New F-Class 600 Yard Target

[Ringostar]

Too late! What I read was "Dan Biggs endorses using electronic targets to support reducing the target for mid-range". Ship it!

I've said many times on these forums, that people read things differently. Some people fail to read humor in many posts. E targets would be a good and fair way to reduce target sizes.

 

[Jdne5b]

Personally I think it’s time to shrink the entire target. It would definitely be more interesting.

I think you should shoot on the current target again before wishing changes on all of us..

 

[Jetjock1]

Does anyone know the company Pete is talking about? The target he describes was not approved by the high power committee so I need to track down what is happening. If anyone knows and wants to contact me my email is hwalter2@earthlink.net
Jetjock

 

[Petros284]

Does anyone know the company Pete is talking about? The target he describes was not approved by the high power committee so I need to track down what is happening. If anyone knows and wants to contact me my email is hwalter2@earthlink.net
Jetjock

Email inbound. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. These targets came from National Target Company, and they claimed that NRA made the change in October.

 

[Rope2horns]

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

 

[Jay Christopherson]

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

There's plenty of 600-40/50x+ being shot though. It's pretty rare that a mid-range match (here locally anyhow) doesn't feature multiple cleans. Heck, the 300 yard aggregate winner last year was 165 shots clean with 130 X's. A single point dropped (or even too many 10's!) and you might as well go home. The 600 yard championship (80 shots) featured the top three clean (800), with one or two X's of separation. Our monthly 500 yard matches are generally only won if you are clean (600) with a 45+ x-count. I personally find it boring which is why I use mid-range matches mostly for testing.

But, I get that a lot of guys enjoy it, everybody has different goals. I would prefer a smaller target for the challenge, but don't really care one way or another as long as there are good long range matches available to keep things interesting.

EDIT: The idea of using e-targets to shrink the target is actually pretty interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to get SMT to offer reduced-size targets for non-approved shooting.

 

[Immike]

I personally find it boring which is why I use mid-range matches mostly for testing.

But, I get that a lot of guys enjoy it, everybody has different goals. I would prefer a smaller target for the challenge, but don't really care one way or another as long as there are good long range matches available to keep things interesting.

EDIT: The idea of using e-targets to shrink the target is actually pretty interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to get SMT to offer reduced-size targets for non-approved shooting.

How many 600-60x's did you shoot this year?? Lol

 

[Jay Christopherson]

How many 600-60x's did you shoot this year? Lol

Zero... to me, 600-60 or 600-50 is 6 of one, half dozen of the other on the interesting challenge scale. I never claimed anyone did, although it's getting close from the scores I see being posted. But - F-Class used to be that way before they shrank the target right? How much fun was that? The excitement (IMO) is in the challenge, not the perfection.

EDIT: BTW, I hope I'm not coming across as looking down on mid-range or guys that enjoy the challenge of chasing 600-60X. I really am not because I get that different shooters have different goals. It's just not my thing is all, and why I would be in favor of a reduced target.

 

[lawrence97]

Km

Zero... to me, 600-60 or 600-50 is 6 of one, half dozen of the other on the interesting challenge scale. I never claimed anyone did, although it's getting close from the scores I see being posted. But - F-Class used to be that way before they shrank the target right? How much fun was that? The excitement (IMO) is in the challenge, not the perfection.

I’m with Jay, I used to enjoy the mid range stuff but now I use it to fireform! It’s not very challenging and cleans or high x count are too common and I’d rather shoot at 1000 where there still aren’t as many cleans and a tight shooting rifle and good wind reading is still needed.

 

[Immike]

Zero... to me, 600-60 or 600-50 is 6 of one, half dozen of the other on the interesting challenge scale. I never claimed anyone did, although it's getting close from the scores I see being posted. But - F-Class used to be that way before they shrank the target right? How much fun was that? The excitement (IMO) is in the challenge, not the perfection.

I enjoy your enthusiasm Jay, and I know your on your game now. I like shooting through the conditions at our local matches for that challenge you mention. We can't expect that effect on the match as a whole and the weather's not the same everywhere. Find a way to challenge yourself to keep gaining!

 

[Heman]

There's plenty of 600-40/50x+ being shot though. It's pretty rare that a mid-range match (here locally anyhow) doesn't feature multiple cleans. Heck, the 300 yard aggregate winner last year was 165 shots clean with 130 X's. A single point dropped (or even too many 10's!) and you might as well go home. The 600 yard championship (80 shots) featured the top three clean (800), with one or two X's of separation. Our monthly 500 yard matches are generally only won if you are clean (600) with a 45+ x-count. I personally find it boring which is why I use mid-range matches mostly for testing.

But, I get that a lot of guys enjoy it, everybody has different goals. I would prefer a smaller target for the challenge, but don't really care one way or another as long as there are good long range matches available to keep things interesting.

EDIT: The idea of using e-targets to shrink the target is actually pretty interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to get SMT to offer reduced-size targets for non-approved shooting.

Not hard at all a couple of our guys have made their own F-class targets for practicing.

