Leinster Indoor Open

rrpc

The results for the Leinster Indoor Open which was held today (6th November) in Rathdrum, are now up on the Rathdrum Website along with some photos. http://homepage.eircom.net/~rrpc.

Thanks to all who attended, who had me run off my feet until reinforcements arrived, and especially DURC who we haven't seen for a while. Keep up the good work lads!. A special thanks to all those who gave donations, and to Liam Crawford (Chairman NTSA) who stood in admirably for our absent chairman Dave Cullen and gave out the prizes.

Ahem, Sparks.... what happened?, a lad who hasn't trained in months beat you by two points

Sparks

Ha! Said young 'un hadn't driven from Kilkenny to DURC to Rathdrum that morning RRPC And those were the first shots fired through that rifle since the Nationals! :eek:

Besides, if we can take one year to train a junior air rifle shooter to the level where she beats guys who've been shooting for over two decades in the National Championships, I can take being beaten in a match by someone I trained

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

Ha! Said young 'un hadn't driven from Kilkenny to DURC to Rathdrum that morning RRPC And those were the first shots fired through that rifle since the Nationals! :eek:

That rifle maybe, but you have been shooting air rifle, so although they're different, it's still shooting

... I can take being beaten in a match by someone I trained

Who?... me?

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

That rifle maybe, but you have been shooting air rifle, so although they're different, it's still shooting

True, but the challanges are somewhat different - less recoil in air rifle, less physical demands for stability in prone rifle, etc, etc, etc.

BTW, kidding aside, was there some change made to the lighting on the targets for the range? The shadows off to either side of the firing positions were horrible, even on the middle targets in the range. Richard was saying it was the hardest he'd ever had to work to get a good sight picture, and I definitely remember the lighting being a bit more even than that before!

Who?... me?

No, I mean in general!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

BTW, kidding aside, was there some change made to the lighting on the targets for the range? The shadows off to either side of the firing positions were horrible, even on the middle targets in the range. Richard was saying it was the hardest he'd ever had to work to get a good sight picture, and I definitely remember the lighting being a bit more even than that before!

I noticed while I was shooting my practice card on FP4 that it was very dark, so when I went to change my card I saw that the second light from the left had been turned to point at 2 and 3 to the detriment of 4 especially. Seeing as I had checked the lights the night before for alignment, someone who was on the first details had obviously moved that one. :mad: Any idea who was on 2 or 3 in the morning?

No, I mean in general!

And I mean in particular . I'm not proud of a 567, but it beats a 565 any day

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

I noticed while I was shooting my practice card on FP4 that it was very dark, so when I went to change my card I saw that the second light from the left had been turned to point at 2 and 3 to the detriment of 4 especially. Seeing as I had checked the lights the night before for alignment, someone who was on the first details had obviously moved that one.

Gah. You even noticed it out on firing point five - there was a shadow off to the left that spoilt your sight picture

:mad: Any idea who was on 2 or 3 in the morning?

Nope. Wouldn't mind a quiet word in their shell-like, mind. Not exactly sporting behaviour.

And I mean in particular . I'm not proud of a 567, but it beats a 565 any day

Yeah, yeah, yeah

rrpc

I'm actually wondering, would a bunch of 50w GU10's pointing up from the floor (protected obviously) be a better bet for lighting than the 500w halogens we currently have?. They certainly would be a lot cheaper to run!

Currently we have 4 x 500w = 2kW, you could have two GU10's on each target (16 x 50w = 800w), and although the bulbs are more expensive, they would probably last longer as they could be turned on for each target individually.

Sparks

It would probably be better RRPC, though you might have to get out the jackhammer and dig a bit into the floor to mount them sunken out of the line of fire - the alternative being a ricochet if someone hit the armour you'd have to protect them with if they were on the surface.

I'm pretty sure that you could do a much better job of eliminating shadows with multiple bulbs as well; but if you were digging down that end, you might as well clear away some of the detrius off to the right of FP8 and paint the back wall, and now we're into some serious renovations on a range that shouldn't be around much longer if the new one gets moving!

