PRS Talk PRS Casual Rules...

[joelinux]

Two words: reactive targets

steel (odviously)
Clay pigeons
Eggs hanging by fishing line (try them at 300 or so)
Shaken up 2 liters
Shaken up 20 ozs sodas

Nothing hooks new shooters like targets they can see and hear react. Whoever hits the the most is the best shooter that day. The farther the better.

Keep it simple, stoopid

Funny you should mention that.

At the range we go to, from 500 to 1400 yards have always been steel, but now they are setting up lights so you can be your own spotter(ish).

Once a year, they have the great pumpkin shoot:



The idea would be to have some lightweight competition for bragging rights back at work, which would enable them to relax and have fun plinking on their own schedule without having to wait to be timed, or restricted in shots while still having a lightweight goal to aim for (pun intended).

 

[joelinux]

Have you considered judging panels?

Form/consistency. You know what I meant.

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Since you guys can't stay on track I'm gonna get us back on topic with a story from work.

Me: getting stuff done

Random guy: why you doing it that way?

Me: do you have a better way?

RG: well, I'm an engineer.

Me: okay?

RG: I would do it differently.

Me: how so?

RG: I'm not sure. But differently. (Long pause) I'm an engineer.

 

[Tim_WNC]

Frickin engineers. They never miss an opportunity to say "I'm an engineer".

They are the Navy SEALS of STEM

 

[joelinux]

They are the Navy SEALS of STEM

A Seabee dissing the SEALS? Aren't you guys just Army ditch-diggers that weren't smart enough to join the right branch? ?

 

[AIAW]

No I'm the guy who gets the blueprint drawn up by engineers that have never actually attempted to do the work they've proposed.

 

[Tim_WNC]

A Seabee dissing the SEALS? Aren't you guys just Army ditch-diggers that weren't smart enough to join the right branch? ?

Nope. We"re the ones that take a CEC Officer's plans for some Orphan's School and turn it into a still, tikki bar and gentleman's lounge.

 

[joelinux]

Nope. We"re the ones that take a CEC Officer's plans for some Orphan's School and turn it into a still, tikki bar and gentleman's lounge.

So you miss the point of what you are supposed to do... Explains why you can be a Seabee after getting in the 10th percentile on the ASVAB... It's either that or Boatswain's mate...

 

[LawnMM]

Thread Summarized

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Thread Summarized

#4 specifically.

 

[joelinux]

" @TonyTheTiger , you should totally stop doing PRS and start solely doing Trap shooting. "

That advice is about as useful to the bounds I originally set in this thread as anything you have suggested...

 

[TonyTheTiger]

Get the steak. Its great here.

 

[Scwalker83]

I think I smell a troll or some dunning-kruger.

 

[joelinux]

For anyone who was serious about helping me in this thread, I have shown this to the group at work, and they have argued the serious ideas you batted around, and come up with the following rules for casual PRS shooting:

Each target has the (Range)*(number of shots hit)*(decrementing multiplier)

Where:
Range = Range of target in yards
number of shots hit = Obvious
decrementing multiplier = A that scales based on the person who took the most number of shots at the target vs. the least. (e.g. if I took 7 shots, and hit it in the 2nd and 6th, and you took 8 shots and hit it on 3rd, and 7th, we would divide 100% by 8. My multiplier would be ((8-2)+(8-6))/8, and yours would be ((8-3)*(8-7))/8) Hitting it on the last shot would not count for anything (so you don't multiply by 0).

In this manner, people are encouraged to shoot as much as they'd like, are rewarded for earlier hits as well as better overall hit percentages, and for taking longer shots. We might also introduce a coefficient if some targets become obviously too easy or hard.

 

[Meety Peety]

This is the dumbest fucking thread I think I have ever seen.

 

[mmlook]

This is the dumbest fucking thread I think I have ever seen.

I shoot competitions to get away from doing technical work at the office

apparently it's the other way around for some ?‍

 

[joelinux]

I shoot competitions to get away from doing technical work at the office

apparently it's the other way around for some ?‍

As my "Intro to Engineering" professor once said:

"For bad engineers, engineering is a job.
For good engineers, engineering is a lifestyle."

