At least the information you are about to read should be required reading. Certainly for every FT shooter that has protested a target (function), and especially for every Match Director that has had to deal with such protests. Trust me, this information is not only extremely enlightening, but intensely interesting!
As an FT competitor for over a decade and Match Director almost as long, I have experienced target protests from both perspectives. Matter of fact target protests can be the difference between championship titles won or lost. So yes, it is THAT important a subject.
I’ll preface this discussion with the declaration that those who know me very well also know that, although I make liberal use of Texan exaggeration/BS for humors sake, otherwise I have utterly NO tolerance whatsoever for untruths or dishonesty. Believe me, the epiphanies in this report are totally devoid of Texaggeration or BS. The truths contained herein, shocking as they will seem to some, were even more-so to me.
Sometimes when a target doesn't fall, inexperienced and experienced FT competitors alike are predisposed to believing they’ve made a scoring shot when they see a pellet mark appear on a kill-zone paddle. Especially if the paddle was freshly painted. Count me among you, sometimes even to this day. This despite the fact I’ve often been the Match Director called to inspect suspect target(s). So with the objectivity born of years of first-hand experience with target-function protests, from both shooter and MD perspectives, I venture to state that in at least 80%, to as much as 90%+ of such apparent target malfunctions the target functioned exactly as it was supposed to. SAY WHAT?! That brings us to why I always tell the protesting shooter to accompany me to inspect the offending target.
On close inspection a freshly painted field target displays graphically and in no uncertain terms when a pellet nicked the inner edge of the kill-zone hole in the face-plate; the deflected pellet registering what the shooter wants to believe a good hit on the paddle. Terms for this are a ‘pellet split’, ‘split pellet’, or just ‘a split’.
To add insult to injury, the compromised pellet sometimes center-punches the paddle, to even more closely mimic a perfect shot. However when the match director, aka- “I”, point to an obvious nick on a freshly-painted face-plate that couldn’t have been there before that “perfect shot”, the best course of action for the MD is to apologize to his shooter for having to point out the undeniable indication of a pellet split. “I’m sorry, but that’s a legitimate zero.”
Only if there is argument is it appropriate to then state, “I’m sorry, but that’s the reality of the situation” while still pointing out the inarguable pellet-split mark on the face-plate. Some of you have seen this; all with much FT experience have. And as previously stated, that is the reality in a majority of failed-to-fall target protests. Again, I’ve been on the giving and receiving end of this more than a few times.
Having taken up Extreme Field Target competition and EFT match directing within the last year, it has been quite an interesting transition to the bigger, heavier targets, calibers, pellets and exponentially higher projectile energies. There is much to learn regarding similarities and differences in EFT target idiosyncrasies, and tuning them for consistent reliability. That being the case, now that I am hosting and directing Extreme Field Target matches I’ve vowed to become intimately familiar with the quirks of the overgrown (and overweight) targets required to withstand and function with near-rimfire terminal ballistics.
For my Inaugural TEXtreme Field Target matches in March I left the target placement and tuning to shooters from Arizona experienced in such matters; including my event sponsor, who generously donated several (expensive) targets to my cause. Thank you Robert (Buchanan), it couldn’t have happened without your support!
That there seemed to be quite a few issues that weekend with my 15 brand-new extreme field targets came as no surprise. Would be the same with brand-new regular field targets emplaced and used for the first time. However I knew from vast experience (with regular field targets) that continuing experience with each target brings better familiarization with individual target personalities, foibles, and tuning requisites required for consistently-dependable function. Left on my own after that Inaugural TEXtreme Field Target weekend, I am obliged to become intimately familiar with some $3000 worth of extreme field targets in order to serve my PAYING competitors as conscientiously as every match director should.
In preparing to host my second EFT match (last Saturday), target tuning was high on the list of priorities. Unlike most regular field targets, thankfully my new extreme targets have sear-engagement screws (bolts, really). Good thing!
In the case of every target that seemed to need tuning after the inaugural TFT match, the sear engagements seemed too rich. In some cases I reduced sear engagements by two revolutions of the adjusting bolt, to achieve what seemed the best compromise between the target dependably falling to paddle hits, but not falling to face-plate hits. In a few cases it seemed a difficult compromise to find; again no surprise based on years of tuning regular field targets. It quickly became obvious that the most overgrown extreme targets were the also the most obstinate. Believe me, those sear-engagement adjusting bolts are a God-send!
For mechanical reasons too difficult to convey here, by Saturdays match I was wondering if large, tall, and/or heavy extreme field targets can actually be tuned to levels of consistently dependable function. Even began to seriously doubt if some could.
