Would you like to see smaller f open targets?

[sdean]

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.


You are right about 300. I shoot 600 and 1000 so no dog to hunt at 300. 60 x's at 600yds. would be real meaningful to me.!!

 

[243Mendoza]

3 minute delay and no sighters Thats reading the wind! Nobody has shot a 200 20x yet at LR...

At Rattlesnake, you don't need to wait for 3 minutes for a wind change. Each shot can be a different wind reading with no predominant condition. Get two or three shots in sequence with the same wind reading can be a luxury ...and then there is the heavy mirage

 

[Doug Beach]

We shoot 300, every other month. For F-class, we use white pasters to mark the shot, then cover them with a black paster upon the next shot. Scoring rings still get covered up, but it eliminates the blown up spotter / target problem.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

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.

Come to visit us in the USA! We shoot quite a bit of hand-pulled targets. Most of the time, you can get 8-12 second service.

Even if the US changed its string-fire rules, it wouldn't affect Australia. When we shoot against each other at the world championships, it isn't likely to be string-fire.

We only had one club in Western Washington State using ETs. They recently went back to hand-pulled targets. We will likely have another club adopt ETs due to staffing issues.

If a computer-driven system can't be programmed to behave as desired (multiple options for delay/no delay), you need a new code writer.

 

[243Mendoza]

...
We will likely have another club adopt ETs due to staffing issues.

Keith

Which club is considering ETs?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Keith

Which club is considering ETs?

Machias

 

[Bindi2]

There is two solutions to shot out centres at 300.
1. Don't shoot 300. Many shoots here start at 500/600 for that reason, shot out centres.
2. Move the aiming mark 50 mm in any direction. The acoustic centre will still show centre and shot placement to it.
Kongsberg targets have a failure rate from 300 to 1200 shots and a repair time of 2 1/2 hrs. not a passable option.
We have reduced this repair time to less than 5 minutes and the minimum shot count to over 1200.
My personal SMT has a repair time in seconds to replace the aiming mark but I have not offset the aiming mark and I do use patches and new centres as required.
We spend more time shooting than pulling targets or repairing targets.

 

[davidjoe]

Remember TARS’ humorous “honesty setting” from Interstellar, I can’t help but feel like electronic targets have the capability of being idiosyncratic, at a minimum on sheer accuracy one to the other. I’ve understood that center can be manipulated, it’s not comforting. Theoretically my good scopes could perform a 3 moa box test mid string none the wiser if I compensated on the reticle, but who’s confident in that, not me. Paper’s got one truth.[/QUOTE]

 

[Erud]

What's with all this talk about shooting 600's? Doesn't anybody run 800 agg mid range matches anymore? We get the occasional 800 score around here, both sling and F-Class. Heck my (sling shooter) buddy shot two of them in the same weekend!

 

[Falfan2017]

What's with all this talk about shooting 600's? Doesn't anybody run 800 agg mid range matches anymore? We get the occasional 800 score around here, both sling and F-Class. Heck my (sling shooter) buddy shot two of them in the same weekend!

Ive always wondered about 800. I've never shot at 800 but if they use the same size as 1000 it seems like you'd have a ton of cleans. A lot happens in that last 200 yards.

 

[Erud]

Ive always wondered about 800. I've never shot at 800 but if they use the same size as 1000 it seems like you'd have a ton of cleans. A lot happens in that last 200 yards.

Sorry, I was referring to 800-point (80-shot) mid range matches. 4x600 is a common format in the upper Midwest. If we’re going to drive to a match, might as well make a day of it, right? Scores of 800 usually happen once Or twice per year. My friend who is a member here shot a 1600 2 years ago.

As for 800-yard matches, no one should ever drop a point on that target.

 

[Ringostar]

Sorry, I was referring to 800-point (80-shot) mid range matches. 4x600 is a common format in the upper Midwest. If we’re going to drive to a match, might as well make a day of it, right? Scores of 800 usually happen once Or twice per year. My friend who is a member here shot a 1600 2 years ago.

As for 800-yard matches, no one should ever drop a point on that target.

I agree with Erik here. Having come from the same area. Midrange matches are all 600yd, 4x20 and 2 sighters. Never unlimited sighters. And usually 2 day matches. I never witnessed a clean 1600.

 

[Bindi2]

Remember TARS’ humorous “honesty setting” from Interstellar, I can’t help but feel like electronic targets have the capability of being idiosyncratic, at a minimum on sheer accuracy one to the other. I’ve understood that center can be manipulated, it’s not comforting. Theoretically my good scopes could perform a 3 moa box test mid string none the wiser if I compensated on the reticle, but who’s confident in that, not me. Paper’s got one truth.

[/QUOTE]
The monitor is as good as paper you take a photo with your phone and move on. The accuracy is only wanting if the maintenance is poor and there is no excuse for that.
The first sighter sets the zeros for you, aim offs or winding is still the same. The aiming mark may never be placed in the true acoustic centre by a small amount because you cant see it to do it. The fall of the shot is recorded to the acoustic centre not the aiming mark you adjust to the monitor as you would to a pulled target. The aiming mark is only a reference point not a scoring point.

