muzzleloading medals

[Roger Fisher]

Medals are nice, but should not be a deal breaker in regards to whether or not someone should go out to a shooting event and support the sport.  Yes, I've won medals over the past 35 years, but that's not why I compete.  I compete for the pure joy it gives me just being around other like minded folks.  If there has to be prizes I'd just as soon wish they were shooting related, something along the lines of;

1st Place - 5 Flints,,, 2nd Place - 4 flints,,, 3rd Place - 3 Flints  (there you go, one dozen flints for probably the cost of a couple medals).

I don't mind medals, I just prefer if I have to win something it be something I can use.

I did win two chicken legs one time...

That reminds me that I once won a nipple pick and later a nipple 'gauge'; but every time I try to use it at the local bistro I get in trouble.

[David R. Watson]

That's the funniest thing I've read to date!! On the blanket shoots I always picked up knives or books - the books are now very desireable. I've started digging into them when I read the info that you guys have stored in your heads.
I got one - British Gunmakers that Litton got Dewitt Bailey to sign for me back in 1981.
This might not be the place for this, but funny story - Dewitt is VERY British and is definately an authority on British/Scottish antique arms.
Litton decided to "make" a McCrerick(?) rifle to fool DeWitt so he traded me a Joseph Ingram target rifle for an unmarked - except for JC on the bridle - 3/4 size Rigby style target rifle and proceeded to do the "transition". It was declared the finest example of McCrerick's work DeWitt had seen - Litton was tickled to death. It wasn't done to make a buck, but just an unreal craftsman wanting to fool a world authority for ego purposes.
Before anyone points this out, I'm well aware of the potential of this ending up in a collection posing as a real McCoy. I do believe it is in fact doing just that.

[Rasch Chronicles]

You know, I got to thinking on this.

For many people, they might only have one, maybe two rifles. They like to shoot and like the camaraderie of fellow shooters. Some rifles can shoot, others just can't, and likewise some shooters can shoot, others, well, not so much. But for a good shooter, with a good rifle, to dominate a club, well that's just wrong if you ask me. I don't mean that the shooting ability is wrong, I mean that using that to beat everybody to the table is wrong. Not only is it unsporting, but it takes away the incentive others have to come back next week and try again.

I don't know if this is possible, but can't something be done to create a tiered handicap system? That way the playing field is far more level and everyone in the same class has a better chance at not only beating their opponents, but themselves too.

Personally, I like the medals and ribbons, the photos and scrapbooks of any event. They truly are moments that are far and few in between for most people, and in the end it's those memories that bring a smile and a moment of joy back into our lives.

Your friend,
Albert

[Roger Fisher]

Your mention of a tiered system has been addressed by some clubs and some state federations at their annual or monthly shoots and rondys.  The 'Marksman' matches have been devised to give the newer shooters a group of their own ability to shoot in.  Generally targets with a generous scoring area are used and the group is awarded their own set of prizes... Works fairly well around these parts at least. 

[Candle Snuffer]

I know handicaps (tiered systems) have been discussed many times, not only within our club but other clubs as well, and at times on some muzzle loading forums just like now, here.

My problem with tiered systems is that the good shooters will suffer the penelty for being good shots because they practice to keep up their game, while many (not all) of the not so good shooters seldom if ever practice to become better marksmen.  I can feel for fellow shooters who practice and just can't seem to improve their scores no matter what,,, but I have no sympothy for the shooters who don't practice to become a better marksmen as they are normally the ones that complaints come from.  This is just what I've noticed with the clubs I've belonged to and the folks I have shot with.

We did try larger targets several times at my home club to try and give the less gifted shooters some confidence building.  The good shooters still shot good, while the less gifted shooters shot worse then ever before on these larger targets.  I really think much of this poor shooting has to do with a lack of confidence within the shooter.  They simply worry way too much on whether or not they'll make a good showing when they should simply put the idea of competition out of their mind and shoot relaxed and within their ability, taking with them something from each shot as a confidence builder when they can.  Above all, they need to practice.

