Hello Bullseye - L (Disscussion of Camp Perry and other from the NRA Shooting Director

First topic message reminder :

Greetings fellow bullseye shooters, from NRAHQ Competitive Shooting.  I have finally found time to register and join the forum. 

In years past I was a very active member of this forum, although it was in a different format then.  I also was a co-host of the annual picnic, which went by the wayside some time back.

I am now the Director of Competitive Shooting for the NRA, something that this lowly competitor never thought would happen.  However, it has changed my life dramatically.  Although I managed to get to one bullseye match early in the year, the needs of competitive shooting in the many disciplines that I oversee prohibited me from attending additional events.  I will try to do better next year.  As an example of my schedule, between July 1 and August 31, I had 3 days off.

I'll give you a short update on a couple of things related to pistol.

I am still working on electronic targets.  The main difficulty with this is that, because we are on a military base, nothing permanent can be done to the ranges, so the system we purchase must be totally portable and easy to put up and take down each year.  I have made contact with Oakwood Controls, Sius-Ascor, and Kongsberg target systems.  I am constructing a business model to present to the NRA on what the system will cost, what NRA's savings will be, and how long it will take them to recoup their investment.  I'm trying hard to get a system up and running for 2015.

Coupled with the electronic target system comes a question.  Because we will be able to run through the course of fire in a shorter time frame, we can shorten the number of days that it takes to complete the National Championships.  In a previous competitor's meeting and in some side talks with competitors, I was told that shortening the events is NOT what they want, because they want to take full advantage of their once-a-year opportunity to meet with friends and go to dinner with them.  Your opinions?

Budget.  I've looked over some comments before I signed up here regarding what the NRA should do to make things easier and better for competitors.  Believe me, that's exactly what I want to do.  However, the NRA is NOT a giant pot of unrestricted money that can be spent any way that I want to.  Like every business model (just like where you probably have at work), I have a budget and I'm expected to work within that budget.  There are lots of things that I would like to do at Camp Perry but I'm restricted by the fact that we don't own Camp Perry so must always take into account what the military will let us do, and restricted by how much money I have available.  I may be further restricted by how much money the military has available to support us.

When looking at what it costs to run Camp Perry, my budget far exceeds the entry fees that I take in, so the NRA actually ends up subsidizing each and every competitor, even after sponsorship is figured in.  When looking at the costs involved at Camp Perry, please consider the per diem, housing and travel costs of volunteers; consider the hourly pay costs for the range staff that keeps the trash emptied, arranges for porta potties and cleaning, maintenance of the equipment, and provides coffee, water, etc.; consider the hourly rate of the  target crew that pastes all those targets on cardboard and delivers the targets to the range; consider the cost of supplies like targets, cardboard and glue to make sure that you have targets available; and consider the hourly rate costs of the people in the Stat Office to compile and produce results for almost 700 competitors and the costs of their equipment like computers, printers, ink, etc., and this is only a partial list.

Would I like to do more at Camp Perry for you?  You bet I would but I have to find a way to pay for it.  But please also remember that our support consists of more than Camp Perry.  I need to look at how I can better serve the local matches, sectionals, and regionals as well.

Pistol Committee.  The Pistol Committee will be meeting on October 26th here at NRAHQ.  Many suggestions were made either at the competitor's meeting or via email and additional suggestions can be sent here at NRAHQ or to any committee member.  Suggestions sent here should be directed to the National Manager of Pistol, Tom Hughes, thughes@nrahq.org  Your Pistol Committee this year is; William Allen (Chairman), Ted Carter (Vice-Chairman), Kenn Boyd (Chief referee National Matches), Jim Lenardson, Il Ling New, Tim Pawol, Brian Zins, and your secretary is Tom Hughes.

That's a brief statement regarding pistol but I will stand for questions and try to answer them on a timely basis.  However, most of my days lately have been focused on the 2015 World Palma Rifle Championship that we will be hosting at Camp Perry.  Talk about a lot of work!!!!!!!!!!!

