The Equalizing Scoring Reticle

jackie schmidt said:
Mike, back when the NBRSA adopted VFS as a Registered Competition, we inquired about making the X an "11". There was no interest in doing it then.

We tried, as a provision, to have ties broken by "wipeouts" on lei of the Creedmore. It was tried, and the Organization decided to keep the Creedmore.

So yes, change is difficult. Regardless of how you play it, having targets for different calibers is no small thing. Many shooters still like the sudden death aspect of the current system, and the fact that the drawback in shooting the larger caliber is manefested in more recoil and more difficulty in handling the Rifle at the Bench.

We are now into our shooting season, cabin fever will subside as we try to figure out how to stay clean in a 15 mph switching wind, so this argument will probably continue On.
Click to expand...

It's still sudden death, but the "death ring" is an 11 point dot rather than the 10 ring. Honestly, this is how I look at it after shooting it for a while. The game is actually harder than IBS/NBRSA, IMHO, because of this. It really shows up at 200. Nobody stays clean at 200 for the entire agg, or at least not yet.

It takes a different mindset and it usually takes a few matches for that light bulb to come on. In essence, the dot isn't replacing the x, it's replacing the 10 ring.
 
AndyTaber said:
Not trying to take anything away from UBR. They have done a really good job of putting their program together, in the face of what I remember from the time, as getting a lot of ridicule for proposing a caliber neutral target. The reticle would allow a smaller club access to this game for a minimal cost. I purchase the targets for our clubs 100 yard score matches and they are not cheap. Especially shipping.

I would like to throw another thought into this process of the 30 caliber " advantage". I purchased one of these multi caliber reticles about three years ago and have used it to evaluate my own targets after a match. I shoot a 6mm bullet in score matches and was curious what would have happened had I been shooting a 30. In the years that I have done this about the best I would have improved my score was to pick up a few more x's along the way. I've never dropped a point that this scoring advantage would have helped. My biggest handicap is still reading and interpretting conditions.
Most people shooting a 6mm in short range Benchrest are shooting a bullet in the 65gr range while the people shooting a 30 are using a bullet around 125gr. I think the extra weight is a far bigger advantage than what is gained by the radius difference.
Click to expand...

Here, Andy has bolstered my argument, that the traditional 10-ring is ample, but demanding - missing either it, or, subsequent rings
is far more dependent upon condition doping, execution, and strategy, than caliber. RG
 
Last edited:
R.G. Robinett said:
Here, Andy has bolstered my argument, that the traditional 10-ring is ample, but demanding - missing either it, or, subsequent rings
is far more dependent upon condition doping execution, and strategy, than caliber. RG
Click to expand...

Randy, what had started me along this line of thinking was a post (I believe you were the author) a year or so ago that pointed out the effect on the bullet that a given change in wind would result. A far bigger change than the scoring advantage of the caliber.
It convinced me I just need to become a better shooter and to do that, I need to pay a lot more attention to the wind.
 
Change = something humans do not like! Going back to 1986, where at the NBRSA Hunter Nationals, I proposed a 50% reduction size of both the 100 yd., and 200 Yd. targets, I was considered a heretic of the worst order - people were TRULY angered by the mere suggestion - I thought that tarring and feathering were at hand! ;-)

Along this line of reasoning, I believe that, were there a move, by the NBRSA membership to equalize caliber, that a concentric, multi-ring reticle, scoring device would be superior to multiple targets, and also more precise. The human eye and brain are quite nicely wired for centering holes/rings inside rings.

As Jackie pointed out, above, reticles are also more cost effective. I will not go into a long argument against plugs, except to state that paper, as does wood, has grain [direction], which can and does influence the position of a plug - and this doesn't count tears/splits.

Being a solid heretic, long before I'd opt for neutralizing caliber, for the VfS Class, I'd campaign for the 50% reduction in target size - and that would include reverting to the original NBRSA 200 Yd. ring-spacing. A fringe benefit: a cost saving measure. The targets could be "perfected", or, printed on both sides - say, group on one side, score on the other - thus cutting paper cost by 50%!

