[J.Schmitt]

For those that were not there, DPMS had 3 steel MGM flashers that were painted blue set at 200 yards. They altrenated blue/white/blue/white/blue.

I shoot iron sights and noted that the blue plates blurred when I sighted in on them. They seemed to wash out to the point where they began to fade into the brown dirt behind them. The neck of the Plate was practically impossible to distinguish from the rest of it.

Do the iron shooters out there have experience with other matches having "hard to see colors".

I was wondering what kind of thoughts the shooters had in reference to these targets as well as difficulties.

To wrap up the stage the shooter had to engage the blue targets with a provided bolt rifle with an optic. Blue was easy to see with the optic.

Jay

[bigbrowndog]

Sadly here in the US, hard to see targets, seem to be the rule rather than the exception where Iron sight shooters are concerned.
But then I'm on my soapbox again.
Trapr

[smokshwn]

I am an open shooter and I think it's BS as well. Target identification should be a priority of stage design regardless of division, shooter notoriety, distance, etc etc.... All too often I think it falls to the wayside due to effort/difficulty in keeping the same presentation for every shooter.

At the end of the day that is the only thing that would be fair though.

[sleepercaprice1]

I talked to the R.O.'s on the stage at DPMS and was told that the idea was to distinguish the 3 blue plates from the other white ones in the same array.

The guys who ran the stage weren't real excited about the color selection either, but the course description called for the 3 blue plates to be re-engaged with a furnished bolt gun and blue must have been the paint they had handy. They considered red, but that would have been dificult for red dot shooters.

I suggested that they could have used yellow or lime green and accomplished the same thing as using blue. A brighter color definitely would have made the targets easier to see. Even low powered scope users had some problems seeing them depending on time of day and light conditions.

[kurtm]

Yes several of the matches I shot this year took no consideration as to if the targets were visible. At one match I had to find a bush that was near by and remember to hold about 4' left of the bush and 2" down and just area fire. At another match It just depended at what time of day you got to shoot the stage as to whether you could see the targets at all....even the scope guys couldn't!!! At yet another match with shotgun plates less than 12 yards away the plates were INVISIBLE after 10:00 a.m. in the morning due to the position of the sun, and it cost a really good shooter the match as he "left One up" that he couldn't see AT ALL!

This year, more than the years past, It has seemed that many matches are starting to be won on stages that are "time of day dependent". Now I am all for challenging stages, and rain and wind happen, but "invisible targets" are getting to be the norm. I heard one match director say he was going to paint all his steel gray and never paint again as it was the only way to have the same target presentation for all, and then proceeded to put the targets into shadowed areas depending on time of day.

I have heard a few shooters say they don't like visible target backers as then they can't see their misses....but if you can't SEE the target at all, what does being able to see your misses do for you?

The best target colors I have seen are the Fluorescent Green and Fluorescent Blue, Orange isn't nearly as good, but it sure beat washed out gray. But M.D.s in the U.S. seem to think that painting targets is too much work for the most part, so don't look for this to change in the near future. The biggest reason I get from shooters who go to Tac-Optic is that they can't see the target...well...if they were painted..... you get the idea! KurtM

[J.Schmitt]

kurtm, on Aug 29 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

I have heard a few shooters say they don't like visible target backers as then they can't see their misses....but if you can't SEE the target at all, what does being able to see your misses do for you?

The best target colors I have seen are the Fluorescent Green and Fluorescent Blue, Orange isn't nearly as good, but it sure beat washed out gray. But M.D.s in the U.S. seem to think that painting targets is too much work for the most part, so don't look for this to change in the near future. The biggest reason I get from shooters who go to Tac-Optic is that they can't see the target...well...if they were painted..... you get the idea! KurtM

Also, I guess if they can't see their misses due to a target backer they probably don't know where their rifle is hitting prior to the match(point of aim, point of impact). Back to the a prior post on "Best Zero".

