Please Read, Another Perspective on "Score Shooting"

I agree with you Al. Keep it very close or same as IBS, and tweak it later if seen fit. IBS VFS has proven to be a solid and successful format as is. The only thing that I see might need any adjustment is the target size, and I'm not convinced of that yet. At least until there are more 250-25x targets being shot. Worst edge scoring will alienate existing score shooters from shooting NBRSA matches. They can be of great help in getting it going. JMHO--Mike
 
Last edited:
Al Nyhus said:
Here's some other numbers: A 30 shooter tournament, with a warm up match and five record matches, would require 900 measurements. :eek:

For one yardage. :eek:

To me, a better solution would be to simply decrease the size of the 10 ring and subsequent scoring rings.....that way the philospophy of Score shooting remains the same, the difficulty level increases and you're still rewarding the shooters that shoot closest to the center.
Click to expand...

while it is five measurements, its not five times the time as i pointed out...your first reference point is clearly est, so probably only 2-3 times that of a grp event...not the end of the world...buy one more tool and cut that time in half.

the winner should be the ONE THAT IS CLOSEST to the center, not the oneS that are closest to the center.

go jackie, go jackie
mike in co
 
Score Shooting

All,
I just checked the match results on the IBS home page, 6 matches, 94 shooters, the high winning X count was 24 and the lowest was 20 @ 100 yds, and high winning was 10 and low of 9 @ 200yds. I personally don’t think it is easy to shoot a 25X. Why not leave it the way it is?
John
Fla
 
Al Nyhus said:
All you'd need is a moving backer system and you could have a Group tournament. ;)

Adding layers of complexity to what should be a simple event isn't what you want to do, IMO. One of the biggest positives to Score shooting is that they're much easier to run than a Group event.

In the example above, the scorer will have to make five times the amount of measurements that they would in a Group tournament. A Group target has one measurement. A Score target done as outlined will have five measurements on it.

Here's some other numbers: A 30 shooter tournament, with a warm up match and five record matches, would require 900 measurements. :eek:

For one yardage. :eek:



Thank you Al,
This is exactly what I have been addressing. Frankly, I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of a change that radical this working it's way through the system. Right now, it's difficult enough to just get new shooters. Who knows whether or not the NBRSA will even take this seriously.

Seems to me the starting point would be for NBRSA to start VFS the same as it currently operates with IBS. There would be more ranges and many from both organizations would probably "cross pollinate". One change at a time seems enough for now. When the dust settles from that, then consider new games. I have only been at one match in 5 years where a 250-25x was shot. I think we're trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Rick
Click to expand...
 
I have followed these discussions on increasing the difficulty of the score target with interest, but what seems to be "lost in the noise" is that we already have a sufficiently difficult target that no one has actually EVER shot a "PERFECT SET OF TARGETS". Sure, there have been some 250 25X sets of targets shot, but there has never been a 250 25X with 25 wipe outs. In fact, there is still a ways to go until this event will occur.

Breaking 250 25X ties can be covered under the "first miss and out" tie breaking system (it can go to first non-wipe out) . This OBVIOUSLY awards closest to the center scoring to a level currently unobtainable with our equipment, and simplifies the scorers job since he will seldom have to resort to it. When we finally reach the point that 25 wipeouts is achievable, then it MAY be time to talk about increasing the difficulty of the target.

Look at how long it has been since the record 100 yard group target has been shot, and that record hasn't been seriously challenged on a regular basis since then. Should we also change the rules in group shooting to penalize groups that aren't centered on the bull just to increase the difficulty under the unlikely event that someone might shoot a 0.000?

If the reason for the new class in NBRSA is to increase attendance at matches, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use standardized rules that would draw competitors that currently only shoot IBS score matches? As I see it (and my "future vision" is admittedly cloudy at times ;)), a standardized format would benefit both NBRSA and IBS, plus being less intimidating for new shooters. To the new shooter it is more palatable to think "I did pretty well since I shot a 250. Now I just need to increase my X count to compete with the big boys". At least that's what I keep telling myself :D.

Opinions by Jim :D
 
Last edited:
Jackie ...

Jim Wooten said:
I have followed these discussions on increasing the difficulty of the score target with interest, but what seems to be "lost in the noise" is that we already have a sufficiently difficult target that no one has actually EVER shot a "PERFECT TARGET". Sure, there have been some 250 25X targets shot, but there has never been a 250 25X target with 25 wipe outs. In fact, there is still a ways to go until this event will occur.

Breaking 250 25X ties can be covered under the "first miss and out" tie breaking system (it can go to first non-wipe out) . This OBVIOUSLY awards closest to the center scoring to a level currently unobtainable with our equipment, and simplifies the scorers job since he will seldom have to resort to it. When we finally reach the point that 25 wipeouts is achievable, then it MAY be time to talk about increasing the difficulty of the target.

Look at how long it has been since the record 100 yard group target has been shot, and that record hasn't been seriously challenged on a regular basis since then. Should we also change the rules in group shooting to penalize groups that aren't centered on the bull just to increase the difficulty under the unlikely event that someone might shoot a 0.000?

