NBRSA Varmint for Score Rule Change

jackie schmidt

jackie schmidt

New member
My Region Director, Scott Hunter, called me and informed me that at the Gulf Coast Region Metting in New Braunfels, (I was not there), it was brought up to change the scoring system in NBRSA Varmint for Score. The proposal was to make the "X" a 10, the current 10 ring a nine, and so forth.

The purpose would be so if a shooter did drop a point, he would not be dead in the water, but could make up ground by excellent shooting for the remainder of the match.

This all seems to stem from the fact that a 249-24x gets beat by a 250-0x, even though the former probably did a much better job of shooting.

It was decided that this would be discussed at the big Varmint for Score Match at Tomball July 16-17, since there would be larger crowd of score shooters in attendance.

The tie breaker would still be the highest number of wipeouts.

Any thoughts on this? ............jackie
 
My vote* will be to leave it as it is.

Good shootin'. -Al


* Recommendation, not vote...as the Regional Director votes the will of the shooters he represents.
 
I don't have any skin in this but I'd get hold of Danny Hensley, of UBR and get enough targets to shoot a match on them before voting. It uses an 11 pt scoring system and is caliber neutral. It would at least let the voters make an "informed" decision about how they vote. The only real difference is the caliber neutral aspect. The x counts fo 11 pts. Try it before ya buy it , so to speak. Maybe even hold UBR and NBRSA matches side by side. The UBR rules are very similar to IBS/NBRSA, making it run smoothly. We've recently started this at Gallatin. It seems to be working well. JMHO--Mike Ezell
 
Jackie,
This would really shake things up at 200 yards, where it is not unusual for a shooter to have a high X count, but drop a point or more. Looking back at a couple of IBS matches from last year: At the KY State match, Wayne Lewis would rise from 20th place to a tie for 2nd with a 246-13X. At the TN State match, Danny Hensley would rise from 7th to a tie for 1st with a 248-12X. Back in October 09 at Buckcreek, I would have gone from 6th to 1st with a 247-13X.

It won't make much of a difference at 100 yards, since scores of 250 are so common.

I am actually rather ambivalent about this change. It would reward precision over consistency a bit more than the present system, which would reduce the "ruin my day" finality of dropped points, and might be more in line with "benchrest" goals. But it still wouldn't address the problem of the large number of ties and the overuse of tie-breakers. IMHO, we need to make the targets smaller, score worst edge, or something similar.

Cheers,
Keith
 
I like it. Truth to tell, I shoot IBS score in our neck of the woods, but I'd lobby for NRSA if the target were redone.

Consider this: In 1,000 yard benchrest, we shoot for score and group at the same time. There have been a few 100s shot, but no one, in IBS, NBRSA, or Pennsylvania, has ever shot a 10-X 100. Whatever things may be wrong with 1,000 yard BR, the difficulty in getting a perfect score isn't one of them. "Perfect" is suppose to be hard.

Charles Ellertson
 
Vote yes as stated. This would require only a minor target change and really put the heat on. Another proposal that was discussed with me but not offered for discussion, was to make the 100yd target the 200yd target and half the scale of the 100yd target. No that would require some fine shootin. But...I still like the first proposal better; the dot's the ten.

virg
 
I vote NO


Eddie in Texas
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am abivilent about it at this time. It seems a lot of dedicated group shooters would like to shoot score if it rewarded precision more. Actually having to hit that dot in the center in order to win would change the game in the long run.
I think what a lot of shooters who want change are missing is that dreaded missed 10 under the system now would actually be a 8 under the new system. That means you have to make two points up, not one.
I do not know if Scott or Mike Bryant is going to come down for the July Match, if not, I guess I can run a meeting and discuss it. ...........jackie
 
FBecigneul said:
Only the scores would change. Some time ago WWCCA scored targets for one full year by both the IBS and the Canadian scoring method. In those roughly nine matches only the score changed when scored with the Canadian method. The winner was the winner regardless of what scoring method was used. Sounds like some loser wants to find another way to win. But hey, I'm not in Texas.
Click to expand...

