220 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Feb. 15, 1913 
High Gun 
AT DENVER, 1912 
HANDICAP, SEPT. 10-13 
Mr. R. H. Bruns, shooting his 
LEFEVER 
made the marvellous run of 
283 without a miss. 
On the 700 single targets, in¬ 
cluding handicaps, Mr. Bruns 
scored 683 out of 700. 
The second day of the tourna¬ 
ment on the day’s program of 
200 targets, Mr. Bruns and 
his Lefever gun scored 200 
out of 200. A world’s re¬ 
cord for ten traps. 
On the 500 single 16-yard 
target for amateurs, Mr. Bruns 
scored 494 out of 500. 
ANOTHER WINNER AT THE 
PACIFIC COAST HANDICAP 
Mr. L. H. Reid, shooting his Lefever gun, won 
second high average with 381 out of 400. 
Why don’t you shoot a LEFEVER? 
Write for Catalog 
LEFEVER ARMS COMPANY 
Guns of Lasting Fame 
23 Maltbie Street Syracuse, N. Y. 
with his strenuous labor. He turned out to be 
a redfish, or sea bass of eight pounds. I laid 
him out on the dock boards and faced my tor¬ 
mentors with a better grace, but was still suf¬ 
fering considerably as I baited my hook and 
went back for another. 
[to be continued.] 
“Breaking In” New Shoes. 
The method now adopted by the army for 
“breaking in” new shoes and making them con¬ 
form to all the little quirks of individual feet, 
resulting in a perfect fit, is unique. After the 
shoes are fitted to the soldiers’ feet they are 
made to stand in water to their shoe-tops until 
the leather is thoroughly soaked, then they are 
marched around until the shoes have dried on 
their feet, when forever after the new foot¬ 
wear is as comfortable as the proverbial “old 
shoe.” This may seem a somewhat heroic 
method, but in practice it is found thoroughly 
effective. 
.Mbany, N. Y., Jan. 20, 1913. 
Editor Forest and Stream, 127 Franklin street. 
New York city: 
Dear Sir—Referring to the publication in 
your issue of Jan. nth, relative to the hunting 
and fishing of Murdock Mackenzie in New 
Brunswick, I can confirm all that your corre¬ 
spondent says, for Mac is the best guide ever; 
he is personally four kings in himself, and is a 
living proof of the old adage that “much can 
be made of a Scotchman if he be caught 
young.” Very truly yours, 
(Signed) Robert E. Wh.vlen. 
ARCHERY NOTES. 
Continued from page 210. 
His total score was 954, one-third of which is 
318. His 50 yard score was 271, 47 less than 
would have been expected. 
E. J. Rendtorff, Lake Forest, Ill.: “Some 
time ago you sent me a circular letter request¬ 
ing my opinion concerning the point method 
of scoring. Following are my ideas concerning 
the matter: 
“I consider the point method an obsolete, 
arbitrary, irrational method, with nothing in 
its favor and very much against it. My highest 
American round score is 89-637, and my lowest, 
where I made 90 hits is 90-442. If these had 
been shot in competition, the one miss would 
have detracted 3 points from the value of the 
highest score. Very evidently an illogical 
amount. 
“On looking through my score book I found 
the following scores: 
Points. 
A . 30 128 30 210 30 206 90 544 6 
B . 29 183 30 208 30 204 89 595 4 
“B loses the match with a very superior 
score on account of one single miss at 60 yards. 
If he had made a hit instead of miss, the points 
would be: A, 4)4; B, 
“Now, the point I wish to make is that the 
value given to hits, as in the present point 
method, is irrationally high. 
“In scoring the York round, the matter be¬ 
comes still worse, for we then give equal credit 
to the hits and score of the 24 arrows at 60 
yards, as we do to the 72 arrows at 100 yards. 
This is not only ridiculous, but constitutes a 
piece of rank injustice. The entire point sys¬ 
tem of scoring is a piece of stupidity, that fre¬ 
quently leads to bad feeling. It must be re¬ 
vised, and a more rational system substituted 
in its place. I believe the summation of score 
and hits is the proper solution.” 
H. B. Richardson, ex-president and former 
National champion, Boston: “Ihere is no ad¬ 
vantage, and much disadvantage, in the point 
method of scoring. 
