Field Target is an arms race.

[cavedweller]

Back to the Arms Race or NO.
Having played this HFT game for a while now, and having tracked and compiled all of my stats, and done so with everything from a Marauder, BSA Goldstar SE, Air Arms S500, Crosman Hft Challenger, FX Crown, FX Dreamline, two different TM1000’s, Daystate’s Wolverine, Revere, Redwolf, Ghost, Deltawolf and my shiny new thomas I’ve concluded that - in my hands… meh.. don’t fool yourself into thinking or believing that the more you spend the more accurate you will be… disclaimer here… my Thomas IS more accurate than ANY of my other HFT rigs… but I’m still the same shooter, same good, same bad habits and so on; thus the same mistakes - taint the guns fault, it’s the indian.
I want to take this arms race in yet another direction. SCOPES!
Based on lots of matches and practice with all of the above guns, while utilizing a variety of scopes, cheap and pricey, the scope is, IMO, a more significant factor in the overall outcome, at least as far as equipment is concerned.
Why?
Primarily because of targets - target colors, target placement, which greatly affect a shooter’s ability to acquire the KZ and place the reticles’ holdover in the right spot!
The darker the target and the darker the location, the less likely an Hft class shooter has for a clean shot With cheap glass.
I’ve tested this by using black targets with shot up KZ’s at different distances by shifting from holdover to clicks where only an illuminated center point is in play. When I’m able to hold the center dot on the KZ rather than holdover points my percentage of points goes way up; even with my cheaper scopes. But when I use my more expensive scopes, I can much more easily acquire the KZ and maintain a holdover Point.
All this is to say, if you want to eliminate or reduce the perception of an arms race where some might be compelled to buy buy buy, only to be discouraged, all that’s necessary is to improve target colors with light faceplate paint schemes with a darker KZ. Then place those targets in a better lit location.
HFT isn’t about testing our eyesight! It’s about shot placement and being able to read the environment.
you can Create a viable or “real” marksmanship challenge by reducing a KZ‘s size over distance, especially with forced lanes.
I believe this idea will be much more encouraging to new and old shooters alike.
Afterall, at 16x it’s the pricey glass that gives the brightest possible image quality!

So what matters most? I’d say it’s Building the sport by encouraging more players to play, and shoot well with equipment they can afford!

 

[Iowa Airgunner]

100 percent.
To me the time invested is the investment cost. You can sell the toys later. But practice is the thing that cost.
A good scope is not as good as a great scope. You can have a 2300 dollar air arms XTi-50 and put a crap scope on it and never be able to range past 35 yards. I am just learning how great a scope can be and to me it’s a major factor.

 

[Franklink]

Back to the Arms Race or NO.
Having played this HFT game for a while now, and having tracked and compiled all of my stats, and done so with everything from a Marauder, BSA Goldstar SE, Air Arms S500, Crosman Hft Challenger, FX Crown, FX Dreamline, two different TM1000’s, Daystate’s Wolverine, Revere, Redwolf, Ghost, Deltawolf and my shiny new thomas I’ve concluded that - in my hands… meh.. don’t fool yourself into thinking or believing that the more you spend the more accurate you will be… disclaimer here… my Thomas IS more accurate than ANY of my other HFT rigs… but I’m still the same shooter, same good, same bad habits and so on; thus the same mistakes - taint the guns fault, it’s the indian.
I want to take this arms race in yet another direction. SCOPES!
Based on lots of matches and practice with all of the above guns, while utilizing a variety of scopes, cheap and pricey, the scope is, IMO, a more significant factor in the overall outcome, at least as far as equipment is concerned.
Why?
Primarily because of targets - target colors, target placement, which greatly affect a shooter’s ability to acquire the KZ and place the reticles’ holdover in the right spot!
The darker the target and the darker the location, the less likely an Hft class shooter has for a clean shot With cheap glass.
I’ve tested this by using black targets with shot up KZ’s at different distances by shifting from holdover to clicks where only an illuminated center point is in play. When I’m able to hold the center dot on the KZ rather than holdover points my percentage of points goes way up; even with my cheaper scopes. But when I use my more expensive scopes, I can much more easily acquire the KZ and maintain a holdover Point.
All this is to say, if you want to eliminate or reduce the perception of an arms race where some might be compelled to buy buy buy, only to be discouraged, all that’s necessary is to improve target colors with light faceplate paint schemes with a darker KZ. Then place those targets in a better lit location.
HFT isn’t about testing our eyesight! It’s about shot placement and being able to read the environment.
you can Create a viable or “real” marksmanship challenge by reducing a KZ‘s size over distance, especially with forced lanes.
I believe this idea will be much more encouraging to new and old shooters alike.
Afterall, at 16x it’s the pricey glass that gives the brightest possible image quality!

