Scaled Down Targets To Replicate Distance For Dry Fire Training

[robdog]

We have a small house. I don't have an much room for setting up a "range" ala S Anderson. So would it be silly to use DIY scaled down targets (IE IDPA style) to replicate distance for dry fire training?

Boy I hope this question makes sense!

Rob

[RJ]

Me too (small house.)

I created a mini B8 target that I use for dry practice at 9'. I calculated the target size so the sight picture is the same as I see at the range on a standard B8 at 25 yards. I find it works pretty well for dry practice.

[Duces Tecum]

10362

The longest hallway in our home is 11 yards. I put a 1/3rd scale target on the far wall. If I have my math right, that permits dry-firing at an effective 33 yards. I've attached some suitable targets that you could print out, just to get you started.

[robdog]

Hey thanks all for the help! Appreciate the targets! Good to hear it's a viable method.

[RJ]

Hey thanks all for the help! Appreciate the targets! Good to hear it's a viable method.

Good deal.

Fwiw here is the B8 I use:

https://pistol-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9723&d=1470596181

[taadski]

There was a thread on here not so long ago on that had some good printable target links. I don't have time to search for it currently, but I linked the folders below on there too. I've compiled these on google drive from various sources for easy download.



https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxMOfycrtSkobWJjTnVaOUNzOW8&usp=sharing





t

[Luke]

I use these:


http://benstoegerproshop.com/scaled-dryfire-target-kit-including-uspsa-metric-targets-poppers-mini-poppers-and-dots/

(They also have IDPA)

And these:

http://insta-target.com


Ben's are legit cardboard tsrgets that are shrunk down. Insta's are just thick paper, and a little smaller I think.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

I use these:


http://benstoegerproshop.com/scaled-dryfire-target-kit-including-uspsa-metric-targets-poppers-mini-poppers-and-dots/

(They also have IDPA)

And these:

http://insta-target.com


Ben's are legit cardboard tsrgets that are shrunk down. Insta's are just thick paper, and a little smaller I think.

Luke thx. for the link to Ben's targets as I only have 1 scaled down IDPA + some of Pats/EAG targets done by TD that have dots.

Time to spend some $ now w/ Ben + it never hurts to support a fellow member of The Republic.

[Josh Runkle]

10362

The longest hallway in our home is 11 yards. I put a 1/3rd scale target on the far wall. If I have my math right, that permits dry-firing at an effective 33 yards. I've attached some suitable targets that you could print out, just to get you started.

Don't forget that when you use an 11 yard distance, your muzzle is at 10 yards, and when you use a 33 yard distance, your muzzle is at 32 yards.

When using a short distance, measure from the muzzle to the target.

[Clusterfrack]

I use these:


http://benstoegerproshop.com/scaled-dryfire-target-kit-including-uspsa-metric-targets-poppers-mini-poppers-and-dots/

(They also have IDPA)

And these:

http://insta-target.com


Ben's are legit cardboard tsrgets that are shrunk down. Insta's are just thick paper, and a little smaller I think.

+1 for this. A set of Bens targets and some black masking tape can do a lot.

[Luke]

And don't forget cheap and easy no shoots! I cut them out of a regular sheet of paper. Saves from using another target and I get to pick how it is.

[Mr_White]

I think scaled targets are a great idea for dry practice in a confined environment. You should definitely use them to keep the accuracy bar high in dry practice, but they don't completely replicate a full size target at a real distance - eyes will focus differently on a real target at 25 yards vs. a scaled smaller target at 3 yards. They are still absolutely worthwhile.

[Luke]

Very much this^^^ if I had the room all my targets would be full size. The scaled are crazy different.

[JohnO]

I think scaled targets are a great idea for dry practice in a confined environment. You should definitely use them to keep the accuracy bar high in dry practice, but they don't completely replicate a full size target at a real distance - eyes will focus differently on a real target at 25 yards vs. a scaled smaller target at 3 yards. They are still absolutely worthwhile.

Also a pistol zeroed on a half scale target at 12.5 yards is not zeroed at 25 yards. Yeah it may work but don't assume so. Always zero at the actual distance.

[Mr_White]

Also a pistol zeroed on a half scale target at 12.5 yards is not zeroed at 25 yards. Yeah it may work but don't assume so. Always zero at the actual distance.

Yes definitely. Especially when we are talking scaled 100 + yard targets and not just 25 yard ones...

[orionz06]

I think scaled targets are a great idea for dry practice in a confined environment. You should definitely use them to keep the accuracy bar high in dry practice, but they don't completely replicate a full size target at a real distance - eyes will focus differently on a real target at 25 yards vs. a scaled smaller target at 3 yards. They are still absolutely worthwhile.

