Multi Gun Scoring

[TonyH]

Good Idea Daniel!

[ap3]

I really like the idea of additional penality points for targets greater than 100 yards, and have already agreed with the other thoughts.

The extra points for extra guns idea is a very interesting concept, the smaller the amount of stages in a match the more you would need to be careful to balance the total points so that a small pistol stage did not become irrelevant.

The only thing I would add that is not a part of USPSA scoring is that flying clays not be treated as disappearing targets.

[TRUBL]

I do like what people are talking about here.

wieghting stages....good thing

penalties dependent on distance....good thing

flying clays.....open to be however you want....good thing

One thing I see that could/can be a potential problem is about the formula for scoring your points on a stage......is that depending where you are at.....your points per second are worth a different value.

IE on any given stage:

Fastest time = 45.63 seconds

2nd fastest = 48.63 seconds

3rd fastest = 51.63

3 second spreads.....

2nd place = 100*(45.63/48.63) or 93.83 points (-2.056 points per second)

3rd place = 100*(45.63/51.63) or 88.37 points (-1.938 points per second)

Now.....lets say a person shot the the stage 15 seconds slower....at 60.63

100*(45.63/60.63)= 75.26 points (-1.649 points per second)

Depending on your time.....your points per second are worth less (or more).....I guess I always thought they should be worth the same on a stage, no matter how you shoot. Ofcourse, if points per second ARE the same.....then someone could actually zero out on a stage at an IMGA match. As it stands now, you only approach '0' points for a stage and the 180 second time limit (typical) stops you from that.

The reason this is like this is because the scoring is done on a curve. And thus...it may not show an accurate points placement.

Bascially, the longer it takes to shoot a stage.....the points per second are worth less.

Keep in mind, I am talking IMGA/SOF type scoring......not USPSA.

This make any sense???

Tim

ps......take a look at this, as if the begining of my post didnt make any sense...here is a graph of what I am talking about

(CAUTION: being good at math will help)

Edited October 26, 2007 by TRUBL

[Benelli Chick]

Tim,

It looks like a nice scale with a time of around 45 seconds for a 45 degree angle. But if I replace the top time with 20 seconds, a 30 second time gives me a 93.75%. If I have a 100 second top time, a 160 second time seems to give me a 75%. You'd have to write a new linear equation for every top time to get a constant/similar slope.

If 10 seconds on a short stage is less than 10% down, then the top scores are going to be way too close together.

(I just used your formulas from the chart with top time instead of 43.65 and shooter's time in time.)

The slight curve on the current system works on all times the same. If a shooter's time is twice as slow as the top time, they get a 50%, 4 times, a 25%. That, although it is not truly linear is basically constant.

Time does matter. In USPSA scoring now, with a short time stage, misses are worth about 5 seconds or so. At Nationals, on the long range rifle stage (being so much longer), misses were worth over 15 seconds each.

The linear way, there will be lot's of zeros. In IMGA, you can't zero. Is USPSA, you can only zero if you get no points. If you keep shooting until you hit everything with little or no penalties, you can't zero in USPSA either. I've always said, I know when I shoot poorly, but it's good to be able to see that I'm shooting less poorly, as my miniscule percentage climbs into double digits.

I still think IMGA is a pretty good system. While it is a reverse percentage, it gives a wide range for all shooters, and works similarly no matter how short or long a stage is.

Keep working on it Tim!

Denise

[TRUBL]

Actually....in the formula.....you need two things....what your maximum allowable time is and the fastest time that shot that stage. One is a consant for the stage.....wheather you choose a max time of 180 or 240 (on a short stage, you'd need to use a short max time)or what ever you want. The other, could actually be variable.....untill the fastest time is recorded. Then, in all cases, it is a linear graph and the points per second....for that stage will be a constant. Each stage depending onthe fast time and time limit may have a different points/second. It also allows for stage weighting....in fact you could choose the '100 points' to be a variable as well. The first thing i did was to figure out how to make the points/time consistant.....now, to wieght a stage. There is still, in the IMGA format, the possibility that a short stage can have more weight in determining the overall winner of a match than a longer stage.