Dennis (Denny) Willing
Director of Competitive Shooting
National Rifle Association

So...with electronic lights... at what point do you raise the gun??  Where do you take up your initial point of aim.?  On the X, as opposed to the backer edge..?? Train all year on turning and then shoot the Nationals non turning lights.. The records will not be the same. This is 2013.. As a machinist/mechanic I can't imagine an upgraded turning target system as a major engineering feat.   I agree with the Canton/Perry relationship, and it should be preserved.. In my 50 years of observing this game, I see competitors and participants.  The competitors, at all costs, are very serious about this game. Participants, come and go. 
Jerry

If NRA plans on subsidizing these electronic targets to be the future of Bullseye, and we eventually train on electronic targets and lights at most of our matches, perhaps the much faster pace (because no time will be wasted on scoring) will draw participants back from the action/cowboy shooting world.

Honestly we could do a 2700 in 2 hours with these electronic targets.

Denny, is there a way to convert just one of the ranges over for electronic targets in 2014, and make those firing points elective?  Maybe participants could shoot on the old style ranges during the normal schedule, then whenever they have off time, they could sign up for an additional 2700 on the electronic targets.

People are resistant to change.  If we are given the choice at first, the resistance will be lessened.  I'm starting to get used to this idea. 

We would get more participants at Nationals (or Canton for that matter) if there is a shooter selected option to crank out some of the competitors in just a couple hours using the electronic targets so they can complete their national match in a single day--leaving the option to do the .22 day, CF day, and .45 day format as the "traditional" option.

If there is a "no fair" argument--that the competition isn't the same, and the scores are "different"--you are going to have that no matter what.  Someone who shoots a record at their state match is shooting under different conditions than they would on electronic targets. 
Some of the HM shooters shoot their best stuff at Canton with the Camp Perry scores down from the week before--that never ruined the show for the National Matches!  The Nationals ARE different--if it's going to be different because of the targets, or because Camp Perry is Camp Perry wont really matter.

If the argument is that the shooter on electronic targets that could have the option to shoot the entire 2700 in one day has some sort of "advantage" over the shooters who do it the 3 day way....I would call BS--conditions at Perry are the luck of the draw.  If either group had more favorable conditions, it was their lucky day--as usual.

Shooters can adapt to any range, any situation.  That's part of the game.

My main concern is equipment being shot up by jerks (you know what I mean).  Can the targets handle hardball impact.  The 7 oclock area better have double wall construction.

A previous post from Denny said they can handle hardball hits to the edges.

Before everyone here has Camp Perry converted to electronic targets, please remember that this is only in its planning stages.  I have to convince the NRA Finance Committee that this is a worthy project and I can only do that if the manufacturers can show me that they can meet our specifications.  I am in contact with a number of these and we should get something in concrete soon.

Our specifications will consist of everything mentioned in this thread, plus a lot more.  We also know that these won't be maintenance free and costs will be involved.  However, I believe that these costs will probably be neutral when compared with the costs that we currently have with our old system.

The number of volunteers, etc., will be far fewer than we currently have.  Rather than manning four ranges, we will only need to man one.  That saves me lodging, per diem, and travel for volunteers resulting in a cost savings.  The remaining personnel could be offered RSO training and some volunteer upgrades to become our "professional" range staff.

I'm hoping that the cost savings will be such that we can reduce entry fees, if you don't mind.

Now to a current topic.  Pending before the Pistol Committee is a proposal to add classes of firearms to pistol competition, similar to what is used in Bianchi Cup competition.  The firearms that most people are shooting today would be classified as "open" firearms.  Additional classes might be "production", "metallic sight only" and/or "revolver."  Any thoughts?  The Pistol Committee will be discussing this on the 26th of this month so a little feedback from you would be nice.

i would think a new modern conventional system would cost less to build and  require little maintenance , the original system has been worn out for many years but how many years did it run fine before getting this bad, 20-30? A electronic system will be lucky to last 10 years, and be obsolete in probily what 5? look at how these type items evolve, who uses a cell phone, computer, camera or a mired of other things  made 10 years ago? I think the electronic system will be a mistake and cost in the long run many times more than a standard system, yes maybe you could herd people thru faster but it would be at the cost of the cultural heritage of our sport. just my 2 cents.

Denny,

Please communicate with the pistol committee that it will dramatically increase cost to compete if we include "sub classes" that differentiate between "stock" or "production" guns and "open" or "modified" ones.  It's so difficult to tell if a 1911 is stock or has been modified to look like it is stock with production parts.  Most match directors may also mistake certain stock production parts as modified.
If a factory shop did any hand fitting during quality control, that gun might get DQ'd as "open" even right off the shelf.
Sub classifications for "Iron sights" "open sights" or "revolver" might be fun and very easy to police. 

