Measure targets on the wailing wall?

Check your targets?

I don't normally get into the middle of these conversations but this happens to be a hot spot for me. Jackie is correct - I shoot only a 30 in all matches now on year two. I can count on one hand the number of matches that I did not protest multiple targets - I also have not lost a single protest on group! I am very competative and shoot my best in every match and only want my target scored properly.

I have nothing but respect for those willing to run matches and score targets as most days it is a thankless job. However, there seem to be no 30 cals in the past for group - but now if you have one you better bring a roll of $5 bills and check every target. For me this is a great distraction as I certainly would perfer to watch my wind flags for the next relay instead of watching for the target posting to double check my target and hope I don't miss the 30 min posting mark.

Even the best run matches may not have you listed correctly for the cal your shooting (i.e. protest and won at the nationals on the very first target!)

I make it a point on every registered match to personally notify the people running the match that I'm shooting a 30 cal. - 80% of the time my first target at a minimum is still incorrect.

We do need a method that easily identifies the target by caliber for the poor guy trying to measure them so he is not checking a print out for every shooter hoping to not make an easy mistake. I thought the idea of just a red ball sticker in the corner of anyone not shooting a 6MM would be a great help in the score house?

mks
 
David Apple said:
If a mistake is made on another target/competitor, why wouldn't/shouldn't you bring it to the atttention of the referees?
Click to expand...

Because it's not my job to police the wailing wall. I look at my target, if I agree with it, fine. If I don't, I put up my $5 and get a ref. What's on other people's targets is their business. How someone else finishes that has a mismeasurement or two does not concern me even if they finish ahead of me. I determine how well I shot by how well I think I should have shot, not by a rank so much. Therefore, only my targets matter to me.;)
 
There is an old saw in...

benchrest that states "many matches are won or lost by scoring errors". Old Ed Watson told me this several times and stated he would always protest his target score if he thought it was wrong.

I have a scoring device and when I come home from a match I remeasure every target...some are over and some under but the agg usually comes out very close to the official scorers. Consequently I haven't challenged a score in years. You don't mind giving them .025" or so once in awhile but there would be no way I wouldn't challenge a .100" error. All depends on the event and what you feel is material.

Jim
 
Scoring Targets

Rule Book or no Rule Book I did not allow shooters measuring targets on the Wailing Wall. Example, what if a nosey shooter used a metal caliper and knocked a piece off the group. Later the target is collected as part of a potential record agg. This is bad. You want to challenge a target pay the $5.

Stephen Perry
Angeles BR
 
Picking Cotton

Anybody !

Have you ever picked cotton ???? I have one that is even harder... When I was very young my dad taught me the fine art of understanding how hard it was going to be to make a dollar without a good education so he took me to the orange groves when we lived in Florida and told the guy I was ready to work.... WORK, Holy fricking S**T !... Try climbing a ladder with a burlap sack hanging off your neck and shoulders and filling it with oranges. Gets very heavy very quickly.. The more you pick the more you made. Can you imagine a kid my age and skinny going up and down a extension ladder leaning into a orange tree? (NOT) To this day I HATE orange juice but the lesson was a good learning experince and it worked.
So my thought on this measuring subject : We work hard for our dollar, we spend that hard earned dollar on our guns and everything associated with this sport which includes the fees to shoot a match. So my only take is taking calipers to the wall(I don't think other shooters like to see one doing this, after all sometimes it's monkey see monkey do). One should be able to determine the size even if it is close. If you are "RIGHT" you are right, if you are "WRONG" pay your $5.00...After all the FLAGS told you when to pull the trigger not the guy next to you..

Good shooting to all
Doug In Dallas
 
Doug

Yes, I have hoed, and picked cotton.

When we were kids, my Mother and Dad would often ship us off to Shannon Mississippi, (just South of Tupelo), to our Grandparents for a couple of weeks every Summer. My Grandparents were dirt poor sharecroppers, they worked some bottom land for Cotton. No Combines, no auto pickers, no cultivators. The still did it by hand. We were sort of a migrant worker crew.

As this discussion shows, views vary on this subject. It would seem to me that following the guidelines as set forth in the Rule Books would be the best course of action.
...........jackie
 
Group Scoring

Long and winded, lets do something about it.

I run the matches at the Ben Avery Range (Phoenix). Scoring targets is a hot button with me as well. I feel very strong that we should get what we shot, NOT having one scorer add .020 to very target and another scorer scoring 020 smaller on every target. We should get what we shot. Now for the practical side of this. I routinely remeasure targets from shoots at the Ben Avery. I have worked with my scorer’s at length to try and get it right. I constantly let them know that everything we do (as Benchrest shooters revolves around the score). However even when I’m at home and under no pressure to get it done timely I can measure the same target 3-4 times and get a different measurement each time.

I’m one of those guys that lost a 3 Gun national championship to scoring error. I placed second at an IBS 3 gun Nationals by what amounted to .007 on one 200 yard target. Some time after that shoot I remeasured my targets and discovered many targets were off; some plus and some minus. I know the other guys were off as well. My point is that we should get what we shot, not an average of errors hoping that the errors average out for everyone over time. That being said there isn’t much that can be done doing it the way we do it now. We can only ask our scorer’s to be as accurate and diligent as possible.

