Here's Jackies Targets

In my opinion there should be very little difference between the measurements done at the range and those done by the records committee.
At our matches we have most of the nbrsa records committee in attendance and they put there boots on just like anybody else.To have such a large variation between them means somebody is looking at a tear or smudge differently than everybody else.
I actually signed a potential record target and I didn't think the bullet hole cut the scoring ring.Fortunately another shooter in attendance bested that score anyway so it was a mute point.
I would not want to deny anybody a reacord but for a variation as big as Jackie is getting on his targets something seems wrong.
I am with Hovis that each target should have an official measurement on it initialled by those making the measurements.I would hate to think a communication problem or a misplaced number cost anyone a record.
Lynn

P.S. Jackie check your PM's
 
I agree with the officials measurements.
If the range officials measure the target at the match and there appears to be a record set then when it is sent for confirmation by the committee then each member involved in verifying the record should be required to list their results. There should be transparency in the process with all involved.
Not that I am trying to malign the reputation of any official (I am not) however it seems that with the current system has about the same transparency as the current Obama administration.
Again before anyone shoots their mouth off I am NOT say or even suggesting that any official has done ANYTHING wrong in any way.
I am only addressing that one part of the process that seems in appropriate.
 
I agree that there should be transparency in the process.
One of the biggest issues now is the huge amount of doubt over the official results and the repercussions of that doubt. IF casual conversation and emails are to be judged then a lot of people in BR are questioning the veracity of the "official results."
The doubt and suspicion that has been cast over the results of Jackie's records have created I believe a large loss in faith in the NBRSA records process along with an eye on the validity of all previous successful or unsuccessful record attempts and with the basically the NBRSA as an institution itself in doubt. This is a dark time for the NBRSA.
There have been a few statements concerning the honor of those who did the scoring for the "official record". How about the honor of those that did the initial scoring. Haven't the "official results" cast doubt on their honor?
Ted
 
TedH said:
I agree that there should be transparency in the process.
One of the biggest issues now is the huge amount of doubt over the official results and the repercussions of that doubt. IF casual conversation and emails are to be judged then a lot of people in BR are questioning the veracity of the "official results."
The doubt and suspicion that has been cast over the results of Jackie's records have created I believe a large loss in faith in the NBRSA records process along with an eye on the validity of all previous successful or unsuccessful record attempts and with the basically the NBRSA as an institution itself in doubt. This is a dark time for the NBRSA.
There have been a few statements concerning the honor of those who did the scoring for the "official record". How about the honor of those that did the initial scoring. Haven't the "official results" cast doubt on their honor?
Ted
Click to expand...

Ted, you have put into print exactly what I have been thinking. Not only the honor of those that did the initial scoring, but also the honor of our Gulf Coast Regional Director who measured the targets and sent them forward. I have alot of respect for those individuals and feel this is a travesty.

By the way, who is incharge of the Hall of Fame?

The targets speak for themselves.



GW
 
measurement differences

Many, many ranges measure small and the purpose of having an official measurement committee is to have long term stability and consistency in the measurement of records. At a match it does not matter if targets are being measured small or large as long as the measurements are consistent.

Having officially measured 10,000's of targets, Just eyeballing those targets (which is a great set of targets) and the positioning of the calipers in the pictures indicates to me that the problem measurements are not with the committee. Just look at how much multiple bullet arcs you can see and mentally do the math! I have watched many folks use the measuring reticule and use it wrong--they are consistent at it-so I said above-it makes no difference at a match-but records are another story.

Implying that collusion exists in the committee to bias measurements for 30 cal targets just does not make any sense. It is much like the 200 yard 30 caliber target from the mid west a year or so ago--nice target--but grossly mis-measured at the range. There were implications m made at that time that some one had it in for a 30 caliber shooter.

Jeff Stover has a nice survey asking why we are not attracting more shooters and some are wondering what is happening to ranges. Implicit accusations can certainly turn off volunteers that freely give their time to make the sport happen. Beyond that, a thread like this would suggest to a newbie that they may as well not show up to a match as they targets will not be measured correctly. That is far from the truth. I have found as stated above, that at group matches-most ranges tend to measure small and the key as Charles E indicated as well is that the measurements are consistently small so it is fair for every one at the shoot!

I am glad the pictures got posted to go along with the dialog as they helped me drwn my own conclusions.

Jim
 
jackie schmidt said:
Chris, you are asking the wrong person. You should ask the people who initially measured the targets last July 4th in Midland.

For some reason, there is a acceptence that "they just did not know what they were doing". I have been told personally by the Match Director that they took the utmost care in measuring those targets, because they knew they were on a record run. I say "they" because more than one person was involved.

I guess in all of this, that fact is forgotten.

As most know, aside from just saying, "it was a good agg", I said very little about the targets untill I actually received them.

We placed the calipers on the targets just for scale. If you look close, you can see that we placed a small amount of "paper" on at least one side so as not to give the wrong impression. Also, all of our other measurements are done with an official scoring device.........jackie
Click to expand...

