.009 world record ?

j mckinnie said:
I personal dont trust technology.:confused:
Click to expand...

Neither do I, but you would still have the same target to measure manually if need be.

Can't design it all myself, need some help from some suitably technically proficient people here. PM or emails welcome.

Jackie - been to matches and have participated, been to the Super Shoot twice, visited Wapwollopen once, had my own 100 yard bench range at the age of 13, owned several SOA BR guns at one time - interested in the game for nearly 50 years - so I do know something about BR (sorry to disappoint you).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sonof A. Gunn said:
Such stupidity - you try to improve something and all you get is criticism.

As I've posted in the past: you wonder why some people stay away from your game.

Someone here posted a clip to keep ammo boxes open - did he get criticized that "it ain't broke, so why..."?

Electronic scoring obviously is being used widely in Europe, the Olympics, and by the military - why is there so much resistance here to the idea?.......
because this is BENCHREST, and it aint broke....
Click to expand...

cause like people have said....your words do not support your supposed experience.
why would i accept the backer electronic measurement when the GROUP I SHOT IS ON THE SCORE TARGET ?
that would be a hurdle. then since the backer is moving how can anyone guarantee consistant movement ? less than 0.0000...else the so called position of my second group(first one is on the real target) is off in the electronic measurement.
there is nothing wrong with persuing lofty goals...but you also need realistic goals....today todays system works very well.

you need to design a system around the score target...not the backer. the backer is not the target.....you have started off on a bad assumption.

the listed system has a error possible of .0004...what happens with 5 or 10 shots ??



mike in co
 
Bob, you seem to keep coming up with ideas for somebody else to perfect and put into practice. Why not do it yourself?

Please keep in mind that a benchrest shoot is not a laboratory. We have to run the matches and then get the results out and get on with living. Under this system how would a potential world record be verified by a committee?

You had the idea of targets made from formica but absolutely refused to accept the reasons given that it was impractical. To understand the reasons you would have to put on a match using formica targets. All you could see was that a bullet made a neat, clean hole in the formica but you couldn't accept the assurance of those who have to run matches that it would not work and when your idea(s) are not embraced you get rude and insulting.

There is nothing wrong with trying to improve things but just don't get bent out of shape when your ideas are shot down by those who understand the inner workings of the game. Keep thinking and plugging.
 
mike in co said:
cause like people have said....your words do not support your supposed experience.
why would i accept the backer electronic measurement when the GROUP I SHOT IS ON THE SCORE TARGET ?
that would be a hurdle. then since the backer is moving how can anyone guarantee consistant movement ? less than 0.0000...else the so called position of my second group(first one is on the real target) is off in the electronic measurement.
there is nothing wrong with persuing lofty goals...but you also need realistic goals....today todays system works very well.

you need to design a system around the score target...not the backer. the backer is not the target.....you have started off on a bad assumption.

the listed system has a error possible of .0004...what happens with 5 or 10 shots ??



mike in co
Click to expand...

Mike - I have no idea (and I suspect others too) of what you're saying - your language is vague. About all I can say in response is that the movement of the backer would be PRECISELY controlled by a computer and motion control mechanics (they're called stepper motors - used for cnc work). An acoustic sensor would also mark the exact location of the backer when each bullet impacts yielding EXACT (to +/- .001" or better) AND OBJECTIVE (no need for a committee) measurement of the group.

Quote: the listed system has a error possible of .0004...what happens with 5 or 10 shots ??"

What are you saying? :confused:
 
Mickey - I'm continuously amazed at how many here completely misread/misunderstand my posts and then jump in with unfounded criticism. I'll respond to your post point by point:

You asked why I don't develop this myself - twice I've posted that I was soliciting help in the design because I don't know all the particulars about the systems needed (includes computer controlled motion control, electronics, mechanics, and acoustics). Believe me, if I knew everything needed, I would proceed on my own.

Next you asked how would a potential world record be verified by a committee. I get the feeling you (and others here) think I'm eliminating the traditional target and only using a backer. Not so. The backer system would be behind the standard target so you would still have the same 5 or 10 shot group on paper to submit to a committee IF NEEDED. If my backer system RELIABLY and VERIFIABLY measures the group PRECISELY to +/_ .001", the need for a committee would (or could) be obsoleted.

