PRS Talk PRS Casual Rules...

[Sheldon N]

Or do both, plink and compete. Pick 5 key targets, everyone has to shoot 3 rounds at each at some point during the range trip. Total hit percentage on those wins, tiebreak goes to most hits on farthest targets.

And just to point out, this sounds a lot more like F-Class than PRS.

 

[joelinux]

You want too much for it to be logistically possible.

Equalization of shooter performance regardless of round count.
Equalization of shooter performance regardless of which targets they shoot.
Weighting of score system factoring target distance.
Weighting of score system factoring target size.
AND
A score system that rewards first round impacts over later impacts.

The only way to solve this problem is to reduce the shooter score to hit percentage (solving the round count problem). Then you have to somehow weight that percentage based upon what the expected hit percentage should have been for the targets they engaged, versus what their actual hit percentage was. You could come up with some arbitrary weight for each target's difficulty, but the only accurate way to do it would be to have a lot of prior data knowing the specific hit percentage on average for each target at each range, and separately knowing the expected hit percentage of a first round hit at each target at each range. That would then allow you to fairly weight the hit percentage and equalize it across all shooters.

It's mathematically possible, but a giant cluster-F to both create the system and to keep track of each shot in such a way that could allow it to be scored. You'd need a huge excel sheet to do the math for you. And all that defeats your stated "why" you are doing this. Have fun, friendly ranking between each other, get better.

It's way better to keep things simpler... If you want a metric, use global hit percentage and deal with the fact that it's imperfect. It's still a good benchmark to see if you are improving.

Or do both, plink and compete. Pick 5 key targets, everyone has to shoot 3 rounds at each at some point during the range trip. Total hit percentage on those wins, tiebreak goes to most hits on farthest targets.

I think you finally have a grasp on the problem space I'm trying to solve. However, I absolutely reject your resignation to the impossibility of the task.

For one thing, there's this lovely thing called Google docs. We can share and archive past performance, and it allows us engineers to tinker with the algorithm going forward.

We can enable people to just record hits and misses at the range, and have the big scary math handled automatically. Hell, we can make it so that people can only edit the space where they input their huts and misses.

The whole point of this post was to see if there were already rules in place for an amateur plinking competition like I originally posited. I think it is safe to say we will have to invent it.

And yes, my friends are already looking at ways to break the rulesets we are arguing, but that only makes it better.

If you guys can argue within the bounds I have set, and not automatically jump to "has to be timed, have to limit the shots", I'd love to include you.

If you are just going to insist that you don't want to be constrained by the rules, I've got a finger for you.

 

[LawnMM]

 

[Sheldon N]

I think you finally have a grasp on the problem space I'm trying to solve. However, I absolutely reject your resignation to the impossibility of the task.

Not impossibility, just unwieldiness in use. I've always understood what you were trying to do, just underestimated the degree of persistence that you get everything you want.

But if you guys like having to track your shots in extreme detail and have a spreadsheet do math for you then go for it. I would set it up exactly as I described above, using a hit percentage modified by a weighting factor based upon expected hit percentage for targets engaged. I would factor your first round hits on that basis as well, and lump second round hits and higher together. The mathematical goal is to make all targets have a net-equal weight for hit percentage regardless of their difficulty. That way the net hit percentage is comparable across shooters no matter which targets you shot on any given day.

You're going to need a score sheet that has every single piece of steel at the range as a row, with first round hits in the first column, and all subsequent hits/misses tallied across the row each in their own column.

 

[joelinux]

Not impossibility, just unwieldiness in use. I've always understood what you were trying to do, just underestimated the degree of persistence that you get everything you want.

But if you guys like having to track your shots in extreme detail and have a spreadsheet do math for you then go for it. I would set it up exactly as I described above, using a hit percentage modified by a weighting factor based upon expected hit percentage for targets engaged. I would factor your first round hits on that basis as well, and lump second round hits and higher together. The mathematical goal is to make all targets have a net-equal weight for hit percentage regardless of their difficulty. That way the net hit percentage is comparable across shooters no matter which targets you shot on any given day.

