NBRSA members

Jerry, there is at least one problem I see with your idea. It may or may not be an issue.

From the NBRSA newsletter late last year, there were about 1,600 members, which covers all disciplines -- point blank group, score, and long range.

In the point-blank group category, maybe 10 percent of that number -- 160 shooters -- are competitive. By competitive, I mean have a resonable chance of winning a match, or at least, a high placement in the grand or 4-gun.

What to do with the other 90 percent? Their motivations will vary, from "just passing through" to "having fun" to "what really makes a rifle shoot?"

Whatever there several motivations, you can't do without them. 200 or so shooters is not an effective number for a national organization. On the other hands, the 200 are the competitors that make the whole thing work; you can't ignore them, either.

I would say that attending the nationals is a primary objective of the competitive shooters, and a certain number who are in it just for fun & fellowship. Attendance at nationals peaked at what, maybe 300 shooters?

In not suggesting that their wishes be ignored. What I am suggesting that there is a danger in suggesting they are a core group whose wishes are paramount.

Charles Ellertson
 
i have went to meetings in regions to which i dont belong. never voted there since i was not a memeber of that region. i have never been to a meeting in my own region. loading area votes dont count i know. but that is the primary means of makeing your view known. like Francis i am a minority of one. attending my own regional meetings is kinda hard and my fault. like has been stated before, you mast not cater to just the top guns as there are so few of them. if they were all that were left there would soon be no matches. we are all important to the success of the matches. ray
 
Charles E said:
Jerry, there is at least one problem I see with your idea. It may or may not be an issue.


What to do with the other 90 percent? Their motivations will vary, from "just passing through" to "having fun" to "what really makes a rifle shoot?"

Whatever there several motivations, you can't do without them. 200 or so shooters is not an effective number for a national organization. On the other hands, the 200 are the competitors that make the whole thing work; you can't ignore them, either.

I

In not suggesting that their wishes be ignored. What I am suggesting that there is a danger in suggesting they are a core group whose wishes are paramount.

Charles Ellertson
Click to expand...
Charles, the occasional BR shooters are valuable, yes, but they couldn't provide much valuable input to policy making.
 
occasional BR shooters

"the occasional BR shooters are valuable, yes, but they couldn't provide much valuable input to policy making. "

I don't think I agree with this. I am one of the occasional shooters. I also shoot various disciplines including group and score. I paid my NBRSA dues and shot my first registered match at the Bluebonnet this past weekend. I have some definite thoughts that score shooting (VFS) would benefit this local area. I expressed them at the members meeting at the Bluebonnet and believe that my input was well taken by the more experienced shooters. Not that my thoughts were better or worse but they were listened to as were all the other ideas expressed.
If anything should come to a membership vote, I feel I should have as much right to express my vote as the most avid competitor. After all, when I go to the line, I have to compete with them on an absolutely equal footing as well.

Joe Duke
 
Would there be a downside

If there were two regional meetings? One to develop regional items that get rolled up into a national agenda and another to determine the region's sentiment toward the national agenda in whole.

I don't think that would exactly meet Francis' criteria but darn close. The difference being a proposal could fail at the regional level that might pass national muster.
 
Leapfrogging Wilbur and to Jerry (because I can't leave well enough alone):

Jerry, in short range, I don't count myself as either a competitor or just passing through, but I suppose I am "occasional." My interest is in rifle accuracy itself -- what technologies can improve rifles and shooting.

Is this of no value at the policy making level? (Hint: read the mission statement).
 
As an Ex-Director...