Saturdays competitions to consist of two 32 shot matches, with all 11 shooters shooting each of the 16 targets four times with powerful PCPs, I was more than a little n-n-nervous about dependable function of my targets. Each target to sustain over 700 hits from airguns averaging 60 foot pounds of muzzle energy would be a very revealing, and potentially embarrassing, test. Thankfully my shooters are a forgiving bunch, and not disposed to whining.
Nevertheless during and after the matches many, if not most shooters, including myself, felt they’d had targets fail to fall to good hits on the paddles. But all had a great time, writing off some target failures to the nature of the Extreme Field Target game. I even witnessed what I could only explain as a clear failure from a good hit by a squad-mate; leaving me then convinced some large, heavy targets might not could be made dependable (enough).
In my opinion the worst of the lot was a very heavy, large bison target that I’d invested the most time and effort trying to tune to dependability. It so happened to also be the target I witnessed fail to my squad-mates shot, and the most difficult to find a good sear adjustment.
So with yesterdays matches behind me, this morning I checked the bison to try to ascertain if my suspicions about its issues were correct. Initial inspection suggested yes. But during that inspection I noticed very few face-plate hits out of 704 shots taken on the bison (and each target). Then came an epiphany that it might be pretty easy to compare the (few) face-plate hits on the bison to the total number of bison zeroes on every shooters score-cards.
The next leap of logic came easily enough. I could conduct a forensic investigation of every ‘problem’ target to get some idea of each targets dependability (to fall to paddle hits, but not face-plate hits). However, to insure as much accuracy of results as possible, the investigation must be free of influence by personal opinion(s), bias(es), or agenda(s). In other words, unlike so-called ‘independent investigations’ so common and meaningless nowadays. My investigation protocols would insure, for lack of a better term, a ‘blind taste test’, devoid of nefarious influences.
So BEFORE counting face-plate hits, I counted every miss on every shooters’ scorecard on each of the six suspect targets, and recorded those numbers. Only then did I leave that information in the house to carefully count faceplate hits and splits on the suspect targets scattered around the field target course, with the aid of my now-omnipresent 3x reading glasses (go ahead and have a good laugh; I can't see you). Aforementioned protocols insured unbiased and unskewed results of the investigation. And though I hoped to get at least enough quantification of target failures to approximate the severity of the problem, I had little expectation of the extent of the problem coming into better than fuzzy focus.
But one-by-one the number of misses on the scorecards agreed with the number of hits counted on each suspect-target's face-plate. In fact, even to the extent that EXCLUDING MINOR SPLITS, BUT INCLUDING MAJOR SPLITS brought the numbers into 100% agreement! On only two of the six suspect targets did the counts not agree; one target by 1 miss, the other by 2. I was stunned that the numbers agreed so closely; more stunned at the evidence that target dependability far exceeded all expectations.
Confident in my investigation protocols and the accuracy of all counts, my surprise turned to shock. Then, epiphanies. One epiphany led to another. Within minutes, multiple epiphanies. That hasn’t happened since I lost my virginity!
Upon calling the winner of all Saturdays matches to explain my investigation and results, Derrick exposed the hit-miss count discrepancy on the target with a single discrepancy. He had taken an extra shot on that particular target because the target was already down when he took his first shot at it! Yes, sometimes FT shooters shoot a target they don’t realize is down. In fact, on Saturday I took two shots at a target before realizing it was down (I’d already figured that into the count of pellet strikes on that face-plate before Derrick exposed the reason for the counts discrepancy on the downed target he shot). Derrick's information brought all but one suspect target into 100% counts agreement, and me into a deeper state of shock.
Shortly thereafter I called another buddy to discuss my investigation and findings. Upon telling him of my surprise that only one target still displayed a count discrepancy (of 2 hits/misses), Paul replied that he and his squad-mate had each taken one practice shot on the face-plate of that very target after their shots for record! WHOA! That piece of evidence, stumbled upon by pure, dumb luck, brought the count comparisons into 100% agreement on every suspect target!
I'd have never believed it; neither before nor after the match. But the investigation was righteous, and the numbers don’t lie.
Epiphany #1- Every target functioned flawlessly throughout both of Saturdays matches.
Epiphany #2- Despite near universal agreement among the competitors that we’d experienced several target failures to fall to good hits, NOT SO! The target problems were all in our minds, imaginations, and egos.
Epiphany #3- This agrees closely with my experience(s) in regular field target, from both shooter and match director perspectives.
Epiphany #4- My extreme field target tuning was not only better than I’d thought, but better than I could have hoped!
