Point Blank BR Scoring - Re: MOA Conversion

C

crb

Ray Brooks
I am admittedly a new PBBR shooter in my 2nd year of competition so maybe I don't have proper respect for the history of PBBR scoring procedures. It is my belief that the 200 yd MOA conversion is possibly outdated. As an example here are my 200 yd scores from a match last year:

.8220 .9930 .9080 .6020 .6890 200yd agg .4014


Now that .4014 looks better than the actual .8028 average but IMO the .4014 is a made up number. Yes it is an approximation of MOA but in any discussion I have ever had with someone about group sizes it's always talked about in the actual CTC inch measurement of the group.

Now MOA may come into the discussion but that is when we start comparing groups from differing yardages. Therefore I can somewhat see the reasoning for the grand agg being expressed in MOA but that is the only time I see a need for 'fudging' the numbers. I think it promotes a lot of confusion amongst shooters that are not BR savvy.

These are the shooters we are trying to attract to our sport. If they read some match report and see that some guy with a tricked out Savage shot a 200 yd .4014 agg they might think "there is no way I could do that" and maybe they don't ever show up for a match. Now if they were to see the Savage shooter's score listed as his actual average of .8028" then maybe they say to themselves " I could do that with some practice and coaching" and come out to a match and sign up.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, something that I admit happens [ well, rarely :stickouttongue: ]. So give me some feedback. Does your club list the 200 yd agg in MOA or the actual average ? Would showing the Grand Agg in the actual average give too much emphasis to the 200 yd numbers or would it just give us a bigger number that would look less imposing to potential new shooters ?

Thanks
Ray Brooks
 
As you probably know, the use of inches as MOA at 100 is just an approximation, nevertheless for groups shot at that distance the extreme spread and MOA are (using the afore mentioned non-exact convention) the same. To do an average, which is what the aggregate is, the units must be the same for everything being averaged, hence the conversion of the 200 groups to MOA (using the inexact inch equals one at 100 yards convention). One cannot average feet and inches without converting all the measurements to one or the other. A simple MOA note after the agg and grand agg numbers would possibly help those who are not familiar with the conventions of Benchrest, but in my experience by the time that someone is far enough along to contemplate competing this convention has been discovered in conversation. The conventions of the sport are not outdated; they just require a little learning, which is to be expected when one takes up any new activity.
 
You got a good answer from Boyd

When we are actually shooting at a match, we refer to our groups by the actual size. For instance, if we are shooting 200 yards, and I happen to shoot a .420, I will come back and say, I think I got a "small four". Everybody knows what I am talking about. Or sometimes I will say, "It's on the the "three side of four", or if it was a .480, I will say, "It's on the five side of four, or maybe the four side of five", if I am not real sure.
When the scorer writes the measurement on the target, it is the actual measurement. That way when you screw up and shoot a 1.500, EVERBODY gets to marvel at your "accomplishment".
It is only converted to MOA in the results, because you have to, as Boyd stated, standardize the numbers.
Some might think your question to be a little strange, but we have to understand that there are a lot of shooters who do get a little confused about other disciplines that they are not that familliar with.
Just think about the first time someone tried to explain the way Bowling is scored. Heck, I am 60 years old, and I still get confused.
Don't get too intimidated by all of this. Remember, most of the time, the groups being shot are relative to the conditions. In really good conditions, a "four" at 200 yards might be about average for the day.
But on days like we just had at The Texas State at Seymour, a "four" would be an absolute slack grabber. In fact, several times,shooters would come back from the line and say, "I did pretty good, probably a mid seven". Now, that might sound weird in the game of Benchrest, but keep in mind, just keeping the groups under an inch was a major task........jackie
 
Let me get this straight

All the measurements are taken in 'inches'. All the averaging/aggregate is done in 'inches' and this aggregate is converted to MOA. But you don't use the actual MOA conversion you use 1 inch = 1 MOA/100yd. vs. 1.047 inches.
Is this correct? If so, why use the incorrect conversion factor?

Thanks,
Mike
 
Y'all are making this too difficult.

It's not that difficult guys.

All targets are measured in inches. Nothing is ever converted to MOA.

We divide the "average" 200 scores by 2 and call that an aggregate 200 yard score.

That way we can again "average" that score with the 100 yard score to get a "Grand Aggregate" score.

