A Synopsis on the Score Discussions.
- Thread starter jackie schmidt
- Start date
Bob Kingsbury
New member
Pete Wass
Current worst edge scoring ?????
Current worst edge scoring ?????
jackie schmidt
New member
See where this is going.
We are back to "caliber restrictions", which has proven it's worth in Group Shooting by now having 99 percent of the shooters opting for a 6mm. Not that a 22 cannot be as accurate, it is just that the majority of shooters do not want the hassle of shooting two entirely different chamberings.At the current World Championships, which is LV-HV, there was only one "non 6mm" in attendance. In reality, the vast majority of the shooters who were competing for the LV-HV World Championship" were in fact shooting a Sporter.
Many say that the trade off between the 30 and the smaller calibers is, "sure, the 30 has an advantage in bullet size, but the shooter also has to put up with the added recoil". The question is, should the NBRSA even be concerned about such matters.
I agree, if the NBRSA is going to do this, they need to get it right. I really do not know what the definition of "getting it right" is. That is why we need to trust our Board of Directors to come up with a good Format that will not only benefit shooters, but also be user friendly to clubs, (who, after all are a intergral part of this discussion), and satisfy the mandate of The NBRSA.
As I have said. Contact your Region Director, attend your annul meeting and be heard. Our elected Board of Directors are who we depend on to do what is in the majorities best interest. In order to do this, they need to hear from you, the members........jackie
We are back to "caliber restrictions", which has proven it's worth in Group Shooting by now having 99 percent of the shooters opting for a 6mm. Not that a 22 cannot be as accurate, it is just that the majority of shooters do not want the hassle of shooting two entirely different chamberings.At the current World Championships, which is LV-HV, there was only one "non 6mm" in attendance. In reality, the vast majority of the shooters who were competing for the LV-HV World Championship" were in fact shooting a Sporter.
Many say that the trade off between the 30 and the smaller calibers is, "sure, the 30 has an advantage in bullet size, but the shooter also has to put up with the added recoil". The question is, should the NBRSA even be concerned about such matters.
I agree, if the NBRSA is going to do this, they need to get it right. I really do not know what the definition of "getting it right" is. That is why we need to trust our Board of Directors to come up with a good Format that will not only benefit shooters, but also be user friendly to clubs, (who, after all are a intergral part of this discussion), and satisfy the mandate of The NBRSA.
As I have said. Contact your Region Director, attend your annul meeting and be heard. Our elected Board of Directors are who we depend on to do what is in the majorities best interest. In order to do this, they need to hear from you, the members........jackie
Yes I’m serious, and I’ve shot both registered C/F group, and R/F score matches.
If you lost your scoring reticle or plug, would it be harder or easier to score a target using center scoring?
Seriously, you should give it a try.
The human mind is very good at precisely finding the center of a hole, maybe that‘s why round targets are so popular(?), but I’m always plugging shots to see if that imaginary caliber diameter edge is touching something.
The quote “that’s just silly” was a impulse comment I made about 15 years ago, when I was choosing a cartridge and my gunsmith gave the IBS VFS rules as another reason for building the 6-ppc over a 22.
Today I’m guessing he’d just ask, are you shooting group or score? In a few more years of using two different bullets for two different forms of BR, he may not need to ask at all.
JJ,
I'll try my best to give you an answer. Although, Jackie has already said what needs to be said. Evreyone who is a member of NBRSA needs to speak to their regional director about what they would like to see. I'm a member of IBS and all I've related is what is working well for us.
If I lost my reticle & plug, I would not attempt to score a match. Most shots are relatively easy and the score can be seen at a glance. But some that are very close to a line, need a reticle (in the past a plug was used). It's not unusual to need a second or third opinion as the placement of the reticle must be very precise to get an accurate picture. Usually, all the referrees will agree after we all look. On occasion, we have used a magnifying glass as well.
To try and allow my eye to "center the hole" accurately would be impossible. Jackie has suggested measuring each shot from the center if the "10 ring". That could be an interesting game, but it would require an inordinate amount of time to score the number of shots taken in a VFS match. Possibly, it could be done using only one target, rather than five in a match. But those of us who have competed for quite a while in VFS are pretty satisfied with the current arrangement. I have never scored a group match, but I am pretty sure it takes a minute or so, maybe more, to accurately measure each group. It would take at least as long to accurately measure each shot as Jackie has suggested. As I said above, currently, most VFS shots need no more than a glance and a completed target can be scored in a few seconds.
If you want to see for yourself, shoot a VFS target, then score it the conventional way. It will probably take about 5-10 seconds. Then get a caliper and accurately measure the distance from the center of the x to the center of the bullet hole on each shot and see how long that takes. I think you will quickly see what we are talking about.
