Professional Shooting League, Calfee

Status
Not open for further replies.
RBL,
What you don't understand is the whole concept of string measure. In fact, what you said is exactly, 100%, totally wrong. The measure is from the target's center. A 1-hole group is a 1-whole group but it does not tel you anything about the string measure.

I'm sorry, but read through the examples again and rethink your drink. There will be another make-up quiz next week. :rolleyes:

Brent
 
RLB 40X said:
What you string guys dont understand is the differance in score and group.If you shot a 50 in the exact same spot every time you would have a score of 1250 and have the smallest string measurement,but you did not hit anything,so the guy that misses should win?
Click to expand...

Aw Shucks, Brent posted before I did, so this is a little out of context.

What “you” don’t seem to understand is that we are measuring exactly the same way as the current method, but with more precision. We are determining the total distances as a sum from the bullet hole to the Bullseye and “not” the distances between the holes in a group as you state.

With “String Measure” you would eliminate the potential for ties “and” have a superior evaluation of the shooter/firearm combination.

I’m not going to reread the entire thread to know for certain, but I’m not sure a single person has stated the current method of scoring needs to be changed at the present time.
At the existing level of accuracy, barring a statistical anomaly, we shouldn’t see any ties with the way targets are currently scored and if people want to live with the chance it’s possible to shoot better than the guy next to you, but still lose….that’s fine with me too because it wouldn’t happen very often anyway. I think all or most of us are only suggesting this would be a viable option if precision shooting evolves to the point it may be needed.

I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and I wish everyone a Happy New Year too.
 
I think that this "string" measure would do nothing but hurt the league. I mean it this way. If your shooting a match in tough conditions and get a bad round the worst you could do is score a zero. Now that zero could be just barely out of scoring a 25 or almost out of the scoring box. Either way, that shot is the same for score and a lot of shooters might feel that they can come back from that.. But in the string scoring method the zero is not just a zero it is either a shot that might be able to be overcome (the shot that is would almost make a 25) or one that dooms the entire match (the shot almost out of the scoring box). I would hate to think of my match being gone with no hope because of one bad round that could not, under any real world circumstances, be overcome...
That thought in mind, could keep many shooters away..

Just my 2 cents.. (worth about .5 cents in todays economy :eek:)
 
Brent

BrentD said:
RBL,
What you don't understand is the whole concept of string measure. In fact, what you said is exactly, 100%, totally wrong. The measure is from the target's center. A 1-hole group is a 1-whole group but it does not tel you anything about the string measure.

I'm sorry, but read through the examples again and rethink your drink. There will be another make-up quiz next week. :rolleyes:

Brent
Click to expand...

Brent, why don't you take your string and quiz over to the centerfire forum. You and "Son Of A Gunn" can help them for a while. You have done your job here and we all appreciate your help. Thanks again, James Pappas
 
James, I'm sure you would love to cover for me on the centerfire forum. I'm not much interested in it actually, so knock yourself out.

Dale, I am thinking that you are not understanding the concept very well. A shot just out in the "0" would be less detrimental than a zero, and your match may very well not be over. Overcoming zeros is pretty tough, no? Try it a few times and see what you think. Ya never know.

Oh, and one more interesting thing. The 100, 50, 25 scoring rings are sort of interesting. It's an exponential series (each ring being 1/2 the value of the next one in) instead of an linear (constant value between each ring e.g., 100, 75, 50, 25, or 10, 9 8....), series like almost every other target that I know of. Why is that? It really does penalize the one bad shot actually.

Brent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad shots hurt! That's what makes it interesting. Shoot an IR5050 or RBA match and see where you come out with a zero on the card.
 
Brent

BrentD said:
James, I'm sure you would love to cover for me on the centerfire forum. I'm not much interested in it actually, so knock yourself out.

Dale, I am thinking that you are not understanding the concept very well. A shot just out in the "0" would be less detrimental than a zero, and your match may very well not be over. Overcoming zeros is pretty tough, no? Try it a few times and see what you think. Ya never know.

Oh, and one more interesting thing. The 100, 50, 25 scoring rings are sort of interesting. It's an exponential series (each ring being 1/2 the value of the next one in) instead of an linear (constant value between each ring e.g., 100, 75, 50, 25, or 10, 9 8....), series like almost every other target that I know of. Why is that? It really does penalize the one bad shot actually.

Brent
Click to expand...

I guess what I should have said is, you can post about string measurements everyday for the next five years and it won't change how we score. I can't make it any plainer. You need to start your own game then you can score it like you want. That should be easy for someone who is a professor as you are. Build it and they will come. James Pappas
 
Hey Wilbur, how about a forum policy, nobody gets to suggest rules changes unless there is some credible evidence that they've actually shot in some match somewhere. Also consider special penalties when the same point gets hammered over 25 times.
 
