Match Shooting - Caliber Does Count

[Candle Snuffer]

This past Sunday (September 27) our local White River Brigade held our annual 'Over The Log' match - 5 one shot matches.

Jim Potter was the overall winner with a score of 61mm, while I ambled in 2nd place with a 100.5mm...  Jim's score IMHO would have been much lower had he not thrown a 32mm shot on his 5th Match Target, as Jim had been shooting scores of;

Match 1 - 6mm, Match 2 - 7mm, Match 3 - 9mm, Match 4 - 7mm, (and of course the jinxed Match 5 score of 32mm)...

I won the 'Shot of the Day' on my 2nd Match Target with a - 4.5mm shot (which is the picture below).

However, all this got me to thinking last night.  Jim was using a .45 caliber and I believe he was shooting a .445 or .451 round ball, while I was using a .40 (.395) round ball.  The question in my mind came up that Jim's scores of 6mm, and two 7mm target shots really were better and at the very least the same as my best shot that won me the 'Shot of the Day' on Sunday.

Why?  As you can see in the picture below the difference in size of my .395 round ball on the left as compared to a .445 round ball on the right.  It was mere mathmatics that gave me the best shot of the day.

Here is the picture - then I'll continue;


The difference in ball size is .025 (.445 being larger) then divided by 2 = .012.5 (about 3mm)...

Now granted, the center of the axis of either ball is the same, and if we subtract rather then add - Jim's center of axis had he used a .395 ball would add to his measurement's of shots number 1, 2, and 4...

However, Jim put those shots right exactly (to my eye) in the 'V' of the 'X' like my shot shown, so I speculate he would have done the same had he opted to use his .40 caliber rifle.

I submit that had Jim opted for the .40 caliber rifle he would have easily won not only the overall match (which he did), but the 'Shot of the Day' as well with his measurement's of shot number's 1, 2 and 4 being - 3mm, 4mm, and 4mm, all of which would have upstaged my 4.5mm score in Match 2...

I would further submit that I feel in Over the Log matches that perhaps the smaller .40 caliber has an advantage in the hands of a well disciplined chunk shooter as Jim, over the larger calibers simply through the center of the ball measurement to the center of the 'X'...  Again, Jim's shots to my eye appeared to be as good on targets 1, 2, & 4,,, if not better then my best on target 2...

I will also add that we were shooting in very high winds that was pushing our shots on average of 1 to 1.5 inches left.  I can tell this by our target boards we posted on, in relationship to where our groupings occured, (or at least Jim's goupings) which were far better then mine.

A little food for thought and discussion.

[Dphariss]

If I went to a string measure match and they measured it in MM I would not come back.
This PC BS. Why not give the calibers and ball sized in metric too?
Dan

[SCLoyalist]

Seems to me that for a paper target scored based on center of the ball versus 'high-line-cut', it wouldn't matter what calibers were used, although it does put more of a burden on the scorers determining where the center of a ragged hole is in relation to a scoring ring that isn't there anymore.   NMLRA no doubt still sells those plastic scoring overlays to assist.   

For high-line-cut scoring, or novelty targets like cut-the-card, the larger caliber has a slight advantage, but then it's on the shooter's shoulders to pick the gun that gives him the advantage he needs.  Some might argue, too, that they can shoot a .32 more accurately than a .54 and therefore have better prospects of scoring a winning shot with the smaller bore (or vice versa).   The sport is in part a game of trade-offs:  accuracy, wind drift, velocity, retained energy at the target, etc for different calibers and different loads.

What do you call a shot that is 'best' just because of the math?   "Best shot of the day" is what most folks I shoot with would call it.

[Candle Snuffer]

Jim does the scoring.  He puts the shot target over an unshot target and gets the scoring over lay out to determine the result of the shot.

This was my thought as math versa ball size.  The three shots Jim had made from what I saw looked identical to mine shown in the picture, yet the scoring method from center to center hurt him because of the larger ball he used that day as compared to my smaller ball.  Not that we even gave that a thought at the time.

Personally, I think a better scoring method would be the edge of the hole closest to center 'X'...  Had that been the case my shot shown above I bet would have simply been just another shot for score.

The NMLRA scoring rule for chunk is;

5450–TARGET SCORING–The match will be scored by string measure. From the center of the X to the center of each shot hole, shortest total string
measure wins.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

5450–TARGET SCORING–The match will be scored by string measure. From the center of the X to the center of each shot hole, shortest total string
measure wins.

...and so it should be!  Nice shooting BTW.

