You F-Class Shooters

[FroggyOne2]

I just had a thought and I am sure that others have had the same thought. But when shooting F-Class at 1K, why is it that you guys are not using the MR65 500 yard target? I mean, it would be a full representive 1/2 MOA target all the way out to the miss!

Just wondering!

 

[XTR]

I just had a thought and I am sure that others have had the same thought. But when shooting F-Class at 1K, why is it that you guys are not using the MR63 500 yard target? I mean, it would be a full representive 1/2 MOA target all the way out to the miss!

Just wondering!

Randy I bet you need to direct that one to the NRA.

I haven't seen the MR63 but if it doesn't have the same size aiming black as the 1000 yard targets that's probably got something to do with it. Remember, F class did start out on the 1000 yard HP target till about 06 or 07. When it changed to what it is today it allowed us to just paste a different center on a standard 1000 yard target and shoot in the same matches.

 

[FroggyOne2]

There I corrected it, MR65 500 yard target. And for the other info, I already knew that, but thank you for it anyway.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

It would certainly help with the (I-can't-figure-out-what-value-it-it-there-are-two-8-rings) problem. The down side to that plan is that the line width is critical, especially with a scope, to derive a solid aiming location. If the rings were the same line width, it would be OK.

Another logistical consideration is the ability to use a basic target for two different purposes. With the current arrangement, a new center changes the target from long range prone to F-class or vice-versa and saves resources by not requiring additional frames, cardboard, (you get the idea), etc.

In my personal opinion, I don't care what target is used, what size the rings are, or if the target is circles, squares, heart shapes, butterflies, or whatever so long as all of us shoot at the same target design. No matter what, we will figure out who wins!

Just to play devil's advocate, why don't we just change the prone target to the F-class format? It would definately separate the better shooters out and give everyone a much better wind-reading workout. Just sayin...

 

[FroggyOne2]

Busdriver,

Do any prone shooting? Just wondering. But as you can see, using the MR65 target would more sense in many ways. I am just thinking out loud here and having different frames, well at our club, we have plenty of frames and carboard, so that is not a problem, also practice targets would be easier to distiguish. And to tell ya the truth, your not going to get the prone shooters to switch from the current format. I don't know if you shoot prone or ever have. If you haven't you should try it first. I would say that you hard pressed to consistantly hold a strong score. If you think about it, not that many prone shooters find it all that easy to clean the MOA target that is being used today, which is a tighter target than the V target of yore. If the MOA prone target was so easy, cleans with 20X's would be shot rather often.

Now if you want to tighten up a prone target, tighten up a smallbore prone target. Or just better yet, shoot a metric target at further distance. Want a tight target to shoot on in prone, how about a 300 meter target reduced to 300 yards.

Tatgets are the way they are to accept the average ability of the average shooter. The great shooters, well they just shoot great! There is no reason the change the target system for prone for the few that shoot great, you will just run off more of the average. But what I was thinking here is that the matter of convienence in scoring, that the a target used at 1K like the MR65 target would be better, due to the fact that it would be a full 1/2 moa completely out the 5 ring, scoring the target for the target puller would be less complicated and most clubs can go with this because, your still using the same amount of frames! As for covering the black on a prone target, if it didn't, well the just turn the full face over and then you don't have that problem any more!

Like I said, I am just thinking out loud here.

 

[memilanuk]

Do any prone shooting?

Yes.... I do from time to time. Do you shoot F-Class @ LR?

While I do agree to some degree... I think the current F-Class '9' ring is awful generous, proportional to the X & 10... I don't think think making the whole target that much harder is going to do anything but drive people away. The current conventional LR target scoring rings are not strictly MOA proportional out past the 9 ring anyway - the 8 ring is 44" (4.4 moa), the 7 ring is 60" (6 MOA)... so why do you want to 'punish' the F-Class shooters more so than the sling shooters? Our X & 10 ring already have 1/2 the diameter - and 1/4 the total area - of the sling target center. The wind doesn't affect bullets coming out of an F/TR rifle any less than they do ones coming out of a Palma rifle...

As for covering the black on a prone target, if it didn't, well the just turn the full face over and then you don't have that problem any more!

And... you just increased the number of target frames that need to be built, since now they won't be interchangeable with regular LR target frames by the simple swap of a repair center. Pretty sure that will just make acceptance of the change, and/or F-Class shooters, that much less popular with match directors stuck with juggling line squadding, rebuilding target faces, etc.

YMMV,

Monte