Based upon having done it (printed targets & conducted club matches), separation was (and would be) achieved , to a degree people DID NOT - & even today - probably would not like! When I can make time, I will attempt to post some relative pics, and a more detailed explanation of my argument(s). People didn't enjoy being beaten, at 100 Yd., buy 6-8 points! ;-) As I recall, my sole ally, on the tougher target venture was a HoF GROUP shooter - a well known bloke, from the St. Louis area. Keep 'em ON the X! RG
 
Last edited:
AndyTaber said:
Randy, what had started me along this line of thinking was a post (I believe you were the author) a year or so ago that pointed out the effect on the bullet that a given change in wind would result. A far bigger change than the scoring advantage of the caliber.
It convinced me I just need to become a better shooter and to do that, I need to pay a lot more attention to the wind.
Click to expand...

A year or so after UBR began, I decided to try a 6BR 10 twist. In part, due to the caliber neutral aspect but also to try heavier, higher bc bullets. The logic was to use it on windy days and at the 200/300 yard events, primarily.

The only match I ever won with that barrel was a 100 yard trigger pulling contest, some of the best conditions I can remember shooting in. Go figure!

What it proves is what you and Randy are saying. Learn to shoot in the wind.
 
LHSmith said:
I have shot IBS score here in NE PA since 2003. I have campaigned .22, 6mm, and .30 cal rifles. I am currently attempting to go back to using a .30 BR after giving up on the cartridge a few years back due to recoil issues. My most enjoyable rifle to shoot is a .222 HV. So it should come as no surprise that the UBR format appeals to me. However, it does not trip my trigger enough to drive 4 hours to the nearest UBR match when I am 15 minutes from my closest IBS venue and another 90 minutes away.
My concern about UBR is the rules. I looked at the UBR website and find little information about rules. The IBS rule book on short range BR has 32 pages of standards , definitions, procedures, safety, group and score shooting rules. These can be easily accessed on the IBS website. Lots of unknowns when one considers UBR such as how crossfires are handled? flag use and placement? how benches are drawn? are muzzle breaks legal? What are the commands? What is the chain of command at a match? Is there a protest procedure? What equipment is allowed on benches? -fans, chronos, electronic wind gauges......, DQ procedure? etc. I could go on and on. I can appreciate keeping rules simple and to a minimum. However I've been to enough matches to know how some will subvert the rules to gain the smallest advantage, and without rules and written procedures I can't see matches running without disrupting incidents.
I appreciate that the IBS has great match reporting and every match I ever attended is on record. It has provided me with the opportunity to compete against some of the very best in the game.
FWIW, I would favor one target for all calibers- I don't like the idea of competitors handling unfired targets and I can see the target crews trying to decipher someones cryptic written numbers, placing the targets on the wrong frame and end up with a host of delays or worse -crossfires. Also, along with different targets will be the potential for varying quality of target paper from different lots throwing an unwanted variable into the mix when it comes to fair scoring.
Click to expand...

Actually, although we don't make a big deal of it, UBR does have rules to go by. Early on it was determined that we did not choose to spend a lot of time and effort making a whole new set of rules such as the two older orgs have done. They did a good job and there seemed to be no need to duplicate it. We focused on what we felt needed to be changed and did it. This would include scoring, the targets we've been discussing and the class system to name the most apparent. But there is a default setting on rules. When we haven't chosen to make a published rule about a particular situation we default to the IBS rules, such as flag setting not above the bench level etc. I know that probably won't be good enough for some folks, but it's worked pretty well for us the past seven years. Over time it's possible, maybe even probable that some rules may be added, but I seriously doubt that there will be many. Our system isn't broke, so we probably won't try to fix it.

