Apollo
Jason Stanley
The title of this thread is pretty important "The Great Score Target and Bullet Size Controversy".
Group matches do not have these same discussions because the diameter of the bullet is taken out of the equation when scoring a target. A .200" group is a .200" group regardless of the caliber - it is just a slightly bigger hole when using a larger caliber bullet = which is where the controversy comes in because score targets have rings. Theoretically, the solution is to get rid of the rings (maybe keep the 8 ring for aiming purposes) and only have the dot. Measure from the center of the dot to the center of the bullet hole. Shoot whatever caliber you want. The winner would be the person with the lowest combined distance (measurement) - just like in group except this would be a more true measure of accuracy rather than precision.
I type theoretically because that method would be a realistic scoring nightmare. It would almost have to be a computer scanning system to determine the distance. That probably isn't going to happen - and I'm guessing would not change the order of the results enough to justify the expense. Therefore we will have rings on the target. As long as there are rings - we will have these discussions.
Kudos to UBR for having the desire, work ethic, and kahunas to try something new.
Stanley
Group matches do not have these same discussions because the diameter of the bullet is taken out of the equation when scoring a target. A .200" group is a .200" group regardless of the caliber - it is just a slightly bigger hole when using a larger caliber bullet = which is where the controversy comes in because score targets have rings. Theoretically, the solution is to get rid of the rings (maybe keep the 8 ring for aiming purposes) and only have the dot. Measure from the center of the dot to the center of the bullet hole. Shoot whatever caliber you want. The winner would be the person with the lowest combined distance (measurement) - just like in group except this would be a more true measure of accuracy rather than precision.
I type theoretically because that method would be a realistic scoring nightmare. It would almost have to be a computer scanning system to determine the distance. That probably isn't going to happen - and I'm guessing would not change the order of the results enough to justify the expense. Therefore we will have rings on the target. As long as there are rings - we will have these discussions.
Kudos to UBR for having the desire, work ethic, and kahunas to try something new.
Stanley
Last edited: