Going out of business

[Greyfox]

Rick, Im going to take well up for Pete on this. Try pushing a fresh bullet back through a target. You will find it often goes tight and will
often touch the line or dot when the scoring thing fails to do so.

The reticle allows for that. Pushing a bullet into the hole enlarges it. It's always a judgement call on close ones. I've never seen a perfect system, but I do prefer the reticle. One the hole is enlarged you can't go back. Sorta like childbirth.

Rick

 

[FBecigneul]

I’m with Rick on this if taking sides is allowed. The reticle and the magnifier is the truest way to score as it gives a true picture as long as you hold it true to the hole and because it doesn’t destroy the target.

 

[mwezell]

Maybe some day, electronic scoring will be more practical, more precise and more affordable. Right or wrong, it would already remove any subjectivity and will only see the target from one angle.

 

[Randy Jarvais]

Is the system fair??

Is any scoring system based on a fixed diameter fair to use in score shooting? Isn't a fixed diameter penalizing a bullet hole that is out of round (either by wind or just unstable)? Why not just go with the bullet hole and magnification?? We already accept the fact the a hole of diameter .243 is ok to compete with a hole that is .308 so what difference would it make if the hole is .304 compared to .308? Just look at the hole and make a judgement as to whether it touches or not...no reticle, no plug, no nothing except magnification. Touches is good, not touching is not so good. I realize it is somewhat simplistic for a method but maybe it should be considered.

 

[Greyfox]

Is any scoring system based on a fixed diameter fair to use in score shooting? Isn't a fixed diameter penalizing a bullet hole that is out of round (either by wind or just unstable)? Why not just go with the bullet hole and magnification?? We already accept the fact the a hole of diameter .243 is ok to compete with a hole that is .308 so what difference would it make if the hole is .304 compared to .308? Just look at the hole and make a judgement as to whether it touches or not...no reticle, no plug, no nothing except magnification. Touches is good, not touching is not so good. I realize it is somewhat simplistic for a method but maybe it should be considered.

Probably wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course, the hole is smaller than the bullet, but if we all use the same rules, it would certainly be simpler. Just yesterday I had a shot go slightly out of balance and make a semi-oblong hole. The problem was, it was away from the dot. Had it been in the other direction is would have been scored an "X". Luck giveth and luck taketh away.

Rick

 

[Pete Wass]

There are several other orgs that use the plug

ARA for instance, the plug is the last resort for protested targets as it is for the World Benchrest orgs. They are scored electronically but any protests are plugged. One of the issues with the reticle is there never has been any training or rules set up for its use. If one believes anyone can use it effectively and fairly, without error, they are deluding themselves. We expect everyone to be referees yet we do not teach everyone to use the scoring device. I've been at this over 20 years and have seen more mistakes made by referees accidentally or otherwise than I care to think about. I've seen some blatant misuse of the reticle at Nationals. The score should be what the bullet does, not the aftermath. It is not uncommon to see bullet holes that have half a black ring on one side and none on the other. Stick a bullet in and see, that's pretty simple. Having scored targets and run matches for over a decade I'd recon I've scored and seen as many as anyone else opining here. Score rules are suppose to be best edge. If one centers a circle over it, that makes it center to center. That is unfair by the rules. It only is an issue for close ones and we only get our scores as shooters, nothing else. Let bullets show you what happened if a plug is somehow distasteful.

Pete