Incremental Progress - Evaluating the Risks
by Germán A. Salazar
Every shooter wants to get better - that's a fundamental tenet of competitive shooting. Yet, there comes a time at which progress seems to slow despite great effort expended; when a series of seemingly good ideas result only in a series of disastrous scores. This is frustrating at any level, but more so when the shooter considers himself well accomplished. All too often I see people making changes just for the sake of change without a clear analysis of the expected gains, the potential risks and the expected outcome or even a basis for measuring gains and losses. It all takes planning! I've seen quite a bit of this over the years and offer some thoughts here to those who are at that point.
Moving On Up
There are volumes written on how to develop the basic skills that move you up the ladder. For the entry level to intermediate shooters, I always recommend the CMP's
Service Rifle Guide and
International Rifle Guide, a pair of well written basic manuals. There are many more books, of course, as well as individual coaching and advice from your fellow club members. My intention here is not to discuss those things at all, but rather to describe how someone already at the High Master level or trying to find the last few points to reach it might pursue further progress. There is actually very little that is written about this, the target audience being somewhat narrow, but I hope that this illuminates a bit for those entering that classification.
The NRA
classification system is very useful in measuring progress as one enters the sport. Earning each successive classification level requires scores averaging above a specified percentage of the possible for a number of consecutive matches. When that day arrives and the NRA send you the coveted High Master card the the American Highpower Rifleman certificate (do they still send those?) has the struggle ended? In reality, it has just begun.
The minimum percentage required to obtain a High Master classification is 98.5% for Mid-Range (591/600) and 97% for Long-Range (582/600). I don't mean to minimize the effort required to initially get to those levels, but the cold, hard fact is that in a competitive club, those scores won't be near the top of the results bulletin. Most High Masters have well developed physical and mental techniques and their focus tends to be on the technical (equipment) side. That isn't to say that the physical and mental aspects can be ignored; in fact, many of the same analytical techniques described here apply to those areas. To get to the upper level of the class, by which I mean someone who regularly shoots at or above 595/600 in Mid-Range matches and rarely shoots below 591/600 in Long-Range matches, serious effort is required of the new High Master. My approach to dealing with the problems shooters encounter in reaching that level is the subject of this article.
Keeping Track
The first task is tracking your scores effectively - there is no substitute for hard data. We're very fortunate in Phoenix to have about 100 prone Highpower match days per year, spread among three locations. Between work days and match conflicts, I usually fire about 75 of those each year. There is also a good amount of Smallbore, but I'll leave that out for the moment. I maintain a score-tracking spreadsheet, it is divided into three main sections: Mid-Range, Long-Range and Palma. Each page is a chronological record of matches fired, broken down by date, location, cartridge used, stage score and X count, match aggregate, three match running aggregate and calendar year running aggregate. This is the essential data that you will use to measure progress; without it you are simply guessing and most guesswork is optimistic.
Looking at my Mid-Range database (most of our matches are mid-range), I find that my average score in 2009 was a 596-34X and so far in 2010 it is a 596-33X. A drop of one X in the average isn't too bad considering that 2010 has been a year of plenty of experimentation, not all good, and I count all scores in the average. That consistency in the long-run data is actually the key to evaluating experiments. If your scores fluctuate significantly, the value of a change will be much more difficult to ascertain. Our matches are 100% iron sights; if your cub allows scopes (I shudder at the very word), those two types of scores should be separated for clearer analysis.
You can break the scores out in all sorts of ways once you have the data. For instance, over the past two years, my average with a 6BR is 597-38, with the 6XC it's 597-36, with the .308 it's 597-36 and with the .30-06 it's 595-31. The .30-06's average score is held down a bit by all the experimentation I do with it, but what really stands out to me is that I don't particularly do any better with the 6mm's than with the .30 caliber - that's good to know, it helps me make decisions.
To be clear, the average score is used for analytical purposes; raising the average score is not particularly the goal - winning significant matches is the goal. Small club matches are where the experimentation takes place, where chances can be taken on unproven equipment or techniques. The average may suffer a bit, but when the big match arrives, you'll be properly prepared.
The Awful Truth
If you don't already know it, you should:
at this level, it's a lot easier to lose points from your score than to add them. That bit of reality should guide your decision making process; think of it as Risk Management for Highpower. Every potential change to your equipment or procedures should be analyzed in terms of potential damage it can do to your score far more than the potential gains it might produce - the downside risk is always larger!
