Reduced Targets? What do you think.

kiko · Post by **kiko** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:50 pm

Hi guys,
I have always considered that shooting at shorter distances as for beginers only, I mean it looks silly to shoot a pistol at such a short distances. But, I recently started to shot my ap in my garage at 6 meters, with properly reduced targets ( black only). I tried this morning to shoot at 50 feet bullseye 22LR ( 3 inches black) and it was'nt that bad ( I mean the feeling). I understand that it must not be the same as shooting at official distances ie. bullet drop, wind? etc, etc. But again, maybe you guys consider that it is infact the same as doing it at 10 yrds or 25, 50 meters. what do you think? K<

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:22 pm

When you say "properly reduced targets" do you mean that you just reduced the black pro rata to the reduced distance or did you also factor in the pellet diameter.

The former is fine for dry firing but the latter is necessary for live firing.

kiko · Post by **kiko** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:45 pm

David,
I "properly reduced" them in the photocopier at ther proper reduction %. only the black, not taking into consideration the rings.
I use to shoot a lot of Olympic pistol and I always felt "superior" to the ones at the range "plinking" at 15 or even 7 yards. It never occured to me to shoot my 22 at 16 yrds. so I gave it a try and yes indeed, the sight picture at a 3" black is kind a the same, and I like the fact that I was able to see the holes with just a pair of binoculars, I left the telescope and the extra weight at home. Around here matches are conducted at 50 ft. indoors, and I don't see myself at least in the short time, going to Colorado for the Nationals. I bend my arm regarding this short distances, what do people think? K

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:55 pm

kiko wrote:I "properly reduced" them in the photocopier at ther proper reduction %. only the black, not taking into consideration the rings.

My point is that if you want to live fire at reduced distances it is not just a case of reducing the target size in proportion to the distance. I may be misreading your post; if you are taking no notice at all of the scores then it doesn't matter.

This has been discussed here MANY times in the past.

kiko · Post by **kiko** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:01 pm

In other words,
If we are never or almost never going to shoot at International levels, they why bother to shoot at 50 yrds ( free pistol) or 25 yards ( standard pistol) or 10 yards ( ap).
why dont we in the US (as many been doing it long time ago) just shoot indor at 50 ft. ( 16 yards) , sounds childish, but then why?

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:30 pm

And why don't runners race at 30 yards, it's so much easier to organise than 100m.

You can shoot at any distance, but if you want your results to be comparable with others then you all need to shoot at the same distance, at the same targets, with the same rules.

kiko · Post by **kiko** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:45 pm

David,
believe me, I used to think the same way as you do.
somebody once said; that it is important to have an open mind and be able to clear what one have inside.

Yep, I tried 50 ft. ( 15 meters) I was reluctant for many years to do so, but, heck, less equipment, less everything, and I think I like it.

People hate what fellow shooters do here in the US, but then why not?
I guess your answer in pure technically terms; is that there is no difference (atmospheric conditions apart) between shooting a 8 inches target at 50 meters and a 2.5 inches target at 15 meters., given or take.
I was surprised that my 22 lr could reach something at such a short distance. K.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:01 pm

kiko wrote:I guess your answer in pure technically terms; is that there is no difference (atmospheric conditions apart) between shooting a 8 inches target at 50 meters and a 2.5 inches target at 15 meters., given or take.

I most certainly did not say that. I was purely talking about the size of the black and the scoring rings to produce the same score.

I am not experienced enough at 50m shooting to give a valid opinion on the respective difficulty compared to shorter range shooting at reduced targets.

GaryBF · Post by **GaryBF** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:51 pm

There is nothing unusual about shooting 22 rimfire at 50 feet. The NRA has a full range of fire and targets for shooting indoors at 50 feet. I shot in an indoor pistol league for about ten years and participated in several NRA Sectional tournaments-all at 50 feet. Granted you don't have wind, weather, and lighting changes to contend with, but otherwise there is nothing easy about it.

darticus · Post by **darticus** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:11 am

Why not cut it to 10 meters? That way I can run and shoot at the same time without losing my breath. Like the old west. I like it!

Nicole Hamilton · Post by **Nicole Hamilton** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:55 am

darticus wrote:Why not cut it to 10 meters?

Reminds me of going to a local public indoor range with some friends from work a few years ago. One of the guys brought a Garand to shoot at 50 feet! They let him do it -- which is part of the problem with public ranges -- but what was the point?

TargetTalk

Reduced Targets? What do you think.

Reduced Targets? What do you think.

David Great! 100 meter race

Re: David Great! 100 meter race