Well, we could have all sorts of rules. Like you can't argue against something you can't understand. Tim, that would rule you out instantly. And you get more demerits for repeatedly being unable to comprehend. Please, go do something constructive, or at least stay in the shallow end of the pool.

Or, we could argue that you can't argue against something that you haven't actually tried.... Makes at least as much sense as arguing that I have to shoot a bench rest match to be allowed to suggest anything.

The bottom line is that I watch this board to pick up a little about top-notch .22 accuracy - which is basically Bill Calfee posts since the rest of this forum seems to be mostly aq bunch of whining.

Anyway, when it comes to quantifying accuracy I thought I had a something to contribute a point of discussion. It is, believe it or not, something I actually know just a smidgen about. Never really thought one would change rules right off the bat, but it seemed like an item that might be of interest to many of you here. The discussion could have gone a lot of different directions from what eventually happened. But it didn't.

What I got out of it was to be kicked and slapped around by some of the most unfriendly folk I have seen anywhere. For what really? Did I insult you? I don't think so? Did I threaten you? Not so far as I can tell. So what exactly, did I do to deserve this? I suggested something different than the status quo. And some of you all but blew a blood vessel.

So, what we gos it that a few of you, being just as rude as you can, jabbered on that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm an "idiot" and so forth. A different response that might have been a little polite, possibly even cordial (heaven forbid) and this whole thing would have just faded away. Probably in less that three posts after my initial one. Well, now you've had your bitchfest, so I suppose maybe we can all just let this scroll on down the page, and I'll just sit and lurk for more Calfee tidbits. Or not. Your call.

I know there are a few decent guys among you, but I really have to wonder if the bulk of are really nothing more than bunch of two-bit, put down artists. Not a good sign for the future of this particular sport.

Brent

PS. And Hovie, I'm still waiting.... :D
 
I'm sorry to dispoint you Mad Ox. I'm just a simple Midwesterner. Born, raised, and returned after living a lot of other places.

I'm sure your comment, however, was meant with sincerity and respect, and was not meant as an insult. And, I'm just as just as sure it has something constructive to add to this thread - even though I can't for the life of me figure out what.

You have a good day not. I am sure you are feeling better.

Brent
 
Well, it wasn't meant as an insult but I don't think it adds anything. Looking back at most of this thread, I don't see that being a requirement. You know, you just get a mental picture of someone. I guess it's seldom right. Just seems like you ought to have a British accent, tweed jacket, pipe, gap in the teeth, that sort of thing.
 
Sorry, none of the above. How about you? Tweeds your thing? Maybe a few gaps too ???

Brent
 
Guys your being a bit mean spirited here, 15 pages of bashing BrentD. I don't want to be a Brent "ball washer" here but he does not deserve the bashing. If this is any kind of respectable forum prominent members should speak up for Brent.

If the chips were down i for one would want Brent on my team, for one he damn sure ain't gonna give up when he is right and he has been very respectful (well most of the time) while being bashed for no no reason.... and he was correct. he never said change anything, just maybe a professional league "should consider" was all he suggested. Beau gave him a "welcome", maybe others should consider it.... i'm just sayin: joe
 
JGEE,

You're one of those little guys who steps out from the back of the tough guy and says "yeeeaaaah" aren't you?
 
Shoot in TEXAS

Joe:
Before you get in too deep, maybe you should start shooting with us in TX. BrentD will never show up to display his real talent nor will he compete in any of the top notch RF disaplines. Maybe Madrox should do the same.
 
Brent, you just hang in there, a lot of guys here are "funny" folks, a name coined by the next most beguiled member of this board. Your string score is absolutely the best, most precise method I have ever heard of. It's amazing how many don't, won't, can't comprehend the simplicity. Thanks, Douglas
 
Fred J said:
Joe:
Before you get in too deep, maybe you should start shooting with us in TX. BrentD will never show up to display his real talent nor will he compete in any of the top notch RF disaplines. Maybe Madrox should do the same.
Click to expand...

Mr. Fred i do plan on shooting with you guys. I'm trying to get up to speed. I have 2 daughters that live in Austin one wants to shoot in one of the "contest" with me. Thanksgiving first time she ever shot a rifle, Lorie shot my bone stock 82G and said she like shooting.

LJ1A.jpg

There is a gun store in Austin and last week she wanted to get me some ammo for christmas... Had to argue with the sales person( said they didn't have anything) and she pointed to a box of rem club extra - that even surprised me!

I don't have much talent to display but i want to have fun, I have a lot to learn but rimfire is really enjoyable. I don't mind being bashed at all but just thought this was just a bit too much. thanks for the invite!:) joe
 
Mad Ox. I reckon I'm big enough. Are you challenging me to something? Just curious.... :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top