the new "Horner" Scoring Method

[SGDM]

I do not like the scoring system.

[SinistralRifleman]

ACTS in Tucson and MI has used similar scoring (but the matches are more IDPA style in general). It does really make you focus on getting your hits. I've found it forces people to use more improvised supported positions at any targets past 25 yards to get double As with rifle.

[bigbrowndog]

Just as an aside, "forcing" people to do certain tasks such as using a rest to shoot targets apparently has lead to alot of people not being able to shoot offhand and get hits..............anywhere on the target.

CMMG had stages that allowed shooters to shoot offhand or go prone or kneeling if they wanted, the fastest way was to shoot offhand, it was surprising how many shooters had difficulty doing this and getting hits.

Getting hits without using an "improvised" rest or going prone is a skill I personally would LIKE to see tested, because it seems to have become a LOST ART, among quite a few shooters.

Trapr

Edited June 17, 2008 by bigbrowndog

[bigsaxdog]

one of the concepts that is running thru this thread quietly is the idea of bringing all matches under the USPSA ruling body. and i personally think there's a problem here. THIS IS AMERICA, folks...... diversity is supposed to be applauded. if you don't like the product, don't buy it! if you can get an idea together and market it and it takes off, that's the essence of the american way! but it's also the american way that when you start nipping at the "big dog's" heels, he's gotta try and take you down to keep his position, so go figure...... and dumbing this match down, throwning mikes on hard shots, and still hauling a$$ with your tricked up .223(which ain't really all that hard), and still being able to score just ain't right! i'm really amazed that anyone whines about getting gigged for hard shots. and trying to get everyone into one scoring system is wrong! i think they should take up knitting........

[dletsch]

The system worked fine at Blue Ridge 3 Gun. Most shooters (although not all) that I spoke with thought the new scoring was an improvement.

My only concern is that long shots with double penalties need to be presented in a consistent way to iron sight shooters to be anything like fair. On my last stage at blue ridge, one of the target backers was damaged after the walkthrough but before I shot. As it was late in the day, I had no choice but to engage the target based on the backer's position (I have reasonably good eyesight, and can normally engage a 300 or 400 meter target with ironsights without too much difficulty.) In this case that did not work, the RO did not bother to tell me it had moved, and it was not possible to see the target without glass. I don't mean impossible to hit - it was simply invisible.

This can be taken care of in several ways:

Squadding iron sight shooters together so there is no problem with inconsistent lighting.

Backers and painting before each squad, having iron sight shooters go first if it looks like the targets on that stage will be an issue.

ROs informing shooters of problems (or repairing backers) before an iron sighted shooter shoots.

I realize that shooters using optics have the same issues, but not to the same degree. With a scope the condition of this target would have slowed me down by a couple of seconds at most. With iron sights, I wasted a bunch of time on a target that had moved (well, actually the backer had moved) and there was no way to hit the target.

The scoring on the paper targets is a big improvement. Rewarding two-A shooting is a great idea, IMO.

[LChico]

one of the concepts that is running thru this thread quietly is the idea of bringing all matches under the USPSA ruling body. and i personally think there's a problem here.

I'll have to disagree with you here. Most of the comments that cite USPSA rules or IDPA rules in this thread are doing so in order to compare the rules for this 3 gun match to a set of rules shooters are familiar with already. It gives them a starting point for their questions. With the exception of Charles Bond (who sits on the USPSA BOD ), no one has seriously advocated going to USPSA rules. Match Administration has no plans run the Ft Benning 3 Gun match under USPSA (or IDPA) rules.