Francis, my short memory sucks, but, I think that I was shooter of the year during that experimental year @ WWCCA. At the last match of the previous year there was a discussion about scoring using the 11 point system, I was against it, I ended up on top, I am still against that scoring system. I feel that it gives an unfair advantage to the shooter that isn't lucky enough to stay clean.

IMO
Dan Honert
 
I have a hard time thinking this through, but what if the x-dot were retained, and the 10-ring shrunk to .250, the 9 ring .500, etc. Since so often the winner has 23 or so Xs, it wouldn't change the winners too often -- only when one of the non-X tens wasn't so solid. But aggregates, if ever shot, would likely be affected, and it would be more "precise," for what that's worth.

In other words, shoot the IR 50-yard rimfire target at 100 yards with CF.
 
Is this another way of keeping the 30BR on top? I say if you cant hit a 1/2" circle at a 100 yards and you end up
with a 249-24x you deserve to loose to a 250-0x...!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I rarely speak my mind on this board but I'm givin my .02 on this one.
This is a silly idea. The current system awards the shooter with the highest precision and the most consistancy. This rule change would potentially allow a shooter to shoot a 7 on one shot, yet still win the match. I don't understand why some people want to fix something that isn't broke.

Matt Guthrie
 
This topic fascinates me. Not because I have the answers, but for the arguments trotted out. It seems there is no conclusive argument -- the hallmark of one of those is there is no answer to it.

Here's what I think -- mind you, think, not know. If the target is made harder, how does that favor a poorer shooter? I suppose there are mathematical constructions that will let somebody come up with a "what if." If they are common, they have a point. If they're once in a blue moon, well, as the man said, it happens.

Then there is the argument that if the target is made harder, people will quit shooting -- if they can't be "perfect" most of that time, they'll not play. Might be true, I dunno. We've certainly gone down that path in the states, with Trap and Skeet. Much easier than the International rules. Hard to evaluate.

Then there is the argument, "It won't change anything." If true, that's pretty compelling. It is hard for me to imagine that we can't come up with a target that won't change anything. If it is true, it shows the level we have reached with shooting. I don't happen to think it is true; if one will allow the ring sizes to change instead of simply re-evaluating the scoring of the current rings -- but once again, that's just an instinctive thought.
 
What about the impact on small clubs running local matches where HBR and VFS run pretty much side by side on the same target. Would this be a hit to the growth of VFS if clubs decide they aren't going to mess with another target and having to keep track of who gets which target, or which target gets scored how, etc.?
 
It is pretty clear that the existing VFS rifles and most likely the hunter rifles as well have progressed to the point where they shoot better that the existing target / scoring system requires to shoot a 250 score. So, the real object is X's plain and simple. In my "opinion", making the target harder or the scoring tougher on the existing target is not going to change the outcome very often. It will lower scores and occassionally, it will make a difference. In a long range game where we shoot at clay birds, we have shot at different yardages to make it harder. We also shoot some matches where we shoot the 200 yard score target placed out at 300 yards. (we also limit this to .22 caliber or smaller) Normal scores to win this are 228 to 235. In either of these matches, the same group of better shooters will always be clustered near the top. May not win, but they will be in the hunt.
The same thing seems to hold true at the VFS matches I have shot. The same group of good shooters are clustered near the top with better X counts. Occassionaly, you screw up and miss a ten. That does suck but thats life.
joe
 
The one and only thing that bothers me about Score shooting is that you can shoot a 9 in the first match and be completely out of the running for the rest of the yardage and maybe the rest of the day. Whereas, in Group shooting you can follow a poor match with a few good matches and have a chance to climb back up the standings. Also in Group shooting, when you go to the line you always have the hope of shooting a small group no matter how poorly you shot the last match or the last 4 matches. So, for me, there's not much to look forward to in Score shooting after a poor match whereas there is in Group shooting. A day of shooting without the hope of success of any kind gets pretty long for me. A rule change that made Score shooting more like Group shooting in this respect might entice more shooters. At least that's the way I see it.
 
Last edited:
george in KY said:
in group the first shot is free ...dont matter where it go's in the target area as long as the next 4 are close to it. real close.
Click to expand...

George,

I agree with you to some extent. It does not matter where the first shot goes - as long as you realize it did not go where it was supposed to go. But, what does that have to do with the fatal nature of of one poor shot in Score shooting?

Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top