I have some small targets outdoors in a safe direction that are full size (lids) that work quite well through and open window for this reason. My vision fades at distance and indoor distances with reduced targets trick me as I can see better.


Sent from my Nokia 3310 using an owl

[JohnO]

It's not quite the same thing but related. My favorite warm up for shooting 25 yard B-8 Bulls is a B-8 at 50 yards.

After a couple strings at 50 yards 25 yards feels like I'm cheating.

[Mr Pink]

Let's make sure we're using the correct terminology; "Reduced Size Target Systems"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGJT38HJaHg

[Luke]

Those are probably the only gun videos on YouTube I enjoy. Id love to be friends with those guys.

[coldcase1984]

Have one of these inside my office door. Just lock door and practice drawing and trigger control several times a week. Got another on door of hall closet at house.

http://modernserviceweapons.com/?attachment_id=579

[Sal Picante]

Don't forget that when you use an 11 yard distance, your muzzle is at 10 yards, and when you use a 33 yard distance, your muzzle is at 32 yards.

When using a short distance, measure from the muzzle to the target.

LOL Whut?

[Rich@CCC]

I realize y'all are talking hand guns and not riffles, but... I have always had a problem with the military(Air Force specifically) QUALIFYING on scaled targets at short range. Any shmuck can hit a 3" tall target at 50 yards with irons on an M16/M4. That same shmuck might have a hell of a time putting a round in man size target at 300yds. Scale targets cannot train you for bullet drop or distance target acquisition.

How much does that effect your IDPA skills when you train with scale targets? Not arguing, just asking as I'm not a competitive shooter.

[Mr_White]

How much does that effect your IDPA skills when you train with scale targets? Not arguing, just asking as I'm not a competitive shooter.

I shoot USPSA, not IDPA, but I think it's still the same question. :)

Scaled targets are not perfect and practicing on them carries the same rough edges as it does for any other shooting purpose outside of competition. With USPSA, and especially IDPA shooting, distances aren't great enough that bullet drop is a significant factor, but visual focus issues do remain.

What's really good about them though, is that they can be used at home to put in a lot of work, so even though they are imperfect, they are a huge net gain. If I weren't practicing at home with scaled targets, I wouldn't be magically transported to the range to shoot live ammo at real targets at real distances, I just wouldn't be practicing.

[Luger]

If I want to use a half scale target, what do I have to cut in half? Only the surface of the target or it`s width and height?
For example if the original target is 30x40cm (1.200qcm) do I have to use a 15x20cm (300qcm) target or a 20x30cm (600qcm) target? :confused:

[Mr_White]

If I want to use a half scale target, what do I have to cut in half? Only the surface of the target or it`s width and height?
For example if the original target is 30x40cm (1.200qcm) do I have to use a 15x20cm (300qcm) target or a 20x30cm (600qcm) target? :confused:

I think you need to halve the surface area to have an actual 1/2 scale target. If you halve the width and height, you'll end up with a 1/4 scale target instead of 1/2 scale, just like in your examples. And that's not necessarily bad, because it will be even harder and thus emphasize accuracy even more. As long as that's what you want to emphasize.

[GRV]

If I want to use a half scale target, what do I have to cut in half? Only the surface of the target or it`s width and height?
For example if the original target is 30x40cm (1.200qcm) do I have to use a 15x20cm (300qcm) target or a 20x30cm (600qcm) target? :confused:

That depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

If you want it to mimic a target twice as far away, you need to cut both the width and the height in half.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_angle

But, as Mr_White pointed out, the realities of this are more complicated due to the different focal planes and such.

[Mr_White]

That depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

If you want it to mimic a target twice as far away, you need to cut both the width and the height in half.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_angle

But, as Mr_White pointed out, the realities of this are more complicated due to the different focal planes and such.

Thanks for posting that link. I should have gone and looked it up myself before answering - I felt like I remembered there was more complication in there than I gave it credit for. This is why I just go with the non-math 'make the target smaller than I think I need to and figure it is not exact anyway.'

[GRV]

Thanks for posting that link. I should have gone and looked it up myself before answering - I felt like I remembered there was more complication in there than I gave it credit for. This is why I just go with the non-math 'make the target smaller than I think I need to and figure it is not exact anyway.'

Math sucks.

[Mr_White]

Math sucks.

I used to like it. Now that I forgot...a whole lot of it....it sucks. :)

[Clusterfrack]

Dudes... you're killing me. This is so simple: as you scale the target down, you want the sight picture to be the same as it was at whatever distance the full size target is at. Same in elevation. Same in windage. So that's telling you to scale down height and width--right?