If you intend to win big matches, you simply can't afford to take big risks with your equipment. Every high level competitor has top quality equipment and access to the same components and gunsmiths. If you think there's a magic bullet, or cartridge, or anything that will make you a winner, think again. Winning against equally good competition is a matter of having perfect equipment and refining every element of the equipment and of your entire shooting system to eliminate the possibility of total failure (rifle breakdown, bullet blow-up) that will take you out of contention and to minimize the possibility of small failures (missed windage adjustment, poor shot execution, hurried preparation) that will slowly erode your score until you're well away from the top of the list.
What's Your Problem?
When you consider making a modification to your system, whether it's the rifle, the ammunition, your position, or anything else, ask yourself four questions:
1. What specific problem am I trying to solve? Give a detailed description of your specific problem and the proposed change.
2. What risks of failure (large and small) does this change present?
3. What possible improvement does this change offer and how will I measure it?
4. Is there an alternative approach that entails less risk of failure?
I really recommend writing your answers down on paper and saving them. Do this before you change anything. That little exercise will do two things for you: it will force you to clearly develop your plan and it will keep you from changing your criteria of success to match the results obtained. Write it down.
By the way, "I need more points" is not a specific problem. You should be able to articulate the specific element of performance that from time to time is less than optimal and is the cause of lost points.
A Few Examples
Let's look at a few potential changes that I've evaluated over the past few years. I'll give you my analysis based on the risk assessment and how I decided whether to test or not test a certain change. I'm not picking the specific examples as especially good or bad, these are simply used to show the method of analysis. In that same time frame I evaluated many small variations in loads, new bullets, new barrels and more, all with the average score database as the frame of reference.
1. Small primer .308 brass. What's the downside? Potential ignition trouble - hangfires, misfires and erratic ignition. Any of these can cause you to lose a match in one shot. What's the potential upside? According to its promoters, reduced elevation dispersion at 1000 yards. Do I have this problem? No, my Palma ammo is just fine. Worth testing? Sure, it's a relatively low expense, testing is simple enough and if it's somehow amazing, we'll consider how to minimize the risks.
My testing showed no improvement over my regular brass at 1000 yards, at 500 I found a decrease in accuracy. No gain and potential for failure in cool weather (our LR season in Arizona). Decision? Limited testing was enough, not worth pursuing further. Alternatives? Reasonable amount of primer testing with standard brass produces loads with excellent 1000 yard elevation dispersion and no ignition performance risk.
2. Bloop Tubes for Highpower. What's the downside? Tube flies off in the middle of a match, no possibility of reattaching without loss of zero, the match is lost. What's the potential upside? Slight improvement in clarity of sight picture. Do I have this problem? Sure, anyone my age, with less than perfect vision can use a sharper sight picture. Worth testing? No. Too complex to develop a system that is failure-proof, I've seen many of these fail in matches. Highpower rifles simply have a lot of muzzle blast, recoil and vibration compared to a Smallbore rifle and the tube's coupling to the barrel is just not adequate. Alternatives? Work with
front or rear lens arrangements, get good shooting glasses with your prescription custom ground and use as long a barrel as you can without compromising the integrity of your position.
3. Driving 6mm bullets to 3300 fps. What's the downside? Bullet failure, zero score for the shot, lost match, very reduced barrel life. What's the potential upside? Reduction in wind drift of about 1 moa in a 10 mph wind at 1000 yards. That boils down to 1/4 moa in a 2.5 mph change which is about the magnitude of a change you might miss while aiming. Do I have this problem? No, frankly, I read the wind well, that's what makes me competitive in big matches. Is 1/4 moa worth risking a blown-up bullet? Hell no! The 10 ring is 2 moa wide, there's plenty of room in there to place the bullet in a safe spot if you know what you're doing. When I tested
RL17 powder, I was able to get that velocity from the 6XC. However, other than the testing and one match on a relatively new barrel (safest bet for high MV) I never shot that again - it just isn't worth the risk. Now, two years later I keep hearing people talk about various .243 based wildcats to shoot the 105 - 107 bullets at 3300 fps - crazy! Alternative? Put in the time to develop wind reading skills to a high degree, learn to understand the wind's tendencies and how to take safe shots.