 

[mmlook]

As my "Intro to Engineering" professor once said:

"For bad engineers, engineering is a job.
For good engineers, engineering is a lifestyle."

those who can't do, teach ??

working 18 hour days, 6 days a week,
it is a lifestyle, just not one I would prefer to do on my day off

 

[joelinux]

those who can't do, teach ??

working 18 hour days, 6 days a week,
it is a lifestyle, just not one I would prefer to do on my day off

He was also working at JPL as a Senior Principal Engineer. He was the Technical Lead on Cassini.

But, hey, go ahead and attack that strawman all you want.

You don't get "days off" when it is your lifestyle. You look at your home life and ask, "how could I make this more efficient?"

 

[mmlook]

He was also working at JPL as a Senior Principal Engineer. He was the Technical Lead on Cassini.

But, hey, go ahead and attack that strawman all you want.

You don't get "days off" when it is your lifestyle. You look at your home life and ask, "how could I make this more efficient?"

take a joke

 

[joelinux]

take a joke

I can...when it's against me. I actually respect this professor too much.

 

[Covertnoob5]

For anyone who was serious about helping me in this thread, I have shown this to the group at work, and they have argued the serious ideas you batted around, and come up with the following rules for casual PRS shooting:

Each target has the (Range)*(number of shots hit)*(decrementing multiplier)

Where:
Range = Range of target in yards
number of shots hit = Obvious
decrementing multiplier = A that scales based on the person who took the most number of shots at the target vs. the least. (e.g. if I took 7 shots, and hit it in the 2nd and 6th, and you took 8 shots and hit it on 3rd, and 7th, we would divide 100% by 8. My multiplier would be ((8-2)+(8-6))/8, and yours would be ((8-3)*(8-7))/8) Hitting it on the last shot would not count for anything (so you don't multiply by 0).

In this manner, people are encouraged to shoot as much as they'd like, are rewarded for earlier hits as well as better overall hit percentages, and for taking longer shots. We might also introduce a coefficient if some targets become obviously too easy or hard.

This is the most ridiculous scoring I've ever seen. And quite frankly proves nothing other than some of you have money to burn and more of that than sense. All you're doing is rewarding accuracy by volume with no stresses. A nutless monkey can shoot prone at a 1400yd target and fire rounds off until they hit it. And the worst part is, all someone is going to do later, is say they hit 1400 when in reality it shouldn’t even count cause you went 2/20. That’s luck not skill. That’s why the Ko2M rules are in place and not “hey first one to hit it in unlimited rounds wins! Yayyyy” This does nothing to prove one is a good shooter or a is better than b.

Don’t let us stop you from this cluster Fuck of a scoring system. Messier than a toddler with the shits. But at least realize that this “casual competition” isn’t actually proving anything at all. It’s making people feel good for accomplishing nothing essentially.

 

[BillOH]

For anyone who was serious about helping me in this thread, I have shown this to the group at work, and they have argued the serious ideas you batted around, and come up with the following rules for casual PRS shooting:

Each target has the (Range)*(number of shots hit)*(decrementing multiplier)

Where:
Range = Range of target in yards
number of shots hit = Obvious
decrementing multiplier = A that scales based on the person who took the most number of shots at the target vs. the least. (e.g. if I took 7 shots, and hit it in the 2nd and 6th, and you took 8 shots and hit it on 3rd, and 7th, we would divide 100% by 8. My multiplier would be ((8-2)+(8-6))/8, and yours would be ((8-3)*(8-7))/8) Hitting it on the last shot would not count for anything (so you don't multiply by 0).

In this manner, people are encouraged to shoot as much as they'd like, are rewarded for earlier hits as well as better overall hit percentages, and for taking longer shots. We might also introduce a coefficient if some targets become obviously too easy or hard.

Do you do the math on a pocket calculator, a slide rule or in your head?

 

[LoneWolf_052713]

King of 2 Miles (Kof2M) is formatted how you speak as well as most formal ELR matches from my understanding. PRS is far different and tests many other skills. You either get it all right and get the point or you don't. He who hits the most targets wins.

 

[joelinux]

...A nutless monkey can shoot prone at a 1400yd target and fire rounds off until they hit it. And the worst part is, all someone is going to do later, is say they hit 1400 when in reality it shouldn’t even count cause you went 2/20...

Are you ignorant of the English language, math, or both?
What you just described is the entire point of the decrementing multiplier. Someone that manages to hit it the first or second time, and nothing past, will actually score less than someone who can hit it consistently, but just had bad luck on the first couple shots.
Let me know if you still don't get it, and I'll use smaller words.