We say that in IMGA that you can't sero a stage.....however, that is more of a 'feel good' statement. when you time out, essentially, you have zero'd the stage....even though you have points.....you still came in dead last. IE.....if I time out on every stage in a match, chances are I will be in last place.....who cares if I have a total of 160 points or none, I am still dead last

Now....I believe that you (benelli chick) teach math, and know what I am talking about with 'weighting stages'......think about this for a second. What if our goal was to make 1 second = 1 point regaurdless of the time limit and fastest time. What needs to change then? The total points possible for the stage. I am not saying that 1 second = 1 point is a good thing, it might be that as an example on shorter stages 1 second should equal .5 points and on longer stages 1 second = 2 points (or something like that). At any rate.....we can come to a conclusion on 'stage wieghting' and devise a very simple formula for that. Easy to make a sliding scale....no one knows how they've done on a stage anyways, until the fastest time is turned in.

I do believe that 2 opportunities in the scoring for IMGA that could be (need be?/should be?) looked at......1) point consistancy and 2) stage weighting......yeah, the top shooters will still float top top.....maybe a little different, but not much change. However, its the middle of field that will have a more representative scoring of how they've done.

Tim

Edited October 27, 2007 by TRUBL

[Les Snyder]

I think Kyle and Melynda used the "Vickers" scoring" at the North Carolina Tactical Matches with success. Do to the prestiege of the match and range master/mistress they had the good fortune of having the best range officers around enforce the "failure to do right" clause missing from most USPSA matches.

For long range stages like Ft Benning sniper range stage...assign a reasonable maximum time , one that will sufficiently penalize you if you do not have the skill required.... If you do not complete the course of fire (that is you don't hit ALL the targets) you get the maximum time rather than winging a shot at the target and taking a minimum time penalty

For what its worth, I've been shooting the USPSA stuff for about 25years, and have to agree with an old frend, Rich Strahs who argued successfully that each shot should carry the same value in the match. It's easy enough to include a scoring formula on an EXCELL spreadsheet that calculates your time plus finish as a percent of the top shooter of the stage.

regards Les

[M ammo]

I couldn't decide where to post this on BE but I just wanted to put this out to all of you.

Last week, the Combat Weapons Team cadets at the West Point Military Academy held a memorial / fundraiser match for

a fallen soldier that was on their team. About 115 shooters showed up and from what I saw had a great time.

What I wanted to post was my impression on the scoring. This match was scored with a version of the VICKERS system. This was my first exposure to the Vickers and I really enjoyed it. It is very similar to how the old SOF matches were scored. Time based scoring with a minimum of 2 hits per target. Each point down added 0.5 seconds to your time. Penalties weren't too drastic but I believe differed from what IDPA posts on their website. Example: 2 D shits did not neutralize the target, misses and procedureals were different. At the end of the match, I helped Linda Chico with the scoring. She did it all on a simple Excel spreadsheet. They were complete within minutes of the last score sheet entering the scoring office.

Personally, I'd like to see more matches scored with this system. The current IMG system rewards pure speed too much, which in turn, promotes mediocre shooting. Let's face it, with the IMG system, we're happy to see 2 D hits.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Bruce Piatt

Bruce.

The scoring system you, talk about, sounds like the one we use at out local Club.

I Copperas Cove Tx. We are next to Fort Hood. And If I remember correctly,

One of our past members (Army) moved up to west point and I believe teaches at West Point .

His name escapes me.

I know he told me they had 4 gun matches (with the 4th Sub-machine gun) and we were envois

And The system sounds similar.

I’m sure they have their own scoring system.

Our system is not complicated it is an IDPA scoring system, with no loading or engagement rules. You shoot them as you see them.

Scoring is easy, and done with c calculator. Fast and easy.

If you want more info

e-mail me

james.richard.morris@us.army.mil

[priceg]

I use the vickers count at my 3-gun matches because its easy and rewards accuracy over speed. Plus most of my competitors are IDPA shooters as well. Just trying to keep it simple and fun. price g

[Blockhead]

Palm Springs GC uses something real similar to what Daniel described except that the penalties on paper are 1 second for C's and 2 seconds for D's. I like it 'cause it rewards A/B zone hits and it's easy to run & tabulate.