Being a good shot is something you have to earn.  No one can give that to you, nor should anyone expect it to be given to them.  If they do expect it, then they've failed already before they've even got started.  

  

[Rasch Chronicles]

Hmmm Candle Snuffer,

I hadn't thought of that. I like to think I'm a pretty good shot, but that's because I practice #1, and 2, I stay within my limits. The mental assumption I made was that everyone did the same as I.

I still don't like someone taking 75% of the club stuff though. It just doesn't sit right with me. Would like to think that if that were me, I would put it back in the pot for next week or pass it on to the junior league, or something like that. You all know what I mean, be a real sportsman.

Anyway, that's a real conundrum that only each person himself could answer. Those medals and ribbons are sounding better all the time!

Very thought provoking subject.

Thanks!
Albert

[Candle Snuffer]

Nothing wrong with medals as I said before.  Regardless of the prize(s) at the end of the day's shooting match if a person was willing to improve their scores through practice, they too will one day start finishing in the Medal Rounds and it will give them a real feel of achievement to have done so.

Some of us who have been around a long time in this sport and have won medals, we may seem to forget at times how it felt when we won our first medal.  It does give a person a good feeling.  It is something we can look back on with fond memories within a sport we enjoy as we recall those many pleasent hours on the firing line with like minded folks and freinds.

Now the question...  Would I have stayed in this sport for so long if I never won a medal?  I don't know?  I'd like to think I would have simply because of the great folks that are part of this sport.  I have always said and always will say,,, "you'll never meet a better bunch of folks anywhere, then those you meet in this great sport of muzzle loading."

[yip]

snuffer; amen to that,this sport seems to draw the finest bunch of people, people willing to share their experiences, and help those who have problems with guns and gear

[David R. Watson]

I use to laugh inside when I would set up my shooting box in preparation to start the match and people would gather around to see some "short cut to glory" that would explain why I won ML matches.
They were looking for some magic ingredient to save them the time and effort to learn to shoot a flinter...that magic just ain't real. In all the years I competed I do not recall ever firing a round that I didn't put my max effort into the shot. The darn thing is just too much of a pain to load just to throw it down range .
There are guys out there that have a somewhat natural ability when it comes to shooting - JL Hargis, Chuck Blender, Mike Bell and HP Gregory come to mind even though HP was after my time. They still consumed a ton of lead and powder to reach their respective levels of competency...and regulary beat me like they caught me stealing chickins'.

[Rasch Chronicles]

Really interesting thread on many levels.

I too spent alot of time refining my shooting abilities. My reasoniing was because I was a hunter, and I needed to be as good as possible when I was taking a creatures life. Respect for an animal was and still is, the reason for practiceing like I did. I would dryfire (with snapcaps I made) at animal targets in different positions, practice loading on the move, shot I don't know how many cartons of BBs out of a Red Ryder BB gun, (Don't disparage, it works!), tens of thousands of 22 rimfire rounds, and more. I can shoot my Ruger #1 458WM faster three times, and hit a three inch circle at 50 yards than most folks can cycle thier bolt action twice. But that's because I practiced constantly in the hopes that I was going to get to go to Africa for that long dreamed for Cape Buffalo.

Like you said David W, no secret to good shooting, just a lot of practice.

My next goal is to build a small caliber, 32-36 cal. Tennesse rifle that will goup real tiny at fifty meters. I may have to cheat a little and create some sort of acceptable peep sight. But hunting small game ethically requires precision.

Again, great conversation!

Best regards,
Albert “The Afghan” Rasch
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles
Feral Bull Fighting: Another Chronicles Adventure!

