• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Measuring groups

Tim Singleton said:
NBRSA rule book pg 26

(13) GROUP MEASUREMENTS. Groups are to be measured by any method approved by the NBRSA in .001 inch. The Sweany Type Reticle Rule (or its equivalent) will be the only official measuring device used at all Registered Matches. In measuring groups fired with calibers larger than .22 (unless the Reticle is calibrated for the caliber to be measured) the measurement shall be made from the extreme outside edges of the 2 widest bullet holes and the actual differential of the larger calibers shall be subtracted from the measurement read on the measuring scale. (See: Target Drawing in back of Rulebook.)
Targets are to be marked in the upper right-hand margin, indicating reduction in measurement (6-mm reduction of .019 and 308 reduction


I believe the Niel Jones tool is the most commonly used at matches and is the same design as the Sweany tool which is no longer made.
http://www.neiljones.com/html/target_measuring.html

That is how group measuring is done at registered NBRSA matches

(unless the Reticle is calibrated for the caliber to be measured)
 
aj300mag said:
Tim Singleton said:
NBRSA rule book pg 26

(13) GROUP MEASUREMENTS. Groups are to be measured by any method approved by the NBRSA in .001 inch. The Sweany Type Reticle Rule (or its equivalent) will be the only official measuring device used at all Registered Matches. In measuring groups fired with calibers larger than .22 (unless the Reticle is calibrated for the caliber to be measured) the measurement shall be made from the extreme outside edges of the 2 widest bullet holes and the actual differential of the larger calibers shall be subtracted from the measurement read on the measuring scale. (See: Target Drawing in back of Rulebook.)
Targets are to be marked in the upper right-hand margin, indicating reduction in measurement (6-mm reduction of .019 and 308 reduction


I believe the Niel Jones tool is the most commonly used at matches and is the same design as the Sweany tool which is no longer made.
http://www.neiljones.com/html/target_measuring.html

That is how group measuring is done at registered NBRSA matches

(unless the Reticle is calibrated for the caliber to be measured)

????
 
Tim Singleton said:
aj300mag said:
Tim Singleton said:
NBRSA rule book pg 26

(13) GROUP MEASUREMENTS. Groups are to be measured by any method approved by the NBRSA in .001 inch. The Sweany Type Reticle Rule (or its equivalent) will be the only official measuring device used at all Registered Matches. In measuring groups fired with calibers larger than .22 (unless the Reticle is calibrated for the caliber to be measured) the measurement shall be made from the extreme outside edges of the 2 widest bullet holes and the actual differential of the larger calibers shall be subtracted from the measurement read on the measuring scale. (See: Target Drawing in back of Rulebook.)
Targets are to be marked in the upper right-hand margin, indicating reduction in measurement (6-mm reduction of .019 and 308 reduction


I believe the Niel Jones tool is the most commonly used at matches and is the same design as the Sweany tool which is no longer made.
http://www.neiljones.com/html/target_measuring.html

That is how group measuring is done at registered NBRSA matches

(unless the Reticle is calibrated for the caliber to be measured)

????

The retical is engraved with the commonly used calibers (.22, 6mm, .308) so it is calibrated for those calibers, no subtraction needed. Just wanted to point that out. ;)
 
sonofagun231 said:
My Oh My - having trouble measuring targets are we? ::)

My remwinavage .223 tacticool rifle will shoot teen groups shot from a bipod in 50mph full value crosswind all day long... when I do my part! :P ;D :o
 
I wondered when Bob Schaeffer ( SONOFAGUN) would stick his head up over the berm again.
For the newcomer, Sonofagun advocates the use of Formica for target material as he claims it renders a more accurate hole than paper. What he doesn't tell you is that he has never fired a match, nor scored, referreed, or officiated in any way at any matches. He would walk behind the line at Harrison with his deer rifle over his shoulder and just look with that far away look in his eyes. I never trusted the guy and never turned my back to him.
 
Uthink Uknow said:
I wondered when Bob Schaeffer ( SONOFAGUN) would stick his head up over the berm again.
For the newcomer, Sonofagun advocates the use of Formica for target material as he claims it renders a more accurate hole than paper. What he doesn't tell you is that he has never fired a match, nor scored, referreed, or officiated in any way at any matches. He would walk behind the line at Harrison with his deer rifle over his shoulder and just look with that far away look in his eyes. I never trusted the guy and never turned my back to him.

Harrison...
IIRC I started shooting up there in 2004. Never had the "pleasure" of meeting Bob. Now that you bring it up I do recall conversations involving formica backers. Bob own stock in the 3M corporation???
 