Epiphany #5- My dread of endless yet futile extreme field target tuning ended as quickly as a seventeen year-old’s virginity in the back-seat of a '70 Chevy Nova! WAIT…
Perhaps I digress.
As an FT competitor for over a decade and Match Director almost as long, I have experienced target protests from both perspectives. Matter of fact target protests can be the difference between championship titles won or lost. So yes, it is THAT important a subject.
I’ll preface this discussion with the declaration that those who know me very well also know that, although I make liberal use of Texan exaggeration/BS for humors sake, otherwise I have utterly NO tolerance whatsoever for untruths or dishonesty. Believe me, the epiphanies in this report are totally devoid of Texaggeration or BS. The truths contained herein, shocking as they will seem to some, were even more-so to me.
Sometimes when a target doesn't fall, inexperienced and experienced FT competitors alike are predisposed to believing they’ve made a scoring shot when they see a pellet mark appear on a kill-zone paddle. Especially if the paddle was freshly painted. Count me among you, sometimes even to this day. This despite the fact I’ve often been the Match Director called to inspect suspect target(s). So with the objectivity born of years of first-hand experience with target-function protests, from both shooter and MD perspectives, I venture to state that in at least 80%, to as much as 90%+ of such apparent target malfunctions the target functioned exactly as it was supposed to. SAY WHAT?! That brings us to why I always tell the protesting shooter to accompany me to inspect the offending target.
On close inspection a freshly painted field target displays graphically and in no uncertain terms when a pellet nicked the inner edge of the kill-zone hole in the face-plate; the deflected pellet registering what the shooter wants to believe a good hit on the paddle. Terms for this are a ‘pellet split’, ‘split pellet’, or just ‘a split’.
To add insult to injury, the compromised pellet sometimes center-punches the paddle, to even more closely mimic a perfect shot. However when the match director, aka- “I”, point to an obvious nick on a freshly-painted face-plate that couldn’t have been there before that “perfect shot”, the best course of action for the MD is to apologize to his shooter for having to point out the undeniable indication of a pellet split. “I’m sorry, but that’s a legitimate zero.”
Only if there is argument is it appropriate to then state, “I’m sorry, but that’s the reality of the situation” while still pointing out the inarguable pellet-split mark on the face-plate. Some of you have seen this; all with much FT experience have. And as previously stated, that is the reality in a majority of failed-to-fall target protests. Again, I’ve been on the giving and receiving end of this more than a few times.
Having taken up Extreme Field Target competition and EFT match directing within the last year, it has been quite an interesting transition to the bigger, heavier targets, calibers, pellets and exponentially higher projectile energies. There is much to learn regarding similarities and differences in EFT target idiosyncrasies, and tuning them for consistent reliability. That being the case, now that I am hosting and directing Extreme Field Target matches I’ve vowed to become intimately familiar with the quirks of the overgrown (and overweight) targets required to withstand and function with near-rimfire terminal ballistics.
For my Inaugural TEXtreme Field Target matches in March I left the target placement and tuning to shooters from Arizona experienced in such matters; including my event sponsor, who generously donated several (expensive) targets to my cause. Thank you Robert (Buchanan), it couldn’t have happened without your support!
That there seemed to be quite a few issues that weekend with my 15 brand-new extreme field targets came as no surprise. Would be the same with brand-new regular field targets emplaced and used for the first time. However I knew from vast experience (with regular field targets) that continuing experience with each target brings better familiarization with individual target personalities, foibles, and tuning requisites required for consistently-dependable function. Left on my own after that Inaugural TEXtreme Field Target weekend, I am obliged to become intimately familiar with some $3000 worth of extreme field targets in order to serve my PAYING competitors as conscientiously as every match director should.
In preparing to host my second EFT match (last Saturday), target tuning was high on the list of priorities. Unlike most regular field targets, thankfully my new extreme targets have sear-engagement screws (bolts, really). Good thing!
In the case of every target that seemed to need tuning after the inaugural TFT match, the sear engagements seemed too rich. In some cases I reduced sear engagements by two revolutions of the adjusting bolt, to achieve what seemed the best compromise between the target dependably falling to paddle hits, but not falling to face-plate hits. In a few cases it seemed a difficult compromise to find; again no surprise based on years of tuning regular field targets. It quickly became obvious that the most overgrown extreme targets were the also the most obstinate. Believe me, those sear-engagement adjusting bolts are a God-send!
For mechanical reasons too difficult to convey here, by Saturdays match I was wondering if large, tall, and/or heavy extreme field targets can actually be tuned to levels of consistently dependable function. Even began to seriously doubt if some could.