[Daryl]

On the other hand, in gong shoots, as in axe splits, straw, string and card cuts, and with normal paper target scoring, the edge of the hole scores, as it does on tie-breaker targets, until the centre is obliterated, then it goes to the ball's centre - as least this is the way I understand the scoring.  I've been scoring modern competition rifles since 1973 and it is always the edge of the hole that gives the higher score.
String measure as used in chunk shooting, definitely shows advantage to 'better' accuracy of scoring, rather than giving the advantage to an accurate large bore.  It matters not in string measure, what bore size is used as long as the scorer is scoring accurately.

When scoring string measure on the postal chunk shoots, I eye-ball the centre of the hole (easy for an aperture shooter), mark the score, then after all are measured, check all measurements. The results are always within .002", generally .001".  Over a 10 round match, there have never been two shooters within 1/2", let alone within .040", the total error that is possible, my way.  was the shoting better, I'd make a thin lexan scoring card with ball-hole sizes and X's on each hole for measuring, similar to the Shooting Federation of Canada scoring card that came with my rule book.

[Candle Snuffer]

I do wonder why at times the NMLRA chose center to center with (if I'm correct) their scoring method?  Archery scores touching the line an I'm thinking modern firearms is breaking the line for the higher score - though I can't recall for sure if you have to break all or some part of the scoring ring in modern firearm.  I don't shoot modern firearm enough to know for sure?  When I do, it's usually shooting at small gongs and silhouettes.

Naturally I'm happy with the shot I made.  It was the only good shot I had that day.  I'm also wondering in Chunk Matches, if you take out the 'x' (which I left the upper intersecting 'x' line),,, is that considered a 'Spider' I'm wondering?  

I know my shot is not a 'Spider' shot, but I saw on a website where a feller claimed a 'Spider' shot as the bottom 25% to 33% of his shot ball took out the upper center 'x'...  I missed out by leaving the intersecting 'x' line by the narrowest of margin, though it's still the best over the log shot I've ever made to date.

Taylor, thank you for the kind words.  I usually have one good shot alloted to me each year.  I never know when it's going to come.

Well, I'm off to go watch my son's Junior High Football game.  Not a bad day in Nebraska for a game this afternoon.

[Don Getz]

Candle.....If you would rather shoot with the outside edge of the hole counting for hitting the closest to the center of the target, how would you feel if you get beat by someone shooting a 75 cal gun?   The center of his hole might be much farther from the X, but he will beat you anyway.......not really fair, is it?.........Don

[Frizzen]

Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me!

[Daryl]

Don- happens all the time on gongs.
Candle Snuffer- I guess you nidn't notice in my previous post - the shot touching the next higher scoring line counts the higher score with modern rifles.

[Candle Snuffer]

Candle.....If you would rather shoot with the outside edge of the hole counting for hitting the closest to the center of the target, how would you feel if you get beat by someone shooting a 75 cal gun?   The center of his hole might be much farther from the X, but he will beat you anyway.......not really fair, is it?.........Don

How is that going to happen if an outside hole of a .75 caliber is 3/4 inches away from center x, and say an outside .50 caliber hole is only 1/2 inch away from center x?

I really have never worried about winning or losing, I'm in it for the enjoyment.  I was merely saying that when a smaller caliber ball's inner edge lands the same distance from the 'x' as a .45 caliber ball, the .40 will win as the center of the .40 will be closer to the 'x' then the .45 ball will be.

The measurement system in place is fine with me, though it does favor smaller calibers I feel when it comes to string measurements.  Just my opinion and I'm not advocating change.  I'm just saying that perhaps a more fair method would be the edge of the hole closest to center 'x' would not be a bad way to score as "that edge" is equal with all calibers.

 

[Candle Snuffer]

Don- happens all the time on gongs.
Candle Snuffer- I guess you nidn't notice in my previous post - the shot touching the next higher scoring line counts the higher score with modern rifles.

Must of had the football game on my mind, Daryl.

[Daryl]

CandleSnuffer - I now understand what you meant - guess I'm a bit dense. Although your ball touched the centre of the X, the centre of your ball was actually farther away than the .40 cal. ball's centre, which didn't touch the X's centre. Your target 'looked' better, but after measuring, was found to be of longer string - such is the way with centre of the ball measures.  String measure, to the centre of the ball is actually the only way to measure the true accuracy of the shot as every ball's centre is the same - the zero mark in a string measure.

