RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

[Greg Langelius *]

It's been suggested that I start a new topic for this subject and I agree, it's a good idea.

Basically it comprises a 1/2 sized Odessa FV200 target placed at 80yd, and fired on with 22 and 17 caliber rimfire rifles. Different chambering, support, and sight options allow for diffferent classes similar to Open and T/R, and an additional class, using a more suitable target, is intended for Palma and AROS equivalents.

I am currently of two minds about following this idea through to fruition. I want to get a few things clear from the start. I am not a fan of haggling, and wish to run this activity, if it comes to fruition, in a way that avoids such things. Simply put, if I find myself embroiled in hassles, it's outside my comfort zone, and I'll simply split.

Now I'd like to hear from present Odessa FV200 and potential Odessa RFV shooters what their ideas are and how we can come to a meeting of minds over them. Naturally, I'm open to ideas from others outside that circle, but please understand, I give the most heed to those who are likeliest to be actual participants.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

While you're collecting your thoughts, here's my stab at classes.

RFV-T/R should encompass .22LR chambering (.22Long, .22Short OK) and bipod support, optical sights allowed/preferred. Standard RFV target (1/2" V-ring, 1" 5-ring,etc.)

RFV-Open should encompass any .22/.17 Rimfire, including rimfire magnums, either bipod or rest support, optical sight permitted/preferred. Standard RFV target.

RFV-Palma, .22LR chambering (.22Long, .22Short OK), Sling support, metallic sights only, RFV-Palma target.

RFV-AROS, any chambering, sling support, any sights, RFV-Palma target (1" V-Ring, 2" 5-ring, 5 & 4 rings gray for aiming).

Basic allowances, loading from magazines with up to 10rd is OK. Semi-autos allowed. Targets are fired at a reasonable approximation of 80yd, 40rd for score, unlimited sighters, possibly all 40 rd plus sighters in 30min, assuming a posituive response to the idea. Any obvious attempts to circumvent a rule is disallowed, resulting in reassignment of scores to the appropriately proper class, line officer's option, line officer's judgement is final. Appeals will cost a $2 fee, donated to the club, and all appeals are subject to the line officer's judgement, which is final. It is my intention that if the bullet hole is flattened and the bullet smudge crosses the line, it's cut. Target will be marked/scored with rings cut earning the higher value, no adjustments for caliber. What you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). You have to actually cut the lines, and no woulda, coulda, shoulda. Personally, I'd like a method where shooters score each others' targets, if this is agreeable, and am open to ways of permitting a random scorer selection, if that's preferred.

At this point, this is <span style="font-style: italic">all</span> open to discussion, and my preference is to suit the the desires of the intended participants; this means you need to convince your fellow competitors and then me. I'm the least of anyone's worries.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Bump

 

[kmussack]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

May I suggest a more “tactical” alternative for .22RF competition?

Imagine an array of ¼-scale E-Type and F-Type steel silhouettes
randomly placed between 60-yards and 250-yards in full view of
the firing line.

Each shooter will be given a preparation period of 15-minutes to
stadia-metrically determine the range to each target
(no lasers allowed).

At the conclusion of the preparation period each shooter
in turn will be directed to engage a particular target.
A first shot hit scores 10-points.

In the event of a miss a second shot may be taken within
a 30-second period following the first shot. A second shot
hit scores 5-points. Scoring will be done by the consensus
of two “spotters” utilizing spotting scopes.

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7cMoA3s_V4"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/s7cMoA3s_V4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

A field fire variation would have the targets positioned about
the property with the shooters walking from firing point to firing
point where they would be forced to employ positions other than prone.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

That appears very feasible, and sounds already well developed/debugged. I like it, a lot!

The competition COF's I've suggested involve paper targets, which I can provide. The reduced 'E' and 'F' type silhouettes are very interesting, and would seem to be something you've already got onhand.

I had intended my proposal as a once-a-month program, so I could get a match weekend off from running the thing and try my hand at FV200, etc.

Maybe your suggestion could occupy the other match weekend and provide a very interesting change of pace. Hint, hint...

Ball's in your court...

Greg

PS, I've been lazy and have never developed my MilDot ranging skills. This would be an excellent way for me to correct that oversight.

BTW, Two of the three bases have been covered as rimfire simulations so far, F Class and Tactical. There remains a National Match Highpower RF simulation.

Oops, hey, that looks like Odessa...

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

My vote is steel, steel, steel!

Paper bullseyes are OK, but they can get boring pretty fast. On the other hand, the audible "clang" that steel provides (after you've done things right, of course) never seems to loose it shine.

During a recent event at Fort Drum, Kevin, his son Andy, and myself had the opportunity to engage long strings of "Crazy Ivan" targets from a fighting hole (with both pistol and rifle). These green, polymer, soldier-shaped 3D targets would pop up from random locations/distances and would fall once hit (or once their exposure period expired).

