New F-Class 600 Yard Target

[Keith Glasscock]

To answer @Jay Christopherson about reduced targets on ETs:

Just use an MR65FC (500 yard) at 600 yards - Viola! reduced size target. No special programming or targets required!

Now, shooting at 500 would pose a bigger challenge to have a "reasonable" reduced target. If you look through the rulebooks, I bet you could find something that works - Maybe a NRA C-3 (3.6" 10 ring) for F-class at 500.. That'd be a challenge!

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Danny,

It's not me - I was second loser with an 800-48x

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Talk about freaking out; I don't believe I directly attributed that to you Jay, it was a Rope2Horns comment that caught my eye. Might go back and re-read!!

Dan

If that's the case, then I apologize.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

To answer @Jay Christopherson about reduced targets on ETs:

Just use an MR65FC (500 yard) at 600 yards - Viola! reduced size target. No special programming or targets required!

Now, shooting at 500 would pose a bigger challenge to have a "reasonable" reduced target. If you look through the rulebooks, I bet you could find something that works - Maybe a NRA C-3 (3.6" 10 ring) for F-class at 500.. That'd be a challenge!

Yep, in fact I was just talking to Tod about us doing that. That'd be a reason to go to one of the Cascade matches...

 

[Jdne5b]

What does reducing the targets do? The winners still win, losers will lose, and whiners will whine. Divide the score by 2 if you want lower scores.

We have yet to have a tie that cant be broken, so I guess I dont see the problem that a smaller target solves. Unless its fixing it so the guy who now shoots a 600-40 have a higher numerical score vs the guy who shoots a 600-35. So it now is a 590-20 vs 580-15. Whats the difference?

Lets just limit bc and velocity if people want a challenge.

 

[memilanuk]

Maybe they could legitimize the LR6 target... just get rid of the (stupid) F4 ring.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

We already shoot a couple of matches per year on the LR-6 at Cascade. The rings happen to be almost identical to the MR65FC when using the F-class rings on that target.... Works for me!

I agree about the 4 ring - if it isn't at least a 5, it's a miss in my mind!

 

[Petros284]

Sorry all did not want to start a debate. Just wanted to see if anyone could either confirm or debunk what the target manufacturer said. Yes a smaller target would be interesting at times but not necessary. Interested to see what Walt finds out. I’m sure after two seasons of being away from the game on daddy duty I’d rather have the big target. Lol

 

[Shep1]

Sorry all did not want to start a debate. Just wanted to see if anyone could either confirm or debunk what the target manufacturer said. Yes a smaller target would be interesting at times but not necessary. Interested to see what Walt finds out. I’m sure after two seasons of being away from the game on daddy duty I’d rather have the big target. Lol

 

[Shep1]

If the black part was bigger I'm ok with the white part being smaller

 

[7MM-RAHM]

I like the old target just fine....and I understand making it smaller since there's been so many 600-60x's being shot.

Absolutely correct!!!!

Okay...please tell me, who is shooting all these "600-50 to 60x's"? (This year, I presume?) Both Dwayne Draggoo and I would like to know! You see, each of us are struggling along with 600 cleans with just a measly 44 and 43 X's...Dwayne with 44. On the NRA NR listing, he currently nails down the Open/Civilian NR while I own the "old man" record from this year's SWN. At least for now, I'm passing on making the rings smaller, especially if I've gotta shoot 600 on the e-targets!

Dan

I'll put my name in there, bowling! 4 600/50Xs and the shot a 600 49X it the state match that was registered. But until people are commonly shooting 600 60Xs there's no reason to change them, never have I seen a match be tied!

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Absolutely correct!!!!

I'll put my name in there, bowling! 4 600/50Xs and the shot a 600 49X it the state match that was registered. But until people are commonly shooting 600 60Xs there's no reason to change them, never have I seen a match be tied!

I tend to agree with Brian, but for different reasons. Most shooters are not capable of 600s, much less high X counts. Tweaking the target for a small percentage of shooters to the disadvantage of less experienced shooters and newcomers is a mistake.

