Professional Shooting League, Calfee

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrentD said:
J If you were to actually impliment this, all you would need to do is work out the logistics of how the measurements would be made (to best leaded edge, or worst leaded edge, or center of the bullet hole) and what would do if the target's precise center is carried away by the bullet (template).

Brent
Click to expand...
A set up as simple as a set of calipers with a template of the OD curvature on one jaw and a plug gauge mounted to the other would make short work of the measurement. Insert plug, rotate and adjust the caliper to where the other jaw was matching the curve of the outer ring.....Read the dimension. Not difficult. Accurate to 0.0005"? No. But much more precise that the current ring score method.
 
Last edited:
Beau, NO TWINE!!! I have said this several times. What else can I do!

Please leave the twine, the sticks - and most especially the stones - out of it. This is all about measuring bullet distances from center of the bull to the bullet hole as accurately as you possibly can. I use a caliper that measures (accurately or not) to 1/2 of a thousandth.

Brent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brent, visual accuity is much better than the width of the line. How is placing a template on the bull any more accurate than placing a template (a plug) in the hole?
 
Vibe, that is an interesting idea. Never though of doing it like that. A dedicated calipers would would make short work of things.

What I do on the targets that I score with string measure is to have an acetate template made of the target. The template has its exact center marked with a pin prick. This is laid over the bull and aligned with the rings. I them measure from the pin prick to the plug center with a calipers or with a drafting divider and which is, in turn, measured with calipers.

There are other ways, but this works for me. If this was to be done routinely, finding the best way to execute the measurements would take a little trial and error, but it would not be too hard.
 
Don, it's not. At least I don't think so. Again, there are many ways to skin the cat. You will have to judge which is the best for your kind of matches.

I often measure to the leaded edge and the add 1/2 the diameter of the bullet to this because 1. We sometimes shoot matches in which different calibers are legal and present, 2. Leaded edges are sometimes easier to locate than centers., 3. I don't always have a plug of the right size for those guys that show up with oddball calibers like a .33-47 Ballard, and 4) We don't often shoot just one shot per bull (sometimes 2 (100 yds), sometimes 10 (200 yds). When bullet holes overlap, plugging becomes problematic (and so can leaded edges).

Most of these problems just don't happen in .22 rf only matches where one shot per bull is the rule.

The issue is not the mechanics of how you measure. That will depend on your match. The real issue is measuring at all.

Brent
 
BrentD said:
Beau, NO TWINE!!! I have said this several times. What else can I do!

Please leave the twine, the sticks - and most especially the stones - out of it. This is all about measuring bullet distances from center of the bull to the bullet hole as accurately as you possibly can. I use a caliper that measures (accurately or not) to 1/2 of a thousandth.

Brent
Click to expand...

Brent,

I understand there's no string now, but the concept is the same. You can call it a string of bullet holes, but that's not where the name came from. Either way, the concept remains the same. Measure from the center and compare total error. I don't want to see it and I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it, but how could the concept be any more simple?
 
I have no idea how it could be more simple. But apparently, it is way too complex for some here to grasp.

Why do you not want to see it?
 
I don't really think it's necessary at this time. If everybody starts shooting perfect ring scores, then something will have to be done, but most likely the distance will be longer or the target smaller.

I know this is not what you are specifically talking about, but maybe some people want to know more about the orgin of the words:

Firearms, the Law, and Forensic Ballistics
By Tom A. Warlow

"In his book The Muzzle-Loading Cap-Lock Rifle Ned (Roberts) describes how the target groups were measured in string length. In this system a wooden peg was placed in each bullet hole, after which a piece of string held at one end at the centre of the aiming crossmark, was then passed around each of the wooden pegs in turn back to the centre cross, and then cut off: the target group with the shortest string measure was the winner."

It's easy to see how it developed for that particular game.
 
Brent,

Have you ever considered that string shooting is less challenging than shooting for score?

Shooting string, you have no accurate idea of your level of performance during the match and therefore no indicator of how successfully you are performing relative to historic (long ago, or as close as the last detail) performance. Accordingly, you are not exposed to the mental challenge of needing to equal or exceed a known standard to succeed. Neither do you have your own standard of performance to compare with, so you aren't even shooting against yourself.