Please advise the pistol department to avoid any rule changes that might have grey areas for enforcement.  Match directors in the field have a difficult enough time administrating the smaller matches without needing to put 3+guns per shooter through tech inspections.

We have enough classes already. The nra just added the probationary class, that should be enough. It address the shoot what you got idea well enough (imo) and they get classed different then if they want to move up to real bullseye they can.

Bullseye is a sport where it has been proven that iron sights are not a hindrance from setting records. There are also people who have broken 2600 with a revolver.

If the NRA wants to give out additional awards for high score with iron sights and/or revolver I would be in favor of that but as an overall award.  Not Master Revolver, Expert Revolver, Sharpshooter Revolver, etc.  
The CMP does recognize high scores with a 1911 and Beretta for some of their matches.

Denny,

I have enjoyed BE since the late '60's. I'm unable to compete anymore due to health so you may want to consider that when evaluating my comments.

I would be against adding additional classes as making it difficult for the small matches. Additional classes for iron, and scoped might be a good idea but only in large matches say over 100 competitors and or NM's or (large) regionals.

If it is decided to use an electronic system @ Perry I would strongly advise, as have others, that some kind of movable system be obtained and used at various matches and areas around the country to initiate as many as possible.

If one range is set up could say the warmup & .22 (for the record) be fired on it?
Where is the CMP in all this? Has anyone talked with the range engineer? He has some 30 years of experience and his thoughts should be of value. If a system has any weaknesses "ball" would be a test. I understand economics might preclude the "one range" suggestion but am curious about the CMP and mixing electronic systems with hardball.
 
The last few yrs I have worked as a vol RO at our club's public range. I have heard a lot of "action" type shooters talk about last weekend's matches and the conversation always revolves around the rules and the VARIETY of interpretations by the different ranges, their officers etc. NEVER have I heard comments about scores and this or that shooter. The BE guys would talk about who fired what score etc or maybe who now used a scope or maybe a revolver. I think BE should avoid that.

As I said I have shot BE since '68 and have enjoyed, and been frustrated by it. The lessening of participation is disappointing. I have been confined to a wheelchair since '69 and returned to BE in '70. With the help of fellow shooters I have been able to compete from club leagues up to the Nationals. The NRA has thoughtfully provided a system whereby a handicapped person can compete and it is not a small thing. I hope the faithful can hang in there and when some of these run and shoot boys are no longer boys they will join the fun!

Ron

Denny:

Thanks for everything and please don't take anything the wrong way.  I appreciate and support your efforts to gather our input, improve the sport and balance a whole bunch of differing opionions (from a very opinionated crowd).  I wish I had more suggestions of things to do, rather than what not to do, but I never was the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Thank You! (this is duplicated at the end on purpose) 

If I may put in a couple of comments, again.  In my ignorance, I assumed the electronic targets would be for scoring only, not stationary.  Therefore I would not like to change to electronic targets, even as a time / scoring saver.  Put the money and time into improving the exsiting facilities, getting some better housing and maybe, just maybe finding someone to run and host a "Winter National?"  (If we could go back to (1) get off your horse, (2) hold the reins (3) fire for effect and score, I might be tempted to change....this is a joke in case some of you don't get the humor.  But it is our history and bullseye's beginnings.....) 

As far as costs go, set the fees appropriate to what is needed.  Tell us, the vendors and other industry people what is needed and lets see what we can get.  But I'd rather not change just to reduce costs at the expense of something very dear to a lot of people.   

I would not like any additional classes, rules, or other changes that make it that much harder or complicated for a match director or line officer to run a match.  For many years I've heard every hair-brained idea for "increasing participation" and "getting more shooters" and basically 99 out of 100 of those suggesting things don't work or run matches.   If you want more shooters, get off your butts and run more matches.  As I've said before, don't wait in your cornfield for somebody to ask for a match.  If you're got a better idea, run some matches and let's see how it works.  Then we can decide on changes.

I'd like to keep bullseye as it is, not because I'm a stick in the mud.  But because it's hard, its supposed to be hard, its supposed to bring out the best in the shooters, not just bring out more shooters.

The NRA already has several types of programs and awards that promote the beginning target shooter.  So what's the problem with them?  People don't put on these matches, thats what.  Please don't piggy back off existing matches and levels to try to generate "more shooters".  There are millions of them out there and they need beginning training and matches, not different bullseye matches.

And finally, to be a little self serving but to express my feelings for the match, here is the the Camp Perry tribute (again).   