[P.E. Kelley]

We (the iron sight crowd) are not asking for HUGE backers just big enough to offer fair target definition.

I too have talked with and heard the no backer sentiment expressed, but damn kids if ya can't see the target in the first place
missing is just going to happen. Backers help all divisions.

Iron's are a little more work and recruitment is difficult enough without having targets that even my scoped brethren can not see!

Besides, are we not, as responsible shooters supposed to KNOW our target? If ya can't see it, what in the hell are we shooting at?

Patrick

[bigbrowndog]

I am aware of several shooters that seem to think that knowing where they are missing is much more important than being able to see the target clearly, I seem to recall the only time that type of firing is acceptable is when the round you are firing has 3 numbers followed by mm.

Someone stated that how do you know where you are missing if you can't see your target clearly to begin with!!!!! this is a very astute remark.

trapr

[3gunner]

I think what DT1 does at the steel city rifle matches works the best. A black plate with lime powder on the ground behind it. You can see the plate and call your misses.fwiw

This post has been edited by 3gunner: 29 August 2009 - 05:56 PM

[J.Schmitt]

Those that were there and shot well on stage 6, Patrick and Kurt, would probably agree that the targets were clearly visible. Kelly Neal has some nice video on his webpage and Robbie Johnson just mowed the plates down. Just to keep on track, the targets were out in plain view.

The Blue plates just didn't provide the precision target I like to sight in on. I guess all iron, 223 and 308, were on the same page to deal with the same issue with exception of sunlight vs. clouds. Wtih the blurring of the plates however, i found myself comming down from the white overhead flasher and bisecting the swinger stand.

Jay

[1chota]

J.Schmitt, on Aug 29 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

Those that were there and shot well on stage 6, Patrick and Kurt, would probably agree that the targets were clearly visible. Kelly Neal has some nice video on his webpage and Robbie Johnson just mowed the plates down. Just to keep on track, the targets were out in plain view.

The Blue plates just didn't provide the precision target I like to sight in on. I guess all iron, 223 and 308, were on the same page to deal with the same issue with exception of sunlight vs. clouds. Wtih the blurring of the plates however, i found myself comming down from the white overhead flasher and bisecting the swinger stand.

Jay

just back up one year and remember all the steel at DPMS was white! I had one Heavy Metal shooter on my squad that asked the ROs to paint the targets between the squad before us and our squad and they refused. He had a really hard time just like the guys who previously commented on this. Whether one shoots a 6 o'clock hold or in the middle doesn't matter if you can't see the dang things.
1chota

[Smoky Bear]

For this stage with our squad, we moved all of the iron shooter to the front. By the time the thrid person shot, the targets were gone. Wiped out by the shade. Made good shooters have very poor times and even time out.

[1chota]

Smoky Bear, on Aug 29 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

For this stage with our squad, we moved all of the iron shooter to the front. By the time the thrid person shot, the targets were gone. Wiped out by the shade. Made good shooters have very poor times and even time out.

the iron sight shooter on our squad also went first. but they didn't paint in between squads and he really had a rough stage.
1chota

[Chuck Anderson]

bigbrowndog, on Aug 29 2009, 01:19 PM, said:

I seem to recall the only time that type of firing is acceptable is when the round you are firing has 3 numbers followed by mm.

5.56mm? 7.62mm?

[bigbrowndog]

Whole numbers Chuck,....Whole numbers. Like 105, 155, etc.

Trapr

[Sako92S]

kurtm, on Aug 29 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

The best target colors I have seen are the Fluorescent Green and Fluorescent Blue, Orange isn't nearly as good, but it sure beat washed out gray. But M.D.s in the U.S. seem to think that painting targets is too much work for the most part, so don't look for this to change in the near future. The biggest reason I get from shooters who go to Tac-Optic is that they can't see the target...well...if they were painted..... you get the idea! KurtM

Come to shoot Finland and you have always painted targets on rifle matches. (White, black or orange depending on the match organizer.)
At previous shotgun nationals (in Finland) RO's painted the targets if the shooter wanted them to be painted. I used that option only on one stage.

