Scoring .22 cal. Pellet holes

B

BobZ

Guest
We have found that depending on mounting of the target and the target material weight that often a much larger hole than the plug is made.

i remembered from my small bore prone days, that the holes were often closed from the back of the target and eliminated the fact that scoring with a wiggle one way or the other would give or take away the higher score.

We are closing the holes to gain more accurate scoring.

A visual on a larger hole that is not plugged gives an obvious advantage. We have also found that a visual often is wrong. So we plug em all.

What say you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Bob,

We use targets from only one source in the UK (UKBR22) (as far as air and rimfire benchrest goes): http://www.targetsdirect.co.uk

I’ve used these targets for some years now for air, rimfire and centrefire and have to be honest, I’ve never seen a hole cut that was larger than the pellet/bullet itself.

I know little of these things, but selection of the correct grade paper and weight (200gsm board) seems to fit the bill. It could be that the backer to the target may also have some effect on how the hole is produced. In the main (certainly for outdoor competition) our targets are pinned/taped to 4mm white Correx board, which again seems to help in producing a nicely shaped hole without any tear’s.

I can’t put my finger on it but somewhere it says to score a card the plug should be placed in the centre of the shot hole and entered at 90deg to it’s centre. The plug can be rotated but not “wiggled” and the scorers eye should not move more than 30deg from the central axis of the plug (I hope that makes sense I was paraphrasing).

Brian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What the future holds ?

Interesting topic, some clubs down here in Australia are starting to prefer the hawkeye over plugging and slowly but surely many of the main ranges in Australia are moving to Electronic Targets which then takes out the whole scorer and human element. I know that over in the USA some & in South Africa some are going the way of Electronic Scoring and the Wrabf will be looking a bit closer into this method also.

Who knows what the future holds but there seems to be technological advancements building in this area.
 
Last edited:
Electronic scoring is the future. There are some challenges but nothing insurmountable. Anyone truly interested can contact Jeff Block, ontargetsoftware@msn.com, for a trial version of TDS software. As I understand, there should be targets that approximate the WRABF target that can be printed on 8.5 X 11 paper, which makes scanning a cost effective exercise. Obviously, one needs a PC, a printer/scanner and power to make this work at home or at the range. Change is difficult, change is inevitable.
 
Purchasing vs printing for clubs that do a lot of shooting.

We have our targets printed on a digital printer 11x17 by eliminating a couple of boxes and rottating the header to the side everything fits.
The targets measure to the specified dimensions. There are printers and scanners that due to the adjustment of the printer will print the scoring rings slightly larger or smaller. At local matches every one at any club is firing and scoring the same way. I am pretty sure that around the world those not using (at much Higher Cost ) targets printed outside the US and shipped here would find some variation from target to target.

We have little or no problem with .177 pellets only the .22 cal.

We have been testing Heavier card stock and the last batch (80 lb cover) seems better. Placement of the target and how it is mounted is a factor. Our Club frames are Core Plast plastic. Some areas of these large frames are not flat and are concave or convex.

I would bet a nickel that low velocity .22 cal., even on the official targets, that pellets on most ranges will not produce a perfect hole every time and even the most careful scoring will not accurately score them every time. We examine with a magnifying glass.

For information. We will try to print 100 lb cover next time and we will, in order to get the best possible fairness in scoring of .22 vs .177, we will close the holes and plug em all and examine with a magnifying glass.

Surprise! that the .177 shooters noticed how much wiggle there is in the hole of a .22 cal.

What is the total cost of the official target including shipping per thousand. And what is the weight of the card stock.

I am sure that all clubs are making there best effort to score accurately.

BoB Z
 
Your problem could very well be the hardness of the backer causing the pellets to mushroom on impact. Leading to an over sized hole. Not a problem with the 177 as rules state use of the 22 plug gauge for same. 80 lbs card stock should be more than sufficient, just spec short grain. The common stuff is considered long grain, when it gets humid it tends to tear. Should be on the dull side of the brightness scale as well. That's about all I can remember on paper specs right now. I could have the long vs short mixed up its been quite a while since I was involved in that industry.
 
Last edited:
Bob

Bob,

You can try to get a hold of Graig Young, he was the MD for the World Championships in South Carolina. He had the targets printed on Target paper.
He is who I bought mine from.
Todd Banks may have his contact info.

Kevin Kunkle
 
I wasn’t at the World Championships in 2011, but I can give you Craig’s email address: cyoung42@triad.rr.com

The only targets I have from the States are the IBS 300yd targets: http://www.nationaltarget.com/cgi-b...+300+YD+HR++(priced+per+50)&Category_Code=IBS

These are lighter than the paper we get our targets printed on and “feel” different (not as course), at a guess I would say these are long grain and ours are short grain, although they work perfectly well with a FMJ passing through them ;)

Brian
 
I believe the short grain leads to a finer consistency of the sheets in the thicker material such as card stock. There is a specific term for the type of 80lbs stock that works very well, just my built in computer is having retrieval problems.
 
Magnifiers

There is a new magnifier device IBS has just OK'ed for use that is a flat, clear plastic plate which has a number of bullet sized circles precisely marked on it with a 3X magnifier that is placed on the plate. One can quickly and easily center the circle over the bullet hole and see where the bullet actually struck. It's the best device I have seen to date for scoring ragged holes. One simply pushes the frayed paper back flat and reads where the bullet went.

I don't agree on the electronic scoring. There are many small clubs that could never afford the equipment necessary. I believe the device I just spoke of is $30.00 US.
 
Brian_K said:
Yes, I saw that Peter: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/06/ibs-approves-new-2-piece-scoring-reticle-shot-template/

Looking at the photos the laser etching looks a bit uneven and slightly “chippy”.

Personally I’m quite happy with the standard plug gauges we use now and like you are not in favour of the electronic scoring systems for the reasons you highlighted.

Brian
Click to expand...



Frank has found a supplier that is able to make smooth lines in the circles. I think that picture was of the prototype. I am a "Plug" man myself but when the holes get ragged, the plug becomes very subjective, IMHO.
 
scoring

If you were to use the overlay for scoring the 22 hole it should also be used for the 177.
It would be much slower for the scorer but much fairer for the shooter.
Many time you don't get a true reading of the 22 hole because it is very sloppy
nothing like a 22 rimfire hole.
Using a 22 plug in a .177 hole I feel it could very easily manipulated for a better or worse score!
Pete
 
I had the exact same idea. I was going to machine clear lucite into a lens shape and form concentric circles as well. I think it would be much more accurate than the current plugging method since the paper would need to tear perfectly for the plug to be accurate.
Dan
 
DanB said:
I had the exact same idea. I was going to machine clear lucite into a lens shape and form concentric circles as well. I think it would be much more accurate than the current plugging method since the paper would need to tear perfectly for the plug to be accurate.
Dan
Click to expand...

The only thing I would do is be sure it had a magnifier and make the .177 ring with a 22 ring on the outside of it?
Then a seperate 22 ring away from the .177
If you are going to compete with larger rounds then a ring for each might be a good idea also.
Just a thought!
 
Last edited:
Perhaps Frank can get some lates made with a .177 ring on them?

Frank's system is very fast to use, compared to the older one IBS used. There is no question that a set up like Franks is the best and fairest way to score holes that are too ragged to get a proper reading with a plug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top