That afternoon was the most fun I've had in quite a while, and it was the targets that made all the difference. Instead of flat, dark, paper circles, they were man-shaped, brightly-colored, reactive devices. I believe this not only increased the entertainment level of the event, but it significantly upped its training value as well.

Of course, I recognize that steel plates aren't quite the same as full-blown US infantry targets - but they offer way more interactivity than paper (especially man-shaped swingers that have been spray-painted white and scaled down for rimfire training).

Also, I don't think I'll ever have access to a setup like this anywhere else.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Boring? Maybe. But there is a loyal and growing group of FV200 participants at Odessa.

My proposal is in the interest of allaying any tendencies toward boredom, and I think Kevin's goes at least as far in another good direction too.

I had a similar 'Crazy Ivan' experience at Quantico in the mid-90's.

These counterproposals are all well and good, and I support them eagerly. But my intent in posting this thread was to deal with the RFV proposal. I'd genuinely appreciate criticism, pro/con, and discussion of details. Is the proposal AOK as is, or is it just so outrageous it's not worth comment? Silence on the subject doesn't help me.

I'm all for all of these ideas, but I can only provide means for the one I've proposed.

Greg

 

[kmussack]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

A complete tangent but fun to watch.....
Here's Andy wackin' Plastic Zombies:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j8z7_7KMaBE"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j8z7_7KMaBE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Yep. My experience was with H/G only, and they provided us with all the popup targets at distances from 100yd on in.

Good job, Andy!

Greg

 

[kmussack]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

We shot pistols on this course as well.
This is me with the G34:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2DL-Ojrq0-0"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2DL-Ojrq0-0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Greg,

Just so you know I often attend the F-Classes at Odessa, too (and I have a blast every time I go). I'm Dan McCoy - I'm the guy that usually travels with Kevin and Andy, although I don't shoot as good as they do.

While we haven't been able to attend as regularly this year as we did last year, we've managed to make it to a few (and we'll continue to do so whenever we can).

So when I say that paper can get boring, I don't mean to offend my fellow paper-shooters (any more than I mean to offend myself, anyway...). I just prefer to shoot at steel on the rare occasions that it's available (and I do enjoy it more).

Then again, I like tactical-type shooting more than anything else, so I guess that stands to reason.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm sure not offended.

The only reasons I don't shoot more tactical are related to my lack of gitaround. I don't do the hotfoot so well these days.

But something much like what Kevin advocates would definitely get my vote. Just so long as I don't need to be any kind of a speed demon.

Kevin could explain this better. My ejection fraction runs between 15% and 40%, was rated at 25% last time it was checked. A youngster gets around 60%-70%. I will not be running any four minute miles. Ten minute ones, neither...

Greg

 

[sled_mack]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Greg,

The RFV you laid out appears well thought out and very feasible to run. I think the lack of comments has as much to do with people not having changes and just not posting "looks good".

The question in my mind becomes this - do I want to shoot 2 F-class style events in one day? Not sure, really. Maybe I would and maybe I'd alternate, shoot RF one weekend and CF the next. Who knows, maybe I would shoot both the same day? It would probably depend on how many people were there and how many relays are needed, and if that provides a break between strings.

Now, Kevin's idea I like a lot. (Kevin, you take those pictures on 7/25 by any chance?) The opportunity to practice different skills would be a big draw for me. And it might draw new shooters to the event for the different venue? There is no doubt I'd make it a point to shoot both CF and RF if the RF was the tactical setup.

As to ejection fraction (I had to google that one), there are a few of us that are not in any condition to be running around. Kevin's comment was to walk afield to firing positions. I like that as well. It give another dimension to the situation because there is room off to the left for walking sideways and changing the angle to the target, and hence the ranging of the target.

If we could make that work, I think I see it being popular. And then I can blame you guys for upgrading my 22 trainer!

Steve

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Be aware that off to the left our property line runs about 10-20yd beyond and parallel to the far left edge of the far left mowed verge. Most of that is bog, so Northward (straight downrange) is the preferred direction of fire. Kevin's idea of approaching from the left and shooting NorthEasterly is very good regarding safe directions, but shooting toward the left (West) is discouraged.

Your concerns about adding activities are quite valid. That's why I'm favoring only doing my bit once a month. The timing I had in mind would be to alternate shooting the different disciplines on alternate relays. I was giving some thought to making the targets available for home/local practice between meets. Also, there could be less formal use of the targets after matches, but I'd still insist on basic safety precautions, etc. I hate to come across as mercenary, but either shooting an RFV match or obtaining targets is going to involve at least some donation toward the Club. I don't mind donating time and materials, but I want those donations to benefit the Club.

