jackie schmidt
New member
Goodgrouper, the official Records Committee Measurement came out to .154......jackie
30BR at the NBRSA Nationals
- Thread starter TedH
- Start date
pbike
New member
Jeeez!!! It sure sounds like they had different targets to look at than the rest of the boys... Or somebody couldn't stomach a .30 holding the group aggregate record? MAybe they devided by 4 instead of 5? .154 x 4 = .616 .616/5 = .1232, Hmmmm?
Paul
Last edited:
R
rdawson
Guest
Tim, you always come up with the funniest posts, but this one will go down as a classic. I was laughing so hard I could barely read it to my wife. Good one buddy.
Ray Dawson
S
Steve Grosvenor
Guest
Kinnda goes to a old saying "I can beat everybody but the officials" to me that is waaaaayyyyyy fishey, I know that smell cause i do alot of fishing
if they were that far off i would say there should be a alternate nonbias in any way commitee to measure, cause with that much discrepency someone needs to explain to the entire precision shooting world and i do mean world how THIS could ever happen???
CYanchycki
Club Coordinator
I agree 100% with the above statement. Records committee politicians are involved so we more than likely know what will come of it. Nothing. Just like any Political party or Government in office they should be held accountable for there actions.
There is only one way to handle records and that is with a independant body.
Calvin
Dave Coots
64 Chevy 409 10.42 129
IMO i think this thread is even worse than the one i posted on about the NBRSA's website. Five pages of whining about the measurement committee. I think some here have crossed the line questioning the integrety of the measuring committee. Others have implied the same. If you think anyone from that committee will come on here to defend themselves, don't hold your breath, i believe they are far more professional than to answer querries from this site. Take your complaints to the NBRSA. Better yet, get on the board or measuring committee and straighten things out. There are two sides to every story. Frankly, the only thing discussions like this do is make winter shorter, if you want to spend time reading.
I'd start on 30vs6ppc and group vs score annual discussions, but i'm not going there. Those discussions go on forever to a place called "nowhere".
Pour it on, i can take it.)chill( BTW-i'm not even sure who all the guys on the measurement committee are. This is not a paid advertisement for them.
Later
Dave
I'd start on 30vs6ppc and group vs score annual discussions, but i'm not going there. Those discussions go on forever to a place called "nowhere".
Pour it on, i can take it.)chill( BTW-i'm not even sure who all the guys on the measurement committee are. This is not a paid advertisement for them.
Later
Dave
Last edited:
jackie schmidt
New member
Dave, go back and read post #41.
I might add, even if by some quirk the entire hiearchy of the NBRSA said, 'maybe we should take another look at those targets', I would decline. Because they went through the procedure as laid out in our rule book, and we live, and die, by the rules as set forth that govern our Sanctioning Body.
My part in this discussion is the capabilities of the 30BR.
I might add, even if by some quirk the entire hiearchy of the NBRSA said, 'maybe we should take another look at those targets', I would decline. Because they went through the procedure as laid out in our rule book, and we live, and die, by the rules as set forth that govern our Sanctioning Body.
My part in this discussion is the capabilities of the 30BR.
Last edited:
I am somewhat dismayed about the comments here in regard to the measurement committee. It is very easy to fire an unsubstantiated shot at someone when you are not close to the situation. And even easier when you do it from behind a keyboard instead of standing in front of the guy who you are insulting. I have two comments:
1) It is more difficult to measure a small group than it is a large group. (You look at some small targets and say to yourself "that has to be a zero" and then you are upset when it comes back a .125.) And to the naked eye, a .30 caliber small group effectively looks smaller than a small 6mm group of the same measurement. Try measuring several zeroes over and over again and see how close you come to the same number. Do the same with a .750.
2) I know the guys on the measurement committee and I can say without hesitation that they are all above reproach. And they do this out of the love for the game and aren’t compensated. They aren't political and could care less if you do it with a .17 or a .45. The proof (at least in my mind) is this: The head of the committee Gene Bukys shot a world record in 2009 in LV 200 at the NBRSA Nationals in St. Louis. I witnessed the feat. He never touched those targets because he didn't want anyone to question the outcome. They went directly to the other members of the committee. Gene's record was beaten in 2010 by Rabon Stewart at the Hog Roast. I processed those targets. Again Gene didn't want me to send them to him because he didn’t want to touch them. He did this because he wanted to remove any perception of doubt about the process. And when it came back that Rabon (Ralph) had beaten the record, Gene was the first to congratulate him.
