2018 Nationals

Field Target Nationals

I just realized that these dates overlap with the dates for the Field Target National match in NC. I know I shoot both, not sure how many others do. Just checking to see if you were aware of that.

Chas
 
The Human Factor

The Phoenix Airgun Club has been using electronic scoring for 4 plus years. We have well over 50 members who participate in our bi-monthly 25 meter matches. Yes that's right, we have two 25 meter matches a month. At any one of these matches we have anywhere from 12 to 30 shooters on the line. Most are extremely experienced with plugging and are convinced that electronic scoring is the way to go. If they are convinced, that's good enough for me. I challenge...............no better yet. I welcome you or anyone else to participate in any one of our matches and experience our scoring process firsthand and bring your plugs, do your own comparison. Again let me express the fact that I don't care what scoring system YOU use just so long as you are shooting and having FUN.

Wish I could beam you over to our club. Make it so number one.

Capt. Picard said:
Seems a lot of you are ill informed. Phoenix has a 25 METER range. No if, and's, or but's. There are no safety issues because everybody follows the rules. If you do not follow the rules and you have been previously warned you will be asked to leave. I value my safety and all of you should as well. As for scoring!!!!! I have used both, plugging and electronic. Plugging is ok but it has it's own pitfalls. Electronic, though not perfect has proven time after time more accurate and consistent than plugging. I feel fortunate that we have an environment which allows us to use electronic scoring. I will agree that for smaller clubs it may not be a feasable option so by all means continue plugging. But don't you DARE criticize electronic scoring unless you have EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE about this system. So stop the bull and get with the program. We are here to have fun, at least I am. Instead of picking things apart and being part of the problem, as many of you seem inclined to be, I'd rather be part of the solution and be shooting. I don't care what scoring system you use!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will say this "once you go electronic you won't go back".....

Andrew C Picard
Click to expand...
 
Never mind about the amount of effort...which method is the most accurate? If one way is more accurate than the other...how many points per match is involved?
 
A few points...

Yes the match starts the day after the FT nats. I personally plan on attending the FT nats as well. There are flights from NC to PHX on Sunday evening. Hope to see you on that flight! It will only limit your ability to sight in, test, and practice. Well hey, maybe we'll make arrangements to keep the range open extra long on Sunday night for those that arrive later. We'll see. There still will be a very brief (10 min) sight-in the day of the event.
These are the best days to host an event at our range. Reservations are made over a year out for prime time major events. In order to get it at this prime time, it needed to be tacked on to the EBR. So this becomes a win-win for those that are serious about benchrest. Two major events in one week. So, bottom line is this will be a perfect-storm super airgun event for anyone that wants to make the time for this. it will be a jam-packed solid week of competition. Back-to-back-to-back-beg-for-mercy-Benchrest.

For next year's event, the USARB board members need to get their decisions made by late summer this year for 2019 so appropriate planning can be made and things are not yet again done in haste, or afterthought.

Ok now to address Kim Z:
The inherent logic of comparative testing methods is flawed. It is assuming that plugging is the gold standard, and that any other scoring system needs to be compared to it (the plug). That is where the mind blowing paradigm shift needs to happen. One cannot "compare" one versus the other head to head. Plugging inserts a metal dowel into torn paper fibers, and proceeds to the path of least resistance that follows the greatest rip pattern in the paper fibers. Thus altering the hole in the paper. No matter what is said by the best of the pluggers, this is impossible not to do. Anytime a plug is inserted, the hole is altered. Period. Then factor in biased plugging techniques, and human error. Where scanning provides one key indisputable element: a virgin image of the unaltered hole. Then, magnified several hundred times. This is where you can see where the projectile made contact, and left it's debris - the lead deposits (and sometimes the lube), that made the hole, and actually see the remaining paper fibers. YES, there will ALWAYS be a difference between a plug and a scan. One cannot compare which one is better based on comparing the results of one to the other. What a computer will do is reduce the human factor: add better, remember the correct ring it's scoring, document the actual score it sees, not be biased on the shooter, not be biased on pressure, if you are a leftie or a righty, not be mad, tired, happy or sad, nearsighted or farsighted, parkinsonian, or early demented. It scans it, applies an algorithm, and baaam, your score. Now, it is not perfect. It can still make errors, however it is far more consistent, accurate, and faster than the dowel.
Wait until we start talking about lasers, radar, and other ways the world of scoring will go right around the corner.... that will be fun.

