Last edited by Clusterfrack; 09-10-2018 at 07:07 PM.
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Agreed, big time.
-
I think hit factor is a great way to score, calculator impracticality notwithstanding. Just use tight targets and/or harsh points to get the result tweaked the way we want. Open ended for time is great. Par times can be great too but for some people and pars it's a blunt instrument for measurement. Highest hit factor represents pure aggression. That's a thing but far from the only thing. I wouldn't want to not have "all out" as a mode. It's probably worse by a lot for that to be the only mode.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Still learning a lot and I like the idea of a hit factor on some of my training.
Are there certain drills that lend themselves to H/F more than others? Certain targets?
This country needs an enema- Blues approved sig line
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
Shabbat shalom, motherf***ers! --Mordechai Jefferson Carver
Probably because no matter the target size, small, big, in between, there is some absolute value in hitting "A" in some situations vs just a relative (to a time) number of points collected in a simple hit factor measurements. In other words, some targets / practice situations must be scored as binary first, and then they can be scored in HF assuming the binary value is 1.
In simple words and as already pointed out several pages ago, in some practice situations your hit factor is zero if you don't hit at least one A (FTN).
Last edited by YVK; 09-10-2018 at 08:58 PM.
Doesn't read posts longer than two paragraphs.
Let’s consider a hypothetical drill requiring two hits to a 3x5 at 25 yards.
Plan A is a fixed four second par time.
Shooter 1 misses in three seconds and fails.
Shooter 2 misses in six seconds and fails.
Shooter 3 hits in two seconds and passes.
Shooter 4 hits in 3.99 seconds and passes.
Shooter 5 hits in 4.01 seconds and fails.
Shooter 6 hits in 12.00 and fails.
Plan B is hit factor scoring where each hit is 5 points and a miss is -10 points.
Shooter 1 misses in three seconds and has a hit factor of zero.
Shooter 2 misses in six seconds and has a hit factor of zero.
Shooter 3 hits in two seconds and has a hit factor of 5.0 (10 points divided by 2 seconds).
Shooter 4 hits in 3.99 and has a hit factor of 2.506
Shooter 5 hits in 4.01 and has a hit factor of 2.4937
Shooter six hits in 12.0 seconds and has a hit factor of .8333
Doesn’t the hit factor scoring better reflect the differences between the various shooters’ performances?
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
That's why you'll never make the big time, kid. *puts gaymer jersey over shoulder, slowly walks out of stadium hall*
For the rest of you:
https://www.amazon.com/Womens-Tigher...70_&dpSrc=srch
https://www.amazon.com/Oreo-Double-C...lk+oreos&psc=1
Semper Gumby, Always Flexible
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com
Something I've always really liked about Tom Givens' Rangemaster Handgun Core Skills Test is that it uses hit factor scoring.
Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
Lord of the Food Court
http://www.gabewhitetraining.com