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

DirComp wrote: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.

Awesome!  Let me know if you need a beta tester.  I've managed and lead too many IS projects over the years to count (user not developer) so I very much appreciate the task in front of you!

Dave

So Dennis, do we get to find out how the meeting went?

Because the High Power meeting was held the same day I was only able to attend each meeting for 1/2 day so I do not yet know how the entire meeting went.  I expect a staff report this week and I'll let you know then.

Well, this is way late to the party, but here goes anyway. I have not come to any conclusion here, so don't demand that my comments be consistent with each other.

Keeping the full-week event is indeed traditional, but also tends to dissipate the potential costs savings of the electronic scoring systems. There could still be some value in knocking off a day or two from the whole event. But I cannot truly comment here because I cannot find the match schedule to save my life! I toy with the idea of shorter matches because I am one of those who finds getting time off extremely difficult.

I've been to Perry once, with Service Rifle, at the DCM matches. I remember a whole separate week for the "NRA Matches" as contrasted with the "Board Matches". The prospect of skipping SAFS and just shooting the matches W-Sat still appeals to me.

Whether knocking a day or two off of the BE Pistol NRA matches would help draw more time-strapped people out is an open question worthy of consideration.

Losing turning targets--well, I believe that that changes the game too much. But on the other hand, I'm practicing with a non-turning target and a shot timer. Maybe just dumping that grand old tradition might make the game "more accessible" to casual shooters and clubs with not a lot of cash to install turning targets.  That said, I still think that the old lever, cable and pulley systems I saw the old guys wrestle when I was a kid just *have to be* do-able these days with better, lighter-weight innovations, and at a lower cost than electronics.

Scoring IS the big time-killer though.

But with electronic targets, how do you zero? Within each "target", there is a certain accuracy of each shot in relationship to every other shot that I see as repeatable. But HOW are the electronics "zero'd" to the aiming black??? Maybe the electronic systems are so expensive because they approach avionics standards rather than regular crash-happy computers and crap that needs calibration at the beginning of each day? I just see havoc in scoring validity if the sensors get shifted relative to the aiming point. Just 'cause those sissies in the Metric World have been using them for 20+ years does not necessarily mean they really, truly, have that line-splitting accuracy that we are accustomed to with our licensed official paper targets.

Overall, I prefer high "whatever gun" awards over proliferating separate matches. Match winner is Match winner, everything else is classes of various sorts. I think with the...Distinguished Revolver? thing, that's enough. 

Answer this question and maybe you'll find out how to get more BE Pistol participation--why have there been absolutely no Conventional Pistol matches (to my knowledge at least) between Barstow and Salt Lake City the past 30 or more years? I think it's the turning targets combined with a very demanding course of fire combined with the ridiculous overstated attorney-fearing CCW lobby fixation on "anything beyond 15 yards is too far away to be a threat" idea.  Honestly, I had a TF/RF target out at our short line, and one of these 5 yard blasters asked why I had set the target stand "so far out there". The groups on our respective targets were similar size, and I'm just barely approaching Sharpshooter scores!

Benchrest has seen constant improvement over the decades. HP Rifle now has F-class with some gun and equipment changes that made smaller targets necessary. The non-standard "tactical rifle" crowd is liking smaller targets. But thanks to huge A-zones, IPSC and IDPA have really dumbed down the shooting public's accuracy expectations with the handgun. So in a world where the 3-inch group at 25 is just fine, our targets are perceived as too hard.

Rather than change the sport so Master class is 98.5% by making the targets easier or cutting the distances in half, I'm more in favor of some marketing to re-popularizing the satisfaction of trying to do something hard because it *is* hard. Maybe some themes like "the best soda can hunters bean them at 25 yards and beyond" or something that instills aspirations and more striving than a 2-second Bill Drill.

Maybe one fundamental change in the game is needed. 

But whatever the NRA does, it best not adopt the stupid extra points for center hits thing. ISU/UIT/just jumped the shark when they added extra decimal points or whatever. If X-counts aren't working, either make the scoring rings (at least in the middle) smaller, or just make the X-ring smaller.