The only thing I don't like about the Vickers system as described is that there's no recognition of power factor. It gives the heavy 9x19 guns a speed advantage in addition to the mag. capacity.

IMHO it would be a very good thing for our sport if we could find common ground on this so that the major multigun matches could be shot and scored on the same basis.

Just my $.02

[M ammo]

Palm Springs GC uses something real similar to what Daniel described except that the penalties on paper are 1 second for C's and 2 seconds for D's. I like it 'cause it rewards A/B zone hits and it's easy to run & tabulate.

The only thing I don't like about the Vickers system as described is that there's no recognition of power factor. It gives the heavy 9x19 guns a speed advantage in addition to the mag. capacity.

IMHO it would be a very good thing for our sport if we could find common ground on this so that the major multigun matches could be shot and scored on the same basis.

Just my $.02

We have a system that every one likes, it has six classes.

So the Open USPSA guy, to a cowboy action guy can shoot the match, but not against each other.

We have no provision for Power factor.

But in some of the stage descriptions. We write in a starting limit to in magazine and or shotgun rounds loaded. To start with, after the buzzer, you can top off to what you want.

That helps even out some of the equipment, and magazine capacity issues.

This system helps keep it fair, and lets you change up equipment, depending on what you want to shoot that day.

Many people are intimidated by the equipment game. Mostly new 3 Gunners.

The guy who practices usually wins.

Jim M ammo

[richardschennberg]

Vickers absolutely does not work when you mix hoser stages with sniper stages. One miss penalty on a hoser stage makes an enormous difference but almost encourages throwing lead down range quickly on a sniper stage. Good stage design is still necessary but USPSA scoring allows more flexibility and less chance of really weird results. Dare I say it, USPSA scoring is actually less subject to gaming.

[320pf]

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

[Charles Bond]

I respect that there are shooters who for one reason or another desire to shoot heavy metal but I can not figure out why they believe they deserve some extra reward for doing so. If I go deer hunting, I will use 30 cal but if I am shooting a match why should I shoot anything more than what the game rules tell me I need to use? Power factors play a large role in pistol matches but in the real world, power factor is less important in a rifle. The "standard" for major was based on WW2 before anyone had even thought about an AR15 and its 223 bullet. Patton's comments to the contrary, think real hard about the following question, if WW2 was refought and assuming all other factors as being equal, would you rather fight on the side armed with the AR15 or for the army where everyone carries a M1?

Scoring all hits made by rifles that meet the power factor floor equally would go a long way in solving the stated scoring problems. There are also some arguments that run the other way. Keeping in mind that we are shooting a game, should USPSA change the way rifle is scored to make all rifles that meet or exceed the stated power factor equally?

[kurtm]

Said it before, will say it again show me your favorite .223 Elk rifle, or heck weight for weight show me your favorite Leopard .223 rifle, hunt that guy at night when wounded and show me your little caliber chioce!, or even just a fat guy worth of lion! show me your favorite .223 lion rifle and we will talk! NO ONE ever said I wish I had less power in a rifle in a fight!!....Well untill now

[Smoky Bear]

Said it before, will say it again show me your favorite .223 Elk rifle, or heck weight for weight show me your favorite Leopard .223 rifle, hunt that guy at night when wounded and show me your little caliber chioce!, or even just a fat guy worth of lion! show me your favorite .223 lion rifle and we will talk! NO ONE ever said I wish I had less power in a rifle in a fight!!....Well untill now

If you knew your zero you would not have issue, Right?

[kurtm]

I just hope my "Zero" doesn't happen in the middle of a lion charge.

