Thread: What target design and why ?

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.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

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

Originally Posted by Smiddy

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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

Originally Posted by 6x47

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?

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.

This one is my flavour

Gives you a bit of everything I reckon

@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.

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.

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

They also work bloody well with open sights

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

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.