F-class targets?

Take the dimensions to printer and have them make them up for you. Expect to have a deep wallet to do so.

These are not targets you can print out on your inkjet unless you have some specialized printing equipment in your basement.
 
good thought, just remember that the US uses a completely different target than the rest of the world. These are not the targets you will ever see in Canada/the commonwealth.
 
You can make the targets easy on a personal computer and printer. All you need is a 1/2 MOA vbull and a 1 MOA 5 ring. Those are the only rings that matter anyway.

Since office paper is only 8.5 inches wide for long range target centers just use 2 sheets turned 90' to eachother to get the full circle.
 
You can also use IBS or NBRSA Hunter class 6 bull targets, these are 100, 200 and 300 yd targets and have a .5 MOA 10 ring, great for short range practise IMO and they have a high cotton content which makes the bullet holes very pronounced and clear to see.
http://www.nationaltarget.com/cgi-b...+100+YD+HR+(priced+per+100)&Category_Code=IBS

$21.50 for 100 100yd targets
$24.50 for 100 200yd targets
$30.00 for 50 300yd targets
 
Obtunded said:
FYI, DCRA does not use the new International Standard (ICFRA) F-Class target
Click to expand...

That's correct. DCRA still uses its "DCRA-1997" target system, which is the same as the NRA-UK-1995 system except for the V-bull (our V is 50% the diameter of the 5-ring, the UK V is 60% diameter).

Prior to 2009, DCRA had F-Class shooters fire on the DCRA-1997 system but used "V=6" scoring. Starting in 2009, DCRA F-Class shooters fire on their own target, which is the DCRA-1997 target system with an "F-Class Patch" applied to the centre. This overlays the ~1MOA V-bull with a solid line, which becomes an F-Class "5", and it then adds a half-diameter F-Class V-bull inside that.

Some provinces also continue to use the DCRA-1997 system.

Some provinces (BC for sure, and perhaps Ontario too?) have adopted the ICFRA target system. The ICFRA TR target system is broadly comparably to the DCRA-1997 system, though overall it is tighter. The ICFRA F-Class target system is the ICFRA TR system with scoring "moved one ring in" and with a new half-diameter V-bull added (sound familiar? ;-).

FYI the US F-Class target system uses their iron sight target, with the scoring "moved one ring in" and a new half-diameter V-bull added. One of the few "problems" with the NRA-US target system is that they have targets for 300y 500y and 600y but they do not have versions made for 300m 500m 600m. Both the DCRA and ICFRA systems have targetry for both yards and metres ranges.


You can find all of these target dimensions here - DCRA 2009 Rules.

See pgs. 32&33 for ICFRA TR target dimensions.
See pg. 63 for ICFRA F-Class target dimensions
See Rule 3.01, pgs. 84&85 for the DCRA-1997 target dimensions (for F-Class you need to "move one ring in" and also add a new half-diameter V-bull)
 
I know it is strictly a matter of economics that prevents the formal adoption of one standard. I am sure the plan at the national level is to make the switch to ICFRA when and if the DCRA supply is epended.

Since the short range target is not used in ICFRA competition anyway, i would love to see us adopt our own target (.5MOA with contrasting center) and take some of the heat off from the many shooters that hate this target.
 
Not a warehouse, they're in a sea container. And please stay away from them if you're bearing matches...! ;-)

The thing is, both DCRA-1997 and ICFRA target systems are "good enough"; I would be happy with either. They each have their pros and cons, but they'll each work well enough doing what targets are there to do - evaluate the shooting, and have the best shooting win.

If we were to throw away our existing stocks, the costs of running our national matches would increase because we would have to buy new targetry. While I don't know what new targets would costs I'll assume for the sake of argument that they would be made for the same cost as the price charged for the existing targets. For example, on every relay at 300m we put on a new wear centre (40c), and at long range perhaps every four relays a new $2 wear centre is needed. Whenever it rains we need to replace the whole bedsheet ($2 at 300m, $4 at midrange, $5 at long range) on about 20 target frames. I will SWAG that over the nine days of our matches we might incur about $2500 in additional expense. Another thing that could be a factor is that if we do move to using ICFRA targets, it might be advisable for us to make up a big print run, say 3-8 years worth - that would involve tying up $8-$20 thousand dollars in target inventory.

Anyhow when the issue arises of whether or not we might want to consider adopting the ICFRA target, that is one thing that will have to be considered. I expect that other considerations will likely be bigger factors than the straight dollars and cents, specifically whether or not a somewhat-tighter target system is overall better or worse for our sport (and I will admit that though I am in the "tight targets better" camp, I do have a lot of respect and time for the opinions of those who think that this might be damaging to the sport overall). Presumably the several years of on-the-ground experience from the BCRA at that time will be helpful in advising the decision.
 
Having shot my first F Class match at Chilliwack I am okay with the target size (I just needed to read the small amt of wind better... same prob in TR so it's me) but I'd like to see the contasting center too. If they are putting a "paster" on why not a white one?
 
Something called 135 years of TRADITION ;)

If we are going to change it, really change it! How about change the black aiming mark, say the 2, 3 and 4 rings to black and white strips about 2" wide each alternating, and the center part (5 and V rings) in white. Those black and white strips would sure show you the mirage!!! Used 'em in short range BR and they work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom