A Synopsis on the Score Discussions.

[henrya]

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.

Hi Keith,

To answer your question, yes, I'd call you the winner. But then I'm used to the concept of Xs deciding a higher value of "perfect" or "center" shots. The concept is not new -- in other shooting disciplines, Xs or Vs have been used for over 100 years to decide the perfection of center shots. And the "Creedmoor" system of tie breaking on reverse count is named for a range that closed in 1899, if I remember correctly.

I don't see any method that is better for scoring. A smaller ringed target using the same concept would reduce the scores we see published but the winners would be the same and not change the sudden death nature of one miss and you're out. The perfect scores would be shot by fewer people but the top handful would still be decided by who missed one 10 and/or X count.

I do think that the electronic scoring targets could be superior in terms of producing a more distributed and "fairer" looking system but who can afford those? We'd have no matches at all.

Henry

 

[mks]

A+++++++++++++++++++++++++

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.

LH,
To complete the analogy, just add +'s to the A, up to 25 of them, but give everyone at least 12. Then when multiple students get the same number of pluses, the students who got their pluses earlier are the top students. Seems silly doesn't it?

Please explain your strategy for maximizing your Creedmoor position. What are "conditions and other circumstances" and how do you exploit them?

Thanks,
Keith

 

[SGJennings]

Don't know how it plays in benchrest. In skeet and trap, people like to shoot well. They might intellectually grouse about high scores, but they end up flocking to places and conditions where they shoot higher scores. And, in end, the same top shooters keep winning no matter what.

I think it would be interesting to see the NBRSA adopt the "stepped reticle". From a newbie's perspective, it would seem to make the new game more accessible.

FWIW, Greg J.

 

[mks]

Less sudden death

A smaller ringed target using the same concept would reduce the scores we see published but the winners would be the same and not change the sudden death nature of one miss and you're out.
Henry

Henry,
A smaller target WOULD reduce the sudden death nature of the game.
In the hypothetical match that we shot, my mean accuracy was 0.404" (circle radius plus bullet radius) and yours was 0.016" (the same value plus 0.001" to make that last shot a miss, divided by 25). I would say you were the better shooter, yet I won the match based on the current rules. Make the target smaller so that my hits are 9's and my score is 225-0X, yours is 249-24X and you win.

The same type of situation occurs in real matches, though obviously less exaggerated. Wayne France would not have dropped from first to 15th place at the KY State shoot (that seems clear, since 14th place was 250-7X versus Wayne's 249-17X), and may have finished in the top 3 (the first three places shot 250-15X, 250-14X and 250-13X). I see the compressed scoring scale as an injustice (maybe that's too strong a word, since it's only a game) to Wayne and all the other shooters who have shot well, but dropped a point.

Cheers,
Keith

 

[henrya]

Sudden death would be eliminated for many shooters down the results list if the rings were smaller but at the top end it'll still come down to who shot clean and who didn't. So instead of half the field shooting clean it might only be the top 4 or 5. And no real gain from making the change.

And although no one has suggested otherwise, I want to make clear that I am not supporting the status quo simply because "we've always done it that way". I do think that score shooting history is, in this case, an example of a method that has survived the test of time. Its still with us from a practical "it works" standpoint.

I think it might be fun to shoot 100 yard targets at 200 yards just to see what happens. Maybe one day we can add that onto the end of a match? Just one target to experience what that's like?

 

[henrya]

I also wonder how much appeal is in the current mix along the lines of: "If I stay clean I'm still in the hunt" (hope springs eternal!) or going home and saying "Honey, I shot a perfect score!"

I think that those kind of thoughts may overcome their counterpoints: "I blew a point, so I'm out" or "I lost because of only one stupid mistake".

As Score is currently conducted, for many shooters, there is success to be had in multiple small increments. Shooting clean may be one of them. The hope that "I can still pull it out at 200" may be another. If I was going to add to the already successful and popular Score format it might be to add in a prize for "perfect target" (a 250 with all wipeouts would be the ultimate here). That might be a consolation for someone who shot well but blew a point. Or it might be the guy who cleans up every match.

There is only one first place winner and in a way everyone else shooting is simply "pack fill". But then there's the fact that without the "pack fill" the winner could not have won. I wonder if the game was made harder if we'd lose some "pack fill"?

 

[John Kielly]

Look, I'm mainly a belly shooter so take this as an "I understand where you're all coming from" not "you should".

We have this issue in target rifle around the world it seems for the same reason that you have, namely equipment & shooter precision has got better than what's being shot at. This was particularly evident when F class developed 10 years or so ago. Here in Australia, we score V & 5 down, not X & 10, but to reduce the number of F class clears, we revalued the V ring as a 6 for that discipline only. Now you have to get them all in the smallest ring to clear. That's the up side, but now the off shot that was once only one point off is 2 points down & the shooter knows he is that much less of a chance to recover. He's the guy who is more likely to leave a match unhappy.