You're going to need a score sheet that has every single piece of steel at the range as a row, with first round hits in the first column, and all subsequent hits/misses tallied across the row each in their own column.

If you look up to one of my previous posts, we have that, with the exception that subsequent shots continue to lose points.

And we will introduce a difficulty coefficient if one target proves abnormally difficult. (800 @)#_ing yards), or too easy.

 

[seansmd]

This is priceless

 

[ThePretzel]

Oh, there is no shot timer.

We want to avoid people not taking risky shots for fear of lowering their percentages. I don't think anyone will be mag dumping.

The way you do that is by giving points for hitting targets (like what PRS does) instead of scoring based on your hit percentage. It encourages you to shoot at every target because you'll gain points if you hit it, but the stage round count prevents you from gaining an advantage using accuracy through volume.

It seems like this type of system would work well for you guys, since you want to reward long shots more than close ones:

0.5 points for every target hit from 0-500 yards.
1 point for every target hit from 501-1,000 yards.
1.5 points for every target hit past 1,000 yards.

Nobody can run away with your casual match by getting lucky on the long range targets, but it does reward longer hits more than shorter hits. The math is simple and easy to do, and you don't need to do anything different than just shoot the normal match you go to and add up which targets you hit at the end.

To do anything "better" than that to meet your goals you'd basically have to shoot an entirely different match compared to the match you signed up for and attended. PRS matches will pretty much always have round counts for every stage besides the skill stage and they'll give you a certain order to shoot the targets in. Giving yourself extra attempts to hit different targets would not work if you are shooting the PRS match at the same time.

 

[joelinux]

The way you do that is by giving points for hitting targets (like what PRS does) instead of scoring based on your hit percentage. It encourages you to shoot at every target because you'll gain points if you hit it, but the stage round count prevents you from gaining an advantage using accuracy through volume.

It seems like this type of system would work well for you guys, since you want to reward long shots more than close ones:

0.5 points for every target hit from 0-500 yards.
1 point for every target hit from 501-1,000 yards.
1.5 points for every target hit past 1,000 yards.

Nobody can run away with your casual match by getting lucky on the long range targets, but it does reward longer hits more than shorter hits. The math is simple and easy to do, and you don't need to do anything different than just shoot the normal match you go to and add up which targets you hit at the end.

To do anything "better" than that to meet your goals you'd basically have to shoot an entirely different match compared to the match you signed up for and attended. PRS matches will pretty much always have round counts for every stage besides the skill stage and they'll give you a certain order to shoot the targets in. Giving yourself extra attempts to hit different targets would not work if you are shooting the PRS match at the same time.

I'll throw that past the guys and they will model it. We've already created a good Monte Carlo simulator that has found some corner cases that other proposed systems have failed over.

Again, nobody is prepping for a formal PRS competition. Let's get away from that.

 

[ThePretzel]

I'll throw that past the guys and they will model it. We've already created a good Monte Carlo simulator that has found some corner cases that other proposed systems have failed over.

Again, nobody is prepping for a formal PRS competition. Let's get away from that.

Ah, when you mentioned a "PRS range" in the original post I figured you meant you were going to PRS club series matches together.

In that case you might want to do something that takes into account both target size and target distance, since you won't have a fairly standardized target distance like at most PRS matches. Could be as simple as just dividing the points for a hit by the size of the target in MOA (1/2 MOA target worth 2x what a 1 MOA target is worth, and 4x what a 2 MOA target is worth).

It should be noted that a first round hit is a bigger difference from a second round hit than a second round hit is from a third round hit, because after the first miss you know the wind conditions and you don't really learn anything extra about the wind with your second miss. If you're allowing multiple shots at the same target you should use an exponential decay on points earned based on shots taken to hit that target because it provides a big advantage for first round hits compared to 2nd round hits, but doesn't provide much additional penalty to those who miss multiple times vs someone who misses once.

So maybe something like this:
0.5 points base for 0-500 yards, 1 point base for 501-1,000 yards, 1.5 points base for beyond 1,000 yards.

Divide base point value by target size to get target point value.