So why do we divide the 200 AGG by 2?

If you used the raw 200 yard scores, the importance of the 200 yard scores would overwhelm the importance of the 100 yard scores.

In other words ...you could shoot real crappy at 100 yards and it really doesn't matter as long as you do well at 200. One good 200 yard group would negate a bunch of bad 100 yard groups. It would make two yardage aggregate shoots pointless.

Scott
 
Two shooters

here is a scenario:

shooter A

100 yards .300 , .250 , .200 , .250 , .200
200 yards .700 , .500 , .400 , .300 , .600

100 yard agg .240
200 yard agg .250
200 yard average .500
grand aggregate .245
overall average .370

************************************
Shooter B (shoots .050 bigger on all 100 yard targets - and shoots a better fifth 200 yard target - .300 instead of .600)

100 yards .350 , .300 , .250 , .300 , .250
200 yards .700 , .500 , .400 , .300 , .300


100 yard agg .290
200 yard agg .220
200 yard average .440
grand aggregate .255
overall average .365


*****************************

Using aggregate score shooter a wins -

Using overall average shooter b wins -

shooter B shot .050 bigger groups on every 100 yard target, But he shot one more good group at 200 yards.

Since 200 yard groups are about twice as big as 100 yard groups.... use of overall averages put twice as much importance on 200 yard scores.

Scott
 
Last edited:
Let me just quote what Ray said about logging aggs in the current methode.

"Not in BR [which in my opinion is self deluding, feel good BS]"

So basically Ray is saying that we state the agg in this method. because we want to fool ourselves into thinking that we did better than we actually did and we are full of BS.

Ted
 
If I may quote,from the rule book,"(c) Heavy Varmint, Light Varmint, and Sporter Championship courses of fire shall be 5 "5-shot" matches at 100 yards and 5 "5-shot" matches at 200 yards. The smallest 100 yard aggregate for each class shall be the 100 Yard Champion; the smallest 200 yard aggregate for each class shall be the 200 Yard Champion; the winner of the Grand Aggregate for each class, combining the 100 and 200 yard aggregates (expressed in minute of angle) shall be the Champion."

Note the reference to MOA. I knew that I had read or heard it somewhere.
 
?

All these numbers determine is who won on the day.The size of the numbers is determined by conditions on the day.So in reality the only numbers that count are the placings.The first advice given to any newbie is come to a shoot trying to change the rules won't happen to this magnitude,if thats were this is headed.
Jim
 
Boyd Allen said:
If I may quote,from the rule book,"(c) Heavy Varmint, Light Varmint, and Sporter Championship courses of fire shall be 5 "5-shot" matches at 100 yards and 5 "5-shot" matches at 200 yards. The smallest 100 yard aggregate for each class shall be the 100 Yard Champion; the smallest 200 yard aggregate for each class shall be the 200 Yard Champion; the winner of the Grand Aggregate for each class, combining the 100 and 200 yard aggregates (expressed in minute of angle) shall be the Champion."

Note the reference to MOA. I knew that I had read or heard it somewhere.
Click to expand...

You would think that in this shooting world of being precise whoever made the rule with the wording "expressed in minute of angle" would have got that part correct....

If (expressed in minute of angle) is the actual rule, and all of the aggregate records that have been recorded without actually converting to m.o.a. (which does not equal one inch at 100 yards) are invalid ... the rule should be amended to reflect what actually is recorded. There should be no reference to m.o.a. and it should state the aggregates at yardages over 100 are to be attained by dividing the yardage to be comparable to 100 yards.... something to that effect....

any reference to m.o.a. is incorrect...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boyd
you are right, the NBRSA rulebook says:

National Course aggregate shall be computed and posted promptly after the last target of the last match for each course is scored. The total of scores for all National Course 100-yard matches divided by the number of matches shall be the aggregate. The total of scores for the National Course 200-yard matches divided by twice the number of matches shall be the National Course 200-yard minute of angle aggregate. The sum of the 100-yard and 200-yard aggregates divided by 2 shall be the Grand Aggregate


so it does reference MOA - even though divided by two is not true MOA.
 