Denny, thanks for everything and please don't take anything the wrong way.  I appreciate and support your efforst to gather our input, improve the sport and balance a whole bunch of differing opionions (from a very opinionated crowd).  No matter what happens, I expect we'll see a measured, planned and thoughtful proposal, because I know you are that kind of guy! Thank You!

Cecil Rhodes
"Bullseye Shooter" 

Not being caught up in tradition, I don't have any desire to keep things the way they are at Camp Perry.  With that said, I can't think of anything radical to make it better.

Electronic targets would be fine by me, the only problem I see is that it would speed things up, perhaps too much.  I am only in my 50s, but shooting non-stop through a 2700 match would be tough to do.  The time it takes for scoring is the time it takes for me to rest my arm as well as my brain.  A fast pace would certainly add another aspect to the sport that may be difficult to deal with.

Covered firing points would be my primary request for change. Yeah, I know, it is an outdoor sport and a shooter should be in the elements. However, many of the matches I shoot at here in the midwest have covered firing points and I can't ever recall of anyone complaining about them.  

The goal of a fast pace with the end result having more time to shop and socialize isn't high on my request list.  Like most shooters I know, we plan a vacation around the event and spend the whole week there.  We go to dinner each night, eat lunches together, gather in various locations to B.S., frankly there is plenty of time for the social aspect of the sport.

The only thing I can see that would have a strong impact on increasing desire is more money for winnings.  Most current shooters are happy with bragging rights when winning or placing high.  I know if there was a chance to win 10 grand for first place expert, I would have a bit more motivation to go to the championship and compete.

As for the mud, wind, rain and other interesting conditions at Camp Perry, I can do without it.  However, that is unrealistic.  This past years mud fest was misery for me, however, my fellow shooters, especially Steve T. could always find a way to put a positive fun spin on it.  It is that sense of sportsmanship that amazes me each year at Perry keeps me wanting to go back. Kudos to the real sportsman who look past the icky parts and focus on the fun parts of this sport!

Chris D.

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with Bullseye as the reason participation is not what it used to be.  There are so many more choices for people to amuse themselves these days.  All old activities are losing participants.  It's just part of the progression of time.

If the new electronic targets don't turn, I'm not interested.

Well im a bit of a outsider here having never compeated... but being a new guy thats planing on joining in, I can shed some light from that perspective. 

Electric vs normal targets... No idea... so Ill defer to you guys on that...

As for the different classes? I think thats a very bad idea. All that will do is alienate the new guy starting out. The guy thats shooting grandpas old iron sight K22... the guy that picked up a nice Mark II with a entry level Dot on it... the low buck, and the guys trying it out it out for the first time will be pushed aside for the more exclusive "higher" classes.. It will leave the entry level guys in the also ran group.. Bullseye has always seemed to be kinda a "run what you bung" compation. The guy with the 40 year old High standard he got for 400 bucks, is shooting side by side with some of those fancy imports for many thousands of dollars, and beating him to boot! IMHO it will turn it into Nascar...

As for building the sport, and adding new shooters? Its easy... Marketing. We need more clubs shooting, and more info out there to the guys that might want to give it a shot. You dont just "find out about" bullseye... you eather know about it from someone, or you dont know it exists. A new shooter has no idea what it is, what it is about, or how it works.

I would suggest a thorough reading of the ISSF and USAS rules on Electronic Scoring Targets (EST). You may find that they represent a false economy in tems of volunteers, consumables, and time savings.

E.g., at the USA Shooting National Championships (USASNC), a competitor will be disqualified for his third frame hit (after two warnings). Is the NRA prepared to do that at Camp Perry?

The NRA will have to develop an entirely new set of rules for EST; have range officials (volunteers) trained and ready for repairs and challenges; and have ample replacements on hand for the (many, many) downrange items that wind up with bullet holes in them.

Who will replace the backing targets after each series? Who will paste the holes in the white? Who will be trained to settle a challenge on shot value based on what the EST says vs. the hole in the backing target? Who will be trained to settle a claim of a cross-fire?

The Camp Perry volunteers are under-appreciated and underpaid, but don't forget that each competitor also is a volunteer that performs considerable scoring and target repair duties, and pays for the privilege.

600+(?) volunteer scorers and target repairers are hard - and expensive - to replace.

