Field Target is an arms race.
- Thread starter Franklink
- Start date
My quarter size group analogy at 25 yards is a bare minimum that I feel you need to shoot field target. Anything better is better. But if it is all over the place at 25 yards. Get another gun.
Upvote 0
@cavedweller - do you think we'd get more participation (AND more non-FT rifle representation) presenting this challenge to a wider audience?
Upvote 0
maybe - but this thread was originally about the cost of field target equipment and whether or not there is a cost/performance factor that discourages shooters (other than fragile egos which suffer when comparing themselves to others = cliche)
Upvote 0
I agree here, once a shooter is happy with his rifle he then seems to turn to scopes looking for that magic 16x ranging factor that does not exist.
I have a variety of scopes as you and have also seen the same. Ive seen my $100 scopes range similar out to a decent distance. My eye sight is struggling these days anyway and picking up fine detail at 55yds is very difficult for me, even with my S3. I'm super happy with my Hawke Sidewinders as well. The lower end below that starts to have issues in the shade and dark woods with ranging issues, thats the only difference I really see in most scopes. The Athlon base scopes struggle as well. They are all great in sun light but most my shoots are in the woods. You can try and you will drop shops based on the scope alone, then the guns accuracy, then the shooters accuracy, then the environmentals. So many variables its so hard to pin point any one thing. Hence the arms race to continually upgrade looking for that one thing to gain us the edge or level the playing field.
My gear was not my issue this past weekend at the BR120 GP, I was. I cant hold still shooting off my knee. Almost all my shots dropped were long shots in which I moved when i pulled the trigger. Yes, we test and test and usually don't take a gun out until we feel its accuracy is acceptable. Until you accept that maybe its you who is the issue, no amount of gear will fix that. Maybe make it a tad better or your room for error larger.
I test and test like most of you. I enjoy messing with cheaper scopes now just to see how well they do ranging at distance. I don't want to HAVE to buy a $1,800 scope just to range a target at 16x so I can play the game but sadly you do have to spend about $600 to cover your bases. Beyond that is so minimal increase to some its not worth it.
Upvote 0
Lets do that math.
1 moa at 100 yards = 1.047"
1.047" x 3.5 = 3.6645" at 100 yards
3.6645" x 0.55" = 2.01"
That is a rifle that shoots over a 2" group at 55 yards.
I won't score well at all.
Upvote 0
For the PCP I’m going with a $2000 gun and a 10-40x 56 scope. Normally this gun has a 24 x and is set to 16.
I might crank it up as a spotting scope but not often. And I never want to mess with my scope after it’s all dialed in.
But I happen to have a big scope sitting around and I’m waiting for rings for my new scope so i’m gonna see what a tuned, regulated Air Arms HFT-500 can do. Or at least see what I can do with it for ten shot groups at 55 yards.
I might crank it up as a spotting scope but not often. And I never want to mess with my scope after it’s all dialed in.
But I happen to have a big scope sitting around and I’m waiting for rings for my new scope so i’m gonna see what a tuned, regulated Air Arms HFT-500 can do. Or at least see what I can do with it for ten shot groups at 55 yards.
Upvote 0
Not sure what someone else implies when they say a “sub 3.5moa overall gun”. If the circle of standard deviation of the gun’s inherent accuracy is 3.5moa, and the shooter does perfect shot executions (stability, ranging, wind reading), they will get clean hits on approximately 50% of the 55yd field targets. Not horrible, but not great.
Upvote 0
That is a 2 inch group at 55 (3.47) that will all fit in a 2" kz from the aafta handbook for kz size and yards .
That would hit theoretically (no outside factors) 100% of the time and thus be 'ok' if we're only looking at 55 yards, but is essentially a crap shoot at like 75% of other possible kz/distances.
Like I said, what is acceptable at 55 isn't a great test because the groups have way higher leeway out there...
Upvote 0
We have one at 1 3/4".
I may have seen a 2" at LD's and that was likely at 65 yards during a non-AAFTA match back in the day.
Upvote 0
How long have you been shooting FT?
And you do realize your concept of FT accuracy is not aligning with some of the top AG/FT minds and competitors in the country/world...?
What is acceptable at 55 is a PERFECT test for a FT rifle. To compete you want sub 3/4" at 55 yards. More than that you have to be in the upper 95% for stability, wind reading and ranging. 2" at 55 is trash if you want to win matches.
Upvote 0
I think you're taking my thinking backwards.
I agree its not even close. There are just much harder (mathematically) distances to shoot at.
Upvote 0
Not backwards, i'm just not sure what you are actually getting at, what you are saying does not fit into anything I have heard in field target since 2011.
You may be overthinking this whole difficulty thing as it relates to field target (which is somewhat unique in the shooting sports).
Upvote 0
The price of Falcon scopes is getting ridiculously expensive. Ebay has Falcon Optics T50i+ 5-50x60 SFP ED listed at GBP 49,900.00 right now. With 2 sold and 3 in shopping carts. How can an average person compete with that?
Falcon Optics T50i+ 5-50x60 SFP ED Riflescope Scope Field Target Benchrest | eBay
T50i+ 5-50x60i ED SFP. Order Code ?. T50iB (Includes Sunshade, Zero Stop, Aluminium Flip Covers and Throw Lever). Field of View @ 100y:24.8ft ?. Construction:1 Piece Tube/Saddle/Objective. Magnification Range:5-50x.
ebay.us
Upvote 0
Expensive but hey, it includes Sunshade, Zero Stop, Aluminium Flip Covers and Throw Lever and only $38 shipping.
Upvote 0
Some arms race eye candy. And I shot my best ten shot group on the first day out. Take my money please.
Upvote 0