Rick
M
mks
Guest
Stepped reticle and smaller targets
The ease of holding VFS matches is an important consideration. Any modifications to the rules should not substantially increase the difficulty of or time required for scoring. IMHO, measuring every shot with a caliper crosses that line. Until electronic scoring is cheap and easy, it just isn't practical. But there are two things that I think are "broken" with VFS, that can be "fixed" within the constraints of keeping VFS a simple game.
First, the scoring scale is extremely compressed, which distorts the distinctions among the scores. It is so easy to shoot 250 at 100 yards that the order is determined by what should be a tie breaker - the X count. Further, hitting X's is so easy that almost everyone hits half or more, leaving only about a dozen different levels of scores (approximately 250-12X to 250-25X). With so few levels, there are often ties in X count (at the KY State shoot, for which results are shown on the IBS website, 33 0f 36 positions involved ties), which means that wins are determined by the order with which the X's were hit, either the number of X's among targets, or worse yet, the order of X's within a target. Many shooters don't shoot the bulls in the 1-2-3-4-5 order on the target anyway, so this tie-breaker is quite arbitrary, no better than tossing a coin. I would rather see wins go to the shooters who shot demonstrably better that day, not the ones who just happened to hit X's in a particular order. At 200 yards, dropping one point often means you may as well pack up and go home. As a case in point, at the KY State shoot, Wayne France would have won, but dropped to 15th with 249-17X. The winner shot 250-15X and 14th place shot 250-7X. Who shot "best" is not as clear as it could be if the range of scores were broader. Dropping a point is frustrating. One shooter did, in fact, after dropping two points on his first target, pack up and leave. At both yardages, a target difficult enough to produce average scores no higher than 200 and a top score of 230 or so would promote greater separation among scores, show winners more clearly and leave room for future improvement.
Second, the current game favors larger calibers. So far, development is stalled at 0.308, but it won't be long before someone tries 0.338 or 0.375, then 0.45, then 0.50 and so on. The sky is the limit. I, for one, don't want to take the pounding of a 4 gauge to stay in the game.
The best idea to solve the second problem so far seems to be a stepped plug, or reticle with multiple circles, with the score based on a standard caliber, such as 0.308. No extra equipment needed, and minimal extra effort. The first problem could be solved by scoring worst edge with the current targets, or scoring best edge with smaller targets. Rick, you could score with your current reticle, or one very similar to it, and the smaller targets should cost less. What do you think?
Cheers,
Keith
The ease of holding VFS matches is an important consideration. Any modifications to the rules should not substantially increase the difficulty of or time required for scoring. IMHO, measuring every shot with a caliper crosses that line. Until electronic scoring is cheap and easy, it just isn't practical. But there are two things that I think are "broken" with VFS, that can be "fixed" within the constraints of keeping VFS a simple game.
First, the scoring scale is extremely compressed, which distorts the distinctions among the scores. It is so easy to shoot 250 at 100 yards that the order is determined by what should be a tie breaker - the X count. Further, hitting X's is so easy that almost everyone hits half or more, leaving only about a dozen different levels of scores (approximately 250-12X to 250-25X). With so few levels, there are often ties in X count (at the KY State shoot, for which results are shown on the IBS website, 33 0f 36 positions involved ties), which means that wins are determined by the order with which the X's were hit, either the number of X's among targets, or worse yet, the order of X's within a target. Many shooters don't shoot the bulls in the 1-2-3-4-5 order on the target anyway, so this tie-breaker is quite arbitrary, no better than tossing a coin. I would rather see wins go to the shooters who shot demonstrably better that day, not the ones who just happened to hit X's in a particular order. At 200 yards, dropping one point often means you may as well pack up and go home. As a case in point, at the KY State shoot, Wayne France would have won, but dropped to 15th with 249-17X. The winner shot 250-15X and 14th place shot 250-7X. Who shot "best" is not as clear as it could be if the range of scores were broader. Dropping a point is frustrating. One shooter did, in fact, after dropping two points on his first target, pack up and leave. At both yardages, a target difficult enough to produce average scores no higher than 200 and a top score of 230 or so would promote greater separation among scores, show winners more clearly and leave room for future improvement.
Second, the current game favors larger calibers. So far, development is stalled at 0.308, but it won't be long before someone tries 0.338 or 0.375, then 0.45, then 0.50 and so on. The sky is the limit. I, for one, don't want to take the pounding of a 4 gauge to stay in the game.