Please go to phoenixairgun.net for info regarding the match. Click the "USARB Nats" tab


1. Dates of the event, which classes / which days, how long each day?. Practice days? - see website
2. Will shooters be obligated to compete in all classes or certain classes? - You are never 'obligated' to participate. compete where you want.
3. Benches to be shared with other shooters? NO, but there will be relays if over 40 shooters.
Bench rotation between cards? Yes, all and every card.
If so, how will benches be assigned.- there are 40 benches. shooters will be chosen by random draw. then after ea card, moved 1/3 down range, for the next card. so fair movement every card to a different part of range, not just a bench or two down.
and how much time to set up at your new bench? there will be about 30 in-between ea card. exact schedule will be posted, and is subject to revision.
4. How will cards be scored? electronic scoring.
What will the protest timing - after each card
/ procedure be - exact details to follow, wailing wall, scoring shed is right next to range.
and how will protested cards be re-scored? Manually as world rules require. Image of hole enlarged 300x on Large screen TV, verified by visual overlay of where the computer placed scoring delineation, then validated, or corrected manually if needed.
5. Distance from front of bench to targets? umm... 25m? well that depends on behavior, if you are rude, we move your target our to 30 meters. if you are shooting well then 45m. But if you are in the top 3 we'll move out the targets to 50.


Kindest regards,

Garrett
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"...scanning provides one key indisputable element: a virgin image of the unaltered hole."

Not true, unless you scan targets while they are still on the stands. Pellets do not punch clean holes. As you point out, they tear the paper that pushes out the back, creating punctured dimples. Once you remove targets, stack them, put them on the scanner, etc, those dimples get compressed and distorted. I routinely scan and plug my targets and see both approaches make errors.

If you rely on a measurement system to make important decisions, it is prudent to know how capable it is. To what extent can it distinguish between values? To what degree of statistical confidence? Fortunately, determining the capability of your measurement system is straightforward. For example, if you want to have 95% confidence that target values are "correct" (or at least consistent), measure 30 targets and then re-measure them in random order. Send me the data and I'll tell you how much error you can expect. Or, I can explain the process to you.

You can never determine capability of any measurement system with 100% certainty. And you have to sample disproportionately larger numbers of targets to increase confidence.

The capability you measure is valid only if the handling and scanning process remains the same. Different people stacking different numbers of targets may alter how the dimples distort and compress.

At any match you have the ability to re-scan every target (important to re-scan in random order in order to capture unexpected sources of variation). At a large national match you have the opportunity to determine system capability with greater confidence. I think most people would be interested in seeing quantitative data that indicates the range of expected variation. Unsupported claims of accuracy provide little assurance.

Albert

garrettkq said:
Ok now to address Kim Z:
The inherent logic of comparative testing methods is flawed. It is assuming that plugging is the gold standard, and that any other scoring system needs to be compared to it (the plug). That is where the mind blowing paradigm shift needs to happen. One cannot "compare" one versus the other head to head. Plugging inserts a metal dowel into torn paper fibers, and proceeds to the path of least resistance that follows the greatest rip pattern in the paper fibers. Thus altering the hole in the paper. No matter what is said by the best of the pluggers, this is impossible not to do. Anytime a plug is inserted, the hole is altered. Period. Then factor in biased plugging techniques, and human error. Where scanning provides one key indisputable element: a virgin image of the unaltered hole. Then, magnified several hundred times. This is where you can see where the projectile made contact, and left it's debris - the lead deposits (and sometimes the lube), that made the hole, and actually see the remaining paper fibers. YES, there will ALWAYS be a difference between a plug and a scan. One cannot compare which one is better based on comparing the results of one to the other. What a computer will do is reduce the human factor: add better, remember the correct ring it's scoring, document the actual score it sees, not be biased on the shooter, not be biased on pressure, if you are a leftie or a righty, not be mad, tired, happy or sad, nearsighted or farsighted, parkinsonian, or early demented. It scans it, applies an algorithm, and baaam, your score. Now, it is not perfect. It can still make errors, however it is far more consistent, accurate, and faster than the dowel.