Do you do the math on a pocket calculator, a slide rule or in your head?

Abacus.

King of 2 Miles (Kof2M) is formatted how you speak as well as most formal ELR matches from my understanding. PRS is far different and tests many other skills. You either get it all right and get the point or you don't. He who hits the most targets wins.

Huh...I'll look into that...

 

[Sheldon N]

It seems to me that your system awards more points for more hits, albeit with some modification for how well you did it. If that's true then it's a broken system that can be defeated by simply shooting more rounds.

Math problem for you. Shooter A shoots 40 rounds with a 50% hit ratio. Shooter B shoots 350 rounds with a 40% hit ratio. Both shooters split their rounds equally between a 400 yard target and a 800 yard target. Which shooter wins?

Show your work.

 

[LoneWolf_052713]

It seems to me that your system awards more points for more hits, albeit with some modification for how well you did it. If that's true then it's a broken system that can be defeated by simply shooting more rounds.

Math problem for you. Shooter A shoots 40 rounds with a 50% hit ratio. Shooter B shoots 350 rounds with a 40% hit ratio. Both shooters split their rounds equally between a 400 yard target and a 800 yard target. Which shooter wins?

Show your work.

I shot a club match like this that was ran by an MD who normally does 3gun if I had to guess. It was time plus hits. I shot 40rds running a bolt gun and cleaned the match. Another guy shot 200rds, still cleaned the match, but just barely beat me on time....

It was advertised as a "Precision Rifle" Match... I never went back to one of those matches until they got a new MD that knew what he was doing.

 

[joelinux]

It seems to me that your system awards more points for more hits, albeit with some modification for how well you did it. If that's true then it's a broken system that can be defeated by simply shooting more rounds.

Math problem for you. Shooter A shoots 40 rounds with a 50% hit ratio. Shooter B shoots 350 rounds with a 40% hit ratio. Both shooters split their rounds equally between a 400 yard target and a 800 yard target. Which shooter wins?

Show your work.

Per the algorithm, I would need to know which number were hits and which weren't. (e.g. "first, fourth, fifth, eleventh, etc."). Also, are we assuming at the same range target or not?

 

[Sheldon N]

Per the algorithm, I would need to know which number were hits and which weren't. (e.g. "first, fourth, fifth, eleventh, etc."). Also, are we assuming at the same range target or not?

Shooter A alternated between hitting and missing every shot. Starting with a hit and ending with a miss. They spent their first 20 shots on the 400 yard target, and their second 20 shots on the 800 yard target.

Shooter B followed a pattern of hitting two shots followed by missing three shots. They spent their first 175 rounds on the 400 yard target and then followed with 175 rounds on the 800 yard target.

 

[joelinux]

Shooter A alternated between hitting and missing every shot. Starting with a hit and ending with a miss. They spent their first 20 shots on the 400 yard target, and their second 20 shots on the 800 yard target.

Shooter B followed a pattern of hitting two shots followed by missing three shots. They spent their first 175 rounds on the 400 yard target and then followed with 175 rounds on the 800 yard target.

Your scenario is ridiculous for a number of reasons, but I ran the math anyway.

Here are the reasons why it isn't a good representation:

• Shooter B is spending waaaaay more time shooting than the rest of us. He'll still be shooting after we have packed up, had lunch, and gone home. If he is really that dedicated, he has earned the lunch. Sometime else, and he'll be getting his own ride home, 'cause I'm not waiting around that long.
• If their pattern is the same, changing the range doesn't change the outcome for either range. However, people don't shoot in patterns.

With those two caveats in place, assuming they hold to their pattern, shooter A would win until shot 26, at which point shooter B would start to win. But this is a silly example.

 

[Sheldon N]

With those two caveats in place, assuming they hold to their pattern, shooter A would win until shot 26, at which point shooter B would start to win. But this is a silly example.

It's not a silly example, it's a flawed system.

I only picked the small number/large number difference to highlight the problem. Rewarding ongoing impacts with more points doesn't accurately reflect who shot the best.

Even if I use myself and how i shoot as an example it shows the flaws. One range day I might bring my match gun...fully dialed in, absolute hammer, precision crafted ammo. I shoot 20 rounds to verify everything and prep for a match. Gun is lights out, I miss maybe only 1 or 2 times, taking my time on each shot. Then I call it a day feeling good about myself.

