Please Read, Another Perspective on "Score Shooting"

[jackie schmidt]

In my opinion, there is one major thing wrong with Score Shooting as it is being shot in both Sanctioning Bodies now.

That being, it totally ignores the true idea behind what is recognized as the purpose of the endevour. That is, to hit the center of the "bullseye".

Our current system tends to favor the shooter who can place the largest bullet hole on the paper, (all other things being equal). This really does go against what has always been the universal recognition of what accuracy and precision is about. That being, center to center measurements. The center of your bullet hole from the center of the target.

It was mentioned by Ron Hoehn in the other thread that if the NBRSA does implement Varmint for Score, then try to get it right the first time.

Here is how we get it right. Do away with "best edge" or "worst edge" scoring, and figure out a way to actually measure the center of the bullet hole to the center of the target.

This has certain advantages. First, it totally negates the advantage one caliber size over another. The shooter would be free to shoot the most accurate Rifle at his disposal.

Second, the whole concept of "dropping a point and you are dead" would be minimized, as a shooter could get a bad shot back (some) by hitting a dead "zero", or there abouts. Sort of like cutting a "four" in half by shooting a "one".

Third, it would bring score shooting into the realm of extreme precision where it should be. Benchrest Score Shooting would become a game of "thousanths of an inch", just like it should be.

Here is how the scoring system will work. The Official Scorer will have a device that will center dead in the middle of a target's mothball. It will also have a sliding feature attached that has the bullet holes diameter etched onto it. When the calipers are on "zero', the two circles are dead in the center of each other.

The scorer will center the tool, then move the etched bullet hole untill it is dead center on the bullet on the paper. How ever much the caliper moved will be the score of that bullseye, as it has measured the center distance between the mothball and the bullet hole.

For instance, if the shooter has a shot .250 off center, his score is .250. If, for simplicity sake, he shoots five .250 bullseyes on a target page, then his score is 1.250 for that match. If, (again for simplicity), he happen to hit 25 .250's in a row, then his total for that yardage would be 6.250. The shooter with the smallest number wins.

It would be no more difficult or time consuming to score in this manner than what we do in group

It would even be possible to shoot a perfect ".000". But then, in group, it also possible to shoot a perfect ".000" as well. Not likely.

In my opinion, this is the way Score Shooting with Benchrest Rifles should be scored. It does away with all of that stupid caliber advantage, and it rewards shooters who are able to accomplish what the endevour is supposed to be about, that being keeping the shots as close to the middle of the 'bullseye" as possible.


Of course, this would in no way affect the way the other Score Dicsipline, HBR, is scored.

What do you think??........jackie

 

[stiller]

I dont agree

I like the finite steps on the score system. That way it isnt just a group idea placed on a score target too. I think there is a certain amount of forgiveness that the traditional scoring has. Most shooting disiplines have something similar. If one of the goals is to get new shooters etc the current system will work better in my opinion. I am not in big favor of the worst edge either. It seems that the current system kind of levels the field caliber wise somewhat. Although the 30 seems to rule, it has not yet proven to be quite as accurate in the overall scheme for most shooters. It also recoils more etc. A good shooting 6mm is not much handicapped. .308-.243/2 is the group difference that matters. If the 6 will group .035 better, it is just as viable.

I would leave the whole score shooting thing alone as far as philosophy goes. X count, best edge etc. The only thing I may change is the size of the rings to make it a little harder and to spread the field.

 

[jackie schmidt]

Jerry

I see your point, there is 1/4 inch between a "10" and a "9". That is the cushion.

But I think you would agree that there is a huge difference in "placing a group on the target" and "placing the group in the center of the target".

It just dawnwd on me. This type of shooting, using the center of bullseye to center of bullet scoring system that I proposed, might be more difficult than Group Shooting.

ouch!!!........jackie

 

[Donald]

Well how about a 40BR shooting simi wadcutters? Lots of people are shooting 20 calibers, course not in BR. Dont think the 20 would have much of a chance in this case. It's also been said that in group the first shot is free. So neither method is perfect.

Donald

 

[Greyfox]

I would disagree with the comment that scoring would take no longer. Currently, it only takes a second or so to look at each bull on a score target and see that it is a "10", "9" or "x". Of course, some require the reticle, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Maybe once or twice at most during a relay there is a need to get a second or third opinion for one shot. With the scoring method you suggest, each shot review would take as long as the longest now. When measuring groups you are using one measurement for 5 shots. With this method you would have to measure each one. It would take 5 times as long. It's possible that I misunderstand and I invite your correction.

According to Joe Entrekin, there have only been a relative handfull of perfect scores in all past years. Some years there were none. I really don't see a problem with the situation as it is currently. But hey, that's just me.

Rick

 

[Apollo]

Jackie,

I think that is a great idea. I would love to try this at some registered match.

