Validity of Marksmanship training for Rifle at 25 yards

[arcfide]

So, what do people think about the validity of doing 25 yard training with reduced sized targets to work on rifle shooting fundamentals? I am often near a range with 25 yard rifle lanes that is relatively easy to get to, versus a longer range that is hard to get to. I can easily create scaled down aiming blacks (around 1.5" or so) and practice shooting at those blacks with my rifle, but I'm wondering how much I'm actually giving up in practicing the fundamentals at 25 yards versus larger distances?

The biggest thing that I think I see is that at 25 yards the target isn't as blurry as it would be with a front sight focus (iron sights) at 100, 300, or 600 yards. I think that make it easier for me to "cheat" a little bit and shift my focus from front sight to the target and back without as much cost as breaking a shot without a strong front sight focus on a longer distance target.

Thoughts?

[farscott]

I use the A17 fifty-foot small bore rifle targets at twenty-five yards with aperture-sighted rimfire rifles. It is challenging even with scopes. I find it to be very useful when moving to centerfire at longer distances. The eleven separate bullseyes on one paper target is nice as you can shoot eleven strings before needing to go downrange.

There is a 25-yard target with the ten-ring having a diameter of 0.335" but I rarely see those targets. Using the fifty-foot target at 25 yards makes the shooting much more difficult.

[Duelist]

Basically any functironing rifle should be able to drill out a 1” square at 25 yards. The Appleseed project does most of the rifle training they do at 25 yards at small targets. Position shooting, rim fire practice, etc, can all be profitably worked on at 25 yards, if you use small enough targets. Close range defensive carbine work, of course, is perfect for a shorter range like that.

[Jay Cunningham]

Are we talking carbines, or something else?

[CraigS]

I think 25 yds is fine for working on the basic skills. Get the dot down to an inch or smaller and it works. Of course you have no learning of bullet drop compensation, or wind compensation but that can come later. Easy access to the range is a huge plus. No matter what the activity is, the easier the access, the more often it will happen.

[Dave J]

I spent several months deployed where I had essentially unlimited ammo, but could only get to a 25m range without a lot of hassle. I didn't feel like it was holding me back much, and my 0-300 yard game improved quite a bit during this time. Even when I have access to longer ranges, I still use scaled targets quite often, especially for short practice sessions where I don't want to waste a lot of time to jogging back and forth to check targets.

I don't think there is much value to simulating targets beyond about 300, since wind and range estimation become so much more significant as you go out.

During that deployment, I made cardboard templates to replicate USPSA A-zones at 50-350, and also shot up a lot of 1" pasters. The scoring areas were offset slightly to account for my zero, and to force me to hold correctly on the "long range" targets, instead of just shooting POA/POI. For example, with my zero, my rifle would print about an inch low at 25. So I'd shoot at a black paster, and score off of a brown or beige paster stacked directly underneath it. For silhouettes that simulated 300 yds or further, I'd use a slightly raised scoring zone based on the bullet drop at the simulated distance, so I had to hold higher to hit.

One nice thing about using a vertically oriented target (like a scaled USPSA A-zone) is that the vertical column helps neglect any minor differences in your 25yd POA/POI. (talking simulated distant targets here, not close ones where you must account for sight offset.)

Most of my simulated distance work involves a timer, and getting into shooting position under time pressure, e.g. standing to kneeling, or standing to prone. I think the CSAT rifle standards are a great place to start, and lend themselves well to scaled targets. As your skill level improves, you can reduce the time standards for the "distant" targets, and tighten the scoring areas for the 25 and in, to keep things challenging.

One other point is that I think you have to be very strict with scoring scaled targets. If I'm shooting a simulated distance target, I want the bullet tip to actually hit inside the scoring zone, and not just the grease ring touching, which would equate to a miss at real distance.

FWIW, Paul Howe mentioned that he did a lot of practice on scaled targets while on contingency operations, and felt it contributed to him doing well in matches.

[Lomshek]

So, what do people think about the validity of doing 25 yard training with reduced sized targets to work on rifle shooting fundamentals? I am often near a range with 25 yard rifle lanes that is relatively easy to get to, versus a longer range that is hard to get to. I can easily create scaled down aiming blacks (around 1.5" or so) and practice shooting at those blacks with my rifle, but I'm wondering how much I'm actually giving up in practicing the fundamentals at 25 yards versus larger distances?

The biggest thing that I think I see is that at 25 yards the target isn't as blurry as it would be with a front sight focus (iron sights) at 100, 300, or 600 yards. I think that make it easier for me to "cheat" a little bit and shift my focus from front sight to the target and back without as much cost as breaking a shot without a strong front sight focus on a longer distance target.

Thoughts?