This has turned out to have other problems too. On one hand we still have multiple shooters clearing at the easier distances & no countout possible. At the other end of the scale we have new entrants & the less skilled who couldn't clear on the easier scale - and we desperately want to keep them in the sport & get them shooting in competitions.

Shortly, we are to introduce a tighter target for all our disciplines & in the case of F class, a smaller countout ring is being considered. Maybe this will solve the congestion at the top, but it won't help at the other end of the skill spectrum.

You can see that we're struggling to get the right answer too.

 

[mks]

Drop 'em

Sudden death would be eliminated for many shooters down the results list if the rings were smaller but at the top end it'll still come down to who shot clean and who didn't. So instead of half the field shooting clean it might only be the top 4 or 5. And no real gain from making the change.

And although no one has suggested otherwise, I want to make clear that I am not supporting the status quo simply because "we've always done it that way". I do think that score shooting history is, in this case, an example of a method that has survived the test of time. Its still with us from a practical "it works" standpoint.

I think it might be fun to shoot 100 yard targets at 200 yards just to see what happens. Maybe one day we can add that onto the end of a match? Just one target to experience what that's like?

Henry,
My suggestion is that the targets be difficult enough that no one shoots clean, at least not with today's technology. The top three places might be like 230-10X, 228-8X, 225-4X. The score would differentiate clear winners in most cases, X count would be a meaningful tie-breaker and Creedmoor would rarely be used. I wasn't around when it was developed, but I can imagine that Creedmoor may have been invented to avoid shoot-offs and finish the match before dark. I doubt it was ever intended to determine winners on a regular basis, such as now occurs, especially in IBS matches with large numbers of shooters.

Trying smaller targets sounds like fun. We could also try scoring the full size targets worst edge to see what its like. I would be happy to help do this, if Rick doesn't object. Just for grins, I rescored my targets from Gallatin by worst edge. By eyeball, my scores would have changed from 250-18X to 227-11X at 100 and from 249-11X to 240-4X at 200. I would be happier with the lower scores, knowing that I am shooting to get the best score my skills and equipment allow, not just hoping to avoid a screw-up (dropping a point).

Cheers,
Keith

 

[mks]

Gen-X vs Boomer

I also wonder how much appeal is in the current mix along the lines of: "If I stay clean I'm still in the hunt" (hope springs eternal!) or going home and saying "Honey, I shot a perfect score!"

I think that those kind of thoughts may overcome their counterpoints: "I blew a point, so I'm out" or "I lost because of only one stupid mistake".

Henry,
Hey, aren't you a boomer? I thought it wasn't until gen-x that people expected constant gratification. Seriously, though, if a lot of folks genuinely want a game in which the average shooter can get a perfect score, and goodly portion don't want CHANGE of any kind, then these new ideas don't have much of a chance.

Keith

 

[mike in co]

I caution, what I write here comes from years of shooting experience but none as a competitor in centerfire score shooting (there isn't any around here) so take it with a grain of salt and purely as a suggestion of a concept.

This past year I have started shooting in AGBR matches. After 58 years of shooting rimfire (both score and position competition) and centerfire, AGBR (score shooting) is a whole new learning experience for me. One of the key things I learned is that the founders of AGBR came up with what I think is a clever solution to scoring when allowing different calibers to be used in matches and that is a stepped plug (my own terminology?) to score best edge... By stepped plug, I'm referring to a plug with a pilot for one caliber and a scoring shoulder that is a standardized diameter based on largest caliber used.

Plugs used for AGBR scoring have one body or shoulder diameter for the largest caliber allowed and the pilot shank of various plugs is to fit the caliber of the hole in the target based on caliber of the gun used. In the case of AGBR, calibers are .177, .20, and .22 and the scoring shoulder or major diameter of all plugs is between .223"-.224" regardless of caliber being plugged. Scoring is based on best edge of the plug, not the edge of the hole which eliminates any advantage of a larger caliber as all scoring is from center of hole regardless of caliber used.

I have also come to realize that pilot diameter of the scoring plug is not critical, it needs to be a good fit in the bullet hole and concentric with the scoring shoulder and nothing more. What this means is that one plug can be used for calibers of similar but not necessarily the exact same dimension due to the way the give of target paper closes back in after the bullet penetrates. End result is the need for a scoring plug for each and every caliber is not necessary, one can probably end up with three or four plugs total to score all calibers used.

It would seem to me this method of scoring would work for centerfire score shooting as well.

Now if I can only convince someone we should have centerfire score matches within driving distance of where I live, my .223 could make me a happy camper...