Another range day I bring my 223 trainer. I shoot quickly, practicing different things. I burn 100 rounds, hitting 70% because I'm working on trying harder stuff and just because it's a 223 rather than my match gun. Nothing special about they day, but I hit some steel and got some practice in.

I definitely shot better with my match gun. But your scoring system is going to say I was better with my 223 because I sent more rounds and hit more steel.

Look, it's either a competition or it's not. If it's a competition make it a competition.

Hey man, betcha a beer you cant hit the 800 yard target 5 times in a row.
Sure, you're on!

Guys, want to shoot a mock stage? 2 minutes to send 10 rounds at these 5 targets. Everyone pitches in $1, winner takes all.

Hey, let's all shoot at the 1200 yard target. Each person takes a shot then the next person gets to go. We take turns until we've all shot 5 times, person with the most hits doesn't have to pay for their lunch.


But whatever, you guys can do all the math you want.

 

[Covertnoob5]

Are you ignorant of the English language, math, or both?
What you just described is the entire point of the decrementing multiplier. Someone that manages to hit it the first or second time, and nothing past, will actually score less than someone who can hit it consistently, but just had bad luck on the first couple shots.
Let me know if you still don't get it, and I'll use smaller words.

Abacus.

Huh...I'll look into that...

???? you're not the smartest person in the room so get off your high horse. Clearly you didn't understand what I said. At the end of the day, in general, one of these new shooters at work or some other time is gonna claim a 1400yd hit when in reality it shouldn't count as a hit at all, on their wall of accomplishments. It was luck. No skill involved at all. I would laugh in their face if they went 2/20 but claimed it as an accomplishment.

You’re doing nothing to help these people for a true prs/nrl match. They’ll get their teeth stomped in and never come back because it doesn’t reward luck.

You want a solution: relay race. 2 minutes unlimited round count.

2 shooters lay prone they each start at 200 yard steel. 1 hit to move to the next target all the way out to your furthest target. They each shoot their own set of targets. Once you hit the last target, if you’ve still got time and rounds left start over. Most hits in 2 minutes wins. Period end of story.

You want a competition, then do an actual competition, not a “hey everyone feel good so we can pretend to be skilled marksmen” fake pretend match.

 

[Sheldon N]

You want a solution: relay race. 2 minutes unlimited round count.

2 shooters lay prone they each start at 200 yard steel. 1 hit to move to the next target all the way out to your furthest target. They each shoot their own set of targets. Once you hit the last target, if you’ve still got time and rounds left start over. Most hits in 2 minutes wins. Period end of story.

I'd be pissed at a match director if I to shoot that stage.

Three mag changes, 35 rounds in two minutes and a torched barrel throat is what that leads to.

Fun one we did after a match a few months ago. One target, one round. Started with 15 second par time. Get on the gun, find the target, hit the target. If you impact within time you stayed in the game. Miss or time out and you were done. After each round the par time got shorter and shorter eliminating more shooters. Last man standing is the winner. I think at our match the winner was sub 4 seconds to drop prone, close the bolt and hit a 600 yard target.

 

[DownhillFromHere]

Well. Reminds me of the other day... windy... and wind at the last rimfire match kicked my backside. So I'm out practicing wind calls 100-300 yards with a .22. In southern-speak, they ain't no unlimited rounds in no match I ever shot in, so I'm practicing to that standard. I need to hit a 2MOA target at 150 yards with a .22, as well as I can in the wind, and it better be 100% on a calm day. Anyway.

Two guys show up with ARs. They go after 12" plates at 200 and 300 yards thusly:
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGGBANGBANGBANG I GOT IT!!!!
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG I GOT IT!!!!
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG I GOT IT!!!!...
...until they ran out of ammo. Didn't take long, thankfully. And I'm betting their .224-caliber barrels were rapidly becoming smoothbore out to a few inches in front of the chamber, so spray&pray was by necessity the order of the day.

I'm all for people shooting however they want to, as long as it's safe and some degree of courtesy is given to other people on the range. Some people just like to shoot lots of ammo at random targets and are happy if they hit it once in awhile. That's just fine.

Just don't call it "competition" outside of the informal group. It ain't. And in no circumstance is melting a barrel ever going to be "precision."

 

[joelinux]

It's not a silly example, it's a flawed system.

I only picked the small number/large number difference to highlight the problem. Rewarding ongoing impacts with more points doesn't accurately reflect who shot the best.