The one thing I do <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> want this proposal to do is to take away any competitors from the FV200 events. Ever. I might even want to make participation in the FV200 a prerequisite to any use of the RFV targets.

My chronic medical issue is Coronary Heart failure due to Left Ventricular Cardiomyopathy. Medications, and sometimes long term continuing exercise like walking can affect the ejection fraction percentage favorably, but even short vacations from the exercise regimen returns my capacities to their more normal state. It's frustrating to work so hard so long and then lose it again so quickly.

Carvedilol/Coreg is an alpha and beta blocker which reduces heart rate and blood pressure, improving heart function and reducing the effects of heart failure. It can also help with shooting by reducing the effects of an otherwise stronger pulse. Crestor is an anti cholesterol med which is beginning to also emerge as a potential means of restoring impaired heart function as well. Finally, fish oil works on Cholesterol, actually improving good cholesterol numbers, which has been a major deficiency issue with my condition following my two bouts with Lymphoma back in early 1990's. Finally, I take Amlodipine Besylate for blood pressure, and combined with the Crestor, it serves the same purposes as Caduet, but with some possible added benefits that are unique to the Crestor vs Lipitor.

Folks criticize the VA's medical care, but I find their work is very well thought out.

Greg

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sled</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And then I can blame you guys for upgrading my 22 trainer!</div></div>

I hear you, Sled. I don't even have a .22 trainer, so if any of these events come to pass, I'll have to go out and buy one (jeez, what a bummer...).

Nothing beats a Remington 40x, but until I have the good fortune of locating one (and then saving the money to modify so that it looks and feels like my .308), I'm thinking of starting with one of these:

It's a Savage MK II TR and MSRP is just $469. It features a 22" fluted heavy barrel, AccuTrigger, oversized bolt handle, weaver-style bases and a nice-looking synthetic stock that is (obviously) designed for prone shooting.

If anyone else is just getting into .22 trainers, this might be a decent place to start (I figure it'll keep my going for the first year or two until I can upgrade).

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

I think that as long as a .22LR is stable in its stock and has reliable sight mounting it doesn't need much beyond good ammo selection to make it more than adequately accurate for training purposes.

There's nothing wrong with going premium when procuring a trainer, but for the basic purpose, I don't think there's that much gain associated with doing it either. BR accuracy isn't needed here, simply consistent accuracy. It's the shooter we're guaging, and not the rifle.

For my training purposes, I like my very basic Savage MKIIF. For match shooting my 10/22 is quite effective. For iron sight shooting my Mossie M44 is also very good.

I'd much rather see the expense being invested in ammo testing and ammo procurement.

Greg

 

[linebaugh500]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

I hear you, Greg - as they say, "it's the Indian, not the arrow".

Also, I certainly don't expect any kind of benchrest accuracy from that Savage (although it would sure be a real nice surprise...).

A have a 10/22 myself (don't we all?), but I find that that most 10/22 stocks are way too short for good, prone tactical shooting (they're typically not shaped for it, either). It really suffers from that "miniature rifle" feel - not something I'd want for this game.

The Savage seems close to what I'm looking for right out of the box. And it looks like it's almost the size of a centerfire weapon as well (I'm hoping it has a similar feel).

The dark finish, heavy fluted barrel, and oversize bolt knob are all just added bonusus - and its price still leaves plenty of cash for a Super Sniper scope and plenty of Wolf Match ammo.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Ditto, and BTW, my 10/22 is anything but original. The receiver, scope base, and barrel block/screws, that's it. Kimber (L-W?) barrel and black/green laminate stock, much like an Anschutz, and very definitely neither tiny nor insignificant. Tack driver is such an imprecise term...

I would suggest you try to get a chance to shoot a Savage MKIIF. You might get a pleasant surprise. Not BR, but none too shabby neither...

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Judging from the general lack of criticism of the basic proposition I'm getting the impression Sled may have called it correctly. Call me insecure, but sometimes ya just gotta <span style="font-style: italic">ask</span>.

I will keep this topic active, but I will also resume my plans about trying to get to the range and live test the provisional targets.

Being alone this week and the still not insubstantial heat are mitigating against.

I just got off the cell with Celia and Elena in West Palm beach. The family wedding they're attending goes off tomorrow, and they're driving back to Port Orange in the Afternoon. Elena's stoked, their rental is a brand new Black Mustang Convertible. They land back in Rochester on Wednesday.

Greg

 

[sled_mack]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Greg,

I thought the property to the left was still the clubs. But what I had in mind was keeping the targets down range from the normal line and moving the shooter to the left. I think that is what you are describing as well?