Taisto
Ps. In a month we will probably know if we are going to host aprox. 16 stages Nordic Rifle match or not (beginning of the July perhaps)

[caspian guy]

+1 to dt1's use of black plates with white lime powder spread behind them at the Steel City match.

That provides excelent target definition plus allows you to see the misses since the target backer is the berm wall.

We had flash targets out to 300 yards on the stage I worked. I don't think I heard anyone complain about having a hard time seeing the targets.

[1chota]

caspian guy, on Sep 2 2009, 04:38 AM, said:

+1 to dt1's use of black plates with white lime powder spread behind them at the Steel City match.

That provides excelent target definition plus allows you to see the misses since the target backer is the berm wall.

We had flash targets out to 300 yards on the stage I worked. I don't think I heard anyone complain about having a hard time seeing the targets.

flash targets are great! especially for the .223 shooters. how many times has a shooter seen the hit in his scope but the RO doesn't call it. flash targets eliminate that error. everyone knows when they get hit. sure glad Larry invented those things.
1chota

[Jadeslade]

I read this topic religiously and appreciate all the good information. I love iron sights and the reason I choose to shoot Tac-Optics is exactly what Kurt, Patrick, and a couple others said exactly-it is hard to see the targets. If you can see the target, you can shoot it. Any color can disappear in a given situation; i.e., time of year, cloud cover, shade, atmospheric conditions, other technical reasons. So, if you can try several colors once the stages are set up and pick one that everybody can see....
I like the idea of fluorescent green, but that could disappear in new cactus, so maybe target backers with the green. Probably no perfect answer. I like flash targets, you still have to see it before you shoot it.

[bigbrowndog]

Another problem is RO's calling hits that aren't there, due to them not using binoculars or such, this occurred more than once at various matches, training RO's can be a problem as well, (training them to call hits when there aren't any!!!!)

Another good reason for falling targets!!!

[Chris]

If they would of just stuck a sheet of red/white/yellow corrugated plastic on the back of the target there would be no issues.

[bigbrowndog]

it is funny how the solution always seems so easy, and yet it so seldom ever happens!!

Tapr

[1chota]

bigbrowndog, on Sep 2 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Another problem is RO's calling hits that aren't there, due to them not using binoculars or such, this occurred more than once at various matches, training RO's can be a problem as well, (training them to call hits when there aren't any!!!!)

Another good reason for falling targets!!!

another good reason for those "flash targets". when those strobes go off, everyone knows it is a hit.
1chota

[Chuck Anderson]

1chota, on Sep 2 2009, 01:24 PM, said:

bigbrowndog, on Sep 2 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

Another problem is RO's calling hits that aren't there, due to them not using binoculars or such, this occurred more than once at various matches, training RO's can be a problem as well, (training them to call hits when there aren't any!!!!)

Another good reason for falling targets!!!

another good reason for those "flash targets". when those strobes go off, everyone knows it is a hit.
1chota

Except when they don't work. I've never been to a match where there wasn't an issue with them. If electronics are present they will fail at some point.

[kellyn]

One thing IPSC does far better than most American 3 gun is steel rifle targets. I like swingers and RandRs etc. but they will never be as a consistent target as a falling plate. There is no need (to quote Eric Miller) for the "unholy relationship between the RO and shooter." It either falls or it does not fall. It is really asking a lot for an RO to call consistent hits over the course of a major match. Watch the video of Daniel Horner shooting Stage 6 at DPMS on my webpage and tell me that it is not difficult to keep up with what is going on and that was probably the 150th shooter those poor ROs had to keep up with! And it can make a difference as I probably beat the esteemed Mr. Miller at a match due to an RO calling a hit when there was a miss. (God loves me more than him)

Of course one issue with the ERC was the target backing prevented you from seeing your misses unless they were low!

Falling plates are certainly nowhere as convenient as swingers etc but they are more fair.