Happy Shooting Y'all,
Mitch & Shadow...

this was tried in nra/cmp/dcm across the course shooting...and to put it plainly its BS. ( yes they quit doing it)
WHY would you give a 30 cal score to someone not willing to shoot a 30cal gun ?
if you chose a 22, you score a 22 hole not a 30 cal hole...
not throwing stones at the person that put this up, but its like the kids socer games were everyone gets a trophy for showing up and the winners are not acknowledged. to take it a step further, businesses have found out people trained this way make great "team" players but for the most part have no initiative...and are always waiting to be shown the way.
STEPPING down from my soap box.
in two words................ no way................
life is not fair, life is what you make of it...........deal with it

mike in co

 

[moore]

I'm late on this one,,,I know there has to be a way to measure off the center of each shot as suggested by others on this long thread.I wish all centerfire score shooting would employ this system..Then true accuracy would rule and caliber would matter no more..........LW

 

[greg]

Lw...

I'm late on this one,,,I know there has to be a way to measure off the center of each shot as suggested by others on this long thread.I wish all centerfire score shooting would employ this system..Then true accuracy would rule and caliber would matter no more..........LW

score is about hitting something. Sure accuracy is a big part of it but it is a game of duality. Accept it for what it is...a game where you have to have one ell of an accurate rifle, know how to steer it, load for it, read flags, dope wind, and hit that freaking small dot all while moving around a BIG, BIG target paper. It's loads of fun! You should try it sometime.

 

[Dave Coots]

Ok i'll bite

you say score is about hitting something. What are you aiming for-the ten ring or the X? One or the other may be an accident. How much more of an accurate rifle does it take to hit the X, and how less accurate of a rifle does it take to hit the ten ring?

Later
Dave

 

[Pete Wass]

If one doesn't have

you say score is about hitting something. What are you aiming for-the ten ring or the X? One or the other may be an accident. How much more of an accurate rifle does it take to hit the X, and how less accurate of a rifle does it take to hit the ten ring?

Later
Dave

a rifle capable of shooting groups in the 1's they have no chance of winning score matches where there are shooters who have demonstrated the ability to shoot well. I have seen numbers on here of .250 and .300 and win VFS matches with them but that discounts things like wind and mirage one has to contend with. Perhaps in Gene's tunnel one could shoot a 250-25 with a rifle that shoots .25 groups but I doubt that even. The same is true for HBR rifles. Shooters need all the help they can get and the easiest way to get help is with a lazer rifle. Some people try to make Score Shooting out to be a sub-standard endeavor but for those who think shooting a 250 with a high ex count is easy should try a game of real skill; HBR.

 

[moore]

Greg my dear friend we both know I have tried it many times,The game as is has lead to bigger holes translated means bigger recoil,before i get the usual wimp speech please let me explain myself,I personally shoot better with a 22 or a 6mm then i do a 30 over the course of a long day shooting..May I ask is it wrong to want less punishment and more enjoyment? Is it also wrong to be out Xed but not out shoot? Face it ladies and gents in my opinion this entire thread will not change the rules of VFS class shooting nor will it influence the writing of the rules for the next organization that decides to run something of similar order with the exception of the USBR which classifies the 30 in a class pretty much by itself or at least not in the same class as the 22s and 6mm's.

With that said I will always agree its about fun not about winning,but at least having the chance to win always seems to make one feel better...LW

 

[mike in co]

Greg my dear friend we both know I have tried it many times,The game as is has lead to bigger holes translated means bigger recoil,before i get the usual wimp speech please let me explain myself,I personally shoot better with a 22 or a 6mm then i do a 30 over the course of a long day shooting..May I ask is it wrong to want less punishment and more enjoyment? Is it also wrong to be out Xed but not out shoot? Face it ladies and gents in my opinion this entire thread will not change the rules of VFS class shooting nor will it influence the writing of the rules for the next organization that decides to run something of similar order with the exception of the USBR which classifies the 30 in a class pretty much by itself or at least not in the same class as the 22s and 6mm's.

With that said I will always agree its about fun not about winning,but at least having the chance to win always seems to make one feel better...LW

you have a chance...a slim one if you chose a 6 or a 22 over a 30....
what i don't understand is that "everyone" claims the 6 ppc is "THE" round when it comes to accuracy( as defined by group..but actually questionable), so why is it so hard for the 6ppc shooters to win at the score game....if its more accurate.....you should be able to x out.......

this gets back to my support of jackies original suggestion to go for distance from center as REAL accuracy.

like i said, life aint fair...its what YOU make of it.

mike in co

 

[moore]

Mike
As stated in my first post to this thread,,I support center measurement always have,just find a quick way to do it so that the score table is not backed up...LW

 

[TonyinKY]

Distance from center?

Measuring distance from center? 1 shot 5” away from center and 4 shots dead center would score equal to 5 shots 1” from center. 5” group ties 2” group? Someone please explain this.

 

[jackie schmidt]

Tony

Because it is not Group Shooting........jackie

 

[mike in co]

Because it is not Group Shooting........jackie

what jackie said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it IS about hitting the center of the target...not about chasing holes around a target.

lol
mike in co