[Charles Bond]

Said it before, will say it again show me your favorite .223 Elk rifle, or heck weight for weight show me your favorite Leopard .223 rifle, hunt that guy at night when wounded and show me your little caliber chioce!, or even just a fat guy worth of lion! show me your favorite .223 lion rifle and we will talk! NO ONE ever said I wish I had less power in a rifle in a fight!!....Well untill now

As I stated in my post, I use 30 caliber and beyond when I go hunitng but that is not the point of practical shooting since we have not yet approved a lion, elk or leopard target. If heavy metal should get extra credit in 30 caliber, how many extra points should I get for a "A" zone using one of my 40 caliber rifles or 50 caliber rifles?

[Mike P]

I respect that there are shooters who for one reason or another desire to shoot heavy metal but I can not figure out why they believe they deserve some extra reward for doing so. If I go deer hunting, I will use 30 cal but if I am shooting a match why should I shoot anything more than what the game rules tell me I need to use? Power factors play a large role in pistol matches but in the real world, power factor is less important in a rifle. The "standard" for major was based on WW2 before anyone had even thought about an AR15 and its 223 bullet. Patton's comments to the contrary, think real hard about the following question, if WW2 was refought and assuming all other factors as being equal, would you rather fight on the side armed with the AR15 or for the army where everyone carries a M1?

Scoring all hits made by rifles that meet the power factor floor equally would go a long way in solving the stated scoring problems. There are also some arguments that run the other way. Keeping in mind that we are shooting a game, should USPSA change the way rifle is scored to make all rifles that meet or exceed the stated power factor equally?

It makes no sense from a competition standpoint to reward major power factor in pistol (such as it is) and then not doing so for rifle. That it would solve scoring issues is a poor argument unless you were willing to score all pistol the same way, ie. making the minimum power floor. Wouldn't that be easier too? If there is to be a scoring reward for using a pistol which is deemed to be more challenging due to its bullet size and velocity, it flies in the face of logic to not do the same for a competitors's rifle.

I don't aggree that rifle power is less important than pistol in the "real world" either, not that it has any bearing on what is a viable choice for competition.

After considering the question, with regard to the AR vs the M1, and ALL other factors being equal, mud, snow, sand, (volcanic and North African) steaming jungles, and facing well trained and equipped armies at sometimes great distances as well as bayonet range, I'd pick the M1. In fact, given a choice I might even choose a no.4 Enfield over an M1.

Mike

Edited November 6, 2007 by Mike P

[Charles Bond]

"It makes no sense from a competition standpoint to reward major power factor in pistol (such as it is) and then not doing so for rifle"

With this comment you are both completely right and completely wrong. I can say this in that whether or not it makes sense or not that is exactly what USPSA is doing. Despite the fact that we could enlarge our organization considerably by holding rifle matches and shotgun matches, we do not do it. We do not offer classification in rifle or in shotgun. We offer classification in pistol only. We ignore the shotgunners who do not care to shoot a pistol and we miss out as members all of hte rilfemen and women who are not pistol shooters. Right or wrong, we do treat pistol very differently from any of the long guns.

As to the power factor, the question is what does more damage a 223 at 100 yards or a 45 at 25 yards? I do not see the difference as being worthy of a distinction. I also do not see much of a difference as to a 308 vs a 223 at 100 yards on a human target although neither are designed for lions and tigers and bears. The impact of a 9mm vs 45 caliber at 25 yards on a human is much more significant.

Charles Bond

[kurtm]

Many veterans and Dr. Fackler would disagree with your 7.62x51/5.56x45 effectivness, but then again I have seen most everything in North America killed with a .22 LR so you must be right

[320pf]

I agree with Mike. If WW2 was refought, given that the enemy engagements ranged from hedgerows, jungle, and buildings I would not go with the AR15 or M1. I would go with an AR10. 308 Win and 20-round box mags! What could be more effective?

320pf

Edited November 7, 2007 by 320pf

[bigbrowndog]

Mr. Bond, your statement to the effect that USPSA ignores shotgun and rifle shooters is ...........................well, the reason it does not sell out its "Nationals". It is a sad point but it is a point!!!

As for allowing more points for shooting "major", I once heard a story about Col. Cooper that when HE decided to place the major pf floor at the .45 acp hardball level, he would hear nothing about allowing more points for someone who shot with a .44 mag. because in his mind the .45/1911 was the do all end all of personal combat handguns, It is funny to note that later he decided to bring out a "better" mousetrap in the 10mm/CZ.