If the reason for the new class in NBRSA is to increase attendance at matches, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use standardized rules that would draw competitors that currently only shoot IBS score matches? As I see it (and my "future vision" is admittedly cloudy at times ;)), a standardized format would benefit both NBRSA and IBS, plus being less intimidating for new shooters. To the new shooter it is more palatable to think "I did pretty well since I shot a 250. Now I just need to increase my X count to compete with the big boys". At least that's what I keep telling myself :D. Opinions by Jim :D
Click to expand...

I agree with Jim. I too see no need to reinvent the wheel. The matches you conducted at Tomball, that I attended, were a lot of fun (bringing home a blue ribbon each time was icing on the cake). Scoring went fast and the matches didn't drag on because of scoring complexity. And, if I recall correctly, you were able to turn the range over to the regular members sooner, rather than later, which appeared to be a constraint.

Adopting existing rules may be the advantageous approach to take. It might also help in bringing the two governing bodies closer to becoming a consolidated entity. Adopting different rules just drives the wedge deeper. Art :)
 
"I've always said and continue to say, "Show me the target, tell me the rules, get out of my way, and let me shoot". "

Franics - you have hit the nail on the head. I think many people (myself included) just want to be able to shoot score in more places - regardless of the target or scoring.

Stanley
 
However

This things shakes out, the potential for increasing the membership in the NBRSA and giving us score shooters more venues to shoot at is something to look forward too.

Thanks to all that are working in a forward direction, it is much appreciated;)
 
Jim Wooten said:
Look at how long it has been since the record 100 yard group target has been shot, and that record hasn't been seriously challenged on a regular basis since then. Should we also change the rules in group shooting to penalize groups that aren't centered on the bull just to increase the difficulty under the unlikely event that someone might shoot a 0.000?

Opinions by Jim :D
Click to expand...


has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand..

mike in co
 
Hey Guys

All I posted this "radical idea" for was so this sort of thing could be hashed out BEFORE the NBRSA BOD's meet. It gives our Board more info to work with and come up with a score shooting Discipline that they think will be in line with the Mandate of the NBRSA.

I can't even say if I would be in favor of this type of scoring, but as an active NBRSA Members, we have the obligation to get everything out in the open, and then make intelligent decisions based on facts, not conjecture. I have a feeling that in past years, this has NOT been the prevailing attitude.

As I see it, the ONLY problem with this "center of target to center of bullet" scoring system is the length of time it will take to measure and tally the targets. It solves the single biggest problem that "worst edge" and "best edge" offer, in that it negates the caliber that the shooter uses. As I said before, a Shooter can choose to shoot the most accurate thing he has.

I have talked to several shooters. It has been brought to my attention why many shooters would shy away from this type of system. That being, it takes the "line cushion" away. By that I mean this. On the scoring sheet, there is no difference between a "10 almost X" and a "10 almost 9". Both share equal status in the final talley, even though there is 1/4 inch difference in the shots from the center ofthe target.

Everybody be honest. Do you think this added difficulty would be a detrement to what this is all about in the first place, bringing in new shooters. Would the realization that in order to keep your shots centered to all within .125 of the center of that moth ball, you are going to need an extremely well tuned set-up, not to mention the shooter would have to read conditions at a championship level. No more, "I sure am glad that reticled a 10 instead of a 9". That means you probably have a shot 7/16 inch off the center. That probably won't get you much.

If this is what every body is scared of, then we are beating a dead horse. Just go with what is a proven product, and be done with it.

And as for other matches, such as Club Matches, we can still continue to shoot the same Format. These proposals are about NBRSA Registered Competition, and nothing else..........jackie
 
How many people who are suggesting these changes are people who actually run score matches? Want to change the game get a group of match directors together and let them "approve of the changes" before things get set in stone. These are the folks who have to do what the "idea" people come up with (Remember the Formica group targets for nice clean holes).
 
All I shoot is score as that is the only IBS venue in my area of travel. As the present discussion ensues, I sit back and wonder whether I would have continued in this sport if I had to worry "how I touched the dot". It took me a while to progress to shooting a 250 at 100 yards. I think it was 7 matches and I was using a full-blown 6ppc Benchrest gun. Please note the capital benchrest. The next dawning for me was when I realized that I needed to do more than just hit the ten ring. I would have to hit the dot 20 times on average if I wanted to place 1st. So that became my goal, hit the dot. What captured me to play this game was that as long as I hit the dot, it didn't matter that it wasn't as pretty as someone else's wipeout. It leveled the playing field for me as I was progressing. All I needed to do was touch it and it would count. I boldly (and arrogantly :)) proclaim that the shoe is on the other foot more often now. I hit the dot rather well and wipeouts are pretty. But that doesn't bother me if others aren't as pretty. It is also easy for me to track what I must score as the match progresses and I like that. It keeps me in the game as the day progresses. I think for new people, the idea of hitting the dot isn't so intimidating, but how I hit it might be.