I don't think the whole formica backer thing is a good idea. I tried taping some targets to the kitchen counter and then shot them. The holes were sure clean, but SWMBO may never speak to me again!
 
Very funny - I see rather than thoughtful consideration and response, once again/as usual, everyone just tries to attack the messenger, rather than the message; kind of like a mob mentality.

This entire thread points out the problem inherent in PRECISELY (and that also means with repeatable results independent of the measurer) determining group sizes. I saw a quote somewhere from either Skip Gordon or Ferris Pindell about the absurdity of trying to precisely measure these ragged holes in paper. Or do you think their opinions are as ridiculous as mine?

Now to clear up just one part of the misinformation (shall we say lies?) said about me, I am not saying targets should be made of Formica (actually it is called high pressure laminate) only that I did find bullets cut clean, FULL DIAMETER holes in it with sharp edges plus the added advantages that it is impervious to weather conditons such as rain and does not deteriorate over time.

This led me to suggest that perhaps some research could be done or encouraged in the material science field to develop a target material that would yield similiar results.

Also I have said, the entire target does not have to be made of the material (or the backer, good grief what a ridiculous idea) - only a small area of it where small groups are shot. A good material science person or lab might be able to come up with something quite economical. Obviously it would best be utilized only in matches where very small "one hole" groups are being shot and measured. No application for it where groups are large.

Instead all I get (mostly) is profound ridicule for suggesting an advancement in target materials. Everything in bench shooting has progressed EXCEPT the material and methodology used to determine the results. Why shouldn't it? The computer measurement methods mentioned are obviously a step in that direction so therefore it is a legitimate concern and area that can be advanced.

Then too, some will complain about the added cost - what a laugh. They will spend thousands on equipment and materials and hundreds (or more) traveling to matches and then they want to complain about targets costing maybe $.20 each instead of $.10? Give me a break.

But there are those who will stoop to any ridiculous level to ridicule or argue with me on this it seems. And some have gotten down right hostile - makes me at least wonder what kind of person they really are. Their comments reveal their true selves and pettiness sad to say. I would think there would be better civility among the BR group.
 
Huh, You got everything figured out ;) Any thoughts on world piece or the economy? I wouldn't use your idea straight from the attitude it was presented with.. Just saying



Ray
 
Bob,
If you could make them for .20 cents each and we had a small weekend 2 gun BR match. If we only 25 shooters, that is 500 targets or 20 targets per shooter. Using your figures that is $100 for targets alone. I think you are optimistic about that low cost. It seems that you have thrown out the idea without a clue as to how to make them or what material. Kinda like saying somebody could build a windflag that would shock your gonads when you needed to pull the trigger. Everybody would shoot great groups that way. Somebody out there should be able to do it!
 
"This led me to suggest that perhaps some research could be done or encouraged in the material science field to develop a target material that would yield similiar results."

When you suggested this about how many years ago, I put the onus on you. As you, a non-shooter, suggested it, I asked why you don't do the research. You suggested I do the research and my answer was that I was winning and liked the paper. You have never scored any more than one target, your own- maybe. You had no idea until Butch just mentioned the number of targets needed and the cost for one match. You have never hung a target, let alone sixty per relay like Holton or Super Shoot. One thing that wasn't mentioned by Butch and I wondered about at the time was the cost of printing. Who prints on laminates with what indelible material and at what cost?
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
 
Uthink...be careful he will want you to do the marketing and research for his next big thing...lol
http://forum.accurateshooter.com/index.php?topic=3852036.msg36482502#msg36482502
 
<ROTFLMAO> I could use something like that, but for use in High Power offhand when my sights align with the x-ring.

butchlambert said:
Kinda like saying somebody could build a windflag that would shock your gonads when you needed to pull the trigger.
 
I would like to come up with an invention that would have little Japanese technicians descend upon your car to fix all the recalls.
I remember when the heads of corporations would commit hara cari for lesser issues.
If the Formica target doesn't work out, would the inventor commit suicide?
 
raythemanroe said:
Be kinda hard to thumb tack Formica wouldn't it?
Ray

There you go again with misinformation - I said I'm NOT proposing Formica for targets - just that it shows the possibility of a material that bullets punch clean, precisely measurable holes in. Producing it economically is also possible - in case you haven't noticed, this IS the 21st century and we have the technology to do practically anything!

Arguing about it (or again, attacking me personally - takes real class or intelligence to do that) doesn't change the fact that a better target material incorporated in a small area of the target is certainly possible AND PROBABLY WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEVELOPED, but since you're not interested go back to your squabbling over measuring that target - LOL.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,271
Messages
2,215,417
Members
79,508
Latest member
Jsm4425
Back
Top