Now that i've pissed off folks for messing with the Col.!!!!! It is scientifically proven that it is much EASIER to shoot a gun faster, and be more accurate when it kicks you with less energy. So awarding more points for mastering a gun that kicks harder, and is harder to shoot because of it, I have no problem with. Also the military is concerned with occupying the time of enemy combatants and thier support structure, so wounding one is much more desireable than out and out killing one. WW2, was fought back before the military strategists figured that one out, thus having a larger more powerful round was,.............more desireable. Which leads back to why more and more troops now, are looking for bigger rounds with more lethality. 6.8's, 308's, heavy 223's, etc.

They're just more effective, there is no such thing as "too dead"

Trapr

[Mike P]

"It makes no sense from a competition standpoint to reward major power factor in pistol (such as it is) and then not doing so for rifle"

With this comment you are both completely right and completely wrong. I can say this in that whether or not it makes sense or not that is exactly what USPSA is doing. Despite the fact that we could enlarge our organization considerably by holding rifle matches and shotgun matches, we do not do it. We do not offer classification in rifle or in shotgun. We offer classification in pistol only. We ignore the shotgunners who do not care to shoot a pistol and we miss out as members all of hte rilfemen and women who are not pistol shooters. Right or wrong, we do treat pistol very differently from any of the long guns.

As to the power factor, the question is what does more damage a 223 at 100 yards or a 45 at 25 yards? I do not see the difference as being worthy of a distinction. I also do not see much of a difference as to a 308 vs a 223 at 100 yards on a human target although neither are designed for lions and tigers and bears. The impact of a 9mm vs 45 caliber at 25 yards on a human is much more significant.

Charles Bond

SAY WHAT???

As far as USPSA goes, they already reward major PF scoring for rifle, and hopefully will continue to do so.

It'd be great though if they'd go to time plus for multi-gun and use the ".30 cal rule" for .30 cal and slugs and score all pistols the same.

Mike

[320pf]

As to the power factor, the question is what does more damage a 223 at 100 yards or a 45 at 25 yards? I do not see the difference as being worthy of a distinction.

Charles Bond

The 223 at 100 yrd has over twice the KE (~1000-ft-lbs and a PF of about ~200) and thus is likely to do more damage than a 45 at 25 yrds (~500-ft-lbs and a PF of about 200).

I also do not see much of a difference as to a 308 vs a 223 at 100 yards on a human target although neither are designed for lions and tigers and bears. The impact of a 9mm vs 45 caliber at 25 yards on a human is much more significant.

Charles Bond

Do you really believe this? The 308 has about 2400 ft-lbs of energy and a PF of ~400. This give the 308 about 2 to 2.5 times more ablity to "do work" on the target (ie. defeating body armor, crushing bones and blood vessels artaries etc...). A 308 hit in the "D-zone" on a humiod target would be significantly more effective than a comprable hit wih a 223.

I do not beleive that this is even debatable.

I do not think that the USPSA scoring reward for major PF rifle is sufficient. That is why I think that there should be more of a difference between the scoring of major and minor rifle.

320pf

Edited November 7, 2007 by 320pf

[320pf]

Said it before, will say it again show me your favorite .223 Elk rifle, or heck weight for weight show me your favorite Leopard .223 rifle, hunt that guy at night when wounded and show me your little caliber chioce!, or even just a fat guy worth of lion! show me your favorite .223 lion rifle and we will talk! NO ONE ever said I wish I had less power in a rifle in a fight!!....Well untill now

As I stated in my post, I use 30 caliber and beyond when I go hunitng but that is not the point of practical shooting since we have not yet approved a lion, elk or leopard target. If heavy metal should get extra credit in 30 caliber, how many extra points should I get for a "A" zone using one of my 40 caliber rifles or 50 caliber rifles?

You do get a scoring advantage using a larger caliber "hole-punch" If you are shooting a 40 cal. bullet you can be 0.390 inches outside of the A-zone and still get the "A" points.

320pf

Edited November 7, 2007 by 320pf