Rick
 
Greyfox said:
Actually, although we don't make a big deal of it, UBR does have rules to go by. Early on it was determined that we did not choose to spend a lot of time and effort making a whole new set of rules such as the two older orgs have done. They did a good job and there seemed to be no need to duplicate it. We focused on what we felt needed to be changed and did it. This would include scoring, the targets we've been discussing and the class system to name the most apparent. But there is a default setting on rules. When we haven't chosen to make a published rule about a particular situation we default to the IBS rules, such as flag setting not above the bench level etc. I know that probably won't be good enough for some folks, but it's worked pretty well for us the past seven years. Over time it's possible, maybe even probable that some rules may be added, but I seriously doubt that there will be many. Our system isn't broke, so we probably won't try to fix it.

Rick
Click to expand...

I can appreciate UBR's attempts to get more people into the game of BR. However, the more I learn about UBR, the more unlikely I would try it. I thought there were more rules than what the website lists. It lacks structure and the deal breaker for me is having to shoot alongside braked rifles. IMO you have been extremely lucky to have conducted so many matches without ongoing disputes. Perhaps that says a lot about the character of the people running them. I hope it continues to go along smoothly for UBR.
 
LHSmith said:
I can appreciate UBR's attempts to get more people into the game of BR. However, the more I learn about UBR, the more unlikely I would try it. I thought there were more rules than what the website lists. It lacks structure and the deal breaker for me is having to shoot alongside braked rifles. IMO you have been extremely lucky to have conducted so many matches without ongoing disputes. Perhaps that says a lot about the character of the people running them. I hope it continues to go along smoothly for UBR.
Click to expand...

In the few cases I've seen braked rifles compete, it's been new shooters. We made accommodations for them to shoot as far away from anyone else as possible and politely explained why. Yes, it could become an issue at some point but not to date, that I'm aware of. I've sat next to some short barreled rifles, without brakes, that are just about as bad.

I have to respectfully disagree about the lack of structure and re-phrase that with minimal rules. I don't consider them the same thing because there is a means to deal with virtually anything that comes up. That may be as simple as seating the shooter as far away as possible from others and asking him/her to respect the others he is shooting with before returning, to the match director taking it up with him. Really it boils down to this... If he enjoys the game, he'll work up a load for the gun without a brake, bring another gun etc. vs being "that guy". So far, the way it has been handled has been effective. FWIW, I would support a ban on brakes at all UBR matches.

Keep in mind, one of the most important aspects of UBR being so successful, so fast, is welcoming new shooters to the game. That doesn't mean to welcome repeated disrespect from them or anyone. They catch on real fast. Most people are decent.
 
Last edited:
LHSmith said:
I can appreciate UBR's attempts to get more people into the game of BR. However, the more I learn about UBR, the more unlikely I would try it. I thought there were more rules than what the website lists. It lacks structure and the deal breaker for me is having to shoot alongside braked rifles. IMO you have been extremely lucky to have conducted so many matches without ongoing disputes. Perhaps that says a lot about the character of the people running them. I hope it continues to go along smoothly for UBR.
Click to expand...

In regards to braked rifles, I'd have to say if folks showed up very often with a braked rifle it could become a problem. But, I have been match director for more than 70 UBR matches and although I know we've had a few, I can't recall more than once or twice and that has been years ago. It's just really not an issue. Probably the one thing that has occurred more than once is shooters taking their targets home and realizing there was a scoring error and expecting it to be corrected long after the match. That's one of the occasions that the IBS rule book has been used. Offhand I can't recall much of anything else. As I've said a couple of times, we aren't trying to draw folks away from other shooting organizations. Like Obama said, "if you like your shooting organization, you can keep it". Except we mean it.

Rick
 
R.G. Robinett said:
... I believe that, were there a move, by the NBRSA membership to equalize caliber, that a concentric, multi-ring reticle, scoring device would be superior to multiple targets, and also more precise.

... I'd campaign for the 50% reduction in target size

Based upon having done it (printed targets & conducted club matches), that did/would create separation, to a degree people DID NOT - & even today - probably would not like!
Click to expand...