As an Ex-Director, I have a few thought I would like to share.
I was a Director for about 17 years for the Mississippi Valley Region.
I can tell you that MOST directors have a few things they REALLY don't like.
One is a phone call about "this-or-that" without a follow-up letter. If it is important enough to talk about, then it is surely worth a few minutes of your time to write a letter first. State your concern, state why you think a change would help, and then follow up with a phone call in a week or so.
The other is to be bombarded with items at the Nationals. Members have 359 days every year discuss and talk about what they would like to see happen, but for the 6 days that the Nationals are being contested, leave your Director alone, as he is there to shoot too.
One last note: I think the option to "Abstain" when voting should only be an option if it concerns you personally or monetarily. As a Director, you have had over 2 months to know what the agenda items were going to be, and if you are afraid of offending someone with your vote, perhaps you are not the right person for the job.
Are we ready for the one member-one vote rule... I don't know. I can see the pro's and con's both ways. It seems to be working alright the way it is now, but who says it can't be better. As long as your Director will vote the way the majority of the members in his region want him to vote, it should be OK the way it is now.
 
Which Nationals?

You have more than one disciplin and in some cases they have more then one nationals. Which one should the annual meeting be at?
 
ron, does an email count? i have sent an email to my director. i feel it is a written statement of my position. i hope it is ok. i certainly try to respect a persons time at a shoot. i dont shoot much in my region due to distance. why cant i show a card and have some input in the organization at another regions meeting?
 
Ray Porter:
Sure E-mails count. What a Director is looking for is something in writing that he can look at, have for his records, and then there is little chance for a misunderstanding about what the member is asking for. Nothing comes across worse than someone saying, "There are a bunch of guys that want...". It's much better to have a list of names, and written letters/e-mails that back up a position. It's even better if you can get a list of names to back your position.
Voting at more than one region? A director should try to do what the members want done in his region. There is nothing wrong with sending your thoughts to ALL the Directors if you want to... I have done that before myself.
If you feel strongly about something, don't give up.
Pete Wass:
The Directors at the Group Nationals let matters that concern Hunter Shooters left up to Hunter Shooters to decide at their Nationals. I think it would be wise to let 600 Yard Shooters, etc., all do the same at their Nationals too.
Ron
 
Wilbur

If memory serves, Gene was handed a small muzzle attachment that was made by Dwight Scott. He showed it to me one day, and this is what got the ball rolling. I politiced day and night to get Tuners legalized.

The Gulf Coast Region then sent Gene to The 2003 National at Phoenix with a proposal to allow muzzle attchments as tuning devices.

You voted against the proposal at that meeting, but it passed, and one year later, in Kansas City, the general membership gave the OK. I do remember that there was a vigorous discussion, one well known shooter came up to me and said, "I can't believe they are going to let you use a damned 'bloop tube" on a Rifle".

The Gulf Coast Region was instrumental in pushing the tuner issue to the forefront. Our Region has always had good, frank discussions about such matters. We DO take our responsibilities as members seriously.

As you know, in the years past,, we did send our Director to the BOD meeting with a proposal to change Sporter, and to initiate Varmint for Score as a Sanctioned Class. Both died on the vine.........jackie
 
Last edited:
Changes

Personally, I think there should be a link on the NBRSA website to a "form" wherein a member can identify himself...name address etc AND member #. A space for the concern, issue, or rule proposal, an area for the reason the member wants the issue addressed, and the precieved benefit to the organization, and of course,contact info. This form, emailed to the director's specified e-mail address or all directors, Preferrably the region, would allow all shooters to air their feeling without being in attendance at a meeting at a specified event.
Obviously ONE shooter with ONE issue would not get much attention, but if the masses gave their input on something deemed important, the directors would get the message. I'm sure Wilbur would add a link to a voting page where members would weigh in (with membership #) to vote yes or no and everyone would know pretty quickly how many were for or against an issue.
Too simple? Too stupid?
Bryan
 
Jackie, I can remember a time -- on this forum -- when I was advocating tuners & your reply was "who needs them, I tune with powder."

I'll allow you were one of the first to experiment once the notion of maintaining a constant charge & varying the tuner (if needed) was proposed, and one of the early ones to lobby for their inclusion in the rules -- at that time, my position was they were "attachments to the barrel" & didn't have to fall under the barrel taper rules. Of course, I was specifically experimenting with tensioning tubes, a different quest for the Holy Grail.