I would ask that you not ascribe your intents to other’s actions. These guys do this very well. You may not like the outcome, but the process works.
I know there are some guys who won't let go of this 6mm vs .30 discussion and each side has it proponents. Both cartridges shoot; and often very well and just as often not so well. And a lot of guys were rooting for Jackie because he is likeable and he shot it with a .30. I have had world record submissions come back not beating the record and it is disappointing. But Life goes on and competitors like Jackie come back at it even harder.
For you guys to lip lash the committee without knowing the process and the veracity of those doing it is unconscionable. And if you want to ask how dare I make these comments. I guess I dare because I am trying to be one of the guys making our sport more positive. Heck, I shot a world record agg. in five-shot unlimited a couple of years ago at an unregistered match. I was just happy that I witnessed it through my scope. That was enough for me. Ask yourself before you hit send if you are trying to make it better or just complain.
And if anyone wants to talk with me about this, call me. But, have your facts straight; and if possible, have some positive comments. Heck, we have more damn enemies outside of our sport that we should be aware of that are trying to make us go away than to spend our time beating up our own.
Joe Krupa
1) It is more difficult to measure a small group than it is a large group. (You look at some small targets and say to yourself "that has to be a zero" and then you are upset when it comes back a .125.) And to the naked eye, a .30 caliber small group effectively looks smaller than a small 6mm group of the same measurement. Try measuring several zeroes over and over again and see how close you come to the same number. Do the same with a .750.
2) I know the guys on the measurement committee and I can say without hesitation that they are all above reproach. And they do this out of the love for the game and aren’t compensated. They aren't political and could care less if you do it with a .17 or a .45. The proof (at least in my mind) is this: The head of the committee Gene Bukys shot a world record in 2009 in LV 200 at the NBRSA Nationals in St. Louis. I witnessed the feat. He never touched those targets because he didn't want anyone to question the outcome. They went directly to the other members of the committee. Gene's record was beaten in 2010 by Rabon Stewart at the Hog Roast. I processed those targets. Again Gene didn't want me to send them to him because he didn’t want to touch them. He did this because he wanted to remove any perception of doubt about the process. And when it came back that Rabon (Ralph) had beaten the record, Gene was the first to congratulate him.
I would ask that you not ascribe your intents to other’s actions. These guys do this very well. You may not like the outcome, but the process works.
I know there are some guys who won't let go of this 6mm vs .30 discussion and each side has it proponents. Both cartridges shoot; and often very well and just as often not so well. And a lot of guys were rooting for Jackie because he is likeable and he shot it with a .30. I have had world record submissions come back not beating the record and it is disappointing. But Life goes on and competitors like Jackie come back at it even harder.
For you guys to lip lash the committee without knowing the process and the veracity of those doing it is unconscionable. And if you want to ask how dare I make these comments. I guess I dare because I am trying to be one of the guys making our sport more positive. Heck, I shot a world record agg. in five-shot unlimited a couple of years ago at an unregistered match. I was just happy that I witnessed it through my scope. That was enough for me. Ask yourself before you hit send if you are trying to make it better or just complain.
And if anyone wants to talk with me about this, call me. But, have your facts straight; and if possible, have some positive comments. Heck, we have more damn enemies outside of our sport that we should be aware of that are trying to make us go away than to spend our time beating up our own.
Joe Krupa
Last edited:
I figured it might have been, but it was the heavy gun with the problem that day. I shot the LV with no problem at Colorado and Albuquerque. It was my LV that placed 3rd in Alb., shooting it free recoil. I just kept it around 3000 fps. The 30 BR can shoot fine free recoil in LV trim. The forth place shooter of the LV 100 in Albuquerque that day was shooting a 30 BR free recoil. So the 30 BR can be shot free recoil in LV trim, but most shooters will tell you it is more of a handful than the HV.
Michael
Dick Grosbier
Club Coordinator
Very well stated, and true Joe.
Dick Grosbier
Dick Grosbier
jackie schmidt
New member
Perhaps This Could Be A Good Teaching Oportunity
It is pretty obvious that there is a dissagreement among shooters as to just what is the proper way to ascertain the actual size of a given group.
We all know that you simply can't place calipers on the total spread and subtract bullet caliber, because bullets tend to cut a hole that is a little smaller as it passes through the paper. Typically, a 308 bullet will leave a black to black hole at about .297.