4. Switching to a two-stage trigger. What's the downside? Slight possibility of score reduction, but no potential for total loss of score. What's the potential upside? Greater degree of control, especially in cold weather, leading to increased scores in our big matches which are all in the winter months. Do I have this problem? Yes, in our winter matches, when the temperature is in the 40's or 50's and windy, I have had trouble with trigger control on single-stage triggers as my finger stiffens up under those conditions. Worth testing? Sure, the cost is relatively low and installation simple and reversible if needed. Over the course of two years, I tested and ultimately adopted the
X-Treme two-stage trigger as my standard; it helped solve my problem in the cold weather matches. It took a while to really learn to
adjust the trigger, but the result was worthwhile.
5. Switching to
Tubegun stocks. What's the downside? Total lack of initial familiarity, potential for reduction in score, but no potential for total loss of score, high cost of building complete new rifle to test concept. What's the potential upside? Better ergonomics leading to better scores after period of adjustment. Faster delivery time than conventional stocks. Do I have this problem? Yes, I can no longer wait as long as conventional stock makers take and I'm always willing to seek out a more comfortable stock fit. Despite the cost, I had one built a couple of years ago. My only surprise was how quickly I adapted to it and saw an almost immediate improvement in consistency of my scores. With more effort and familiarity, my scores began to climb. In one six week period this fall, I shot mid-range scores of 600-42, 600-41 and 599-41 with the .308 tubegun and then a 599-41 with the .30-06 tubegun. The effort and expense have paid off, scores above 598 were less frequent with conventional stocks in any caliber and definitely less frequent with the .30 caliber cartridges.
System Analysis
Apart from failing to analyze risk, another common mistake that many shooters make is failing to understand that we are working with a system, not with isolated components or techniques. When part of one system is grafted onto another system, the results are often less than optimal. I think we can all agree that attempting to chamber a .30-06 cartridge in a rifle with a barrel chambered for a .308 just won't work - that's easy enough. However, there are many equally incompatible system elements that go be unperceived and the attempt to combine them leads to failure.
The combination of shooting technique and wind reading technique are good examples of the systems approach. My good friend Doug Frerichs and I shoot virtually identical scores in mid-range matches, usually a point or a handful of X's is all that separates us and more than once we have tied right down to the last X. However, Doug and I take completely different approaches to how we shoot and how we read the wind.
Doug dismounts the rifle on every shot, carefully looks at all wind indicators, rebuilds his position, makes a sight adjustment, aims and fires; he is often the last person to finish a relay as his system is very slow (but effective). On the other hand, I never take the rifle out of my shoulder, I quickly look at flags and mirage but mostly look at the last shot's placement, I make a quick decision, adjust the sight and shoot. My face doesn't even come off the cheekpiece because I set the spotting scope up very close to my eye. This works well for me at mid-range, I shoot very fast and am often the first person finished on a relay. At that point, I'll wander over to see Doug on about his 7th shot of the string. My system is based on the relative change in the wind from shot to shot, Doug's is based on the absolute value of the wind at any given moment - he is the master of his system and I of mine.
Now, if someone were to adopt Doug's wind reading technique, but leave the rifle in the shoulder like I do, he had better be built like Charles Atlas! Chances are good he'd be physically worn out long before the 20th shot. On the other hand, if a shooter who shoots slowly and dismounts the rifle tries to use my wind reading method, he will shoot a lot of 9's or worse, because my technique relies on the simple fact that in most mid-range matches, the wind changes in a relatively predictable fashion, and if you're quick, you can keep up with it with only a click or two between shots. I rarely take a shot without clicking the windage knob, it scares me to leave it alone because the wind never rests.
The new shooter who runs around the clubhouse getting a bit of advice from each top shooter thinking he will turn this mélange into a successful system of his own is really kidding himself. Each of those top shooters has a well-integrated system and picking bits of each one will not give a very satisfactory outcome. Find a mentor who will put up with you and stick with him; buy him lunch now and then and try not to be a nuisance during the match.
Cartridge choice is another example of the systems approach. If you want to shoot a 6.5-284 or 7mm Magnum for your long-range cartridge, you are committing to frequent barrel replacements. There's no two ways about it if you expect to shoot competitive scores. As the barrels on these cartridges approach 1000 rounds, you can expect not only a loss of accuracy, but relatively frequent bullet blow-ups from the damage done by the rough throat as the bullet engraves into the rifling. That's an unacceptable risk to me, and the main reason why I prefer "low-risk" cartridges like the .308, .30-06 and 6XC - although the 6XC is higher risk than the .30 caliber cartridges.
