Scorring:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pete Wass

Pete Wass

Well-known member
There is a thread on another site discussing scoring. While there is nothing to date perfect, I believe a plug is the best device, providing the bullet hole isn't macerated beyond having a hole to use. There are reticles being used out there that some swear by but the problem with them is we are all expected to participate in scoring. There is no training for scoring that I am aware of and the old "common sense" rule is offered up. Scoring and common sense have no relevance to each other.

With a reticle, it is left up to the scorer or , in some cases, a referee to center the circle around the center of the bullet hole. From my experience, this often does not happen. People judge the bullet hole's relationship to the circle differently. I have thought for a long time that a plug is easier to use and with the good paper we seem to have in the target cards now, a better, fairer way to score.

The IR 50/50 plug has a built in magnifier and is constructed in such a way that once it is inserted in the bullet hole it centers up and IF the person scoring looks straight down, the truth is told. The problem I see with the use of any of the measuring equipment is a standardized , written procedure for using the device not available. I believe people scoring should have to qualify to do so. Our scores are the only thing we shooters get from these games, for the most part. There are not many "Money" matches.

Let the flames be turned up. :)

Pete
 
Last edited:
Pete, I have to agree with you as I prefer the plug type as well. I have one I use for 22 rimfire, but nothing is available any longer for other calibers. The last time this discussion came up it was noted that the previous manufacturer held the patent on the plug/magnifiers and wasn't interested in licensing it to anyone else.
 
Using a plug is fraught with problems that cause inaccurate scores. I have a full set of plugs and if I'm not mistaken, the 30 caliber plug measures bigger than .308" for some reason. Then there is the paper, the backing of the paper, the use of the plug by the scorer placing it in the paper, referees dicking with the plug while it's placed in the hole, the paper being "turned down" in the hole pushing the plug in and trying to imagine where it would be if the paper were flat. Not to mention if the paper is wet from rain.

A reticle is simple, the paper is laid flat, the ring is centered, and it's position to the ring/dot is determined. Much less room for error. There is always the element of interpretation regardless of which method, but the reticle is by far more accurate, whether it's used for score or group.
 
I've seen too amny bad calls

Wayne Shaw said:
Using a plug is fraught with problems that cause inaccurate scores. I have a full set of plugs and if I'm not mistaken, the 30 caliber plug measures bigger than .308" for some reason. Then there is the paper, the backing of the paper, the use of the plug by the scorer placing it in the paper, referees dicking with the plug while it's placed in the hole, the paper being "turned down" in the hole pushing the plug in and trying to imagine where it would be if the paper were flat. Not to mention if the paper is wet from rain.

A reticle is simple, the paper is laid flat, the ring is centered, and it's position to the ring/dot is determined. Much less room for error. There is always the element of interpretation regardless of which method, but the reticle is by far more accurate, whether it's used for score or group.
Click to expand...

during my years when using the reticle. I find it way too subjective as to where the circle is centered. What you point out without saying so is there are no established directions for scoring, there should be and folks trained to score. Paper has gotten a lot better over the past few years so that most of the holes I have seen in quite a while are solidly round. I think once paper is wet, the true hole is lost anyway, just the breaks of the game. I remain believing that a plug in a hole is a lot less subjective than a movable circle. It would be pretty tough to com up with a plug to score groups, eh?
Pete
 
I prefer the reticule, if used properly it is more accurate than the plug because it doesn't follow tears like a plug and you can score a wet target more accurately. Either can be subjective to the scorer's use and if you don't agree protest it to the referees. I've seen bad calls with the plug also when I've been a ref and I've seen other ref's not looking straight down on the plug. I f you don't look straight down on the plug you will see white almost everytime where the plug pushes the paper down.The reticule appears to be more idiot proof to me, but that's just my opinion.
 
steve stanley said:
I prefer the reticule, if used properly it is more accurate than the plug because it doesn't follow tears like a plug and you can score a wet target more accurately. Either can be subjective to the scorer's use and if you don't agree protest it to the referees. I've seen bad calls with the plug also when I've been a ref and I've seen other ref's not looking straight down on the plug. I f you don't look straight down on the plug you will see white almost everytime where the plug pushes the paper down.The reticule appears to be more idiot proof to me, but that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with Wayne & Steve. IME the plug is much more subject to mistakes and misreading. As far as training, I don't know who would do it or the expense/travel involved. Again IME it isn't that tough to teach people to score. When there are two or three capable referees most shooters are satisfied that the score is fair. Of course there are always a few who just won't agree no matter what. Sometimes the shooter just can't accept reality and I'll admit to being on the wrong side of that myself a time or two.