So what matters most? I’d say it’s Building the sport by encouraging more players to play, and shoot well with equipment they can afford!

To be able to win matches takes both, an accurate gun, and a scope that ranges by focus well and also allows you to see targets.

As people have bought more and more expensive scopes for the Hunter class arms race, my preferred 6-24 Midas Tacs have become the low end of the spectrum of competitive in the last 4-5 years. Prices have come down recently, but they were a $500-600 scope initially, which most people will say isn't cheap. (Although it sure ain't Sightron/March money). At the recent AZ State FT match, my humble little Midas Tac had the highest score of both days on the harder of the two courses. No illuminated reticle.

As far as dark/light target placement and face plate/kill zone colors....it's just part of the game. Everyone is shooting at the same targets during a match.

I personally really enjoy a diversely set course. Light/dark/elevated/lowered/out in the open/in the brush/etc all make for an interesting, challenging, and enjoyable match.

 

[Franklink]

On scopes.....

Just ran some numbers from the most recent match I attended, the AZ State match.

31 shooters in various classes for the main event (rifle).

First is a copy and past for the scope column from the match report:

Next is a quick little spread sheet I put together. The values are of course in dollars. The order is the same as the list above. Had to estimate prices on some of those, most of which with a google AI query. Some of the prices were from Amazon, others were common airgun retailers. So these are going rates, as much as possible, not MSRP.

So the 31 shooters spent anywhere from $200 to $3500 bucks on just their scope. And that $3500 might not be the true max, as the specs for the March werent listed.

The average price spent on a scope at this match was just shy of $1200.

The 31 competitors collectively spent a total of just short of $37k on their scopes.

And no, the most expensive scopes weren't always the winners. Luckily the arms race isn't that cut and dry. Through out this all I've held that field target is an arms race. Which is not the same thing as saying the person who spends the most is the highest scoring shooter.

I could do the same for the guns...I'm fairly certain the total is gonna be much higher than 37k. In other words, those 31 shooters were using over $100,000 worth of guns/scopes/etc.

FIELD. TARGET. IS. AN. ARMS. RACE.

 

[JW.]

Interesting that this comes up now... I tried using a Athlon 4-20x for pistol FT and could never get to the same range mark twice on my wheel beyond 20 yards. Out of curiosity I tried my Sightron S3 at 12x while testing out a new barrel and had zero issues focusing between 39 and 40 yards, it snapped like it does on 50x. The 40 yard at 12x mark is way beyond my 55 yard mark at 50x but I was able to focus as needed to be able to shoot properly...may need to get the 12 ft-lb Thomas out again.

 

[cavedweller]

To be able to win matches takes both, an accurate gun, and a scope that ranges by focus well and also allows you to see targets.

As people have bought more and more expensive scopes for the Hunter class arms race, my preferred 6-24 Midas Tacs have become the low end of the spectrum of competitive in the last 4-5 years. Prices have come down recently, but they were a $500-600 scope initially, which most people will say isn't cheap. (Although it sure ain't Sightron/March money). At the recent AZ State FT match, my humble little Midas Tac had the highest score of both days on the harder of the two courses. No illuminated reticle.

As far as dark/light target placement and face plate/kill zone colors....it's just part of the game. Everyone is shooting at the same targets during a match.

I personally really enjoy a diversely set course. Light/dark/elevated/lowered/out in the open/in the brush/etc all make for an interesting, challenging, and enjoyable match.

I’m in agreement that it’s “currently” part of the game…. But ol habits like ol traditions fade slowly because ol timers fail to question why they do what they do. Currently Field Target as a sport struggles to grow, especially in the younger generations which will ultimately determine if the Hft game will survive.

ask yourself a question…, what is the objective of field target and HFT as a whole? What is it we are trying to accomplish besides bragging rights?

In my mind, I’m attempting to attract as many players into the game as possible to ensure that FT survives - period.

