OT--Excellent target designs, didn't make a dime.

[getitdone1]

Back around 1968 I spent some time trying to design targets that would be superior to the standard round bullseye. Here's what I came up with:

_____________ Yes, this is it, a plain old straight horizontal line for zeroing for elevation only.

Trouble drawing the vertical line but it was for zeroing for windage only.

My theory--and seems to work for me--was that when you zero in separate steps for elevation and windage you achieve a more perfect sighting-in. Ever notice how easy it is to hit a thin fence post at a distance? The reason is you don't have to worry so much about elevation so makes for an easier target to hit. Same reasoning with the horizontal line. Too, the lines can be pretty thin--especially when using scopes--so you have a pretty precise aiming point--more so than the standard bullseye.

My other bullseye design was a V using the bottom of the V as the bullseye. Reasoning: Nothing more precise than a point (the bottom of the V). And: Where's the exact center of a standard bullseye? I notice Trijicon uses a V turned upside down for one of their reticule designs. Bet it works well.

Some of you might want to give these a try.

Edit: If you combine the Trijicon "V" reticule--inverted V--with the V bullseye (believe I called it "precision point target") you have a very precise aiming point/reticule combination! A point to a point!

And: The "lines" can be thick, say 2" and you aim at the very edge of this "line." Very precise aiming point just like the tip of the V bullseye.
The V bullseye works well with a 1" width.

Don

[claybob86]

Excellent ideas! Gonna try 'em! Thanks.

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Back around 1968 I spent some time trying to design targets that would be superior to the standard round bullseye. Here's what I came up with:

_____________ Yes, this is it, a plain old straight horizontal line for zeroing for elevation only.

Trouble drawing the vertical line but it was for zeroing for windage only.

My theory--and seems to work for me--was that when you zero in separate steps for elevation and windage you achieve a more perfect sighting-in. Ever notice how easy it is to hit a thin fence post at a distance? The reason is you don't have to worry so much about elevation so makes for an easier target to hit. Same reasoning with the horizontal line. Too, the lines can be pretty thin--especially when using scopes--so you have a pretty precise aiming point--more so than the standard bullseye.

My other bullseye design was a V using the bottom of the V as the bullseye. Reasoning: Nothing more precise than a point (the bottom of the V). And: Where's the exact center of a standard bullseye? I notice Trijicon uses a V turned upside down for one of their reticule designs. Bet it works well.

Some of you might want to give these a try.

Don

I like to use an inverted "T" for revolver square notch and post sights. My range bag has a roll of freezed paper and some black electricians tape just for this.

[COSteve]

So, then a perfect target for a scoped weapon would be a simple '+', say 4" x 4"? I'll have to give that a try at the range some time. I guess that if you made the '+' lines the same width as your scope reticle appears at your given shooting distance, then all you'd have to do was cover it for a perfect aim. In theory, I should be able to lay the reticle on the '+' even after I've shot a few times and still line it up accurately, right?

[Ben_Rumson]

What ever front sight you have and at whatever distance you’re shooting at you want to be able to detect movement off POA at the earliest possible moment... The most popular and long lasting system so far devised that does that for rifle target shooting is the aperture front sight in conjunction with a rear aperture sight... A front aperture of appropriate diameter is selected for the distance and size of the bullseye so that a concentric ring of white slightly larger than the diameter of the black circle of the bullseye is seen... When the sight drifts any direction the concentricity change is immediately seen at the earliest possible moment...The human eye can detect a couple-three thousandths of an inch...This system is so effective that good shooters avg group sizes are the same whether with a scope or aperture sights...
But most firearms don’t have those sights because they are too specialized... But the theory of front aperture sights can turned around to a make it so your front sight fits in an appropriately sized aperture aiming point... But it will take experimentation to determine the thickness and colors of lines and diameter of the aperture aiming point for your particular front sights be they post , bead inverted V at whatever distance you want to be sighted in for... At this point most will drop out of the exercise just cause it’s too much trouble for what they need... However, if you make an aiming point that lets you see your sight drift ASAP you WILL see tighter groups...This really helps in load testing...

[getitdone1]

So, then a perfect target for a scoped weapon would be a simple '+', say 4" x 4"? I'll have to give that a try at the range some time. I guess that if you made the '+' lines the same width as your scope reticle appears at your given shooting distance, then all you'd have to do was cover it for a perfect aim. In theory, I should be able to lay the reticle on the '+' even after I've shot a few times and still line it up accurately, right?

Steve,

A crosshair reticule alignment with a crosshair shaped bullseye, I think, makes for some visual clutter compared to shooting at an "edge"--edge of the thick lines or a "point"--the point of the V. I don't see how alignment could be more precise than when you use an inverted (upside down) V shaped reticule--like Trijicon has--and a right side up V drawn on the target. Alignment of a point to a point. Even with a standard crosshair reticule it's pretty precise to put the center of the crosshair at the very point of the V.

If you have a device that will hold your gun perfectly on target then even the standard round bullseye can be sighted very accurately but if you have, like most guys, bags filled with sand or your shooting offhand, prone, sitting, etc. then a more visually precise target should make for more precise placement of the bullets.

