# Firearms and Shooting > Shooting >  What target design and why ?

## Puffin

Please share what design you currently prefer for range shooting paper ?  

How does it work to aid precise reticle alignment ?  What else has been tried in the past and discarded - and why ?


To kick things off: the current preference here...  




When sized correctly a duplex reticle breaks the target into 4, squares being good. Allows placement of the reticle (black) over a white aiming point, and I find it slightly easier to tell the difference between squares and rectangles than matching the size of four sectors when using an equivalent circle. Disadvantage: hard to see shots in the black from a distance, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to work as well for me if the outer square is thinned down to fix this. For conventional crosshairs only.

----------


## gadgetman

I just stick 24mm red/orange dots onto paper. Easy to quarter them to line up on the middle. Sometimes I'll put a small cross above the dot where I want the final aim point to be at the distance, though I can get a pretty good idea by measuring the dot in the scope and just mentally adding dots on top to get the spot from the shooting position.

----------


## northdude

i use a cross its the easiest thing to aim the cross hairs on no guess work at all

----------


## sako75

> I just stick 24mm red/orange dots onto paper. Easy to quarter them to line up on the middle. Sometimes I'll put a small cross above the dot where I want the final aim point to be at the distance, though I can get a pretty good idea by measuring the dot in the scope and just mentally adding dots on top to get the spot from the shooting position.


Same. I use the back of a calender or poster as the paper is a lot nicer

----------


## Dougie

This is a cool thread.

I discovered recently that an ammo box I have is an inch thick, so have drawn inch grids for sighing in. Last night I even made a half inch one for my friend's .17HMR at 100 because my targets were too big when I did my .22LR the other day...I had to aim at the corner of the target. 


(Inch squares, Black Beauty last night newly shortened with new suppresser, 200yrds)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## Gibo

> Please share what design you currently prefer for range shooting paper ?  
> 
> How does it work to aid precise reticle alignment ?  What else has been tried in the past and discarded - and why ?
> 
> 
> To kick things off: the current preference here...  
> 
> Attachment 45422
> 
> ...


Print it in red, can still see the lines well and also see your shots over the line  :Grin:  I use a flash harry thing @kiwi39 sent me. Basically a diamond or square on its point. Although I got lazy and now just draw a 10- 15mm dot  :Have A Nice Day:  If you cant see where you hit its normally a good group  :Wink:

----------


## veitnamcam

I use a half inch black dot with a band of white around it then another band of black out to two inches. could go smaller but  with my mix of optics 12x is max with most being 9x or 4x and a 10mm dot is bloody hard to see at 200m looking threw a 4xcoke bottle  :Grin:

----------


## veitnamcam

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

----------


## Gibo

25 points to you sir

----------


## veitnamcam

> 25 points to you sir


Down 1 click and shes good till I have to change powder batch and start over.

----------


## 10-Ring

Try the same square turned 45 degrees so that it looks like a diamond. Makes it easier to line up the crosshairs of a duplex reticle on the four corners.

----------


## Gibo

> Down 1 click and shes good till I have to change powder batch and start over.


Really, how much can a different batch change things? I don't think I have any two bottles the same batch  :Sad:

----------


## veitnamcam

> Really, how much can a different batch change things? I don't think I have any two bottles the same batch


ADI powders I have used seem really good, superformance went from near max to way over max from one tub to the next.

----------


## Gibo

> ADI powders I have used seem really good, superformance went from near max to way over max from one tub to the next.


OK cheers, I use ADI but will keep an eye out. Shit it better be sweet, just loaded 50 at same load with new batch .....

----------


## Puffin

Centre row:  crosshairs perfectly centred
Bottom row: crosshairs offset slightly left - all by the same amount


A cross has to be drawn with the same thickness as the reticle for best results; too thin and it remains obscured for some degree of offset, too thick and it is not as easy to tell the offset as some of the other options. As pointed out a colour works best for a cross when the thickness is matched to that of the reticle,   colour visible = alignment is off.

I like the diamond too. It comes down to a preference between noticing the difference between sizes of triangles, and squares that have gone rectangular.

The dot - it is probably slightly large for best comparisons here - comes down to the eye picking up the difference in the size and symmetry of the 4 sectors (slices of pie ) and whether this is easier as a personal preference to sizing triangles or squares/rectangles.

Please post with how these designs could be optimised further. 

Anybody got anything from out of left field that will revolutionise target design ?

----------


## veitnamcam

Of those I like the circle and the diamond, they grab the eye as on the piss (well my eye anyway)
The square for me at first glance shows no error,it is not without concentrating on the quarter sizes I can see any error and it should be instinctive.
This is one of the reasons aperture sights were so good for so long because the eye will naturally center circles very accurately. 

