Dan H
New member
I guess that is what makes it so interesting, all your shots have to go where they are supposed to go, they all have to be good shots. That is what makes score shooting so tough.
Dan Honert
ps: I shoot score and group
NBRSA Varmint for Score Rule Change
- Thread starter jackie schmidt
- Start date
I guess that is what makes it so interesting, all your shots have to go where they are supposed to go, they all have to be good shots. That is what makes score shooting so tough.
Dan Honert
ps: I shoot score and group
IMHO, this is indicative of a bigger, across-the-board problem with Benchrest. Equipment eventually catches up, and perfect scores and tiny groups become more and more frequent and there is little or no real difference between the winner and 1st and 2nd losers. I've long advocated that you can't fix the problem with better scoring devices or smaller targets or other such gimmiks. They, too, will eventually become outdated. (Remember when Score shooting required only one bull?)
Someday, we have to admit that 100 yard shooting is an insult to today's rifles and cartridges. The minimum distance should be 200 yards. Even that will become routine someday but by then, shooting itself will probably be gone from the scene anyway.
JMHO
Ray
Someday, we have to admit that 100 yard shooting is an insult to today's rifles and cartridges. The minimum distance should be 200 yards. Even that will become routine someday but by then, shooting itself will probably be gone from the scene anyway.
JMHO
Ray
SGJennings
New member
Suggestion: Do as Gallitin is doing, Do Ibs and Ubr side by side and let people try both for a while and make up their mind in an informed way.
Wayne Shaw
Active member
Well, taking the bullet hole size thing out of the discussion, the scoring is what it is. You accept it as what it is. If you shoot a 9 on match one, you aint gonna win at 100 yards. In score EVERY shot counts. It's a hard pill to swallow when you don't do well on match one, but that is the game. As Francis said, they tried the different scoring thing (11 instead of X) and at the end of the season, it made no difference.
Score is not group, it's challenging, but not the same game.
Score is not group, it's challenging, but not the same game.
Your results are different from what I found by checking IBS records for the matches I attended at Buckcreek last year. The X=11 scoring would have changed the winner at 200 yards four times out of six.
Cheers,
Keith
Let me start by saying I'll shoot score (and group) no what the rules are as long as the rules are the same for everyone. That said, if there is a scoring system that more accurately recognizes the person who shoots the best, I think we should at least discuss it and make an informed decision to change or stay with what we are using.
Here's an example of why I believe the current scoring system inordinately penalizes a poor shot. At the NBRSA/IBS Texas Championship I shot a "5" (yes, a bullet in the 5 ring). As I described on another thread, a shot intended for the sighter target found its way to record target No.1. That mistake resulted in my finishing 7th in the 2-gun (NBRSA/IBS combined) with a 987-50X. Let me make clear that Jerry Stiller was, by far, the best shooter that weekend (995-49X). Even without the mistake, I would not have won. But, if I had gotten the 9 (which I actually shot at record target No. 1) I would have finished 2nd rather than 7th. Likewise, if the match had been scored with the Xs counting 11 points - I would have finished 2nd (even with the "5") rather than 7th.
I think this shows that the 11 point model MAY better reflect who shot the best over the course of an aggreage, grand aggregate or 2-Gun. I'm sure others disagree, but I think we should at least discuss it with an open mind.
Ryan
Here's an example of why I believe the current scoring system inordinately penalizes a poor shot. At the NBRSA/IBS Texas Championship I shot a "5" (yes, a bullet in the 5 ring). As I described on another thread, a shot intended for the sighter target found its way to record target No.1. That mistake resulted in my finishing 7th in the 2-gun (NBRSA/IBS combined) with a 987-50X. Let me make clear that Jerry Stiller was, by far, the best shooter that weekend (995-49X). Even without the mistake, I would not have won. But, if I had gotten the 9 (which I actually shot at record target No. 1) I would have finished 2nd rather than 7th. Likewise, if the match had been scored with the Xs counting 11 points - I would have finished 2nd (even with the "5") rather than 7th.
I think this shows that the 11 point model MAY better reflect who shot the best over the course of an aggreage, grand aggregate or 2-Gun. I'm sure others disagree, but I think we should at least discuss it with an open mind.
Ryan
Kenny,
You make a couple really good points.
First, we (as the ones who decide where to aim and when to pull the trigger) always get the score we deserve. Hopefully, at the end of the day we finish in the position that we deserve based on our overall shooting and are not inordinately punished (or rewarded) for a single shot.
Second, when I stated above that I would have finished second but for one shot I was assuming that everyone else's scores stayed the same. I realize others, like you, may have been caught by the same condition that surprised me. Thus, the assertion of where I would have finished but for the "5" is debatable. That's why I used our actual scores and recalculated the standings based on the mythical 11 point system. Both are fantasy, but I offered this example only to show how the 11 point system MIGHT be more indicative of overall performance (and more forgiving of a single bad shot).
Ryan
You make a couple really good points.
First, we (as the ones who decide where to aim and when to pull the trigger) always get the score we deserve. Hopefully, at the end of the day we finish in the position that we deserve based on our overall shooting and are not inordinately punished (or rewarded) for a single shot.
