NEW OLD SCORING!

[Jim Norman]

An additional thought:

There can be more than one school of thought on the subject. We CAN have matches that are heads up, advertise them as shoot what you think will work best. Balance the designs so that no single system should dominate. Others can run a division match, have as many as you wish. HM, HM With Optics, HM Open, Tactical, Limited Trooper and all the rest. If you get enough people it CAN work.

Biggest drawback is if we don't have enough people to populate the match.

Jim

[TonyH]

Kurt remember, the old SOF scoring, as every stage was a challenge to figure out, we should remember those stages & scoring. Accuracy was a premium then.

[uscbigdawg]

I'll throw out my idea again. It's similar to San Angelo scoring and rewards both accuracy and power. Penalties are whatever since I haven't done the math yet to figure out what they "should" be.

2 - A's = 0 points down

Drop one into the C = say +2 seconds for major; +4 seconds for minor

Drop one into the D = say +4 seconds for major; +6 seconds for minor

So you reward accuracy for hitting the center of the target. You reward power by not being penalized as much for shooting major PF. Everything is time plus penalties and stage results are known immediately. I don't like normalizing out the stages to 100 points/100% since it means a 40-80 second stage with long range rifle is worth the same as an 5-15 second short course. They are completely different skills (and a good argument for normalizing them) but the point of 3-Gun/Multi-Gun is that you are accomplished in all three platforms, not great at 1 and okay at the other two. Balance among the 3 is the goal.

Just my thought.

Rich

ETA: In my ideal 3-Gun match, there'd be no divisions, but since folks wanna take home something, I'd say they would be:

Open - caliber doesn't matter 'cause that's on you to make major or not. Division = equipment not power.

Tactical - For the old SOF guys.

Limited - For Bennie Cooley, Kelly Neal and then everybody else.

Heavy Metal - 'cause some of y'all like to shoot the big guns and pump shotguns. If you want optics see Open or Tactical.

Trooper - For everybody that loves to carry everything.

Edited October 20, 2007 by uscbigdawg

[Bill Sahlberg]

I started seriously shooting 3 Gun at the 1991 3 Gun Nationals in Marysville, WA and I have been to many matches both as MD and as a competitor. The best shooters still win regardless of the scoring system because they practice, they are dedicated, and they are the Top Shooters because of the time they invested and the skills they have cultivated over the years of experience.

I see the advantages of trying PK's scoring as there is not a perfect scoring system in place at any 3 Gun. Accuracy can be rewarded with Time Plus by hacking off points for 'C & D' hits. I have kept to the Time Plus / neutralized target at our matches for the simple reason that it is easy to score and easy to administrate. The disadvantages of Time Plus are shorter in time stages and low round count stages. Which brings us to the real crux of the matter and that is stage design. Good stage design is what any shooting should be about and with "Multi-Gun" we try to make 90% of the stages at least 60 seconds with the very difficult stages (called long distance rifle) being 120 seconds with a cap for newer shooters at 180 seconds.

I still love to shoot 3 Gun and whatever anyone wants to do with scoring is fine as my love is the shooting of this game NOT how it is scored or administrated. I am all for trying something that may work better than what we have and then trying to bring it to the masses for approval. So far, Time Plus, though not perfect, with the right stages is by far the perferred 3 Gun scoring system because of its simplicity. Wasn't the 3 Gun Nats in Tulsa all 20 second IPSC pistol courses with 1-2 longer range rifle stages? The people that I heard talk that shot that match were not impressed with either the stages nor the scoring as the stages took longer to score than to shoot. I do think this needs to change and I for one would give any decent new scoring system a shot before I made up my mind.

Just my .02

[P.E. Kelley]

Well done people, some good ideas and thoughts.

Keep in mind that my thinking was to KEEP DIVISIONS.

Just change how the match is scored, one stage winner per stage.

All competitors’ subsequent scores are based on a percentage of that one high stage score.

We do not need to crown an overall match winner but we would know who that was.

It would eliminate the problems that have been debated here about each division winner receiving 100% of the points for the same stage and then combining those for a false overall.

I have been an iron sight shooter since I started. I only own two scopes and one is on a bullseye pistol!

I shot SOF knowing that I had ADVANTAGE shooting Irons because I only had maybe 4 guys to shoot against for stage points. The scope guys may have had 15 or 20 to compete against. In the final combined scoring for awards ( Iron and Optic both getting 100% for the same stage wins)I picked up many stage points over my scoped counterparts and had had a lesser score on that stage!

My feeling is either divisions are divisions and are treated a separate matches NEVER to meet or compare as in USPSA. Or we score together and pull the all the division winners from the overall ranking 1st through 100 or 300 whatever the case may be.

I really like Scout454 scoring with the “D” zone available to catch bullets but counted as misses. I would just add the conversion to 100 points to get away from total time scoring.

Patrick

[richardschennberg]

IF the program could score all handgun divisions separate, and group shotguns by Open/Standard and rifles by Open/Tactical/Standard, then the high hit factors would be meaningful. This would allow better 1-gun awards for the long guns while preserving fairness in the overall match.

