Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: A few observations.

  1. #1
    John Bly is offline
    Team:
    5th Virginia Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    5109V
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Stephens City, VA
    Posts
    538
    Region:
    Potomac - Virginia, Maryland and Delaware

    A few observations.

    I was looking at the musket match results from the 140th Nat'ls and was surprised to see that there were only 29 B teams that competed. Of that 29 only 3 finished the pigeon board. There were 2 C teams and one finished the pigeon board. Other results were equaling interesting:

    42 A-1 teams with 28 finishing the pigeon board
    35 A-2 teams with 7 finishing the pigeon board.
    51 A-3 teams with none finishing the pigeon board

    That's a total of 159 teams with only 39 finishing the pigeon board for a 24.5% completion rate.
    Last edited by John Bly; 1 Week Ago at 12:25 PM. Reason: add musket match

  2. #2
    jonk is offline
    Team:
    Genl Wm T Sherman's Bodyguard
    Member
    12999
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,090
    Region:
    Midwest - Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana
    Interesting indeed!

    I suspect that a lot of the teams that didn't finish their boards were shooting short. We were able to get some pick ups. But even so, me and Ian Egbert accounted for 18 of the pigeons on our board. The rest of our A team just wasn't firing on all cylinders and the pick ups were, as might be expected, the worst shooters that the teams in question had to farm out. We were happy to have them! But I bet other teams who had a full line with pick ups were in a similar boat.

    We DID finish our board with 11 whole seconds remaining. I went 9 shots for 11, I think Ian had 9 for 14 (he is pretty fast on loading). Everyone else went somewhere between 1 for 9 and 5 for 12.

    It's an interesting statistic for those making the argument that we should drop down to 5 or 6 man teams or whatever. I personally don't think we're there quite yet, there are some other options we could consider first.

    As a final thought... the light was... strange. Sunny, cloudy, rainy... all of which move point of impact.

  3. #3
    PapaRob is offline
    Team:
    48th Virginia Infantry
    Member
    10407V
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Winchester, VA
    Posts
    179
    Region:
    Central Virginia - Virginia and North Carolina
    Interesting observations indeed. The 48th had 1 full A team in carbine and musket and a short carbine B team and were short 3 on musket but managed to be aided by two pickups. Revolver we had two full teams. Of course we were short on long gun shooters because 3 members had serious illness/family situations going on so we should have had two full teams for each event but life happens. So we don?t have much in the way of an excuse for our poor performance on the firing line except being newbies and in that I saw definate improvement. It?s a process, not an event. My officers and I figure as they mature in their overall skirmishing knowledge they will get better. Of course that leaves us legacy members in our unit with fewer excuses for how badly we shot...lol

    As to dropping team sizes down to 5 at Nationals. I concur that we aren?t there yet but I do think it speaks to every team needing to be less complacent and put more focus on recruiting. A LOT more focus. The 48th signed one up for certain this weekend and has two more with the hook fully set so by next year we hope to have 3 more full members.

    The answer? Don?t lower the standards. It?s time we get off our comfortable @sses and hit the bricks and get recruits. Yeah it?s work, no doubt, but the people who will respond are out there you just have to beat a lot more bushes these days to find them is all. I?m somewhat of a Darwinist when it comes to units surviving...those that want to grow will grow those that are too complacent will eventually fade away.

    Just my .02 which is just about what it?s worth.
    R. Harrison
    Commander
    48th Virginia Infantry
    "Mountain Boomers"
    PSALMS 144 1-9

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Rock Hill, South Carolina
    Posts
    934
    Region:
    Carolina - North Carolina and South Carolina
    I understand the Board is looking at these statistics over the last few years. The topic is being given serious examination...
    Mike 'Bootsie' Bodner
    Palmetto Sharpshooter's, Commander
    9996V

  5. #5
    PapaRob is offline
    Team:
    48th Virginia Infantry
    Member
    10407V
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Winchester, VA
    Posts
    179
    Region:
    Central Virginia - Virginia and North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Bodner View Post
    I understand the Board is looking at these statistics over the last few years. The topic is being given serious examination...
    One thing that hasn't been thought of that I know of is that at a certain point for larger units if teams are at the 5 man level it becomes cost prohibitive for team entries...if you have 24 shooting members then you have to enter 5 teams instead of 3 so your guys can shoot with their unit. That would correspondingly increase the cost per member on a yearly basis if the team entry costs stay at their current levels. Will they do that? probably, but that just hurts you in the recruiting end by adding more of a pain threshold for new guys to overcome to get into it.

    Something to consider is all...
    R. Harrison
    Commander
    48th Virginia Infantry
    "Mountain Boomers"
    PSALMS 144 1-9

  6. #6
    Lou Lou Lou is offline
    Team:
    Tammany Regiment, 42nd New York
    Member
    4869
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Lung Island, New Yawk
    Posts
    1,508
    Region:
    New England - New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts
    There is a logical fallacy in the argument. Dropping to 5 person teams doesn't magically clear the pigeon board. Odds are more 5 person teams wont finish. Most teams have one or two strong shooters. Now all the bottom 3 shooters will be alone to founder . That WILL end the organization. $0.02
    Lou Lou Lou Ruggiero
    Tammany Regt-42nd NYVI

  7. #7
    John Holland is offline Moderator
    Team:
    44th NY Volunteer Infantry
    Member
    00973V
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    2,577
    Region:
    Northeast- New York
    I had already made the same observations that John Bly has noted. I have a different thought as how to approach this problem. Rather than reduce the number of competitors, reduce the number of targets! Why not make the Bird Board 3 Birds per man, with the 50 yard events reduced to 14, and the 100 yard to 9 targets? The same teams that are always in the "Top Ten" will still be at the top of the list. This will accomplish a couple of things, first of which is a few more teams will actually finish the Bird Board, which will keep them coming back. But, more importantly is the N-SSA will save hundreds of dollars in the money spent annually on target materials if all targeting is reduced by just a few targets per event. Keep the team fees the same as they are now, which is added income versus the savings per event in targeting materials. In the end the N-SSA will reap the benefits of less cost for annual targeting, and the teams that win now will be the same teams that still win.