Second, when I stated above that I would have finished second but for one shot I was assuming that everyone else's scores stayed the same. I realize others, like you, may have been caught by the same condition that surprised me. Thus, the assertion of where I would have finished but for the "5" is debatable. That's why I used our actual scores and recalculated the standings based on the mythical 11 point system. Both are fantasy, but I offered this example only to show how the 11 point system MIGHT be more indicative of overall performance (and more forgiving of a single bad shot).
Ryan
Ryan,
One shot ruining a 4-match weekend, that is truly a bummer. Can't think of a better example of what a huge impact one shot can have in score. I am beginning to be convinced that X=11 is a better system.
Cheers,
Keith
Jim Wooten
Just Me
Ryan,
When I first started shooting Score I thought as you did about one bad shot. After competing for a year I realized that one bad shot is just that, a bad shot. I have had MANY of them since, but I now know that the shooter who didn't have one bad shot deserved the win more than I did. He or she was more precise for the match than I was, and EVERY shot counts. If other shooters were better able to deal with conditions I learned to say more power to them, and try harder myself at the next match. It didn't always seem fair at first, but in retrospect it was.
Good luck to you in your shooting, and remember that we are out there to have fun
.Jim
mwezell
Mike Ezell
As for the "what if's". About 3 years ago, I made a really stupid mistake. For some reason I used the top of the bottom post ina DD NF reticle at 200 yards to shoot a bull. I forget where that put the shot, but lets say it was a 5. What it did was take a bull that I scored a 10 or x on and turned it into a 5 by virtue of two shots being on the bull. IIRC, that shot needed to be a 9(would have been a 10 after looking) and I would have won the 200 and the grand. Not only did it cost me the win, but SEVERAL spots in the year end standings. I want to say 7 spots, but I'd have to go back and figure it all back up. Bummer.. but I haven't made that mistake ever again. I still make plenty more that make up for it though.--Mike Ezell
I guess my main point is that we should consider the merits of other scoring systems while score shooting is still in it's infancy in the NBRSA. Pretty soon, if not already, the mindset will be "The way we do it now is the best way because it's the way we do it now." That's not a particularly satisfying reason.
Perhaps, worst edge scoring has more merit than the 11 point system. Under a worst edge scoring, there aren't likely to be a whole lot of 250s, which means a dropped point or even two dropped points is not a death sentence. Further, the "almost X" is rewarded and not scored the same as a "barely 10." Both of these objectives have merit in my mind.
These are just some thoughts for meaningful discussion which, again, is the whole point. If we consider all the pros and cons and decide the current scoring system is the best then we have done the sport a service.
Ryan
Perhaps, worst edge scoring has more merit than the 11 point system. Under a worst edge scoring, there aren't likely to be a whole lot of 250s, which means a dropped point or even two dropped points is not a death sentence. Further, the "almost X" is rewarded and not scored the same as a "barely 10." Both of these objectives have merit in my mind.
These are just some thoughts for meaningful discussion which, again, is the whole point. If we consider all the pros and cons and decide the current scoring system is the best then we have done the sport a service.
Ryan
Yes, and no. I think you're right on the advisability of making any change early on. Worst edge scoring, though runs into the existing equipment bog. Hurts the .30s in favor of the 6mms, which gets a cheer from the group shooters -- that cheer being their existing rifle is competitive. Except . . . the innovative will begin playing with the .20 caliber. Maybe that's a good thing, but it does run into the "now I need another rifle -- a .30 for IBS score, a 6mm for group, and a .20 for NBRSA score." And that's probably a bad thing.
I have two thoughts. One is my old one, that the target rings themselves are the place to look for changes, not a reevaluation of the existing rings. The second is that group shooting does not really allow for recovery after a disaster. In the old days when even a smaller match had 40 shooters, more than one competitor wasn't going to make a mistake. If you shot a .4 at 100, you're toast, unless you count on the possibility of a couple of zeros to "recover." Think I've seen that once.
* * *
In deference to Ray, I think he has a point. And I have a solution. Every range should be required to have a 20-foot gulley between the firing line and the 100-yard berm. An irregular gully is best. The "new" Rockingham, with some of that filled in, is no joy to shoot. The old Rockingham was harder. I remember Wayne Campbell shooting a big 3 at 100 yards, and coming back to win the yardage (as well as the 4-gun). Well, he's Wayne Campbell, an most of us aren't. Still, making the range tougher is at least as good as making the target tougher, though home field advantage does raise it's head.
FWIW
jackie schmidt
New member
Right now, we have best edge scoring. That does favor the larger caliber bullet. If you go to worst edge, that favors the small caliber bullet.
The solution that has come up in the past is use a method that measures to the center of the bullet hole, hense making caliber size a moot point. But the practicality of that is muted by the fact that the scorer would have to score each individule bullet hole with some type of precision instrument. I can't even amagine the logistic nightmare that would present.
As much as we hate to admitt it, the logical solutuon is the targets used by the UBR, which compensates for bullet diameter. I have no idea what the general membership of the NBRSA would think of this, but I would think now is the time to do it.
These targets will work with suggestion of making the X an actual scoring number, instead of a Tie Breaker.
