But, as for the LV being limited to 6.5mm and below is one rule change I will never vote for. 

You don’t have to worry about that.  The proposal has been withdrawn, and nobody will be voting on that particular rule change.

I think I just read a new definition for welfare meaning (wanting something for nothing)  Scoring a 6mm hole with a 30 cal retical, Lets see now don't want to pay extra or the bullets, powder don't want to chamber another barrel, buy dies, work up loads,but they want the score with a 30 plug.....Let's see now........Yep ......... that's welfare.

Funny you should mention that.  Last night I was reminded of something I’d forgotten.  When Varmint for Score was first adopted by IBS, the rules called for single-standard scoring.  All calibers were scored with a .30-cal. plug.  All competed on the basis of accuracy alone.

What happened next is interesting.  6mm rifles quickly started dominating the class, and the (relatively few) people shooting .30s began complaining that without the advantage afforded them by best-edge scoring of actual bullet diameter, they couldn’t be competitive.   They made a lot of noise about this being unfair, so in a conciliatory move, the membership voted in a rule change to score VFS just like HBR, with a bullet-diameter plug for each caliber.  It didn’t make any difference at the time  –  the 6mm rifles still won – but it removed a source of complaint.

I get two things from this bit of history:

1. What I wrote earlier about returning VFS to its original spirit and intent was apt.  This game was supposed to be about getting the best shot placement, regardless of caliber.  Going back to that would restore us to what the game was supposed to be about.

2. Then, as now, guys shooting Thirties thought they should get more points than the accuracy of their shooting deserved.  The only thing that has changed is, now they’ve got an advantage, and don’t believe they should give it up.  (There’s a certain irony to this.)

So yes, Mike, there are shooters who want something for nothing.  Problem is, they don’t need the “welfare” they’re getting.

It seems to me that we are trying to bring the definition of accurate from group shooting over to score shooting. Group = 5shots in one hole, Score 5 shot on 5 different bulls on the X. Two complete different meanings.

Benchrest shooters didn’t stop being benchrest shooters, and accuracy didn’t stop being accuracy just because we started trying to hit a printed dot instead of a bullet hole.  The original intent of VFS was for it to be an accuracy game judged on the same standard for all competitors, just like group competition.  The only people who think accuracy should have different meanings depending on what target we are aiming at are those who think they have something to gain by making a distinction.

The rest of what I have to say in this post is for everyone following this thread, not just Mike:

I shot my first registered IBS tournament in 1977.  Over the 29 years that have passed since then, I have found that in benchrest – as in every other human activity – there are people who habitually put their own narrow interests ahead of the general good, not caring what happens to other shooters or the sport as long as they get what they want.  There are also people who make use of the rules to give themselves an advantage at the expense of others.  In VFS, the combination of special interests and advantage-seeking has brought the game to a point where I honestly believe it will not last much longer.  We’re in a downward spiral that is getting close to the ground.  I think that unless we implement some changes, in another few years there will be very few VFS matches and competitors, if any.

The game has been losing participants in its traditional home ground for a long time.  Where 50 or 60 shooters once turned up for a match in Pennsylvania, we are now seeing less than 20.  Many northeastern events are contested by fewer than a dozen competitors.

This is not entirely or even mostly the fault of the .30-cal. emerging as a dominant caliber under current rules.  As I’ve already noted, many shooters have been discouraged by the scoring system, almost from the beginning of VFS.  When the game started becoming popular, some host clubs saw it as a cash cow, and began holding more and more tournaments, often without regard for schedule conflicts.  Now we have a shrinking number of competitors spread over too many matches.  It’s inevitable that sooner or later, clubs will begin deciding that attendance does not justify tying up their facilities and volunteer labor with VFS events, and the matches will stop.

Nonetheless, the .30 BR is not without fault in this.  High gas prices have been mentioned as a cause of declining attendance, and they probably are, but if you check out recent match reports from “IBS country” – a place where most shooters need not drive far to reach a match -- you’ll find the equipments lists show that most or all of the competitors are shooting Thirties at these small events.  How should we interpret that?  Does someone who shoots a 6 PPC have to pay more for gasoline?  Of course not. 

Benchrest shooters are competitive people.  When they attend a match, they like to believe they have a chance of winning.   Over the past couple years, that belief has been shattered for the majority of competitors who shoot 6 PPC rifles.  They no longer think they can win, and they’re staying home.

The idea that everyone should just switch to the .30 BR is not realistic.  In the Northeast (and elsewhere), VFS has always depended on “crossovers” – group shooters who attend score matches to get more trigger time and a bit of extra fun – for much of its attendance.  These guys are not going to switch or add calibers just to shoot score, and they won’t go to matches where they are automatically excluded from the trophy positions.  Without the crossovers, per-match attendance has dropped sharply just since last year.

The common element in all of this is scoring.  When we get right down to it, the target and scoring method devised for Hunter class have never been well-suited to competition with Varmint-class rifles, and that problem has become worse.  The rings are too big and far apart, there’s more emphasis on “close” than there is on dead-center, and there is no common accuracy standard.  Other than making it easy for newcomers to score a lot of points, the current system seems almost designed to generate a sense of unfairness.

In my opinion, it would be pretty easy to come up with some changes that would return us to the spirit of the game as it was originally intended to be, giving us a more competitive and attractive arena that would breathe new life into VFS.  It is also my opinion that we probably won’t see that.  There is too much political opposition to change on the part of a minority of competitors, and too many people in the majority just don’t care anymore.

For my part, I’m about done agitating for change that is obviously not supported by most of the people who are still shooting VFS.  I don’t need the aggravation, and to be frank, I can now shoot group matches while driving shorter distances than I did while attending every score event in the region, so I don’t feel like I have to shoot score to satisfy my competitive urges.  I’m content to sit back and let the game go where it will.  I hope it will not “crash and burn,” but if it does, I’ll let that be the responsibility of those who could have made things turn out differently, but chose not to do so.  It won't be because I didn't try.

--Dan