B
BobZ
Guest
We are using a prototype scoring table in Houston at PSC to score the World Target. 11x17. This table allows for the plug to be inserted straight in and use a magnifying glass to check the close ones.
We are using a prototype scoring table in Houston at PSC to score the World Target. 11x17. This table allows for the plug to be inserted straight in and use a magnifying glass to check the close ones.
M
ModelA
Guest
Scoring table/ light box
Bob,
Have used a scoring board since day one. Using a flash light from underneath on the close ones.
Have used a light box for scoring that Peter Wass made in Maine off of 110 v running off a small inverter from his car.
A battery powered led strip that Michael made at Easthampton, MA
Todd Banks made one several years ago also battery powered.
Using a light box under the target sure helps with the scoring accuracy.
Paul
Bob,
Have used a scoring board since day one. Using a flash light from underneath on the close ones.
Have used a light box for scoring that Peter Wass made in Maine off of 110 v running off a small inverter from his car.
A battery powered led strip that Michael made at Easthampton, MA
Todd Banks made one several years ago also battery powered.
Using a light box under the target sure helps with the scoring accuracy.
Paul
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Coldking
Guest
Scoring table
Just saw your plexiglass top -
Wondering where to get one or two ?
And if there are any premanufactured scoring tables with back light?
Would really help with our geriatric scorers!?
Me included
CK
Just saw your plexiglass top -
Wondering where to get one or two ?
And if there are any premanufactured scoring tables with back light?
Would really help with our geriatric scorers!?
Me included
CK
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
I have scored a lot of targets over the years and - - -
the best setup I have seen exists @ Fairchance, Pa. They have a table set- up with lights beneath which provide just the right amount of light for my eyes, anyway.
The set up they use @ Open Grove looks like a good one as well. Bottom line is, there needs to be light beneath to get a real good look for close ones AND people scoring need to look straight down at the plug.
Pete
the best setup I have seen exists @ Fairchance, Pa. They have a table set- up with lights beneath which provide just the right amount of light for my eyes, anyway.
The set up they use @ Open Grove looks like a good one as well. Bottom line is, there needs to be light beneath to get a real good look for close ones AND people scoring need to look straight down at the plug.
Pete
Last edited:
G
garrettkq
Guest
Yeah there is this new digital scoring table that is being used in Phoenix. It actually blows up the pellet hole to about 6" in diameter on a monitor. It's pretty high tech. It works on both the 50 and 25 targets. 
Pete Wass
Well-known member
I prefer
what IR 50/50 is using or, I should say, has prescribed to be used at this time or at least we used all last season. It's a brass plug with a separate magnifier. The plug gets to follow the bullet through the paper, the way the bullet did and the magnifier, when used properly. The problem comes when folks choose to not use the equipment properly.
Perhaps taking the "Human Element" out of scoring is the right thing but only if protests can be dispensed with. If everyone will accept what the machine says without question, then OK.
Pete
what IR 50/50 is using or, I should say, has prescribed to be used at this time or at least we used all last season. It's a brass plug with a separate magnifier. The plug gets to follow the bullet through the paper, the way the bullet did and the magnifier, when used properly. The problem comes when folks choose to not use the equipment properly.
Perhaps taking the "Human Element" out of scoring is the right thing but only if protests can be dispensed with. If everyone will accept what the machine says without question, then OK.
Pete
Last edited:
It will take time...
Yeah there is this new digital scoring table that is being used in Phoenix. It actually blows up the pellet hole to about 6" in diameter on a monitor. It's pretty high tech. It works on both the 50 and 25 targets.
What I'm talking about is a totally automatic system, not only magnifying for better interpretation.
You put the target on a calibrated scan and the system does the rest, ending with the total score, number of Xs and 1st miss.
No human interference but scan and running the software.
G
garrettkq
Guest
Pedro
Well actually that is what the Phoenix group has been using now for years.
It has become widely accepted as the standard for scoring, taking the weakest link out of the equation which is the paper, when using the plug system. It's fully automated, and allows for human intervention if necessary. Best of all worlds.
D
Dave Shattuck
Guest
Whether scoring by the use of magnification and the human eye, or by mechanical means, it should always be the shooter's right to protest as neither method will ever be perfect! Just look at how well your "Spell-Checker" works on your computer.
I've been scoring targets for 22 years and feel the advantage to scoring manually over mechanically is the human factor. The only trick is getting all the people doing the scoring do it the same, as Pete described. And the biggest challenge there will be to have everyone at every range across the country do it the same. Hence the reasoning behind why we have to send in any record targets for verification.
To each their own, but as with most everything else I guess it's called "progress"?
Obviously, my vote goes for that scoring board. Very nice.
Dave
I've been scoring targets for 22 years and feel the advantage to scoring manually over mechanically is the human factor. The only trick is getting all the people doing the scoring do it the same, as Pete described. And the biggest challenge there will be to have everyone at every range across the country do it the same. Hence the reasoning behind why we have to send in any record targets for verification.
To each their own, but as with most everything else I guess it's called "progress"?
Obviously, my vote goes for that scoring board. Very nice.
Dave
Pete Wass
Well-known member
That Human Element involved:
The Human Factor. I have seen everything from ineptitude to conspiracy with the settling of protests so I don't have a lot of faith in humans. Having said that, I have made mistakes when scoring and readily admit it. I have only experienced automation once, at The Barn, years ago. I could not find any fault with the scoring of my targets there, done with a scanner and software. Good enough that I would be willing to accept the results without the right to protest, as long as everyone else did.
Scores are almost always the only thing a shooter gets from their effort and expense so scores must be correct for everything to be fair and just. Fair and just shouldn't be a moving target. Perhaps a machine is better and probably, not subjective or slanted toward or away from anyone in particular.
Pete
The Human Factor. I have seen everything from ineptitude to conspiracy with the settling of protests so I don't have a lot of faith in humans. Having said that, I have made mistakes when scoring and readily admit it. I have only experienced automation once, at The Barn, years ago. I could not find any fault with the scoring of my targets there, done with a scanner and software. Good enough that I would be willing to accept the results without the right to protest, as long as everyone else did.
Scores are almost always the only thing a shooter gets from their effort and expense so scores must be correct for everything to be fair and just. Fair and just shouldn't be a moving target. Perhaps a machine is better and probably, not subjective or slanted toward or away from anyone in particular.
Pete
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
It seems that Europe
directs a lot more money into their shooting activities than we here in the States do, in most places at least. I suspect the dough comes from the various governments involved but don't know. I don't know how much money our governments spend on shooting sports but I suspect the Olympics are the only thing that gets funded.
Pete
directs a lot more money into their shooting activities than we here in the States do, in most places at least. I suspect the dough comes from the various governments involved but don't know. I don't know how much money our governments spend on shooting sports but I suspect the Olympics are the only thing that gets funded.
Pete
Pete Roberson
Member
Plugs
The best system was the plug with the magnifier attached (that Bill Hinegardner had made) allowing for the plug to be straight through the hole.
To me allowing the plain plug to be put into a hole with the thought of it following the travel of the bullet just doesn't
work for me, with it being crooked then putting a magnifier over it is just asking for a false reading?!
Fighting the plug, without the magnifier, to be straight what did we gain??
As far as the record committee and what they use ????????
Plexiglass with a light source under it may be too bright and not allow the scorer to see the rings on the target that well??
I don't know for sure haven't tried one yet?
The best system was the plug with the magnifier attached (that Bill Hinegardner had made) allowing for the plug to be straight through the hole.
To me allowing the plain plug to be put into a hole with the thought of it following the travel of the bullet just doesn't
work for me, with it being crooked then putting a magnifier over it is just asking for a false reading?!
Fighting the plug, without the magnifier, to be straight what did we gain??
As far as the record committee and what they use ????????
Plexiglass with a light source under it may be too bright and not allow the scorer to see the rings on the target that well??
I don't know for sure haven't tried one yet?
