OzFclass

Woody_rod wrote:

RAVEN wrote:Dave you are spot on
I helped develop the Super V as we call it and the dimensions between what we use now and our friend in the USA are identical.
Cheers
RB
P.S. the V ring inside dim. (thickness) is different

Actually, they are not identical. The US target has a 1 MOA bull (10 ring) and a 1/2 MOA X ring at all ranges. Ours vary from 0.86 MOA V / 6 ring at 300y to 1.3 MOA for the 800y. It would have been more sensible to have the 6 ring at all ranges to be 1 MOA. Our targets at 800, 900 and 1000y (700, 800 and 900m - same diff) are the same as the US Palma target, all being 1 MOA center at 1000y, and equates to 1.3 MOA at 800y.

This means on average the ICFRA targets have inconsistent scoring rings at each range, and on average are larger than the US targets.

Darryl, correct me if I am wrong.

Woody you are referring to the USA High Power Rifle Rules and their F-Class target dimensions can be found here: http://www.nrahq.org/compete/RuleBooks/HPR/hpr-w22.pdf

In international comps the USA team will be shooting on an ICFRA target as opposed to their domestic target. Point taken about their target having tighter centres than the ICFRA targets. Personally I like tight centres


Ian

On the varying target sizes I certainly see the reason to have a smaller target at 300. Two reasons really. Firstly the bullet diameter is relatively larger (in moa) so cutting the line can actually be achieved with a half moa accuracy (add 7.62mm (half on each side) to 32 = 39.62). The second is it is much easier to achieve 0.5moa accuracy at 300 than 1000. If your scoring rings are equal all the way through then you are effectively weighting the performance at 300 differently to 1000 (In actuallity this has the reverse effect to what you would think - everyone scores well at 300 (lots of 59s and 60s) and so the 300 becomes almost irrelevant. - It makes sense to make the short range targets harder to give them more weight in final score.). Really the 800yd (700m) targets also become less weighted as scores tend to be higher and in the end most importance comes down to 1000 yard - hardest of them all. You really need to hold it together at the longs.

Woody_rod wrote: The US target has a 1 MOA bull (10 ring) and a 1/2 MOA X ring at all ranges.

Darrell, correct me if I am wrong.

Rod,

You are generally correct. The US long-range target (800, 900, 1000 yards) has a 5 inch "X" ring, a 10 inch "10" ring, 20 inch "9" ring, 30 inch "8" ring, 44 inch "7" ring. This target will be used for US National Championships, and the International Teams match in New Mexico next September.

For the 2013 F-Class Worlds, we will be using an ICFRA long-range target. It has a 5 inch "V" (scored as 5 points), a 10 inch "5" ring, 20 inch "4" ring, 32 inch "3" ring, and a 44 inch "2" ring.

Dave, you have an excellent point. There is serious talk about dispensing with the 600 yard phase of the US Nationals as it tends to be a trigger pulling contest. This would leave 3 days of pure 1000 yard shooting, where the game is generally won or lost anyway. I'm not sure I am 100% on board with this, I am a big fan of Fullbore style shooting (2+ to a mound, course of fire = 300, 500, 600, 900, and 1000 yards).

Darrell

DaveMc wrote:On the varying target sizes I certainly see the reason to have a smaller target at 300. Two reasons really. Firstly the bullet diameter is relatively larger (in moa) so cutting the line can actually be achieved with a half moa accuracy (add 7.62mm (half on each side) to 32 = 39.62). The second is it is much easier to achieve 0.5moa accuracy at 300 than 1000. If your scoring rings are equal all the way through then you are effectively weighting the performance at 300 differently to 1000 (In actuallity this has the reverse effect to what you would think - everyone scores well at 300 (lots of 59s and 60s) and so the 300 becomes almost irrelevant. - It makes sense to make the short range targets harder to give them more weight in final score.). Really the 800yd (700m) targets also become less weighted as scores tend to be higher and in the end most importance comes down to 1000 yard - hardest of them all. You really need to hold it together at the longs.

The rules are based on 30 cal and/or 224 cal in FTR / F std / TR here, and up to 8mm in FO as we will all mostly know. Therefore all targets are gauged in FS / FTR / TR at 7.62mm and FO at 8mm, no matter what caliber you are using: the caliber is therefore irrelevant to the score. This is not BR. Basically group size in the right place.

To me the most difficult range is 1000y (due to conditions and or group dispersion), with 300y (due to the insanely small center) on the ICFRA target a close second. All others being somewhere after that. I have always found the mid ranges the easiest in FS, FO or TR.

The gauging is interesting now though Rod - How do the markers know whether you are F open or F standard? and I am pretty sure most gauging I have seen on the new ICFRA target is done at 7.62 if at all. I think the electronics in Perth were set to 7.62?? Either way 7.62 to 8 it is roughly a half minute accuracy you need for centre of bullet for bullet to cut x ring. (1 minute for 6) Further out the bullet diameter respectively counts for much less in minutes.

Even if you have difficulty with 300, my argument stands. To have the short ranges count for much in the overall placings you need them to be tighter than the long ranges. The target is tight but so is peoples perception of a good score -a 57 or 58 might feel bad at 300 when everyone else is getting 59 or 60 wherearas a 57 or 58 at 1000 is generally a great score.

I agree the mid ranges are relatively less weighted as well. A large 500 and 800 target size tends to tighten up the scores here too - tight scores mean less importance of that range in final outcome. The relatively tighter 1000 target coupled with the increased wind effect make it the most important range for outcome as a great deal of points can be lost easily. Especially if it is twitchy. Occasionally the weather behaves and scores are ok.

DaveMc wrote:The gauging is interesting now though Rod - How do the markers know whether you are F open or F standard? and I am pretty sure most gauging I have seen on the new ICFRA target is done at 7.62 if at all. I think the electronics in Perth were set to 7.62?? Either way 7.62 to 8 it is roughly a half minute accuracy you need for centre of bullet for bullet to cut x ring. (1 minute for 6) Further out the bullet diameter respectively counts for much less in minutes.

Even if you have difficulty with 300, my argument stands. To have the short ranges count for much in the overall placings you need them to be tighter than the long ranges. The target is tight but so is peoples perception of a good score -a 57 or 58 might feel bad at 300 when everyone else is getting 59 or 60 wherearas a 57 or 58 at 1000 is generally a great score.

I agree the mid ranges are relatively less weighted as well. A large 500 and 800 target size tends to tighten up the scores here too - tight scores mean less importance of that range in final outcome. The relatively tighter 1000 target coupled with the increased wind effect make it the most important range for outcome as a great deal of points can be lost easily. Especially if it is twitchy. Occasionally the weather behaves and scores are ok.

Yes, but the ranges are what they are. This is the thing that makes shooting interesting. How many times have you seen shooters get up with a 60 at short range, and you know for sure that you will be 10 points ahead of them after 1000y???