Would you like to see smaller f open targets?

Discussion in 'Competition Forum (All Calibers)' started by Falfan2017, Aug 3, 2018.

  1. davidjoe

    davidjoe Skunkworks Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    I could only find that one old score sheet, and the bottom was cropped. There were 89 shooters. But far more X’s are shot now.

    If I can illustrate with Larry B, our present Texas state Long Range champ, who’s both shown above and shoots now. Larry shot 49 X’s out of 100 shots at 1,000 yards this past April. 1/2 MOA X ring at 1,000 - not 600. (Amazing Larry, only one person shot 50)

    In 2004 above, Larry shot 19 X’s out of 45 shots. At 600, not 1,000. Larry was great then too, if you’re wondering. And yet they STILL reduced target size.

    I can’t find 1,000 yd. scores from back then, but I am certain guys didn’t shoot more X’s at 1,000 than they did at 600, and we see what they shoot now.

    I think the poster’s point is that X’s and 10’s are way more common now, despite the fact that targets have already been reduced, once, by 1/2 the diameter of the old score. Why that is doesn’t really matter.

    Should X’s at 600 be more frequent than 10’s, because they basically are. It’s poker with Jokers, 4’s and 9’s and Jacks being wild. Yes, there are ways to solve a tie, including a coin flip several tiers down, according to the NRA.

    No one regrets the 2006 size reduction. Sure enough the leaders were spread out after that, .... for a while. The scores are at that same point again, is all that is being observed.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  2. Bindi2

    Bindi2

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    You are trying to remove a perceived advantage to a condition you can not do or a skill you have that is being by passed by a new skill that can be used with ETs. Train wrecks are much bigger with ETs and speed shooting. By the way 4-5 seconds is slow try scoring for a shooter in half that time. The rules don't say he cant he can and does but does wreck when he misses a wind change. The current rules work fine just change the way you think about them your shooting may improve.
     
  3. Zilla

    Zilla Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    250
    I also think there should be at least a 7 second delay on etargets. I don't think we should change the sport to accomodate the capability of the targets. It should be the other way around.
     
  4. Lbart

    Lbart Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Messages:
    607
    davidjoe
    Not a big thing or even a thing, but the scores you quoted for me in 2004 were from Friday's 1k match. In Saturday's 600 I had 32x's. The X'ring was 3" & 10 ring 7". I guess I learned to shoot a bit better since then. BTW, John Brewer the 1st FC Open Champ cleaned all three 600's that day with 38x's. i have all the scores if you are interested.
     
  5. Bindi2

    Bindi2

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    If you want a time delay shoot two to a target 45 seconds per shot it is called Bisley shooting. Leave string shooting alone.
     
  6. davidjoe

    davidjoe Skunkworks Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    Evening Larry,

    ... Just going off that page attached above from the US team archive website. Idk, it says 600 yards on top, just going off it. Yeah, I was curious about size. I knew bullets got better, ... but I was scratching my head because I had seen that by 2006, the bulletin reported the nationals and it made it sound like the 1/2 moa X target scheme was new that year, but you recall they were already small in 2004, which I suppose is why the X counted as a 11 points and an X.

    PS, I changed it, above on that 1 moa ring X size subject.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2018
  7. MattPeetz

    MattPeetz Silver $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    254
    4-5 seconds is slow? Pulling a target, marking it, pasting and moving scoring disk in 5 seconds. And your saying there are people out there doing all that in 2 1/2 seconds. Calling BS on that.
    I wholeheartedly agree on pair firing. Get rid of string shooting.
     
  8. Bindi2

    Bindi2

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    E Ts not manual. My club ditched manual targets over ten years ago. I wont shoot Bisley or on manual targets nor do I shoot as fast as many do but if the conditions warrant faster speed I can and do. With the advent of the SOLO and Shotmarker ETs even the smaller clubs are moving to ETs. Manual targets are dead here.
     
  9. dskogman

    dskogman Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2015
    Messages:
    254
    That’s not exactly true. 10’s and X’s count the same. If I the 10 ring is smaller some of those are now 9’s and hardly anyone cleans. That means if you happen drop one point in the first match by .001” you can still come back and win.
    Now that is not the case.
     
    davidjoe likes this.
  10. MattPeetz

    MattPeetz Silver $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    254
    Yup and that is benchrest. Not close to f class.
     