[Mr_White]

Dudes... you're killing me. This is so simple: as you scale the target down, you want the sight picture to be the same as it was at whatever distance the full size target is at. Same in elevation. Same in windage. So that's telling you to scale down height and width--right?

Heh, I know I know, I feel like a D student right now.

Wouldn't it be surface area though? And surface area is the 'size' of the target in the two dimensions we care about in this?

So if we want to create a square (just to make it really simple) of a certain size to be used at five yards, and have it look the same as another square at twenty yards....6x6" head box at 20 yards is 36 square inches. At five yards, we'd want it 1/4 the size (I'm saying that's the surface area though), so we'd want a 9 square inch area at five yards, which would be 3"x3". Not 1.5"x1.5", which would be 2.25 square inches and a lot smaller than scale. Tell me if I am completely wrong there. I feel like people had this discussion on PF a long time ago and people much better at math than I, said it was a trigonometry thing involving the type of stuff dove linked to in his post. This is part of why I err toward smaller targets for dry practice though and don't worry too much about getting the scaling exactly right.

[Clusterfrack]

Gabe, you're making it too complicated. You want the vertical and horizontal angles to remain the same. That means if you are at half the distance, the height (and width) needs to be halved.

[Mr_White]

Gabe, you're making it too complicated. You want the vertical and horizontal angles to remain the same. That means if you are at half the distance, the height (and width) needs to be halved.

Ok...

I was going to keep trying to discuss it, but I figured it would be frustrating for you because I am sure you know way better than I do and I don't trust myself to understand the math correctly at this point. So I did something better...an experiment to prove it to myself, yay!

I put an 8-1/2" x11" piece of paper on the wall, went to four paces, held a ruler and extended my arms. Visually, the paper appeared 45x34mm (used the mm because way more precise for what I was doing.)

Then I went to eight paces, held the ruler and extended my arms. Visually, the paper appeared 23x17mm...so 50% the height and width, same as what you are saying.

Just to see what the surface area relationship was, I calculated that...1530 sq mm at four paces, 391 sq mm at eight paces...so 25% by surface area.

Then to satisfy my curiosity because we use a lot of circular targets, I repeated with a 2" circle.

At four paces it looked like 9mm diameter, at eight paces it looked like ~4mm diameter, so pretty much same 50% relationship by diameter.

Comparing surface area, at four paces that's 63.6 sq mm, at eight paces that's 15.9 sq mm, so 25% again.

I'm convinced! Thank you Clusterfrack. I guess I have been Doing It Wrong for a while.

[Clusterfrack]

Well that explains why you've become such an exceptional shot. You are training at the square of the distance of non-math-retarded people.

[Mr_White]

Actually I think my math was in the wrong direction and I have been thinking targets were half the scaled size they actually were. Good thing I habitually fudge to longer distance in dry fire and figure it's still not the same as the real target at the real distance.

More normal scaled targets are pretty easy to come by. Based on this math conversation, I made up some much smaller (and now hopefully scaled correctly) dry fire targets. 1/20, 1/40, and 1/80 scale, for anybody who wants to join the fun.

11322

[Mr_White]

Dang those are small. Probably would hurt speed if bigger targets were left out of dry practice. Still going to use them though...

https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8650/30585921945_ea9b032c7d_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/NALQZP)20161026_130007 (https://flic.kr/p/NALQZP) by OrigamiAK (https://www.flickr.com/photos/52790396@N08/), on Flickr

[GRV]

I like your approach Gabe.

The math is all bullshit if it doesn't add up to what you see in the real world. That's what matters in the end.

You'd make a good scientist.

[flyrodr]

So Gabe,

That course of yours in April I signed up for . . . can we expect some of the drills will involve math tests like this one? Since my brain is as old - - - and about as bad - - - as my eyes, I could be in real trouble.

But, then, perhaps that explains why I can see a 9mm hole in the target at 7 yards, but not at 25 yards. At 25 yards, that hole is way smaller than 9mm. Uh . . . right??? :p

[Mr_White]

can we expect some of the drills will involve math tests like this one?

No way

[Mr_White]

I'm not so sure those tiny dry fire targets I posted are worthwhile. I used them a bit in dry practice last night and the 1/40 and 1/80 are just so small that it is like spot shooting. Except to be realistic, I need to hold over - quite a bit on the 1/80 target. At three yards, that's like a scaled 240 yard shot. Without the feedback of knowing I hit or didn't, it doesn't seem useful. The 1/20 wasn't so bad though - that's like a 60 yard target when used at 3 yards.