Definitely do not (offically) score all divisions together! Besides the previously mentioned dispairity between handgun divisions, scoring all shotguns together on a high-round-count stage, or rifles on a 200-600 yard target stage, would destroy the scores for the more difficult divisions.

[bigbrowndog]

Pat, I disagree with having the "d" zone there to catch bullets, it would be like painting an area around a steel target and saying if its hit there it doesn't count as a hit. Especially at long range, if you want to do away with the "d" zone then do AWAY with it. There is a pretty little line to slide your razor blade along.

Also what was the reason that we went away from that type of scoring, and has that reason gone away?????

The only "problem" I see with your method is when trying to explain to your sponsor or potential sponsor or other entity not familiar with our new scoring, that you came in at 60% overall and won. Also the delicate human ego, its much easier to be the proverbial puffed up peacock, when you have finished in the top 10 or 20, with 100 or 80 percent. Than when you have finished 40th with 60%, Yes you have still accomplished a great feat, its just a bit deflating.

It is a good idea though, and personally have no problem with it. Like Kurt said, we already know who the top folks are going to be.

Trapr

[320pf]

Sorry about posting the twice once under the "Multi Gun Scoring" thread and here under this thread.

I have thought about the way three-gun matches are scored since I shot my first 3-gun match five years ago (Superstition Mountain Mystery 3-gun). The current problem with with the scoring system used to date are that shooting major rifle does not have ANY practical scoring advantage over minor rifle. In fact shooting major rifle is a major disadvantage. This is because almost all of the long distance shots are on steel (all hits equal an A hit). For the inclose stages the extra time required to recover for the follow-up second shot is not offset sufficiently relative to minor rifle

For "practical" pistol matches the current scoring system pretty much reflects the terminal ballistics of the various pistol calibers that we compete with. However, I have concluded that we should not use the pistol scoring system for rifle.

So let's think about the terminal ballistics of a rifle for a second. Those of you that have used a 308 class rifle to shoot deer can confirm that a "C" zone hit in an animal will incapacitate the target about 95% of the time. At least that is my experience. I have also hunted deer with a 22-250 using 70gr premium bullets. The terminal ballistics of 22-250 is such that an "A" zone or central nervous system hit is required to reliably incapacitate/take an animal with a single shot using this caliber.

So here is a proposal for how to score major and minor rifle in 3-gun matches

A single A-zone hit equals 2-alpha for both major and minor rifle:

A single C-zone hit equals 2-charlie major rifle and a charlie-mike for minor rifle.

A single D-zone hit equals a delta-mike for both major and minor rifle.

If the shooter take the "insurance" shot then the targets are scored as the hits show on the target.

The point difference major and minor for an A-zone, C-zone, and D-zone hit would be the same as it is for the pistol scoring system that we use.

So what are your comments???

Remember, be gentle this is only stimulate discussion

320pf

[smokshwn]

PEK,

I am in...simplified scoring we can understand easily. Folks will just have to learn to value a different numerical value.

Well....score it anyway you like! No matter what, I can already name the top 20 as we know them today. Mix them anyway you like..but it will be the same! Using IMGA and it,s 100 points per stage gives equal weight to ALL 3-gun skills from hosing to "shooting out beyond Fort Mudge" ( The Late Great One..Jeff Cooper)! No other system does that yet! As for heads up between all divisions that was already tried at RM3G this last year! KURTM

AMEN!! Can I get a witness....

I think the open competitors would be ok with this method. I as a Tactical/optic division competitor would not care for it. I couldnt care less how I did against the open shooters or the Iron shooters. My personal feeling is that divisions typically compete together for efficiency of running the match. I dont think there should be an overall match winner in a tournament hosting multiple divisions. With complete result only the top competitor appears to be first. "if you aint first your last", I hate bieng last. The prize table order is not very important, I think that should be a lottery. ( as you can guess im probably not one of those top 20-----yet)

As I stated above, it would not affect a competitors placement within their division so why would a tactical competitor not like it as opposed to open. People would still have a placing (1st, 2nd etc) within their division for braggin rights. I see the process as simply helping out stats with the added bonus of giving those folks interested a reference as to how they shoot against someone in another division. I would love to know how I shot compared against Kurt, Daniel, et al when I shoot open. This allows for that.

[richardschennberg]

I like .308s but I do consider them at a disadvantage except in Heavy Metal and He-Man where everyone is shooting 30 caliber or higher.

If you don't have a custom gun, your stuck with .223, 7.62x39, or 4.55x39. Some 7.62x39s can just barely make major but are not terribly accurate.

For a custom gun, there are plenty of options for Major Power with less recoil than .308. .260Rem is probably the most accurate, .243 the least recoil with plenty of factory ammo available, .308-7mm more common than .260Rem; or design a better Wildcat cartridge, spend $ to make it work, and become famous. I am personally opposed to changing the rules or scoring points because the current Major Power floor does closely correspond to 1-shot stop on a BG/enemy with an off-center hit. I still want most USPSA target to requre 2 shots because it makes our sport unique.

I would like to "sneak in" just one slightly political real-world argument: keeping the rules stable and allowing shooters & gun makers to inovate may lead to the development of the guns and ammo that help us win the next war.