Finally, you brought up the old argument about my suggestions for an improvement in target materials. Everyone seems to think I suggested the ENTIRE TARGET would be made of Formica. Wrong on two counts: First I was suggesting and illustrating that there are possibly some materials that could be developed that would yield clean, sharply defined bullet holes. Formica type materials are not perfect, but show some promise - some effort by persons in the materials science field might yield some interesting results. Secondly, only a small portion of the target (where the group forms) would be made of the improved material.

As far as me being rude and insulting - I'm afraid I received a LOT more than I ever gave out!

In any case, this computerized backer system I'm proposing would work with any target (material) in front of it.

Everyone needs to understand EXACTLY what I'm saying before jumping in to criticize. I choose my words carefully and am doing my best to use the English language CLEARLY and PRECISELY.

The whole idea behind this system is to reliably measure group sizes to a tolerance of +/-.001" or better. Are you all not interested in such an idea or are you saying you already can do this with current methods?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think he was looking at cumulative error, .0004 x5 = .002, .0004 x 10 = .004, sort of like measuring 100 yd with a yard stick as compared to using a tape measure that is that long.
 
The whole idea behind this system is to reliably measure group sizes to a tolerance of +/-.001" or better. Are you all not interested in such an idea or are you saying you already can do this with current methods?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. First the scorer at the match measures the target and if it appears to be a record it is sent to at least 3 others to measure. They have no idea of any other person's measurements and then their measurements are averaged out and a final determination is made. This has worked for years and even if another system was used I can promise you it would be challenged and would have to verified by some means and then we're right back where we started.

At what point would a person accept without question a measurement? There will never be a system that somebody wouldn't challenge at some point.

There are many areas in life that improvements could, and do, mean a better life for mankind but don't forget; this is a sport, not heart surgery. So long as everybody's target is measured the same way the playing field is level. We're trying to beat all other competitors, not some nebulous group size. It's been working very well for a long time.
 
Targets do move...!!!

As someone mentioned up earlier in this thread...the group is shot on the "target" not the backer.....I remember one time up at Fairchance during the Nationals and while shooting unlimited ...my target was moving down the frame.....they had just installed new target frames for the Nationals....and as the match went on lil' pieces of the wood in the target frame was flying into the groove that the targets are placed in....and as I was shooting (I was not the only one noticing it...) the target would wiggle down in the frame as the bullet passed thru the paper!!!! I wuld sit there and see my target go down-and down-and down....I thougt it was mirage!!! Verical was killn me!!then I noticed a spot on the paper and a knot hole in the frame and saw it goin down!!!! They started putting a staple in the middle of the target to keep it in place.....simple solution.....Even the wind moving the paper can do it to a target..
I was hoping that this technology culd be adapted to long range targets where you cant see what is goin on....it would be innovative for that type of event....My back woods idea for long range is some sort of Lazer indication of shot placement that culd be seen from the fireing line thru your scope...it shur wuld help .....of cours I realize the current rules dont allow that ..but we need to do all we can to advance "B"enchrest shootin at all distances and this certainly would be a quantum leap in scores and group size ....Roger
 
My its late.

I'll respond and point out obvious holes in the arguments posted later. Guys are just afraid of progress - story as old as mankind. :rolleyes:
 
Bob,
I think that what some of the guys are saying, the ones that have known you for a while, is you always throw out ideas but don't have a clue if they will work and don't know how to achieve it. You need to take some of your ideas and run with them. Don't take this in the wrong way as I am not trying to slight you.
Butch
 
Butch Lambert said:
Bob,
I think that what some of the guys are saying, the ones that have known you for a while, is you always throw out ideas but don't have a clue if they will work and don't know how to achieve it. You need to take some of your ideas and run with them. Don't take this in the wrong way as I am not trying to slight you.
Butch
Click to expand...
Butch, that pretty much sums it up. Bob seems to get ideas and when the people who are experienced in running matches point out obvious reasons his ideas are not practical he accuses all of us of resisting 'progress'. Does not listen to any voice contrary to his ideas. I think I've had all this I can stand.
 