Multiply the base point value by e^(-lambda(x-1)) where x is the number of shots you take before hitting the target. You can adjust lambda to make first round hits worth more or less compared to second and third round hits, where I assume you'll probably want it to be less than one since you don't want to heavily penalize initial misses (a lambda of one means a 2nd round hit is worth ~1/3 of what a 1st round hit is worth).

Final equation:

Points for a hit = (Base points/Target Size in MOA) * e^[-lambda*(x-1)], x = # of shots taken to get a hit

Adjust lambda until you get the appropriate curve that you want.

 

[joelinux]

Ah, when you mentioned a "PRS range" in the original post I figured you meant you were going to PRS club series matches together.

In that case you might want to do something that takes into account both target size and target distance, since you won't have a fairly standardized target distance like at most PRS matches. Could be as simple as just dividing the points for a hit by the size of the target in MOA (1/2 MOA target worth 2x what a 1 MOA target is worth, and 4x what a 2 MOA target is worth).

It should be noted that a first round hit is a bigger difference from a second round hit than a second round hit is from a third round hit, because after the first miss you know the wind conditions and you don't really learn anything extra about the wind with your second miss. If you're allowing multiple shots at the same target you should use an exponential decay on points earned based on shots taken to hit that target because it provides a big advantage for first round hits compared to 2nd round hits, but doesn't provide much additional penalty to those who miss multiple times vs someone who misses once.

So maybe something like this:
0.5 points base for 0-500 yards, 1 point base for 501-1,000 yards, 1.5 points base for beyond 1,000 yards.

Divide base point value by target size to get target point value.

Multiply the base point value by e^(-lambda(x-1)) where x is the number of shots you take before hitting the target. You can adjust lambda to make first round hits worth more or less compared to second and third round hits, where I assume you'll probably want it to be less than one since you don't want to heavily penalize initial misses (a lambda of one means a 2nd round hit is worth ~1/3 of what a 1st round hit is worth).

Final equation:

Points for a hit = (Base points/Target Size in MOA) * e^[-lambda*(x-1)], x = # of shots taken to get a hit

Adjust lambda until you get the appropriate curve that you want.

I think we just became best friends.

And we thought about target size. We are only going to look at the targets that are human sized.

That is all anyone shoots at anyway, because as the day heats up, seeing the shot becomes harder for the spotter due to the heat ripples.

 

[Huskydriver]

This is priceless

And to think this is the guy who asked us if he should start with a 375 cheytac for his first build or a 6.5 creedmoor.....it's all making sense now

 

[Sheldon N]

And to think this is the guy who asked us if he should start with a 375 cheytac for his first build or a 6.5 creedmoor.....it's all making sense now

I should have searched past post history before wading into the mud.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/accessories-make-the-outfit.6941563/

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/1-mile-observation-with-recording-ability.6947791/

Rifle Scopes - Current state of MOA and MIL

So, I've ordered my RPR 6.5. Next paycheck is the NF ATACR F1 7-35x56 MILXT Now comes the next great question: MILs vs MOA. I've heard some great back and forth on here. From what I can ascertain, MOA used to be king of the hill, but the new crop is coming in with a lot more MIL these...

www.snipershide.com

 

[TonyTheTiger]

@joelinux
Shouldn't you just be worrying about learning how to shoot for now?

So, in another thread, I thanked you all for the selection of equipment, as you have all endured a lot of (I'm guessing fairly basic) questions from me for a few months as I figured things out.

So, I figured since you suffered through all my dumb questions, you should find out how things went.

Pretty good for the first time out, I thought. (pictured below)

One thing i did notice is that my pistol ear protection interfered with my cheek rest. Do any of you have a suggestion for in-ear protection besides earplugs? I'd like to still be able to carry on a conversation, if that is possible.

View attachment 7132114

This one is actually at 220 yards:

View attachment 7132115View attachment 7132116

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/first-time-out.6957341/#post-7917138

 

[joelinux]

And to think this is the guy who asked us if he should start with a 375 cheytac for his first build or a 6.5 creedmoor.....it's all making sense now

I should have searched past post history before wading into the mud.