Some of the earlier comments regarding the rules were from Forum members who were not registered for the match, were not on the waiting list for the match, and had never expressed an interest in this match except to critique the rules. That is why I directed comments about rules revision to a different thread. Once the rules were finalized, I wanted to keep this thread open for questions about the match. The questions by 'springy' about how we would calculate scores are the kind of questions I wanted to keep here.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

2008 Ft Benning 3 Gun Statistician

[Scout454]

"On my last stage at blue ridge, one of the target backers was damaged after the walkthrough but before I shot. As it was late in the day, I had no choice but to engage the target based on the backer's position (I have reasonably good eyesight, and can normally engage a 300 or 400 meter target with ironsights without too much difficulty.) In this case that did not work, the RO did not bother to tell me it had moved, and it was not possible to see the target without glass. I don't mean impossible to hit - it was simply invisible."

I was the RO on that stage and could not see the damaged backer (the wood holding one side up had apparently been shot in two). The RO with the timer couldn't see the backer position at 426 yards. The spotter couldn't see a problem from where he was standing. You were the last shooter on the squad - I might ask why you didn't volunteer to go first? BTW, the backer was still there, it was laying back against the bank on one side and splattered with mud. On a stage like that it would have been virtually impossible to paint between squads do to logistics. It took nearly 30 minutes, on a 4 wheeler, to get there and back. In every match I've shot in the last 15 years the iron sight shooters always volunteer to go first so they have fresh targets. Perhaps you should have done the same.

[Charles Bond]

one of the concepts that is running thru this thread quietly is the idea of bringing all matches under the USPSA ruling body. and i personally think there's a problem here. THIS IS AMERICA, folks...... diversity is supposed to be applauded.

Depends on what type of diversity you are talking about. It would be kind of hard for trucks to transport loads across the US if every state had a different weight limit per axle. I do not relish the thought of having interstate speed limits be 55 in one state and 62 in one and then go to another and it is 74 for no reason except that they can be different. How good could one gamble if in Vegas 4 of a kind beat a full house but in Reno or Atlanta City it was the other way around? And God forbid if we went to buy shoes and a 12D in one store was not the same size as another. Lastly, McDonalds did not make billions based on allowing their outlets to dress out the Big Mac in a "free style" manner.

USPSA has worked to join the various multi gun rule forms together. They have not yet succeeded but nothing worth doing is ever easy. My shooters, USPSA and other, tell me they desire a consistent set of rules. My sense is also that adding yet another variation on how to do it is not the answer.

I could be wrong and perhaps the Blue Ridge Rules will take the mult-gun community by storm. Given all of the other variations, that would be quiite an accomplishment since those who have drafted other forms of scoring targets at multi gun matches have found limitations in the rules they wrote and acknowledge the limitations that time has proven but yet the matches fill so there is little incentative to change them. If everyoone unites under one rule set that is desireable whether the rules are written by USPSA or the America Shooters Society.

All rule sets have value judgements and Blue Ridge is no exception. With the Blue Ridge Rules, there are more points available where 3 guns are used instead of one and that is a value judgement stateing that being good with mulitiple guns is more desirable. Another set of rules might say that a pistol stage without other weapons should get more points than those with any long guns available since mastering a pistol is more difficult and every trainner will tell you that a pistol is something you use to fight your way to a long gun. That is also a value judgement. Putting one idea over the other is not "wrong". It rather depends on your values.

My point here is not that there is anything wrong with the Blue Ridge Rules or that USPSA Rules are better since that is always going to depend on the values a shooter embraces being represented in a set of rules. Rather my thought is that if we all used a standard set of rules multi gun would grow faster and there would be more shooters interested in all the matches. The way things are now, choosing matches is like choosing a foreign country to visit on vacation.....most of us feel more comfortable where we speak the language

Linda I think you may have not closely read what I said earlier about USPSA rules. What I said in my post on this tread of June 12 is:

"The problem is that at least so far, getting the independent matches to use the same rules is about as easy as turning lead into gold. Unfortunately, no match has as comprehensive a set of rules as USPSA and they all recognize it since when the write their special version of 3 gun rules they will almost always state something to the effect of incorporation of USPSA safety rules into their version."

