ACT QUEENS

Matt P · Post by **Matt P** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:48 pm

Hi All
How many of you FS shooters are planning on going to the ACT Queens and what state are you from ?????

Matt P

Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:21 pm

Hi Matt,
3, possibly 4 from Castlemaine.( Vic )
Barry

Chopper · Post by **Chopper** » Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:01 pm

g,day three from around my way and four if my gear is ready ,Paul.

Mark Hamersley · Post by **Mark Hamersley** » Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:54 pm

Hi Matt

I believe Mary Brown and Terry Sheedy from WA will be there in FS, with Warwick Brown and myself in FO. We're all working through the logistics ATM.

Mark Hamersley

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:42 pm

I'll be there shooting TR. Look for me. I'll be the one in the hat.

jt · Post by jt » Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:02 pm

FYI
I was informed that there will be 8 badges for FSTD this year.
jt.

Post by **Guest** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 10:56 am

For The Statistically Minded,
There were 52 FS entries, no grading.
The following statistics are for Queens only and based on 3 day Aggregate scores only, not individual daily aggs.
Using the A/B grade cut off average that we use in VIC of 94.5.
The cut off between A and B was at No 22 and equalled 94.65 ( score 442/480.)
Of those 22, 19 were known A graders.
4 known A graders were below the cut off line, which means they did not shoot up to their usual standard.
Top score =467, cut off score =442 Equals 25 points separation.
Shooter # 23 had 440, while bottom score was 361, = 79 points difference.
So from top score at 467 to bottom score at 361 = 106 points.
We definitely need a B grade at least, and following this one would hope that ACT include it next year.
Taking the 3 day score as a basis is NOT the correct way to calculate the final average for grading ( in this case it is convenient ) each day should stand alone.
By calculating each day and averaging over 3 or 5 days the final average is o.8 to 1 percentage lower and would give a truer indication of a shooters grading.
Barry

CEW · Post by **CEW** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:33 pm

What about some statistics that people can actually use like what equipment was used by say the top ten or twenty like they do in BR matches worldwide. Get with the times. Grading is for clubs not championships. Is there going to be grading in Bisley in 09??
Peter.

Post by **AlanF** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:32 pm

Peter,

The grading recommendation above is for F-Std, where like TR, the main interest is the performance of the shooter. While F-Open (and Bisley 09) still needs good wind-reading skills, there is a greater emphasis on equipment. If you look at the ozfclass.com F-Open possibles page, you'll get a very thorough description of some of the better F-Open rifles used in Australia. Also, you may be interested in reading my thread from Canberra HEREwhich says what calibres were used.

Alan

Matt P · Post by **Matt P** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:41 pm

Looks like I'm going back to B grade !!!!! :oops:

Had a horror !!!!!

Matt P

Lynn Otto · Post by **Lynn Otto** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:45 pm

LOL Matt,

I'd like to see you get that one past Barry.

My comisserations and we are all entitled to have those occasionally, don't be too hard on yourself. Keep smiling, there's always next time.

Lynn

Post by **Guest** » Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:14 pm

Peter old son, your a little mixed up. My statistics help put bums on seats, so I guess they are somewhat useful. And who gives a RA what they do at Bisley in 2009, I am more concerned what they do in good old Aus in 2008.
Barry

CEW · Post by **CEW** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:16 pm

Putting up a equipment list of who used what action, barrel, bullet etc, would help put my bum on a seat because i am selling my 6BR barrel and wish to see who is using what barrel in FS. I am sure that there are a lot of others who could benefit from such information including the gunsmiths that put the rifles together. Is this so difficult to do? Lots of other types of shooting do this and it helps the sport move along and get the people at the lower end into the top end. Shooting skill is on thing, but without decent gear, no-one gets anywhere.
This forum is at times like taking a trip to the dentist. Painfull the whole time you're in there, and can hardly wait to get out the door.
Peter.

Post by **Guest** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:50 pm

Peter,
Unlike BR you will find that TR and FS are little interested in what Joe Blow is using. The reason for this is that no particular action or barrel shines out against another. In other words there is no "flavour of the month " equipment.
Don't know which club you shoot with but this information is, or should be readily available to you for the asking. I don't see any problem with putting this information on this website, all you have to do is find somebody willing to put the time in and collate the info.
Just about any combination of action/barrel have won matches in both TR and FS so take your pick. Bullets are limited to 155 Sierra or Dyer in 308 and 80 gn Sierra or Nosler in 556 and 69 gn Sierra also. So not much to compare there.
FO has a greater variety of equipment because there are no restrictions so to speak.
Me and mine personally all use Maddco and Tobler barrels in my own make action, and cannot see any reason to change as those combinations are as good as you will find, and win their fair share of matches.
You can spend $1000 or $6000 and most times you cannot see the difference in performance.
Final word, if you are in that much pain, don't visit. Why punish yourself?
Barry

CEW · Post by **CEW** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:02 am

Went in for a checkup and walked out with a root canal. Cannot believe that such a basic request that i am sure others would like to see can be so hard to obtain. Yet any and all information about grading is everywhere to be found. Totally of no benefit to anyones shooting.
Is this forum about promoting the sport or just for individuals to have the floor?
I wonder as i look through the archives????? Don't expect me here or on some range in the future as i think i may go where I can get the info i want.

Peter.