OzFclass

The scoring system of V5432 FB and X65432 FC, has had a fair enough run, there is still confusion and many problems, try and train a new shooter to score and you have a headache, at an OPM its a joke, scores are wrong and problems arise on the day, some older FB shooters still cant get it and new scope shooters are confused, its about time we went to a standard scoring system, the 6 is not working, with the new sighting system on top, its a joke, Chop.

and what do you propose?

We could have separate competitions for TR & F class shooters like they do in most other countries, I guess ....... or produce a training module that would help those with difficulty passing on information.

What would be wrong with scoring the same as FB,but still mark the super V as an XV5432, so the score on the board is all the same,but fullbore count the Xand V as the same value ? any other idea than what we have got ime sure would lessen problems ?any ideas?, Chop.

John, No segregation, the 6 has just done that, we can shoot together, Chop.

James, be nice to see some of your 50.10s with the X,s included.

Hi Chop
At No.1 DRA in SA we trailed 100.v 100.X for TR and FClass for 12 months
I found this had many benefits math is easier having a common scoring between the 2 discipline ppl were able to relate better.
New comers would get up with a smile on their face when they score 90/100 just sounded better than 45/50 silly I know but the physiological factor should not be dismissed lightly.
Same score card for both (saving cost) etc etc.

Earlier this year we had No1. AGM and there were 3 camps
The F-Class standard predominately that wanted to go back to 60.X
Some TR that wanted to go back to 50.V and couldn’t care less about f-class
and those that saw the benefits of a common scoring system.
Any way the vote was taken and we agreed that to keep the peace a common scoring system was more important so we settled for 50.v TR and 50.X F-Class.
My personal choice after using all these scoring systems and the most recent one now for 6 months is 100.X

RB

To be perfectly honest in all the time we have been using the 60 score I have not seen anyone have a problem with it or to have shot somewhere that it doesn't work. Yes you may have to explain to a new shooter why it is different but none of them have had any difficulty grasping the concept. There is no logical reason for them to not understand unless perhaps the person explaining it doesn't like it so puts their own bias into the explanation thus causing confusion. It really is quite simple and if someone has the intelligence to obtain a firearms licence then they are surely smart enough to manage the scoring system.

And how did the scoring system we currently have Lynn come about?


I think it started here 18th century target shooting

FIRING AT MARKS

Please pardon the redundancy of the visual at right, but as it illustrates the point so well it has been left in place.

Firing at marks is a simple gentlemanly sport that both entertains and helps develop proficiency with firearms. Regularly firing a smoothbore flintlock fowler can actually improve your aim and performance with modern weapons as well.

For firing at marks, the Society uses a simple target similar to that shown in the 18th-century engraving at right. The official Society target is based on this engraving with detail of the color and placement of scoring rings taken and a 1777 archery target. Original targets of this type often had additional artistic embellishment on them, but as this practice was not widespread in either England nor the Colonies, only the basic target will be used in our competitions. The target is laid out as follows:
•The target to be made of wood and of no less than 1/8" nor more than 1/2" nominal thickness.
•The ground is to be white and two-feet square, that is, 24" by 24".
•The center "bull's eye" is to be black and three inches (3") in diameter.
•The first ring is red and is six inches (6") in diameter.
•The outer ring is green and is 13" in diameter.
•The coloured rings should be about 1/2" so that they are easily discernible from the firing line.

The whole to be mounted upon a pole or stake, no wider than two inches with the narrowest dimension placed so as to face the shooters. The whole is to be driven into the ground so that the center of the "bull's eye" is approximately five feet above than the level of the ground at the firing line.

The firing line, that is, the point from which the targets are fired upon, is to be no less than twenty paces (about 50 feet) from the target for smoothbores, forty paces (about 100 feet) for rifles no matter their caliber. Only round lead balls are to be used, but they may be either patched or wadded according to the shooter's preference.

As we have found no period-correct scoring method to date, for the time being a scoring will be loosely based on an early 19th-century target from the Netherlands.
•All bullets that pierce the target to leave a hole of more than one-half its diameter in the black scores thirty points.
•A hole that is more than
one-half to the inside of the red scores twenty points •A hole more than one-half to the inside of the green scores but ten.
•Holes that are perfectly centered on a colored ring score the higher of the two point values. Any holes made outside the green ring score no points.

