IBS Annual Meeting Summary

J

Jeff Stover

Member
The IBS’ Annual Meeting was held on January 15, 2010 in New Cumberland (Harrisburg), Pennsylvania. Below is super short version of what happened. My full report and PowerPoint is on the IBS web site:

http://internationalbenchrest.com/news/index.php


• The organization’s finances are solid.
• The number of competitors in all four disciplines (600, 1000, Score and Group) remained relatively stable.
• Representatives from the each of the discipline committees will sit as ex officio members of the IBS Executive Board.
• Gary Long and others promulgated the format for a Score Shooting Hall of Fame. The IBS EBoard has been working with Gary for some months to help get this new HOF started. Points for both IBS Score and NBRSA Hunter competition count toward membership. Once the inaugural class is inducted the members will run it themselves like the U. S. Benchrest Hall of Fame does. (full details will be on IBS web site).
• New records were shot in all the disciplines.
• Both temporary 2010 rule changes were soundly passed. Wind flags - Flags are essentially restricted to lane in front of shooters. After an aggregate commences flags cannot be moved except by range personnel and never for the shooters' convenience or advantage. Records - If multiple competitors break a record on a given day, regardless of the match they attended or the relay on which they shot, each one is given full credit for breaking the record; the best score shot on that day is recognized record going forward. Rule is not retroactive.
• Kim and Gary Amatrudo received the President’s Award for their tireless work to support the group discipline.
• The trial AR class will continue. The EBoard is looking at some marketing opportunities.
• Over 550 benchrest shooters took the time to fill it out. Nearly 500 non-benchrest shooters responded.
• The results of the surveys can be found at the following web link (use IBS as the password):
Benchrest shooters survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=NPttfyWNFKohsZ15rJ2VyxSgq3VaWhdPEsyLbM320nY_3d

Non-benchrest shooters survey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=epQYw4v81oHGmT20SLZz_2fWNTksVcKtlja8MyWEaO2eE_3d

Take away points from the surveys are:
• There is strong interest in growing benchrest
• There is a group of shooters that would like to learn more about benchrest competition (from the non-BR shooters survey)
• Cost is an issue for some
• The economy has adversely affected shooter participation
• Shooters would like to have more matches at more ranges (note – we need more shooters to do this)
• The idea of “caliber neutral” (not giving an advantage to larger diameter bullet holes) score in the Score discipline is a 50/50 proposition for current score shooters. There is a large body of shooters (not currently in that discipline) that would like to shoot Score if it were “caliber neutral”.
• The 1000 yard shooters would like to shoot more aggregates
• The DQ rule in long range needs to be looked at
• 65% of respondents to survey would like to see one centerfire benchrest organization (note - there are significant hurdles to do this)

Proposed 2011 Rule Changes

Stationary Backers in the Score Discipline
Rejected by a wide margin were two proposals to constrain stationary backers to Score Nationals and State Championships. These backers are essential in determining whether a crossfire occurred and from which bench.

Muzzle Brakes
The long range shooters voted to allow muzzle brakes the Heavy Gun class. This will allow the Light Guns (which usually have muzzle brakes) to compete in both classes. This change was supported by the Long Rang Committee and endorsed by the EBoard.

Jeff Stover
IBS President
 
Jeff, I would amagine that the large number of shooters who are not currently shooting score who want to see it caliber neutral do not at this time own a Rifle larger than caliber 6mm.......jackie
 
For active score shooters it was 48% in favor or caliber neutral and 52% against. That's pretty even....

I am not carrying a torch on this matter at all as I primarily shoot group. If it goes anywhere it will be because of the score shooters wanting to make a change. It is simply something that is on the table for discussion. I find the survey results interesting though. From my perspective as "Joe Shooter", I would say it is inherently unfair that a larger hole makes for a better score. I say that NOT as IBS President just my individual perspective.

One of the themes in the survey is holding down costs. Being able to be competitive in score and group with a 10.5 6PPC is attractive. One less rifle to buy.
 
Last edited:
Jeff, you can't help say it as IBS President, since you are. Just a quick comment....score shooting is about hitting something finite. Hitting, hitting, hitting. Best, --Greg
 
Last edited:
A better solution may be:

Have a "Sporter VFS class" and have it for 6MM and under. After so many people have spent what they have spent on 30's it's grossly unfair to penalize them now.


I suspect the results of some move to make the 6MM equal in size would result in the same situation we have now. Those folks who are committed to participating in Score shooting are doing exactly that, committing. The Shooting Sports are never going to be inexpensive, no matter what one does.
 
greg said:
Jeff, you can't help say it as IBS President, since you are. Just a quick comment....score shooting is about hitting something finite. Hitting, hitting, hitting. Best, --Greg
Click to expand...