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/accessories-make-the-outfit.6941563/

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/1-mile-observation-with-recording-ability.6947791/

Rifle Scopes - Current state of MOA and MIL

So, I've ordered my RPR 6.5. Next paycheck is the NF ATACR F1 7-35x56 MILXT Now comes the next great question: MILs vs MOA. I've heard some great back and forth on here. From what I can ascertain, MOA used to be king of the hill, but the new crop is coming in with a lot more MIL these...

www.snipershide.com

Yeah! I apologize for all that.

Had I known that I needed to post on this site after I knew everything, I would have found a more newbie-friendly forum site, then come here when I could be the same level of smug asshole as the rest of you. ?

Are you TRYING to make people leave long distance shooting? Because if you are, kudos. You are succeeding. I've not recommended any of my friends who are also starting out to get involved with this forum after the level of abuse I've received for asking earnest questions.

They wouldn't put up with the elitist attitudes here anyway, so it would be a wash either way.

 

[W54/XM-388]

Have you thought about getting those flashing target hit indicators that clip to the back of the steel and make it really easy to see if you hit or not?

 

[joelinux]

@joelinux
Shouldn't you just be worrying about learning how to shoot for now?

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/first-time-out.6957341/#post-7917138

Yes, we are.

My friends and I are getting started.

So we are going to the range and plinking.

So we wanted some measure of indicators as to the relative level of ability as we were plinking and improving.

So we thought, "hey, we could probably work out a way to scale our plinking so that we could not have to be rigid in rule structure with shot limitations and timing, but also rate our ability."

So I wondered, "hey, I wonder if anyone else has had the same thought"

So I posted the OP.

At which point, everyone got in my case about not having limited shots and a fixed timer.

And now you are caught up.

 

[joelinux]

Have you thought about getting those flashing target hit indicators that clip to the back of the steel and make it really easy to see if you hit or not?

Actually funny you should mention that. Our range JUST installed them after our latest outing. They look cool, but we doubt they will last long.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Yes, we are.

My friends and I are getting started.

So we are going to the range and plinking.

So we wanted some measure of indicators as to the relative level of ability as we were plinking and improving.

So we thought, "hey, we could probably work out a way to scale our plinking so that we could not have to be rigid in rule structure with shot limitations and timing, but also rate our ability."

So I wondered, "hey, I wonder if anyone else has had the same thought"

So I posted the OP.

At which point, everyone got in my case about not having limited shots and a fixed timer.

And now you are caught up.

Thats a fine long term goal, but a group size competition is probably a better place to start than a scored long range plinking session. Infinitely easier to score and will go a long ways towards your eventual success at longer ranges.

 

[Sheldon N]

Had I known that I needed to post on this site after I knew everything, I would have found a more newbie-friendly forum site, then come here when I could be the same level of smug asshole as the rest of you. ?

Are you TRYING to make people leave long distance shooting? Because if you are, kudos. You are succeeding. I've not recommended any of my friends who are also starting out to get involved with this forum after the level of abuse I've received for asking earnest questions.

They wouldn't put up with the elitist attitudes here anyway, so it would be a wash either way.

Not to be any more of any a-hole than I already apparently am, but have you considered that it's your approach that's spurring the response you are getting?

You're an admitted new shooter, you ask a question, then proceed to argue with almost every person that answered and tried to help you. All of whom are much more experienced than you.

No, that idea won't work. No, that's not what I want to do. And so on, and so on.

 

[ThePretzel]

Actually funny you should mention that. Our range JUST installed them after our latest outing. They look cool, but we doubt they will last long.

Magnetospeed hit indicators are pretty durable, I've seen ones that still worked even after the part that flashes was itself directly hit with more than a few rounds. Pretty much the only way you'd break them and render them non-functional is if you shot through the steel plate and into the main body of the hit indicator, and if you're shooting through your steel plates I'm pretty sure your range will be more upset about that than the hit indicator.

The primary concern with them is really just making sure they're stuck onto the target well since they can fall off, but if the range is managing them I imagine they ought to put them back up onto any target they fell off from at the start or end of each day.

