Need Advice on Bullseye Design

[Runs With Fire]

I'm designing a printable target for people who visit my website and YouTube channel. It's going to part of my marksmanship challenge. Here's how it works: you print the target, shoot 10 shots at the prescribed distance ( different for irons and scopes) and have a buddy vouch for you. Then send a picture of your target and you holding the rifle to me to get your photo with an honorable mention on the channel or website. It's meant for beginner shooters to share their progress.
So I'm looking for an easy scoring, easy to see, and low ink target. I'm thinking either a 1-inch, black bullseye dot with nothing else, or a 3-inch dot with a faint 1-inch white ring inside. My idea was to require 1 inch groups at 25 yards for irons, and 1 inch groups at 50 yards for scopes. I'm more wondering if a 1 inch solid bullseye will be hard for some eyes to see at 50 yards. What target design would you recommend?
What do you folks think?

[Shadow9mm]

I hate shooting black bulls eyes, you cannot see where you are hitting, which will most likely frustrate a newer shooter. At 25yds a 1in target should be visible with irons and at 50 easily with a scope. If it were me I would think about a white 1in circle or square, with a black border for contrast/visibility.

Also, interested in your youtube channel. If you don't feel it appropriate to post please feel free to PM me with a link so I can check it out.

Here is a free one I have been using for a while. Not ideal, the black rings are a little large IMHO, but it get the job done.

[Jim Watson]

Group or score?
Benchrest shooters have been using a hollow square for a long time.
The old old Army Thousand Inch target was just a black spot, maybe an inch.

[Runs With Fire]

I like the idea of the white center. I'll print up a few and see what they feel like.

[Runs With Fire]

Groups

[stinkeypete]

A quick google search of nra.rulebooks.org (near the back) will get you the official NRA competition target dimensions.

Sticking to these scoring conventions means your friends can rank themselves somewhat appropriately in regards to how they might do at a serious competition.

You might adjust the radius of the scoring rings in proportion to whatever distance your range limits yo to. For example, if you only have a 75 yard range, adjust the scoring ring radius by R2 = 75/100 * R1 where R1 is the 100 yard radius.

Leave rings out, make centers white, whatever... my advice is stick to what is agreed on in the USA as “official” dimensions (unless you prefer Olympic dimensions.)

[bamaranger]

I think a square/diamond offers a more definitive aiming point(s) than any type of circular target for a scope With a scope, the four corners are easily targeted , provided the square and border are large enough, especially so of the square/target is canted into a diamond. One has to guess, so to speak, where the center of a white bull is actually located. I'm thinking a four inch square, a 1 inch wide black border with a 3 inch white center.

For iron sights, for me, much depends on the type of front sight, ie, bead or blade. A square sets much easier on top of post front. I find a bead centers easier on a circular bullesye. I do not have any of the specialized circular front sights, used with a peep, that ring the black of a bullseye target, but suspect the visual "process" is the same, centering a round aiming point with a round front sight.

Where does that leave us? To get all of that on one target might look thus. A normal 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper will offer enough surface area to print the 4" diamond as described, and a 4" circular bull, side x side, or vertically. I'm thinking the circular target may need a two inch black border and a two inch white center, but that is purely speculation.

I'll mention that Elmer Keith devised a square target for sighting in iron sighted handguns, the square matching the width of his flat topped front post. He made up rubber stamps (remember those?) and cranked them out by hand with an ink pad. I always meant to do it but never did. For scope shooting, he stamped the squares canted into a diamond.

[bamaranger]

All that said, I shoot a lot at 10" paper plates!

[T. O'Heir]

Been done. A standard 'sighting in' target does all that.
1 inch groups at 50 yards is too close and too big for a scoped cf rifle.
"...just a black spot..." Is all you need for shooting groups. A normal 8-1/2 x 11 sheet of paper with a 1" dot would be as 'low ink' as you can get.
"...10" paper plates!..." 9", off hand, at 100. snicker.

[Runs With Fire]

I use alot of paper plates, or did. I bought a file cabinet full of targets from the estate sale of the Sheriff Mounted Patrol shooting instructor, so I'm loaded.

[Runs With Fire]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

A quick google search of nra.rulebooks.org (near the back) will get you the official NRA competition target dimensions.

Sticking to these scoring conventions means your friends can rank themselves somewhat appropriately in regards to how they might do at a serious competition.

