QLD QUEENS

[mike H]

I would urge all of you to check the QRA site, the results for the first day of the Duncan are something to be admired. All I can say is that the shooters are trying very hard, and perhaps conditions are favourable. I feel out of it, down here, at home.
When you see A grade goes down to 93 in 300 ydas , and 91 @ 500 yards, whether you think it is easy or not,I still believe the shooters are trying very hard. Can`t wait till tomorrow evening, to see the day`s reults.
Whilst I am more involved with F/s, the published results, in my opinion show a great result all round.
Mike.

[AlanF]

Yes Mike - some great scores - I'll probably be accused of making it political but don't the 300yd scores in F-Std make a very good argument for the fulltime use of the Super V.

Leadup Day 1 Results

[mike H]

Yes Mike - some great scores - I'll probably be accused of making it political but don't the 300yd scores in F-Std make a very good argument for the fulltime use of the Super V.

Leadup Day 1 Results

Yes Alan,
They do, They also make a good argument for using them in Full bore target rifle.
Mike.

[John E]

Yes Mike - some great scores - I'll probably be accused of making it political but don't the 300yd scores in F-Std make a very good argument for the fulltime use of the Super V.

Leadup Day 1 Results

Yes Alan,
They do, They also make a good argument for using them in Full bore target rifle.
Mike.

THEY MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT FOR GRADING TO BE INTRODUCED FOR FS AT ALL QUEENS PRIZE SHOOTS.


JOHN

[AlanF]

...THEY MAKE A BETTER ARGUMENT FOR GRADING TO BE INTRODUCED FOR FS AT ALL QUEENS PRIZE SHOOTS...

Welcome back John.

I agree on the grading - but that wouldn't help this particular problem of too many shoot-offs.

Alan

[johnk]

No range shootoffs in Queensland, Alan. We figure that if you can't be sorted by count out, you all get the range medal. What we lose dollarwise, we gain by not pissing everybody off with meaningless range shootoffs. Up here, we believe that shootoffs have a liklihood of disadvantaging one or more of the contestants, particularly those who shoot their score early & then are dragged back (probably from a favourable parking spot at the next distance) to face up to some johnny come lately with a smoking barrel & all the conditions sussed out.

This procedure started well before F Standard existed, back when 50.10s started showing up at 500 & 800 back in the mid to late nineties.

John

[John E]

Hi Alan.
I haven't been away --- I think I remember posting somewhere on here the other day on some subject that interested me -- I can't remember what it was at the moment.
The subject of shootoffs needs to be put into the context of the overall picture of all of the scores on the day, FB, FS, FO. Shootoffs in themselves are not a bad thing, as they add to the interest of the competition, and I would not like to see them done away with. Having said that, though, it is not necessary to have range shootoffs. There are other methods of deciding ties in SSRs. Only aggregates require a shootoff if scores are level.
We made provision for the super V for FS shootoffs in SSRs, and I can't remember seeing a shootoff going past 5 shots using that method.
Someone recently said on this site that we got FS rules right -- I think it was Matt -- why bugger it up to accommodate FO?
With the imminent introduction of the ICFRA targets, I feel it is too late to introduce the super V, although if we were to continue on the standard target, I wouldn't be against it.
I think you FO shooters are simply dead set jealous of all the possibles that we get in FS ( which makes us feel all warm and fuzzy), and that's why you want to shoot on our target
Have we set a date for the Lodge Cup yet? Is it Grantville or Rosedale?
I can't remember
I'm going back into hibernation now.

John

[AlanF]

John,

I'll E-mail you on the Lodge Cup (its your turn to invade us).

Queensland has a good way of avoiding shoot-offs for range wins don't you think?

Alan

[RAVEN]

why bugger it up to accommodate FO

Hi John
Can you please explain to me how this would happen

[Paul Janzso]

Check out the results page, Loxton OPM.

pAUL

[IanP]

Check out the results page, Loxton OPM.

pAUL

This results page: http://www.safclass.com/results1.html

[John E]

Hi Richard -- I was simply giving Alan a bit of a touch-up for his political point scoring on the super V. I also said that I wouldn't have a problem with it.
I knew I would get some bites though, so I'm not disappointed.
The common target that FS and FB share has been a winner for FS, so it makes sense to have a target that FS, FB, and FO can share without any segregation. The super V would do that , as the Loxton results show.
If it is found that a FB shooter doesn't have enough time to prepare himself when following a fast F Class shooter, it would be a simple matter on introducing a rule giving FB some extra preparation time, say 3 minutes, when that situation occurs.
If the ICFRA targets are introduced, then this topic is just "pie in the sky", and it's pointless having this conversation.
It was interesting to see the drop-off in scores and lower centre counts when that target was used at Brisbane for one range by the State Teams.

Alan, Moe is keen to have a social shoot with us --- perhaps we could include them in the Lodge Cup. What do you think? You should visit us and everyone could have a shoot on Rod Gray's electronic target, you would be impressed ( we could programme a super V on it for you ).
I should start another thread for it, as it would be a boon for any small clubs, as it will be affordable and low maintenance.

John

[Razer]

If my jaded memory serves me correct the SSR's allow 3 mins prep time so no matter how fast the previous shooter is no one is disadvantaged! Not all of FS [or FO] shooters machine gun the target The quicker the super V can be introduced and we get all TR,FS and FO squadded together on the same target the richer our sport will be We share a common goal,to shoot accurately over long ranges and it doesn't make sense to separate or divide or alienate different disciplines if it can be avoided. The way TR is going the super V is needed and the grading system needs an overall Maybe Belmont just needs more wind Ray.

[Razer]

Yes John,a thread/sticky on electronic targets would be great as all clubs must eventually embrace this system,has lots of advantages particularly if it can give a print out of each shooters target.
Ray.

[RAVEN]

Thanx John
There are many advantages in doing what we are proposing

If the ICFRA targets are introduced, then this topic is just "pie in the sky", and it's pointless having this conversation

Why can we just make a set of super V's for the ICFRA targets seem pretty simple to me. Have I missed something here
Do you foresee some problems with this JohnE

Good comments Razor
And yes electronic will be a whole different ball game
I would love to be able to download my groups and measure elevation each week
Cheers
RB
[/quote]