As long as scoring rings are devised so that it requires a combination of exceptional skill, exceptional equipment and exceptional conditions to achieve the maximum possible score, then arguably score shooting is more challenging than string.

Of course, if the target becomes more likely to be cleared, then it is necessary to create that element again, either by redesigning the scoring rings, or has was done in ISSF shooting, develop technology to permit shots of equal score to be evaluated with more precision.

John
 
John Kielly said:
Brent,

Have you ever considered that string shooting is less challenging than shooting for score?
Click to expand...

No. Simply put, it is NOT less challenging. It is more challenging and far more difficult to achieve a perfect string score (0) than a perfect ring score.



Shooting string, you have no accurate idea of your level of performance during the match and therefore no indicator of how successfully you are performing relative to historic (long ago, or as close as the last detail) performance. Accordingly, you are not exposed to the mental challenge of needing to equal or exceed a known standard to succeed. Neither do you have your own standard of performance to compare with, so you aren't even shooting against yourself.
Click to expand...

Now, I have had my brains all but beat out over the fact that nothing I say is relevant because I have not shot a br match. Might I suggest, you have no idea of what you are talking about because you have never shot a string match? I will offer up that, having shot string matches, they are far more mentally challenging than score targets because a center ring shot is not perfect even though it has a maximum score. Perfection is far harder to achieve in the way of string measure.

As long as scoring rings are devised so that it requires a combination of exceptional skill, exceptional equipment and exceptional conditions to achieve the maximum possible score, then arguably score shooting is more challenging than string.
Click to expand...

Well I guess the "arguable" part must be correct, because we are arguing about it. Can't agree with more than that however.


Of course, if the target becomes more likely to be cleared, then it is necessary to create that element again, either by redesigning the scoring rings, or has was done in ISSF shooting, develop technology to permit shots of equal score to be evaluated with more precision.
Click to expand...

Or just start right from the get go and measure the damn holes. Man, this is not rocket science (but then our good rocket scientist got lost by an order or two of magnitude already).

Joe, I am going to try to draw you an example of string measure to make two points. Three shooters I think will suffice.

Brent
 
Brent is right, there's no two ways about it, a few other guys are coming to that conclusion too. Like I said back in post #77, you could have two shots that both score a nine, but one will be closer to the little dot than the other. On Dan's target, you could have two shots that both score a fifty, but one will be closer to the little dot than the other, pretty much gauranteed. Forget the rings, in this so called "string" match, all the rings do is help determine hold-off. You could have a target that is square, with hash marks for hold-offs. Rings, hash marks, don't matter one bit, what matters is the little dot and how far away from that dot is the hole. Thanks, Douglas

This thread really got sidetracked from the original post, too bad. Dan's target is a good one and he has figured out rules that are equally as good.
 
I wanna Shoot in the PSL !!

Douglas said:
<snip> This thread really got sidetracked from the original post, too bad.<snip>
Click to expand...

I for one will be following the PSL next year mainly because of this thread. Dan may want to thank BrentD for injecting his thoughts on measuring.

I checked back as far as i could, 4 pages and found 3 more PSL threads total of 27 replys and about 2,000 views. (could have missed one, not sure)

This "sidetracked" thread is at 157 reply's and 7382 views - the most replys of all threads and second in views to Mr. Joe's Meyer Spec story.

I think this thread, granted got off track, but still serves a very useful purpose -has pretty well burned into everyone's brain the PSL. You regulars probably will keep up anyway but for me and probably other "newbies" I certainty will be following the PSL next year. Hell i want to shoot in 1 event and don't care if i come in dead last -it would be a great adventure! If it ever came about i was sitting next to some of you guys on a bench i would be thrilled and honored.

I'd say BrentD has earned at least a 6 pack of his favorite brew for fending off a barrage of friendly "naysayers" while generating a ton of exposure for the PSL... I love these keyboards more than life itself (ain't that how he says it about accuracy, lol)...now thats just me: joe:)
 
Brent is correct, but his explanation and the use of the terms "string measurement" vs. "ring point count" was poorly conveyed................not sure if I could have explained it better.

I would have called it "cumalitive decimal measurement" vs. "ring point count".

