New F-Class 600 Yard Target

[memilanuk]

I think closing the classification gap between open and tr would be a plus in itself.

What classification gap? You only have an 'F-Class' classification - period.

 

[kzin]

What classification gap? You only have an 'F-Class' classification - period.

I meant that it is actually harder(you have to be better) to get the same classification in tr relative to open. A little harder open target would make open and tr masters closer to the same level of accomplishment relative to the equipment.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I guess I suffer from the same affliction as Jay. Shooting an open rifle on our wind protected ranges will make one believe that the game is easier than it is.

 

[243Mendoza]

Until people shoot 600-60x or 200-20x with regularity, why change targets?

In other words, are you, your ammo and your rifle 1/2 moa 'all day long'? (not to mention reading the wind to within 1/2 moa no matter how strong the wind)

 

[PAPA65]

Just getting started in the game,and do not need a smaller target.The few matches I have been to,sling shooters are given their larger targets,so just squad high masters on the smaller targets.Let the newbies enjoy the sport,as few ever shoot a clean score,and feel quite a thrill if they do. Guess it is old stuff for some of you and you are forgetting when you started

 

[USMCDOC]

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

Maybe you should shoot it like this then..

 

[watercam]

eh, if they are going to change the 600 yard target, make it smaller (make ALL the MR targets smaller IMO). I prefer the horizontal numbers.

For F-Class anyway. The rest of us need that 6 moa black for irons!

 

[Immike]

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

YOU started all this confusion and YOU aren't even shooting! Lmao. I raised mine on the firing line (literally) and they are shooters also. Both are busy with life now but they are children of the range and tell me they miss it! We must stay beginner and family oriented to keep it healthy.

 

[243Mendoza]

Maybe one reason for making the rings smaller is to cut down the number of High Masters

 

[Dgd6mm]

I personally do not need smaller rings not to make High Master. I'm very capable of not making it now.

 

[Heman]

I meant that it is actually harder(you have to be better) to get the same classification in tr relative to open. A little harder open target would make open and tr masters closer to the same level of accomplishment relative to the equipment.

If you would make a smaller target for F-open because it is harder to shoot T/R than F-open scores well then you would need a seperate target for service rifle, any rifle and palma rifle. That would be a total mess. 1 F-class target is fine, 1 sling target is fine. If you are a T/R shooter and can get your HM card in LR well you're a stud, just like if you shoot Service Rifle and get a LR HM card.

 

[Bob L.]

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.

I'm afraid changing the weight limits would adversely impact growing the sport. I feel there would be quite a number existing shooters who would not be able to continue due to the added expense. I know, for me, that having to build new rifles or purchase a new rest to meet lower weight limits would mean quitting the sport entirely. I could not afford the new equipment especially since my current rifles and rest would have little resale value as they could not be used for competition.

Changing target size, reducing the time limit, or instituting pair firing would have very little economic impact and allow those like me to continue to enjoy the sport.

 

[kzin]

If you would make a smaller target for F-open because it is harder to shoot T/R than F-open scores well then you would need a seperate target for service rifle, any rifle and palma rifle. That would be a total mess. 1 F-class target is fine, 1 sling target is fine. If you are a T/R shooter and can get your HM card in LR well you're a stud, just like if you shoot Service Rifle and get a LR HM card.

Agreed. My first post was that evening the classification would be nice in itself but not worth the trouble. That bit got left behind.

 

[boltman223]

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?

I agree with this^^^. What's the difference if the win is separated by x's or 10's and 9's? Its still going to be just as close and the highest score wins. I guess some will come down to the creedmoor rule, but still...

I'd like to see a percentage of the ranges that the cleans and high X counts are happening at.

With that said I guess I don't care what happens with the target, the winner is still going to win.

 

[USMCDOC]

I'm afraid changing the weight limits would adversely impact growing the sport.

You can't do that.. people come in different sizes..

 

[Bob L.]

You can't do that.. people come in different sizes..

Haha! I like it.

 

[dcali]

What are needed more than target shrinking are readily available 10-ring-sized stick-on repair centers. E targets aren't everywhere, and (I may be mistaken here - correct me if I'm wrong) I believe their accuracy is not quite at the level where they are completely trustable when you're talking about targets this small. When someone is routinely shooting 200-12X scores, you do have a problem with scoring that needs addressing in some way or another. The least we can do is make sure that the centers stay in good shape.

I'm less inclined to want to shrink the targets because shrinking the rings is not without unintended consequences, as it also increases the equipment demands to compete at the top. Some might be fine with that, others not so much. Either way, it changes the game a little.

 

[kzin]

If you're willing to take a step back and make big changes then more rings at smaller intervals produces scores that are more proportional to the quality of the shooting.

Like the international targets for 300M and smallbore and the 1/10 point intervals at the highest level of international prone. Or the CMP sporter targets when you really want beginners to score something above zeros.

I practice daily and scores don't track progress very closely partly because 2 or 3 shots grazing a ring or not is a big difference.

 

[dcali]

If you're willing to take a step back and make big changes then more rings at smaller intervals produces scores that are more proportional to the quality of the shooting.

Like the international targets for 300M and smallbore and the 1/10 point intervals at the highest level of international prone. Or the CMP sporter targets when you really want beginners to score something above zeros.

I practice daily and scores don't track progress very closely partly because 2 or 3 shots grazing a ring or not is a big difference.

I would be in favor of that. F class scores are far too biased towards the x ring as it is.

 

[pat fulghum]

My $.02...

Make the rings smaller, make background white with black lines.

I do shoot with a group of guys where 200-13+x at 500/600 yrd is the NORMAL score for them.
I have seen one shooter shoot 6 matches over the year where he didn't drop a point. (Maybe one).
You need a 600-45+ to win.

I also think there is a CLASSIFICATION issue:
Where I shoot, I have never shot a 600x600 yet compete with those that ROUTINELY shoot 600x600 and we are all in the same High Master classification. I still have fun, and compete with myself and hope to be there some day....I know that once I drop a point, Game over.

Which is a better shooter 599-50x or 600-30x?

Is it too easy to get to HM in Mid-Range?

Yes NRA says F-Open / FTR are classified the same, but clearing shooting FTR is harder, and I think combining all "f-class guys" into one group is not fair to FTR.

I haven't thought through it all, but it sure would be nice to make an X worth more than a 10 so that you have the opportunity to makeup a point.... (this needs more thought).​