That is not a defense of the USPSA multi gun rules but rather a statement that without the USPSA rules running in the background of each and every non USPSA match, the match just simply could not exist. Nobody has spent more time on shooting rules that USPSA. Most of what is in the USPSA rules were copied by IDPA and even the Cowboys. Change the targets. Change the scoring. Put meatballs on your noodles. Put cheese on your noodles. It is still a different variation of pasta on the bottom of the plate just like most of the various action shooting rules are variations of the USPSA Rules.

I do not advocate USPSA rules. I do not advocate IDPA or Blue Ridge Rules. I advocate one set of rules for all matches. Even if we fail to get more participation as a result of one set of rules, we can not fail to get more consistent and better range officers. who have to know only one rule set.

Charles

Edited June 20, 2008 by Charles Bond

[Still Praying]

It would be nice if all matches used the same set of rules. What ever rules they use but, thats not the way it is.

My 2 cents, And thats all I got to say about that.

OK, lets shoot.

Ronnie

[Chuck Anderson]

The only concern that I have with the Blue Ridge rules is speed of scoring. The nice thing about and IMGA match is that the RO doesn't have to spend 2 minutes looking at that A/C line hit, whipping out the scoring overlay to see if it's an A or a C. The RO can loosely examine the target, see if there are two hits, or an A and move on. With this scoring system, there will have to be at least some communication between RO and scorekeeper. How much would depend on the number of paper targets. Conservatively it could add a minute or two per shooter. I'm not sure how big the Blue Ridge match was, but I'm concerned that a match the size of Benning or SMM3G might bog down a bit with scoring. Is there anyone that has shot this that noticed that?

[CraigS.]

I still fail to see anyones specific reasons on why more than one scoring system is a problem or disadvantage.

Is it to hard to keep straight which match or scoring system you are shooting that day?

How hard is it to understand the difference between 2 holes V.S. 2 A's with points down for C's and D's

As long as you read the rules before you get there there shouldn't be a problem.

The only disadvantages would be as Chuck already mentioned with extra time to score the targets

and slightly longer raw times for the shooter.

I currently shoot 4 different matches on a monthly basis that all have a different scoring system.

Personally I like the challenge of shooting at the "A" zone V.S. the fun factor of blazing two holes at a large piece of brown cardboard

which I feel is all about speed and very little accuracy, especially on a rifle stage in a small bay.

I think the Horner system will bring back the close range target accuracy.

The next match to use this scoring system will be the R & R Racing Multi-gun in Albany,OR .

- Craig

[benny hill]

Why can't we all get along on this scoreing thing, and oh by the way , that is a double.

[kurtm]

I've seen Benny shoot so many perfect doubles that no scoring system will ever be fair to him! It really doesn't matter howthey are scored, as someone said the fastest most accurate will alway win. Just shoot okay!

[Religious Shooter]

The only concern that I have with the Blue Ridge rules is speed of scoring. The nice thing about and IMGA match is that the RO doesn't have to spend 2 minutes looking at that A/C line hit, whipping out the scoring overlay to see if it's an A or a C. ... Conservatively it could add a minute or two per shooter. ...

+1. You might as well use Comstock. At least you have a relatively robust software solution in tallying the scores and popping out the result.

I'm always leary of matches that use Excel or a home brew Access database to get the results. RM3G, Benning, SMM3G (and X3) all have had problems...

[jobob]

I think that some version of time+ is the way to go. Something simplified and fast. IMHO USPSA rules don't translate well to 3-gun. Worrying about major pistol, minor rifle, A-B-C-D hits, etc, adds complexity and detracts from the shooter's ability to keep track of his own scores. I love IPSC/USPSA. Great for pistol matches, but it just is not a good scoring system for 3-gun. It would be interesting (in a bad way) to see Ironman scored w/USPSA rules.

Craig, R&R is going to the Horner system? When was someone going to inform the shooters? There is precious little information on R&R's website.

[Religious Shooter]

When I said Comstock I meant modified USPSA. Use either 1) a unified power factor for all three guns (2 of the 3 guns determine your power factor for the match) or 2) all shooters scored as major (or minor).