Stanley

 

[Dick Grosbier]

Jackie
One of the big things that has made Score shooting successful is one man can pretty much run a match and with very little special equipment required. Just a reticule, some target frames and targets. Here you are proposing a specialized piece of equipment that does not even yet exist, thats not really keeping it simple.
I generally like and agree with most of what you write. But I really believe if NBRSA wants to take up score shooting they should at first just leave things alone and adopt it with their current rules and targets. Then let nature take it's course and change things as the participating shooters feel needed through subsequent rule changes.
Dick

 

[jackie schmidt]

Dick

I wrote this as a first thought to Ron's idea of simply using "worst edge" scoring. He stated that if we were going to do it, do it right the first time.

If we are ging to debate the pro's and con's, now is the time to do it.

I do not like "worst edge", because it still gives advantage to caliber size. The only true way to negate caliber size is measure to the center.

I don't care for the "mandating caliber size" either. His idea was 25 or larger. Gee, wouldn't that force about 98 percent of the current Group Shooters to build something besides a 6PPC. I suspect most would just say "no".

The NBRSA has a chance to do something revolutionary, or just stick with a tried and true concept.

As I see it, the only dificult item with what I proposed is the measuring tool. I am sure someone would design something easy to use. And, it negates all of that "worst edge", "best edge", and "big bullet vs small bullet debate".

Everybody says "keep it simple". What could be more simple than "mine is closer to the middle than yours"..........jackie

 

[stiller]

I think "simple"

in this case means simple to get a concensus on the subject so the damn thing passes versus remaining a continuous arguement of whats right like changing sporter has been. If we keep it similar to what I stated in the other thread or like the IBS has, it may pass. If not, it will be a free for all of peoples opinions of what is right, everyone being different with little agreement. The only thing mine/IBS has is that is how most of the club matches and IBS matches have been done and it has that momentum and familiarity.

 

[abintx]

Jackie ...

I don't care for the "mandating caliber size" either. His idea was 25 or larger. Gee, wouldn't that force about 98 percent of the current Group Shooters to build something besides a 6PPC. I suspect most would just say "no"......jackie

I agree with you. I just had Billy Stevens build me a 6PPC with the idea of using it for group and VFS. Going to 25 or larger would throw a wet blanket over everything. That would be a bummer!

 

[Dick Grosbier]

in this case means simple to get a concensus on the subject so the damn thing passes versus remaining a continuous arguement of whats right like changing sporter has been.

You have a helluva point there. If this gets pigeon holed into a discussion like Sporter none of us writing these posts will live long enough to see VFS in NBRSA.

Dick

 

[Joe Krupa]

Now the problem becomes evident as to what the NBRSA Directors are facing.

I have listened to and lived this issue for the past several months; no, in fact the past 14 years. Many shooters have opinions, and most are very good. But, we need a good common sense position that serves the greater number of shooters.

We are having difficulty in deciding what should be "done right", as well as just trying to get the issue heard by the governing body of the organization. And I fear the answer to all the differnt directions this thing could take is that the majority of the directors will simply decide not to act. (I certainly hope not. But I ask all of the NBRSA members to look at the existing Board and consider whether this issue will gets its proper vetting. And then take it upon yourself to contact your director and let that person know how you feel on this issue - if it is important to you.)

I see three objectives of this for the NBRSA Directors to consider:

1) Does VFS (no matter what we define it - and the only thing that will be looked at is the specific proposal coming out of the Gulf Coast Region) add to the existing objectives of the NBRSA? Specifically to "develop and encourage extreme rifle ACCURACY" ? (The PRECISION part of this objective is met with the group shooting aspect of the organization.)

2) Does this help bring new ranges and shooters into the sport? (To meet the Assist AND ENCOURAGE objective of section A. 4.)

3) Will the voices of the NBRSA members who want VFS included in the shooting disciplines that the organization offers be heard? If not, we will be discussing this every year up to the Dierctors' meeting from now on out; and then afterwards cursing these guys (including me) for not listening to what the shooters want.

I view this as will the NBRSA, as a service provider to shooters, give the majority of its members what they want? If not, then what will happen is that the new ranges will use the IBS jurisdiction or simply go it as unregistered.

Score shooting with our current varmint rifles will exist no matter what the NBRSA does. And it often happens without the need for IBS jurisdiction, too. This, in my mind, does not help further the sport. Listening to the members and helping new ranges come on line helps the sport.

 

[Wayne Shaw]

I think Jackie is on to something here. The whole concept of score shooting is CLOSEST TO CENTER. Not a small group 2 inches away from the bull, closest to center.

The argument is caliber, hole size, etc. I've heard of several ways to "level the playing field". One was to have several "rings" that pertain to caliber. Another was to use a 30 caliber reticle for all holes. Then there is the different classe/caliber argument.

But it all boils back to, CLOSEST TO CENTER. That is what score is, not group size.

If there was a way to score ANY hole size in a fair way, to the closest to center, then it wouldn't matter what one shoots. This is the task at hand.

 

[jackie schmidt]

Joe

It is better to get these debates and ideas on the table BEFORE something is decided.

I think we have an excellent set of Directors. I have no doubt that they will weigh several options, and come up with something that does benefit shooters, and the organization, as a whole.

