Would you like to see smaller f open targets?

[sdean]

1283546"]Nine pages, 178 posts, OP hasn't responded since page one and no one has been called a name....I think we've done good as bunch of fclass'ers. [/QUOTE]


Probably 20 people been beating and picking up this dead horse for a while. Mostly creating new problems to solve a whole different one. How to change a center out. This forum is just a tiny part of the whole Fclass community. Most of us just want the rules to be the same for everyone and to shoot and have fun. It really is just a hobby.

 

[sdean]

If you want to keep this going then talk about the most important thing to do to shoot clean. Being new to competition I have decided to concentrate on the most consistent ammo and my set up and hold.

 

[KMart]

. A 600-0x beats a 599-59x
Marc Mittry

And it damn well should! The amount of skill required to shoot a 600 and NEVER hit the X-ring is down right unimaginable.

 

[davidjoe]

And it damn well should! The amount of skill required to shoot a 600 and NEVER hit the X-ring is down right unimaginable.

Nobody tries to miss the X. They try to shoot clean. Then they progress to improving X count.

 

[davidjoe]

Agree 100%. Short sweet and to the exact point!

Darrin

It was never a “goal” that weather differences would determine outcome. Everyone would agree that ideally the wind would be even for all, right. Stated another way - no one complains that the wind was the same for everyone.

It’s not part of the game that you get to pick your relay order. It gets assigned. And the reality is that the wind is far from the same on most days.

The traditionalists of highpower matches would confirm that the time honored determining factors of outcome in order of preference would be:

1) quality of shooter - skill, endurance;

2) quality of equipment - it used to be very uniform and unlike FC.

3) factors a shooter can’t control -extremely different wind, weather stoppage that negates a lead change or a leader’s crossfire, etc., firing point and range idiosyncrasies, like a sheltered side, slow or faulty target, laying outside the end of the cover, or in mud when others don’t, winning when the leading shooter had a stroke mid-string in last relay or broken rifle, crossfire or controversy that delays the leader and costs him points or to lose himself in the wind, birdstrikes, losing the lead in a grayout rainfall, and so on and so forth.

A clean shooter with low X’s did not get something “right” in tier 1 or 2 that eluded a 59-X shooter. 59-X’s is a quantum leap over shooting merely clean. In fairness, something like 599 59x versus 600 57x is a much tougher example as to who really shot “better.” But there’s no question that a third or so of the shots will hit the X if you are simply holding a minute of angle.

The X is 1/16 the total area inside the 9 ring but worth only 10% more. Mathematically, a truer measure of skill would be to use score to break ties in X count instead of vice versa.

 

[Falfan2017]

And it damn well should! The amount of skill required to shoot a 600 and NEVER hit the X-ring is down right unimaginable.

That 600-0x is a crazy example. I think he meant more like 59x with one 9 vs 600-34x or something like that. The 59x with a 9 seems to show a lot better performance.

 

[Cochran]

My first thoughts when this thread started was the impact on “safe siding”. It’s a proven technique that we’ve relied on for years but on today’s firing line the X battle is getting the focus. I don’t anticipate a need for change in this decade and hopefully a X reduction will be the only changes far down the road.

Actually, that’s the best idea yet. I’d definitely support an X reduction. Not because I think scores are too high or they are getting too shot up but because it would make the target look more uniform. I hate that the x and 10 lines are so close together. In a nasty mirage they kinda blend together where I have a nice even distance between the other rings. I wouldn’t mind a little half dollar sized x ring.

 

[rardoin]

A clean shooter with low X’s did not get something “right” in tier 1 or 2 that eluded a 59-X shooter. 59-X’s is a quantum leap over shooting merely clean. In fairness, something like 599 59x versus 600 57x is a much tougher example as to who really shot “better.” But there’s no question that a third or so of the shots will hit the X if you are simply holding a minute of angle.

But...the 600-5x still wins...and that is the game...points...period. The shooter who safe sides and has low X-count beats the 599-59x by the rules of the game and arguably is more skilled at playing the game. As an anology....Clinton had more popular votes in the 2016 election but the game is decided by electoral college votes...period. If it was by popular vote Trump would have played it differently than he did and would have still likely won. Was Hillary the more 'skilled' politician because she had more overall votes? No...because she lost the game. The NASCAR driver than leads 199 out of 200 laps but crosses the finish line after the driver who led only the last lap is not 'the more skilled driver' at the game that day...he got outplayed. Should he whine and say he/she should get the trip to the winner's circle because they led all laps but one? Should a NASCAR race (or any motor race for that matter) get the finishers scored by points for laps led? I would like to see that one played out.