Jackie, I was asking you because you have clearly measured the targets yourself and obviously found them to measure smaller than the records committee.

I myself, very rarely challenge a target at the range. But at the 2009 Nationals I did think a target should have measured smaller. I spoke to Ron Hoehn about it (on the measuring committee) and he was decent enough to educate me a little on the measuring process. Before he re-measured, he took one look at the group and suggested that it probably even measure larger than the posted number. Using a proper device he went through the process and sure enough, and very much to my surprise, he convinced me that the group was "leniently measured".

So I do think that many range officials "measure smaller". Some may well measure bigger. The important thing is that at any match the measuring is consistent. That way we determine the winner of that tournament fairly. But determining a record is another matter and I think it is reasonable to expect a difference between the way "the ranges" measure and the records committee. What is important at the records committee that they have a consistent and fair method/process of measuring from one application to the next. Otherwise the records would be subject to the whims of officials. I saw a post from Gene B on the process and that seems fair to me. If there is a fairer way to do it, then we as members should raise it at the meetings.

I think that one way to mitigate the difference between range officials and records officials is to have much better training of all range officials who measure targets. This would go a long way to making shooters feel that all targets country (and world) wide were being measured more consistently and there would likely be less doubt cast on the records committee when they often measure larger.

The other method, which I think makes more sense and is less costly, is to implement a scanning and software process. If there is a reliable and consistent way of measuring the targets this way, I think we will go a long way to the let shooters feel that the human error is taken out of the process. That still leaves the differential between records and range scoring unless the scanners and software are calibrated to records committee specifications. Maybe someone needs to look into this.

I still THINK, from what I can see on the photos, that the calliper measurements are generous, even with "paper on the one side". That is only from my limited knowledge of scoring targets.

I gave you my opinion, so I ask you the question again, why do you think there is a differential between range and records scorers?

Chris
 
Jackie
The next time you go to Genes tunnel take the targets with you and see if he will measure each of them in front of you so you can see for yourself why the measurements have so much variation.
It is probaly a smudge from the bullet that is not getting measured at the range that is getting measured by the commttee.
When you get back you can re-post the pictures and explain how both sides measured the targets as a kind of educational thing for those that are curious so bring your camera.
Lynn
 
:pChris, I understand your question. In all honesty, I do not have an answer. The Match Director at Midland is an experienced shooter, and has experience measuring targets. While he is not the official scorer, he did check these as they were being scored, because in all honesty, when you start getting targets that small, you want to make sure everything is being done correctly. In other words, those particular five targets on that day were given special notice, not only because they were a 30 caliber, but because they were measuring quite small.

As I said, the first thing I did when I got the targets was measure them, and when I was getting much closer to the Range Measurements, I took them up to Tomball where we used an official NBRSA Scoring Device. We had sort of a "measuring party", every bodies opinion was the same.

That is when I decided to send them to Randy.

If you go back in this thread, I have proposed exactly what you have said, have a video made and distribute it to the various Match Directors, so that we can standardize this proccess. That way, perhaps in the future, a shooter will not have to go through the roller coaster ride I have taken.

If you are asking how I measure a target, this is how. The Official Measuring Device has reticles, (etched circles), that you use with what ever caliber the group was shot with. I ascertain, by magnification, the exact maximum spead of the "bullet hole black", and carefully move the tool untill the reticles are exactly on that maximum spread. I then read the measurement.

With calipers, you have to take into consideration that the bullet hole in the paper is not quite full size. I checked many of the sighter holes on my targets, some measure the full .308, others smaller, in the .298-.300 range.

That is why you use an official scoring device. It has the correct size reticle circles, and this compensates for that. Many shooters think you are supposed to put "paper" between the official scoring device and the bullet black. That is not so, because the reticle already compensates for the bullet diameter. Beside, if you start putting "paper" beteen the reticle circles and the group, this becomes a judgement call. The official Scoring Device is designed to take as much human element out of the proccess as possible. Who ever is scoring the target is not suppose to "assume' anything. You put the reticles on the spread, and read the numbers.

For what it is worth, my "caliper" method, by carefully measuring the spread and subtracting .300, (not .308) is within .005 or so of what I get with the Official Scoring Device.

I hope this answers your question............jackie
 
Last edited:
Ok, so let's have an online "measuring party" using your targets.

Maybe we can learn something as to what the proper way is to measure targets and why your targets are in fact measuring bigger than what they were originally measured. Obviously much of this is mute as the targets may not be in the exact same condition as they were when they were shot but it will still be interesting.

Not sure if this will work. I have attached 4X enlargements and crops of your targets. Again, and in my very humble opinion, just looking at the enlargements that the calipers are too generous. This is especially so after I have had the process demonstrated by a person who is an official. The calipers are also obscuring the groups so I am limited in what I can see.

