KUDOS FRANCIS! I'm sick of going to the range and hearing after u won, OH you had the honey hole, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, BLAB! I go to the range, put my money down, pick a bench and It's up to me to get er done. If I don't do well, SO WHAT! If I get the worst bench at the range, SO What. It's just a game, nothing more. So what, I didn't win that stupid $2.00 piece of wood, I had fun and I got to bullsht with the guy's and have a few laughs, and that's what's it really is all about. It's not like any of us is going to be recognized like Michael Jordan when we walk down the street. How many of the masses know who Tony Boyer is? Not many. I agree with you 110 percent about the creedmore system. It's not fair at all, especially if you shoot 2 aggs, 100 & 200, and I won the 100, the other guy who ended up tying with me in the grand agg won the 200, why should I end up winning the GA? I'd give it to the other guy. It's 4 times easier to win at 100 than it is at 200. He deserves to win, not me. Maybe we need to quit changing rules and go back to the rules when this whole brigatta started. Your also right about the you have to shoot a 250 to win mentality. I'm guilty of that myself. In late May, I shot a 244-3x's at 300 and won. I beat myself up all the way home about shooting a 244. That was dumb, I won, and I should of been happy about it. If anybody ever shot at Lincoln County Rifle range in Damariscotta, ME, it's REALLY TOUGH to shoot a 250 there at 300. It's only been done about 6 or 7 times. It's near the ocean and the winds are really tricky there. Bottom line is we are in this game because we all love to shoot. Let's not have a bunch of new and better rules spoil it and leave a bad taste in people's mouths.
Question for score shooters?
- Thread starter Jim Pag
- Start date
KUDOS FRANCIS! I'm sick of going to the range and hearing after u won, OH you had the honey hole, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, BLAB! I go to the range, put my money down, pick a bench and It's up to me to get er done. If I don't do well, SO WHAT! If I get the worst bench at the range, SO What. It's just a game, nothing more. So what, I didn't win that stupid $2.00 piece of wood, I had fun and I got to bullsht with the guy's and have a few laughs, and that's what's it really is all about. It's not like any of us is going to be recognized like Michael Jordan when we walk down the street. How many of the masses know who Tony Boyer is? Not many. I agree with you 110 percent about the creedmore system. It's not fair at all, especially if you shoot 2 aggs, 100 & 200, and I won the 100, the other guy who ended up tying with me in the grand agg won the 200, why should I end up winning the GA? I'd give it to the other guy. It's 4 times easier to win at 100 than it is at 200. He deserves to win, not me. Maybe we need to quit changing rules and go back to the rules when this whole brigatta started. Your also right about the you have to shoot a 250 to win mentality. I'm guilty of that myself. In late May, I shot a 244-3x's at 300 and won. I beat myself up all the way home about shooting a 244. That was dumb, I won, and I should of been happy about it. If anybody ever shot at Lincoln County Rifle range in Damariscotta, ME, it's REALLY TOUGH to shoot a 250 there at 300. It's only been done about 6 or 7 times. It's near the ocean and the winds are really tricky there. Bottom line is we are in this game because we all love to shoot. Let's not have a bunch of new and better rules spoil it and leave a bad taste in people's mouths.
Randy Jarvais
New member
One day at Thurmont...
I was attempting to tease the shooter that had just shot so well about how fortunate that he ended up with the "honey hole". He very coyly but astutely said, "It has been my experience that the 'honey hole' is usually where the best shooter is." How true, how true.
I get frustrated with new people wanting to change the rules so I say leave the rules alone. I generally agree with the KISS principle, but in the proposed Hunter rule change I haven't yet come to grips with what a magazine cut out has to do with an influx of new hunter shooters. Having been told by a someone who asked, some of the Hunter guns going to the line may/are not legal as far as magazines are concerned. In my 14 years of shooting IBS Benchrest, I have yet to see anyone check hunter gun magazines. To be honest, until that someone asked me last year about mine, I had not fully read/understood the specifics of hunter rifles and magazine requirements. I just trusted my gunsmith to build it properly.
Did I just provide an argument for doing away with magazines, maybe so???
Now having said the above, I sure appreciate having clarity within the rulebook so that there is only one interpretation of what an actual rule means! That is a different issue, trying to clarify existing rules such that they read for what they mean to say.
I was attempting to tease the shooter that had just shot so well about how fortunate that he ended up with the "honey hole". He very coyly but astutely said, "It has been my experience that the 'honey hole' is usually where the best shooter is." How true, how true.
I get frustrated with new people wanting to change the rules so I say leave the rules alone. I generally agree with the KISS principle, but in the proposed Hunter rule change I haven't yet come to grips with what a magazine cut out has to do with an influx of new hunter shooters. Having been told by a someone who asked, some of the Hunter guns going to the line may/are not legal as far as magazines are concerned. In my 14 years of shooting IBS Benchrest, I have yet to see anyone check hunter gun magazines. To be honest, until that someone asked me last year about mine, I had not fully read/understood the specifics of hunter rifles and magazine requirements. I just trusted my gunsmith to build it properly.
Did I just provide an argument for doing away with magazines, maybe so???
Now having said the above, I sure appreciate having clarity within the rulebook so that there is only one interpretation of what an actual rule means! That is a different issue, trying to clarify existing rules such that they read for what they mean to say.