 

[6BRinNZ]

That 600-0x is a crazy example. I think he meant more like 59x with one 9 vs 600-34x or something like that. The 59x with a 9 seems to show a lot better performance.

nah - that is a close but no cigar score.
Long story short - they made a mistake, yes only one but it was the one that cost. Thats how sports play out under the rules.
It does show a lot of potential.
You can have a 1/4 moa gun and hammer xs but drop points to wind. Someone else can have a .6moa gun and keep them all in the 10. The .6moa shooter wins.

 

[Longtrain]

My 2 cents, I started F Class with the full LR target, I shot a 447/450 on a Palma Course with a 223 in good conditions, guys shooting 6.5's were clean with huge X counts. Then came the new F Class target, things become more competitive with the 175 SMK being the hot bullet in F-T/R. Then came the 185's, now 200 and 215 grainers in TR, rifles built at top levels, every gun can hold 1/2 or better of the X ring, big bullets with big BC's bucking the wind. If you can afford it you can get in the mix.

Here comes the flames...

How about limiting bullet weights by caliber to level the playing field. The USA IMHO dropped the ball allowing over 155 grainers for Palma, the rest of the world has to play within those constraints, why not the USA. The same for F Class, a true rifleman shooting equal bullets against their competitors, within the constraints of a 308 case or whatever, he who reads the wind, holds hard, wins the prize.

Changing the target is not the answer.

 

[davidjoe]

But...the 600-5x still wins...and that is the game...points...period. The shooter who safe sides and has low X-count beats the 599-59x by the rules of the game and arguably is more skilled at playing the game. As an anology....Clinton had more popular votes in the 2016 election but the game is decided by electoral college votes...period. If it was by popular vote Trump would have played it differently than he did and would have still likely won. Was Hillary the more 'skilled' politician because she had more overall votes? No...because she lost the game. The NASCAR driver than leads 199 out of 200 laps but crosses the finish line after the driver who led only the last lap is not 'the more skilled driver' at the game that day...he got outplayed. Should he whine and say he/she should get the trip to the winner's circle because they led all laps but one? Should a NASCAR race (or any motor race for that matter) get the finishers scored by points for laps led? I would like to see that one played out.

Where the shooter takes or loses the lead (near end or not) is not the issue at all.

Racing is based on lowest elapsed time to the finish, period. It does not matter how close or far second place is from first. Heck if your dragster is fast enough wait until your opponent is halfway there.

FC is about the most points, determined by proximity to center, not group size. Simple concept, some concentric rings surround center, instead of measuring.

There is nothing sacred in any particular choice of ring sizes. They simply should do a good job of differentiating shooters on “proximity to center”.

60X of 60 has never been shot, stated earlier above, at least at some distances. Every Sunday of every month, clean scores are shot all over the country, probably at all distances.

The rings we use have a lot of guys incorrreclty thinking that 600 and some x’s is the gold standard, the “nuts”, the “didn’t make any mistakes” score.

Since there is no 60x score, I’ll surmise that if you beat a 59x-er with a 600 and some X’s, you beat about the very best there is, even though your 600 is not rare. Let’s see how many times that happens “on the same relay.”

Let’s suppose that there are 100 cleans for every one 59-x, if it’s harder by 100 fold to shoot 59 X’s than merely clean a day, then do the rings do a very good job at their one and only purpose? The X’s actually have counted as an additional point, in the past.

Ok. Let’s talk cars that don’t “race at the same time” just like we don’t all shoot at the same time.

At Bonneville, you turn around and come back the opposite way within a short period of time to negate wind. You average the speeds. We don’t. If we’re not going to equalize it, that’s fine but it means our “clock” (which are rings) needs to do as good a job as possible to represent who really shot the best.

Supposing it’s 20 years ago and two friends want to start up an FC type sport. The two have shot together for 10 years and the one who’s assigned the rule drafting knows that his buddy always has had and always will have the edge in skill and accurae guns. Do you think that the friend drafting the rules would place a big or a small premium on X’s?

There’s clustering and aberrations. It’s not that a winner can’t be determined, it’s that score system/rings aren’t forced to reflect who’s holding the best center through the entirety of the match.

It’s accepted that you may draw an unlucky wind relay. Wind may cost you points other guys don’t have to deal with. But there should be a way to dig out of that hole when the wind doesn’t cause anyone drops. However there is not. Even if you punch out X’s to the other guys’ cruise control 10’s, it’s to no avail despite the fact you’d be holding a better center.

That’s essentially the problem with the rings\scores - it presently allows wind to take points, but it is not tuned to allow ultra precision shooting to make them up.

 

[Falfan2017]

My 2 cents, I started F Class with the full LR target, I shot a 447/450 on a Palma Course with a 223 in good conditions, guys shooting 6.5's were clean with huge X counts. Then came the new F Class target, things become more competitive with the 175 SMK being the hot bullet in F-T/R. Then came the 185's, now 200 and 215 grainers in TR, rifles built at top levels, every gun can hold 1/2 or better of the X ring, big bullets with big BC's bucking the wind. If you can afford it you can get in the mix.