Rick
 
I guess, fortunately

there aren't a lot of bad calls. I thin it would be quite easy to train/ test folks as far as scoring is concerned. Send em 10 targets to score and see what one gets back for answers.

Pete
 
Everything has some issue. The plug is subject to misalignment, some would argue manipulation, and holes do not get any better with more than one plug. Over the years, I cannot count how many look at it off to the side.
A good reticle works the same way a reciever sight works, the eye naturally centers it on the true hole.
That said the primary score targets we participate in are IR50/50 which allows a protest with a 3 ref re-score which is very fair to all involved. Even then, there are some shots that are so close, they get protested, simply because you may catch a break when the plug goes in a second time........what does that tell you?
 
Last edited:
I lean on the side of the reticle, but do think that uniform lighting, such as a light box, would help. That etched ring seems to gather light in full sun and appear bigger at times. I've scored a bunch of targets both ways and agree that neither is perfect but I think there is less down side to the reticle. Ideally, it'd be nice if it could all be done electronically, IMO, but it's not very feasible everywhere or with different targets.
 
Good grief!! This is not difficult.

I have scored for ARA, 50/50, and ABRA with two different kinds of plugs with no problem. I am sure that I could use a reticle as well. It would be a waist of time to try to tell me or most scorers how to score. I would gladly let someone else do it and I could go shoot the bull with my friends.

I have seen many close calls but I have never seen one that could not be clearly determined. I am more worried about mathematical mistakes.

Anyway, It is just a game that we enjoy.

Bill
 
I agree and More

Peter,

I agree with you totally. Even more, on the centerfire side of the house. It would so easy to have a plug reticle with 6mm plug and 30 cal ring. That would allow the scoring between the calibers to even out. This would be the more sportsman and gentleman thing to do. There is a group of fine gentleman and sportsman that shoot for the pleasure of shooting. I am one of those and so are you. Unfortunately we have element that is just in shooting for the score and will use every advantage to munipulate that score. Including having scoring advantages including controlling scorers, refs and rules.


Daryl
 
Well, to clear one thing up here is that there are plugs available for different centerfire calibres, not just rimfire. I taught my wife how to score at the beginning of the season, she gravitates towards using the plugs and we have.30, 6mm, 6.5mm .22 we also have the optical scoring device but for reasons stated above she thinks that is more difficult to get it lined up to her liking! Now here is where the common sense comes in, as long as the same scorer is doing everything consistently the same, to every target then there are very few problems, I taught her to always look straight down on the plug and any hole that she puts the plug in she puts a P next to the score to let the shooter know that it has been looked at closely! The person doing the scoring has to be consistent, and if there are any protests the referee's can resolve it via the plug or the optical scoring device. The last argument is usually spoken of but I donT think it as valid as everyone thinks it is, that is that once a plug is inserted it enlarges the hole to the point that if later the optical scoring device is used it may give the shooter a point he didn actually earn! The bottom line is if it is done the same way everytime by the scorer then there should not be but a very few questionable calls!
 
Jackie
I love your thinking, can you offer up any hints to help me acheive that score! I understand your pretty good at this game!
 
There is a very good example of what I mean

about the subjective nature of centering the bullet hole, on the Texas Rimfire site. There is a discussion about this very issue. A contributor posted a picture of a shot and superimposed two red circles over it, one .218 and the other .224. If one looks at how that person placed the circles, one can easily see that the circles are not centered over the bullet hole. The person instead used the splatter from the torn paper or backer as a reference.

At least it's clear to me that we are scoring bullet holes; where bullets actually go through the paper, not the macerated aftermath, and here in lies the problem. There needs to be instructions set fourth that describes how bullet holes are to be viewed and how the circle or circles are to be positioned over the bullet hole. I am surprised more people aren't concerned. All a shooter gets from this game, most of the time, are their scores. The scores matter, over the long run. I think there is the assumption that everyone is going to place the circle in the same place but I am quite sure that is not the case at all.

Pete
 
Last edited:
From an outsider looking in,
anything that disturbs the hole in the paper,
makes repeating the measurement questionable.
so no plugs.....
 
A little wisdom

We score the very best that we can regardless of the score or the person. It is not perfect but we all try.

Bagger Vance from the movie on golf, "It is a game to be played not won."

Surely this also applies to bench rest.

Bill
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top