The reticle tool is supposed to compensate for this, because you are not just measuring one hole, you are measuring the accumulation of 5 holes, (or ten in Unlimited).
But, even this is apparently subject to operator error, or what ever. One Ranges "teen agg" might be a .230 somewhere else.
So here is what we could do. Have the NBRSA make a video, explaining the exact way that a reticle tool is supposed to be used. This could be distributed to each range that holds Registered Matches, and that would 'standardize' the procedures. That way, if a Match Report says that ole Sam shot a .180 agg, you don't have to put up with that "yeh, but everybody knows they measure small there".
The NBRSA could use sets of targets as examples. For instance, if they could take a set of record targets that have passed the scrutiny of the Records Committee, and show exactly how the measurements were asertained, and how close they were to the range measurements. Closeups of the actual measuring tool, and it's placement on the targets could be performed.
Then, they could take a set of targets that did not pass the scrutiny of the Records Committee, and show where the person who measured the targets went wrong. This would allow scorers throughout the different Regions to use the same methods, and we would have a more standardized scoring system in Group.
I am sure the NBRSA could aquire a set of targets that made a record, and use them as an example as the proper way to ascertain the true size of the groups and the Aggregate.
I would be glad to let them use my targets for the set that did not pass. Probably about as good of an example as you could come up with. The scorer could show closeups of each set as he measured each group, showing where the originol scorer got it right, or wrong as in the case of the targets that "didn't make the cut".
Someone would have to volunteer their time, and someone with experience in making videos could be hired if it took that. Maybe it would take an agenda item presented to the BOD. This procedure could be set forth in the Rule Book and become just as much of a part of Benchrest as any of the other Rules and Regs that govern our Sport.
If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right.....jackie
It is pretty obvious that there is a dissagreement among shooters as to just what is the proper way to ascertain the actual size of a given group.
We all know that you simply can't place calipers on the total spread and subtract bullet caliber, because bullets tend to cut a hole that is a little smaller as it passes through the paper. Typically, a 308 bullet will leave a black to black hole at about .297.
The reticle tool is supposed to compensate for this, because you are not just measuring one hole, you are measuring the accumulation of 5 holes, (or ten in Unlimited).
But, even this is apparently subject to operator error, or what ever. One Ranges "teen agg" might be a .230 somewhere else.
So here is what we could do. Have the NBRSA make a video, explaining the exact way that a reticle tool is supposed to be used. This could be distributed to each range that holds Registered Matches, and that would 'standardize' the procedures. That way, if a Match Report says that ole Sam shot a .180 agg, you don't have to put up with that "yeh, but everybody knows they measure small there".
The NBRSA could use sets of targets as examples. For instance, if they could take a set of record targets that have passed the scrutiny of the Records Committee, and show exactly how the measurements were asertained, and how close they were to the range measurements. Closeups of the actual measuring tool, and it's placement on the targets could be performed.
Then, they could take a set of targets that did not pass the scrutiny of the Records Committee, and show where the person who measured the targets went wrong. This would allow scorers throughout the different Regions to use the same methods, and we would have a more standardized scoring system in Group.
I am sure the NBRSA could aquire a set of targets that made a record, and use them as an example as the proper way to ascertain the true size of the groups and the Aggregate.
I would be glad to let them use my targets for the set that did not pass. Probably about as good of an example as you could come up with. The scorer could show closeups of each set as he measured each group, showing where the originol scorer got it right, or wrong as in the case of the targets that "didn't make the cut".
Someone would have to volunteer their time, and someone with experience in making videos could be hired if it took that. Maybe it would take an agenda item presented to the BOD. This procedure could be set forth in the Rule Book and become just as much of a part of Benchrest as any of the other Rules and Regs that govern our Sport.
If it is worth doing, it is worth doing right.....jackie
Last edited:
30's are in our future
Joe told you of my Record and Gene's care in protecting the process from any questions of integrity. If you shoot a record you will sweat the process for months until you either make it or not. But you cannot be involved and not think it is a careful effort to protect those gone before and those who will be involved.
First a competitor cannot touch his targets; there are several steps at the range in order to certify the targets, the measurement, the officials and then a regional director must measure them so as to make sure they are with in .009. Then on to the Committee Chair, and then on to three measurement committee members for the actual measurement. Along the way steps are taken to eliminate anyone with a vested interest, or conflict and no one knows what the other has measured. At last the three members result is averaged and a record is established if the result was smaller than the existing record.