For us who are sitting out in the "Cheap Seats", it is our responsibility to give our Director input, and trust his judgement when he meets with the other Directors.........jackie

 

[mks]

I would disagree with the comment that scoring would take no longer. Currently, it only takes a second or so to look at each bull on a score target and see that it is a "10", "9" or "x". Of course, some require the reticle, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Maybe once or twice at most during a relay there is a need to get a second or third opinion for one shot. With the scoring method you suggest, each shot review would take as long as the longest now. When measuring groups you are using one measurement for 5 shots. With this method you would have to measure each one. It would take 5 times as long. It's possible that I misunderstand and I invite your correction.

According to Joe Entrekin, there have only been a relative handfull of perfect scores in all past years. Some years there were none. I really don't see a problem with the situation as it is currently. But hey, that's just me.

Rick

Rick,
The biggest problem with the current scoring system is not that 250-25x is too easy, but that dropping a point can ruin your entire match. If the targets were difficult enough that you could count on the other competitors dropping at least one, then it would give the shooter some hope. As it is, you are pretty much just wasting ammo after a dropped point (or practicing for next time, if you want to look at it a little more positively).

Cheers,
Keith

 

[Greyfox]

Rick,
The biggest problem with the current scoring system is not that 250-25x is too easy, but that dropping a point can ruin your entire match. If the targets were difficult enough that you could count on the other competitors dropping at least one, then it would give the shooter some hope. As it is, you are pretty much just wasting ammo after a dropped point (or practicing for next time, if you want to look at it a little more positively).

Cheers,
Keith

Keith,
All things considered, I probably agree with you. Having shot pretty poorly over the last year, it would be inticing to consider a change in the scoring method and honestly, I don't really have a problem with changing the x's to be an addtional point. OTOH-I would be reluctant to change the target and the overall system to something like Jackie is suggesting. A tweak is one thing, wholesale change is quite another. Another fact to consider, when I have looked at the scores in matches where I've dropped a point, it usually wouldn't change my overall standing when the match is over. Clearly, this isn't always the case.

Rick

 

[CptKaos]

If you applied.....

Rick,
The biggest problem with the current scoring system is not that 250-25x is too easy, but that dropping a point can ruin your entire match. If the targets were difficult enough that you could count on the other competitors dropping at least one, then it would give the shooter some hope. As it is, you are pretty much just wasting ammo after a dropped point (or practicing for next time, if you want to look at it a little more positively).

Cheers,
Keith

that logic to football then you would want to change an interception into an unintended completion in the wrong direction and demand a do-over, if the other team doesnt have an unintended reception in the wrong direction to even yours out.

It would be nice to do a little poll to see just who thinks score shooting is too easy, HBR shooters, VFS shooters or group shooters.

Larry

 

[Charles E]

There is a positive side to all this, which may have gone unnoticed. If NBRSA adopts score shooting, there will be a period of time where they do not have to "get it right." As has been mentioned once or twice, the rules, including the target, can be changed for a period of time. This is because there won't be all those "World Records" that have to be preserved.

I notice the prevailing mentality seems to be that the NBRSA should follow the IBS target, because it has proven to work. Which ignores all the fussing over the years in IBS about the target.

I don't know the answer. I know that at 100 yards, changing the target size won't change the shooting strategy; we all shoot for X's at 100 yards right now. Could it change the results? Nobody knows, in a real world environment, because nobody's tried it. (I for one would like to shoot the IR 50/50 target at 100 yards. Might not change anything. Might, too).

So, there are two attitude one can take: NBRSA could follow IBS, then make changes as shooters have ideas. My take on this is, changes won't happen. The other approach is to adopt something new, see how it works. If it doesn't work, there is a model to fall back on. If it does, we may finally get an improvement in a sport where change itself seems to be anathema.

 

[mks]

that logic to football then you would want to change an interception into an unintended completion in the wrong direction and demand a do-over, if the other team doesnt have an unintended reception in the wrong direction to even yours out.

It would be nice to do a little poll to see just who thinks score shooting is too easy, HBR shooters, VFS shooters or group shooters.

Larry

Applying logic to football rules may be a futile endeavor, but let's look at the comparison anyway. If you give up an interception in football, is the game pretty much over? (Insert answer here.) If you give up a point in VFS at 100 yards, is the game pretty much over? Just look at the results from Bluegrass, which were just posted. One dropped point would place you next to last. At 200 yards, you could do no better than fourth.

I don't think anyone is arguing (yet) that 250-25x is too easy. But can it even be questionable that shooting 250 at 100 yards is too easy? At Bluegrass 17 of 18 hit 250, and I would hazard a guess that the 18th had some sort of equipment malfunction to shoot a 241.

Cheers,
Keith

 

[MRL]

Ya know this talk about providing a way to come back from a dropped point is kinda silly to me. I think that a 250 score as the "entry" to play; yes matches are decided on X's but if you can't keep 25 shots in or touching a 1/2" ring how many X's do you feel you have a realistic chance of shooting?