[Candle Snuffer]

Earlier we were discussing a "handicap" system in this thread.  Today at our monthly shoot I decided to score the targets (there were only four of us) both with the NMLRA & NRA Scoring methods.  I don't know, perhaps folks who think they need a handicap could be scored under the NRA system, and those that don't need a handicap could be scored under NMLRA scoring rules.  I can't say as I've seen this approach discussed as yet.  If it was, I missed it.  Personally, I'm not in favor of handicaps but I thought I'd throw this out.

If you'll notice, the NRA "handicap" scoring method did give the last place NMLRA scorer a first place finish under the NRA scoring method, but,,, it also gave a scored NMLRA 2nd place finisher a 4th place finish under NRA scoring methods...

Potter didn't shift either way in his finish, and to be fair he was shooting a newly purchased "used/custom" 1803 Harpers Farry that he's not to familiar with at this time, and had he had his caplock today I'd venture to say only 1 or 2 points [either way] would have seperated us.  Jim is a several times over State ML Champion under NMLRA scoring rules. 

It didn't effect my finish under NRA scoring rules except I did gained a tie-breaking 'X', and Zeke also gained a tie-breaking 'X' plus 17 points...  Kind of seems a bit unfair in the overall picture.

Just some food for thought.  

Results/NMLRA Scoring
Snuffer..................36-0x.....46-0x.....82-0x
Marvin...................35-0x.....34-0x.....69-0x
Potter....................25-0x.....40-0x.....65-0x
Zeke......................27-0x.....38-0x.....65-0x

Results/NRA Scoring
Zeke.......................42-1x.....40-0x.....82-1x
Snuffer....................36-0x.....46-1x.....82-1x
Potter.....................32-0x.....41-0x.....73-0x
Marvin.....................35-0x.....36-0x.....71-0x

[Daryl]

snuffer- are you talking about centre of the hole scoring as opposed to centre of the ball - or some other method. Seems strange that a person who scores a 38, would have that droped to a 36 on an easier to score on-target - or something else is going on.

I've never heard of handicap scoring with modern rifles. I've always competed heads-up with everyone else - International,  National and Provincial as well, in modern position shooting - 3po. and prone.

If this is a ML deal, why?

[Candle Snuffer]

This was just a test I did since I had today's targets to work with.

We score muzzle loading center of ball to center line of scoring ring as laid out on the NMLRA rules.

NRA uses a scoring method with (high power) of touching the line gets the points.  I just adapted this
to today's targets to see what it would look like if someone was to try this as a handicap scoring method
in muzzle loading.  I don't care for it as I don't believe it makes shooter's who need to improve - improve
their shooting ability.  Just wanted to see what it would look like however.

Zeke (under NRA rules / or touching the line) gained the following;

Target #1 - 10 to a 10x, 9 to a 10, 0 to a 7 (twice)

Target #2 - 6 to a 7, 7 to a 8, 8 to a 9

Marvin only gained;
Target #1 - No points as his 4 shots that hit on or within the scoring ring would score the same under both
NRA High Power and NMLRA scoring rules.
Target # 2 - 6 to a 7, 9 to a 10

[ironwolf]

  We give out ribbon or scrip, your choice, for the monthly shoots.  Scrip can be exchanged for target fees, powder etc.  Saves the club money.  For the quarterlies, Pewter medallions are given. for the annuals a plaque is made and presented.
  We do a blanket shoot for our primitive matches twice a year and a $1.00  1 shot 50/50 target each month.
  If you manage to compete in ten matches a year your name goes in a drawing to win a rifle built by a club member.  One each in men's, ladies and juniors.  No flintlock class, we shoot against the cappers.

  Kevin

                           www.dirkandthistle.com  makes the medalions

[Roger Fisher]

This was just a test I did since I had today's targets to work with.

We score muzzle loading center of ball to center line of scoring ring as laid out on the NMLRA rules.