Here comes the flames...

How about limiting bullet weights by caliber to level the playing field. The USA IMHO dropped the ball allowing over 155 grainers for Palma, the rest of the world has to play within those constraints, why not the USA. The same for F Class, a true rifleman shooting equal bullets against their competitors, within the constraints of a 308 case or whatever, he who reads the wind, holds hard, wins the prize.

Changing the target is not the answer.

Definitely a pay to play sport. Seems like about the most wind bucking you could buy would be 308 flatline copper solids coming out of a 300 wsm. Half moa accuracy and just over half the wind drift of a 180 Berger hybrid from a 284 shehane or 7wsm. However you'd be coming up on 2$ a shot with the cost of bullets powder brass and barrel life.

 

[Warren Dean]

Where the shooter takes or loses the lead (near end or not) is not the issue at all.

Racing is based on lowest elapsed time to the finish, period. It does not matter how close or far second place is from first. Heck if your dragster is fast enough wait until your opponent is halfway there.

FC is about the most points, determined by proximity to center, not group size. Simple concept, some concentric rings surround center, instead of measuring.

There is nothing sacred in any particular choice of ring sizes. They simply should do a good job of differentiating shooters on “proximity to center”.

60X of 60 has never been shot, stated earlier above, at least at some distances. Every Sunday of every month, clean scores are shot all over the country, probably at all distances.

The rings we use have a lot of guys incorrreclty thinking that 600 and some x’s is the gold standard, the “nuts”, the “didn’t make any mistakes” score.

Since there is no 60x score, I’ll surmise that if you beat a 59x-er with a 600 and some X’s, you beat about the very best there is, even though your 600 is not rare. Let’s see how many times that happens “on the same relay.”

Let’s suppose that there are 100 cleans for every one 59-x, if it’s harder by 100 fold to shoot 59 X’s than merely clean a day, then do the rings do a very good job at their one and only purpose? The X’s actually have counted as an additional point, in the past.

Ok. Let’s talk cars that don’t “race at the same time” just like we don’t all shoot at the same time.

At Bonneville, you turn around and come back the opposite way within a short period of time to negate wind. You average the speeds. We don’t. If we’re not going to equalize it, that’s fine but it means our “clock” (which are rings) needs to do as good a job as possible to represent who really shot the best.

Supposing it’s 20 years ago and two friends want to start up an FC type sport. The two have shot together for 10 years and the one who’s assigned the rule drafting knows that his buddy always has had and always will have the edge in skill and accurae guns. Do you think that the friend drafting the rules would place a big or a small premium on X’s?

There’s clustering and aberrations. It’s not that a winner can’t be determined, it’s that score system/rings aren’t forced to reflect who’s holding the best center through the entirety of the match.

It’s accepted that you may draw an unlucky wind relay. Wind may cost you points other guys don’t have to deal with. But there should be a way to dig out of that hole when the wind doesn’t cause anyone drops. However there is not. Even if you punch out X’s to the other guys’ cruise control 10’s, it’s to no avail despite the fact you’d be holding a better center.

That’s essentially the problem with the rings\scores - it presently allows wind to take points, but it is not tuned to allow ultra precision shooting to make them up.

I am wondering if the ICFRA 5/V target might be the answer. You can make up points on that target and the rest of the world uses it.

 

[Warren Dean]

Definitely a pay to play sport. Seems like about the most wind bucking you could buy would be 308 flatline copper solids coming out of a 300 wsm. Half moa accuracy and just over half the wind drift of a 180 Berger hybrid from a 284 shehane or 7wsm. However you'd be coming up on 2$ a shot with the cost of bullets powder brass and barrel life.

And being beat death by the rifle....lol.

 

[7MM-RAHM]

It seems like it would be more interesting if f class matches were settled more often by score instead of just x count. Why is the f open target so much bigger than an ibs target? Like 600 yard bench with a 1.2" x

Until there are half the shooters shooting 600s every match and being decided by Xs there’s no reason to change!

Bar 3 and a extremely easy tang to shoot at!! Cleans will be common there, want a challenge got to Raton or Texas or PALO ALTO

 

[davidjoe]

10 ring is par,
9 ring is bogey,
X ring is eagle, or the three point line in NBA.

Except eagle doesn’t offset a bogey for us and three line only breaks ties and counts as two points.

Emphasizing the X as more than a tie breaker, and discussing “shrinking the rings” is functionally one single concept, - greater weight given to being gnat’s a-s accurate.