Randy,
I have noticed the same. It would seem that a lot of shooters would like to go home thinking "I would have won, but I got creedmored," rather than realizing that they just didn't shoot well that day. As if it would be fine if all the scores were perfect and a coin flip determined the winner. In handgun silhouette, they have gone to half-sized targets, at least for some of the classes.

I remember some discussions leading up to the initiation of UBR. My thought was that a multi-ring reticle, which as Mike pointed out was not available at the time, would avoid the issue of having to stock multiple targets. What if someone wanted to shoot 6.5 mm or 7mm or 20 caliber? Three different targets is one thing, but truly caliber neutral targets for every possibility could be overwhelming. On the other hand, centering an oddball caliber in a 22, 6mm or 30 ring would be a natural thing. An extra reticle for the oddballs might work, too. Still, UBR has changed the game from one in which anything smaller than a 30 is at a disadvantage, to one in which anything other than a 22, 6mm or 30 is at a disadvantage. In the grand scheme, that is a positive change.

It may have been Rick who asked me if I was willing to make and sell such reticles. By not being forthcoming with reticles, I perhaps share the blame for any deficiencies that may be perceived in UBR. And Danny deserves the credit for taking the bull by the horns and actually doing something.

A possible disadvantage of the multi-ring reticle that was mentioned is that the reticle might have to be used on more targets. Rick can correct me if I am wrong, but scoring on UBR targets is not much different from IBS targets, typically involving the reticle on only a few targets for an entire relay. The eye gets pretty good at judging whether the hole touches the ring. But it may be more difficult to judge whether, say, a 22 caliber hole touches the ring when scored with a 30 size reticle. Thus the reticle might have to be used on more targets, thereby slowing down scoring. How much is hard to say without actually trying it for a few matches.

One thing that I find it hard to get used to is the perfect score of 264. If one were designing a new game from scratch, a nice round number for the perfect score would be good. For instance, scoring the dot as a ten would change the UBR perfect score to 240. Or reducing shots to 20 per yardage, to 200. With half-sized bulls, 10 or 12 bulls might be fit on one target, so that only one target change would be needed per yardage. By eliminating several target changes and perhaps a few shots, one-day 100, 200, 300 yard matches would be easier to run (on ranges where these distances are possible), which I think could attract even more shooters.

None of this is meant to criticize Rick or anyone else holding UBR matches. Rick puts on matches that are second to none, and is a big part of why UBR has been so successful.
 
mks said:
Randy,
I have noticed the same. It would seem that a lot of shooters would like to go home thinking "I would have won, but I got creedmored," rather than realizing that they just didn't shoot well that day. As if it would be fine if all the scores were perfect and a coin flip determined the winner. In handgun silhouette, they have gone to half-sized targets, at least for some of the classes.

I remember some discussions leading up to the initiation of UBR. My thought was that a multi-ring reticle, which as Mike pointed out was not available at the time, would avoid the issue of having to stock multiple targets. What if someone wanted to shoot 6.5 mm or 7mm or 20 caliber? Three different targets is one thing, but truly caliber neutral targets for every possibility could be overwhelming. On the other hand, centering an oddball caliber in a 22, 6mm or 30 ring would be a natural thing. An extra reticle for the oddballs might work, too. Still, UBR has changed the game from one in which anything smaller than a 30 is at a disadvantage, to one in which anything other than a 22, 6mm or 30 is at a disadvantage. In the grand scheme, that is a positive change.

It may have been Rick who asked me if I was willing to make and sell such reticles. By not being forthcoming with reticles, I perhaps share the blame for any deficiencies that may be perceived in UBR. And Danny deserves the credit for taking the bull by the horns and actually doing something.