 

[joelinux]

Thats a fine long term goal, but a group size competition is probably a better place to start than a scored long range plinking session. Infinitely easier to score and will go a long ways towards your eventual success at longer ranges.

Not to be any more of any a-hole than I already apparently am, but have you considered that it's your approach that's spurring the response you are getting?

You're an admitted new shooter, you ask a question, then proceed to argue with almost every person that answered and tried to help you. All of whom are much more experienced than you.

No, that idea won't work. No, that's not what I want to do. And so on, and so on.

We aren't really concerned over whether or not it will be easy.

None of the people who are going shy away from difficult tasks. It's what we do for a living.

We are actually having fun crunching the math for scoring models. (Gaussian distributions are your friend)

My whole post was for ideas on what I asked for. If you don't know, or all you know is formal matches, please say so. But don't tell me that what I'm doing has never been done, is hard and/or I should give up.

That's quitter talk. If I did that, I'd have a liberal arts degree.

 

[joelinux]

Magnetospeed hit indicators are pretty durable, I've seen ones that still worked even after the part that flashes was itself directly hit with more than a few rounds. Pretty much the only way you'd break them and render them non-functional is if you shot through the steel plate and into the main body of the hit indicator, and if you're shooting through your steel plates I'm pretty sure your range will be more upset about that than the hit indicator.

The primary concern with them is really just making sure they're stuck onto the target well since they can fall off, but if the range is managing them I imagine they ought to put them back up onto any target they fell off from at the start or end of each day.

Well, time will tell, but, yeah, they look super cool.

 

[seansmd]

He might have the highest "dumpster fire" thread percentage?

 

[joelinux]

He might have the highest "dumpster fire" thread percentage?

@seansmd , I've determined that Beto doesn't need to confiscate guns.

He just needs you to travel around meeting gun owners.

When they all realize that you are also a gun owner, they will hand in their guns en masse to make sure they are nothing like you in any way.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

@seansmd , I've determined that Beto doesn't need to confiscate guns.

He just needs you to travel around meeting gun owners.

When they all realize that you are also a gun owner, they will hand in their guns en masse to make sure they are nothing like you in any way.

You got the wrong guy. Primus is who you're referring to. Military recruitment numbers have actually dropped since he started posting here, he makes soldiers look so bad.

 

[Huskydriver]

We aren't really concerned over whether or not it will be easy.

None of the people who are going shy away from difficult tasks. It's what we do for a living.

We are actually having fun crunching the math for scoring models. (Gaussian distributions are your friend)

My whole post was for ideas on what I asked for. If you don't know, or all you know is formal matches, please say so. But don't tell me that what I'm doing has never been done, is hard and/or I should give up.

That's quitter talk. If I did that, I'd have a liberal arts degree.

Alot of us on this sight have spent alot of time dodging bullets working bolt guns on two way firing ranges. There is a wealth of knowledge here along with a specific culture ie the crowd can be rough but we were not all born to be engineers so it is what it is.

Alot of guys including some of the guys you argue with the most have spent a large portion of their time at becoming as proficient as possible at putting 1st round hits down range.

Nobody is trying to be a dick to you but you need to think about where you are at. This is snipershide not accurate shooter, not benchrest Central.

Keep it simple stupid...if your trying to get better at shooting you don't need to invent some research paper worthy scoring formula. Practice the fundamentals and keep putting lead down range.

Ball busting is part of the culture don't take it personally. I applaud you for getting others into shooting but there is no need to reinvent the wheel and then get upset when you get jabbed for it

 

[seansmd]

@seansmd , I've determined that Beto doesn't need to confiscate guns.

He just needs you to travel around meeting gun owners.

When they all realize that you are also a gun owner, they will hand in their guns en masse to make sure they are nothing like you in any way.

Look at your threads, and keep blaming everyone else...... People are trying to help you and you keep insulting them.

You JUST did it again with the flashers....

Well, time will tell, but, yeah, they look super cool.