A 1 MOA 10 ring and a 0.5 MOA X ring provide plenty of challenge for the vast majority of F-Class shooters. Shrinking the scoring rings further would be disheartening to shooters working hard to improve their classifications. If a small number of High Masters are bored with the scoring rings, I'm sure they'll be welcome in benchrest.

If additional challenge is needed for the High Masters, I'd much rather see equipment limitations (such as including the benchrest in the weight limit, lowering the weight limit, etc.) and/or changes to match mechanics (pair firing, reduced time limit, etc.)

Whenever rule changes are considered, we need to place more emphasis on growing the sport and welcoming new shooters rather than the preferences of the elite.

 

[Jetjock1]

Here is the answer to Pete's question. I researched the target in question and the target manufacturer has the 6 ring at 36" and no 5 ring. Here's what the HP committee passed was the 6 ring 30" and 5 ring 36"(Black). The reason, so the repair center for f-class would fit on a 37" x 37" sheet. Target will be MR-1FC. Be patient as it will take NRA a little bit to get the artwork out to the target people.
Jetjock

 

[memilanuk]

Here is the answer to Pete's question. I researched the target in question and the target manufacturer has the 6 ring at 36" and no 5 ring. Here's what the HP committee passed was the 6 ring 30" and 5 ring 36"(Black). The reason, so the repair center for f-class would fit on a 37" x 37" sheet. Target will be MR-1FC. Be patient as it will take NRA a little bit to get the artwork out to the target people.
Jetjock

The repair center already fits on a piece of paper smaller than that. Do you mean the full-face target, as with the MR65FC and the LR6?

Not having to screw around with 6' square target faces any more would be nice...

 

[sfinn1]

Hey Fellas, We F TR shooters have a hard enough time with the targets we have. I'm still trying to shoot that elusive 200 for one string. Probably the best solution " in my opinion" to break up the clean, high X count, is reduce the size of the X ring. Leave the 10ring size as is. Since Classification is determined by score and not X count, the classes will not change. To change ring sizes would create havoc with existing NRA classification.
Steve

 

[Immike]

Here is the answer to Pete's question. I researched the target in question and the target manufacturer has the 6 ring at 36" and no 5 ring. Here's what the HP committee passed was the 6 ring 30" and 5 ring 36"(Black). The reason, so the repair center for f-class would fit on a 37" x 37" sheet. Target will be MR-1FC. Be patient as it will take NRA a little bit to get the artwork out to the target people.
Jetjock

I seriously wish that they made a 8 ring repair center for it. Most of the damage is in that area and it would make refacing quick and easy. We have cut them down for years for this reason.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I seriously wish that they made a 8 ring repair center for it. Most of the damage is in that area and it would make refacing quick and easy. We have cut them down for years for this reason.

My biggest accomplishment in 2017 may have been completely avoiding the 8 ring. Sure, I dropped my share of points, but they were all 9s.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Hey Fellas, We F TR shooters have a hard enough time with the targets we have. I'm still trying to shoot that elusive 200 for one string. Probably the best solution " in my opinion" to break up the clean, high X count, is reduce the size of the X ring. Leave the 10ring size as is. Since Classification is determined by score and not X count, the classes will not change. To change ring sizes would create havoc with existing NRA classification.
Steve

Hmm, I may have been rather narrowly focused in my enthusiasm for reducing the mid-range target. I forgot that it doesn't look quite so easy when I'm shooting FTR and not Formula-1 F-Open...

 

[kzin]

Hey Fellas, We F TR shooters have a hard enough time with the targets we have. I'm still trying to shoot that elusive 200 for one string. Probably the best solution " in my opinion" to break up the clean, high X count, is reduce the size of the X ring. Leave the 10ring size as is. Since Classification is determined by score and not X count, the classes will not change. To change ring sizes would create havoc with existing NRA classification.
Steve

I think closing the classification gap between open and tr would be a plus in itself.
Probably not worth separate targets, though.

 

[memilanuk]

Hmm, I may have been rather narrowly focused in my enthusiasm for reducing the mid-range target. I forgot that it doesn't look quite so easy when I'm shooting FTR and not Formula-1 F-Open...

Like there's any difference, with the rig you shoot