Would you like to see smaller f open targets?

[Bindi2]

I can tell you both Bob and Warren put in a lot of time at the range testing and practicing to shoot those scores. They are great shooters and their scores reflect that.
As for scoring rings being smaller it may come to that one day. Bullets have come a long way in the last couple years with higher B.C. and the equipment has become better also. Although You can't take anything away from the shooter because shooting consistent high master scores is an accomplishment in itself.

I do believe with electronic targets there needs to be a delay put in place and I think that would be a start in the right direction. I shoot prone in a sling now but started out shooting in f class and have seen open shooters complete there string and Im only three shots into my string. They get a condition and shoot them as quickly as possible. There's no waiting on the puller to mark the target and run it back up.

Don't put a delay in the E T system. It causes problems when there are crossfires.

 

[MattPeetz]

Go sh

Don't put a delay in the E T system. It causes problems when there are crossfires.

Go shoot benchrest then. There needs to be a delay. 10seconds minimum. 7 isn’t long enough.
No delay and the average shot is 4-5 seconds, that is not f class. Only trigger pulling which is benchrest. Nobody get their panties in wad from that statement but it’s fact.

 

[JFrank]

Go sh


Go shoot benchrest then. There needs to be a delay. 10seconds minimum. 7 isn’t long enough.
No delay and the average shot is 4-5 seconds, that is not f class. Only trigger pulling which is benchrest. Nobody get their panties in wad from that statement but it’s fact.

Yeah man come over to benchrest"
Relax have a good time, nobody messin witch ya
J

 

[Puzzaz01]

Everybody talks like BR is a walk in the park. It's not all that easy, when we're shooting for record there are no spotters, you're on you're own! And people keep saying .... oh just run all your shots off real quick, I don't know where they're shooting but we have this thing called wind which is constantly changing. On a normal day ( on the MS Gulf Coast) the flags look like they're in a blender, very seldom you'll have a couple of flags flying I n the same direction.

Darrin

 

[Keith Glasscock]

First: Smaller target...NO!

Second: Only those individuals who shoot 600's are allowed to complain about how big the target is, how boring and ho hum it was to do it, that they really don't think that it was much of an accomplishment or in any way noteworthy, that the challenge is gone, that it was just another walk in the park...until then...until the 600 club proclaims this...I chose to ignore this babble....

I understand your point, but you'll have to forgive some of the previous posters for their modesty. Several members of the "600 club" have posted here...

It just depends on where one shoots. Around here (Western Washington State), we have a regular fact that the 3rd and sometimes 4th place guy shot a 600 (or 800 for 80 shot days) at all mid ranges (including 600 yards). It isn't calm winds, it's the readability.

 

[JeffT]

Or ditch all the crutches and shoot Palma rifles.

That's fine for people with all their parts........ what about the ones that don't? If it wasn't for fclass I couldn't shoot in these competitions

 

[Dgd6mm]

I've never shot a 600, an do not want the target changed.

 

[dcali]

First, Benchrest is hard. Different, but hard. If you take away any delay, you take a huge step towards it not being that different, and not being as hard (no spotters in benchrest).

I don't think anyone is complaining about the target, but just asking "is it good enough". I also don't think anyone has suggested that shooting a 600 under any conditions is easy. We're just pointing out that if you get a bunch of very good Open shooters on the same calm firing line, we are getting to a point where the scores bunch up with a lot of guys shooting cleans. So much that the target needs changing? Not yet. But I could see a time in the future that they might. Every year more guys show up with rifles specifically built for F Class, and the scores keep getting better.

 

[Jetjock1]

Just shoot pairs; that should help get the scores under control AND address the bench rest comparisons!

Scott
That's a great idea.
Jetjock

 

[Lbart]

JetJock, As I am sure you are aware that option is already available. It's called Fullbore and the USA NRA even has a rule book for it. http://rulebooks.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Fullbore/fb-book.pdf

FC took off when introduced to the USA in late 1990's. Shooters here prefer string fire. Let's not rock the boat, it is still growing with no end in sight! Fullbore has not grown much if at all. Leave it alone. Even the Australian's have their version of string fire.

 

[davidjoe]

Some points to think about.
We changed from the 2 moa 10 ring to the 1 moa in 2007, I believe while keeping the target black the same as our parent sport, HP sling. While a lot of cleans have been shot at shorter ranges (especially 300 yd) I don’t think it is time to change targets yet. When most shooters start cleaning the X ring then it would be time to consider a smaller target. No one has yet cleaned a range aggregate (600-60x) at any range in a registered match. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The constant all ten’s cleans would go away in many cases if the 7 second rule was made mandatory for electronic target. This needs to be done ASAP. FC is not BR and the custom of having a target pulled and marked needs to remain in the sport. Why should people shooting on ET’s have an advantage record wise over those that don’t? The HP committee needs to change this now!

If you reduced the targets to ½ moa tens etc., think about how hard it would be to score & past 10’s & X’s.

People tend to forget what changing targets entails. The clubs would have to buy new faces (what happens to a stock pile of old targets?). The NRA would have to change the rule book & start tracking all new records. Heck they have enough trouble getting caught up now on records and rules!

