Would you like to see smaller f open targets?
- Thread starter Falfan2017
- Start date
davidjoe
Not a big thing or even a thing, but the scores you quoted for me in 2004 were from Friday's 1k match. In Saturday's 600 I had 32x's. The X'ring was 3" & 10 ring 7". I guess I learned to shoot a bit better since then. BTW, John Brewer the 1st FC Open Champ cleaned all three 600's that day with 38x's. i have all the scores if you are interested.
Not a big thing or even a thing, but the scores you quoted for me in 2004 were from Friday's 1k match. In Saturday's 600 I had 32x's. The X'ring was 3" & 10 ring 7". I guess I learned to shoot a bit better since then. BTW, John Brewer the 1st FC Open Champ cleaned all three 600's that day with 38x's. i have all the scores if you are interested.
Evening Larry,
... Just going off that page attached above from the US team archive website. Idk, it says 600 yards on top, just going off it. Yeah, I was curious about size. I knew bullets got better, ... but I was scratching my head because I had seen that by 2006, the bulletin reported the nationals and it made it sound like the 1/2 moa X target scheme was new that year, but you recall they were already small in 2004, which I suppose is why the X counted as a 11 points and an X.
PS, I changed it, above on that 1 moa ring X size subject.
Last edited:
4-5 seconds is slow? Pulling a target, marking it, pasting and moving scoring disk in 5 seconds. And your saying there are people out there doing all that in 2 1/2 seconds. Calling BS on that.
I wholeheartedly agree on pair firing. Get rid of string shooting.
E Ts not manual. My club ditched manual targets over ten years ago. I wont shoot Bisley or on manual targets nor do I shoot as fast as many do but if the conditions warrant faster speed I can and do. With the advent of the SOLO and Shotmarker ETs even the smaller clubs are moving to ETs. Manual targets are dead here.
That’s not exactly true. 10’s and X’s count the same. If I the 10 ring is smaller some of those are now 9’s and hardly anyone cleans. That means if you happen drop one point in the first match by .001” you can still come back and win.
Now that is not the case.
Yup and that is benchrest. Not close to f class.
We should be able to overcome paper accumulating holes if we can achieve center punching 1,000 yard targets with $5k rifles. Isn’t the goal to shoot out the center, after all, how can it be both the goal and a problem at the same time.
If anything, the idea is meant to unlevel scores that shouldn’t be the same. Smaller rings do a better job of differentiating scores. There would be no score ties in 60 shots if scoring rings were half an inch apart and the center X was an inch. Now, no one is suggesting “that” much definition is needed, but it illustrates the point. By the way has anyone seen an air gun center. ( . )
We are trying to hit the middle of the black; if on a still winter morning, one shooter holds the center inch of the five inch X ring for 20 shots and beside him the shooter put 3 in the center inch and 17 all over the rest of the 5 inch circle, and they both drop a 10 on shot 21, the score will report identical shooting.
But it wasn’t identical shooting, as benchresters know. Fclass isn’t about group size as two 10’s at 9 and 3 o’clock are worth the same 20 points as two 10’s touching, but it IS about middle of the black.
78.5 square inches is the size of the 10 ring at 1,000. Shot dispersion keeps shrinking with better shooters and gear. Ranges can’t physically increase distance beyond 1,000. Matches are already shot during windy hours. The easiest and only conceivable eventuality to really differentiate clustering shooters is smaller scoring rings.
The current rules say it is F Class. If you don't like it go and shoot something more to what you like. Maybe optical Palma.
dcali
Bullet Maker
I'm only half way through my first cup of coffee this morning, so this might actually be a bad idea, but here goes:
Count Xs as 11 points. Then, they're requirements to win, rather than tie breakers, and a guy who shoots a 599-49x would win over a guy who shoots a 600-30x (under current rules), which makes sense to me. Ties could still be broken creedmoor style. The same thing could be accomplished by getting rid of the x ring and calling that the 10 ring, and shifting every other ring down one point (Xs are now 10s, 10s are now 9s, etc).
The only downsides I can think of would be that the math gets harder, and that classifications would get all jacked up.
Count Xs as 11 points. Then, they're requirements to win, rather than tie breakers, and a guy who shoots a 599-49x would win over a guy who shoots a 600-30x (under current rules), which makes sense to me. Ties could still be broken creedmoor style. The same thing could be accomplished by getting rid of the x ring and calling that the 10 ring, and shifting every other ring down one point (Xs are now 10s, 10s are now 9s, etc).
The only downsides I can think of would be that the math gets harder, and that classifications would get all jacked up.
As I read this there seems to be a dual issue with high/ close scores, and the premature destruction of target centers.
If so, the an obvious solution would be to make the center more difficult to hit.
This would lower/ spread scores, and save targets.
Eliminating the rear bag would certainly be a step in that direction.
It would not effect, or necessarily discourage equipment development per se, merely (re-)introduce more of the human control element to this discipline of prone shooting.
That is, if that's what truly desired.
If so, the an obvious solution would be to make the center more difficult to hit.
This would lower/ spread scores, and save targets.
Eliminating the rear bag would certainly be a step in that direction.
It would not effect, or necessarily discourage equipment development per se, merely (re-)introduce more of the human control element to this discipline of prone shooting.
That is, if that's what truly desired.
I’ll trust electronic targets when bemchresters adopt them at the distances we shot.
300 is broken. Virtually any spotter you put in the hole is going to burst the next shot.
Aw heckfire, the same guys would be winning, but instead of 25 A+‘s being given, and two B’s, the A+’s would be fewer and more meaningful. Last horse hit from me.
Aw heckfire, the same guys would be winning, but instead of 25 A+‘s being given, and two B’s, the A+’s would be fewer and more meaningful. Last horse hit from me.
You are right about 300. I shoot 600 and 1000 so no dog to hunt at 300. 60 x's at 600yds. would be real meaningful to me.!!
You are right about 300. I shoot 600 and 1000 so no dog to hunt at 300. 60 x's at 600yds. would be real meaningful to me.!!
Last edited:
At Rattlesnake, you don't need to wait for 3 minutes for a wind change. Each shot can be a different wind reading with no predominant condition. Get two or three shots in sequence with the same wind reading can be a luxury3 minute delay and no sightersThats reading the wind! Nobody has shot a 200 20x yet at LR...
...and then there is the heavy mirage 
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.
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.