As an addendum: I am by no means a Luddite. I work in a field on the cutting edge of Web technologies, and I prefer shooting on electronic targets vs. paper, as a competitor.

However, IMO, the switch to EST has been a contributor (albeit not the only one) to the decline of participation in international shooting in the US over the last 20 years, both in terms of the lack of facilities capable of hosting national- and international-level competition, and in discouraging local ranges from holding ISSF/USAS-style competitions.

One may wish hopefully that it is a case of "if you build it, they will come," but that has not turned out to be the case in the esoteric discipline of ISSF-style pistol. I am pessimistic that it would be the case for the equally-esoteric (and significantly more conservative) discipline of conventional pistol.

I have been asking around, and the common theme is if the targets don't turn, it's a different sport.  DON'T REPLACE THE SPORT in order to REPAIR some worn equipment.

Some of those competitors said they wouldn't go to Perry to protest the change.

Analogy: there are electronic golf simulators where you hit the golf ball against an HD projector screen.  Golfers can be on the most challenging courses on earth.  They don't need caddies or course officials.  The round of golf can take less time because the golfers don't have to walk to the ball.
Even with all of that, you wont hear the PGA proposing the next US Open being held at Dave & Busters.

Denny,
Don't waste the money on these electronic targets.  Just like John Bickar said, it will contribute to less participation.

Do your promotional shoots and get the sponsors to give sponsored awards for top iron sight shooter and top revolver honors, but don't change the sport.

Fix the upcoming competitions calendar website.  Make it easier for new shooters to find matches.  Make it so shooters receive an email when a new NRA sanctioned match is scheduled in their area.  Make it so shooters can select the type of match and a number of miles they are willing to travel.

But don't change the sport.

We have a member on this forum that makes fantastic iPhone apps that give range commands.  Hire him to program an iPhone app that controls the turning target solenoids, and make the app available to all ranges with schematics to build the same setup across the country.  That will grow the sport without changing the sport.

Let's execute.

Rob Kovach wrote:the common theme is if the targets don't turn, it's a different sport.  

Rob,

I agree with 99% of what you said, but (to quibble) there is no effective detriment to the shooter shooting with lights (EST) vs. on turning targets.

Lights/EST are actually more consistent and beneficial to the shooter, in that the timing is more consistent from range-to-range, you don't have the variable of an edging target (i.e., a "late-ish" shot that you break on the X remains an X, instead of a 5 at 3 o'clock due to target wobbliness), and you get an extra 0.2 seconds. (-0.00/+0.20 tolerance)

Believe me, that extra 0.20 matters!

That said, I think your other points about promoting existing matches, calendaring, and effective alerts outweigh that 0.2" advantage. Especially when considering the total cost of ownership of EST cf. other improvements that could be made to Camp Perry and conventional pistol at large.

From what I've read and heard, the NRA, CMP, OHNG and others are doing the right things by improving the huts and ranges at Camp Perry, and I applaud those efforts.

Denny, I commend you for reaching out and asking for feedback. It is impossible to please everyone, and you are doing the right thing by asking for input while balancing the needs of many disparate stakeholders, only a small minority of whom sign your paycheck  

We appreciate your hard work and open ears.

DirComp wrote:Now to a current topic.  Pending before the Pistol Committee is a proposal to add classes of firearms to pistol competition, similar to what is used in Bianchi Cup competition.  The firearms that most people are shooting today would be classified as "open" firearms.  Additional classes might be "production", "metallic sight only" and/or "revolver."  Any thoughts?  The Pistol Committee will be discussing this on the 26th of this month so a little feedback from you would be nice.

This type of approach seems to be more relevant to retaining participation in disciplines that are experiencing explosive growth, rather than increasing participation in disciplines that are stagnating.

I help run a bullseye pistol league in my area, and cost of equipment does not seem to be a deterrent for participation nor for success. For quite a few years I was the top shooter in the league, shooting "metallic sight(s) only", yet newcomers continue to buy Ultradots et al.  

I've been trying to figure out the secret to driving participation, and the best secret I've come up with is sending an email reminder the day before each league match. That simple step has had a measurable impact.

The other secret is that we have a small number of club members and league participants, less than a handful, who are chronic enablers. They proselytize and lend gear, ammo, and expertise - indiscriminately.

To that point, I think local leagues are a better ladder for matches than different subclasses, etc. Maybe 40% of our league shooters shoot local 2700s; maybe 10% of those go to Camp Perry. When I lived in the Boston area, we had a very active Greater Boston Pistol League (hundreds of shooters), yet I hardly saw 4 or 5 of them at local 1800s or 2700s.