We may want to make a few improvements, but those must be carefully considered before we go making changes. The expansion of the committee is not free, it requires the transport of the targets to more people which exposes the targets to higher incidents of lost or damage, it has happened before. The change in scoring is not free, when we average we are subject to a single poor measurement, when we drop the top and bottom we will have to expand the committee and then we are back to those issues above.
I know we are having trouble measuring 30's because I own one that shoots great, my best shooting buddy, shoots 30's exclusively and has to protest way too many targets. Until that is fixed I shoot my 30s in score. But make no mistake a 30 will shoot right with a 6mm and there are as many advantages as negatives. They will flat shoot and there fore are in our future. Many new shooters start with 30s now and we want them to enjoy group shooting as well as score shooting, so we must learn how to effectively measure, any caliber that shows up to compete. Steps were taken last year to mark targets as to caliber, so they are more likely to be correct. This is an improvement.
My only comment on the Jackie targets is how proud I am of him for how well he shot that day, how positive he has taken this difficult situation and that we should consider some changes to make measurement better. Lastly there is no escalation in these matters which requires perfection; we may be better served to have a means to correct something if things go astray.
Joe told you of my Record and Gene's care in protecting the process from any questions of integrity. If you shoot a record you will sweat the process for months until you either make it or not. But you cannot be involved and not think it is a careful effort to protect those gone before and those who will be involved.
First a competitor cannot touch his targets; there are several steps at the range in order to certify the targets, the measurement, the officials and then a regional director must measure them so as to make sure they are with in .009. Then on to the Committee Chair, and then on to three measurement committee members for the actual measurement. Along the way steps are taken to eliminate anyone with a vested interest, or conflict and no one knows what the other has measured. At last the three members result is averaged and a record is established if the result was smaller than the existing record.
We may want to make a few improvements, but those must be carefully considered before we go making changes. The expansion of the committee is not free, it requires the transport of the targets to more people which exposes the targets to higher incidents of lost or damage, it has happened before. The change in scoring is not free, when we average we are subject to a single poor measurement, when we drop the top and bottom we will have to expand the committee and then we are back to those issues above.
I know we are having trouble measuring 30's because I own one that shoots great, my best shooting buddy, shoots 30's exclusively and has to protest way too many targets. Until that is fixed I shoot my 30s in score. But make no mistake a 30 will shoot right with a 6mm and there are as many advantages as negatives. They will flat shoot and there fore are in our future. Many new shooters start with 30s now and we want them to enjoy group shooting as well as score shooting, so we must learn how to effectively measure, any caliber that shows up to compete. Steps were taken last year to mark targets as to caliber, so they are more likely to be correct. This is an improvement.
My only comment on the Jackie targets is how proud I am of him for how well he shot that day, how positive he has taken this difficult situation and that we should consider some changes to make measurement better. Lastly there is no escalation in these matters which requires perfection; we may be better served to have a means to correct something if things go astray.
E
Edwin D
Guest
goodgrouper,
there has NEVER been a doubt about the "whole measuring process"!
there has NEVER been a doubt about the "whole measuring process"!
Vern
Morethan1waytoskinacat
I would Love to have a .30BR but it will have to be next year. I would prefer to shoot 22ppc short and 30br but not until I can get some new barrels and even then I am all set up for the 6ppc.
Jackie is exactly right in his reply.
Jackie I applaud you as always you have integrity beyond reproach and what I believe what most in this world (not here on BRcentral) have forgotten and that is sportsman like conduct.
My hat is off to you as always a scholar and a gentleman well er one or the other of them anyway.
Thanks for being a great example, you and Butch L. both.
Jackie is exactly right in his reply.
Jackie I applaud you as always you have integrity beyond reproach and what I believe what most in this world (not here on BRcentral) have forgotten and that is sportsman like conduct.
My hat is off to you as always a scholar and a gentleman well er
one or the other of them anyway. Thanks for being a great example, you and Butch L. both.
Last edited:
If we can't measure accuratly, what's the point of this sport?
I have read along with what's been said concerning the measuring of Jackie's targets, and until now, had stayed out of this. First, I would like to say that Jackie has been content with the records commitee findings. I personally know for a fact that I couldn't have been so content with things if I were in his shoes.
