• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Not Just No, But A Resounding NO!!

VFS "X" scoring system: 250-0X beats a 249-17X - too high penalty for the "9"
11 point score system: the same two shooters score 250 (0X's) vs 266 (17 - 11's) -too low a penalty for "9"

Is this the correct application of the 11 point system?

Yes, however most people dont shoot a 250 -0X. I do agree with you that the "penalty" for shooting a 9 should be greater than just 1 dot.
 
I don't understand why do people want to change something that's working and people are happy.
In some way's it drives people away from the matches.

I think most people that would entertain the change feel like the "9" is basically a death sentence. The only saving grace is if you have another yardage so you can at least agg to the top.
 
Yes, however most people dont shoot a 250 -0X. I do agree with you that the "penalty" for shooting a 9 should be greater than just 1 dot.
So for an 11 point system, what about changing the "penalty" ie: make the "9" ring a "4" or "5" whatever number of X's needed to recover as is deemed appropriate. A "real world" 250-15X becomes a 265 and the 249-17X shooter (using 5 as the ring value) becomes a 262? He would need the equivalent or a 250-20X to fully recover from the "9"?
 
So for an 11 point system, what about changing the "penalty" ie: make the "9" ring a "4" or "5" whatever number of X's needed to recover as is deemed appropriate. A "real world" 250-15X becomes a 265 and the 249-17X shooter (using 5 as the ring value) becomes a 262? He would need the equivalent or a 250-20X to fully recover from the "9"?

Now we are grasping..... Like Thud said... it aint broke. I like the idea of an 11 point system. I like the idea of UBR.
But the truth is (for me) its easier to leave it alone.

Jackie
I commend you for offering up a fun suggestion .
 
I don't understand why do people want to change something that's working and people are happy.
In some way's it drives people away from the matches.
If this is directed at me, its misplaced. I'm not advocating a change, merely pointing out how the two systems could work.
 
VFS "X" scoring system: 250-0X beats a 249-17X - too high penalty for the "9"
11 point score system: the same two shooters score 250 (0X's) vs 266 (17 - 11's) -too low a penalty for "9"

Is this the correct application of the 11 point system?
And you have seen how many 250 0x scores? Since caliber have been mentioned the 30 made mediocre shooters relevent. It is a fun cartridge no doubt. Maybe thats a good thing, maybe its not. I think the UBR system has it correct for a better game.
 
If this is directed at me, its misplaced. I'm not advocating a change, merely pointing out how the two systems could work.
What I saw drive shooters away 20 years ago was the 30br. It made it a must for the score game and in a short period of time the number of score shooters fell quite a bit. Some did not want to build another gun and some did not like the recoil to stay competitive. To bad the UBR did not come along sooner or the IBS did not react to the change the 30br made to the game. Look at where 99% of the younger shooters are. Not in the benchrest game.
 
Jackie, This is the same argument I had years no decades ago. Who shot better the guy who shot 249 24 x or the the guy that shot a 250 with beggars 10's 0 x.... nothing will change anytime soon. Shoot ubr and be happy....
A resounding +1^^^. Especially the last 10 words. Having shot both score and UBR, I'll take UBR everytime. It's a fair and fun format that almost anyone can shoot in, and not a lot of over-reach rules that give an advantage to a specific caliber. JMHO. WD
 
“These go to eleven.”
— Nigel Tufnel
Great piece of movie satire.

Seriously, I am heavily invested in the 30 caliber, but I am more heavily invested in my desire to keep score shooting as a competitive endeavor.

Read the first two sentences in the NBRSA mandate and objectives of the NBRSA.




At my home club, Tomball, where we have a thriving Club Match program, (score), where 98 % of the shooters use some variant of a 30BR. Since very few shoot group, very few own a smaller caliber competition rifle. So there is very little interest in going to the UBR Format. The same can probably be said for the Austin Club, and possibly the Club that Wes Johnson shoots out of in the Dallas/Ft Worth area.

Lake Charles, also in the NBRSA Gulf Coast Region, is much like Tomball, just about 100% 30 caliber.

But, you head West, (still in Texas), and you can count the number of Score Shooters on one hand, along with the number of 30 caliber Benchrest Rifles. Group shooting is still the predominate activity.

When I ask my friends who shoot Group exclusively why they do not give score a try, the unanimous answer is “I don’t have or want to shoot a 30”.

Another underlying reason might be that many group shooters go by the adage……”they give you 7 minutes to pick out the 25 seconds that i takes to shoot your group”. Unless the conditions are extremely light, that simply does not wrk in the 100/200 yard Score Format.