    This proposal has already been addressed at a National Board of Directors Meeting, and you should have been there...."Oh, the horror of it all.....we can't do that!!!" I think it is time to reconsider this at another Board Meeting.

    John Holland, Skirmisher

  8. #8
    P.Altland is offline
    Team:
    21st Virginia Infantry - Maryland Guard
    Member
    12085V
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    York, PA
    Posts
    492
    Region:
    Chesapeake - Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by John Holland View Post
    I had already made the same observations that John Bly has noted. I have a different thought as how to approach this problem. Rather than reduce the number of competitors, reduce the number of targets! Why not make the Bird Board 3 Birds per man, with the 50 yard events reduced to 14, and the 100 yard to 9 targets? The same teams that are always in the "Top Ten" will still be at the top of the list. This will accomplish a couple of things, first of which is a few more teams will actually finish the Bird Board, which will keep them coming back. But, more importantly is the N-SSA will save hundreds of dollars in the money spent annually on target materials if all targeting is reduced by just a few targets per event. Keep the team fees the same as they are now, which is added income versus the savings per event in targeting materials. In the end the N-SSA will reap the benefits of less cost for annual targeting, and the teams that win now will be the same teams that still win.

    This proposal has already been addressed at a National Board of Directors Meeting, and you should have been there...."Oh, the horror of it all.....we can't do that!!!" I think it is time to reconsider this at another Board Meeting.

    John Holland, Skirmisher
    Why is it that every proposal is to save the Organization money, yet none are to save the membership any money? Reduce the medal count, reduce the target count, use cheaper individual targets, replace the pots.....on and on.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Paul Altland
    21st Va. Md Guard Co. B

  9. #9
    PapaRob is offline
    Team:
    48th Virginia Infantry
    Member
    10407V
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Winchester, VA
    Posts
    179
    Region:
    Central Virginia - Virginia and North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by John Holland View Post
    I had already made the same observations that John Bly has noted. I have a different thought as how to approach this problem. Rather than reduce the number of competitors, reduce the number of targets! Why not make the Bird Board 3 Birds per man, with the 50 yard events reduced to 14, and the 100 yard to 9 targets? The same teams that are always in the "Top Ten" will still be at the top of the list. This will accomplish a couple of things, first of which is a few more teams will actually finish the Bird Board, which will keep them coming back. But, more importantly is the N-SSA will save hundreds of dollars in the money spent annually on target materials if all targeting is reduced by just a few targets per event. Keep the team fees the same as they are now, which is added income versus the savings per event in targeting materials. In the end the N-SSA will reap the benefits of less cost for annual targeting, and the teams that win now will be the same teams that still win.

    This proposal has already been addressed at a National Board of Directors Meeting, and you should have been there...."Oh, the horror of it all.....we can't do that!!!" I think it is time to reconsider this at another Board Meeting.

    John Holland, Skirmisher
    John, I respect you and know that you are a very knowledgeable man and I can see where you are coming from with this take on it...tantalizing as it might sound initially, my response to it would be "Practice and get better with your marksmanship if you want to clear the board.". Those that want to get better, will get better, if they have the Will to do so. Reducing the number of targets so we can all "feel good" sort of smells of the "participation trophy" mindset. Is that who we are or what we want to be??? I think to make this move would be detrimental to our entire subculture in the long term. Recognize that I say this without my team ever having cleared a pigeon board since our inception.

    Again, Just my .02
    R. Harrison
    Commander
    48th Virginia Infantry
    "Mountain Boomers"
    PSALMS 144 1-9

  10. #10
    MR. GADGET's Avatar
    MR. GADGET is offline Moderator
    Team:
    Rowan Artillery
    Member
    11873V
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    1,309
    Region:
    Tidewater - Virginia and North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by P.Altland View Post
    Why is it that every proposal is to save the Organization money, yet none are to save the membership any money? Reduce the medal count, reduce the target count, use cheaper individual targets, replace the pots.....on and on.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Paul
    I would say it is for say reducing the cost.

    It is like this, all the costs are going up. Just look at the cost of food and added items to get to a Nationals.
    Its like this, my feel is they are saving the shooter money. Easy fix with added costs is to charve the shooter. What they are lookinv to do is save the shooter money by not raising dues as needed but cut costs in other ways by looking at the big picture. That is maybe cutting targets or medals along with other extras.


    So it is up dues or lower costs so there is no need to raise the dues.
    MR. GADGET
    NRA LIFE BENEFACTOR MEMBER
    Rowan Artillery


    Just remember!
    When a pot needs stirring, someone needs to do it...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •