His chances would be even less than shooting a 30 in a group match and being scored with a 20 cal reticle. Only 5 targets to measure in a group match, but in score you get the diameter advantage on each shot. I wonder how long before a even larger caliber will take over because of the flawed rules. Im not trying to ruffle any feathers its just the way I see it. Im done. Dave
Dave, your point is well taken - please do not take this as a personal affront - it's just an opportunity to defend tradition.
Where were those Championing smaller bullet diameter(s), one-size-fits-all reticles, etc., while the 6MM was king, but before the thirties proved their worth, and trumped the 6MMs?? The answer to THAT is, ZERO!
![Wink ;) ;)]()
Prior to Jim Goody (THREE Consecutive SOY awards, PLUS Y2K National VfS CHAMPION), shooting a, "full-blown Hunter Rifle chambering" (30 JAG) in VfS and dominating for three consecutive seasons, one was either an idiot, a fool, or, both for shooting anything other than a 6PPC . . . nobody cared a whit about smaller calibers - not even the old faitful .224.
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
![Stick out tongue :p :p]()
Within, the rules, nothing changed. Without equal precision, the [so called] 30 caliber "advantage" CANNOT be exploited!
And if you'd attended the IA State Group event, you'd have seen that the 30s held their own . . . but, as usual, that was probably just a fluke!
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
Throughout this discussion, is the insinuation that somehow, the scoring system is "flawed" or, lacking. However at Group tournaments/events, the winner is often determined by a statistacially insignificant and UNMEASURABLE "score" - by default, both the IBS and NBRSA rule books agree that groups cannot be measured anymore precisely than +/- 0.009": when a protest is envoked, the amount necessary to have the scorer's group measurement changed.
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
Many tournaments are won/lost by lesser amounts! Somehow, this glitch goes conveniently ignored, or worse, assumed to be pristine!
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
Further, I hear no similar peal, to revamp the scoring (Methods/tools) during group events, to a system which would produce a more statistically meaningful result. During group events, the REAL winner is often incorrectly determined/dumped because of one errant shot! Measuring the largest spread is a pittiful measurement of dispersion: Sd, based upon group-center, would be much more meaningful - where's all the noise for THAT?
![Eek! :eek: :eek:]()
![Big grin :D :D]()
The normal answer is, "we know that" . . . Please, come and play before demanding change.
Is one discipline better or, worse than the other? I think not - they present differing challenges, strategies, and methods of measuring the apptitude and skills of competitors using, essentially, the same equipment. Neither is perfect.
Both have a following. As sanctioned under IBS rules, VfS is a GREAT recruiting tool - the scoring is very easily understood and readily accepted by newcomers! Again, to date, it's the best I've seen.
Worth repeating: the ten-ring is quite ample - shame on anyone for missing it - regardless of how many Xes are compiled it's sudden death. We know THAT!
![Wink ;) ;)]()
RG