.308 and .223 in the same division?

[dcloudy777]

I've been doing some serious thinking about steel targets that offer a larger activation area for higher PF shots. If this proves workable (I'm pretty sure at least some of my ideas would be very workable), is this something that would be worth doing? I'd love to see steel targets for pistol and rifle that allow major and minor rounds to compete equitably.

DanO

[Charles Bond]

Charles the deer I shot with a .223 or the pig i dropped with a 22lr didn't see it as anything but full power either. I'm sorry buddy but those are ridiculous esoteric comparisons.

saying they are full power doesn't make it so, issuing a good solid benchmark gives everyone a definite line to meet or not. Right now from what i'm reading we seem to feel 360pf is what the line should be, it eliminates the line of marginal cartridges that can sometimes meet the current mark of 320, what was the justification to lower it from 360 anyway???

making the mark 360 does not necessarily mean that experimentation will be abolished, it just means it will have to work with new parameters. wouldn't that be neat to see a lower recoiling, flatter trajectory, more ammo capacity 360pf cartridge!!!!

If that doesn't meet your criteria, how about allowing more points per target for rounds that generate 360pf, instead of 5-4-2 for major how about 7-6-4 if you exceed 360pf?????

that might help with the 308 vs 223 battle.

trapr

Trapr I understand these are your value judgements. If those "marginal" calibers get the job accomplished, should one get more points for using more power than needed? Especially if it can be demonstrated that the lighter caliber is actually more difficult to use on longer range targets when wind is a factor. It seems to me illogical for us to give more points for an A zone hit with a heavier caliber since dead is always dead. Allowing a broader A zone for heavier power factors is logical since the heavier caliber is less dependent on the placement of the projectile.

And I do not think that shooters agree that the major PF should be 360. Those 308 shooters who have posted here recently may have made that comment but both of us know that what is posted on this forum reflects only the opinions of those who post here rather than the majority of the 3 gun community.

Note I am not saying it should be 360 or 320. But I would hope that there would be more basis for it than just saying 308 is 360 pf and by golly that is what it has to be. To do it the way you advocate really means that the guys who want to shoot a 338 can by the same critera say the 308 is a marginal caliber and based on the growing affection of the sniper community for that round neither of us could say they are wrong.

How about this novel idea, lets place the power factor such that were the "target" a six foot male of average built that a round with ___ power factor delivered to the C zone of the target would neutralize it better than 80% of the time? Or we could just adjust the C zone to achieve the proper surface for 3 gun and if that makes the A zone smaller, I could live we that.

[Bryan 45]

If we want to talk practicallity, the .mil is also using 7.62x51 to turn cover into concealment- something they can not use 5.56 or 6.8 to do. (because it won't)

Bringing long range precision cartridges into a discussion of 3 gun is not logical. 308 is only considered marginal in this application when shooting over 800 yards. If we start shooting 3 gun matches with stages over 800 yards- I quit!

Dan- in your brainstorming consider this: If a competitor shooting a 5.56 hits the major scoring portion of the target and it fails to activate, he is going to hear the hit and may cry foul (or calibration-which really slows the match down). I think there was a major match 2 years ago with Larues that shooters complained weren't falling with 5.56, when they were actually hitting the steel base (that should have been either buried or covered with wood blocking to prevent impacts). I like where you are going, but please take this into consideration with your thought process.

[Charles Bond]

I've been doing some serious thinking about steel targets that offer a larger activation area for higher PF shots. If this proves workable (I'm pretty sure at least some of my ideas would be very workable), is this something that would be worth doing? I'd love to see steel targets for pistol and rifle that allow major and minor rounds to compete equitably.

DanO

If you could design a steel target that would activate or fall with one round of major or two rounds of minor rifle, that would be the ticket. Of course making this realiable and affordable might prove difficult.

[dcloudy777]

Charles, I appreciate the encouragement. I think 2:1 is too much of a ratio however. If 2:1 was fair, Bryan's original idea of just requiring 2 hits on steel for minor would be fine. I think that tilts the balance too far toward the heavies. I think somewhere around a 1.5:1 ratio is ideal. Since it's pretty tough to hit a target 1.5 times, a 150% larger target area for major is a better solution. I suppose requiring 2 hits for major and 3 hits for minor might work, if folks didn't mind shooting the same target multiple times.

