A few more thoughts on measuring targets and world records.
After reading the responses to my previous posting about measuring targets and the process for determining records I feel that I needed to give my thoughts on this topic one more time.
Somebody responded to my previous post and said that the measurements at matches could be +- .040, and that it is possible that somebody has shot a potential record that wasn’t submitted because it was range scored large.
In my opinion that has never happened and it never will. It won’t happen because there is not a range in this country that can get by with large scores. Ranges don’t score large because as soon as a target is posted that is scored large, it is protested, and the large score is made smaller. We’ve all seen that happened many times. On the other hand if a target is range scored small nobody protests. That is the reason that no range will get away with scoring big, and all ranges tend to score small. This is not a problem on match day, because all targets are scored equally small, by the same person, using the same device. It only becomes a problem when the targets are submitted for world record (I’m going to continue using that term for NBRSA targets till somebody tells me not to) recognition that the small scores given by ranges become a problem. Besides small scores at matches keep the matches flowing along smoothly, without all the bother of continual protests.
I think that the NBRSA calls their records world records because they are the oldest organization involved in benchrest and they started to call their records world records when they were all that there was in benchrest.
I also think that the only two organizations that have an official scoring process for potential records are the NBRSA and the IBS. I think that WBSF simply uses the range score as the record measurement and there is no other measurement done on any of their record targets. I don’t know about the rest of the world but I think that they are just like the WBSF in that there is no official scoring process for records. Please correct me if I’m wrong here???
Before this topic dies I will give a few more of my thoughts on Jackie’s targets.
Except for Mike Conry’s daughter, who scores at Midland and did the original range score last July, and the gentlemen on my measuring committee there is nobody else that has scored Jackie’s targets without having the range score in front of their face, seeing the previous score, on an individual target, dose tend to influence the outcome. That’s why I tape over the range scores when I send targets out for an official score.
All of the people that scored Jackie’s targets either had Jackie huddled over their shoulder, encouraging them, while they were scoring the targets or they have a dog in this fight --- and I don’t mean that there is any kind of fight going on here ---it’s a term that I feel is appropriate to describe the others that did score Jackie’s targets and make comments here about them.
Being one who could be perceived as, "having a dog in the hunt", I will state, that, I don't need dog in this hunt.
My intent was/is, to point out a broken (as in SUBJECTIVE) system, which supposedly measures the performance of the most precise rifles/shooters on the planet.
Having invested 14 years a match director [for NBRSA registered Tournamnets) and having scored a few thousand targets myself, I will stand by my own measurements of Jackie's targets! I am quite competent at 'CENTERING' bullet-holes (see your description in the paragraph below) within a circle (reticle), and using precision measuring devices . . . as well as a 6 inch ruler, with 1/64th", which I also employed, rounding UP, to the nearest 1/64th", and came up with measurements much closer to reason than the [0.040"] discrepancy between the range measured Agg and the committee final result. None of my measurements produced an AGG. smaller than the range measured Agg., or, in excess of 0.01" larger. By the way, upon receipt of the targets, the range measured group sizes were still taped over. Even had they been exposed, I don't see how this could/would influence me, any more than it would have the committee members - unless they live on another planet, they were as aware of the range results as anyone.
My target 'scoring' tutoring came for [the late] Tom Hexum and [the still living, but out of benchrest] Mike Prokosch. I NEVER measure with a GOAL in mind - I let the target and the dial determine the result - the notion that one would intentionally, "score/measure small", and do so with any degree of consistancy, is simply ABSURD, as is the notion that the 'unwashed' would ALL come up with similar results - random chance (probability) would dictate that that the incompetent would produce a WIDE range of measurements, to include, "way too small", and "way too large" - neither consistently small, or large.
When competent people can score the same set of targets and come up with such substantially disparate results, it's time to investigate changing/updating both the substrate, and the methodology used to capture & measure benchrest (group) targets - our equipment and abilities are outdistancing the old way. )chill( RG
From Jackie’s description, posted here on this forum, about how he uses a measuring device to score targets I am going to say that Jackie does not know how to score group targets.
The inscribed circle on a measuring device dose not in any way compensate for anything!!!! The inscribed circle on a scoring device is caliber size and therefore is larger than the hole made by the bullet!!! This is good because it takes the inscribed line out of the score as you don’t cover any of the smudge, or bullet arc, with it. Instead you do leave some paper between the inscribed line and the smudge left by the bullet. How much paper is left is determined by looking at a single bullet hole, usually on the sighter. To score a group you must find the arc made by the bullet with whatever evidence is left on the target and center the inscribed circle on that arc. Due to paper tering away, (and a 30 caliber is worse than a 6MM) sometime there is not a full arc clearly visible on the paper, so you find whatever remaining arch is available and center the inscribed reticule on it. You are not forgiven, and you cannot ignore a bullet, because the paper tore funny, Even though the entire imprint is not on the paper, if there is evidence of the bullet, by way of partial arc, you must include it in the score.
This (italics, blue, above paragraph), I can agree with - it's exactly how I was instructed, and, how I do it. RG
With regard to Jackie’s targets, there was no “official pronouncement of a Sanctioning Body” as Jackie said in one of his posts. Jackie’s targets went thru what is currently the official measuring procedure and he was given a proper score for his targets. The score was not simply proclaimed by anyone!!! I think that Jackie’s use of an umpire that made a wrong call that cost a pitcher a perfect game as an example of what happened here is backwards. The umpire’s call made during the heat of the moment is much more like the score given to Jackie’s targets by the range during the match, The score given to Jackie’s targets by my measuring committee, where they had a chance to take their time and score the targets without any outside influences is much more like the re-play made later after the field call, and is the correct call.
I will go on to say that I do not feel that the system that we are currently using is broken. The range scores that we get are fair. They may not be accurate in an absolute way, but they are miss-scored for everybody the same amount and therefore, on match day, they are fair.
The measurements made by my committee are accurate and do reflect what Jackie's targets actually are and I will stand by them.
I will also say that what Jackie accomplished last July in Midland is truly amazing and his targets are quite likely the smallest aggregate ever shot with a 30 caliber. But they are not a world record under the current system.
Gene