In Maine we shoot 2 to 3 times a month and work our way over to Vermont every now and again. It is difficult to find people willing to score and retrieve targets, etc, so I think most of us around here prefer not to have to make it too technical for scoring because it becomes more of a burden to put on the match. As is, scoring is quick and relatively easy. Now all of this may not pertain to your organization and may not need to be part of your consideration. If so ignore it.

Another consideration from my perspective is that some venues have become stagnant (6ppc) but because of best edge scoring, new chamberings (30BR, 30x44, 30x45, 30xwhatever) have and continue to evolve. The 6ppc may not have evolved if rules hadn't placed a restriction of caliber for your group shoots. If you change best edge scoring, I suggest you will digress back as others have alluded. The 22ppc will probably have a resurgence. :)

Good luck with your decisions and hopefully something will come about as anything is better than nothing. Randy J.
 
Another radical idea

would be to combine group and Jackies "center" idea. To do so, the horizontal and vertical distances from the bullet hole to the center (or the magnitude of the distance and the angle) would need to be measured. With these two measurements for each shot, a scoring program could calculate the size of the group AND its distance from center.

Long range shooters already shoot group and score on the same target. The problem with doing this at short range is that groups are sometimes so small (one ragged hole) that it is impossible to know afterwards where each bullet hit. By shooting one bullet per bull, like a score target, each bullet hole is identifiable (and no backers are needed).

With the horizontal and vertical coordinates of each shot, you could apply any number of scoring algorithms, including the current 10x scheme. For that matter, you could award group, score and "center" trophies all from the same data.

Just stirring the pot,
Keith
 
Francis

No, if the Region Directors do it the correct way, they will vote the way that their Region Members told them to vote. This should have been done at the annual Region Meeting.

The only agenda item up for grabs is the one proposed by the Gulf Coast Region, which in short says that the NBRSA will adopt Varmint for Score as a Registered Competition, fired with any Rifle that is legal in NBRSA HV Class, and the target will be the same as the current one used in HBR.

After the motion is made by Scott Hunter, and, (hopefully), a second is recieved, then the individule Directors can discuss the matter, fine tune it, or do what ever they wish.

If passed, it then has to go before the GeneralMembership at the next NBRSA Nationals.

This will not be done in a vacuum. I have talked to enough shooters through out the Country to know that there are many who like this, many who hate it, and many, perhaps more than the other two, who could care less...........jackie
 
The shooters in our area and the ranges in our area know how much Dad and I have done to help out and promote Benchrest, so I won't go into all that. But, Because of running matches and Schools through the IBS we have made it our mission to get our butts over to Harrisburg PA for the Annual IBS winter meeting. For the past three years I remember listening to the reports of the Group and the Score Committee chairmen. To sum it up, they sound like this...

Group committee... Over the last year the nation has been hit with hard times... this has shown in our attendance report... We have had less interest and fewer shooters have caused some ranges to drop membership... Next years schedule will show less group shoots, but with less matches to go to more shooters may show up at those matches, making the match profitable for the host club.... >>>>>and so on, you get my point.

Score committee... Over the last year it has been evident that our nation has been hit with hard times... this has shown to some extent in our attendance report. Many clubs report that numbers are down per match. HOWEVER, what we have seen is that more clubs have come on line to the score shooting game. With more clubs on line, we have recorded more Aggregates being shot. NOW, the attendance has been down at most matches, but now there are more matches, so on a whole we have seen growth in attendance in the score shooting discipline.

This year we got a new president, Jeff Stover. At the end of the meeting we talked with him a bit and he made it clear that he was looking into why Score was succeeding while group was failing.

I think he will find these things...

1) it's easy to run a score match
2) it's cheap for a club to run a score match
3) It’s fun to shoot a score match
4) a club can host a dual yardage multi gun score event in one day

With the economy being what it is, shooters can have more fun on their day off, with less money and less travel costs. Plus clubs can dedicate the range to one discipline on Saturday and another on Sunday, and both can make a small profit without a lot of overhead.

Score shooting in the IBS works just the way it is written in the rule book. If the NBRSA is looking to increase Attendance or Aggregates, which in turn increases funds and memberships, they should look at the IBS Score discipline as an example of what works.

These measuring devises and computer programs all add workers and costs to the overhead and time needed to run a good match. Good Score Matches are being run every weekend at IBS clubs.

Keep It Simple Stupid

Paul
 
Hey Jackie, I like your scoring/measuring concept,

1. it removes any caliber advantage
2. measures true precision and accuracy
3. removes the expense of having to get a 30Br to be competitive in score (and yes I do shoot some score and if you think that anything smaller than a 30 can compete, match in match out, you are kidding yourself)
4. So it takes a little longer to score, start a little sooner, end a little later.
5 Just because one organization does it one way the other has to follow suit? Why? (Yes, I do belong to both). If you are going to keep everything the same, just have your range join the IBS and be done with it. (Flame suit on and buttoned up)
 
See post 88..... the IBS score format is fun to shot. Also why try to make score shooting as much like group shooting as you possibly can. Implement simple score shooting into the NBRSA and folks will shot what is most appealing to them. If the goal is to get more participation and new members the more difficult it is the less chance you have of achieving your goal.

just my .02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top