I think larger targets for major calibers is the way to go. I think this can be achieved fairly simply through physics and target shape. Take a standard popper: everyone knows that the more powerful a round you shoot, the lower down you can hit a popper and still knock it over. What if a falling target took advantage of this by becoming wider toward the bottom instead of narrower? The same principal (leverage and mechanical advantage), can be used on most any kinetic target. If I knew anything about how to make a target I'd have built some to try already.

DanO

[Charles Bond]

Charles, I appreciate the encouragement. I think 2:1 is too much of a ratio however. If 2:1 was fair, Bryan's original idea of just requiring 2 hits on steel for minor would be fine. I think that tilts the balance too far toward the heavies. I think somewhere around a 1.5:1 ratio is ideal. Since it's pretty tough to hit a target 1.5 times, a 150% larger target area for major is a better solution. I suppose requiring 2 hits for major and 3 hits for minor might work, if folks didn't mind shooting the same target multiple times.

I think larger targets for major calibers is the way to go. I think this can be achieved fairly simply through physics and target shape. Take a standard popper: everyone knows that the more powerful a round you shoot, the lower down you can hit a popper and still knock it over. What if a falling target took advantage of this by becoming wider toward the bottom instead of narrower? The same principal (leverage and mechanical advantage), can be used on most any kinetic target. If I knew anything about how to make a target I'd have built some to try already.

DanO

When I first read this my concern was that the larger target would outweigh all other concerns and give the advantage to the heavier caliber but your notion of larger at the bottom works.

I would also comment that if we are going to have larger targets for major calibers, as Kurt and others have suggested we need minimum MOA target size for minor rifles.

An additional idea might be to have for round swinger targets the ability to change the target size by having outer rings. Regardless of how this thread comes out, having that ability would give ranges the ability to add moa for all rifles as distance increases without having to buy different sizes of steel for each specific range.

[Fjallhrafn]

If we want to talk practicallity, the .mil is also using 7.62x51 to turn cover into concealment

In this vein:

You cannot truly score a 7.62mm NATO rifle against a 5.56mm NATO rifle. The latter is a general purpose weapon, the former is issued to specialists for either its intermediate barrier penetration or its superior long-range performance (at 500-600+ meters). Since we're not likely to see many stages with targets out that far, perhaps it would be simpler to make it such that if HM guns and non-HM guns are to be scored together, the simplest solution is that hits through "hard cover" still count with the HM rifle.

[GorillaTactical]

I've been doing some serious thinking about steel targets that offer a larger activation area for higher PF shots. If this proves workable (I'm pretty sure at least some of my ideas would be very workable), is this something that would be worth doing? I'd love to see steel targets for pistol and rifle that allow major and minor rounds to compete equitably.

DanO

If you could design a steel target that would activate or fall with one round of major or two rounds of minor rifle, that would be the ticket. Of course making this realiable and affordable might prove difficult.

I don't want to violate any forum rule with this post, but the guys I shoot for make targets which register hits electronically and/or have a strobe attachment which provides immediate feedback. With this, we in theory could have a target which would require 1 hit with a 308 and 2 with a 223 to neutralize....the key would be that the spotter would need to know if the shooter was in major or minor...other than that, I don't see any other potential hangups

Edited February 25, 2011 by GorillaTactical

[Yankee Dog]

A few points.

I dont believe any solution that requires some sort of high tech or specialized target is workable. There are plenty of small clubs and matches which do not have the resources available for anything other than normal steel and normal paper. And whatever solution is used needs to work well at all levels of competitions.

I agree that you need data to come to an intelligent desion on a scoring system equitable to both major and minor. In order to gather is data dont think classification, think standards. What you need is a standard stage that as many folks as possible agree to incorporate into their matches. You will also need a organization that will agree to collect the data. Then just make the raw data available and let the discussions begin. That said, I also wonder about the need to keep minor calibers on a par with major. We dont worry about it in handgun, why worry about it in rifle. Of course any rifle, to include 5.56 is a one hit stopper so maybe it is a mute point.

As a point of information penetration has more to do with bullet design than with caliber. For example, the 5.56 round with steel core will drive through way more cover than the 7.62 standard ball ammuntion (source Infantry Magazine 19??)

[Charles Bond]

Not sure why bullet pentration is an issue. We are playing a game not for real shoot out.

What we have is a situation where 30 caliber shooters have their own division. They do not want to give that up and I quite understand that. But unless and until we have either everyone shooting together or have much broader scope of shooters entering Heavy Metal, the problems coutlined in this thread are going to continue.

[mpeltier]

This is a waste of time in my opinion. Its like trying to find a way for NASCAR stock cars to compete with Indy cars at the Indianapolis 500.