The Bianchi Cup jumped the shark at its 10th anniversary when the competitors (at least the vocal ones who got noticed) whined about a proposal to change the course of fire. A perfect chance to keep it varied like IPSC and IDPA (didn't exist then, but I think "Paladin" was a potential alternative) by just changing half the stages was lost. They could have honored tradition by keeping half the prior decade's stages, and changing out half every 10 years.

As a pure accuracy game, those elements seem at first glance inapplicable to Bullseye. But then again, something "new" every 10 years might be good. Maybe 10-round strings in Timed and Rapid and having separate revolver matches??? Maybe allowing two hands in SF? I'd much rather see some proliferation of separate National records than see the sport decline in participant numbers...RF on 8-ring steel but 5 second strings??? (Some quick research into scores fired RF might reveal whether that would be too easy for the Experts and Masters...???).

So...the only thing I'm convinced of is that some change is needed. Not sure that speeding things up with electronic targets is "it", but IF it is, then I say we simplify things and upset the apple cart a whole bunch by also losing the turning target at the short line.

I fear that the established shooters will stick to tradition to the point that no one new will want to join in. What good is tradition then? Big fish in a small pond can go only so far...

Changes must be well thought out and thoroughly TESTED with shooters or we will be left w/ a changed game and the same shooters.

Ron

Or worse, a changed game and no shooters.

It's clear that something must change.  So few new shooters are entering the game that we can't even get 5 juniors to attend the National Junior Pistol Camp, which has already been cancelled for 2014 for lack of interest.  I'm afraid that we'll have no game and no shooters if we can't stir some interest somewhere.

So how's USA Shooting doing?

I got married and pretty much left competition save for 3 or 4 HP Rifle matches shortly after the split from NRA Competitions (or at least that's what I remember happening about then).

As much as I loved the added challenge of what we then called the "international" targets, their restrictive attitude paradoxically combined with much more exotic equipment seemed to be intractable obstacles to developing any juniors shooting program. Then when they went to extra points instead of an X-ring in smallbore rifle, that just turned me off. It's kinda how the "special" high school students in their "special" advanced placement or honors classes could make up for an A- somewhere by getting a 4.1 "A" somewhere else. Making some "110%" nonsense officially possible just turns my stomach. Max points per shot being 10 should MEAN 10. Break ties with Xs, not decimal extra points. Bleh.

Excellent points, Ron and Rob.

I think some SERIOUS thought should be put into why so many clubs never bother to even host BE matches. Seems like the effort of buying steel targets is similar (or not??) to the hassles of turning targets.  There's some chicken-or-egg danger here, but fundamentally, you cannot develop junior shooters if there are no events for them to participate in.

That said, it sounds like those of you with functioning BE operations at local clubs are seeing declining numbers? Even if purely tracking demographic trends, that needs correction. Maybe that same thing (a carefully-chosen change or two) could also drive resuming BE Pistol in cities where it used to thrive in the 1950s and 60s with a *smaller* population, and also expand into new areas which have never seen even a club practice session.

The main reason why I have not ram-rodded BE Pistol in two of the three clubs I've been involved in leadership* is that every discussion left me as being the only guy willing to lift a finger to try it without any proper range setup (as in no turning targets).  The "all alone" factor was far stronger than the prospect of trying it out with static target frames.


____

*The third club was one Steve Badger and I started at BYU, and our "program" was to simply have a different discipline's type of shoot almost every month at some location usually within the geographic area where Administration prior approval of travel planning was not needed. The two years I was there, we just never got around to BE Pistol. 

We also kept BYU participating in the NCAA Smallbore Rifle Sectionals by taking over the team after the LIGHT Colonel in charge of Army ROTC scrubbed the team. Is there any other college ROTC building in the country *without* a smallbore range attached???

If it can be determined there are gains to be made by change(s) in the guns/course of fire we have the CF 900 where experimentation might be done.
Some 40 years ago the NRA decided the US was not competitive enough in Int shooting. I recall  clubs being informed of a new course of fire replacing the 2700's. It was to be a mix of .22 & .45 with Int thrown in between .22 & .45. I recall 90 shots .22 and  a NMC .45 In between was Int. the shots and course(s) not remembered. It was to be a 2100 (or 2400?).