Marksmanship is composed by many factors and shooting competitions test those factor; I for one, based on current participation demographics do not believe the diminishing eyesight issues that come with age need to be tested by target color Or target placemen.

As I previously stated, we can level the playing field by simply improving target color or contrast And basic lighting conditions.

If we think we are somehow simulating actual hunting, I will be quick to say “I don’t take iffy shots”! If I can’t place me bull in solid kill zone - I’m not pulling the trigger.

I’m not suggesting that we dumb down the game or make it boring, quite the opposite. What I’m suggesting is we create courses and scenarios that make more shooters, young, old, rich, poor, feel better at the end of a round, regardless of their equipment.

We do have the ability to end the perceived arms race issues that discourage new shooters And old shooters alike.

I don’t believe that creating more classes of shooters like: basic, senior and master is the answer. Nor do I think that putting dollar limits on equipment per class is the answer.

At the end of this rainbow one factor will continue to loom large - access to more FT courses and clubs.

 

[Motorhead]

Yup yup yup !!!!!
As one who MD's a club that is 70% for fun & a day with buddies Monthly FT match shooters .... Their skills vary widely and more manageable mid to semi easy makes them generally happy. Where as the other @ 30% do away matches, GP's and such and are very highly skilled FT shooters. Trick as a MD who has the say on how a course is to be set up knowing very well the skills range of those shooting needs some creative engineering every month. IT CAN BE DONE !!!

We see ages from older teens and across the spectrum to those in their 80's .... we all get along and do our damn best to welcome new shooters as well respecting the older among us.

 

[Bramezy]

I’m in agreement that it’s “currently” part of the game…. But ol habits like ol traditions fade slowly because ol timers fail to question why they do what they do. Currently Field Target as a sport struggles to grow, especially in the younger generations which will ultimately determine if the Hft game will survive.

ask yourself a question…, what is the objective of field target and HFT as a whole? What is it we are trying to accomplish besides bragging rights?

In my mind, I’m attempting to attract as many players into the game as possible to ensure that FT survives - period.

Marksmanship is composed by many factors and shooting competitions test those factor; I for one, based on current participation demographics do not believe the diminishing eyesight issues that come with age need to be tested by target color Or target placemen.

As I previously stated, we can level the playing field by simply improving target color or contrast And basic lighting conditions.

If we think we are somehow simulating actual hunting, I will be quick to say “I don’t take iffy shots”! If I can’t place me bull in solid kill zone - I’m not pulling the trigger.

I’m not suggesting that we dumb down the game or make it boring, quite the opposite. What I’m suggesting is we create courses and scenarios that make more shooters, young, old, rich, poor, feel better at the end of a round, regardless of their equipment.

We do have the ability to end the perceived arms race issues that discourage new shooters And old shooters alike.

I don’t believe that creating more classes of shooters like: basic, senior and master is the answer. Nor do I think that putting dollar limits on equipment per class is the answer.

At the end of this rainbow one factor will continue to loom large - access to more FT courses and clubs.

I do agree. Well said.
The equipment thing is tough. If they build, they will buy it. Not all can afford the nicer things and therefore will use what they can. Others can and will, so be it. That perception is what I think is skewing the whole thing. We have options these days and these options cost a lot. No one is making budget minded field target guns, there is no market for it.
If there was a large entry market of cheap guns and scopes capable of the accuracy and ranging in the dark that we are subjected to then things would possibly change. But like you said, change the courses and need for that gear and you change the game. Good or bad, I dont know. No one is forcing any of us to spend the money we do, its all lack of self control lol.
Its not needed but we enjoy it so be it. The same is happening in all shooting disciplines. $5,000 22lr rifles just go to shoot steel at 100yds. No one says you cant spend less and still play. I tried, but the deep burning of constantly wanting better and better accuracy is killing me. But thats me, my problem. I also enjoy trying lots of new things so I am my own worst enemy.
If the manufactures keep making expensive options and people keep buying them then thats what we will see on the lanes. We are all competition, and that has a price in and of itself. Its all fun but success is more fun.

 

[beerthief]

Guns in the $750-1500 range can be competitive, as can scopes in the $300-600 range.

If there was enough interest I suppose a price capped class, but that concept has a whole host of issues and workarounds that guys would do. Like re-barelling a cheap gun with a good barrel. So no, I don't think a "budget" class is a great idea.