G-man,
Hitting with a decidedly bigger hole is....cheating. Hitting and using caliber neutral scoring is equitable, eh?
I own several cheater guns and I'll play the game either way.
Stay warm.
David
 
I've always believed the two fairly equal, Does not the 6mm have a Ballistic advantage over the 30's??
 
Dave,
Pretty hard to stay warm this morning.... minus 10F. I guess I have a problem with potentially changing the scoring to a caliber neutral format to suit those who do not currently shoot score. The online voting regarding the question by those who do shoot score, as being pretty close(roughly 53%-no vs 47%-yes) is a bit misleading I think. About a 7% spread is not close.

Carrying the logic of printing a bigger hole as cheating forward, shooting with a 13.5 or 10.5 pound 6mm vs the same weight .30 caliber isn't? Hope you have lots of snow and make tons of $...those .30 cal bullets are spensive! In the end, the decision will be made by the membership, both score and non score shooters. I just hope the E board lets that process evolve via factual discussion. --Greg
 
Last edited:
Interesting post as to the agenda' The results are sometimes cloudy. I must say though it was one of the best meetings i have attended. Everyone was civil and few negative comments. Jeff did a really great presentation and the slides were great. John Cascarino gave a really good presentation on the awards .
Jeff you did a great job along with Dick Grosbrier and the whole board. Bob White also had some posative imput
Edna had a point or two to bring up and all in all it was a great meeting. Thank you one and all committes officers and People attending. Thanks are in order to Jim Borden for His imput. Gerry Malerba
 
It's the sign of the times:

A "progressive Agenda" sweeping our country: Would we expect our Sporting Endeavors to be excluded from it?

The Government always knows better, doesn't it? Presidents are God, aren't they? Can't everyone win at whatever they do? Can't we all just Get Along?

Next thing we might see is a Charity Fund for those who can't afford to shoot. Perhaps it could be funded by some kind of Progressive Tax.
 
I think it was a feeler about combining both IBS and NBRSA. I did bring up a point about agreements honoring IBS cards at NBRSA matchs. I was that way for a while then their board decided for some reason it wasen't good for NBRSA.
Some people resent having to belong to two organizations. One spoke out at the meeting' I'm sure the results of that survey would be different if NBRSA was honoring IBS cards at their shoots. The clubs still get all of the match fees.
Its up to the clubs to send in the proper amount to the organizations , so ther really isn't anything for NBRSA to loose.
 
The reason to change the score game to caliber neutral is the same reason the sporter class in group will never change...use one gun and one set of components. Even for score shooters that also shoot some group it would be much easier and less expensive if they didn't have to buy 30 barrels, brass, and bullets along with all of their 6 components. I suspect that if I was trying to do both I would lean that way also as I only own and shoot but a single gun. Why would anyone want to maintain a supply for two calibers if there is no need. With caliber neutral, I would probably go back to a 6, but that is also my fear. What I like about the rules for score, the way they are now, is that people are always experimenting. I have no doubt that a bullet maker will someday make a .40 or 45 caliber and we will begin to investigate the possibilities all over again. I don't want to go back. I'm not one of the investigators...but it wouldn't take me long to get on that wagon! That to me is what we lose if we become caliber neutral, everyone shooting 22 and 6's, forever and ever and ever and .... Randy J.
 
GerryM said:
I think it was a feeler about combining both IBS and NBRSA. I did bring up a point about agreements honoring IBS cards at NBRSA matchs. I was that way for a while then their board decided for some reason it wasen't good for NBRSA.
Some people resent having to belong to two organizations. One spoke out at the meeting' I'm sure the results of that survey would be different if NBRSA was honoring IBS cards at their shoots. The clubs still get all of the match fees.
Its up to the clubs to send in the proper amount to the organizations , so ther really isn't anything for NBRSA to loose.
Click to expand...

Gerry, the clubs don't get the "match fee", the sanctioning body does.
 
Randy Jarvais said:
The reason to change the score game to caliber neutral is the same reason the sporter class in group will never change...use one gun and one set of components. Even for score shooters that also shoot some group it would be much easier and less expensive if they didn't have to buy 30 barrels, brass, and bullets along with all of their 6 components. I suspect that if I was trying to do both I would lean that way also as I only own and shoot but a single gun. Why would anyone want to maintain a supply for two calibers if there is no need. With caliber neutral, I would probably go back to a 6, but that is also my fear. What I like about the rules for score, the way they are now, is that people are always experimenting. I have no doubt that a bullet maker will someday make a .40 or 45 caliber and we will begin to investigate the possibilities all over again. I don't want to go back. I'm not one of the investigators...but it wouldn't take me long to get on that wagon! That to me is what we lose if we become caliber neutral, everyone shooting 22 and 6's, forever and ever and ever and .... Randy J.
Click to expand...

Randy, I was just speaking with another shooter a couple of hours ago and we talked about the same thing. I agree completely.--Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top