It would have required new guns & equipment. It was apparently not well received as it kind of just went away. Our club's plans were to continue our 2700's and if need be calculate classes. All very undesirable of course but shows changes need a lot of open discussion and maybe trials.
 `

Here is a club that seems to have a good junior program that I thought would be a lot of fun:
http://juniorpistol.com/competition-camps/

..but Denny, I don't think the reason for poor junior participation in bullseye is because of a flaw in the sport of bullseye.

As a father of a teenager, I tried and tried to get my kid interested.  We both shot in weekly leagues until she got her work permit at age 13.  She was always more interested in school activities, friends, work, volleyball at school and at clubs....and on and on.  Every parent I know is carting their kids all over the place for extracurricular activities.  There are so many OTHER activities that kids are obligated to that compete with our sport.  All of those other activities are EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FIND AND PARTICIPATE IN THAN SHOOTING SPORTS.

I think the key to getting more participants has more to do with efforts to hold more matches and promote the matches--not change the matches.

Bob K wrote:
All of those other activities are EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FIND AND PARTICIPATE IN THAN SHOOTING SPORTS.

When the nearest range is a 20-minute drive away but the nearest "Conventional Pistol" league or facility capable of accommodating this sport is across the state and you pass near a dozen other ranges along the drive, could that be part of the "ease"?

These IPSC ranges with steel already set up semi-permanently and ready to go provide one of our clues, AFIAC.

I haven't looked--what's the cost for a "hobbyist" grade single-stand turning target? It could be IR-controlled. It could be wifi-hotspot-controlled from a smartphone app (range commands, indicator light, start prep time, "all ready on the firing line", turn and then flip back).

If we don't lose the turning targets, some Friends of NRA grants to put some such units -- one, two, or even five??? -- in some carefully-chosen ranges of both nonprofit club and commercial enterprise types could be part of the answer.

Keep the targets hard, make setup and participation easier.

"Points of distribution" is IMNSHO part of the problem and solution.

BTW, has anyone thought of making the electronic target systems have a turning or flip-up function???

Maybe on indoor applications, the target could be projected onto a cheesecloth "screen". Appear, disappear. Project the light around the "bull", dark background behind bull = it can get shot to pieces and still look black...nevermind, those hits in the white would need to be pasted. Maybe THAT's why those International aiming bulls on electronic targets are so huge...???

I agree that some changes have to be made and I think electronic scoring would be a good change. Other sports have vacated records before when moving to electronic scoring (Quick Draw immediately comes to mind). Also the ability to scale back on the number of volunteers will definitely benefit the behind the scenes work at big matches. I was astounded this year to find out that at the big trap shooting matches in Ohio the scorers are paid. Getting volunteers to help with anything nowadays is becoming more of a challenge every year. I do believe that getting matches to move faster will attract younger shooters. 

The other segment of new shooters that need to be addressed are the older shooters. Whether they are completely new or are coming back to the sport now that they have time. They want and need more comfortable shooting facilities.  Better huts and covered firing points. I can't be the only shooter who knows at least one person who does not shoot Perry or other matches because they aren't covered. Electronic scoring with a covered firing point would keep you relatively dry the whole match. Just think about that for a second. 

The two things that I feel this sport should never do away with is shooting with one hand and fifty yard slow fire. Anything else I would be open to try. 

Dennis, thank you so much for all the hard work you and your staff do for us. I can not imagine the challenges you face and the flak you receive but I am grateful there are people like you willing to do this.

Rob Kovach wrote:Here is a club that seems to have a good junior program that I thought would be a lot of fun:
http://juniorpistol.com/competition-camps/

..but Denny, I don't think the reason for poor junior participation in bullseye is because of a flaw in the sport of bullseye.