Hunter class's origins were a good idea, as can be seen by it currently being the most populated class. But the race is on in Hunter now too.

Can't say that I have a solution. Many don't even see it as a problem that needs a solution. It's just the reality of field target. Simply part of the game.

the less $$ route is Springer. , tuned Springer decent scope your in the game , look at the 2025 worlds .

 

[Bramezy]

I’m in agreement that it’s “currently” part of the game…. But ol habits like ol traditions fade slowly because ol timers fail to question why they do what they do. Currently Field Target as a sport struggles to grow, especially in the younger generations which will ultimately determine if the Hft game will survive.

ask yourself a question…, what is the objective of field target and HFT as a whole? What is it we are trying to accomplish besides bragging rights?

In my mind, I’m attempting to attract as many players into the game as possible to ensure that FT survives - period.

Marksmanship is composed by many factors and shooting competitions test those factor; I for one, based on current participation demographics do not believe the diminishing eyesight issues that come with age need to be tested by target color Or target placemen.

As I previously stated, we can level the playing field by simply improving target color or contrast And basic lighting conditions.

If we think we are somehow simulating actual hunting, I will be quick to say “I don’t take iffy shots”! If I can’t place me bull in solid kill zone - I’m not pulling the trigger.

I’m not suggesting that we dumb down the game or make it boring, quite the opposite. What I’m suggesting is we create courses and scenarios that make more shooters, young, old, rich, poor, feel better at the end of a round, regardless of their equipment.

We do have the ability to end the perceived arms race issues that discourage new shooters And old shooters alike.

I don’t believe that creating more classes of shooters like: basic, senior and master is the answer. Nor do I think that putting dollar limits on equipment per class is the answer.

At the end of this rainbow one factor will continue to loom large - access to more FT courses and clubs.

The last match I shot the troyer was a 32, the one before was a 34.2. They don't make easy courses where I am from therefore IF you want to compete and do well you need good gear. Thats a relative term I get it but that usually involves spending some cash. There's a perception that the more it costs the better it is. Its a sickness felt by many.

 

[Bramezy]

Interesting that this comes up now... I tried using a Athlon 4-20x for pistol FT and could never get to the same range mark twice on my wheel beyond 20 yards. Out of curiosity I tried my Sightron S3 at 12x while testing out a new barrel and had zero issues focusing between 39 and 40 yards, it snapped like it does on 50x. The 40 yard at 12x mark is way beyond my 55 yard mark at 50x but I was able to focus as needed to be able to shoot properly...may need to get the 12 ft-lb Thomas out again.

There are other amazing scopes for pistol that snap and are very clear made by the same company but cost much less than their big brother. I plan on using one to try shooting hunter with my pistol rig. S3 are great, minus the temp shift but many other great options cheaper available that will do the job as well.

 

[Franklink]

based on current participation demographics do not believe the diminishing eyesight issues that come with age need to be tested by target color Or target placemen.

As I previously stated, we can level the playing field by simply improving target color or contrast And basic lighting conditions.

I see your aging eyes, and I raise you my ophthalmic condition: keratoconus.

You'd be blown away if I explained my daily process of what I have to do to be able to see. Without the scleral lenses, I'm legally blind. In short, the scleral's require pulling them out of my eyeballs with a little toilet plunger device. And I've got to that every couple hrs, all day long, because they get progressively more cloudy the second I put them back in. Each time requiring rinsing them with specical fluids, and then filling them with a different special fluid prior to replacing them in my eyeballs. The first, second, and sometimes third replacement attempt usually result in bubbles, leaving a blind spot where the bubble is, as well as a prism effect. So each replacement turns into a 10-15minute process, until I get them placed correctly. They're larger diameter than an American quarter. That's not to mention the special fittings required to make me a new pair about once a year. They're essentially opthalmic prosthetics.

And one of the haul mark symptoms of keratoconus is very poor vision in low light conditions. Yes, it's fun.

We are all playing with some variety of impediment. Making drastic changes to cater to one or another individuals particular impediment is a slippery slope.

 

[Motorhead]

There are other amazing scopes for pistol that snap and are very clear made by the same company but cost much less than their big brother. I plan on using one to try shooting hunter with my pistol rig. S3 are great, minus the temp shift but many other great options cheaper available that will do the job as well.

You play the game long enough .,.. and be serious about it, you do become a Scope Snob having seen first hand not all range equally or consistently.