I know that clubs would have to purchase three sets of targets, and their rule of going up to the next size works for someone insisting on shooting a odd caliber. ie, 17 would use a 22, 7mm a 30.
I am just putting it out here for discussion. If the object is to get more shooters interested in score, this might be the best avenue to pursue......jackie
The solution that has come up in the past is use a method that measures to the center of the bullet hole, hense making caliber size a moot point. But the practicality of that is muted by the fact that the scorer would have to score each individule bullet hole with some type of precision instrument. I can't even amagine the logistic nightmare that would present.
As much as we hate to admitt it, the logical solutuon is the targets used by the UBR, which compensates for bullet diameter. I have no idea what the general membership of the NBRSA would think of this, but I would think now is the time to do it.
These targets will work with suggestion of making the X an actual scoring number, instead of a Tie Breaker.
I know that clubs would have to purchase three sets of targets, and their rule of going up to the next size works for someone insisting on shooting a odd caliber. ie, 17 would use a 22, 7mm a 30.
I am just putting it out here for discussion. If the object is to get more shooters interested in score, this might be the best avenue to pursue......jackie
If I may add my 2cents, my name is Danny Hensley for those who don't recoginize the herohank title, with help from other notable shooters I designed the UBR target system and it is not a perfect design. At 100 yds under the current format a score of 264 is very and likely possible in the near future. There is no tie break with a 264 score. Wipe outs are not useable as the small calibers are at disadvantage with the compensated dot sizes. At 200 yds it is unlikely and in all probibility impossible to have a 264 score. We are contesting grand aggs. only but keeping stats and recoginizing records at all yardages. clubs are and may present trophies at all distances also.
that being said you still have to hit the middle of the target to be successful and that is the intent, the ten ring only on any existing target is not what you should be satisfied with.
that being said you still have to hit the middle of the target to be successful and that is the intent, the ten ring only on any existing target is not what you should be satisfied with.
JackieStogsdill
New member
UBR does use a bigger set of targets for 200yds. So yes, there are 6 sets of targets. I think if clubs would shoot the UBR targets for a couple of matches, it would be their target of choice in the future.
Last edited:
Outcome-based BR? Forget that!
Score shooting is a game of precision. We want to place that bullet "....right there" on the target.
So why would we want a rule change that would marginalize our attempts at precision...and the recognition of the winners efforts by his or her fellow competitors?
Rather than effectively giving someone a 'pass' on a bad shot, I'd much rather see the competitor with the most precision rewarded for their efforts.
This could be accomplished by leaving the 10 ring and the 'X' dot the way they are, but reducing the width of the subsequent scoring rings. Poor shots would get lower scores (a 9 might become an 8), thus rewarding the competitor that keeps 'em closer to the center.
I understand the angst of the hapless competitor that fires a 9 with a VfS gun at 100. Been there, done that...got the t-shirt. But that's how the game is played. And If more clubs would shoot 100-200 Grands, the 9 at 100 would be less of a factor after both yardages were fired. 200 tends to be a great equalizer.
If you win a tournament, you want to leave the range knowing you did the best job on that particular day...not that you were given a 'bye' back into the standings...no alibi shots. We compete for literally nothing but the grudging respect of our fellow competitors.
And for the true competitor, that's everything.
My thoughts on a rainy Sunday morning. I should be in Council Bluffs, Ia. for their NBRSA tournament this weekend, but work dictates otherwise. -Al
Score shooting is a game of precision. We want to place that bullet "....right there" on the target.
So why would we want a rule change that would marginalize our attempts at precision...and the recognition of the winners efforts by his or her fellow competitors?
Rather than effectively giving someone a 'pass' on a bad shot, I'd much rather see the competitor with the most precision rewarded for their efforts.
This could be accomplished by leaving the 10 ring and the 'X' dot the way they are, but reducing the width of the subsequent scoring rings. Poor shots would get lower scores (a 9 might become an 8), thus rewarding the competitor that keeps 'em closer to the center.
I understand the angst of the hapless competitor that fires a 9 with a VfS gun at 100. Been there, done that...got the t-shirt. But that's how the game is played. And If more clubs would shoot 100-200 Grands, the 9 at 100 would be less of a factor after both yardages were fired. 200 tends to be a great equalizer.
If you win a tournament, you want to leave the range knowing you did the best job on that particular day...not that you were given a 'bye' back into the standings...no alibi shots. We compete for literally nothing but the grudging respect of our fellow competitors.
And for the true competitor, that's everything.
My thoughts on a rainy Sunday morning. I should be in Council Bluffs, Ia. for their NBRSA tournament this weekend, but work dictates otherwise.
-Al
mwezell
Mike Ezell
No biggie at all, with just a little thought. ie. comp#101 ubr 224, #102 NBRSA, #201 UBR .308 etc. Mistakes can happen, but it's the shooter's responsibility to confirm the correct competitor number and target before he shoots it. Maybe Rick Fox, match director at Gallatin, where we are running IBS and UBR side by side will give some input. We had a match yesterday with several new shooters and several factory guns there as well. It went well, even with a new (first time) target crew consisting of one man.--Mike