 

[Rope2horns]

There's plenty of 600-40/50x+ being shot though.

And that could be the difference between where we shoot.....We don't have the 600-45x problem at Tulsa Redcastle..matter of fact we don't have a 600 problem. As far as I know there hasn't been one shot there....Rick Jensen @280man would know for sure. And it's not because a bunch of puds like myself shoot there...there has been some top tier guys shoot there in the past.


At the end of the day you can miss a x on a big target and lose,,,or miss a x on a smaller target and lose seems to be the same to me?

 

[Jay Christopherson]

And that could be the difference between where we shoot.....We don't have the 600-45x problem at Tulsa Redcastle..matter of fact we don't have a 600 problem. As far as I know there hasn't been one shot there....Rick Jensen @280man would know for sure. And it's not because a bunch of puds like myself shoot there...there has been some top tier guys shoot there in the past.


At the end of the day you can miss a x on a big target and lose,,,or miss a x on a smaller target and lose seems to be the same to me?

Yep, location probably has a lot to do with it. Most (with two exceptions that I can think of) of our local 300/500/600 ranges are basically wind(less) tunnels. Great for testing, not so much if you are looking for something other than a trigger pulling contest.

 

[243Mendoza]

... I would prefer a smaller target for the challenge, but don't really care one way or another as long as there are good long range matches available to keep things interesting.

EDIT: The idea of using e-targets to shrink the target is actually pretty interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to get SMT to offer reduced-size targets for non-approved shooting.

Jay, as you know shooting 600yd at Cascade is different than shooting 600yd at Rattlesnake.

Btw, you can look at the etarget files which are legible and make your own etarget and add it to the choice of targets on the server. I think with your skills, it should be easy.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Jay, as you know shooting 600yd at Cascade is different than shooting 600yd at Rattlesnake.

Btw, you can look at the etarget files which are legible and make your own etarget and add it to the choice of targets on the server. I think with your skills, it should be easy.

I've never actually shot mid-range at Rattlesnake, though I can imagine it's at least somewhat different. Three hours is a long way to go for a mid-range match... Plantation is probably about as far as I'll go for a same-day/mid-range match.

 

[dannyjbiggs]

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

 

[243Mendoza]

I've never actually shot mid-range at Rattlesnake, though I can imagine it's at least somewhat different. Three hours is a long way to go for a mid-range match... Plantation is probably about as far as I'll go for a same-day/mid-range match.

Rattlesnake has weekend matches were on Fri, you shoot 300 and 600 and on Sat and Sun, you shoot 8/9/1000yd.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

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

Dan, I never said anyone is shooting a 600-60X. I flat out never said that. Feel free to re-read what I wrote before you freak out on me. I said there are plenty of "600-40/50+" being shot. You might be mistaking that for my opinion where I said 600-50 or 600-60 is "6 of one, half dozen of the other" (were a 600-60 to be shot) in terms of how interesting of a challenge it is (to ME).

At local matches, there are at least three local shooters here who regularly shot 600-45+ (nearly every time in fact, at least one of them hits between 45 and 50 X's) and 600-50+ (ok, low 50's, but still) a few times. We don't have any local registered 60-shot 600-yard matches so yeah, no records being recorded here. The only registered match we have is an 80-shot aggregate (there were three 800's shot at the last one).

 

[dannyjbiggs]

Danny, I never said anyone is shooting a 600-60X. I flat out never said that. Feel free to re-read what I wrote before you freak out on me. I said there are plenty of "600-40/50+" being shot. I also said that in my opinion, 600-50 or 600-60 is "6 of one, half dozen of the other" (were a 600-60 to be shot) in terms of how interesting of a challenge it is (to ME).

At local matches, there are at least three local shooters here who regularly shot 600-45+ (nearly every time in fact, at least one of them hits between 45 and 50 X's) and 600-50+ (ok, low 50's, but still) a few times. We don't have any registered 60-shot 600-yard matches so yeah, no records being recorded here. The only registered match we have is an 80-shot aggregate (there were three 800's shot at the last one).

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

 

[Bindi2]

There's plenty of 600-40/50x+ being shot though. It's pretty rare that a mid-range match (here locally anyhow) doesn't feature multiple cleans. Heck, the 300 yard aggregate winner last year was 165 shots clean with 130 X's. A single point dropped (or even too many 10's!) and you might as well go home. The 600 yard championship (80 shots) featured the top three clean (800), with one or two X's of separation. Our monthly 500 yard matches are generally only won if you are clean (600) with a 45+ x-count. I personally find it boring which is why I use mid-range matches mostly for testing.

But, I get that a lot of guys enjoy it, everybody has different goals. I would prefer a smaller target for the challenge, but don't really care one way or another as long as there are good long range matches available to keep things interesting.

EDIT: The idea of using e-targets to shrink the target is actually pretty interesting. I wonder how hard it would be to get SMT to offer reduced-size targets for non-approved shooting.

I use a SMT with a 300 face/aiming mark for all ranges back to 900 set for the correct distance then score/ measure group as a manual at the end of a string. Very interesting results.