Bench-Talk

 While fishing yesterday I began to ponder a reply that was given to me about why the NBRSA won't go along with VFS.  The reply being that if NBRSA allows the VFS class with 36+ power scopes that it would be the end of 6x HBR competition.

 So what I began to think, how many GROUP shooters would there be in the NBRSA if you made them use a 6x scope?   

Hello Steve,

Aint’ fishing a great time to “ponder”..:>)…..Being an IBS member, and just a “casual” shooter that does not shoot many registered events, I don’t know if I have much of a “right” to comment on this (NBRSA) issue but here goes….. I would like to see a VFS match that reflects a scoring schedule where the “chigger” was scored as an additional point instead of just an “X”…there may be a great opportunity for the NBRSA to start a VFS venue without mirroring the IBS VFS format. ….just a thought and another thing to “ponder” when you get a chance to go fishing again..:>)…. -H

Among the NBRSA fanatics, the phobic reaction [to VfS] is not limited to the Hunter Class faithful, but also the majority of the "group or death" faction. Many (most?) BELIEVE that VfS shooting will destroy their chosen dicipline. When, following the NBRSA's unilateral termination of reciprocity with the IBS, my decision to affilliate the River City Rifle & Pistol Club with the IBS, and conduct VfS tournaments, in addition to our traditional Hunter Class and Group events, I got a fair amount of "hate" mail and phone calls! ;) Was I MAD?!! Was it my intent to DESTROY group shooting (from the group fanatics)??!!!?? Was my intent to DESTROY Hunter Class (from the HBR crowd)??!!!??

A decade later, BENCHREST is thriving- and growing here in central fly-by country: every dicipline has benifitted from the EXPOSURE . . . some people still prefer one dicipline over the others, but there is plenty of opportunity to test the watters . . . and that's good for everyone: the local club and the sanctioning body (attendance); and especially the shooters, who have more choices. We cannot make people do what they do not want to do.

Interestingly, in the NBRSA, the SPORTER Class began with an 8X scope magnification limit AND a caliber restriction - to the point of being 'unfair', the .222 and it cousins were just too dominant - but morfed into a completely redunadnt caliber restricted class: a duplicate of the LV class. Any time this discussion comes up, I vote for something completely different - like back to the magnification restriction. Is it (low scope X) a handicap - yes it IS! ;) And that's the way I like it - the handicaps(6x, narrower forend, and lighter weight) are what 'MAKE" the Hunter Class the challenge that it IS . . . but, admittedly, it's not for everyone. For that matter, neither is ANY form of bencherst competition . . . RG

Randy,

“some people still prefer one dicipline over the others, but there is plenty of opportunity to test the watters . . . and that's good for everyone:”….I totally agree!... I have tried my hand at almost every shooting sport I can think of and have never understood the logic behind aligning one’s self with only one shooting sport or one organization/sanctioning body and saying others are “wrong minded” in their approach to providing a shooting/competition venue….My goodness, its all about competitive shooting and they are all good in my opinion! I feel that both IBS and NBRSA provide a format for competitive shooting and anyone can choose which we like to participate in. I opine that the only thing that these organizations should do is make sure the “equipment/class restrictions” enable shooters to compete in the sanctioned shoots of either organization without a problem with equipment/ restrictions/rules…. as far as the targets, scoring or tournament format then let the sanctioning bodies decide what they think will draw shooters to the line. I feel we are exceptionally lucky to be able to pick and choose and to have clubs that will align themselves with different organizations to provide us with a place to compete.

 Now, switching gears a little here..;>)….I have been around a few conversations about the “score target” and the scoring procedure and understand why IBS would be reluctant to change because of standing records using the present IBS format of 250-25x possible, it is plenty tough as is…. however, if a shooter drops a point he/she is pretty much out of the running but if in turn the “x” counted as a point there may be a chance to climb back out of the hole the shooter dug by missing the 10 ring……this is where I feel the NBRSA could test the waters of VFS and offer such a format, it would be different than the IBS score format and not "redundant"...something different and "fresh"….I think there are a few folks that would find it interesting and challenging. That being said,it does not matter to most…we are glad to have clubs with volunteers to host shoots and the sanctioning bodies that exist now…:>)

