The Fallacy Of Using Reduced Size Targets For Long Range Training

[Karl Kasarda]

My own experience kinda goes against one of the arguements being made here.

-"if you cant hit at 25 then 500 will be nigh impossible"

I have shot more at longer ranges than I have on those derned 25 meter paper targets, and having done so I will say that it is a bit easier for me to hit at real ranges than it is on those reduced targets.

It might be mechanical accuracy or just how I see the target at range, but I am more successful at real ranges!!

I think my eye gets adjusted better to longer range and I see the target more clearly. It's not a 1" dot to me at 500, It's a 20" silhouette, which by my estimation when shooting is WAAAAY bigger than 1".

for some reason things just click for me at actual range. hold offs for wind and range get simple, and it all just makes sense. thus it's somehow easier.

The logic may not jive for you, but it seems to work for me. I have shot "rifleman" both at actual and reduced ranges, but the actual range came much sooner and was way easier

It could be your bullet and load and rifle.

Some bullets actually become more stable in flight and accuracy further out than closer in...

Sometimes it's called "sleep". For example, 80 Berger VLDs will shoot a better group at 500 than they will at 100....thus, somewhere between 0 and 500 yards the bullet "goes to sleep".

[Ragsbo]

You also have to consider that some do not have the ranges that will allow long range shooting so it is reduced targets or nothing. Where I agree distance shooting should be used if available, I don't want folks to say screw it, since I can't shoot the true ranges, it won't do me any good to shoot at all. Sometimes you have to make the best of the situation you are given.

[Karl Kasarda]

You also have to consider that some do not have the ranges that will allow long range shooting so it is reduced targets or nothing. Where I agree distance shooting should be used if available, I don't want folks to say screw it, since I can't shoot the true ranges, it won't do me any good to shoot at all. Sometimes you have to make the best of the situation you are given.

I agree. There are multiple statements to that effect previously in the thread.

Again, this does not mean to *NOT* shoot reduced, it means you need to do the real thing too. If it isn't possible, well, then it isn't possible...

[Jack-O]

You also have to consider that some do not have the ranges that will allow long range shooting so it is reduced targets or nothing. Where I agree distance shooting should be used if available, I don't want folks to say screw it, since I can't shoot the true ranges, it won't do me any good to shoot at all. Sometimes you have to make the best of the situation you are given.

I submit to you that if you cant find a place to shoot long range that perhaps it is not a required skill for your area.

[BYcyclist]

Good post. I've been wondering about this subject as I'm new into rifles.

Thanks much for the well analyzed writeup.

[kraigwy]

I agree, shooting reduced targets are a supplement, not a replacement for full distance shooting.

Reduced targets do have their place in the shootng game, as long as they ARN'T the shooting game.

Sigthing a scope or iron sights is an example, even after bore sighting, a 25 yard target saves a ton of ammo on getting your zero at longer ranges.

But that's not the only reason. In the off season, gallery or indoor shooting can help to keep you in shape. When I was coaching the AKNG rifle team, I insisted my shooters shoot small bore in the off season. Also I did a lot of off had practice using cast bullets in a M14, shooting NRA 50 ft. targets.

ISU small bore is an ass kicker at 50 meters out side.

Shooting the 50 ft Combat CNGB postals didnt hurt in keeping you in shape waiting for breakup and the ability to use the outdoor range. The NG used that course as a subsitute qualification course which I faught.

Another good use of reduced targets (1000 in MG) was a useful tool in teaching machine gunners the use of T&E, giving instant feed back, hard to get at the 1100 yard range. Again this needs to be followed up by practice on the full range.

100 yard reduced NRA HP targets are also an asset when working of Offhand and Rapid Fire Positions. You can concentrate on form and positions instead of worrying about the conditions.

I run NRA High Power/Service Rifle Clinics using the 100 yard reduced targets. Its easier to control and observe the students, not to mention the reduction of assets it allows by not having to worry about pit details, and communications between the pits and firing line. Wind and other weather conditions warrant a total differant class.

But again, this reduce targets are a supplement, not a replacement for shooting at actual ranges.

[Jack-O]

I did not intend this thread to be a place to argue about Appleseed, or promote Appleseed.

The intended purpose is to just discuss the usage of reduced targets as a training aid. Subsequently, it is also to remind people that reduced targets can not be leveraged as a replacement for the "real deal", with reasons as to why that is the case.

I beleive that we have done that quite fairly, in spite of crys of foul from it's adherents.

[shootintexan]

funfaler, you are spot on, ie, without good marksmanship fundamentals, you will not get good results at distance. Saw that many times when I was competing in High Power. New shooters would show up with fire in their eyes to shoot 600 yards then couldn't understand why they didn't do well.

[Karl Kasarda]

It seems we've found a sacred cow here.

The intention of this post (as has been stated numerous times now) isn't to say that reduced targets don't have a purpose, or that starting/practicing on them is bad - but it is only a small (and easier obtained) portion of the skill set required for true distance shooting.

The fallacy is to shoot on reduced only and then expect to have proficiency at the real distance that is being "simulated".