I do like the idea of trading the RFV targets for club donations. I see the use of the RF in that format as training for the CF matches. I can do that on my own time, locally. The fact remains that I learn a lot by watching the better shooters and talking with them when I'm not shooting. So I have that motivation for not shooting the RF while my CF relay is off the line. Depending on the number of people there any given day, it may work out to shoot both. But I wouldn't force myself into it just because it is there. There are other things and other ways to learn when I am out there. I hope that make sense?

On the other hand, the tactical venue is a copmletely different event. I wouldn't consider that training for the CF F-class. There is a whole new set of things to be learned by participating in something like that.

Spotter Up - that 22 is on my list to see in person. I forget all the Savage models, but there is another one for about $100 (or more?) less without the fluted barrel. I'm also trying to see some of the CZ 452/453 in person.

I see it as two ways to go - spend a little more and get something with a stock that fits well, or get the lowest cost "target" model I can find and then plan on putting a better stock under it. It would be absolutely ideal if B&C made a 22lr version of the stock I have, but I haven't called them to find out.

And then there is glass for it... Having something with the same reticle as your CF rifle is a big plus. FFP would be really nice for ranging. You guys are driving up the cost of my trainer!

Steve

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Yes, that's exactly what I was envisioning. The area we mow is, naturally, on our property.

We had our property surveyed some years back, and the Western property line turned out to be nearer than many of us had earlier imagined. Everything (and more) you can see Northward and Eastward is the club's, the stream forms the Southern boundary to the West and everything to the East (as far as the next driveway) of the entry road from the highway inward (where our sign is) is also the club's. It all works out to around 46 acres.

Two of my .22LR's, my .260 LR gun, and my .222 Rem all wear the inexpensive Tasco 6-24 MilDot scope. Buy all four and you get change from $400.

Yes, I have trepidations about the scopes, but after going on five years of service, none of them have given me <span style="font-style: italic">any</span> credible evidence of failure. So I lean back and let them take the full weight now. Someday, one/some of them may turn around and bite me, and I keep a close eye out for that, but for now, nary a nip.

Greg

 

[deadeye]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">May I suggest a more “tactical” alternative for .22RF competition?

Imagine an array of ¼-scale E-Type and F-Type steel silhouettes
randomly placed between 60-yards and 250-yards in full view of
the firing line.</div></div>

I like this idea a lot and can think of a couple shooters that are intimidated with the CF we do that would be open to do the RF.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

I'm very open to it, and would support it as a participant, but my primary interest is in providing an RFV option, which I actually have means to provide.

 

[rocdoc]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Spotter, I have that exact model Savage. If these RF matches happen, I'll bring it. You're welcome to try mine out. I don't have a scope to dedicate to it, I just swap out the one on my CF rifle.

 

[sled_mack]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

rocdoc, I'd also be interesting in seeing your 22. Most of the 22s that are carried in the stores are "youth" sized. I mostly want to know if that stock is closer in size to a CF stock.

 

[rocdoc]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Spotter, it is definitely a full size stock, not a youth model. but it's obviously not as big/heavy as my 5R. I'll bring it next time i can make it to a match (it won't be on the 22nd, unfortunately).

On another note-
Greg, my day job is doing heart surgery at Rochester General Hospital. So I'm pretty well plugged in with the cardiologists in the area. I haven't met you yet, but if there's anything I can do for you, don't hesitate to ask.

Eli (rocdoc)

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Doctor Hicks at Strong did my Bypass (CABGX4), and I offer prayers each day in his (and his patients') behest. If you see him, remind him I was the guy who had his attention on Christmas Day, 2004. I betcha he'd be tickled to know I'm still alive, I wasn't supposed to make it when they admitted me (Cardiogenic Shock). He and his team refused to take that for an anwswer, and the rest, as they say, is history..., involving Angioplasty, Aortic Balloon... IMHO, the man's a god.

For my part it was pretty uneventful. Admitted to Penn Yan ER with breathing difficulty, I was sedated at my own request, believing at the time that I was experiencing Pneumonia, and supremely uninterested in alertly experiencing what I had a good idea would be occurring next. After 2 prior bouts with Lymphoma, I was not unaware that sometimes significant medical interventions can be quite unpleasant for the patient.

I was out for the following week, and over several weeks following, was gently brought up to speed on some rather heroic and downright exciting events which were being perpetrated upon my insensate body. It was all certainly news to me. Fairly outrageous and scary, to be honest. I still make a point of avoiding deep reflection on some of the more obvious implications, etc. I am also utterly trusting of medical advice since that day. Not necessarily wise about it all; but still, definitely trusting.

Needless to say, much obliged...

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: RFV at Odessa, as a proposal.

Upon assessing the dearth of responses and such, I think my efforts at this are akin to pushing on a rope. Judging from my most recent competitive outing, it would appear that I already have enough problems without looking for new ones.

This subject is dead.

Greg