The basics of sight alignment, eye alignment (for scopes), head stability, stable position, breath control and all the other factors that contribute to small groups can easily be practiced at 25 yards.

I'm an Appleseed shoot boss and can vouch for the efficacy of the scaled down targets. The same marksmanship fundamentals will have you hitting at long distance easily if you've mastered them at 25 yards. Knowing the drop is a simple matter of either using a calculator or taking some shots and noting what adjustments are needed. Wind's more of a headache and requires practice and experience depending on the value and speed.

Learning the drop and wind drift is a lot easier if you can shoot consistent tight groups instead of shotgunning the target. Learning to shoot tight groups is a lot easier if you don't also have to deal with wind and drop at the same time. You can also shoot more and learn faster if you don't have to walk 100 or 200 yards to check your target.

Iron sights are a little different than a scope because the extra distance makes it harder for you to achieve the sight picture (sharp front sight on target) whereas a scope eliminates that visual difference.

If you can shoot 1" groups at 100 yards you should be able to shoot 3" groups at 300 yards on a calm day.

[Lester Polfus]

I do it all the time in my side yard with a .22 and 1/2" and 1/4" round stickers and it has helped my shooting tremendously.

[Lomshek]

I spent several months deployed where I had essentially unlimited ammo, but could only get to a 25m range without a lot of hassle. I didn't feel like it was holding me back much, and my 0-300 yard game improved quite a bit during this time. Even when I have access to longer ranges, I still use scaled targets quite often, especially for short practice sessions where I don't want to waste a lot of time to jogging back and forth to check targets.

I don't think there is much value to simulating targets beyond about 300, since wind and range estimation become so much more significant as you go out.

During that deployment, I made cardboard templates to replicate USPSA A-zones at 50-350, and also shot up a lot of 1" pasters. The scoring areas were offset slightly to account for my zero, and to force me to hold correctly on the "long range" targets, instead of just shooting POA/POI. For example, with my zero, my rifle would print about an inch low at 25. So I'd shoot at a black paster, and score off of a brown or beige paster stacked directly underneath it. For silhouettes that simulated 300 yds or further, I'd use a slightly raised scoring zone based on the bullet drop at the simulated distance, so I had to hold higher to hit.

One nice thing about using a vertically oriented target (like a scaled USPSA A-zone) is that the vertical column helps neglect any minor differences in your 25yd POA/POI. (talking simulated distant targets here, not close ones where you must account for sight offset.)

Most of my simulated distance work involves a timer, and getting into shooting position under time pressure, e.g. standing to kneeling, or standing to prone. I think the CSAT rifle standards are a great place to start, and lend themselves well to scaled targets. As your skill level improves, you can reduce the time standards for the "distant" targets, and tighten the scoring areas for the 25 and in, to keep things challenging.

One other point is that I think you have to be very strict with scoring scaled targets. If I'm shooting a simulated distance target, I want the bullet tip to actually hit inside the scoring zone, and not just the grease ring touching, which would equate to a miss at real distance.

FWIW, Paul Howe mentioned that he did a lot of practice on scaled targets while on contingency operations, and felt it contributed to him doing well in matches.

The only argument I'd give to oppose that is the aim small miss small concept. A 500 yard human size target is 1" wide at 25 yards and eliminates the "it's good enough" on the more forgiving 200 and 300 yard size targets where a bigger group is still on the target. Having a zero margin target will prove whether a person can hold that tight or not.

Appleseed is more forgiving about scoring as far as allowing a grease ring on the line to count for the higher score but if scoring for personal improvement I agree with you that nicking the target is not enough.

If anyone wants to try them you can get Appleseed targets at their store to try the official AQT out or do some different drills with. The official scoring targets simulate shots out to 400 yards while the 1" squares simulate either a 250 yard headshot or a 500 yard torso.

[Eric_L]

So, what do people think about the validity of doing 25 yard training with reduced sized targets to work on rifle shooting fundamentals? I am often near a range with 25 yard rifle lanes that is relatively easy to get to, versus a longer range that is hard to get to. I can easily create scaled down aiming blacks (around 1.5" or so) and practice shooting at those blacks with my rifle, but I'm wondering how much I'm actually giving up in practicing the fundamentals at 25 yards versus larger distances?

The biggest thing that I think I see is that at 25 yards the target isn't as blurry as it would be with a front sight focus (iron sights) at 100, 300, or 600 yards. I think that make it easier for me to "cheat" a little bit and shift my focus from front sight to the target and back without as much cost as breaking a shot without a strong front sight focus on a longer distance target.

Thoughts?

Several years ago Claude Werner had a post, I believe on TPI, on training on reduced targets with rifle (carbine). It may be buried in his website-


https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com

E