Even if I use myself and how i shoot as an example it shows the flaws. One range day I might bring my match gun...fully dialed in, absolute hammer, precision crafted ammo. I shoot 20 rounds to verify everything and prep for a match. Gun is lights out, I miss maybe only 1 or 2 times, taking my time on each shot. Then I call it a day feeling good about myself.

Another range day I bring my 223 trainer. I shoot quickly, practicing different things. I burn 100 rounds, hitting 70% because I'm working on trying harder stuff and just because it's a 223 rather than my match gun. Nothing special about they day, but I hit some steel and got some practice in.

I definitely shot better with my match gun. But your scoring system is going to say I was better with my 223 because I sent more rounds and hit more steel.

Look, it's either a competition or it's not. If it's a competition make it a competition.

Hey man, betcha a beer you cant hit the 800 yard target 5 times in a row.
Sure, you're on!

Guys, want to shoot a mock stage? 2 minutes to send 10 rounds at these 5 targets. Everyone pitches in $1, winner takes all.

Hey, let's all shoot at the 1200 yard target. Each person takes a shot then the next person gets to go. We take turns until we've all shot 5 times, person with the most hits doesn't have to pay for their lunch.


But whatever, you guys can do all the math you want.

I know, I've been struggling to think about what I should do if my friend brings his shotgun? What do we do then? WHAT DO WE DO THEN?

This is a group of amateurs. Shooting at roughly the same level, with roughly the same quality of equipment.

All bolt action. 4 hours. If we go through 120 rounds total, it'll be a fast day.

And, to add to the list of inane strawman quotes you posted at the end, I'll add the one that captures what I'm trying to do:

person 1: Hey guys, let's go plinking with our precision long range rifles at the range!
person 2: ok, but we should try to make some rules to measure how good we are, and how good we are getting.
person 3: ok, but I don't want to do anything timed, or with a limited number of bullets. This is just plinking
person 2: well, I hold the record at 1100 yards, so I automatically win.
person 1: that was just luck
person 3: yeah, we should have a system that accounts for luck
person 1: I know! I'll ask on snipers hide!

then, people like you type answers that have nothing to do with what I asked.

 

[joelinux]

???? you're not the smartest person in the room so get off your high horse. Clearly you didn't understand what I said. At the end of the day, in general, one of these new shooters at work or some other time is gonna claim a 1400yd hit when in reality it shouldn't count as a hit at all, on their wall of accomplishments. It was luck. No skill involved at all. I would laugh in their face if they went 2/20 but claimed it as an accomplishment.

You’re doing nothing to help these people for a true prs/nrl match. They’ll get their teeth stomped in and never come back because it doesn’t reward luck.

You want a solution: relay race. 2 minutes unlimited round count.

2 shooters lay prone they each start at 200 yard steel. 1 hit to move to the next target all the way out to your furthest target. They each shoot their own set of targets. Once you hit the last target, if you’ve still got time and rounds left start over. Most hits in 2 minutes wins. Period end of story.

You want a competition, then do an actual competition, not a “hey everyone feel good so we can pretend to be skilled marksmen” fake pretend match.

That has as much to do with what I originally asked for as if we just walked to the targets and shot them point blank with a .22

I'm not getting anybody ready for anything.

We. Are. Plinking.

With. Precision. Rifles.

We. Want. A. Set. Of. Rules. That. Allow. For. Plinking. But. Enable. Us. To. Score., Factoring. Out. Luck.

If you don't understand that, I don't have the time or crayons to break it down any further for you.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

It seems to me that your system awards more points for more hits, albeit with some modification for how well you did it. If that's true then it's a broken system that can be defeated by simply shooting more rounds.

Well, he did say he wanted to encourage people to shoot more rounds....

 

[Sheldon N]

If all you want to do is "score plinking" then all you need to do is track hit percentage.

If someone doesn't want to shoot at the far targets or the small targets, call them out on it and tell them they are a chicken. Or make rules to make them shoot at it.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

This is a group of amateurs. Shooting at roughly the same level, with roughly the same quality of equipment.

Funny, I thought the problem was that you and one of you buddies were so much better than everyone else that you wanted a way to compete without discouraging the new guys (so that they didn't choose to shoot an actual competition like 3-gun or IDPA).