 For example, a .300" ball's centre that is .150" way from the centre X, will touch the ink line of the X's centre, and a .400" ball's centre can be .20" from the centre X, yet still touch the ink line, whereas a .500" ball will touch the same line with a ball that's centre is .025" from the centre X and a .750" ball will touch the same line with a shot that's actually .375" away.  All 4 in the example touched the line, but the centre of the .30 ball was the closest, ie: most accurately placed shot, indeed, it was roughly 3 times more accurate than the .75's shot. Don's premise is that it is unfair for the .30 to be penalized due to it's smaller calibre and the .75 being able to win with only a bit better than 1/3rd the actual accuracy.

Modern ctg.s measure from the line cutting as they don't use a stirng measure and the bore sizes are more closely spaced. Also,  a 10X is an 10X, even though they can be anywhere inside that scoring ring.  Measuring exact accuracy, as in chunk or bench shooting and string measure pits the absolute accuracy of the gun against all others, with no advantage to bore size, apart from the fact that larger bores are potentially more accurate.

[northmn]

In a lot of modern shooting, cutting lines scores better because calibers are the same. In BP where the calibers vary so much, center to center should be used on paper.  Which we did on bullseye targets.  On a good bullseye target, using center to center, I never saw any caliber advantages.  Of course that was score with the center of the ball used as the cutting point to determine if it was in the 10 ring or other rings.  Just touching the ring did not count.  That being said, under most conditions, shooting say a X sticks match, I would rather have a 50 than a 40 due to wind deflections and the ease of working up a good accurate load.

DP

[George Sutton]

I may be wrong but I think the center to center scoring measurements used by the NMLRA are rooted in the fact that the old timers used string measurements.

Tradition?

Centershot

[Dphariss]

I may be wrong but I think the center to center scoring measurements used by the NMLRA are rooted in the fact that the old timers used string measurements.

Tradition?

Centershot

Center of the hole to center of the hole is the ONLY WAY to accurately and fairly determine group size.
It eliminates all the differences induced by bullet diameter. A 3" group or string shot by 32 is the same as a 3" shot with a 75.

The "leaded edge" is often used in Schuetzen but there is seldom a great difference in bullet diameter like there can be in a ML match with calibers from 32 to 62 or even larger. Offhand is usually scored by the highest scoring ring the leaded edge touches.
Bench matches the bullet center needs to be on the next higher ring IIRC.
The leaded edge determines the real edge of the bullet. Other than full wadcutter designs bullets seldom cut full caliber holes.
Dan

[Roger Fisher]

Candle.....If you would rather shoot with the outside edge of the hole counting for hitting the closest to the center of the target, how would you feel if you get beat by someone shooting a 75 cal gun?   The center of his hole might be much farther from the X, but he will beat you anyway.......not really fair, is it?.........Don

Exactly!  Center of the ball on or touching the line boys!!   No large ball advantage!

[Daryl]

Candle.....If you would rather shoot with the outside edge of the hole counting for hitting the closest to the center of the target, how would you feel if you get beat by someone shooting a 75 cal gun?   The center of his hole might be much farther from the X, but he will beat you anyway.......not really fair, is it?.........Don

Exactly!  Center of the ball on or touching the line boys!!   No large ball advantage!

I agree, except for the inherant & potential accuracy edge of the large ball.

[northmn]

When I was scoring targets we would place another bullseye underneath and align the rings so that the ring would show under the hole.  In most cases when that was done it was pretty clear on the half in rule.  In rare case one would have to measure.  It rarely made that much difference as X's win.  Also I would give the poorer scores a boost if it looked close enough to call it "in" without using the target underneath.  I felt it helped to boost enthusiasm to do so.  Big bore or small bore should not matter in score.  I still feel that over a number of matches a medium bore like a 45-54 will give you more wins.  I am likely going to scrap a broken wristed 40 for parts to build a 45 for that reason.  Smaller bores are more fussy to get to shoot well.

DP

[Roger Fisher]

When I was scoring targets we would place another bullseye underneath and align the rings so that the ring would show under the hole.  In most cases when that was done it was pretty clear on the half in rule.  In rare case one would have to measure.  It rarely made that much difference as X's win.  Also I would give the poorer scores a boost if it looked close enough to call it "in" without using the target underneath.  I felt it helped to boost enthusiasm to do so.  Big bore or small bore should not matter in score.  I still feel that over a number of matches a medium bore like a 45-54 will give you more wins.  I am likely going to scrap a broken wristed 40 for parts to build a 45 for that reason.  Smaller bores are more fussy to get to shoot well.

DP

I like a .45 for our game since it gives you a better chance at the knock down targets and the card cut, string cut, edge hits on silohuettes and a bit more smack at the longer silohuettes than does the 36 etc,  and with a .45 I can even see the holes at 25 yds............................................sometimes