Please Read, Another Perspective on "Score Shooting"

MRL said:
Ya know this talk about providing a way to come back from a dropped point is kinda silly to me. I think that a 250 score as the "entry" to play; yes matches are decided on X's but if you can't keep 25 shots in or touching a 1/2" ring how many X's do you feel you have a realistic chance of shooting?
Click to expand...

There is not much data at 100 yards to even answer this question, since almost everyone shoots 250. Let's ask the same question at 200 yards. Using the same Bluegrass results, 9 of the 15 shooters who dropped at least one point shot at least as many X's as the third place finisher who didn't drop a point. 5 of them shot more X's. One would have to conclude that there is not a strong correlation between dropping a point and not being able to hit X's.

Cheers,
Keith
 
How bout some NBRSA ranges step up and hang some IBS score targets and have matches at 100 and 200 yards then report back to me how easy it is. If it's so easy we certainly don't have to worry about dropped points. I don't think that the 11 pt system will change anything near the top in terms of finishing order at 100 yards except for the guy that shoots a 249-24(very rare). It could also be viewed as rewarding that guy for a bad shot when others kept them all tight. There are no mulligans in BR. I don't mind the idea of a smaller target. It's the same for everybody and I'll shoot what they hang up to shoot. A smaller target may be the proactive thing to do before it is a problem.--Mike Ezell
 
mks said:
There is not much data at 100 yards to even answer this question, since almost everyone shoots 250. Let's ask the same question at 200 yards. Using the same Bluegrass results, 9 of the 15 shooters who dropped at least one point shot at least as many X's as the third place finisher who didn't drop a point. 5 of them shot more X's. One would have to conclude that there is not a strong correlation between dropping a point and not being able to hit X's.

Cheers,
Keith
Click to expand...

Keith, you know that 200 is a whole different ballgame than 100 is. The 11pt system would change the game at 200 and in grand aggs ...just rarely at 100 IMO. --Mike Ezell
 
We have to develop a question to answer.
That question could be.
How do we stop the entire field from shooting 250?
Here are some answers.
1. Score worst edge
2. Lower powered scopes.
3. Smaller bullets.
4. Smaller targets
5. Shift the scoring rings 1 space left (make the X a 10)

What would we do if the top 15 out of 20 guys at a group match all shot a .150 agg????

Listen, if I can shoot a 250 then it is to darned easy.

Ted
 
hecksf said:
We have to develop a question to answer.
That question could be.
How do we stop the entire field from shooting 250?
Here are some answers.
1. Score worst edge
2. Lower powered scopes.
3. Smaller bullets.
4. Smaller targets
5. Shift the scoring rings 1 space left (make the X a 10)

What would we do if the top 15 out of 20 guys at a group match all shot a .150 agg????

Listen, if I can shoot a 250 then it is to darned easy.

Ted
Click to expand...

Ted, the point is, that a 250 is far from a perfect target. 250-25 is perfect and hard....to me anyway.:eek:--Mike
 
i actually like jackie's proposal, its just named wrong.

not score shooting, it should be BENCHREST shooting....

not shooting once and seeing how close you can get the other four, but getting all FIVE shots at the center of the target......(on five seperate targets)

yep i stepped in it this time.....

ducking for cover

mike in co
 
George

Yes, I shoot score when possible. I have purposly built 2 30BR's for that purpose.

As for what I said, upon rflection, that does not sound right. I will go back and remove that statement............jackie
 
mike in co said:
i actually like jackie's proposal, its just named wrong.

not score shooting, it should be BENCHREST shooting....

not shooting once and seeing how close you can get the other four, but getting all FIVE shots at the center of the target......(on five seperate targets)

yep i stepped in it this time.....

ducking for cover

mike in co
Click to expand...

