Latest book

[Graham Mincham]

[b]Additional comments on this edition:[/b]

Firstly, I have changed my internet provider and email address as shown below.

I would note that this work is the culmination of my personal shooting and professional engineering experience. The first publication was in 2004 with the guidance of Australian scientists. Since then there have also been individual contributions from engineering and shooting colleagues.

This is not a commercial publication. As a qualified shooting coach I do this to help shooters improve their shooting. I research, print, assemble and post the books myself and simply try to cover my costs.

I also take the opportunity to update this notice and bring to your attention other new information covered in this last edition.

1. Larger Book. The primary reason there is more data in this last edition is that more cartridge/projectiles are included for both F-Open and particularly in the Sporter discipline, where I have tried to cover all of the commercially available sporter cartridges. This also includes the latest new cartridges such as the 6.5mm/7mm PRC’s and the 7mm SAUM.

These upgrades now offer the competition shooter more cartridge/projectile options for choosing the best ballistic performance.

2. Scoring System Debate. In Book 1, I make a comparison of all the cartridge/projectile contenders in each discipline, in order from best to worst, with respect to 10mph wind deflection at 1,000 yards on the ICFRA target and also scores based on 1, 2 and 3MPH wind reading errors. I choose the 1,000 yard target as this is the most difficult range both technically and humanly to satisfy.

To enable this I use an extremely credible computer technique (taught to me by our Australian Defence scientists) that predicts where each shot will fall on the target. By superimposing these shots on an ICFRA target we get a list of the number of shots in each scoring ring. Then it is simply a matter of using the scoring system to calculate the total score. The more shots in the smaller rings of the ICFRA target the higher the score.

The first point to make is this: Whatever the scoring system, shooters attending major overseas competitions or particularly shooters representing Australia in an International competition will be competing under the International scoring system.

So if we have to compete under a 5 ring scoring system in any serious overseas shooting competition, then why shouldn’t we practice on that system when in Australia? My guess is that is the reason for the NRAA’s thinking on changing our scoring system to align with the rest of the shooting world.

My intention, however, was not about that. I was simply trying to establish what scoring system/s to use to best make a relative comparison of the cartridge/projectiles in each shooting discipline. I did not expect the outcome explained below.

Initially I prepared different Annexes for both the International 5 ring and Australian 6 ring scoring systems, but abandoned that after I was surprised to see that it did not matter what scoring system was used, because it did not change the relative order of the various cartridges/projectiles that are listed in the comparative results.

In hindsight, the reason for this was quite simple. When comparing results of different scoring systems, we are comparing the same number of hits in each scoring ring of the ICFRA target. What the number of hits in each scoring ring of the ICFRA target is really doing is determining the total number of points lost. The same hits in each scoring ring of the ICFRA target also results in the same number of points lost with any scoring system. The same number of points lost with any scoring system therefore means no change of the comparative results.

I thought initially that different tables for the comparison of cartridges/projectiles would also be needed for the different scoring systems. This above observation reduced the complexity of presenting results. So I ended up using the International 5 ring scoring system.

However, this observation also means that any scoring system will produce the same order of completion for all shooters in any competition.

This is because in comparison with other shooters over an entire competition, it is the total number of shots in the various scoring rings of the ICFRA target that determines the total number of points that have been lost. When scored by any scoring system this results in the same number of points lost and therefore the same final order of shooters from best to worst.

There are other complications as well. For example, we have different size targets at different ranges and sometimes larger alternative targets at the same range. Generally the same ring size is proportional with range. This results in a different numbers of rings that can be placed on the targets, with fewer fitting on the longest range targets. We have to live with this, but it simply means that we have to adjust the scoring system to cope. It is better therefore, to have more “scoring rings” and to simply eliminate any that do not fit on the target involved. This is not as well- handled under the current scoring system as it could be.

For those debating the current scoring and proposed scoring changes it may help to ask “why do you prefer any particular scoring system” or “why do we have the current International ICFRA scoring system”.

I suspect that answers will range from “If it is not broke, don’t fix it” to “We need to be able to increase the degree of difficulty on the ICFRA target due to an improvement in rifle capability, but at the same time we want to be able to compare current results with those shot historically”.

My personal view, after considering the above observations, is that the proposed scoring system changes may not be in the interest of the shooting sport generally. I will stick my neck out by saying “I would like to see a change to decimal scoring and with the smallest scoring ring on the target scoring a value of ten”. Beyond that, if rifle performance improves further, we could retain the decimal scoring system and simply reduce the size of the individual scoring rings. That also would give us an ability to compare performance of shooters with earlier decimal shooting results.

The questions raised above about any proposed scoring system, will probably add to the current debate.


3. Impact of Latest Large Capacity Cartridge Cases. Another interesting result was that the Sporter discipline was able to fully employ the capability of the largest cartridges, (Such as the 6.5PRC and 7PRC) whereas the F-Open discipline could not. This was due to the lower muzzle velocities at nodal tune in a 26 inch Sporter barrel compared with longer barrels in F-Open.

It was the 3,500 ft-lb limit in F-Open that also eliminated nodal tunes with illegal muzzle velocities and therefore reduced the potential of those larger cartridges compared to the remaining contenders that approached, but did not exceed this energy limit. This is important information for F-Open shooters.


4. Other Improvements. There have been some additions to Chapter 8: Minimising Muzzle Velocity Variation and Chapter 9: Fine Tuning the Nodal Tune. These are important techniques for shooters wishing to get the best possible performance with their rifles. These Chapters summarise the fundamental technical techniques of this book.


5. Cost Impact. There are now at least 50% more pages over two books, compared to the last edition. This along with price increases of all supplies (we have all felt that) means that the two books will now cost $93, including postage in Australia.


6. Contact Details. If you would like a copy please email me on g.mincham@hotmail.com. I will also need your postal address, email address and a mobile number for the postage.

I can also be contacted by phone on 0474 966 247, but leave a message and return phone number.





8 July 2025