Last edited:
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Pete, I don't understrand your logic
if a bullet travels through the paper at an angle, how can altering that angle by forcing a pin with a magnifier attached give a more correct reading? To me, the more correct reading is the angle the bullet went through. I guess it's things like this that make a horse race though, eh? I don't think I have had any problem with errors with the new plug and magnifier. What I would like to see though is that everyone use the exact same system all the time, every time. I guess to do that, everyone would need to own the same scoring box and light source though, eh? We have discussed all the rest of my concerns previously. Perhaps a third party, such as a machine is a better way. Then, everyone could blame the machine.
Our current light box is a white plastic box with a Plexiglas top on it. It still needs extra light often to be able to see close ones.
Merry Christmas,
Pete
if a bullet travels through the paper at an angle, how can altering that angle by forcing a pin with a magnifier attached give a more correct reading? To me, the more correct reading is the angle the bullet went through. I guess it's things like this that make a horse race though, eh? I don't think I have had any problem with errors with the new plug and magnifier. What I would like to see though is that everyone use the exact same system all the time, every time. I guess to do that, everyone would need to own the same scoring box and light source though, eh? We have discussed all the rest of my concerns previously. Perhaps a third party, such as a machine is a better way. Then, everyone could blame the machine
.Our current light box is a white plastic box with a Plexiglas top on it. It still needs extra light often to be able to see close ones.
Merry Christmas,
Pete
D
Dave Shattuck
Guest
One of the biggest problems I see with forcing the use of a scoring "machine" (computer w/scanner) would be two fold: the cost, and the probability of not having a power soarce available.
At Pinnacle Mountain the cost in itself would have forced us out of the game as we were always a small Club which usually only had 4 or 5 shooters turning out, so there was no way to recover the costs. On top of that, whatever the system it would have had to be battery operated as there is no power source allowed at the range due to it sitting in the middle of a State controlled Flood Plain, and way too far away from the Clubhouse to run extention cords from. And believe me, when it floods the water can rise to 3 or more feet above the bench tops, which are already elevated as all the firing lines were built on top of berms because of this.
In fairness to all Clubs I feel allowing for manual scoring is essential, even if it means requiring manual scoring, as that way every Club is working under the same handicap.
I will mention no names, and I know some of you older rimfire shooters may figure this out, but years ago there were strong rumors about one of the larger Clubs in the country helping to persuade the results in favor of their own members over outsiders by "leaning" against the plug either toward the X for their members, or away from the X for the visitors. They were brazen enough to do this at a match in front of the organizations owners, so got caught and were immediately kicked out loosing their sanctioning. But for a couple of years they caused lots of frustration to some of the top shooters in the country, hence the visit from the owners.
Whatever the answer, there will have to be some leeway given to allow for special circumstances as I don't see going mechanical as being an absolute solution.
Just more food for thought.
As Pete said: Merry Christmas.
Dave.
At Pinnacle Mountain the cost in itself would have forced us out of the game as we were always a small Club which usually only had 4 or 5 shooters turning out, so there was no way to recover the costs. On top of that, whatever the system it would have had to be battery operated as there is no power source allowed at the range due to it sitting in the middle of a State controlled Flood Plain, and way too far away from the Clubhouse to run extention cords from. And believe me, when it floods the water can rise to 3 or more feet above the bench tops, which are already elevated as all the firing lines were built on top of berms because of this.
In fairness to all Clubs I feel allowing for manual scoring is essential, even if it means requiring manual scoring, as that way every Club is working under the same handicap.
I will mention no names, and I know some of you older rimfire shooters may figure this out, but years ago there were strong rumors about one of the larger Clubs in the country helping to persuade the results in favor of their own members over outsiders by "leaning" against the plug either toward the X for their members, or away from the X for the visitors. They were brazen enough to do this at a match in front of the organizations owners, so got caught and were immediately kicked out loosing their sanctioning. But for a couple of years they caused lots of frustration to some of the top shooters in the country, hence the visit from the owners.
Whatever the answer, there will have to be some leeway given to allow for special circumstances as I don't see going mechanical as being an absolute solution.
Just more food for thought.
As Pete said: Merry Christmas.
Dave.
Yep, here's the same, so don't feel alone