Now for the rest of this story. Some time ago when Lester Bruno and myself were running the matches together, Les ran across a guy that worked at Motorola. He said he could come up with a way of measuring groups using a scanner and so the project was born. Now fast forward; the prototype device ended up being a camera that looked at the hole and measured it. Manually we then subtracted the caliber; we then had a group size. I think that system was more uniform than the present way, but it was very slow. Eric Stecker (of Berger bullets fame) was the scorer for the cactus match when we used this device. The Motorola guys wanted more money to further develop this device. Lester had given them $500 of his own money (this was after I voted not to give these guys any more of the match revenue) and a decision was made as it didn’t look promising for a reasonably priced working device from these guys and so the project died. This was 5-6 years ago. My point with this is NBRSA has money in the bank. Let’s use some of it, form a committee to explore using technology for scoring. Pay someone and give them a budget to look into getting this done. This could be tied into having a match program that all the ranges could use (like Bughole). Technology to score, Bughole to post at the match and on the net. A shooter database on the net (BR Central) where we can look at stats just like baseball or any of the other major sports. After several years of BR matches we would have all sorts of data. We could have regional competitions, state competitions, most improved shooter stats etc. Ya never know what might come from this.

Our rifles and the components we use are state of art; our competition is extremely keen (just look at the 2009 NBRSA Nationals in St Louis); our scoring is from the 50"s. We have many technical people in our organization; maybe we can joint venture with IBS and double our resources. I think it’s worth a look.

Gary Ocock
 
Gary ...

Gary Ocock said:
Our rifles and the components we use are state of art; our competition is extremely keen (just look at the 2009 NBRSA Nationals in St Louis); our scoring is from the 50"s. We have many technical people in our organization; maybe we can joint venture with IBS and double our resources. I think it’s worth a look.

Gary Ocock
Click to expand...

Right On! This country put a man on the moon in 1969. 41 years ago. Time to use Technology to upgrade the scoring for matches ... at least the big ones anyway. :)
 
Gary is right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What Gary said makes soooooooooooooooooooooo much sense that it is scary. Today's technology would take all the human errors out of scoring. I'm sure that with the background of people in Benchrest there are those who can handel this and point us in the right direction.

Also, I would be very willing to financially contribute to such a project as long as it was the desire of the vast majority, and I'm sure others feel the same.

I TOTALLY agree that NBRSA and IBS should GETTER DONE and soon.

Al
 
Last edited:
Quite a few years back when I shot ISSF prone smallbore, our state association used a machine which scored the strip of targets as they came thru a scanner. If memory serves me correct, it could evaluate shots to the tenth of a point as was required for final shootoffs.

That suggests that the technology is most likely already available, but just hasn't been applied to benchrest usage.
 
Would this technology make small BR clubs that could not afford it obsolete ? In our quest for perfection and BR glory,will we drive ourselves right out of the pastime that we so dearly love? Would everyone be happy with only three sophisticated "high tech" BR shoots a year( SS,IBS&NBRSA nationals)? Make that two shoots ,cause I don't think the IBS can afford it.
Ya know, fishin' used to be fun before fish finding sonar came about,varminting used to be fun before the range finder was invented. Now ya just electronically range 'em, dial 'em in and kill 'em. Not so much fun anymore.
Joel
 
Joel,
I prefer driving a car instead of riding a horse everyday. Progress is usually a good thing. I do not think modern technology in measuring targets will have any effect on small, or large for that matter, club matches but it will simply take any human error out of scoring. I also do not think it will cost mega bucks to get going and can easily be funded by IBS & NBRSA plus individual contributions of less than $25. I would pony up $25 in a NY second to take the possibility of errors in scoring out of a match, wouldn't you.

I totally agree with you that Benchrest shooting is about the people and the friendships developed. Modernizing the way we score won't change that. We invest thousands, and most of us many thousands, in equiptment, ammo and registration fees not to mention traveling to matches all over the country. Getting an accurate outcome for the effort is not too much to ask, in my opinion.

All my best, Al
 
Last edited:
Joel

It sounds to me like you like to shoot for the enjoyment. Maybe a fake-wood trophy now and then, but primarily the fun. That kind of thinking is so retro (as my grandkids would say). You'll be labeled as a loser or has-been because only they claim to shoot for fun. And yes, it does drive some away from the sport from time to time.

:rolleyes::cool:

Ray
 
Gary said
"My point with this is NBRSA has money in the bank. Let’s use some of it, form a committee to explore using technology for scoring. Pay someone and give them a budget to look into getting this done. This could be tied into having a match program that all the ranges could use (like Bughole). "

Now I may be mistaken but bughole appears to be free but I have never tried to download or install it. If it is then it would seem that the new program might be the same.


That said if everyone could play nice nice in the sand box some or all of the organizations could get together and pool their resources and get a program that worked and even have that one tweaked to fit their own needs.
Kind of like electronic games. Many of them have the same "engine" or guts and they just put diff graphics and story lines to them.

Also, while not all of us are rich or wealthy many are in professional positions and we use to have some programmers that shot.

Seems like maybe they could donate a little time if noting else to oversee the project.

Just my thoughts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top