted for 25X record targets.

What do you think?

Cheers,
Keith
 
Jackie is right that the only proposal on the drawing board is the wipeout one.

But before giving up on the target size issue, I'd like to point out that for the first year-- or maybe two years -- the then-new 600 yard benchrest target was simply the 1,000 yard target scaled to 60%. The 1,000 yard target has a 7-inch 10 ring and a 3-inch X, so I suppose the new 600 yard target had a 4.2-inch 10 ring and a1.8 inch X -- but it was decided that an "X" would be scored as 11 points. With that target, too many people were shooting scores "better" than 50 -- or 200, since it was a 4-target agg. I suppose most of the 600 yard shooters were 1-K shooters (same equipment rules), and 50-scores, let alone higher ones, are uncommon at 1K.

The target was made smaller. It is now smaller that the point-blank 300 yard target.. Participation in 600 yard BR has grown very fast. Shooters come, and come back.

This is the only concrete case I know of where a target was made smaller and we could see the effects on shooter participation. Not theory, it happened.

Maybe it all depends on where you start.
 
Last edited:
for what it's worth we're shooting the usbr target at braxton county wv on sunday aug 1st,think it's the state championship,if you want to try a small target & form your own opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top