If you talk to the top shooters who use the high-risk cartridges, you'll find that they either chamber their own barrels or have multiple barrels chambered at one time by their gunsmith. Otherwise, the downtime required to have a gunsmith chamber a new barrel in the middle of the season will essentially end your season. Don't get into a barrel burning cartridge if you aren't prepared to support that type of system. My preference is to avoid those and really focus on wind reading skills instead; hence, my love of Palma shooting where everyone has to shoot the .308 and wind reading skills are at a premium. Make sure your cartridge choice fits your skill set - now, if you happen to have well developed gunsmithing skills and wind reading skills, you'll be tough to beat!
Conclusion
I hope that this article gives you some food for thought. As you consider changes to your system, ask and answer these four fundamental questions:
1. What specific problem am I trying to solve?
2. What risks of failure (large and small) does this change present?
3. What possible improvement does this change offer and how will I measure it?
4. Is there an alternative approach that entails less risk of failure?
Finally, consider each element's contribution to the success of the system as well as it's integration into your particular system. Find those areas that can stand improvement and attack them relentlessly until they are as good as you can make them, then move on to the next area. Constant attention to detail and refinement of each essential element in your system will help you to gain and maintain those last few points without an unacceptable risk of loss of the score level that has already been attained.
This stage had the best conditions of the match, it was cool but not cold, the wind was very low, no more than 2 or 3 moa and the sun was out nicely. I got a bit anxious and went for record after just three sighters, resulting in 9's for my first two shots. A little later in the string, I had two more 9's, both vertical as I was getting some pulse, still a bit of anxiety. In the end, my 196-6X was disappointing because the conditions were there for a better score. Only one 200 was fired, a 200-12X by Eddie Newman, captain of the US Veteran's Team. The missed opportunity weighed on me as I waited over two hours before my relay came up to shoot again. Photo: Germán scoring John Lowther.
The rain hit hard and after a long delay and a couple of attempts to restart the match which were scrubbed as rain showers came back, the last stage of the match was cancelled and the aggregate completed at 1000 points. About ten of us made our way up to our usual post-match pizza place and warmed up with good food and companionship. Photo: Rain falling on Sunday morning
Fred Filkins, our line officer at all state matches. Fred is a Double Distinguished Marine and was a mainstay of the Marine Corp pistol team in the 1950's and 1960's. If you ever want to be entertained at a match, just wake Fred up, remind him that the prep time should have ended a few minutes ago and then let him get rolling with a few sea stories.
Jim Cobb, a great Palma shooter who had a bit of hard luck during the rain, but he'll be one to watch at next month's Palma State Championship. Jim's missing a few matches this season as he goes back and forth to Pennsylvania to see his son's college football games, but never count him out!
Darren Sucato who proves there's life after F-Class. Darren was our club's top F-Open shooter for a couple of years and is now shooting from the sling. Like most of us, Darren shoots an Eliseo tubegun although he was shooting John's rifle today, but that's another story!
John Lowther and Oliver Milanovic behind the firing line. Oliver fired his final string today, drove across town to his volunteer job with a kid's organization, drove the kids to their event, met us for pizza and then went back for the kids. He never slows down! John provided dry and secure storage for some out-of-town shooters' equipment for the next couple of weeks. They'll be back for the Palma championship and this will save them the hassle of flying it all back and forth. John's checking out how to list things for sale online... :^)
Ken Nelson, who for some unknown reason, after decades of great shooting, visited Bruno's a couple of weeks ago and came home with that thing on top of his rifle. Well, he took High Canadian honors, but the competition was a bit thin, he could have done it with irons. In all seriousness, Ken is a wonderful person, a friend to all and a great addition to our group in the winter season.
Mike Toliver who runs all the matches at the Rio Salado Sportsman's Club. Mike shoots a .260 Rem. tubegun. I think Mike's scores in this match will just push him into the High Master class - now the work really begins!
Jim Denovcheck from Tucson with a BIG Unertl 2" scope on his Winchester Model 70. That's a lot of glass there!
It looks like a crime scene photo, but only the scores were murdered, the shooter survived. Look at the outline of the shoe, was that one of Santa's elves on that mat?