Because we aren't to the stage that any sort of competition makes sense. Everything is still coalescing. My experience with the personality types is that if they don't have something to keep them interested, they might go to something like 3-gun or IDPA.

However, my friend and I have been shooting a lot longer than them, so we don't want to discourage them either.

So, we need to thread a fine line between giving them a reason to improve, but not blowing them out of the water.

 

[joelinux]

If all you want to do is "score plinking" then all you need to do is track hit percentage.

If someone doesn't want to shoot at the far targets or the small targets, call them out on it and tell them they are a chicken. Or make rules to make them shoot at it.

Plus we want to reward being able to hit the target within the first few rounds, but not so much that a lucky shot at the beginning overwhelms the scoring.

And name calling is a stupid way to get people to improve. Especially when we have to work with each other on Monday.

 

[Covertnoob5]

That has as much to do with what I originally asked for as if we just walked to the targets and shot them point blank with a .22

I'm not getting anybody ready for anything.

We. Are. Plinking.

With. Precision. Rifles.

We. Want. A. Set. Of. Rules. That. Allow. For. Plinking. But. Enable. Us. To. Score., Factoring. Out. Luck.

If you don't understand that, I don't have the time or crayons to break it down any further for you.

Common sense clearly escapes you.

Rules + scoring = COMPETITION. Dumbass.

If you want to plink, then plink. You say in your OP that you want people to “increase their skill”

Common problem with new shooters is you assume: more rounds downrange = I must be getting better. That’s a terrible narrative.

You asked for the following:

1) There has to be a mechanism to make longer distance shots earn more points than closer shots

Following the relay I suggested: Make each shot past 1000yds worth
4 points for first round impact
3 points for second round
2 points for 3rd round and
anything after that is worth 1 point.


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.

Following the relay model I suggested: make it 4 hits per target to move targets from 1000yd and out.


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

Unlimited round counts enables this.

 

[joelinux]

Funny, I thought the problem was that you and one of you buddies were so much better than everyone else that you wanted a way to compete without discouraging the new guys (so that they didn't choose to shoot an actual competition like 3-gun or IDPA).

My one friend and I are far enough along that if we did a formal competition, we'd be ahead of them. Casual plinking however? Not so much.

 

[joelinux]

Common sense clearly escapes you.

Rules + scoring = COMPETITION. Dumbass.

If you want to plink, then plink. You say in your OP that you want people to “increase their skill”

Common problem with new shooters is you assume: more rounds downrange = I must be getting better. That’s a terrible narrative.

You asked for the following:

1) There has to be a mechanism to make longer distance shots earn more points than closer shots

Following the relay I suggested: Make each shot past 1000yds worth
4 points for first round impact
3 points for second round
2 points for 3rd round and
anything after that is worth 1 point.


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.

Following the relay model I suggested: make it 4 hits per target to move targets from 1000yd and out.


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

Unlimited round counts enables this.

1) we have that in the decremental multipler, except it is broken up by range in case one distance proves to be exponentially harder than the next (800 yards was weirdly harder than 700 or 900 for some reason)

2) again, we don't want to limit people by round number. We are there for a limited time, it's all bolt action, we are all amateurs. The difference in rounds has been 20 max so far. Last time I think I shot 70, and my friend shot 50. So, people will naturally have to limit the number of shots they take.

So, now we need a way to factor that variability if number if rounds fired in. We are looking at normalization methods.

3) I'm not following. Your response was too terse.

 

[Covertnoob5]

1) we have that in the decremental multipler, except it is broken up by range in case one distance proves to be exponentially harder than the next (800 yards was weirdly harder than 700 or 900 for some reason)

2) again, we don't want to limit people by round number. We are there for a limited time, it's all bolt action, we are all amateurs. The difference in rounds has been 20 max so far. Last time I think I shot 70, and my friend shot 50. So, people will naturally have to limit the number of shots they take.

So, now we need a way to factor that variability if number if rounds fired in. We are looking at normalization methods.

3) I'm not following. Your response was too terse.

Unlimited round count literally does what you ask. Allows people to shoot as many rounds as they like.

 

[joelinux]

Unlimited round count literally does what you ask. Allows people to shoot as many rounds as they like.

Fair enough. I suppose two and three are related.

 

[Sheldon N]

Plus we want to reward being able to hit the target within the first few rounds, but not so much that a lucky shot at the beginning overwhelms the scoring.

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.

 

[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.