You need to throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall to find one or two strands that will stick

Great point John.

I can't think of how best to do it, but if NRA were to incentivize clubs that host leagues, especially for the league organizer.  It doesn't necessarily mean money.  If NRA could devise a way for league organizers to easily submit league scores to NRA (Web based spreadsheets/scoresheets/recordbooks)  Make it easier for the league organizers to run their leagues.  Give them NRA branded promotional materials that they can leave at gun stores with club contact info as well as NRA membership info that would appeal to competitors.

Use the information the match directors provide about the shooters who don't shoot in matches to recruit those shooters by sending them match bulletins for their area.

I just want to remind the NRA that it's pistol shooters above all other competitive shooters who are actually NRA members.  If we are serious about expanding bullseye, then we should only exert effort in ways that will expand participation.

Rob Kovach wrote:

Fix the upcoming competitions calendar website.  Make it easier for new shooters to find matches.  Make it so shooters receive an email when a new NRA sanctioned match is scheduled in their area.  Make it so shooters can select the type of match and a number of miles they are willing to travel.

But don't change the sport.


Let's execute.

That is such a great idea!! Im not realy tech savy, but there has to be a cost effective way to be able to enter your email in at the NRA main page, and be notified of upcoming matches in a adjustable range of miles from your zip code. Who wouldn't be able to know what matches are around when you get a email dropped right in your mailbox telling you. All the guys that slip out of the sport, and just don't bother to look for them will get the little birdie tapping on their shoulder..   the new guy that's starting out will have the fire keep being lit under them every email listing new clubs they may not even know of having a match. I the software would be less then loading a few ranges with Etargets.

You don't build a sport by adding new tech for the old timers already playing it. You build a sport by having the grass roots clubs getting the people that have no idea, informed!!! Kinda like the NFL saying we are going to build the sport of football buy making the ball round, and getting new goal posts..

I pretended I didn't know where to find the competition listings and tried to find them with google.  You just CAN'T find them.  I tried searching for NRA matches, NRA competition, you name it.

NRA-start by hiring a good web developer.  I-net in Milwaukee WI would be a good choice.

Rob Kovach wrote:I pretended I didn't know where to find the competition listings and tried to find them with google.  You just CAN'T find them.  I tried searching for NRA matches, NRA competition, you name it.

NRA-start by hiring a good web developer.  I-net in Milwaukee WI would be a good choice.

Yes and its VERY frustrating for a new shooter!!  Then you add in the fact that its known as Bullseye shooting.... but in NRA world its called conventional pistol. I lucked out becouse I found this site and have learned a TON from you guys!! But the guys that dont spend time on web forums are pretty much out of luck. Everyone I have meet here has been more then helpfull, but untill you get that foot in the door you feel like a outsider, and bullseye a privet club.

Finding matches is key, I like the email idea, but I would also like to be able to drop in a zip code (not mine) and find all the matches within a selectable distance.  It would be great to be able to search ALL matches and be able to filter by key fields like: Date, Regionals, Sectionals, Distinguished Revolver, EIC......

On electronic targets much good feedback posted above.  I am an old guy and a huge fan of technology. That said I also see the downside as I have seen very sturdy and well made target turners destroyed by repeated hardball hits.  I'd suggest if get to the point where you are seriously considering this you make several available on the practice range at Perry and get some real life feedback/experience, maybe over a couple of years.

Here is why I would NOT like to see E-targets.
My biggest concern is how the social aspect of the sport gets impacted.  Many people love shooting bullseye because of it's social nature.  During the walk to repair/replace targets you get to talk to other competitors, you get feedback and encouragement on your target, when you clean that first target you have it signed by all your friends and you take it home and hang it on the fridge.  These things are a bigger part of the sport than most of us admit - don't change that.

On additional classes - no - there aren't enough shooters at many local events to have a winner in the MK-HM classes let alone split it up more.

At Perry where you have enough shooters a revolver only 2700 might be interesting.

Dave

FYI, I'm working on a new website that will allow you to locate matches in any state, post info about your match and your club, show a map of your club's location, post club contact info, upload your scores, get new classification cards, and pay your NRA fees, all in one easy contact.  Give me a little while to get this approved and up and running.  I just received the legal documents today so everything is in its infancy right now.