Here's my problem with this situation. Millions of dollars are spent each year in the USA to compete in the BR sport. We strive to improve accuracy, to the point that if we could honestly improve our aggs by .010" each year, we would be in hog heaven. Now we have a situation where there is a discrepancy of about .042". That is huge! If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we measure groups with accuracy down below .010"? We should at least be able to measure that well. I say it is extremely important to this sport to improve the accuracy of our measuring system. If we can't measure an agg to better than .040", then how can we even tell if our load is agging .030" better than the previous load? Does our load have to improve by a over .040" in order for us to tell me have made an improvement?
Jackie is a machinist, and a good one. If he can turn a part on a lathe to .0005" (and he can), what good would it do him if his measuring device had a resolution of .005"? This is the same situation we have in our sport. Why should we even strive for better accuracy than can be measured? Why do we try to improve our aggs, when in most cases our improvements are smaller than our measuring resolution?
I also say that when this measuring system is in place, Jackie's targets should be remeasured to determine if he has the new world record. If it seems that way, the previous agg of .1399" can be remeasured to determine which is really the record. I would think that those targets are still in existence.
If a remeasure isn't possible, then what's the point of a record commitee if the true records can't accurately be determined?
And remember there's nothing in this for me, I don't think I will ever break one of these records. I am content believing that I have the most accurate 30-30 in the world, even if I don't.
Michael
I have read along with what's been said concerning the measuring of Jackie's targets, and until now, had stayed out of this. First, I would like to say that Jackie has been content with the records commitee findings. I personally know for a fact that I couldn't have been so content with things if I were in his shoes.
Here's my problem with this situation. Millions of dollars are spent each year in the USA to compete in the BR sport. We strive to improve accuracy, to the point that if we could honestly improve our aggs by .010" each year, we would be in hog heaven. Now we have a situation where there is a discrepancy of about .042". That is huge! If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we measure groups with accuracy down below .010"? We should at least be able to measure that well. I say it is extremely important to this sport to improve the accuracy of our measuring system. If we can't measure an agg to better than .040", then how can we even tell if our load is agging .030" better than the previous load? Does our load have to improve by a over .040" in order for us to tell me have made an improvement?
Jackie is a machinist, and a good one. If he can turn a part on a lathe to .0005" (and he can), what good would it do him if his measuring device had a resolution of .005"? This is the same situation we have in our sport. Why should we even strive for better accuracy than can be measured? Why do we try to improve our aggs, when in most cases our improvements are smaller than our measuring resolution?
I also say that when this measuring system is in place, Jackie's targets should be remeasured to determine if he has the new world record. If it seems that way, the previous agg of .1399" can be remeasured to determine which is really the record. I would think that those targets are still in existence.
If a remeasure isn't possible, then what's the point of a record commitee if the true records can't accurately be determined?
And remember there's nothing in this for me, I don't think I will ever break one of these records. I am content believing that I have the most accurate 30-30 in the world, even if I don't.
Michael
Last edited:
Goodgrouper
We have a lot of very knowledgeable guys in this sport. Why can't one of them (or my brother if he can ever get a chance) write a program that takes a simple scanned image of high resolution, and just spit out the group size? The scanner would cost $100 or less. The program would be free or cheap if written by someone in the sport, or a good friend of a BR shooter. You would only have to tell it the caliber, and it would calculate from there. Now we have to wonder where we really placed in matches over the last 10 years. Maybe a time or two that we came in at top five, we really won, but will never know. Hey, winning isn't everything, but isn't winning at leat one reason we compete? Again, I'll try to give you a call one of these days.
Michael
We have a lot of very knowledgeable guys in this sport. Why can't one of them (or my brother if he can ever get a chance) write a program that takes a simple scanned image of high resolution, and just spit out the group size? The scanner would cost $100 or less. The program would be free or cheap if written by someone in the sport, or a good friend of a BR shooter. You would only have to tell it the caliber, and it would calculate from there. Now we have to wonder where we really placed in matches over the last 10 years. Maybe a time or two that we came in at top five, we really won, but will never know. Hey, winning isn't everything, but isn't winning at leat one reason we compete? Again, I'll try to give you a call one of these days.
Michael
ray porter
Member
i will bet that fellow that came on here a couple of years ago saying he could design a way to auto scan targets is laughing his fanny off about now. especially since he was run off here with tar and feathers.
The Starrett KineScope could be just the ticket for accurate group measurements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UtCEb-F4Jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UtCEb-F4Jk