I went to Score years ago mainly because that is what we shoot in this part of The Gulf Coast Region. I was hoping to go to Lubbock to shoot the Gulf Coast Region Group Championship in September, but I am scheduled to get my new artificial lens replacements in my eyes that week.
 
Last edited:
Jackie, first let me say that I commend you on submitting your idea for an Agenda item. Most won't take the time or make the effort to do so. You did. :)

As a competitor that was present at the Score Nationals when this was presented, your overview of it being soundly rejected is correct.

Now...that doesn't mean there's not interest in looking at a change. It simply means that the proposed agenda item isn't what the majority of competitors would want if a change was to happen.

Speaking strictly for myself, there's been a suggestion that I'd certainly support for a scoring change. In fact, it would be in line with the link you provided and be truer to the historical way that NBRSA Score targets were scored.

Good shootin' -Al
 
Last edited:
Interesting perspectives: what would really change - on any given day, at any venue, via any scoring method, the same hand-full of individuals would still be the winners. Via the 11 point method, at the recent NBRSA Score Nationals, yours truly would have moved from sorry loser, to - via tie breaker - VfS National Champion . . . 12th to FIRST - what the hell would THAT dramatic alteration in the GRAND AGG prove . . . ?!!? :eek: RG

P.S. Dating back to the NBRSA Hunter Nationals, in 1988, and after, having made proposals to change the targets, and especially, having argued against going to the EASIER (proportional) 200 Yd. target, I may initiate a different thread, regarding scoring/separation, as I have no desire to hijack this one. I do believe that score shooting IS, "sudden-death" . . . To quote myself: "winners win & losers whine."
 
Last edited:
And then there is always the proposed talk of worst edge scoring, now we can really hear the 30 cal. shooter start crying.......as I said shoot ubr if you shoot score and everyone is on an even playing field, caliber neutral and 11 points vs an x. it was a very well thought out as a target goes. I just wish it was closer for me...
 
Interesting perspectives: what would really change - on any given day, at any venue, via any scoring method, the same hand-full of individuals would still be the winners. Via the 11 point method, at the recent NBRSA Score Nationals, yours truly would have moved from sorry loser, to - via tie breaker - VfS National Champion . . . 12th to FIRST - what the hell would THAT dramatic alteration in the GRAND AGG prove . . . ?!!? :eek: RG

P.S. Dating back to the NBRSA Hunter Nationals, in 1988, and after, having made proposals to change the targets, and especially, having argued against going to the EASIER (proportional) 200 Yd. target, I may initiate a different thread, regarding scoring/separation, as I have no desire to hijack this one. I do believe that score shooting IS, "sudden-death" . . . To quote myself: "winners win & losers whine."
Randy, One thing that I failed to make clear was the proposal out of the Gulf Coast Region would be ONLY for Varmint for Score. The HBR scoring format would remain the same.

You mentioned what it would prove going from 12th to 1st in a format where the existing X would now be a point were to have been in place. In one sense, you proved the argument that the shooter that stayed closest to the center of the target was indeed the overall winner. You might have got a lot of “atta boys” for those 32 X’s, but one “awe sh-t” wipes the slate clean.

Many times, I have had it both ways, winning a Grand Agg by shooting clean with only a few X’s at 200 while others had a much higher X count but dropped a point along the way. I have also been on the other side of that coin, shooting a lot of X’s and loosing because I managed to go brain dead, (a common occurrence), and drop a point.

Fact is, I was second in this years Gulf Coast Region Shooter of the Year because while I had 4 more X’s over the 5 Match Schedule, I managed to drop two more points than the Winner, But since Dwayne is arguably a better shooter than I am, if we would have been under this proposed scoring Format, he would have simply shot more X’s and the results would have been the same.
 
Last edited:
And then there is always the proposed talk of worst edge scoring, now we can really hear the 30 cal. shooter start crying.......as I said shoot ubr if you shoot score and everyone is on an even playing field, caliber neutral and 11 points vs an x. it was a very well thought out as a target goes. I just wish it was closer for me...
George, may years ago, at St. Louis, at what I believe was their initial VfS event, I left home with a .224 BBL on my varmint rig, but thirty Cal. bullets and gear! :eek: So, was just sitting around observing & BSing . . . [the late] Ron Hoehn, goaded me into keeping track of "worst edge" scoring - there were fair number of 6PPC fanatics present.

Via regulation (best edge) scoring, Mike Bigelow won both yardages, thus, of course the GRAND AGG: the 100 by a few X, and the two hundred a couple of points . . . via the "worst edge" method, Mike Bigelow won both yardages and the GRAND by even larger margins: perception and reality failed to converge . . . o_O Oh, per mutual agreement, for both methods, to determine X, Ron & I 'decided' to use "best edge" scoring.

I wrote an article which I intended to send to Dave Brennen, but decided it would cause "too much" controversy in an already turbulent arena, so never submitted it. A couple of years ago, I shot my .220Russianx30 in three consecutive NBRSA registered tournaments - the rifle having delivered 19; 20; 21X, I didn't feel handicapped at all.

Upon returning home, I "re-scored" all 75 [100 Yd.] targets using both of my official NBRSA scoring devices - using a thirty caliber, had I been able to dope and deliver shots on equal centers, I would have gained two X.;) I simply needed to make better shots . . . RG
 
Last edited:
Randy, One thing that I failed to make clear was the proposal out of the Gulf Coast Region would be ONLY for Varmint for Score. The HBR scoring format would remain the same.

You mentioned what it would prove going from 12th to 1st in a format where the existing X would now be a point were to have been in place. In one sense, you proved the argument that the shooter that stayed closest to the center of the target was indeed the overall winner.

Many times, I have had it both ways, winning a Grand Agg by shooting clean with only a few X’s at 200 while others had a much higher X count but dropped a point along the way. I have also been on the other side of that coin, shooting a lot of X’s and loosing because I managed to go brain dead, (a common occurrence), and drop a point.

Fact is, I was second in this years Gulf Coast Region Shooter of the Year because while I had 4 more X’s over the 5 Match Schedule, I managed to drop two more points than the Winner, But since Dwayne is arguably a better shooter than I am, if we would have been under this proposed scoring Format, he would have simply shot more X’s and the results would have been the same.
Jackie, what we need is separation - a more difficult target, such as the OLD NBRSA Hunter Target, which rewarded keeping shots centered, & penalized missing the ten ring. The 11 point method shifts the emphasis to the 100 Yd. where one can intentionally shoot X, and renders the 200 Yd., where X is largely LUCK, to second class citizen - this is extremely undesirable.

When, in the past, I proposed making the Hunter targets more difficult - as in, reducing the size - I have been literally threatened with bodily harm.o_O

I have lost and won Nationals on tie-breakers - either way sucks . . . but, as we say, in this neighborhood, to the 'loser', when winning via tie-breaker, "I stomped your guts out". RG
 
Last edited:
George, may years ago, at St. Louis, at what I believe was their initial VfS event, I left home with a .224 BBL on my varmint rig, but thirty Cal. bullets and gear! :eek: So, was just sitting around observing & BSing . . . [the late] Ron Hoehn, goaded me into keeping track of "worst edge" scoring - there were fair number of 6PPC fanatics present.

Via regulation (best edge) scoring, Mike Bigelow won both yardages, thus, of course the GRAND AGG: the 100 by a few X, and the two hundred a couple of points . . . via the "worst edge" method, Mike Bigelow won both yardages and the GRAND by even larger margins: perception and reality failed to converge . . . o_O Oh, per mutual agreement, for both methods, to determine X, Ron & I 'decided' to use "best edge" scoring.

I wrote an article which I intended to send to Dave Brennen, but decided it would cause "too much" controversy in an already turbulent arena, so never submitted it. A couple of years ago, I shot my .220Russianx30 in three consecutive NBRSA registered tournaments - the rifle having delivered 19; 20; 21X, I didn't feel handicapped at all.

Upon returning home, I "re-scored all 75 [100 Yd.] targets using both of my official NBRSA scoring devices - using a thirty caliber, had I been able to dope and deliver shots on equal centers, I would have gained two X.;) I simply needed to make better shots . .......................... .I recall that match as I was there also .... but the thity shooters want the bigger dia. and put off any advantage so it seems when its mentioned to go the other way they get upset... also one match doesn't seem like a good indicator I would want a whole bunch more targets checked. also if I recall Mike shot a thirty that day so he gets the scoring edge advantage against the 6ppc's...... I'll say it again as for the most equal target UBR has it hands down.....i also recall when the 30's hit the scene and how many left score shooting because they didn't not wish to have to start again with another caliber ....
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,743
Messages
2,201,879
Members
79,081
Latest member
Drenalin 68
Back
Top