A possible disadvantage of the multi-ring reticle that was mentioned is that the reticle might have to be used on more targets. Rick can correct me if I am wrong, but scoring on UBR targets is not much different from IBS targets, typically involving the reticle on only a few targets for an entire relay. The eye gets pretty good at judging whether the hole touches the ring. But it may be more difficult to judge whether, say, a 22 caliber hole touches the ring when scored with a 30 size reticle. Thus the reticle might have to be used on more targets, thereby slowing down scoring. How much is hard to say without actually trying it for a few matches.

One thing that I find it hard to get used to is the perfect score of 264. If one were designing a new game from scratch, a nice round number for the perfect score would be good. For instance, scoring the dot as a ten would change the UBR perfect score to 240. Or reducing shots to 20 per yardage, to 200. With half-sized bulls, 10 or 12 bulls might be fit on one target, so that only one target change would be needed per yardage. By eliminating several target changes and perhaps a few shots, one-day 100, 200, 300 yard matches would be easier to run (on ranges where these distances are possible), which I think could attract even more shooters.

None of this is meant to criticize Rick or anyone else holding UBR matches. Rick puts on matches that are second to none, and is a big part of why UBR has been so successful.
Click to expand...
UBR could make the 11(dot) a 10, the 10 a 9, etc. That would certainly qualify as a reduction in target size from IBS/NBRSA. But, what did we just change?
 
mks said:
Randy,
I have noticed the same. It would seem that a lot of shooters would like to go home thinking "I would have won, but I got creedmored," rather than realizing that they just didn't shoot well that day. As if it would be fine if all the scores were perfect and a coin flip determined the winner. In handgun silhouette, they have gone to half-sized targets, at least for some of the classes.

I remember some discussions leading up to the initiation of UBR. My thought was that a multi-ring reticle, which as Mike pointed out was not available at the time, would avoid the issue of having to stock multiple targets. What if someone wanted to shoot 6.5 mm or 7mm or 20 caliber? Three different targets is one thing, but truly caliber neutral targets for every possibility could be overwhelming. On the other hand, centering an oddball caliber in a 22, 6mm or 30 ring would be a natural thing. An extra reticle for the oddballs might work, too. Still, UBR has changed the game from one in which anything smaller than a 30 is at a disadvantage, to one in which anything other than a 22, 6mm or 30 is at a disadvantage. In the grand scheme, that is a positive change.

It may have been Rick who asked me if I was willing to make and sell such reticles. By not being forthcoming with reticles, I perhaps share the blame for any deficiencies that may be perceived in UBR. And Danny deserves the credit for taking the bull by the horns and actually doing something.

A possible disadvantage of the multi-ring reticle that was mentioned is that the reticle might have to be used on more targets. Rick can correct me if I am wrong, but scoring on UBR targets is not much different from IBS targets, typically involving the reticle on only a few targets for an entire relay. The eye gets pretty good at judging whether the hole touches the ring. But it may be more difficult to judge whether, say, a 22 caliber hole touches the ring when scored with a 30 size reticle. Thus the reticle might have to be used on more targets, thereby slowing down scoring. How much is hard to say without actually trying it for a few matches.

One thing that I find it hard to get used to is the perfect score of 264. If one were designing a new game from scratch, a nice round number for the perfect score would be good. For instance, scoring the dot as a ten would change the UBR perfect score to 240. Or reducing shots to 20 per yardage, to 200. With half-sized bulls, 10 or 12 bulls might be fit on one target, so that only one target change would be needed per yardage. By eliminating several target changes and perhaps a few shots, one-day 100, 200, 300 yard matches would be easier to run (on ranges where these distances are possible), which I think could attract even more shooters.

None of this is meant to criticize Rick or anyone else holding UBR matches. Rick puts on matches that are second to none, and is a big part of why UBR has been so successful.
Click to expand...