NRA uses a scoring method with (high power) of touching the line gets the points.  I just adapted this
to today's targets to see what it would look like if someone was to try this as a handicap scoring method
in muzzle loading.  I don't care for it as I don't believe it makes shooter's who need to improve - improve
their shooting ability.  Just wanted to see what it would look like however.

Zeke (under NRA rules / or touching the line) gained the following;

Target #1 - 10 to a 10x, 9 to a 10, 0 to a 7 (twice)

Target #2 - 6 to a 7, 7 to a 8, 8 to a 9

Marvin only gained;
Target #1 - No points as his 4 shots that hit on or within the scoring ring would score the same under both
NRA High Power and NMLRA scoring rules.
Target # 2 - 6 to a 7, 9 to a 10

Big ball advantage seems like

[Daryl]

Yes - in normal scoring, full bore ctgs. have an advantage over the lighter recoiling guns like .222's and 6mm. ilk, in actual scoring.

Many shoot the .22's and 6mms for lighter recoil and supposed better accuracy. Some like full bore.

If you put up with the recoil and sometimes poorer accuracy of larger bores, you have some minor benefit. NP with that. Maybe that evens things out a bit - still that way in all modern scoring events.

I think the same thing should be happening in ML's.  If you put up with the greater recoil, the 'cut the line' scoring would even out the scores. Afterall, with string cuts, card cuts and ball splits, there's an advantage to using a larger bore over, say a .25 or .32.

On the target shown, a glass would be needed to see if there's paper between the bottom hole and the outer scoring line. Looking pretty close to a miss to me, even when page is magnified.

[Candle Snuffer]

It's touching the line Daryl, no doubt about it.  I put the NMLRA scoring overlay on it with an un'shot target under it and it scores the 7 points.  As an added check I put a .490 ball in the hole and the ball clearly takes out the line.  To me this is another bad thing - using copying paper for targets.  Standard NMLRA & NRA type targets are much better for this kind of shooting.

I still prefer the 1/2 in scoring.

[Daryl]

With gauges or actual balls, I think touching the line is more accurate than judging 1/2 a ball - quicker measuring too.

[Candle Snuffer]

The NMLRA scoring guage, and an actual .490 Hornady ball.  I agree that touching the line is a much quicker method of scoring, and more accurate as judging the center line of the ring with the scoring guage is up in the air as you don't know if the official scorer is using the center of the ring line, outside of the ring line, or the inside of the ring line when scoring the 1/2 in method.

However, the 1/2 in method does give the edge to the shooter who shot the smaller group as where touching the line scoring can give a shooter with the larger group the same score, and possibly the win if he/she carried enough tie-breaking 'X's over the smaller group that was scored with the 1/2 in method.  No doubt a debate that still exist today since the inception of scoring rings.

[Roger Fisher]

The NMLRA scoring guage, and an actual .490 Hornady ball.  I agree that touching the line is a much quicker method of scoring, and more accurate as judging the center line of the ring with the scoring guage is up in the air as you don't know if the official scorer is using the center of the ring line, outside of the ring line, or the inside of the ring line when scoring the 1/2 in method.

However, the 1/2 in method does give the edge to the shooter who shot the smaller group as where touching the line scoring can give a shooter with the larger group the same score, and possibly the win if he/she carried enough tie-breaking 'X's over the smaller group that was scored with the 1/2 in method.  No doubt a debate that still exist today since the inception of scoring rings.

Center of the ball (not 1/2 ball) re the primative Haeffner targets boys and girls!  Too many corners of scoring lines to consider it a 1/2 ball rule... Center Center!

Edge of the large ball touching the higher scoring line very unfair in judging where the shooters are using various sized r balls!      NMLRA rules !

[smokinbuck]

I have to go with Roger on this one. We also try to have one person do the scoring so the, right or wong, they are all done the same way. We also have a second, or more, person check the scorer for any obvious mistakes. On another note, I came across an NMLRA medal from the 25th anniversary shoot at Friendship. 1957, 3rd place match #17.
Mark