Even if a way was agreed upon to make them (.223 and .308) competitively scored, how much does anyone feel it would improve participation for the heavy shooters. I don't think it will really change much. I would still shoot .223. At many venues there is a formula to supposedly make the hvy pistol competitive against the 9mm, yet many still choose the 9mm. No differance will come about with the rifle. Why not use or continue on with those formulas for .223 vs.308.

And limiting the minor rifle to 20 rounds is the opposite of what happens with the pistol, why in the world would you do that. If anything the Heavy rifle should incur a bonus, not result in a penalty for minor.

just my opinion, worth less than the price of admission, no doubt.

Edited March 1, 2011 by mpeltier

[Charles Bond]

I do not see the goal of this discussion to be to increase participation of heary shooters. The change I have discussed would not inrecase participation in any division at any match since the matches I know of are full, regardless of division choice. But what this would do is relieve MD stree which might result in more ranges willing to offer these matches. Of course it would also crown a winner of the match and were that the case, folks would choose one weapons platform over another based on what they shot best as opposed to choosing one which they thought would give them the better chance of winning a prize of higher value.

[Bryan 45]

Mark, my original intent of this brainstorming wasn't to increase participation in any division or the use of any cartridge or rifle by competitors. It was to see if there were any options that would allow 308 to be competitive with 223 in the existing Tac 1x and Tac Optics divisions. There are some shooters that like shooting 308, but few matches that recognize Heavy Optics. If there was a method of scoring that took the additional recoil, lower magazine capacity, and higher energy of 308 into account, then a match could recognize only the divisions of Open, Tac Optics, and Tac 1x without leaving anyone out. (Except for the shooters that think 6.8 or 6.5g should be major! )

I'm not proposing any rule change or asking for any MDs to make the change. Just seeing if anyone has some ideas that may work. I agree with you Mark, let's not even consider trying to penalize or handicap the 223 shooters, and I hesitate to use the word "bonus" for scoring of heavy shooters. Just make the hits with a .308 count for more? The question is HOW, to which I don't have an answer.

[Bryan 45]

I wanted to add a correction to an old post in this topic, of course it's too old to edit. I mentioned a match of which I had no first hand knowledge, and targets that were a point of contention. I incorrectly attributed this to low stikes, when it turns out the problem was due to targets that needed adjustment. Even the simplest target systems can and will go wrong!

[mpeltier]

Mark, my original intent of this brainstorming wasn't to increase participation in any division or the use of any cartridge or rifle by competitors. It was to see if there were any options that would allow 308 to be competitive with 223 in the existing Tac 1x and Tac Optics divisions. There are some shooters that like shooting 308, but few matches that recognize Heavy Optics. If there was a method of scoring that took the additional recoil, lower magazine capacity, and higher energy of 308 into account, then a match could recognize only the divisions of Open, Tac Optics, and Tac 1x without leaving anyone out. (Except for the shooters that think 6.8 or 6.5g should be major! )

I'm not proposing any rule change or asking for any MDs to make the change. Just seeing if anyone has some ideas that may work. I agree with you Mark, let's not even consider trying to penalize or handicap the 223 shooters, and I hesitate to use the word "bonus" for scoring of heavy shooters. Just make the hits with a .308 count for more? The question is HOW, to which I don't have an answer.

Bryan, No worries. My first post was meant sorta tongue-in-cheek. I personally feel that its merrits (hvy) stand on its own. Many venues already give some concession to shooting heavy with the rifle on paper targets, and long range steel in my opinion is self regulating as it could be argued that the heavy is an advantage for its windbucking ability and the more positive hit reading vs say a 55gr bullet. I have dabbled with both, and have had many instances where it was questionable as to positive hits on steel with .223 and had to take extra shots due to this fact. Never a question shooting heavy. And the engagement time on far targets gives really no advantage to the .223, as that is not a run and gun aspect, which is where the .223 excells. If not to try to garner more participation (as WAS suggested in someone elses first two posts ) it seems to me there is no real (only percieved) disadvantage to shooting .308. In fact, if it were not for ammo cost, I would be shooting one this season. (And I know of working, 32rd .308 mags that make the capacity issue, a non-issue )

[Charles Bond]

Please post a link to the working 32 rd 308 mags.

[mpeltier]

Please post a link to the working 32 rd 308 mags.

There are some things that do not have an internet link. PM me if you want some more info on this, as I don't want to drift off the subject on this thread.

Edited March 8, 2011 by mpeltier