As the first to fire has a distinct advantage in shooting at an unspoiled target, that is, there are no holes in it to distract the shooter's aim, the range officer will walk down field to take the score, after which he plugs each hole with a tapered peg made expressly for the purpose. The shooter's initial or number (assigned beforehand) is inscribed on the peg as a way of settling any disputes. Thus filling the holes should help minimize confusion and distraction to future shooters.

While the range officer is at the butts performing his function, no shooter shall suffer to either load, prime, work on his flint or handle his firelock in any manner other than to support it by his side, hammer down, pan open and muzzle upward. Any who disobey this safety directive shall be disqualified from competition, forfeit any prize money and quite possibly receive a right proper spanking!

Well I think the current system would be very hard to improve upon for mixed squadding of TR and F-Class. The markers do the same thing for any shooter, and all score rings from 5 outwards are the same for everyone. Its only the 6/V and X that get different scoring treatment between TR and F. Anyone who can't handle that will probably be struggling more with the change to the ICFRA marking system. In both cases there is a solution - training. Clubs have an obligation to do this.

Alan

Simple solution---score TR same as F Class, ie 6 for a centre. and count the X same as F Class.

From a newbies perspective, here in Canberra I was taught;

TR - V(dot) V 5 4 3 2 1
FC - X 6 5 4 3 2 1

Sometimes I get a V or V(dot) on my card instead of a 6 or X and the final score needs to be adjusted. It is still the shooters responsibility to ensure that they have been scored correctly isn't it? As long as X and V or V(dot) and V are recorded, you can work out what your score should be.

The biggest problem I have seen, is that scorers often do not keep correct count of the shots fired. I have experienced this myself and 'lost' the argument only to point out to the scorer after the fact (when I have had an opportunity to examine the scoresheet) that they wrote a single score value over 2 boxes so I was automatically down at least 6 points.... (big fingers, poor eyesight or their attention was elsewhere). Again, it still comes back to the shooters own vigilance to ensure that they are being correctly scored doesn't it?

Cheers

David

Seems to me that if there are any problems ( and I say if) the problem lies with FB scoring as not all rings are given value ( x ring ) whereas all rings are valued in FC.
Considering the number of possibles scored in TR maybe it needs to be somewhat more difficult --like scoring 6 for the centre, --would'nt that change the top order, and then some?
Had this conversation some time ago with Geof Grenfell and pointed out to him that considering the number of centres he records, if they had a 6 value nobody would get even close to him. However could'nt get him to see he was not getting much value for all of his centres.
There does'nt seem to be much point putting a ring on a target and then not giving it a value, whether you call it a 6,7 or 10 is debatable, but considering the international system of units is based on 10 it seems logical to use 10 as the highest score.

Richard the point of the thread is the use of the six ring for scoring in FC and its possible confusion for new shooters etc. I'm not sure how your dissertation on the history of the target applies or adds to this topic.

It was apparent fairly early on that FC would need a tighter scoring ring, just as we have now found it necessary to add the X ring. Making the existing V a scoring ring was the least confusing of the options since the alternative was to revalue the existing rings outward so the the V became our 5 etc. This would have been fraught with errors from the scorers if they were not paying attention to which discipline was shooting. As David has pointed out, while having a V put on your card is annoying at least the score ring is evident and the adjustment can be made to the score, with the alternative you would never know if it was wrong and it could not be corrected.

Personally I don't like this target and I would have a metric target for all classes, alternatively, I'm with Barry, with the current precision of shooting perhaps TR should have the V as a scoring ring. This need was allayed slightly by the ICFRA targets but is still worth keeping in mind.

The bottom line is that what we have is well established, seems to be working well and there are no obvious alternatives that what would not either introduce possible errors or dumb down the target substantially. I am certainly open to constructive suggestions for alternatives, as I'm sure most others would be but there is no point is saying "this don't work" if a) it is in most cases and b) you can't offer a reasoned and workable alternative.

Lynn Otto wrote: alternatively, I'm with Barry, with the current precision of shooting perhaps TR should have the V as a scoring ring.

This would be the logical way to do things but you can bet your socks - or anything else precious to you - that it would start another outburst of bleating about people leaving the sport in droves because their scores have gone down.

Barry