 

[lawofsavage]

This thread is a great example of why Doctors and engineers are so much more likely to be victims of financial fraud than the average person. How could anyone scam you you’re so much smarter than everyone else hahaha

Sounds like you’re trying to find an engineering solution to a marksmanship problem haha

So, if Vegas were to put odds on whether you and your friends have developed a mathematical formula on how to achieve the best male prostrate stimulation on each other, what would the odds be??

 

[seansmd]

engineers:

 

[joelinux]

Alot of us on this sight have spent alot of time dodging bullets working bolt guns on two way firing ranges. There is a wealth of knowledge here along with a specific culture ie the crowd can be rough but we were not all born to be engineers so it is what it is.

Alot of guys including some of the guys you argue with the most have spent a large portion of their time at becoming as proficient as possible at putting 1st round hits down range.

Nobody is trying to be a dick to you but you need to think about where you are at. This is snipershide not accurate shooter, not benchrest Central.

Keep it simple stupid...if your trying to get better at shooting you don't need to invent some research paper worthy scoring formula. Practice the fundamentals and keep putting lead down range.

Ball busting is part of the culture don't take it personally. I applaud you for getting others into shooting but there is no need to reinvent the wheel and then get upset when you get jabbed for it

I hear what you are saying about sniper work, but these are people that are shooting for the fun of it currently.

Eventually, some of us could very well move on to formal PRS competitions. I would like to at some point.

However, the "right solution for the right problem". People are plinking, getting better as they go. We'd like to quantify that, nothing more.

Nobody realistically trains for the NFL at age 8. It starts with tossing the football around. And that is where we are at.

We just want to know how well we are tossing it. We don't really feel the need to get people running drills, because they aren't ready, and it isn't warranted.

 

[joelinux]

Look at your threads, and keep blaming everyone else...... People are trying to help you and you keep insulting them.

You JUST did it again with the flashers....

Because I don't know if they are using the magnetoscope indicators. It looked homemade.

And you are hardly one for me to accept critique from. You've been riding my ass since I started. If I said I wanted to hand out candy, you'd claim I was promoting tooth decay.

 

[seansmd]

And you justify it, amazing.

 

[joelinux]

And you justify it, amazing.

TF is your problem? Did someone running Linux break up with you, and now anytime you see the name you fly into a blind, negative rage?

Your immaturity and ready access to firearms makes a case for red flag laws.

 

[seansmd]

Haha, you are fun to watch!

 

[joelinux]

Haha, you are fun to watch!View attachment 7154134

As I've said, you are wasted on this forum. You should go talk at prolife rallies. After 15 minutes, they would realize that not every life is precious.

 

[seansmd]

yeah its me, and all the others.....

Legendary Thread Reference

Figured it'd be nice to have a place to go to find some of the Legendary threads. They can be old ones (like gecko45), newer ones (like buddly or recoil control bipods), or even as a place to check what looks like it might turn into a Legendary thread. I've seen a few times where different...

www.snipershide.com

 

[joelinux]

yeah its me, and all the others.....

Legendary Thread Reference

Figured it'd be nice to have a place to go to find some of the Legendary threads. They can be old ones (like gecko45), newer ones (like buddly or recoil control bipods), or even as a place to check what looks like it might turn into a Legendary thread. I've seen a few times where different...

www.snipershide.com

So you used a smurf account while you were banned, and posted the thread where I asked honestly if moa or mil was more popular at present day.

Because I was brand new, and didn't know which was being used more.

And it was a good thing I did, because I was about to pick the wrong one. That thread eventually gave me the right information, and then people took it the way they wanted.

Somewhere out there, a tree is tirelessly making oxygen for you. I think you owe it a apology.

 

[joelinux]

So, no specific target engagement order (or even specific targets), no time limit (or time keeping at all), no round count limit, but you want longer range targets and first round hits to be worth more points?

That seems pretty complicated and chaotic to me, and doesn't really seem like a good recipe for designing planned courses of fire (the basis of most competitive shooting).

Still, I could see how it might be fun in the right situation with the right group of friends.

Your point on first hits counting for more eventually won the day in the office.