What could be better than a weekend in the company of friends, shooting 1000 yards with a 104 year old cartridge and keeping up with the new stuff! I had a great time and hopefully we'll inspire someone else to give it a try.
Normally I use a 3.6 mm aperture for 600 yards; the purpose of evaluating the 3.5 mm and 3.8 mm was more to judge the usefulness of their respective filter colors as I didn't have a fixed 3.6 mm available. The 3.5 felt too tight around the bull from the first shot; I was hesitant in breaking the shot. Despite well-centered sighters, the first two record shots were 9's in calm conditions and within a few more shots I was ready to remove that thing! However, in the interest of conducting a fair test, I left it on and did my best, but a 196-09X in good conditions was really terrible and I was glad when the string was over. The bronze tint was too dark for my liking, forcing me to take extra time to ensure I was on my own target and the 3.5 mm aperture simply felt too small and created some elevation problems as a tight aperture always does for me. I was glad to be done with that portion of the test.
Just a few notes here that didn't warrant a new article. As you can see in the picture above of the brass as it was being turned, the necks on the WCC 55 brass were not cleaning up 100% with the cutter set at my usual 0.0125" thickness. Despite some misgivings about leaving some neck thickness variance, I completed the set with that dimension as the maximum; the thin sides were mostly in the range of 0.0118" yielding leass than 0.001" variance - not much, but more than I prefer. My plan was to shoot the brass in yesterday's 500 yard match and if the results weren't satisfactory, then re-evaluate whether to turn the necks further or set the brass aside for another project.
Sunday, October 31 was the 1000 yard match and my first chance to try the Berger 190 VLD's from the .30-06. Along with trying those higher BC bullets, I also made a change to the front sight. Having previously installed the 30mm Centra Goliath on the .308 rifle in order to try the donut filters, I wanted to follow suit with the .30-06. Scott Riles, who makes the 22mm sights I normally use also makes a 30 mm version. What I found especially interesting is that the 30mm will fit the same base as the 22mm so all I needed to do was buy the upper portion. I am very pleased with the Centra sight, but I also like Scott's work and am glad to have one of each now. I think both of these sights are top quality and you will be pleased with either one.
The idea almost worked perfectly, but not quite. Although we usually don't think about it, we are actually looking through our front sight at a slight angle - that's why I prefer to avoid hoods and shades on my sights. What this means, in terms of this experiment, is that the ring on the aperture in the front of the sight did not appear to be perfectly aligned with the adjustable iris in the rear of the sight. This created the appearance of an eccentric ring around the aperture itself and was very distracting. I struggled to break the trigger because my mind couldn't accept that eccentric view as a good, well centered sight picture, making my trigger finger hesitate. After losing four points in the first seven shots while falling behing a quickly changing wind, I removed the 3.8mm aperture/filter and finished the string with just the adjustable iris in place without dropping any additional points. Shooting the Sierra 190 gr. MatchKings in that string, the score was 196-7X with all of the X's coming after the seventh shot when I made the change. The Sierra bullets shot well, however the "quick fix" of using the 3.8mm aperture as a filter was a failure. I'll ask Art for a true filter with a slightly smaller hole.
In my earlier articles about checking cases for case wall thickness variance using the NECO/Audette tool, I've mentioned that the cases are marked to indicate their thin side. When shooting a match, I do my best to load the cartridge with the index mark pointing up so that on closing the bolt, the thin side will be backed up by a locking lug, minimizing the barrel whip caused when the case bends. When the thin side is at the 3:00 or 9:00 position, the shot will tend to go out in that direction. That relationship was well established by Creighton Audette and I have duplicated those tests to my satisfaction.
That was an important result because it meant I could loosen my acceptance standard for wall thickness variance a bit. If the case rotated and thus ended up somewhat randomly, I would have kept the selection criteria very tight, no more than 0.002" variance. Having seen that the cartridge didn't rotate, however, I was able to set 0.003" as the rejection criteria for mid-range brass, although I stick to 0.002" maximum variance for long-range brass.
To give you a good look at the results, I made a small red mark at my best estimate of the center of the ejector mark on each case where I could see an ejector mark. There was a bit of judgment as the ejector mark was often not very prominent and in some cases there was no mark at all. The picture of the case heads can be enlarged by clicking. I think you'll agree with me that while the process isn't perfect, the results are better than random insertion. 