 -H

Hope, I completely disagree - we'd have the SAME winners . . . just different scores. Further, the "SUDDEN DEATH" aspect adds to the challenge of score shooting - it's stratedgy . . . do you gamble, or, play it safe. Now, I would/could support MORE scoring rings, spaced at 0.125 "MOA" intervals, which would provide another degree of separation . . . but, about two decades ago, I did that too - that is, printed  50% reduced targets on the back of our out-dated group targets, and ran local (club) matches on them . . . people quickly tired of losing by 8-10 points, as opposed to five or six Xes! ;) The winning scores pretty much remained 250-something X - I thought the separation would win wide approval . . but, people like to feel good about shootin - not as though they were taken out behind the shed! ;) That's my story . . and based upon experience, I'm stickin' to it . . I don't think human nature has changed much since the late '80's'. Also, about 1987/88, the NBRSA adopted the IBS 200 Yd. target, which features 0.25 MOA ring spacing as opposed to the original 0.125 MOA spacing - now, THAT, in my opinion  was a BIG mistake, as it did, and still would provide greater separation in both 200 Yd. and GRAND AGGREGATE scores. RG

P.S. The scoring-ring spacing figures - for the NBRSA/IBS 200 Yd. targets -  have been corrected (above): The original NBRSA 200 Yd. Hunter target featured a 0.5 MOA (1.0" diameter) ten-ring, with 0.125 MOA spacing (0.25") between the subsequent rings, or, 50% closer spacing for shots outside the ten-ring: a healthy percentage of todays 9s would score an 8 on the original target! ;) One has only to peruse the NBRSA National CHampion 'traveling' trophy to see the sudden INCREASE in GRAND AGG scores - many people [incorrectly] assume that shooters/equipment, "got better' . . . nope, the larger ring intervals simply made us fee better! ;) RG

I have been shooting IBS Score for only about 11 years and in that time I have seen the interest in Score shooting grow a lot and over a wide area. While I would like to see more people pick up the 6 X rifles I can see why many don't. I agree with the comment about folks wanting to "Feel Good' about shooting. The chances of the 250 sticker goes south with scope magnification. That in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing BUT at least they have a better chance of a "participation" award, eh ?

 I have never been much of a VFS shooter. For some strange reason I do better at and prefer to compete with a 6X scoped rifle; don't know why but think it has a lot to do with my abiltiy to process visual information or lack there of.

I have also seen that some shooters who do VFS well also find that they do 6X pretty well. 6 power shooting isn't difficult nor does one need any better vision ability, it's simply a mind set thing and one heck of a bigger challenge. For those who are tired of being 10 th in the standing in VFS with 22 xes, give the 6 power classes a try. Bored with the relative ease of shooting a 250? Try a 6 power rifle and you will be challenged.

I don't believe the sky will fall on NBRSA if it adopts VFS competition. I think it will grow their numbers and venues wanting to offer VFS. Perhaps someone should look nito why the numbers of Group participants is receeding. I'll bet it has a lot to do with the structure. Perhaps the Weekend Structure is good for Fly Over Country but it isn't necessarily the best thing for the more Urban areas of the country. As FDR said, " there is noting to fear but fear itself". We have finally begun to see a iberaliztion of equipment restrictions, why not disciplin libleralization?

Randy,

 I am not one to argue (I prefer to call this a "discussion"..;>)..) with you concerning "score",you have a rich history and much experience concerning the subject. I somewhat agree with your statement "we'd have the SAME winners . . . just different scores.", but what would not be so obvious (with the x counting as an additional point) is the "sudden death" of dropping a point. I was thinking maybe that could be a problem with those who shoot "group" crossing over to "score". In group competition if a "large" group is shot,the shooter still has a "chance" to try and shoot a smaller one the next match and "hope" to make up for his/her previous error...... My experience with 3D archery has shown that adding a "point" (an additional small scoring ring) to IBO scoring  (or in ASA competition,a 12 ring) inside the 10 ring on a 3D target changed the way people felt about dropping a point and in some cases changed the outcome at the end of the day...but in most cases as you noted your top shooters were still at the top..:>)

 I think Steve started this discussion about why the NBRSA was reluctant to embrace VFS and I don't have an answer but thinking maybe those that mostly shoot for "group" would more readily compete for "score" if the "hope" factor was present...:>)...it would be simple,no change in the target we use just a change in the scoring format......maybe some club has already tried this? 