 

[seansmd]

So you used a smurf account while you were banned, and posted the thread where I asked honestly if moa or mil was more popular at present day.

Because I was brand new, and didn't know which was being used more.

And it was a good thing I did, because I was about to pick the wrong one. That thread eventually gave me the right information, and then people took it the way they wanted.

Somewhere out there, a tree is tirelessly making oxygen for you. I think you owe it a apology.

haha, you now are saying I posted that? That guy has been around longer than me, you are funny, I actually was laughing for 2 pages of this thread before jumping in on the fun.

Again not the questions, its the smarter than everyone and insulting everyone who is trying to help you, I look forward to your next thread!

I will let you go now, carry on!

 

[joelinux]

haha, you now are saying I posted that? That guy has been around longer than me, you are funny, I actually was laughing for 2 pages of this thread before jumping in on the fun.

Again not the questions, its the smarter than everyone and insulting everyone who is trying to help you, I look forward to your next thread!

I will let you go now, carry on!

No, people, usually spurred on by you, keep foisting their preferences ontonme over and above what I've asked for.

Imagine if my response to everyone asking for help on this forum was, "you need to just use a 10/22".

Problem with sight leveling? "Get a 10/22"

Recommendation on a rear bag? "Get a 10/22"

Drills to decrease the time to acquire a sight picture? "Get a 10/22"

You'd rightfully say, "that isn't what I asked for, dick. I'm asking for this specific thing."

If I then proceeded to say, "hey, a lot of people on this site have spent a lot of time firing 10/22s. They must know something you don't", your response, if you are a reasonable human being, would be, "that's cool for them, but that isn't what I was asking for help on. At all."

That is what this thread has been, with a few exceptions: People offering me solutions well outside of the bounds of what I'm looking for.

I know that the thread has lost any promise of useful information when you start posting. You are like a non-nazi variant of Godwin's law.

You are gaslighting me when you call me a troll. However, take comfort that your life isn't a total waste. You are a walking warning sign as to the procreational dangers of when siblings marry.

 

[Carl_Ross]

Not to be any more of any a-hole than I already apparently am, but have you considered that it's your approach that's spurring the response you are getting?

Sheldon, you're probably one of the nicest guy in this thread. You've offered multiple iterations of legitimate insight to a guy who, it turns out, wants a "competition" where the participants with superior skills don't consistently win. Hard to move forward productively from there in my opinion.

 

[Sheldon N]

Sheldon, you're probably one of the nicest guy in this thread. You've offered multiple iterations of legitimate insight to a guy who, it turns out, wants a "competition" where the participants with superior skills don't consistently win. Hard to move forward productively from there in my opinion.

That's too kind of you Carl. I did get a little feisty there for a bit.

 

[Diver160651]

That's too kind of you Carl. I did get a little feisty there for a bit.

Sheldon,

WTF happened?

I only have one dumb ass person on the hide blocked.. is it at all possible the stuff I can’t see is that nut once again???

Jim

 

[joelinux]

Sheldon, you're probably one of the nicest guy in this thread. You've offered multiple iterations of legitimate insight to a guy who, it turns out, wants a "competition" where the participants with superior skills don't consistently win. Hard to move forward productively from there in my opinion.

Which thread have you been reading?

For the umpteenth time, we are trying to quantify ability for people who are still at the plinking stage with their precision rifles.

I understand now that you have never done it, it isn't something you would do because it isn't something you've done before, things that are different are scary, and this forum is a hive mind of groupthink, but sweet jeebus.

If you don't know, and don't have any ideas as to how one would go about doing what I'm asking for, don't treat it like a monkey in front of a computer. Let helpful people talk. You don't need to put your two cents in when all you have to offer is "I no like this.".

There are a few people here who have given us some good starting points as to how we would go about doing what we are looking for, and for that I'm grateful.

For the rest of you that have just mindlessly given up and insist I do things the way you are used to, crack some reading material that doesn't start with "mil-std-"

You are perpetuating the stereotype of shooters as mindless, unimaginative, nonthinking, and belligerent.