“Whatever may be the official rule in Eng¬ 
land concerning the use of the point system, it 
was not enforced in 1908, the year I was there. 
The match was decided on the highest score. 
When I got one more than Brooks-King, there 
was no discussion of the points won. 
“There is no doubt in my mind but what 
the highest score is the simplest and fairest 
way of awarding the championship.” 
In the constitution of the British “Grand 
National Archery Society,” as printed in the 
Archer’s Register, it is stated that the champion¬ 
ship shall be awarded by points. In Mr. 
Richardson’s letter he says the point system 
was not enforced in 1898. ‘When I got one 
more score than Brooks-King, there was no 
discussion of the points won.” It was prob¬ 
ably seen at a glance which Englishman had 
most points. Mr. Richardison won, de facto, 
but not de jure, as he was not a member of the 
British society. 
The consideration of the three leading 
scores made in that championship contest is 
very interesting, and I review them here for 
the information of those who know nothing 
about them. 
Will Not 
Gum or 
Chill 
A Guarantee Against Rust 
The best gun oil ever known. 
Cleanesltocarry. Absolutely odor- 
less. All sporting goods and 
Hardware dealers. Large bot¬ 
tle (cheaper to buy) 25c.; trial 
size, I Oc. Don t wait until 
your old bottle of some 
other make is used up, bu' 
throw that away and buy 
a bottle of NYOIL now. ( 
WM. F. NYE 
New Bedford, Mass. 
Ask your watch repairer 
■ ■ ■ VVCH.V.11 i. v-i-rc*! A 
whose oil he is using on your watch. 
Reload your rifle, pistol and 
shotgun shells and save halt the cost of 
cartridges. Modern shells can be re¬ 
loaded many times. Ideal Hand Book 
tells all about reloading all makes and 
ilyles of shells; 140 pages of useful in¬ 
formation for shooters. Free for three stamps postage. 
Marlin Firearms Co., 27.W St., New Haven, Conn. 
Three highest scores: 
H. B. Richardson. 
Brooks-King . 
J Penrose . 
lOO’yds. 80yds. 
88 362 75 335 
77 319 72 342 
69 253 60 276 
60yds. Total. 
38 174 201 871 
43 209 192 8(0 
46 266 175 795 
Richardson won by 9 and i score. By 
points he won by 7 to 3. Of the 3 points, Pen¬ 
rose made 2 and Brooks-King onl}' i, though 
he made 75 higher score than Penrose made. 
Suppose Brooks-King had made two more 
whites, the scores would have been, Richard¬ 
son, 201—871, and Brooks-King, 194—872, and 
Brooks-King would have won by 7 bits, score i. 
This would have been unjust to Richard¬ 
son, for 7 hits are certainly worth more than 
I score. If hits and score had been added, 
Richardson would have won by 6. 
Dr. Wm. Carver Williams, ex-president N. 
A. A., Chicago: “Replying to your recent note 
of inquiry about the use of the point system of 
scoring at tournaments of the N. A. A., I can 
tell you what I think of it in very few words. 
It is antiquated and preposterous, and is re¬ 
tained through a sentimental loyalty to a sup¬ 
posed tradition. If its origin were to be in¬ 
vestigated, I doubt whether there would be even 
that ground for its existence. 
“It not only works rank injustice in some 
degree in nearly every tournament, but it often 
makes the championship a question of luck 
pure and simple. 
“These statements are amply proven by 
some figures that we once went over together. 
The retention of this system does not even have 
any influence in comparing American and Eng¬ 
lish scores, because the winning of matches by 
this system has nothing to do with the com¬ 
parative skill of those shooting at different 
matches. By all means let the irrational old 
fossil of absurdity be abolished.” 
Jame.s H. Pendry, President Chicago Arch¬ 
ery Club; “Replying to your inquiry relative 
to best system of scoring to decide archery 
championships, after giving it some thought, I 
am heartily in favor of arriving at a decision 
by adding the hits and .score. This method is 
simple, easily understood, and just to all con¬ 
cerned.” 
It will be seen from these letters that there 
is practically a unanimous majority, in favor of 
scoring championship contests either by gross 
scores, or gross hits and .gross scores added. 
I am surprised that no one has arisen to de- 
