Professional Shooting League, Calfee

[J Pappas]

Brent

Tim we routinely use calipers that measure to 0.0005". Are you really having trouble understanding this or just looking to stir a pot?

Brent, Tim is not trying to stir the pot. He is trying in a nice way, as are the rest of us, to tell you that you don't have a clue about our game. You said in one of your post that we are not representative of the all people in rimfire benchrest. You are wrong again. Most of us have been shooting rimfire br for a long time. We are trying to tell you that what you talking about would be a giant step backwards and impossible to implement. From our point of view it is you that is stirring the pot.

 

[HuskerP7M8]

Besides...Can't most of you guys shoot better than that anyways?

Good Grief Vibe!

I don’t dare post how good or bad I shoot on “this” thread…I’d likely get crucified either way.

 

[BrentD]

Golly Darn, looks like I better be fast to get in the last word (fat chance).

In the end, what's to know about scoring any shoot-to-center rifle match? Really? Are they all so different? Not at all.

In this professional game the differences between First Place and First Loser will be incredibly small - No? And, in any competitive sport, we would hope, not arbitrary. So, why not do it with all the care and objectivity one can?

But some of you really can't even begin to imagine trying something new - even though it is something old. Too bad really. Being the best you can be is I suppose not really what it's all about for most of you. 'Tis sad.

Bill, sorry to rock your boat. I'm still a great admirer of your work and your writing and, because of you, I look in every hole in the rocks below every rapids for a hand full of old bullets. No luck so far. You have a good one.

Now, on with the drawing and quartering guys. Have at me. I think I can take it...

Brent

PS. Hov, did ya chicken out or what? Good golly man, you got a machine that should whip mine twelve ways to Sunday. What's the problem?
Brent

 

[jGEE]

I'm just glad Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone are dead. joe

 

[Fatback]

Brent
ot intended to be an ugly post but you don't get it still! the first PSL match is in February. If you want to climb the mountain you must come to the mountain. I am positive there will be plenty of compettetion for you exhibit you ability at 50 yards with a rim fire gun of your choice. Thats a lot closer than 200 yards and should be a snap for you. Come on down you will meet a lot of nice folks.

 

[Vibe]

Berntd,I am a bit curios about your statement on calibers that measure to .0005.I was a aero space toolmaker for 25 years & all of our personel tools were sent to be calibrated every 6 months,Calibers were not considered,they are not accurite enough.We never measured any thing with calibers,they were for bull work. You guys post these measurements & i doubt if you really know what a tenth really is,A good tool grinder will grind within a tenth & only the very good machinist know how to measure this close & get it right,& it will not be with calibers. BILL

He's talking half a thou, not half a tenth. Many CALIPERS, particularly the digitals will regularly display in 1/2 thousanths. Now where I work we have tool makers that can hold 1/2 a tenth...but it gets real ticky and real iffy below that - you really have to watch your temperature. Heck I have shimstock that is 0.00025", give or take a tenth.

 

[Butch Lambert]

Mr. Epperson,
They may readout .0005, but that doesn't mean they are accurate to that with a human using them.
Butch

 

[BrentD]

A half a thou may or may not be accurate but it seems to be reasonably repeatable. Be that as it may, for damn sure, it exceeds the precision of ring scoring by orders of magnitude (count'em Bill!). So, why use the least precise measuring stick (rings)? And you say I'm the idiot.. Right!

Brent

 

[steve b.]

What about the Spider monkeys???

 

[tim]

What about the Spider monkeys???

I'm gonna start going to church again, this surely must be what Hell is like.

 

[J Pappas]

Brent

A half a thou may or may not be accurate but it seems to be reasonably repeatable. Be that as it may, for damn sure, it exceeds the precision of ring scoring by orders of magnitude (count'em Bill!). So, why use the least precise measuring stick (rings)? And you say I'm the idiot.. Right!

Brent

Aw Brent, I don't think anyone has called you an idiot on this thread. Quite a few of us are wondering why you are trying to shove the string idea up our a$$, though. Since you have never shot our game I am amazed that you are such an expert at scoring our targets.

 

[Lew]

James, Butch, Tim and others: This thread has turned POINTLESS let it die a quick death...

 

[Vibe]

Mr. Epperson,
They may readout .0005, but that doesn't mean they are accurate to that with a human using them.
Butch

For the "bull work" we use them for - so long as they are repeatable to that when comparing one part to another during a given session it has been acceptable. For more reassurance in the accuracy, I suppose one could compare a stack of gauge blocks or a standard in between measurements.

 

[M LOVAN SMITH]

berntd,i am a bit curios about your statement on calibers that measure to .0005.i was a aero space toolmaker for 25 years & all of our personel tools were sent to be calibrated every 6 months,calibers were not considered,they are not accurite enough.we never measured any thing with calibers,they were for bull work. You guys post these measurements & i doubt if you really know what a tenth really is,a good tool grinder will grind within a tenth & only the very good machinist know how to measure this close & get it right,& it will not be with calibers. Bill

im not real sure about this " prince william of luray ", but from
my experience arent calipers about one notch up from a tape
measure???