Sonof A. Gunn said:
Mike - I have no idea (and I suspect others too) of what you're saying - your language is vague. About all I can say in response is that the movement of the backer would be PRECISELY controlled by a computer and motion control mechanics (they're called stepper motors - used for cnc work). An acoustic sensor would also mark the exact location of the backer when each bullet impacts yielding EXACT (to +/- .001" or better) AND OBJECTIVE (no need for a committee) measurement of the group.

Quote: the listed system has a error possible of .0004...what happens with 5 or 10 shots ??"

What are you saying? :confused:
Click to expand...

"why would i accept the backer electronic measurement when the GROUP I SHOT IS ON THE SCORE TARGET ?"

if you think this is VAGUE, maybe that is why you have issues with the "improvements" you post here.......

mike in co
 
Once again

If it aint broke dont fix it. You can "fix on something till it is broke. While I'm not against improvements, why diddle with something that is working well?
 
Sonof,

From where I sit this statement

quote >>> "If my backer system RELIABLY and VERIFIABLY measures the group PRECISELY to +/_ .001", the need for a committee would (or could) be obsoleted." <<< unquote

indicates a lack of real-world mechanical experience. A MECHANICAL backer? With steppers and acoustic pickups? I simply can't see it. The rifles used are more accurate than the "system"..... The phrase "Can't design it all myself, need some help from some suitably technically proficient people here." is telling. I'M mechanically proficient....... MANY of the people here are very proficient and they're telling you IT CAN'T BE DONE :) and isn't worth pursuing.


An electronic backer, ALA the Oehler 43 Acoustic Target system seems a better bet although not accurate enough for anything more than verification, and at great cost.

al
 
Just curious,does anyone know what Mr.Mcmilan's agg.was that day?
 
I have 2 questions.

1. At the time that Mr. McMillan shot the record group, how do we in fact know that 5 shots went through that hole?

2. Did they have electronic backers then?
 
alinwa said:
Sonof,

From where I sit this statement

quote >>> "If my backer system RELIABLY and VERIFIABLY measures the group PRECISELY to +/_ .001", the need for a committee would (or could) be obsoleted." <<< unquote

indicates a lack of real-world mechanical experience. A MECHANICAL backer? With steppers and acoustic pickups? I simply can't see it. The rifles used are more accurate than the "system"..... The phrase "Can't design it all myself, need some help from some suitably technically proficient people here." is telling. I'M mechanically proficient....... MANY of the people here are very proficient and they're telling you IT CAN'T BE DONE :) and isn't worth pursuing.


An electronic backer, ALA the Oehler 43 Acoustic Target system seems a better bet although not accurate enough for anything more than verification, and at great cost.

al
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but aren't there cnc (mechanical) systems that routinely machine to very close tolerances (.001" or better)? I think there are some machines (mechanical devices) that work to even MUCH smaller tolerances - I guess you know about that.

We put a man on the moon - I think we can do this too.

Another thought (while I'm at it) - ya know, paper targets are great for SCORE shooting, but are not really ideal for GROUP (especially very small which we're talking about) shooting (and measurement).

But this doesn't seem to be the place to even SUGGEST a new idea and get any kind of interest - especially if you're not part of the benchrest "clique". Guess I should move to Europe. :cool:
 
Sonof A. Gunn said:
Excuse me, but aren't there cnc (mechanical) systems that routinely machine to very close tolerances (.001" or better)? I think there are some machines (mechanical devices) that work to even MUCH smaller tolerances - I guess you know about that.

We put a man on the moon - I think we can do this too.

Another thought (while I'm at it) - ya know, paper targets are great for SCORE shooting, but are not really ideal for GROUP (especially very small which we're talking about) shooting (and measurement).

But this doesn't seem to be the place to even SUGGEST a new idea and get any kind of interest - especially if you're not part of the benchrest "clique". Guess I should move to Europe. :cool:
Click to expand...
Give me NASA's budget and your ideas just may be workable. Even with CNC it's the programming that's expensive, especially for just a few of an item.

There is no 'clique' and if you knew anything about benchrest you'd know that. There are a bunch of people who have been shooting benchrest for many years and they know what works but are unable to make others understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top