I have not spent a lot of time using the target designs I've mentioned--the thick lines and the V--so if some of you guys find holes in my theory that's fine with me. I usually make a small dot with a felt tipped pen on the paper and use that for a bullseye. Dot size varies with the distance.

Your crosshair reticule combined with a crosshair shaped bullseye would definitely give you a more precise sight/bullseye alignment than the standard bullseye I just think finding the exact tip of the V or exact edge of the thick line would be easier. I don't know how you can be more precise than with an edge or a point. Neither has any thickness at all.

Steve, if you want to, try both your idea and mine and tell me which works best for you. Felt pen, paper and ruler would be all you'd need.

After all the years since creating these unique targets I should really give them a serious test. That is, try standard bullseye and my targets at various distances and compare the size of my groups with each. I had several of each design printed-up and added fine line 1" squares over the rest of the target.

Sticking to things is the hard part and expect that's one of the big reasons there are so few successful innovators.

Someone, maybe Edison, said: "Sticking to it is the genius." I know for sure there's a lot of truth to this.

Don

[AJMD429]

I've gone to printing these which are just made with OpenOffice's clone of Microsoft Word, using the 'grid' or 'table' function to create 1" by 1" squares, and the 'background' function to shade them lightly (which I can vary easily if needed for different lighting conditions or sights). The 'borders' function then allows the center lines to be made heavier (by selecting the upper and then the side halves of the grid, and increasing line width on the one edge). These have proved pretty much all I need other than for the first shot on a newly-scoped gun if it's one I can't bore-sight easily - in those cases a large scrap of cardboard with a 'dot' of some sort suffices. I've even just poked a stick through a cardboard scrap, and stuck a leaf in it by the stem to use as an aiming point for those first shots at 25 yards just to get 'on paper'.



With a scope, the crosshairs are easy to align with the main horizontal and vertical lines, and with peeps, the center shaded area is pretty easy to see and center at 50 yards, or 100 yards if I print it with 50% shading vs. 20% or whatever. (Once I print an original on the computer, I needless to say print the rest using a photocopier to save $$.) I seldom use open sights, so can't comment on this target for open sights.

The three 'dots' on the left edge mark where to punch holes for a three-ring binder.
If I were a really good shot, I'd just use those for my final three shots after sighting in...
I also print the "Range Rules" on the back so any guests automatically have some copies...

[getitdone1]

AJMD249,

That's a neat target.

Don

[olyinaz]

Two things Doc:

1) I use the same kind of target and like it a lot.

2) I'm glad my club does not have that long list of rules.

Oly

[FWiedner]

Something wrong with having a copy of the range rules shot fulla holes...

[COSteve]

With a scope, the crosshairs are easy to align with the main horizontal and vertical lines, and with peeps, the center shaded area is pretty easy to see and center at 50 yards, or 100 yards if I print it with 50% shading vs. 20% or whatever.

So, it looks like the comment that a simple '+' would be hard to use isn't what you've found to be true then, correct? I'm not criticizing, but rather asking because I typically use a circular bullseye and it gets hard to sight to the exact middle with a scope after a couple of shots hit the bullseye. I guess I'll just need to give it a try at the range for myself.

[harry]

These work well if you like the V targets
http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/pid=3 ... un_Targets

[getitdone1]

These work well if you like the V targets
http://www.sinclairintl.com/.aspx/pid=3 ... un_Targets

WY2000,

Interesting and similar to what I made. I wonder why they didn't make the V with a sharp point? As I recall--been many years--the sharp point seemed visible at a considerable distance and I think it's due to the shape of the V leading your eye to the point. Perhaps a kind of illusion that works. Have to locate my old targets and give them a more thorough try.

Don

[AJMD429]

. . . it looks like the comment that a simple '+' would be hard to use isn't what you've found to be true then, correct? I'm not criticizing, but rather asking because I typically use a circular bullseye and it gets hard to sight to the exact middle with a scope after a couple of shots hit the bullseye. I guess I'll just need to give it a try at the range for myself.

With a scope, it is pretty clear when the horizontal and vertical crosshairs are finally 'on top of' the target ones when there are those lines crossing at the bullseye. It drives me nuts though if the target isn't pretty level, because it makes me want to cant the rifle to the side to match.

With peeps, at the 50-100 yard distances I'm usually using, that shaded center will be easy to center in the 'light spot' that is in the middle of the aperture and behind or above (as you prefer) your front sight.

Now, with 'open' sights, I think I'd like the "V" sights like getitdone1 sounds like he made on his own. I'm gonna give the "V" thing a try, although I don't use open sights all that much. I didn't see an actual image of getitdone1's target, but here's an image of the commercial version WY2000 posted a link to:

[adirondakjack]

For a scope I use an "X" drawn on the paper with a wide marker and a ruler. For a handgun or iron-sighted rifle, a 1" square of blue painter's tape turned on edge (a diamond) on a white background. Balance the square on the front sight and let er flicker.

[gcs]

The V point target is interesting. Usually, I just make a "cross" (+), with black electric tape on a white paper plate.
I use this for all scope and peep sighting in.
May not be the MOST precise, but works well enough.