Yep Mike, you just stepped in it I'll bet.....but I like it!
That would stop them from putting the dot where they want it and shooting 4 shot grups at it:D:D:)
 
Last edited:
for what its worth, a new shooter

I am a relatively new shooter. To date, I have only competed in IBS 600 and 1000yd. One thing that I do not care for is that it seems more important to shoot a little group than to actually hit the bulls eye, as opposed to carrying at least the same wieght or recognition (maybe I'm wrong).
I am interested in starting to shoot this discipline as well, and I love the sound of jackie's proposal. I do not have the perspective of having shot the existing various rules or targets, so my intention is to say that I like the sound of all shots agg. closest to bulls eye, and not to slam the existing format.
Don't get me wrong, I still love to shoot a tiny group, but I'm usually trying to hit the center every time.
I haven't seen a bullet hole on a target that I was shooting at yet, dial to last wind cond. on a clay bird and sling em as fast as ya can.
This score shooting seems appealing to me.
I don't know how all is done now, hence my title.
Jim
 
Jim, To a degree, it depends on the sport. In 1,000 and 600 yard benchrest, where you shoot both group and score at the same time, score pays just as much as group. One thing I've discovered is that with the, what, "public recognition" for small groups, you can shoot for score and slightly improve your odds of a win -- less competition.

True story. When Charles Bailey was chasing shooter of the year, he bought $600 worth of bullets to shoot 12-14 matches. That was when they were $20 a 100. He did extensive sorting, into A grade, B-grade, and "others." Well, he primarily shot only one range (10 matches) and the nationals, and didn't get quite enough points. That winter he fell in love with astronomy, and spent his shooting money on telescopes -- no money for bullets. So for the following year, he decided his "B" sort was good enough for score, adopted that strategy, and went out & won shooter of the year.

I think that means that in terms of absolute precision at long range, it is harder to shoot small groups than good scores. I have had several barrels that were "one down" from top level. They'd shoot 5 inch (5-shot) groups, or 6.5 inch (10-shot groups). That will get you only an occasional win. But they would shoot good enough to win score.

Would it help if they change the target? Not likely, there are very few 100s shot a 1,000 yards.

Does this mean group is somehow "better"? Not to me. "Precision" and "accuracy" are two different things, and we recognize both. Does it mean group is "harder"? Again, no.

One final note: If you ever wind up shooting point-blank benchrest, where you can see your holes in the target, you likely won't want your group in the center. A large number of people hold for the center. It is probably the fastest way to acquire the target. If you have holes at/near you aiming point, it isn't as fast.

I did not say it is the most *precise* way to acquire the target. That is probably to have each cross hair tangent to the 9-ring. It is a thin ring, and if the horizontal cross hair is tangent to the top of the ring (12:00 o'clock), and the vertical tangent to, say, the 3:00 position, you probably have as *precise* an aiming point as is possible. It is also slower to use.

Benchrest is its own sport. Some people prefer highpower.
 
Last edited:
Jackie said:
It would be no more difficult or time consuming to score in this manner than what we do in group
Click to expand...

I've seen shots so perfectly centered that it would take a second or two to decide which direction the shot is offset and then measure the shot. That's just one bull. In the amount of time it took to measure that shot the whole target could have been scored using the present method. Now multiply that by 5. If I want measurements I'll shoot Group.
 
Hi I run 3 score shoots a year at my local club here in ontario. We use the hi score metiod for scoring it keeps it interesting for all shooters and nothing is over till the last target is shot. Here is a example of our last shoot 100was won with a 272 score 200 was won with a 257 score . the grand winner score was 523 and he shoot 2 9s at 200 2nd was 522 no 9s at 200. As far as 30 cal. goes anybody can have one. We use the K.I.S.S. rule here ( keep it simple stupid ).
 
you know,,,,,,,,,,,,, ya'll might want to think about this,,,,,,, IBS is alive & well in a lot of place's,,,,,,, best edge, 10-X scoring, drop a point and your toast, 30br rules the roost (but 6ppc's still win sometimes),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,in other words,, "if it ain't broke don't fix it",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

the wind is my friend,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

DD
 
Depends

On what your agenda is. If your trying to lower the number of competitors who shoot a 250, worst edge or smaller rings will do that. The folks who shoot low X count will end up dropping a point. If your worried about a tie at the top they guys shooting a high X count won't be affected. Rare for them to place a shot far enough from the dot to be concerned. I that case Jackie's idea would seperate the men from the boys. Yes, they can measure say 60 group targets per relay at a national event. What would it be like to have to measure 300 groups per relay......................................................:eek:
 
Heres the thing

If I beat you by a x or by a point or by one thousandth of a inch did I not still beat you?
 