As someone pointed out, come out west if you want the game to get harder. I was amazed when I went to the TX State LR near Houston this year. I and others shot more 200 cleans at 1k than I have ever seen. But I shoot mostly at tricky ranges.

___________

Agreed - as usual, Larry is correct in his analysis.

Reducing all “ring sizes” is essentially the same as making the current X ring count a point higher, descending outward, at least if the reduction was by 1/2.

Shooters that presently can shoot a lot of X’s would soar in score above those shooting a lot of safe tens.

The centers wouldn’t become more shot out, because accuracy and shot dispersion can’t jump, ... but there would still need to be a new X ring.

I think when so many National fclass records require more than twenty shots to “drop” to a “10” the X is too big, which means the 10 (full score value ring) is also too big.

It seems intuitive that the tie-breaking purpose of X’s means they ought to be fairly rarely shot, like a 1/10 MOA X-ring across the board would get you.

I think the question would be, “are clean scores where they were when the last reduction was deemed appropriate circa 2007?” I have no idea but some guys might remember.

 

[kzin]

Just ordered an f-open rifle yesterday 'cause i heard it's so easy.

Hold up on changing the target 'til I get my 600!

 

[swd]

It seems intuitive that the tie-breaking purpose of X’s means they ought to be fairly rarely shot, like a 1/10 MOA X-ring across the board would get you.

.
The best long range Benchrest rifles barely achieve 1/10 MOA on a good day. Making the X ring that size would leave more luck involved in tie breaking than skill, which is the wrong way to go.

The big problem here is ranges that calmer or more readable verses ranges that are very difficult. I don't know of a fair solution.
The 2 ranges I regularly shoot we don't need smaller targets. We do shoot 600's on good days but multiple 600's over weeks/months don't happen.

As mentioned in an earlier response as long as a winner can be determined by X count it seems this is solution looking for a problem.

 

[davidjoe]

The current target size is plenty challenging for me, don’t get me wrong, I’m faaaaar from bored with it, personally.

Interestingly though, the targets were “halved” in 2006, but at the 2004 nationals, the scores - presumably shot on the “big” targets, were pretty uniformly lower than what we see today shot on the “small” targets, and yet they still decided to shrink them. Just saying.

 

[Cochran]

Jeff, it does suck that some of our best sight manufacturers have discontinued their products. I am lucky in that I have a Right Sight on the front of my Palma rifle. I have Riles, Centra and Anschutz as fronts on other match and smallbore rifles that work great. Although my #2 Warner is a 40 TPI and I have to keep in mind that with my sight radius the clicks are about 3/16 MOA. If you did want parts for the Fullbore/Palma game go with a Riles front and a RPA or Centra rear.

Cheers,
Jim

Haha. That’s not the missing parts he’s talking about. People with certain physical limitations can’t shoot Palma. F-class opened the door to many who would otherwise not be able to participate

 

[JeffT]

I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but if you make the scoring rings smaller, and th

View attachment 1060574

The current target size is plenty challenging for me, don’t get me wrong, I’m faaaaar from bored with it, personally.

Interestingly though, the targets were “halved” in 2006, but at the 2004 nationals, the scores - presumably shot on the “big” targets, were pretty uniformly lower than what we see today shot on the “small” targets, and yet they still decided to shrink them. Just saying.

We used 300 yards across the course target I believe for that match. It was close to half moa but not exact

 

[kohai133]

Haha. That’s not the missing parts he’s talking about. People with certain physical limitations can’t shoot Palma. F-class opened the door to many who would otherwise not be able to participate

Yeah... I stepped in that one. No disrespect was meant there and I have since been educated. F-Class is fun and does keep/attract people to the game that wouldn't otherwise get into it.

 

[Ringostar]

View attachment 1060574

The current target size is plenty challenging for me, don’t get me wrong, I’m faaaaar from bored with it, personally.

Interestingly though, the targets were “halved” in 2006, but at the 2004 nationals, the scores - presumably shot on the “big” targets, were pretty uniformly lower than what we see today shot on the “small” targets, and yet they still decided to shrink them. Just saying.

If you look at the scores, there are a lot of cleans. This was 15 shot strings with an extra point added for each X. Top shooter match 4 is 150-6x for a 156 score, match 5 is a 150-7x for a 157 score.

 

[Dos XX]

At 600 yards, if you decreased the size of both the x ring and the 10 ring by 1/2 moa, instead of the x ring getting shot out, both the x ring and the 10 ring would get shot out. The people shooting sub 3" groups are still going to shoot sub 3" groups. The same number of holes are going to be in the same 3" circle. It is just going to wipe out 2 rings.

There is nothing wrong with deciding matches by x count. I don't even understand the argument.

 

[Puzzaz01]

At 600 yards, if you decreased the size of both the x ring and the 10 ring by 1/2 moa, instead of the x ring getting shot out, both the x ring and the 10 ring would get shot out. The people shooting sub 3" groups are still going to shoot sub 3" groups. The same number of holes are going to be in the same 3" circle. It is just going to wipe out 2 rings.

There is nothing wrong with deciding matches by x count. I don't even understand the argument.

Exactly .... I tried saying that but your comment sounds better!