Would you like to see smaller f open targets?

[davidjoe]

I’m thinking that first ring size reduction must have really taken some doing .

... “A 600-0x beats a 599-59x”

Well, it certainly “wins.” But it’s much easier to clean, than shoot 59X’s. I’ll take 59-X’s and the “loss,” if I could get it.

Unlike the rule of straight flush over quads, 600 clean for day assuredly happens more than 59-X’s.

 

[Doug Beach]

I’m thinking that first ring size reduction must have really taken some doing .

People are terribly worried about their scores, when they should be worried about their shooting.
That said, I think the only useful change to be made at mid-range, would be a target with multiple centers on one sheet.

 

[Lbart]

I’m thinking that first ring size reduction must have really taken some doing .
Snip, Snip...

Actually it wasn’t too bad! One of the reasons was some of the prone sling shooters didn’t appreciate our scores being a good bit higher than theirs on the scoreboards. After all we were shooting on ranges and in matches they started, so I can understand that. When FC people started shooting 450 out of 450 on the Palma CoF I started a 450 Club and sent each person a certificate. I then decided a smaller target for FC would be better for both sling & FC shooters. To this day if you look at scores from a big combined LR match the best sling shooters still out score the FC by a little bit in most cases. 1k with a sling and irons is tuff!

Let’s leave the targets alone.

 

[kzin]

The enemy of 'good enough' is 'better'.

I like better.

Unless it's not enough better to be worth the cost.

 

[rardoin]

I like better.

Unless it's not enough better to be worth the cost.

And there lies the rub....the outcome of trying for better can be much worse than if left well enough alone. Whether or not to try for 'better' is where wisdom is important.

 

[davidjoe]

And there lies the rub....the outcome of trying for better can be much worse than if left well enough alone. Whether or not to try for 'better' is where wisdom is important.

Applicable to electronic targets, too?

 

[Mittry]

I’m thinking that first ring size reduction must have really taken some doing .

... “A 600-0x beats a 599-59x”

Well, it certainly “wins.” But it’s much easier to clean, than shoot 59X’s. I’ll take 59-X’s and the “loss,” if I could get it.

Unlike the rule of straight flush over quads, 600 clean for day assuredly happens more than 59-X’s.

We shoot for score and x’s to break ties,it’s nice to have a nice x count but unless your shooting ISSF a center x is worth exactly what a scratch 10 is.
A second place 599-59x may be harder to accomplish but that doesn’t mean it’s a more desirable out come. I’ll bet it’s about as hard to shoot a 600-0x as it is to shoot a 599-59x. Missing that x ring 60 times might be harder than hitting it 59 times. Maybe we should multiply scores by degree of difficulty.I’d rather shoot a doughnut that’s clean, win or loose. Instead of celebrating those 59 x’s I be more upset with that friggn 9.

Marc Mittry

 

[Immike]

My first thoughts when this thread started was the impact on “safe siding”. It’s a proven technique that we’ve relied on for years but on today’s firing line the X battle is getting the focus. I don’t anticipate a need for change in this decade and hopefully a X reduction will be the only changes far down the road.

 

[davidjoe]

We shoot for score and x’s to break ties,it’s nice to have a nice x count but unless your shooting ISSF a center x is worth exactly what a scratch 10 is.
A second place 599-59x may be harder to accomplish but that doesn’t mean it’s a more desirable out come. I’ll bet it’s about as hard to shoot a 600-0x as it is to shoot a 599-59x. Missing that x ring 60 times might be harder than hitting it 59 times. Maybe we should multiply scores by degree of difficulty.I’d rather shoot a doughnut that’s clean, win or loose. Instead of celebrating those 59 x’s I be more upset with that friggn 9.

Marc Mittry

The problem with a single 9 losing the match for a 59-X guy is that he more than likely had a significant wind condition the clean shooter missed.

If a guy can hold 10 because he’s got a good gun, but not much better, then smaller rings would drastically reduce his score but have less impact on the 59 X shooter.

I’m not the X guy by the way, more like the 10 guy. I was something like 23rd in X count at the 2018 Texas Long Range but about 10 of 45 F-O, in score. I tied in score with the next shooter up, who shot 12 more X’s. I’m basically trading (or buying) high BC with short barrel and brass life while hopefully, at least, slowly improving in wind calls. The first day’s standing was actually higher than 10th. But it’s gaming the big 10 ring on my part, I believe, to focus so much on shrinking my hold offs relative to the pack, rather than better mastering them.

There’s no RSAUM brass availble in the county because this speed-first strategy isn’t too hard to figure out and it fits hand in glove with current generous rings especially when the wind really blows. These big cases need our big rings because they lack sheer accuracy. If you favor moderate cases and great wind calls winning, then in most match conditions, you’d want to have smaller rings in use. Although when it’s terribly windy, magnums won’t be out wind called.

 

[rardoin]

Applicable to electronic targets, too?

Depends.....

 

[Jetjock1]

Score wins "X" breaks ties, the shooter who shoots a clean has generally done everything right while the shooter who drops a point has missed something. That's why we compete, right?

 

[Puzzaz01]

Score wins "X" breaks ties, the shooter who shoots a clean has generally done everything right while the shooter who drops a point has missed something. That's why we compete, right?

Agree 100%. Short sweet and to the exact point!

Darrin

 

[kzin]

Program the electronic system so the match score is the total deviation from dead center for the 20 shots.

Perfectly proportional to overall quality of shooting.

Never need to tweak ring sizes again.

 

[lawman29]

Program the electronic system so the match score is the total deviation from dead center for the 20 shots.

In Schuetzen that's called a "string measure match"....

 

[Rope2horns]

Nine pages, 178 posts, OP hasn't responded since page one and no one has been called a name....I think we've done good as bunch of fclass'ers.

 

[Falfan2017]

Nine pages, 178 posts, OP hasn't responded since page one and no one has been called a name....I think we've done good as bunch of fclass'ers.

I was genuinely curious to people's opinion and don't have much to add to this debate. Rare on the interwebs

 

[sdean]

1283546"]Nine pages, 178 posts, OP hasn't responded since page one and no one has been called a name....I think we've done good as bunch of fclass'ers. [/QUOTE]


Probably 20 people been beating and picking up this dead horse for a while. Mostly creating new problems to solve a whole different one. How to change a center out. This forum is just a tiny part of the whole Fclass community. Most of us just want the rules to be the same for everyone and to shoot and have fun. It really is just a hobby.

 

[sdean]

If you want to keep this going then talk about the most important thing to do to shoot clean. Being new to competition I have decided to concentrate on the most consistent ammo and my set up and hold.

 

[KMart]

. A 600-0x beats a 599-59x
Marc Mittry

And it damn well should! The amount of skill required to shoot a 600 and NEVER hit the X-ring is down right unimaginable.

 

[davidjoe]

And it damn well should! The amount of skill required to shoot a 600 and NEVER hit the X-ring is down right unimaginable.

Nobody tries to miss the X. They try to shoot clean. Then they progress to improving X count.