You might adjust the radius of the scoring rings in proportion to whatever distance your range limits yo to. For example, if you only have a 75 yard range, adjust the scoring ring radius by R2 = 75/100 * R1 where R1 is the 100 yard radius.

Leave rings out, make centers white, whatever... my advice is stick to what is agreed on in the USA as “official” dimensions (unless you prefer Olympic dimensions.)

Good thoughts.

[Runs With Fire]

Originally Posted by Jim Watson

Group or score?
Benchrest shooters have been using a hollow square for a long time.
The old old Army Thousand Inch target was just a black spot, maybe an inch.

I always liked that army target.

[Runs With Fire]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

A quick google search of nra.rulebooks.org (near the back) will get you the official NRA competition target dimensions.

Sticking to these scoring conventions means your friends can rank themselves somewhat appropriately in regards to how they might do at a serious competition.

You might adjust the radius of the scoring rings in proportion to whatever distance your range limits yo to. For example, if you only have a 75 yard range, adjust the scoring ring radius by R2 = 75/100 * R1 where R1 is the 100 yard radius.

Leave rings out, make centers white, whatever... my advice is stick to what is agreed on in the USA as “official” dimensions (unless you prefer Olympic dimensions.)

I'm pretty sure I have a box full of NRA targets somewhere.

[Jim Watson]

Here are the standard benchrest targets I mentioned.
https://www.varmintal.com/atarg.htm

The heavy black square with open center gives you a choice of 8 scope aiming points at the outer and inner corners, and a bold enough overall aiming area for iron sights.

Note, that is just for aiming, set your sight so you don't chew up your aim point. If you want to shoot for score adjust to drop the sights into the rings below the square.

[Scorch]

I bought a file cabinet full of targets from the estate sale of the Sheriff Mounted Patrol shooting instructor, so I'm loaded.

I used to run a printing company, and one of the printers printed up about 10,000 targets on heavy blotter. Best damn targets ever. I had about 1,000 of them, but here I am 20 years later buying targets from Alco. Which I would suggest to the OP, buy commercially printed targets from a large volume seller (like Alco). Cheaper than printing your own, and somebody else already made all the improvements.
https://alcotarget.com/?gclid=Cj0KCQ...UaAoryEALw_wcB

[HiBC]

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) has a program simiar to what you describe in place.

Its a mail in your targets competition. I'm not telling you this to steal your thunder....But benchmarking their program might give you ideas. Or,signing on to a working program might save you a lot of work.

https://thecmp.org/

Look at "Aces Postal"

Targets? Folks sure can create targets to suit sighting systems or preferences.

I think you may discover you can't please all the people all the time.

Using standard targets would seem to help your shooters develop skills to standard. The word "Relevance" comes to mind.Communication is easier.

I understand the black bull can be difficult to center hold with a post front sight. A 6 Oclock hold works pretty good. So does a globe front sight with aperture.The 10 ring on a 50 ft target is the dia of a 22 bullet.A lot of juniors
mostly shoot 10's.
But you do it your way!

[stagpanther]

Here's an extreme high-tech one I came up with specifically for shooting with irons and unmagnified red dots out to 100 yds and beyond. I can shoot great groups with it because I use the angles to establish a tangent with the dot/bead.



I forgot to add that I need to compensate for shooting for where you'd normally place the dot/bead--in other words if you place the POA on top of the dot/bead.

[Runs With Fire]

Originally Posted by HiBC

The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) has a program simiar to what you describe in place.

Its a mail in your targets competition. I'm not telling you this to steal your thunder....But benchmarking their program might give you ideas. Or,signing on to a working program might save you a lot of work.

https://thecmp.org/

Look at "Aces Postal"

Targets? Folks sure can create targets to suit sighting systems or preferences.

I think you may discover you can't please all the people all the time.

Using standard targets would seem to help your shooters develop skills to standard. The word "Relevance" comes to mind.Communication is easier.

I understand the black bull can be difficult to center hold with a post front sight. A 6 Oclock hold works pretty good. So does a globe front sight with aperture.The 10 ring on a 50 ft target is the dia of a 22 bullet.A lot of juniors
mostly shoot 10's.
But you do it your way!

I'm not looking for a genuine competition, more just a place for newer to show off a bit. It's all just for fun, and as a engaging branding tactic for my YouTube channel.