[jobob]

When I said Comstock I meant modified USPSA. Use either 1) a unified power factor for all three guns (2 of the 3 guns determine your power factor for the match) or 2) all shooters scored as major (or minor).

Ah, that sounds better than pistol-major, rifle-minor, sg-major. I vote for (2). It's simple, and me like simple. Is there such a thing as minor sg?

After reading the BR3G rules, I think I like the Horner system. Dumb people like me who stubornly keep shooting at long range targets till we hit them should be rewarded!

[Carlos]

Well said Linda and Charles - I have nothing to add except:

- I agree with you both and,

-thanks for all your hard (volunteer) work on behalf of the sport.

D.

[bigbrowndog]

NO!!!!

Remember As always..........................Yuer Ronge

[Charles Bond]

When we talk about scoring 3 gun matches, the idea I seem to see time and time again is that minor rifle ought to be the same as major rifle. It completely escapes me why folks accept a major shotgun and a major pistol but want the scoring system to accept a 223 as major. If anyone can help me understand this thinking, I will be glad to listern.

Let's keep some things in mind.

1. Why does he fact that 223 is the current official military rifle mean anything beyond the fact that the military adopted it? Do we allow the Pentagon determine what is major in an age where they seem to have problems finding soldiers who can easily master accurate fire with small arms?

2. If a match is going to be anything, should it provide a testing ground for various weapons systems and if so does failing to have a place for heavier weapons run side by side with minor ones does not provide that? How can heavy metal as a seperate division do that if it excludes newer major loads which are not major?

3. Is running heavy metal as its own division simply a value judgement on writing rules for a game? The idea of using a pump shotgun and a single stack 45 takes it away from the current main stream to the point that while it is a game and it is fun, but is it practical? Would a better name for such a division "historicial" or "turn back the clock division"?

4. If everyone with the same type of rifle as far as power factor is scored the same way in terms of points, why is that not fair? Is there any reason we should not offer shooters the change to shoot major and minor together such that they make the choice most appealing to them?

[Merlin Orr]

Looks to me like the 3 gun shooting public has already spoken down through the past years.... Which matches always sell out in a matter of minutes and which don't sell out at all. IMO - If the shooters don't like your game the solution should not be to ban all the other games (rule wise) except the least popular of them all. If one set of rules will bring in more shooters I think it would be apparent by having a larger following than the others. Actually I see this to have already been demonstrated as such by looking at the last few years 3 gun matches.

[Religious Shooter]

When we talk about scoring 3 gun matches, the idea I seem to see time and time again is that minor rifle ought to be the same as major rifle. It completely escapes me why folks accept a major shotgun and a major pistol but want the scoring system to accept a 223 as major. If anyone can help me understand this thinking, I will be glad to listern.

Is this coming from a USPSA BOD member that just approved Time Plus scoring as USPSA legal? You know.. a Time Plus scoring system that allows minor rifle to be scored the same as major rifle?

If you fought tooth and nail against the other BOD members to not allow it... please let us know.

To me it simply comes down to the "cost" in administration of having different power factors for different guns.

We can simply score the match as a regular USPSA pistol match with Major and Minor scoring (depending on the PF of 2 of 3 of the competitors guns... or simply score everybody as major).

Or we can go with the current USPSA of having differing power factors for each firearm...

I think it is safe to say that the modified USPSA version will be a lot easier. The current system... well all you have to do is see how many 3 Gun clubs have adopted it (vs. the other systems) to gauge how successful it is.

3. Is running heavy metal as its own division simply a value judgement on writing rules for a game? The idea of using a pump shotgun and a single stack 45 takes it away from the current main stream to the point that while it is a game and it is fun, but is it practical? Would a better name for such a division "historicial" or "turn back the clock division"?

I'd like to add that the decision for requiring a SS45 isn't very popular.

[buzzworm]

I guess I'll be labeled a heritic, but I for one do not want to see USPSA rules applied to all 3gun matches. I don't want to see USPSA take over all shooting sports, and I don't have a problem with different rules for different matches. Like someone earlier said, I learn the rules for each match, and go play. If I don't like the rules, I don't play. What is so hard about that?