The problem is, as always, that the new people worry they won't be competitive without another piece of equipment (money), and the competitors worry they might lose their edge.

My argument is I've never seen a technological improvement that cost THAT much money, and certainly never saw one where an inferior shooter, could, with that device, regularly beat a better shooter.

But we do learn things, it is all part and parcel of making more accurate rifles, where you've clearly led the way on numerous occasions.
 
Jackie

Easy enough but I think you missed my point. When Gene presented the item it was the first I had heard about it. I had no choice but vote against it since it was an equipment change that hadn't been reviewed by the members of my region. What happened after the BOD meeting is of no concern in this case.

My point is this - The regional membership of the NBRSA was not consulted prior to that change. I will also ask rhetorically....What did the directors other than Gene use as basis for their vote when they held up their hand in favor?

The tuner thing went OK but how did you feel about the rail gun "clamping" deal? Same thing, different verse. As I sadly recall, I was involved to the teeth in that....adamant as hell..damn the torpedoes....

These are examples of why the NBRSA membership senses that they have no say and perhaps reasons why they don't involve themselves.
 
Bryan

The software that "runs" the NBRSA website was chosen specifically because of the capability to do exactly what you suggest. The method is the only barrier to implementation. The method being how to prevent or quickly moderate undesirable content.
 
Wilbur

Wilbur said:
Try to answer this question specifically and supply the basis:

How do you perceive the change process of the NBRSA? Not whether you like it or not but rather the process itself.
Click to expand...

Back to your original request, firstly I don't totally understand what you are asking. Thick I guess.

Question is, are we providing the input you need?
 
On the things that count...

change in the NBRSA is an oxymoron. You asked for specifics... O.K.

Benchrest is losing members because as we olde pharttes age, die or drop out, we are not being replaced by new blood.

From lots of personal experience over the last 32 years I can say for sure that the best way to grow benchrest shooters is to shoot score and to have some provision for a factory rifle class. Administrating the shooting of factory guns is a P.I.A. but it's necessary if you want to grow the sport.

By score I mean using LV and HV group guns. Hunter hasn't become very popular over the years, has it?

A few people in the NBRSA have blocked the above for many years and the most powerful one's aren't even NBRSA officers. I fully expect that we are going to have to wait for a few funerals before there's any chance of intelligent change.

Now, I'm not saying that change is always a good thing. The IBS changes significant rules much more often than the NBRSA and half of their changes are bloody disasters that eventually get rescinded.

Wilbur... you asked.

Dick
 
Dick, I'm going to challenge you on this. As best I remember, NBRSA has held slightly increasing to constant membership until 2008. AKA the year of $4.00 gas.

What I do not know, and suspect you don't either, is how this broke down into Long Range, Hunter, and Group. But in any case, as people died & dropped out, membership wasn't terribly affected. A good statistical study would needed to answer this.

As to "score" versus "group", I think it is really "4-hour match" against "two-day match." You could have a group match, one gun, one yardage, and finish it as quickly as a score match.

If desirable, you could even constitute it so that the big trophy went to the smallest group of the day rather than the smallest agg. That we chose agg over group is a historical matter; it could have gone the other way, with the thinking being you have five chances to shoot the smallest group. On this model, there would be a small plaque for the guy who was consistent (agg), but the big one would go to the smallest group.

As for factory class. Well, you have apparently made it work at Holton. When we tried it at the Rockingham Winter league, I won the league during match 3. It was easy; I was the only competitor. That was a drop in participation from match 2, where there were three of us. Match 4 had two competitors. For the whole four matches, the number of non-benchrest competitors was, as I remember, 3 or 4. None of them shot more than one match. No, we didn't point at them and giggle.

I think the reason you & Holton do so well is the whole program you put on. It is not so simple as adding a Factory Class.

BTW & from left field: If we could use electronic targets as in the Olympics, we could shoot for group and score at the same time. Now THAT might increase participation; nothing like more chances to win to get the crowd out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top