Very small dots for me are difficult, it becomes like the cross on cross example above where you have to move on and off target to be sure you are on target, you need that bit sticking out for your senses to center on.

----------


## Smiddy

> ADI powders I have used seem really good, superformance went from near max to way over max from one tub to the next.


What do you reakon about mixing all the different batches you have into 1?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

----------


## veitnamcam

> What do you reakon about mixing all the different batches you have into 1?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Im not sure how you would ensure/check it was mixed thoroughly?
I only have about 1/2 pound left and shall endeavor to get a few of the same batch next time.

----------


## 6x47

After a lot of playing, this is my preference:



I have various scalings from one large diamond per page to six small ones, all on an inch square grid. Very easy to work out zero corrections with the grid.

PM me if you want copies

----------


## Danny

> After a lot of playing, this is my preference:
> 
> 
> 
> I have various scalings from one large diamond per page to six small ones, all on an inch square grid. Very easy to work out zero corrections with the grid.
> 
> PM me if you want copies


I like that. I'd add a small red dot as a reference point to help the eye. Possibly 5mm in diameter?
That's nice and simple. I might fire up Solid Works tomorrow and print a few.

----------


## quentin

6x47 and 10-ring seem to have it sorted.
I find the diamond the easiest to center with a basic duplex reticle.

----------


## Puffin

> After a lot of playing, this is my preference:.....
> 
> ........PM me if you want copies


Another tick for the diamond then.   

Could you please tell us the relative sizing of your reticle to the diamond? 

Do you size the diamond so the reticle looks thick then aiming is via the division into 4 triangles and visually matching the size of those triangles to centre the reticle, or 
have the reticle thin relative to the diamond dimensions with aiming by placing the reticle on the corners of the diamond?

----------


## 6x47

Relative sizing depends on the range, accuracy and scope power.  You need good enough definition to be sure you're holding where you want to be- bit hard to define.  If I was forced to shoot a rough rifle with 4X scope at 200yds, it'd be the 1 per sheet diamond. If it was any of my target guns at 100yds, I could well use the 6 per page at a full 32X though the 4 per sheet is most useful generally. 32X would be pretty pointless on a big aiming mark but I generally use max power unless there's a lot of mirage running. That example above was shot at 32X /100yds. Anything over 14X is adequate on the 4 per page though it's easier at a good 18X.  I think you need proper benchrest gear to fully take advantage of scope powers over 20X at 100yds, else you risk being distracted by "wobble".

To make "..the reticle look thick ..", you'd need an FFP scope and I don't have any.

----------


## Skitsokiwi

This one is my flavour

Gives you a bit of everything I reckon

----------


## Puffin

@6x47 I understand from your answer that you typically use SFP scopes on reasonably high power, so at 100 yds the RELATIVE thickness of the reticle to the diamonds you pictured would be thin, like the drawing below,  so I'm guessing you are using the diamond as an aiming point primarily by using the corners of the diamond and aligning the crosshairs to these, and any difference in size of the four resulting triangles - being difficult to detect with that sizing - is secondary ?
 In the drawing the crosshairs are visibly just off to one side of the corners, but the resulting asymmetry in the sizing of the triangles is much more difficult to detect.       



It is of course possible to make the crosshairs thick RELATIVE to the diamond size - whether the scope is FFP or SFP,  and for any power setting , or distance -  by printing much smaller diamonds, appropriately scaled. The end result is more as pictured in the earlier post.  In that case there would be difficulty aligning the crosshairs to the corners of the diamonds due to the obscuration issue mentioned by VC in relation to the use of dots that are small - again in relative terms to the thickness of the reticle. The corners can only be seen by moving off the point of aim and a spread of crosshair placement is possible while the corners remain hidden.  In that case the visual difference in the size of the triangles becomes the primary way of determining if the crosshairs are offset. 

Sorry my question in the earlier post was not clear.

----------


## PERRISCICABA

It is what i prefer to use with centre fire:



and it is for rimfire:



Yes! I try to pick my best targets and they are I am the crap shooter. I have other options for pattern but these are the "easiest" to me.

----------


## Steve123

It works for me and you can get lots of aimpoints of the one sheet. Helps using work copier too.

----------


## Steve123

They also work bloody well with open sights

----------


## chalkeye

I made this up after I got annoyed by my reticle obscuring the target:

----------


## hotbarrels

I use the diamond type targets for accuracy testing as I find it easier to hold a sight picture.  The background grid is 1/2" square so it makes it easy to adjust sights.  The single target with the grid underneath is for drop testing at longer range.
I use the rabbit target for small game practice.  Printed full size on a A4 paper make it about life size.  Primary kill zones are shown with the two circles.

