agruments have been posed whether or not Pistol Field Target should be designed

agruments have been posed whether or not Pistol Field Target should be designed

Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 3:12 am

September 20th, 2011, 6:48 pm #1

from the game from which it were stemmed...... rifle field target, or designed completely different by lumping the 2 classes together. this would mean that both hunter type and open type shooting will be competing against each other as one class.

the main question i pose here today is ------ should Hunter class Pft rules be along the lines as Hunter rifle FT? and therefore, have sepperate classes like rifle ft classes.

the three basic pricipals to Hunter class is shooting from a bucket and using quick sticks and 12 power magnification. at Easton Field Target, shooters seems to really like using the same equipment for pistol hunter class as they do in Hunter rifle.



then for pcp/open Pistol Field Target----- should it be along the lines of rifle F/T?
and that is------ shooting from a bum bag and the self supported type shooting style where no limitations on how a shooter lines up for his/her shot??

both classes would for argument sake, be at the 12 fpe limit.


just curious on how shooters here on this fine forum think....... rules are being discussed and speak now or for ever hold your piece. lol


sincerely,
Ronnie Easton
match director
www.EFTC.us





Last edited by Thumpman1 on September 20th, 2011, 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NorCal Air Gunners
Ronnie Easton
President
Quote
Share

Joined: July 6th, 2002, 8:59 pm

September 20th, 2011, 6:56 pm #2

Perhaps we ought to wait until after the rules are unveiled (I'm hoping by Nats this year), and go from there... Who knows, perhaps your questions & concerns are already well covered.

HookEm
Quote
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

September 20th, 2011, 8:36 pm #3

think Ronnie's question are well founded. When considering how many people here chose to be the ones offering combining divisions as a solution for PFT, I personally feel he is on point with his inquiry .

Also, I don't recall anyone telling the other side of this debate to wait and see wht the outcome would be so he should have his say too.

It is what it is, because it is!!!
Quote
Share

Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 3:12 am

September 20th, 2011, 9:06 pm #4

Perhaps we ought to wait until after the rules are unveiled (I'm hoping by Nats this year), and go from there... Who knows, perhaps your questions & concerns are already well covered.

HookEm
proactive one. once the rules are in place, then it is much harder to change them after the fact. would not it be better to get some feed back on what i feel is a very logical question?

Ronnie

Last edited by Thumpman1 on September 20th, 2011, 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NorCal Air Gunners
Ronnie Easton
President
Quote
Share

Joined: September 22nd, 2009, 3:12 am

September 20th, 2011, 9:07 pm #5

think Ronnie's question are well founded. When considering how many people here chose to be the ones offering combining divisions as a solution for PFT, I personally feel he is on point with his inquiry .

Also, I don't recall anyone telling the other side of this debate to wait and see wht the outcome would be so he should have his say too.

It is what it is, because it is!!!
thank you Greg...... my thoughts too. nt
NorCal Air Gunners
Ronnie Easton
President
Quote
Share

Joined: July 6th, 2002, 8:59 pm

September 20th, 2011, 10:25 pm #6

proactive one. once the rules are in place, then it is much harder to change them after the fact. would not it be better to get some feed back on what i feel is a very logical question?

Ronnie
AAFTA formed a "committee" to deal with the "PFT rules" issue, and as far as I know, it is a "closed" working group. So, we do not know what the committee has done to-date (if anything)... Thus, it seems premature to speculate about specifics that we're not exposed to (at least not publicly).

But, this an open forum, so I suppose you can go ahead and voice your opinions, just as I just did.

Peace out,
HookEm

Quote
Share

Joined: August 31st, 2010, 8:31 pm

September 20th, 2011, 11:17 pm #7

from the game from which it were stemmed...... rifle field target, or designed completely different by lumping the 2 classes together. this would mean that both hunter type and open type shooting will be competing against each other as one class.

the main question i pose here today is ------ should Hunter class Pft rules be along the lines as Hunter rifle FT? and therefore, have sepperate classes like rifle ft classes.

the three basic pricipals to Hunter class is shooting from a bucket and using quick sticks and 12 power magnification. at Easton Field Target, shooters seems to really like using the same equipment for pistol hunter class as they do in Hunter rifle.



then for pcp/open Pistol Field Target----- should it be along the lines of rifle F/T?
and that is------ shooting from a bum bag and the self supported type shooting style where no limitations on how a shooter lines up for his/her shot??

both classes would for argument sake, be at the 12 fpe limit.


just curious on how shooters here on this fine forum think....... rules are being discussed and speak now or for ever hold your piece. lol


sincerely,
Ronnie Easton
match director
www.EFTC.us




Why not make it a real marksman game?

Standing, unsupported, except allowed to use ones own body for support (crossed-arm hold, elbow anchored in body...).

or

Use the same position/equipment rules as IHMSA.
Quote
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

September 20th, 2011, 11:22 pm #8

With that saids though Mike you are allowed to stand unsupported if you so choose to do so. But this is not IHMSA it's called Pistol Field Target and so as such the rules will allow for a much different type of gameplay.

It is what it is, because it is!!!
Last edited by gregc107 on September 20th, 2011, 11:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 6th, 2002, 8:59 pm

September 20th, 2011, 11:29 pm #9

Why not make it a real marksman game?

Standing, unsupported, except allowed to use ones own body for support (crossed-arm hold, elbow anchored in body...).

or

Use the same position/equipment rules as IHMSA.
So, I don't see the need to adhere by those rules.
As for standing, you could shoot Pistol Silhouette, or others.

IMO, PFT, should resemble what we're already doing with rifle FT... And for most part, that's sItting on our butts (with bum bags or buckets).

HookEm
Quote
Share

Joined: October 9th, 2005, 2:33 pm

September 20th, 2011, 11:37 pm #10

Hook did Alan did your PFT rig right? Very nice piece!!.. how fast does it go?



It is what it is, because it is!!!
Last edited by gregc107 on September 20th, 2011, 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share