Good Grief

This thread started out as a simple question by a shooter who was unfamiliar with the way aggregates are actually figured.
What it has turned into shows that we are running out of things to argue over.
Dennis is correct in that there really should not be a mention of MOA, because it is not the same thing as "dividing by 2".
But the reality of the situation is the vast majority of shooters just do not care.......jackie
 
Last edited:
As long as the rules are applied in a uniform manner and the method of arriving at a winner is uniform where's the beef?? I sure don't see where "MOA" enters into it and from a technical point of view that wording should have been left out. Whether expressed in MOA or averaged the outcome would be the same. I agree with Jackie; "cabin fever" in June??

Mike Swartz
 
Simplicity

The system in use was probably the most practical method in earlier days when computers weren't common-----eliminated the error-prone act of dealing with the oddball number of 1.047.

Its much easier to divide by 2.

From a competitive angle-----all competitors are scored by the same method.

The simple way is sometimes the best.

A. Weldy
 
Mike Swartz said:
Whether expressed in MOA or averaged the outcome would be the same.

Mike Swartz
Click to expand...

the outcome may be but the point I am trying to make... there is a difference... 1 inch at 100 yards is not m.o.a.... precision should be precise...

...and to blindly go on ignoring it is only "teaching" those who don't know a fallacy....

I know the difference is minuscule but often the differences between a winning agg and second place are as well ... precision should be precise...
 
If we wanted to be precise in our language, we could simply state that for the computation of aggregates all group averages shall be converted into units of inches per hundreds of yards (100yd. groups over 1, 200yd. groups over 2, 300 yard groups over 3)...but as has been stated what we are currently doing gives this result. It is just that the use of MOA in the rule book is not correct. Now about those angels on that pin head....
 
The true fallacy is that anyone teaches MOA. I would go so far as to say 99.5% of the membership don't know the rule exists. I agree with what you say completely. The rule term MOA should be eliminated. It would appear that the founding fathers, at some point in the past, decided to compare apples and pears. Will that happen?? Who lnows!!
I would almost wager, given the fact this is such a non-issue, it won't If it came to a vote I would vote to eliminate the phrase. There are matters that require immediate attention and this isn't one of them. If the terminology gave someone an unfair advantage that would be another matter but since everyone is scored on the same system that simply doesn't happen. The only problem I could see is in the area of records. Has this method(MOA) ever been used?? I don't know and wouldn't attempt to answer that question. If ancient records were set based on a standard other than what is used today then there is no parity.

Mike Swartz
 
This discussion [ not argueing, Jackie ] has led me to a couple of conclusions.

Conclusion #1: I don't understand why in the far past they decided that averaging the scores was the way to go. Maybe this is the deception I feel in built into the scoring. In Scott's example of shooter A why not just put down the total of all the groups he shot ? 3.70 inches instead of .370 . I didn't realize that it worked out that way until I started playing around with Scott's numbers :)

Actually, Scott's example proves to me that converting to 'moa' and averaging reduces the importance of the more difficult yardage. Shooter B shot .250 bigger at 100 yds but he was .300 better at 200. He should have .050 in the bank but due to the MOA conversion shooter A's .600 at 200 doesn't penalize him much.

Using the actual total sum of all the groups would have shooter A with a 3.70 score and shooter B with a 3.55 score.

Conclusion #2: The guy that scores all our matches cain't do math !!!!!!!!!!!!
Shooter B has a .440" average at 200 yds { not .430 ] and a .355 overall average, not .360. Thank heaven for scoring computers :)
 
yeah yeah

Ok I went back and fixed the math.

You think that is scary - who do you think wrote the computer scoring program we use??

hows this for math?


shooter A shoots 21% better than shooter B at 100 yards
shooter A shoots 12% worse than shooter B at 200 yards

but shooter A still gets beat using "total group size" or "total average" scoring.

oh yeah - one more thing - check your math... mine was incorrect at .360 - really should have been .365 (not.355)


In the end it doesn't really matter- just tell me the rules before we play.
 
ScottD said:
oh yeah - one more thing - check your math... .
Click to expand...

DOH ! I wrote down .200 instead of .300 for B's second 100 group. The adding machine is in the other room so I had to write it all on a note pad. I have been making alum chips all day so all the numbers are running together.

I did know something was up with my numbers because somewhere the .050 B had in the bank had morphed into something else.

I feel the same way, put up the targets and shoot. The guy that does the best always wins....... [ is that another doh ??? ].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top