If the game is only to avoid dropping a 9’s in switchy wind, instead of rewarding absolute accuracy in mild wind, a condition which happens more often, then kamikaze, “top fuel dragster” magnums are the winning tickets - effective but short lived, expensive, constantly in need of rebuilding, and nonconducive to casual practice.

If you can’t practice much because your barrel’s life is so short, your wind skills don’t improve. These guns do to wind reading what calculators do to math. Yet, given a fortunate set of relays, you may walk a medal finish when you’d be bottom quarter with an average BC rig. I love FC and will play by whatever rules there are.

But this scoring system we have predates current magnums, bullets and group sizes. The .284 itself wasn’t even much used in 2006. The dominant LR cartridge today (podium finish - not by by entry) laps the .284 in the wind, trails it in X’s in calm, and burns barrels significantly in a dozen matches, or at least gets replaced at about that rate.

We can’t assume that full score for a 1 moa shot would have been chosen if these guns we have were in use back then.

 

[WindSurgeon]

Some points to think about.
We changed from the 2 moa 10 ring to the 1 moa in 2007, I believe while keeping the target black the same as our parent sport, HP sling. While a lot of cleans have been shot at shorter ranges (especially 300 yd) I don’t think it is time to change targets yet. When most shooters start cleaning the X ring then it would be time to consider a smaller target. No one has yet cleaned a range aggregate (600-60x) at any range in a registered match. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The constant all ten’s cleans would go away in many cases if the 7 second rule was made mandatory for electronic target. This needs to be done ASAP. FC is not BR and the custom of having a target pulled and marked needs to remain in the sport. Why should people shooting on ET’s have an advantage record wise over those that don’t? The HP committee needs to change this now!

If you reduced the targets to ½ moa tens etc., think about how hard it would be to score & past 10’s & X’s.

People tend to forget what changing targets entails. The clubs would have to buy new faces (what happens to a stock pile of old targets?). The NRA would have to change the rule book & start tracking all new records. Heck they have enough trouble getting caught up now on records and rules!

As someone pointed out, come out west if you want the game to get harder. I was amazed when I went to the TX State LR near Houston this year. I and others shot more 200 cleans at 1k than I have ever seen. But I shoot mostly at tricky ranges.

I agree with Lbart's assessment and also there needs to be some rules on e-target matches in terms of time between shots to mimic target pulling and then having to read changing conditions. Otherwise, the sport is not much different than BR, shooting as many shots in a single condition as possible.

 

[Lbart]

10 ring is par,
Snip, snip, snip
We can’t assume that full score for a 1 moa shot would have been chosen if these guns we have were in use back then.

You can assume whatever you want DavidJoe, but I was there and got the t-shirt People tend to forget you can make a game too hard. Joe Smidlap doesn’t want to go home and when asked by his wife; “How did it go Honey?”, have to tell her “I lost bunch and got beat by everyone”. He would rather be able to say truthfully, “ I cleaned the 1st string and dropped a few points after that when the wind came up!”. We need to always consider the new shooters and those who don’t desire to be World Champs, but enjoy their time on the range with their friends. Without these shooters FC would die. The GAME is growing and supporting the growth of new ranges all over the country, now is not the time to make it too hard!

 

[davidjoe]

You can assume whatever you want DavidJoe, but I was there and got the t-shirt People tend to forget you can make a game too hard. Joe Smidlap doesn’t want to go home and when asked by his wife; “How did it go Honey?”, have to tell her “I lost bunch and got beat by everyone”. He would rather be able to say truthfully, “ I cleaned the 1st string and dropped a few points after that when the wind came up!”. We need to always consider the new shooters and those who don’t desire to be World Champs, but enjoy their time on the range with their friends. Without these shooters FC would die. The GAME is growing and supporting the growth of new ranges all over the country, now is not the time to make it too hard!

LB I’m on board with that. I can’t say how many times I’ve taken much solace in explaining that I was just a few points out of the lead. And a supportive family is the true gold medal for us in all of this.

 

[kiwial]

You can assume whatever you want DavidJoe, but I was there and got the t-shirt People tend to forget you can make a game too hard. Joe Smidlap doesn’t want to go home and when asked by his wife; “How did it go Honey?”, have to tell her “I lost bunch and got beat by everyone”. He would rather be able to say truthfully, “ I cleaned the 1st string and dropped a few points after that when the wind came up!”. We need to always consider the new shooters and those who don’t desire to be World Champs, but enjoy their time on the range with their friends. Without these shooters FC would die. The GAME is growing and supporting the growth of new ranges all over the country, now is not the time to make it too hard!

I agree with this in any shooting discipline.
The top 5-10% will always finish towards the top and be there at an match every weekend no matter what the rules are - it’s the mid pack for who the rules need to favour as they are the ones who make up the majority and discouraging people with elitist rules to suit only the few only puts the average punter off