  11. davidjoe

    davidjoe Skunkworks Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    We should be able to overcome paper accumulating holes if we can achieve center punching 1,000 yard targets with $5k rifles. Isn’t the goal to shoot out the center, after all, how can it be both the goal and a problem at the same time.

    If anything, the idea is meant to unlevel scores that shouldn’t be the same. Smaller rings do a better job of differentiating scores. There would be no score ties in 60 shots if scoring rings were half an inch apart and the center X was an inch. Now, no one is suggesting “that” much definition is needed, but it illustrates the point. By the way has anyone seen an air gun center. ( . )

    We are trying to hit the middle of the black; if on a still winter morning, one shooter holds the center inch of the five inch X ring for 20 shots and beside him the shooter put 3 in the center inch and 17 all over the rest of the 5 inch circle, and they both drop a 10 on shot 21, the score will report identical shooting.

    But it wasn’t identical shooting, as benchresters know. Fclass isn’t about group size as two 10’s at 9 and 3 o’clock are worth the same 20 points as two 10’s touching, but it IS about middle of the black.

    78.5 square inches is the size of the 10 ring at 1,000. Shot dispersion keeps shrinking with better shooters and gear. Ranges can’t physically increase distance beyond 1,000. Matches are already shot during windy hours. The easiest and only conceivable eventuality to really differentiate clustering shooters is smaller scoring rings.
     
  12. Bindi2

    Bindi2

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    233
    The current rules say it is F Class. If you don't like it go and shoot something more to what you like. Maybe optical Palma.
     
  13. damoncali

    damoncali Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,766
    I'm only half way through my first cup of coffee this morning, so this might actually be a bad idea, but here goes:

    Count Xs as 11 points. Then, they're requirements to win, rather than tie breakers, and a guy who shoots a 599-49x would win over a guy who shoots a 600-30x (under current rules), which makes sense to me. Ties could still be broken creedmoor style. The same thing could be accomplished by getting rid of the x ring and calling that the 10 ring, and shifting every other ring down one point (Xs are now 10s, 10s are now 9s, etc).

    The only downsides I can think of would be that the math gets harder, and that classifications would get all jacked up.
     
    dskogman and davidjoe like this.
  14. ED3

    ED3 Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2014
    Messages:
    401
    As I read this there seems to be a dual issue with high/ close scores, and the premature destruction of target centers.
    If so, the an obvious solution would be to make the center more difficult to hit.
    This would lower/ spread scores, and save targets.

    Eliminating the rear bag would certainly be a step in that direction.
    It would not effect, or necessarily discourage equipment development per se, merely (re-)introduce more of the human control element to this discipline of prone shooting.
    That is, if that's what truly desired.
     
    Taildrag15X likes this.
  15. damoncali

    damoncali Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    1,766
    I think the only solution to shooting out the center is to replace them more often. Or, E targets, but they're arguably not accurate enough mid-range x ring precision.
     
  16. davidjoe

    davidjoe Skunkworks Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    89

    I’ll trust electronic targets when bemchresters adopt them at the distances we shot.
     
    dmoran likes this.
  17. sdean

    sdean Silver $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    436
    Maybe y'all quit beating on this dead horse. Nothing is going to change because it is hard to fix something not broke. Those guys with enough concentration to shoot all those x's over 3 strings probably deserve to win.
     
    Dgd6mm, dmoran, Nature Boy and 6 others like this.
  18. Ned Ludd

    Ned Ludd Silver $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,205
    Make them shoot factory ammo ;).
     
  19. steve_podleski

    steve_podleski

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    782
    East of the Cascades, not the wind free ranges on the west side :)
     
  20. davidjoe

    davidjoe Skunkworks Gold $$ Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    89
    300 is broken. Virtually any spotter you put in the hole is going to burst the next shot.
    Aw heckfire, the same guys would be winning, but instead of 25 A+‘s being given, and two B’s, the A+’s would be fewer and more meaningful. Last horse hit from me.
     
    damoncali and dskogman like this.

Share This Page