 

[Bramezy]

You play the game long enough .,.. and be serious about it, you do become a Scope Snob having seen first hand not all range equally or consistently.

Very true. All we discuss are scopes and rifles but scopes more than rifles. So there's lots of opinions flying around at any given time. Thats why people keep buying and trying.

 

[JW.]

If we think we are somehow simulating actual hunting, I will be quick to say “I don’t take iffy shots”! If I can’t place me bull in solid kill zone - I’m not pulling the trigger.

This has always been the "thing" that justifies FT.

The contradictory element is using rule mandated sub par equipment for making "ethical shots". If I can't focus well enough to find the distance to the target (prey) because i'm using a sub par scope on a mandatory lower than practical setting, are we simulating hunting?

No, no and no, we are not.

Was someone over your shoulder the last time you were hunting saying "that's 13x, not legal for hunting..."? I hope not... lol

Field target is basically art for the sake of art. Music for musicians. Its not preparation for hunting its a competition inspired by hunting and then tweaked to remove it further from hunting and fully into a competition; essentially competition for the sake of competition.

NRL competition is preparation for hunting, limiting factors for equipment are simple: Can't shoot a grossly under powered rifle nor a grossly overweight rifle. That's it. Notice how i'm not being forced by the rules to make a ranging error or a miss by using equipment that is not up to the task?

Field target is a competitive art, it will help your hunting (just as target practice will), but it is not preparation for hunting by any stretch of the imagination, means of support for example, when you are hunting do you not use the best support available to take the shot? You do, in FT your means of support is limited by multiple factors. An argument could be made that field target is the opposite of hunting...

There is nothing wrong with FT being strictly a competition but its very niche so expanding the user base is going to be tough. If there was an NRL type of 'sport' for airguns (22, 25, 30, 35 cal) I think that would warrant a decent and expanding crowd. NRL and PRS have been very successful.

If airguns came primarily in 177 and were limited to 12 ft-lbs in the USA, field target would be huge.

 

[JW.]

We are all playing with some variety of impediment. Making drastic changes to cater to one or another individuals particular impediment is a slippery slope.

Well said Sir.

 

[JW.]

My first real scope for FT was a Nikko 10-50x. Great scope, nothing wrong with it at all, it is my backup scope currently. I bought a Sightron SIII because of the reticle (its wider/more marks out to the right and left sides and is illuminated). I have not used the illumination since I purchased it...

I've thought about a March 80x but it has heat shift issues and is dark at 80x. Thought about a Khales but what would I really gain by spending $4k over what I have currently? Better glass? Distance ranging is not an issue, I could use some additional light in the tube (34mm would be a good start) but will I like the smaller top mounted wheel? Am I going to drop 4k to just experiment, nope. What about a S6, heard the ranging is odd, the reticle is nice though...

Until I can find something physically wrong with the Sightron i'm having a difficult time justifying a replacement and i've just figured out I can use it effectively on 12x and 16x...

 

[cavedweller]

Yup yup yup !!!!!
As one who MD's a club that is 70% for fun & a day with buddies Monthly FT match shooters .... Their skills vary widely and more manageable mid to semi easy makes them generally happy. Where as the other @ 30% do away matches, GP's and such and are very highly skilled FT shooters. Trick as a MD who has the say on how a course is to be set up knowing very well the skills range of those shooting needs some creative engineering every month. IT CAN BE DONE !!!

We see ages from older teens and across the spectrum to those in their 80's .... we all get along and do our damn best to welcome new shooters as well respecting the older among us.

Yep - balance!

 

[JW.]

This is what really bums me out about the new-ish 36T GP rule, you can't tailor the course for a few different levels of competitor. It's detrimental to getting people who are not super skilled to come back for a second time.

 

[Motorhead]

This is what really bums me out about the new-ish 36T GP rule, you can't tailor the course for a few different levels of competitor. It's detrimental to getting people who are not super skilled to come back for a second time.

Absolutely ... shooting an FT course at 36 T is no joke !!! It absolutely becomes a course set that caterers to few but the top skilled shooters having the rest simply shaking there heads in defeat ... IMO
Raising the bar for whats required by those shooting is not a bad thing as we find the overall skill set going up every season, but does have a very throttling effect for those who wish to do said courses for fun and experience, need to eat a whole lot more crow in doing so ... A rather poor involvement motivator is my thoughts