Of course a direct decimal measurement of each shot relative to the exact target center is going to give a more precise performance review of a competitor/gun than a ring point count.

Kind of like a centerfire "group aggregate gun" vs. a "score count gun"...................a perfect example of this is in the 1000 yard competitions where both "group" decimal measurements and "score count" are logged simultaneously on each record target, in order to reflect the types of different performance measurements...........Don
 
Joe, you have my number there. I'm sitting here finishing the last drop of the best thing ever to be put in a bottle. McKewan's Scotch Ale. Totally illegal here in the Not so Great State of Iowa. But this was smuggled in, by me, from the much better state of Wisconsin.

Anyway, I offer up an example match. Three shooters, Beau, Joe, and Butch. A 3-shot match, and the shots were on different bulls, but I combined them onto one bull here because I can't spend my whole night drawing funny pictures. PLUS, I'm out of beer. So, the rest of you will have to figure out how to extend this to the PSL format on your own.

Anyway, the targets are measured to the centers of the bullet holes. The unit of measure is the very technical aero-space Toidi unit which can be translated into imperial inches but that costs money and beer. Ask me later. Ring scores are 50 for the outer, 100 for the inner.

Note who wins in the string measure match, and who wins in the ring-score method. Which shooter is more accurate? Forget precision - this is a score match, not a group size match.

Example%20Match.jpg


FWIW, I realize that this professional league is not likely to jump into ring measure right off the bat. That's too bad, but given that the best of the best will be competing and given that a whole lot of money is on the line (or at least beer money which is much more valuable dollar for dollar), consider it for the future. After all, pro football eventually got instant replay, Olympic swimming got electric touch timing panels (for which Michael Phelps is eternally grateful), the Kentucky derby eventually got photographic finish scoring, and god knows what other improvements have happened in sporting events.

So, maybe ring scoring will go the way of the stop watch and the dodo bird... And then again, maybe not.

Brent
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brent: Thank you so very much for the hard work you put in to show your point pictorially. Now go look at it and you will perhaps see why you are barking up the wrong tree. You will see it, if you think carefully about the sport you are trying to "improve". Others messed with improving sport too. Your example of instant replay in football is a classic case in point. Sometimes moving forward is a drastic step backwards just as your string measurement would be in the game many of us love as is. I for one will now stop reading this thread for it has gone on waaaaaay to long. Merry Christmas. bob finger
 
Hey Bob, no problem. If you don't really care about getting it right, then the old way is the way for you.

Brent
 
HEY PLZ Don't kill it now... i just won my first match!

BrentD i appreciate your time and the drawing. At the first of this thread i thought you must be off your rocker but you wouldn't go away with your argument, you were so serious. Finally i realized what you were talking about- finally you made perfect sense -alas a sane person, lol. The string system is a more accurate way of measuring.

I now understand where the Rimfire shooters are coming from. They like their game just like it is, it's tradition! Maybe they don't use the most accurate scoring system but it works perfect. Yes it is paradoxical -a game of accuracy using a not so sophisticated scoring system. Seems odd Rimfire is a game of "score" and not accuracy, that's fine with me. I wanna play "rimfire" and if that's the rules i'm good with it!!

"Score" one for the Rimfire guys -pun intended, lol! joe:):)
 
Brent, I understand what you are saying and never argued that. I guess my string measurements reflect my disagreement with you.
The rules for the PSL, VFS, and Hunter BR are on or closest to the X. Tiebreakers have been in the rulebook. They ain't gonna change all the rules. As stated above, the long range guys do score and group. That ain't the same as you are suggesting either. If a person shot a .099 group on one target at 200yds and it formed in the 8 ring, would his accuracy be bad?
Butch
 
For a good academic argument, Brent's string measure has been interesting. However, it is just academic. PSL has it's rules and isn't going to change, ARA has it's rules and probably won't change, IR 50/50, RBA, ARG, behind the barn, all have their rules and are unlikely to change. So I guess this means we'll have the American String Shooters or some such. I still like PSL and ARA. No strings attached.
 
You mean I can stop fretting about dropping a match because I only shot a 249 5/8 and somebody got a 249 15/16?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top