Keith,
I'm enjoying and appreciating the brain storming on this subject, not to mention the publicity it's generating for our sport. (not just UBR, but benchrest in it's entirety)
I was not the one who asked about a reticle. I was not even aware of what Danny was doing until he asked me if I would hold matches. The multi-ring reticle is certainly an option, but I think there is too much attention paid to having different size targets. Three different targets is no big deal. In fact 80% of the targets I use are .243. We have had new shooters show up a very few times with something other than the standard three. IIRC- Brud Sheets shot a 20 Vartarg in Factory Class a couple of years ago at BGSL and we have had a .270 and I think one 7mm. I have a couple of Ron Goodger's multi ring reticles now and would use it should someone come to shoot with something else. However, since the cottage industry for match bullets and barrels revolves around the big three, this too, is mostly a non-issue.

I will grant you that if someone wanted to start all over again, a nice round number for a perfect score would be fine. But I don't think it would make enough difference to change what we have in place. This is not to say that things can't be improved or won't be.. For now, the cost of developing something new probably wouldn't be worth the expense, but that could change. Also, right now, perfect scores are very rare in UBR. In seven years, I think we have had four perfect scores, maybe only three that were verified. This isn't because UBR shooters are deficient, but rather because the UBR target is relative to the IBS target, more difficult. Not much, but enough to make a difference. So until there is a major accuracy break through I don't see a smaller target as necessary.

One other thing. By going to 4 cards per yardage, rather than 5 with a warm up, actually making 6, we have shortened the day. At the two ranges I direct we always have two relays and are still able to get a 100/200 yard agg done in about 6 1/2 hours most days. Sometimes it's a little less. A 100/200/300 can be done on a long mid-summer day and is at Rocky Road.

BTW- thanks for the kind words. I don't do it without help for which I am grateful.

Rick
 
target costs

I think some people that are afraid of the cost of three different targets aren't looking at the whole picture. Yes, the initial target order would be for three calibers but the part that is largely being missed is that the number of targets used is dependent upon how many shooters you have at the match. If you have 30 shooters, you need 30 targets. This is true regardless of sanctioning body. Same. Same.

When you factor in that UBR uses 4 targets per shooter, per yardage, instead of 6 for IBS and NBRSA, the real cost difference is negligible, then diminishes and ultimately ends up costing less, as you shoot more matches, than IBS/ NBRSA. This is assuming equal cost per target from each respective organization. I don't know the cost of IBS or NBRSA targets, so I can't say how fast this happens.

Again, this is just another non-issue when you think it through a bit.

Honestly, I'm impressed at just how well thought out UBR was, from the beginning. If it wasn't, it would never have withstood the barrage of questions brought up by the doubters, in just this thread alone.

That doesn't mean everybody will like the game...That's why there are Fords and Chevys...but I'm impressed with how well conceived it is, just the same. Kudos to Danny and all of those involved and thank you for bringing this game to fruition!
 
mwezell said:
I think some people that are afraid of the cost of three different targets aren't looking at the whole picture. Yes, the initial target order would be for three calibers but the part that is largely being missed is that the number of targets used is dependent upon how many shooters you have at the match. If you have 30 shooters, you need 30 targets. This is true regardless of sanctioning body. Same. Same.

When you factor in that UBR uses 4 targets per shooter, per yardage, instead of 6 for IBS and NBRSA, the real cost difference is negligible, then diminishes and ultimately ends up costing less, as you shoot more matches, than IBS/ NBRSA. This is assuming equal cost per target from each respective organization. I don't know the cost of IBS or NBRSA targets, so I can't say how fast this happens.

Again, this is just another non-issue when you think it through a bit.

Honestly, I'm impressed at just how well thought out UBR was, from the beginning. If it wasn't, it would never have withstood the barrage of questions brought up by the doubters, in just this thread alone.

That doesn't mean everybody will like the game...That's why there are Fords and Chevys...but I'm impressed with how well conceived it is, just the same. Kudos to Danny and all of those involved and thank you for bringing this game to fruition!
Click to expand...