Jackie, I want to tell you I really like your idea. In fact I think it really is the best game I've heard of to promote rifle precision and accuracy. It has always bugged me that it doesn't matter where on the target your group ends up. Your game sounds really tough and fun. Having said that I also know it would require much more work to run that game than the current IBS VFS game. I would love to see both the current game and the one you have described. Maybe the best way is for one group to run on (e.g. IBS VFS) and the other group run the other. I do not expect this to happen though. I expect no one will want to set up and run the game you describe because we already have IBS VFS and it isn't broke and you game requires too much work. I would love to see your game come into its own though because it really would be a better test of both precision and accuracy. As desired it also completely removes any caliber advantage. I would encourage everyone to remember that we are just talking about games here. I know we get very passionate about these games - myself included - but they are just games.
Happy shooting friends! James
 
Lou

Would be fairly simple to do. Engrave a circle the size of the ten ring and then engrave a circle the size of a bullet hole central to the 10 ring circle into a sheet of 1/8" plexiglass. Next engrave a line from one edge of the 10 ring @ 9:00, run the line through the 10 ring @3:00 out for an inch or two. Place the reticle on the ten ring of the target with the engraved line parallel to the offset of the bullet. Open the calipers to measue the offset.
 
You guys that think this would be so simple and easy....consider this. How long do you think it would take to get the exact measurement you are looking for down to the .001 for each bull? Multiply this time element by 5 bulls per target, them multiply that # by the # of shooters in one relay. I'll be honest, I've never scored a group match, but I would think it would take at least 1 minute for an accurate meaurement to be made. Multiply that by 5 for one shooter. Multiply that by 16 in one relay. Most of our matches have two relays. Am I missing something here? Educate me.

Rick
 
hecksf said:
We have to develop a question to answer.
That question could be.
How do we stop the entire field from shooting 250?
Here are some answers.
1. Score worst edge
2. Lower powered scopes.
3. Smaller bullets.
4. Smaller targets
5. Shift the scoring rings 1 space left (make the X a 10)

What would we do if the top 15 out of 20 guys at a group match all shot a .150 agg????

Listen, if I can shoot a 250 then it is to darned easy.

Ted
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere, a list of the options that could be voted on. My preference would be to make the target more difficult, rather than adding restrictions the the rifle, scope or bullet.

The other problem that could be addressed is the advantage of larger bullets in best edge scoring. Worst edge scoring would favor small bullets. Measuring from the center of the bullet hole seems like the way to level the field and let the most accurate cartridge surface. I like Jackie's idea, except for the time it would take to score the targets. Making a mechanical device to manually score the targets wouldn't be a problem, but it would still be time consuming compared to the current method. The targets could be quickly scored electronically. I understand that Olympic targets are scored this way. But common scanners aren't large enough to image all five bulls, especially on the 200 yd target, and adopting the technology might be a barrier at some ranges.

Using a center/edge score would be just as easy as the current method, except for the few shots for which the bullet hole is nearly centered on a ring. In these cases, a transparent copy of a clean target could be laid over the target in question and positioned carefully to overlay the ring that the bullet hole obliterated, then a reticle centered over the bullet hole. The reticle would need a dot in the center of the bullet hole. The score would be determined by whether the dot is inside or outside the ring. Simple enough, minimal additional equipment needed and not much more time required. What do you think?

Cheers,
Keith
 
Charles, that's kinda my point, about sorting bullets and buying up barrels til you find a hot one. It may be more difficult to shoot the smaller group, depending on weather and quality of components. But that's just it, that's what it depends on, not just the ability to read and adjust for conditions (just my opinion). I would love to see what happens with the best shooters with only reasonable guns, and only reasonable shooters, or new shooters such as myself, with the best guns.
I think that Jackie's idea levels the playing field in regards to equipment, in that your gun could shoot little groups but you don't know where to point it. Or that your gun is only capable of mediocre potential but you agged. in the center.
I would enjoy the challenge of shooting against the best just to see where I stood.

I shot my best group ever at the match at Hawks Ridge 2 weeks ago, but I somehow felt like I missed the target 5 times in same darn place.
I guess it comes down to where one finds the game.

On another note, we are trying to put a 600 and/or 1000yd range together in my area. Possibly having a short range. I would like to try something like this if it comes together.

Don't we have laser's or puters to score these types of things yet?:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top