As a father of a teenager, I tried and tried to get my kid interested.  We both shot in weekly leagues until she got her work permit at age 13.  She was always more interested in school activities, friends, work, volleyball at school and at clubs....and on and on.  Every parent I know is carting their kids all over the place for extracurricular activities.  There are so many OTHER activities that kids are obligated to that compete with our sport.  All of those other activities are EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FIND AND PARTICIPATE IN THAN SHOOTING SPORTS.

I think the key to getting more participants has more to do with efforts to hold more matches and promote the matches--not change the matches.

I agree Rob - promotion of the sport to the general public is basically non existent. I found out about the sport purely by accident 16 months ago and I am in my 50's and life long gun owner & run & gun shooter.  After getting hooked and wanting to shoot  matches more then once a month locally I was surprised at the difficulty I encountered locating matches. Several Cub websites had not been updated in more than a year with a match schedule. 

Unfortunately my teenagers are in a similar situation as Robs - mine developed passions for other activities that they made a connection with because of something they saw on Social Media, TV, a friend does or something an older sibling does.  They are use to websites much better, more connected  and easier to navigate then the NRA website. My sons see the cool ads and Tv Programs that promote run and gun and product advertisement with pretty gals and buff guys from run & gun and are drawn to it. They ask to go shoot run and gun and only go to BE with dad because I ask. 

IMHO  the NRA needs to agressively promote more of the positive,  the shooting sports and bring more people in. Your much more likely to give generously of time and money to preserve something you are connected to.  IMHO there are millions of gun owners that will never contribute to the NRA or work at the local level because they lack a passion and connection to the NRA, NRA shooting sports in general, especially Bullseye. They need to try and be involved with Product manufactures and enter into AD spots/ campaigns that promote BE.  I appreciate the NRA but wonder if the current business model is not flawed .

I again want to reiterate that more pistol competitors are also NRA members than rifle shooters.  We should reap some of those revenue benefits.

There are tons of new shooters out there in the same situation as farm boy who just didn't know about bullseye matches.  The more competitors we can attract, the more families who can help and provide volunteers.  Volunteers relieves budgetary pressures.

Let's simply update the target controllers with iPads that run the mechanical drives.  The mechanical drives are easy to repair and replace.

Denny, if Camp Perry staff/volunteers costs are an issue, I have a shooter you need to talk to who has important feedback on poor treatment he was subjected to as a Camp Perry volunteer.  You can't get free help by treating your volunteers poorly.

Rob,
The costs of volunteers are not the only issue but certainly one that I would like to reduce.  Remember, it's your money that pays for them so I have to evaluate everything carefully because I do not wish to spend your money foolishly.

The electronic target issue is simply moving forward.  Years ago, hardly no one owned that suitcase size contraption called a mobile phone.  However, technology advanced and now virtually everyone can afford one.  If you can't, the government will give you one.

I see the same thing happening with electronic targets.  CMP is in negotiations with Kongsberg Target Systems of Norway for their new range near Talladega.  I spoke with Larry Carter the other day about electronic targets that he wants for a range in Maine.  Oakwood Controls of Pennsylvania has been supplying long range electronic targets to the Navy Seals for training.  In addition, Oakwood Controls has developed, in collaboration with the NRA,  a lower cost rifle system for club use.  Soon, like the cell phone, technology will catch up and electronic targets will become the norm.

In September 2013 I had occasion to visit Germany while attending the World Action Pistol Championship.  Every range that I visited was equipped with electronic targets, except the Action Pistol range, a sport that does not lend itself well to that format.  When I asked about the target system and how long it lasts, I was advised that most had been up and running for over 20 years.  If that is true, we are already 20 years behind the rest of the world.  Electronic targets are not new to the world, only to us.

Some of our sports are already using electronic targets; collegiate rifle, pistol, and air gun championships and the junior air gun championships are all fired on electronic targets.

My challenge is to either be on the forefront of this and lead the way, or relegate the NRA to another 50 years of 100 year old technology and be accused of always being behind the times.

It is very interesting to watch the discussion on this topic because I have never heard a single complaint from a smallbore shooter or a high power shooter on this issue.  The only resistance is coming from pistol.  I wonder why that is.