The best idea to solve the second problem so far seems to be a stepped plug, or reticle with multiple circles, with the score based on a standard caliber, such as 0.308. No extra equipment needed, and minimal extra effort. The first problem could be solved by scoring worst edge with the current targets, or scoring best edge with smaller targets. Rick, you could score with your current reticle, or one very similar to it, and the smaller targets should cost less. What do you think?
Cheers,
Keith
Score is a game of strategy.....knowing the Creedmore rule, the clever shooter runs the target in the order he deems to benefit best from Creedmore.
The concept of "SCORE" is simple ....if one can grasp the following:
SCORE is hitting one's MARK....in this case a 1/16 moa dot.....its a concept from muzzleloading days....... THE GOAL:......TO HIT WHAT ONE IS AIMING AT
My best chances are with a 30 BR .......... IF... I can "handle" the recoil and bag upset.
It is a stategic decision to employ the 30 vs the next best "artillery.....the 6 PPC.
The IBS score target allows scanning the majority of targets to obtain the score............adding measurements will only further limit the number of individuals who are willing to do the scoreing.
I simply don't see the problem with most shooting 250's.......there has NEVER been a tie and won't be until multiple 250/ 25x/25 wo are shot in one match.
Not too sure how busy the bullet die makers are with .35- .40 cal. match grade dies.........but realistically the law of diminishing returns applies here....... the 30 BR is at my threshold of tolerance.
BTW IBS limits caliber to .40, I believe.
With-in the objective of the game....to hit the dot the most times...I don't understand how one feels cheated because of dropped points....leave that group mentality to the other discipline, center of bull to center of shot does not apply...nor should it.....simply hit the damn dot .
The concept of "SCORE" is simple ....if one can grasp the following:
SCORE is hitting one's MARK....in this case a 1/16 moa dot.....its a concept from muzzleloading days....... THE GOAL:......TO HIT WHAT ONE IS AIMING AT
My best chances are with a 30 BR .......... IF... I can "handle" the recoil and bag upset.
It is a stategic decision to employ the 30 vs the next best "artillery.....the 6 PPC.
The IBS score target allows scanning the majority of targets to obtain the score............adding measurements will only further limit the number of individuals who are willing to do the scoreing.
I simply don't see the problem with most shooting 250's.......there has NEVER been a tie and won't be until multiple 250/ 25x/25 wo are shot in one match.
Not too sure how busy the bullet die makers are with .35- .40 cal. match grade dies.........but realistically the law of diminishing returns applies here....... the 30 BR is at my threshold of tolerance.
BTW IBS limits caliber to .40, I believe.
With-in the objective of the game....to hit the dot the most times...I don't understand how one feels cheated because of dropped points....leave that group mentality to the other discipline, center of bull to center of shot does not apply...nor should it.....simply hit the damn dot .
Last edited:
Yes, but in Long Range only
no caliber limit in the short range score game....100-200-300 yds/metres.
no caliber limit in the short range score game....100-200-300 yds/metres.
Keith,
A system similar to what you are talking about has been suggested in the past, either a stepped plug or form of reticle. I think this would be no more problem to score than the current system. For the record, I would have no problem with it.
However, I don't think this will happen. Most of us who have gotten into the game in the last few years saw what was needed and equipped ourselves accordingly. I have two HV rifles and several 30BR barrels as well as dies, bullet dies and bullet making material. To open the door to a new system that encouraged a lighter recoiling rifle would put me at a disadvantage and I would feel the need to start all over. I'm not inclined to encourage this sort of change. I'm aware that this may seem selfish, but that's the way it is. The game was in place when I started and I got what I needed to play. I think anyone else that wants to play can do the same.
Many have said that if the system was changed it would encourage group shooters to cross over. I could be wrong, but I don't think it would change a thing. Barrels are expendable items and a new 30 barrel costs no more than a PPC and lasts much longer. I think the cost factor is an excuse rather than a reason.
As far as the type of scoring, I favor the "current points & X". I can see some value using a "point + X total", but as LH Smith said above, I tend to like the strategy. I'm on the conservative side and will tend to go for a safe shot rather than take a chance for an X. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I woudn't argue for either one, but if given an opportunity to vote, I'd choose the current system. As I said several times, it's not broken and doesn't need a fix.
Rick
H
henrya
Guest
Everyone shoots on the same target and under the same conditions (given the luck of bench draws).
Who shot best is abundantly clear - its the person with the best score. If you drop a point you're not the one who shot best that day.
I don't think I've ever shot in a match (in lots of different disciplines) where the best shooter didn't win.
The guy who packed up needed to stay and practice.
You shoulda been at Gallatin this past weekend. It was perfectly clear who shot best and it wasn't me. I had a pretty high X count at 200 but dropped some points (note plural points). I kept shooting. By the last target I had figured out why I dropped the points. Maybe I won't make that mistake again.