As for the Horner scoring system, it looks good to me. While I would prefer that one hit in the A, or A/B head still count as a neutralized target, I do want to see hits win a match, not missed shots thrown downrange. I was at Steel City and saw the SKS episode Stefan refered to. When a shooter can just throw rounds downrange with no attempt to hit the target, just so he has "engaged" them, and come away with an outragously low time, and win, that just goes against what I thought a shooting match was about.

As for major/minor differences in rifle, some matches also call one hit in the C zone neutralized for HM. Think about it, a hit anywhere close to the bolier room with .308 or .06 would have the BG down for the count, and with .308 costing .50/rd and up, it helps to keep heavy metal shooters in the sport. (same thing for .223 shootes with .223 at .40/rd if one A or A/B still counts)

I had to choose between Ft. Benning and the 3Gun Nats. I'm #15 on the FB3G waiting list.

[Charles Bond]

As for time plus scoring being an alternative method for USPSA Multigun=My own position is that USPSA elected to exercise some flexibility in that decision. No one has ever said that the rules we have are perfect and I think the entire USPSA BOD will tell you that they are a work in progress. For this reason, they have remained "provisional" at this time and have not been adopted as permanent rules.

Different Power Factors=My own position is this is like going to the store and buying an ice cream cone. Some folks might want a strawberry cone. Others would buy a peach cone. Still others might wish a little of both and say they want a scoop of strawberry and a scoop of peach. The ice cream store would be crazy not to allow that. Power factors run the same way. We have 223 minor shooters and those who want to run something larger whether it is 308 or 6.2 or otherwise. I am all for a minor gun running against minor guns. I am all in for a he man or major catagroy or whatever you desire to call it. But it is rifle division and I would let those who want to run their smaller guns against the more powerful calibers (and vice versa) run side by side just like that guy who wanted an ice cream cone with more than one flavor. Do we need to adjust the scoring to give more advantage to major to make that happen? Perhaps. Bottom line is that this is somehting worth talking about.

Success of Matches=For us to guage the feelings of the shooters as to the rules based on how many matches fill and how quickly up would be a mistake. Matches fill based on location, time, prizes, which friends are going, cost of travel, whether your guns are working, if your spouse will let you, entry fee, what you have heard, etc. Rules used may be a factor but they are way down the list and I have never heard any shooter say that they are or are not going to Match X because of the rules.

One System=Whether it is the Horner System, Time Plue, USPSA, IDPA or otherwise, we need a standard set of rules. Should matches be allowed some freedom in the rules? I am OK with that since it makes little sense to tie someone's hands in everything when the needs of specific matches have some variation. But unless and until we have some standard system, shooters are never going to be completely comfortable at all the matches because of the rules variations, scorers are not going to be completely comfortable with radically different systems (Linda Chico knows the Horner System but what does the match do if she has to be somewhere else on the date of the match) and range officers should not be expected to be sharp on their calls if the work a match on weekend one using one set of rules and have to apply a totally different set the following weekend.

As I have said before, wriing any rules is an exercise in application of value judgments. I believe the majority of our shooting public would desire to shoot under one set of rules. At this point, it is THEIR SET which favors the way they shoot. I hope we can move opinion in a fashion to unite these opinions. Much has been accomplished in this regard but we still have a good ways to go to do that.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Charles Bond

[SGDM]

Just remember fellas, there a'int no rules in a gun fight!

I for one do not want anyone but the Match Director governing the rules or scoring...not USPSA, IDPA, NRA, CIA, or FBI.

When I put on a match I use Lewis because it is fair and one class, Tactical. Now, that is just me.

As far as BRM3G, Andy and the staff did a great job. However, there were some stages that were just plain dangerous and you should always have at least 2 x people give your stages, scoring, and prize table a sanity check.

Safety drives the training or game for some of you.