Smitty

 

[Madrox]

Probably depends on if you're building the space shuttle or measuring bullet holes. It's all relative.

 

[jGEE]

I think i'm seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel!

James, Butch, Tim and others: This thread has turned POINTLESS let it die a quick death...

There are those in academia that would argue when facts don't bare out your case -doesn't make the postulation "pointless". Me i don't have a clue what kind of measuring or "how to" Mr.Brent is talking about. I don't think Brent ever did describe how he would measure.

This thread has enough participation, maybe someone could do a side -beside comparison on the 2 measuring systems.

At first i did think Mr. Brent was actually talking about "string" like in kite string. But now i'm thinking he has been talking about "string"... like a row of bullet holes across a target.

Or if each bullet hole distance was measured from dead center of the bull.... add 25 distance measurements together and it would give you a "string" of bullet hole distances. In my opinion, The shortest "string" or distances of numbers would be more accurate.

It does seem everyone is happy with the current system of measuring, but.......... Brent does seem to have a good point -we are arguing how good calipers can measure out to .0005, a distance my mind does not comprehend -but the current system used to measure Bench Targets is like using A, B, C blocks to measure with.

Any chance of everyone putting down the daggers long enough to explain this... i think the meaning of the word "string" may be where the wheel fell off the wagon in this thread. Brent did i finally "get it": joe

 

[Butch Lambert]

jGEE,
This thread was only about a target with multiple bullseyes. This discipline is to shoot only one time on each target. You need no measuring device for that. I don't know why you guys can't understand that. Start another thread about strings, string measuring, or whatever. It has no place on this particular thread. My post has nothing to do with what I think of his ideas, it just does not belong on this thread.
Butch

 

[BrentD]

Or if each bullet hole distance was measured from dead center of the bull.... add 25 distance measurements together and it would give you a "string" of bullet hole distances. In my opinion, The shortest "string" or distances of numbers would be more accurate.

Joe, you are getting it. A "string" is a string of numbers, summed. 0.001"+0.030" + 0.1".... etc. Doesn't matter if you are shooting one shot per bull or not. But, of course, bullet holes piled on top of each other make it hard to locate the shots). So, one shot per bull is definitely the best way to go for the br game. Just measure the distance to center of each bullet and add'em up.

Butch does not get it. Guess that makes me the "idiot" eh?


If you think about what a ring score does, it is exactly the same except that the rings thickness is the upper limit of the precision that you can resolve. And even on the itty-bitty 50 yd br targets, that is darn crude. For a professional league, something more precise might be better. It was, just a suggestion. But apparently that qualifies for a full keel-hauling with tar and feathering thrown in for good measure.

Joe, I would be happy to show you an example, but it would take me a bit and Butch would just call me an idiot again. But you have the concept figured out exactly.... If you were to actually impliment this, all you would need to do is work out the logistics of how the measurements would be made (to best leaded edge, or worst leaded edge, or center of the bullet hole) and what would do if the target's precise center is carried away by the bullet (template).

BTW, there are interesting things to do with those strings of numbers besides just adding them up. But that is another discussion for another day.

Brent

 

[Beau]

At first i did think Mr. Brent was actually talking about "string" like in kite string. But now i'm thinking he has been talking about "string"... like a row of bullet holes across a target.

I think we're literally talking about a ball of twine here. This is from a website discussing string measurement:

"(String Measurement) This is an old method still used to determine a shooter's skill at hitting a target. It assumes the point of aim is always the desired point of impact and is simply the sum of the distances from the point of aim to each bullet hole. Originally a string was used to gather the distances, hence the name. It is still a valid measure of total error relative to the aim point. String Measurements however cannot be used to analyze sight settings because it only measures the magnitude of error, not the direction of error. It is also not a useful measure of group size because a tight group located away from the Bullseye will produce a large String Measurement."

It's a really simple concept. Think of it as two shooters out plinking. They put a dot on something and shoot at it. The one closest to the dot is the winner and perceived to be the best on that given day. String measurement does the same thing. It goes one step further than plugging and actually measures the magnitude of shooter error to determine a winner.

 

[jGEE]

jGEE,
This thread was only about a target with multiple bullseyes. This discipline is to shoot only one time on each target. You need no measuring device for that. I don't know why you guys can't understand that. Start another thread about strings, string measuring, or whatever. It has no place on this particular thread. My post has nothing to do with what I think of his ideas, it just does not belong on this thread.
Butch

Mr. Lambert i apologize for my ignorance on thread manners here at BC, i'm learning.

If i may reply to your "This discipline is to shoot only one time on each target. You need no measuring device for that. I don't know why you guys can't understand that. "

I do understand, and i think it is 25 tagets per card, not sure how to say that. If i'm correct the "1 target" is added 25 times- there would be no way to score 2500 if the targets were not added.

I think Brent has been talking about the way all the "1 targets" are added. If it was about "1 target" wouldn't each shooter shoot 1 time then go to the scoreing bench?

Sorry for my confusion and mean no disrespect: joe