The more you insist that what I'm asking for isn't how I should do it because that is not how professional PRS people do it, the more I weep for the eventual demise of the second amendment.

Because if this is the level of imagination and inventiveness that the 2A community has to offer, we are seriously outclassed.

 

[W54/XM-388]

If you want to have a bit of fun and be about the skill.

I think a cold bore shot as the very first shot of the day at a target is a great way to see how good you are when it counts.
You can make the distance greater as people get better.

 

[joelinux]

If you want to have a bit of fun and be about the skill.

I think a cold bore shot as the very first shot of the day at a target is a great way to see how good you are when it counts.
You can make the distance greater as people get better.

Hmm.

That is a really good idea.

Like a one shot addition to the rest of the score that counts for triple or something?

 

[B-P-UU]

1. This thread has ruined the word "plinking" for me.

2. Imagine how much more proficient you and your buddies would be if you spent this time actually practicing, dryfiring, reading, and learning and not developing a meaningless algorithm.

3. I understand you enjoy the scientific process, but I think if you and your buddies just shot a little more and graduate past the infancy stage of your journey (one we've all been on), you'd realize you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

4. There is enough "real" science and technical problems to solve when it comes to long range shooting and becoming proficient at this sport/hobby. I would encourage you to focus on them because it sounds like "you don't know what you don't know" yet... that's not meant to be an insult, we all started at ground zero.

 

[joelinux]

1. This thread has ruined the word "plinking" for me.

2. Imagine how much more proficient you and your buddies would be if you spent this time actually practicing, dryfiring, reading, and learning and not developing a meaningless algorithm.

3. I understand you enjoy the scientific process, but I think if you and your buddies just shot a little more and graduate past the infancy stage of your journey (one we've all been on), you'd realize you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

4. There is enough "real" science and technical problems to solve when it comes to long range shooting and becoming proficient at this sport/hobby. I would encourage you to focus on them because it sounds like "you don't know what you don't know" yet... that's not meant to be an insult, we all started at ground zero.

1) That's on you.
2) Who says we aren't? We can't do any of those things you suggested at work.
3) Due to the mixture of the group and the frequency we go to the range, most people will be dedicated plinkers.
4) I know, but this is the problem that has presented itself currently. When those other ones arise, we'll tackle them too.

Oh, and "plinking, plinking, plinking"

 

[Meety Peety]

to see if there were already rules in place for an amateur plinking competition

This is gold

 

[Long Range 338]

Hello!

So, several of my engineering friends at work and I are starting to get our co-workers into PRS.

We are planning on going regularly to a few outings to the PRS range in San Luis Obispo, CA.

We have also decided we need a casual competition when we are there, winner doesn't pay for lunch on the way back.

We *can* develop a formula for this competition, but we wanted to know if there are already rules in place.

Here are our criteria for the competition:

1. There has to be a mechanism to make longer distance shots earn more points than closer shots
2. Consistency should be rewarded over luck in distance. Someone who gets lucky on his second 1400 yard attempt should not be capable of winning against someone that can ring the steel at 1000 yards all day long.
3. People should feel free to take as many shots as they like. I don't want people to only have the first 10 shots count. They should be encouraged to shoot more so they can increase their skill

Are there existing rules that match this criteria already in existence?

I think you called out the PRS Gods once you used the magic code "PRS", hence the non stop critique.

This sounds more like how the ELR game is played: fewer shots with a complex scoring system. Of course its your game so you get to make the rules as you see fit. Personally its easy and straight forward to make the first shot on any target worth more - so first shot is worth 3 points, 2nd shot worth 2, 3rd shot worth 1. This could be adjusted and if somebody wants to take 10 shots at a single target, eventually they getting next to no points as they are just walking it in. Make the further targets worth more points than the closer targets and award bonus points for consecutive hits.... Now you are having a hoot of a time, everybody is wasting lots of ammo (I mean practicing), and yet you are rewarding the highest skill level without giving too many points for the lucky random shot at the furthest target.

Once you hit the wall and can't figure out why your data doesn't match up to your real world results you will find these gentlemen here on the Hide are exceptionally insightful.