I addressed the target costs on post #21. IBS 100 yard targets are $.23ea. 200 yard targets are $.26ea. Cost for a 100/200 yard Agg= $2.94 (In post #21 I didn't allow for the two warm up matches).
UBR Targets with the most recent pricing will be around $.21ea. for a 100/299 AGG cost of $1.60, about 1/2 the cost of IBS/NBRSA targets. The fact that 3 different types of targets are used (as I've said earlier) has no bearing on the cost. You still only use 8 targets, total. 80% of my targets used are .243. As Mike says, once the initial targets are purchased, the cost is about 1/2.

Rick
 
Greyfox said:
I addressed the target costs on post #21. IBS 100 yard targets are $.23ea. 200 yard targets are $.26ea. Cost for a 100/200 yard Agg= $2.94 (In post #21 I didn't allow for the two warm up matches).
UBR Targets with the most recent pricing will be around $.21ea. for a 100/299 AGG cost of $1.60, about 1/2 the cost of IBS/NBRSA targets. The fact that 3 different types of targets are used (as I've said earlier) has no bearing on the cost. You still only use 8 targets, total. 80% of my targets used are .243. As Mike says, once the initial targets are purchased, the cost is about 1/2.

Rick
Click to expand...

Thank you Rick, that clarifies it nicely.
 
OK. I am trying to understand the UBR format. The website says 4 targets per agg. How many bulls per target? Yes,I know- if it can be calculated by knowing the scoring system. Well newbies shouldn't have to do that. A pic of the full targets would be helpful as it would also show what the sighter(s) look like. If you want to sell UBR you have to upgrade the website. I can't find any pics or YouTube vids on UBR. Before I started BR comp. I was on the IBS website constantly trying to absorb what it was all about. When I finally had the nerve to actually shoot my first match, I knew the commands, I knew peoples names from photo captions of previous matches, I knew who were record holders. I knew what every range close to me looked like. The IBS website and the coverage in PS magazine was a big influence on me to build up the confidence to jump in this game. In truth, I was "hooked" before firing my first shot in my first Registered Match.
 
LHSmith said:
OK. I am trying to understand the UBR format. The website says 4 targets per agg. How many bulls per target? Yes,I know- if it can be calculated by knowing the scoring system. Well newbies shouldn't have to do that. A pic of the full targets would be helpful as it would also show what the sighter(s) look like. If you want to sell UBR you have to upgrade the website. I can't find any pics or YouTube vids on UBR. Before I started BR comp. I was on the IBS website constantly trying to absorb what it was all about. When I finally had the nerve to actually shoot my first match, I knew the commands, I knew peoples names from photo captions of previous matches, I knew who were record holders. I knew what every range close to me looked like. The IBS website and the coverage in PS magazine was a big influence on me to build up the confidence to jump in this game. In truth, I was "hooked" before firing my first shot in my first Registered Match.
Click to expand...

OK, those are all fair questions and comments. I have nothing to do with the website. It would probably help if you understand that UBR is one person, Danny Hensley, who answers calsl, keeps the records, has the targets printed, mails or ships them out, etc, etc. He also manages to visit most of the participating ranges every season. There is no secretary or organization. A few, like ,myself, do what we can because we love the game. I may send out as many targets and answer as many questions as Danny. I don't really know. I know that I answer questions here more. I am semi-retired and have more time. Danny owns and runs a logging operation and doesn't have the time to spend here.

Typically, this is how it works. A club gets interested and contacts Danny or maybe me and asks lots of questions, which usually ends in a set of targets being sent out to satisfy some of the questions you've asked. I sent out a package today to a club in MI. If they have enough interest, they will get back in touch and place an order for targets. It's that simple. I know you are concerned about rules and such, but most people aren't. They get the idea and go from there. I guess you could say this isn't something you get from a website to convince you that it's a good game. It's a one on one person to person thing. There are you tube videos of matches if you search. I'll see about finding the links and posting if you like. Also, another shooter will probably be posting pics of the targets either tonight or in the morning. Hope this helps.

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