Denny,

First, Thank you for all your efforts on behalf of BE!

Why is BE the only resistor? Turning targets?  Are we just too d....d hidebound?

Ron

What ever system you go with, it seems like to get it implemented, time is running out. Slow as big bureaucracy's move what is the prediction? Another year of dealing with the broken down equipment or can and will the new system be ready in time for the nationals?

The reason the other disciplines aren't resistant is because none of those sports have 100 years shooting on turning targets.

Denny, How many times do we have to ask:
WHAT WILL BE THE SIGNAL TO START SHOOTING IF THESE TARGETS DON'T TURN?!?!

The normal thing is red/green lights mounted on the target frame. I'm thinking of adding a loud horn as well.

Some benefits of electronic targets:

1. No range alibis from cardboard backers blowing away.

2. All firing points would have the same view. Some turning targets are not always lined up with the firing point or do not turn all the way. This gives some shooters a view of the black ring before it turns. I have shot at some firing points where I could score my target before it turned and I have been at some where I could see no part of my target.

3. There is no uniformity to how fast targets turn at each range. Some turn fast and some turn so slow that you get extra time to line up your first shot. Electronic targets would eliminate this variable. 

4. Skidders would become extinct. Yep, I am calling this a benefit. Again depending on how fast a target at a given range turns, you are getting extra time. No matter how fast or slow the targets turn, you get either ten or twenty seconds of "face time" so technically a skidder shot happens after time has expired. Electronic targets would eliminate that and make sure that every shooter no matter at what range they are shooting at gets only ten or twenty seconds.

Here's an idea. 
Since we are so used to turning targets what if the lights worked like this:

At the end of the command "Ready on the firing line" the red light blinks once per second for two seconds and the green light turns on at the third second for firing to commence.

When three seconds remain in the string, the green light blinks once per second for each of the last three seconds then turns red. 

Just an idea that popped up.

I shot on electronic targets at last year's World Muzzle-Loading Championships in Germany, and they are a great idea...if they can be afforded.  Instant scoring, instant statistics, and no walking back and forth to score.

Using lights to fire/cease fire?  The Olympic Rapid Fire shooters have been doing that for about 20 years.  They've had no trouble.  

I would not add new classes.  Add new events.  Honestly, I might well tack on International Centerfire, Sport Pistol, and Standard Pistol - with a special division for optical sights.  Free Pistol, maybe.  Perhaps a NMC...shot with non-US military pistols.  The rifle shooters seem to be enjoying the side matches.

Just Say No to decimal scoring, though.

There is a definite need for a match-finder Web page.  I travel about 120 days per year.  Honestly, in the last 5 years, I've shot more BE matches in California than at home in Maryland.  And I constantly have to dig deep to find the matches.  It's as if the NRA were ashamed of competitive shooting.

And to be quite honest, the NRA needs to pay more attention to the precision shooting events in the major magazines.  Right now, Camp Perry might get a very brief article...everything else gets nothing at all.

I'll add one other thing...I suspect there are two problems bringing in new shooters.

First, there is the fact that 2/3rds of the current course of fire is centerfire - which from a practical perspective, means a .45.  If you don't reload, the CF and .45 portions will cost you $140 in ammunition - and not everybody has the time to reload.  Not to mention that many shooters, novices especially, don't shoot the .45 that well.  I think there is a strong case for rebalancing the course of fire.

Second, there is the fact that many people just can't shoot worth beans.  I see this at my own club, and I'm sure everybody else has seen it.  Basic skills are just not getting taught.  I'm doing what I can to teach, but it's an uphill fight.  Get people to the point where they have a reasonable chance to put 10 rounds to score in slow fire, and it's easier to get them to participate.

[quote="DirComp"]The normal thing is red/green lights mounted on the target frame. I'm thinking of adding a loud horn as well. [/quote

Maybe the horn can play Taps for the end of conventional pistol.

Dave C.

I really like Mike M's comments...makes sense to me.  Have we talked to local press to cover events?  I know they might say no 9 out of 10 times, but that one time???

Chip