That's my take on it.
mwezell
Mike Ezell
M
mks
Guest
Sorry, I couldn't help myself
How does one do this? Can you control when you hit the dot and when you miss? And to think, all this time, I've been trying to hit them all! (A rhetorical question, I know, but I couldn't help it.)
Cheers,
Keith
How does one do this? Can you control when you hit the dot and when you miss?
And to think, all this time, I've been trying to hit them all! (A rhetorical question, I know, but I couldn't help it.)Cheers,
Keith
jackie schmidt
New member
Wow
In the sort of Cr-p we shoot in all the time, the only strategy is to simply do the best you can, whether you are trying to put five in a group, or five on the X.
Sort of a religious experience. There is either praises on high, or lamentations and gnashing of teeth............jackie
In the sort of Cr-p we shoot in all the time, the only strategy is to simply do the best you can, whether you are trying to put five in a group, or five on the X.
Sort of a religious experience. There is either praises on high, or lamentations and gnashing of teeth............jackie
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Score is a game of Lady Luck
Many of us think if we begin on bull 5 we certainly can turn up at least 4 exes but then there are the whims of Lady Luck who has been known to dispense the agony of defeat on the last shot. I onest was fortunate to have shot a 249-22, dropping the last shot on #1 bull on targrt 5. The stratergy don't work for crap sometimes. Oh and this was with a 6 power Varmint Hunter rifle; OH WELL!
How does one do this? Can you control when you hit the dot and when you miss?
Cheers,
Keith
Many of us think if we begin on bull 5 we certainly can turn up at least 4 exes but then there are the whims of Lady Luck who has been known to dispense the agony of defeat on the last shot. I onest was fortunate to have shot a 249-22, dropping the last shot on #1 bull on targrt 5. The stratergy don't work for crap sometimes. Oh and this was with a 6 power Varmint Hunter rifle; OH WELL!
Last edited:
M
mks
Guest
Imagine
Henry,
According to the current rules, you are, of course, correct. But now imagine there are no rules and you have the freedom to design a new shooting game around a target with a half inch circle surrounding a 1/16 dot. Let's say you and I have a 25 shot contest. You hit the dot dead center 24 times, but just miss the circle on your last shot. I, on the other hand, not only hit no dots, but barely manage to touch the outside edge of the circle on each of my 25 shots. Now be honest, in this new game over which you have the power to decide the rules, would you call me the winner?
Cheers,
Keith
PS. At Gallatin, I was the guy shooting the antique gun quarantined on the far left bench, away from all the respectable shooters.
Henry,
According to the current rules, you are, of course, correct. But now imagine there are no rules and you have the freedom to design a new shooting game around a target with a half inch circle surrounding a 1/16 dot. Let's say you and I have a 25 shot contest. You hit the dot dead center 24 times, but just miss the circle on your last shot. I, on the other hand, not only hit no dots, but barely manage to touch the outside edge of the circle on each of my 25 shots. Now be honest, in this new game over which you have the power to decide the rules, would you call me the winner?
Cheers,
Keith
PS. At Gallatin, I was the guy shooting the antique gun quarantined on the far left bench, away from all the respectable shooters.
M
mks
Guest
Are you saying it's so easy it's hard?
Yes, it is so easy that it's hard... to live with yourself between matches when you miss! Using the KY State as an example again, 34 of 36 hit 250 at 100 yards. If teachers gave grades like the IBS hands out 250's, every student would get an A just for showing up.
Cheers,
Keith
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Keith, If I may ...because the game is one of points first and x's second...yes, I would call you the winner. That scenario isn't very likely though. Consistency counts. In group I believe it is called "agging them to death". Just my take on it. A guy can tune his gun on the ragged edge and have it go away and shoot a bad group or he can agg em' to death. No screamers, but a boat load of low .2's can win.--Mike
That analogy is lacking . X's and Creedmore are tie breakers ....they determine order of finish.To eliminate Creedmore takes away some of the strategy of the game. Some of us have figured out how to put the odds in our favor by shooting in a certain sequence....and it could change from match to match due to conditions and other circumstances.
Consider that the relative ease of attaining a 250 score for a new shooter is a big morale booster....although the reality is it's orders of magnitude harder to get those high x-counts and even harder to get wipe-outs.
Keith,
Be sure that you keep in mind that the KY State match @ 100 yds was shot in the best conditions we've seen in two years. And even then two competitors dropped a point.
The rules are what they are. First priority is keeping 'em all in the 10 ring, especially @200. If you do that every time, more often that not, you will find yourself with an opportunity for some fake wood when the firing stops.
Rick