 

[flintcreek6412]

I don't even know why I'm chiming in but here goes.................

Leave the targets alone!

Have F-Open go back to TR style bipods and dump the rests that return to battery much easier. When guys slamfire 10s they are returning too easy. Let the F-O guys have their ballistic advantages and heavier gun/barrels than TR guys.

It seems way too simple and obvious to me but what do I know.

Oh, and that might solve the 3-5-6 MR debate about the F-O guys complaining of having to move their heavy rests.

 

[swd]

I don't even know why I'm chiming in but here goes.................

Leave the targets alone!

Have F-Open go back to TR style bipods and dump the rests that return to battery much easier. When guys slamfire 10s they are returning too easy. Let the F-O guys have their ballistic advantages and heavier gun/barrels than TR guys.

It seems way too simple and obvious to me but what do I know.

Oh, and that might solve the 3-5-6 MR debate about the F-O guys complaining of having to move their heavy rests.

I've shot a lot of F Open off an FTR type bipod. After any good shooter gets used to it, it doesn't slow you down much as in at all. I've shot plenty of clean rounds with that set up.

 

[davidjoe]

I don't even know why I'm chiming in but here goes.................

Leave the targets alone!

Have F-Open go back to TR style bipods and dump the rests that return to battery much easier. When guys slamfire 10s they are returning too easy. Let the F-O guys have their ballistic advantages and heavier gun/barrels than TR guys.

It seems way too simple and obvious to me but what do I know.

Oh, and that might solve the 3-5-6 MR debate about the F-O guys complaining of having to move their heavy rests.

I don’t think that eliminating all the thousands of expensive front rests and flat forend stocks is “simpler” than wasting some paper targets.

Yep, TR is showing that bipods aren’t a major disadvantage, anyhow, so shot saturation wouldn’t likely change.

 

[flintcreek6412]

I don’t think that eliminating all the thousands of expensive front rests and flat forend stocks is “simpler” than wasting some paper targets.

Yep, TR is showing that bipods aren’t a major disadvantage, anyhow, so shot saturation wouldn’t likely change.

In the right hands a bipod isn't a major disadvantage, but for most it is. Otherwise there would be plenty of 200-20x NRs in TR yet there isn't a single one. Speaking of NR's, all these guys winning with 600-50x......hmmmm.....the NR for MR agg is 600-44x. I'm not thinking 600-50x tie breakers is a huge deal. Let's just leave it the way it is.

 

[Ned Ludd]

In the right hands a bipod isn't a major disadvantage, but for most it is. Otherwise there would be plenty of 200-20x NRs in TR yet there isn't a single one. Speaking of NR's, all these guys winning with 600-50x......hmmmm.....the NR for MR agg is 600-44x. I'm not thinking 600-50x tie breakers is a huge deal. Let's just leave it the way it is.

The front rest/bipod is only a small part of the reason F-TR scores typically lag behind those of F-Open class. The other [major] reason is the improved ballistics of the calibers and bullets commonly used in F-Open over F-TR. I've occasionally seen F-Open shooters using bipods rather than front rests and they usually score quite well. A front rest alone usually won't make up for the ballistic deficiencies of .223 and .308 loads as compared to F-Open calibers if the wind conditions are even remotely challenging.

 

[Damfino]

After the weekend I just had "shooting at" the 600 and 1,000 yard F-class targets those things are already too damn small. Poor shooting is hard enough work just the way they are now.

 

[jr600yd]

Just my take on this;
1) their are always a group of competitors that are excellent marksmen. They are able to shoot very small groups, high scores and X count. They are not the majority of us.
2) as the range increases groups open up for most of us. We may still shoot high scores but not exceptionally high X counts.
3) their are that 2% of exceptional competitors in every sport and always will be. I’m not one of them.
4) smaller targets, I don’t think this would solve anything. You’d still get shot out targets.
5) black electrical tape is a good backer for shot out sections of a target.
6) elimination of front rests in favor of bipods only. After an adjustment period I don’t think it would make a difference in the long run especially for the above 2%
7) elimination of 300, 500 yd lines. I understand the argument both for and against. My question on this is ranges. Not all have 600+ capability. Yeah, I’ve heard the “I don’t want to burn my $$$$$$ expensive barrel up shooting short range targets”. I’m trying to wrap my head around how you eliminate these stages at the National level, shoot only 600yds, yet still incorporate them in Club and regional matches. What do you do about National Records?
8) Etargets. I haven’t shot enough on them to make a decision. I do think a 7 second delay is a good thing.
9) 600-60X I’ve never seen one. I have seen a 600-45X at a 600 yd match.
10) we may not like it but F class has turned into an equipment race. Better equipment doesn’t make you a better shooter but does make you capable of being a better shooter.