Saturdays competitions to consist of two 32 shot matches, with all 11 shooters shooting each of the 16 targets four times with powerful PCPs, I was more than a little n-n-nervous about dependable function of my targets. Each target to sustain over 700 hits from airguns averaging 60 foot pounds of muzzle energy would be a very revealing, and potentially embarrassing, test. Thankfully my shooters are a forgiving bunch, and not disposed to whining.
Nevertheless during and after the matches many, if not most shooters, including myself, felt they’d had targets fail to fall to good hits on the paddles. But all had a great time, writing off some target failures to the nature of the Extreme Field Target game. I even witnessed what I could only explain as a clear failure from a good hit by a squad-mate; leaving me then convinced some large, heavy targets might not could be made dependable (enough).
In my opinion the worst of the lot was a very heavy, large bison target that I’d invested the most time and effort trying to tune to dependability. It so happened to also be the target I witnessed fail to my squad-mates shot, and the most difficult to find a good sear adjustment.
So with yesterdays matches behind me, this morning I checked the bison to try to ascertain if my suspicions about its issues were correct. Initial inspection suggested yes. But during that inspection I noticed very few face-plate hits out of 704 shots taken on the bison (and each target). Then came an epiphany that it might be pretty easy to compare the (few) face-plate hits on the bison to the total number of bison zeroes on every shooters score-cards.
The next leap of logic came easily enough. I could conduct a forensic investigation of every ‘problem’ target to get some idea of each targets dependability (to fall to paddle hits, but not face-plate hits). However, to insure as much accuracy of results as possible, the investigation must be free of influence by personal opinion(s), bias(es), or agenda(s). In other words, unlike so-called ‘independent investigations’ so common and meaningless nowadays. My investigation protocols would insure, for lack of a better term, a ‘blind taste test’, devoid of nefarious influences.
So BEFORE counting face-plate hits, I counted every miss on every shooters’ scorecard on each of the six suspect targets, and recorded those numbers. Only then did I leave that information in the house to carefully count faceplate hits and splits on the suspect targets scattered around the field target course, with the aid of my now-omnipresent 3x reading glasses (go ahead and have a good laugh; I can't see you). Aforementioned protocols insured unbiased and unskewed results of the investigation. And though I hoped to get at least enough quantification of target failures to approximate the severity of the problem, I had little expectation of the extent of the problem coming into better than fuzzy focus.
But one-by-one the number of misses on the scorecards agreed with the number of hits counted on each suspect-target's face-plate. In fact, even to the extent that EXCLUDING MINOR SPLITS, BUT INCLUDING MAJOR SPLITS brought the numbers into 100% agreement! On only two of the six suspect targets did the counts not agree; one target by 1 miss, the other by 2. I was stunned that the numbers agreed so closely; more stunned at the evidence that target dependability far exceeded all expectations.
Confident in my investigation protocols and the accuracy of all counts, my surprise turned to shock. Then, epiphanies. One epiphany led to another. Within minutes, multiple epiphanies. That hasn’t happened since I lost my virginity!
Upon calling the winner of all Saturdays matches to explain my investigation and results, Derrick exposed the hit-miss count discrepancy on the target with a single discrepancy. He had taken an extra shot on that particular target because the target was already down when he took his first shot at it! Yes, sometimes FT shooters shoot a target they don’t realize is down. In fact, on Saturday I took two shots at a target before realizing it was down (I’d already figured that into the count of pellet strikes on that face-plate before Derrick exposed the reason for the counts discrepancy on the downed target he shot). Derrick's information brought all but one suspect target into 100% counts agreement, and me into a deeper state of shock.
Shortly thereafter I called another buddy to discuss my investigation and findings. Upon telling him of my surprise that only one target still displayed a count discrepancy (of 2 hits/misses), Paul replied that he and his squad-mate had each taken one practice shot on the face-plate of that very target after their shots for record! WHOA! That piece of evidence, stumbled upon by pure, dumb luck, brought the count comparisons into 100% agreement on every suspect target!
I'd have never believed it; neither before nor after the match. But the investigation was righteous, and the numbers don’t lie.
Epiphany #1- Every target functioned flawlessly throughout both of Saturdays matches.
Epiphany #2- Despite near universal agreement among the competitors that we’d experienced several target failures to fall to good hits, NOT SO! The target problems were all in our minds, imaginations, and egos.
Epiphany #3- This agrees closely with my experience(s) in regular field target, from both shooter and match director perspectives.
Epiphany #4- My extreme field target tuning was not only better than I’d thought, but better than I could have hoped!
Epiphany #5- My dread of endless yet futile extreme field target tuning ended as quickly as a seventeen year-old’s virginity in the back-seat of a '70 Chevy Nova! WAIT…
Perhaps I digress.