Garrett
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
"The inherent logic of comparative testing methods is flawed"

"It is assuming that plugging is the gold standard, and that any other scoring system needs to be compared to it (the plug)."

This is a fair question. No one is claiming any scoring system is perfect (in defining a 0.224" circle around the centroid of POI?). However I proposed comparative testing because the WRABF rules indicate that plugging is the standard:

"8c Scoring Plugs. All shots which cannot be scored by visual scoring will be checked with a certified .22 plug for rimfire and air rifle - plug and marked on the target with a "P" to so indicate."

These rules further reference electronic scoring and appear to provide that shooters can protest and ask for manual re-scoring: "Where electronic scoring is utilised, the match director will ensure the rules above will be used where appropriate or necessary, notwithstanding any rights for protest , re-scoring manually, etc."

http://www.wrabf.com/rules/WRABF & ERABSF RULEBOOK 2013- 2021.pdf

Kim
 
Response

Albert,

"Not true, unless you scan targets while they are still on the stands. Pellets do not punch clean holes. As you point out, they tear the paper that pushes out the back, creating punctured dimples. Once you remove targets, stack them, put them on the scanner, etc, those dimples get compressed and distorted. I routinely scan and plug my targets and see both approaches make errors."
You are correct when referencing all the variables that can affect the hole. No hole is perfect. Nothing is perfect. it is amazing how imperfect even the pellet is prior to making the hole. how the backer effects the hole, how the angle of the pellet effects the hole... i can go on...

"You can never determine capability of any measurement system with 100% certainty." Nothing is perfect. its all all about reducing the variables. Kind of like benchrest shooting ;)

And you have to sample disproportionately larger numbers of targets to increase confidence."
Very true. Large sample sizes and your 'N' number are key in statistical analysis.

"The capability you measure is valid only if the handling and scanning process remains the same. Different people stacking different numbers of targets may alter how the dimples distort and compress. "
Yes! Human intervention on any level will distort, compress, add, view, review, perceive, tear, alter, etc a hole to a degree. This is where a scan provides the least amount of human hole innervation and intervention. One amazing feature of hole enlargement, is the ability to even see the lead deposits on the paper fibers. Where the pellet actually made contact vs where the absence-of-paper is, vs where a dowel migrates to when pushed through the remaining fibers. imagine how much a steel rod can effect minute fibers...and how it can be further influenced by the imprecise nature of the human hand. yes, stunning!

"Unsupported claims of accuracy provide little assurance." True! Exactly, I wonder how can the plug can be so revered with so much unsupported claims of accuracy! Human error is so consistently inconsistent it is amazing. We have been scanning targets for the last four years. We have learned, experienced, analyzed, reviewed, assessed, corrected, been corrected, corrected others. We have plugged. We have compared. We have discovered something amazing... it is not perfect! Nothing is perfect. But more perfect-er that the plug.


Kim,

We are interpreting Subsection 8c (from WRABF Section 8 Target MARKING Procedures) as the use of a scoring plug IF "the score cannot be scored by visual scoring". We feel the intent here is the use of a scoring aid (the plug) if the score needs confirmation, e.g. if the score is not obvious. This we feel 8c is based off of the opportunity to NOT use a plug if the score IS obvious. However in the use of scanning software, this "scoring aid" (the scanning software) is used on every shot. IF there is concern over the result, then we feel a protest is an adequate means for review. The scanning software provides a certified 0.224 assessment for EVERY shot.

Your statement of "further reference of electronic scoring and appear to provide that shooters can protest and ask for manual re-scoring" is true as will be followed.
However, it is important we clarify this from the WRABF Section 8i referencing electronic scoring. We again interpret "manual re-scoring" as intervening manually (human intervention, not via computer-assigned result). The "manual" portion again will not be a plug, but the method i described earlier. As such, the rules do not specifically indicate, allude, reference, or suggest, that the manual review is to include a plug. So, we will not plug.


Garrett
 
Orion targets

Hi Garrett,
What will you be using for targets? I understand Orion won't support 25 m and 50 m targets any longer, and don't plan on selling them once the current supply runs out. Do you have a source for them afterwards and enough for the Nationals?

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