-H

Steve,

NBRSA (of which i am a member) and one of the directors who we all know, feel that embracing score would "dilute" ( I believe that is the word he used), group participation. Hmmm. Sounds like the government doing things for our good without asking. It was told to me not to fight this as NBRSA is

In fact cutting their own throat by not allowing Score. So be it. Let the chips fall where they may.

For good or bad the advent of the 30BR has given, in my opinion, the illusion that anyone can win, where we all know the same people , almost always win. And that goes for changing targets, rings, etc. The up side of this is participation is up.

 David

 I guess what I was saying about the group shooters shooting 6x was that maybe the NBRSA wouldn't loose shooters but GROW in DIFFERANT direction.

Steve Grosvenor:

 I guess what I was saying about the group shooters shooting 6x was that maybe the NBRSA wouldn't loose shooters but GROW in DIFFERANT direction.

HMMMmmmm - I thought that was what I said . . . too many words, I guess   . . . ;) Among NBRSA fanatics, the phobia also cuts across the Hunter Class participants: bottom line, people will shoot the dicipline(s) of choice - not what they are "forced" to do. Were it not for the UTTER FEAR of VfS, the NBRSA could have grown substantially - but, as you point out, in a NEW and terrifying direction . . .

Consider this: at each of the last two NBRSA Hunter Nationals (Membership) Meetings (2007 and 2008), those in attendance have overwhelmingly voted against petitioning the NBRSA [Board of Directors] to adopt VfS - never mind that Hunter Class has fallen off the cliff without being pushed- the general belief is the VfS will "kill" Hunter Class. RG

   Here's something to think about:

   The aim of getting the NBRSA to legitimize a Score format for the Varmint class rifles is ostensibly to attract more shooters and have another discipline for current NBRSA competitors to shoot. So...maybe a 'brand new' discipline can have a 'brand new' scoring system? Who says it would need to use the 'best edge' scoring method for this new discipline? Maybe we should consider scoring targets with one reticle. Or the 'Canadian' system of X's counting as an additional point?

  This should eliminate the one big issue that many NBRSA group shooters have: that they need to have a .30 to compete in a Score format. Personally, I think if this is to have a snowballs chance in you-know-where of passing in the NBRSA, we'll need to somehow get past this issue.

  For consideration.....    -Al

   Dave, as the NBRSA director of the North Central region, I have a question for you:

   Gulf Coast Director Scott Hunter will be bringing this proposed Score format to the Directors meeting for a vote, per his constituents wishes.  I'm also in favor of a Score format for the Varmint rifles in NBRSA.

   Will you 'second' the motion and send it to the next step?   

    I need to know where the Director of my region (you) stands on this issue....before I decide whether or not to renew my NBRSA membership.

    Thanks for taking the time to address this. -Al

 I would Like to join the NBRSA but untill I can use the rifles I currently own for SCORE not group in the NBRSA I shall abstain.  Your second will insure a NEW member and maybe two new members.

 I am a member of both organizations and do not favor either one based on what they have to offer. Membership in both is so I can compete in sanctioned matches wherever they are held. I have Hunter rifles and a VFS rifle to use wherever I can.

Did anyone notice in the Boone Valley Ikes match report that the Hunter class scores were fairly even with the VFS scores?

 Al,

I am torn in MANY different directions on this issue.  I will publically state that I do see the potential, and I MUST stress, potential benefit of VFS.  But I Must also stress that it MUST be handled in a VERY controlled and very DEFINED manner inorder for BOTH VFS  and HBR to grow and prosper. The growth of the score shootingdiscipline in our backyard was not by "devine providence" Al.

I am sure there will be a very lively discussion at the Nationals in August.   None of us can jump to ANY conclusions right now.  W/O input from ALL sides of the issue we could well make a decision tat will not be pleasant in a few years.  And that DOES NOT mean I am against the matter.  Unlike many who seem to be getting heated up about this, I feel this is a watershed decision that has ramifications that well could determine the very existence of score shooting in the NBRSA.ALL side, or rather, facets of the matter MUST be examined.

David