PDA

View Full Version : how accurate is using reduced targets?


SPUSCG
January 8, 2009, 04:56 PM
the high power range is covered with snow and cant really use it right now. wondering how accurately using a 1/2 size target at 100 yards simulates 200, ect.

Hondo11
January 8, 2009, 05:10 PM
For a simple explanation...

You can't completely simulate the difference that way, but it's good enough for practice and certainly better than nothing. It really depends on what type of shooting you're doing...but if you were really into precision shooting, I guess you wouldn't be asking.

The best way to think about it is this:

The target may look smaller at distance, but it's not actually smaller.

And to make it translate completely, you'd have to be able to hold your particular MOA out to an infinite distance...and there are many factors which make that not likely.

Casimer
January 8, 2009, 05:28 PM
1/2 is about right. The black on the NRA SR is 13" at 200yds and 6 3/8" on the SR1, which is the SR reduced for 100yds.

Here's a spreadsheet for determining the dimensions of reduced targets - http://www.ray-vin.com/tech/targets/reducing.xls

The actual formula incorporates the bullet diameter.

onthejon55
January 8, 2009, 05:30 PM
why not just work on your 100 yard group and then see if you have improved on the 200 later

SPUSCG
January 8, 2009, 05:53 PM
100 yards is nice with the 336, i want to see how i do at 200, and i dont feel like trudging through snow and slipping on ice to see the target

Slopemeno
January 8, 2009, 06:01 PM
I played with this idea in my action shooting league, and did a 3" x 5" card "El Presidente" stage. Man, THAT was hard at speed regardless of the short distance.

hogdogs
January 8, 2009, 06:44 PM
No the half size does not simulate double distance when using a .30-30 at all. It is 'tween 100 and 200 where bullet drop compensation is heavily needed. so "to see how I do at 200" doesn't work. All you are doing is seeing if you are capable of hitting a smaller target at 100 yards. Which in itself is a commendable aspiration we all should work on...
Brent

Shane Tuttle
January 8, 2009, 06:52 PM
Hogdogs has it right regarding accuracy with your gun. Distance in general will never have a substitute.

However, if you're talking about honing YOUR skills, then I think it's not only acceptable, it's a great idea.

If you ever attend Appleseed, they start out simulating targets at (500yds?) using a target at approx. (83?) yards. The target is the size of a postage stamp...yes, a postage stamp. My numbers are probably off, but you get the idea.

My take is by all means, practice safely using smaller targets as you're wanting to do...

kraigwy
January 8, 2009, 07:20 PM
100 yeard reduced targets are great. You can do your rapid fire strings and work on your offhand.

You dont get the wind but dont let anyone tell you you dont get any benifits from reduced target shooting.

When my rapid fire scores start to slide, I dig out the reduced targets and run through several strings. The 600 yard Prone Slow fire reduced to 100 yards is great too.

I want to see all who say you cant get any benifit from reduced targets, clean some 600 yard reduced targets from a prone unsupported position.

When you can do that constently, and the same for the SF Offhand, then come and tell me reduce targets offer no benifits.

Yes you dont get the value of dealing with wind and mirage you would get at 600 yards. But you arnt gonna get any wind and mirage experience sitting by the fire, when the range is snowed in, either.

hogdogs
January 8, 2009, 07:31 PM
Kraig, No one has said he won't see benefits... Just not an actual simulation of 200 yards by shooting half size at 100... I used to shoot 20 gauge hulls at 100 with my .22lr to tighten my 75 yard hunting to the point that head shooting squirrels was too easy unless they running. But to practice for 200 yard shots with a levergun by shooting a half size target does little. The BDC is many inches if not a foot or more at 200 with a .30-30 flat nose. So to practice 200 you need to learn barrel rise as well as target acquisition... But hey I used to love to try to put a .22lr thru the spent primer on the bottom of hulls at 100 with a .22 and it was not only fun but to hit my mark I really had to snooker down on my breathing and grip... I missed 75% or so but these were off hand shots with iron sights on both a marlin 60 and a S&W .22 pistol... man I miss my eagle eye vision back then as a 2o sumthin young guy!:o
Brent

Slopemeno
January 8, 2009, 09:34 PM
Have you ever heard of Micro-sniping? You shoot at empty 9mm cases with a match air rifle at 40 yards, which is supposed to be the same size ratio as a human torso at 1000 yards.

SPUSCG
January 8, 2009, 11:07 PM
got plenty of used 12 guage hulls

funfaler
January 12, 2009, 03:09 AM
The idea of using reduced size targets to "simulate" ranges is a long proven technique.

However, the idea is to this technique to improve shooter's mechanics, not to improve the shooter's skill in come-ups, wind estimation/compensation.

If a shooter does not have proper mechanics, they will just be frustrated at actual distance shooting. If they have the proper mechanics, they will be able to much more easily learn and apply the skills needed at actual distance.

Point being, if you can not do it at reduced sized targets at reduced ranges, you can not do it at actual distance.

Smallgame2100
January 12, 2009, 03:11 AM
Like some others said, work on 100 yards. Get that down good and work your way up.