I think it would be helpful if you could post hi-res (300 dpi colour) scans of your groups with a 6" flat machinist rule next to the group.

Please note that this debate and exercise is all aside from the fact that I am myself not capable of shooting a set of targets like these. To date I have still never shot a screamer at 100 yards in competition!

t001.jpg

t002.jpg

t003.jpg

t004.jpg

t005.jpg
 
Thank you Jackie

Jackie
Thanks for the explanation. Now I can understand the variation--the procedure is NOT to measure from edge of black to edge of black of the bullet hole. It is to center the reticule on the widest shot at each edge of the group and if you go from edge of black to edge of black -you will find that the reticule does not "center" on the bullet arcs--you have to align so that it does.


I wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be training and the two threads about this help support that proposal that has been made. There have been training sessions before and no one has taken time in last few years to do it.

The video training is an excellent idea.

As a note-each individual selected to be on the IBS Measuring Committee had to be qualified by someone that had been qualified in the past. It keeps a consistent measurement base. One of the most often misunderstood part of doing that measurement is using black edge to black edge and there have been folks that have measured for registered matches that do it that way-and as said before-that is fine for the shoot because if the person consistently does it that way-then the targets will be measured consistently.

Jim
 
It looks like target #1 has a void under the right caiiper jaw that needs to be accounted for and target 5 doesn't appear to be measured across the widest point from looking at the pencil line.
Can you remeasure those two targets and see if this is were the variation came from?
Lynn
 
We can Do This

The difference in the official measurements and the range measurements are .0426. So, we can assume that the original scorer missed each target by .0426 if this is indeed a difference in 'technique'.

I will take each target, and add .308 to the original measurement, to get the spread. I will then extend the calipers by another .0426, (to simulate the spread of the Official Measurement) and lay them on top of the groups.

Lynn, if you notice, on target one, there is an equal amount of "paper" on the left side, I let the caliper slip when he took the picture, didn't realize it untill we posted it. I though shooters would see that. If you look at target five, there is a faint circle out there on the bottom left that I had to account for, thus that is the widest point........jackie
 
Last edited:
I use On Targer program and get 149 ,149 ,184 ,135 ,and 120 basics that the 0.5 inch inside and 1" outside square.
if you have a photo of sighters in which is invidual shot (one shot) .. please post it

my poor english
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting, a .147 agg, pretty close to what the Committee came up with.

I'd take it .........jackie
 
Last edited:
metkuvja said:
I use On Targer program and get 149 ,149 ,184 ,135 ,and 120 basics that the 0.5 inch inside and 1" outside square.
if you have a photo of sighters in which is invidual shot (one shot) .. please post it

my poor english
Click to expand...

I was rooting for Jackie and his group as it went to the record committee. However, there is a danger in calibrating the On Target with a photograph with the reference scale not being immediately next to the group. As you vary from the center of the image, all dimensions are out of proportion. To use the On Target software, it would be much better to scan the targets with a flatbed scanner set to a high resolution (600 dpi or higher). Just my 2 cents, Tim
 
Gene B started his own post in order to address the process the committee uses to measure these targets. He gave a little history on why competitors are NEVER allowed to touch their targets EVER. And even gave a little explanation on how targets/groups can be manipulated.
He mentioned heat and humidity. Being a wood worker I am very familiar with these items and papers is for the most part wood. He said he would answer questions on the process but not the targets.

I asked a question however he has up to this point refused to comment.
My question was how the targets were transported and stored from match time to final measurement.
Also made a point to note I was not trying to point a finger at any person or their credibility.

When targets are being measured down to the .0001 or even just .001 that does not take much in the way of humidity or lack there of to case a piece of paper to expand and contract.

Even steel and brass change when measuring down to that leave when there is heat or cold involved.
Seems that when a possible record target is shot it should be sealed in a plastic bag and kept off the wall from other peoples hands. Plastic bag being critical.
Should be shipped sealed in a box not a cardboard envelope.
And finally it would seen that to get the best measurement it should remain in the plastic and be measured in a room brought to the same temperature each time.
Maybe it is but no one has volunteered that info as yet.
 
Scanning and trying to measure only the group is not going to give a good measure.
There is not several ways to skin this cat, for each target you need to:

If you have a measurement device on the caliper with a circle you must center it on a single bullet hole and see what distance you have between the circle and the black printed by the bullet, then use this when measuring the group with the same circle.

If using a standard caliper you measure the black around a single bullet hole, reset the caliper and then measure the group.

If the black ring is not exactly round you need to interpolate it when measuring.

Everyone that is used to handle other kinds measurments understands that we in benchrest are using too many digits in our results, we don't have the accuracy but we use it to split results which is easy but actually wrong.
 
Ulrik Sandgren said:
Everyone that is used to handle other kinds measurments understands that we in benchrest are using too many digits in our results, we don't have the accuracy but we use it to split results which is easy but actually wrong.
Click to expand...

interesting point

:)

al
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top