----------


## zimmer

My CAD program drew all my targets where I use grid patterns @ 1.047 inches which I thought was clever of it.
I have at least 6 different targets I use and they are all tailored for either 50 yds (22 RF) or 100 yds (CF) with aiming points to suit particular scope reticles or open sight foresight width. I find red targets have good contrast and use hollow diamonds or hollow squares - again with the hollows to suit reticle sizes/thicknesses. My more simplistic targets are A4 Landscape, have no grid, and 1 row of 3 squares of differing hollow centre dimensions and 1 row of 3 triangles same again, differing hollow centre dimensions. Some of my scopes are plain crosshair and at least 2 are target dots so one style of target doesn't suit all. I must admit I bother less now with the elaborate grid patterned targets and operate on the KISS principle.

I also have one target made up of 2 A4 portrait sheets glued at their edges to give a tall target. It has a 1.047" grid. I use this at 100 yds to test scopes for accuracy of turret adjustments. The results of this test I then put into my ballistic program for that rifle/scope combination.

----------


## 6x47

> @6x47 I understand from your answer that you typically use SFP scopes on reasonably high power,....
> Sorry my question in the earlier post was not clear.


You've obviously thought a lot harder about it than I have.
A summary of my approach is probably " Use enough scope power to get good definition of the target item and then pull the trigger when the reticle is symmetrically centred on the mark". You can possibly over-think this one.

----------


## 260rem

> Try the same square turned 45 degrees so that it looks like a diamond. Makes it easier to line up the crosshairs of a duplex reticle on the four corners.
> 
> Attachment 45428


Plus one for this design

----------


## jakewire

This one, is the best 100yrd or meter target in my opinion.
It has inch squares, any one with a computer and a printer can make it.
It doesn't lie to you, you get what you shot.

----------


## ChrisF

I agree the hollow diamond is best for scopes , But I am lazy , and just use a sheet of A4 paper , and a few 1 inche black stickies , if the scope is powerful enough , I use the bottom LH corner as a more precise aiming mark .

----------


## specweapon

I use the Eotech 50yard printout, keep a copy beside you and mark your shots, with a good scope or binos you don't even have to get up to check, just have to remember that the guidance on the sheet is for 50yd, if i'm zeroing at 100

----------


## outdoorlad

I prefer a black diamond as well.

----------


## Willie

> I use the diamond type targets for accuracy testing as I find it easier to hold a sight picture.  The background grid is 1/2" square so it makes it easy to adjust sights.  The single target with the grid underneath is for drop testing at longer range.
> I use the rabbit target for small game practice.  Printed full size on a A4 paper make it about life size.  Primary kill zones are shown with the two circles.
> 
> Attachment 45517Attachment 45518



I like the drop one especially for this coming weekend.
Have you got a link to it?

----------


## hotbarrels

> I like the drop one especially for this coming weekend.
> Have you got a link to it?


I drew them up myself in MS Word.  I have loaded them into dropbox so hopefully you can access them via the link below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/41qpg52exc...gets.docx?dl=0

----------


## Willie

> I drew them up myself in MS Word.  I have loaded them into dropbox so hopefully you can access them via the link below.
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/41qpg52exc...gets.docx?dl=0


I can and well done that fella, some right good buggers around here!
Much appreciated. :Thumbsup:

----------


## MB

Useful thread. After trying a few different things, this is what I'm using at the moment for my .22LR to 75 metres. I just want to know that I can get a headshot on a bunny at this distance rather than win any competitions. The larger diamonds are 5cm, the smaller ones 3cm. The 1cm black dots came from an air rifle target shooting video on YouTube. The presenter said the smaller the target, the more precise your aiming will be. This has proven true for me, but I only go for them at 25 meters or less. Longer distances are just torture!

----------


## 6.5mm-mag

This is the target I use, which I created myself using my AutoCAD software. As mentioned above, I also turn it on a 45 degree angle so it becomes a diamond shape, which makes it much easier to align with the cross hairs in a scope.

I then added the gridlines - the distance between the slightly thicker lines is 1 inch, while the gap between the thinner lines is 0.5 inch. Once again, I find this easy when I'm looking at the groups on my target and I can instantly see my grouping size. I find it also works when using the precision target software I have discussed on the forum here as I can use the gridlines when calibrating the software.

I am quite happy to PDF the target and send to someone on here.  I print on a reasonably heavy stock, as I get a perfect bullet hole. I find normal printing paper is a pain because it rips.

----------