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

It would probably be better RRPC, though you might have to get out the jackhammer and dig a bit into the floor to mount them sunken out of the line of fire - the alternative being a ricochet if someone hit the armour you'd have to protect them with if they were on the surface.

Nothing a heavy piece of timber wouldn't take care of.

I'm pretty sure that you could do a much better job of eliminating shadows with multiple bulbs as well; but if you were digging down that end, you might as well clear away some of the detrius off to the right of FP8 and paint the back wall, and now we're into some serious renovations on a range that shouldn't be around much longer if the new one gets moving!

Yes, well that's what I'm trying to avoid. A few light boxes with 1/4" plate on the back would be easily done, and since GU10's are less than 4" in daimeter including the mounting plate, the light box wouldn't have to be too intrusive. I'll have to check what height the targets are off the floor, but certainly they are more than 6". The light boxes could be as close as 12" to the targets, so they shouldn't intrude on the line of sight.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Nothing a heavy piece of timber wouldn't take care of.

I dunno - we've got railway sleepers down the end of the range in DURC as a mounting wall for the target boards and the .22lr rounds just cut them in half. What kind of heavy timber were you thinking of?

Yes, well that's what I'm trying to avoid. A few light boxes with 1/4" plate on the back would be easily done, and since GU10's are less than 4" in daimeter including the mounting plate, the light box wouldn't have to be too intrusive. I'll have to check what height the targets are off the floor, but certainly they are more than 6". The light boxes could be as close as 12" to the targets, so they shouldn't intrude on the line of sight.

Definitely worth a try, the current lighting isn't quite fantastic. If there was some way to paint the end of the range an even lightish colour as well, so we'd have a clean sight picture...

civdef

I dunno - we've got railway sleepers down the end of the range in DURC as a mounting wall for the target boards and the .22lr rounds just cut them in half. What kind of heavy timber were you thinking of?

I don't know what armour piercing rounds ye're using up there, but I've shot a lot of 22lr rounds (high and low velocity) at a lot of sleepers, and they just don't penetrate. It took several thousand rounds for the sleepers to show any real signs of damage even. Typical penetration of a standard velocity bullet was 2-4cm.

Given that sleepers are cheap ~20 quid each, they make very economical backstops for rimfire shooting.

Sparks

civdef wrote:

I don't know what armour piercing rounds ye're using up there, but I've shot a lot of 22lr rounds (high and low velocity) at a lot of sleepers, and they just don't penetrate. It took several thousand rounds for the sleepers to show any real signs of damage even. Typical penetration of a standard velocity bullet was 2-4cm.

Well, this is the backstop in DURC:




And when you take away the target boards...



(There's a 1/4" steel plate behind that to deflect the rounds downwards).

We'd see on average about 80-100 rounds a day per target, and I think RRPC's usage might actually be higher. Granted, the sleeper would only have to stop one or two rounds, but still, I'd be hesitant.

civdef

Are those proper railway sleepers? The wood looks to have a fairly light colour. The ones I used were a lot darker and thorougly soaked with cresote.

That said, the numbers add up, you're into thousands of rounds fairly quickly at that rate. Individual rounds still wont penetreat, you're seeing the cumulative effect of thousands in each circular target, which is acting not unlike a core drill.

For that application, replacable sections just behind the targets would make more sense..

Sparks

Thing is though Civ, if it was a core drill kind of action, I'm not sure we'd get a pattern like the one we get - I'd expect it to be far less regular in shape. I guess the only thing to do is to test it, Box of Truth style

Rovi

I don't see any railway sleepers in those photos, unless they're hidden in the gloom behind the target frame.
The sleepers I know of (and believe me, I know plenty of them!), are approx. 10 inches x 5 inches x 9-10 feet, creosote impregnated, and plenty heavy.

I don't know how many subsonic .22s you'd need to fire at one to eventually penetrate it, but I'd estimate it to be many thousands.
If they were used to protect lights and were only hit by an occasional stray round, I'd expect them to last forever.

.

rrpc

They are sleepers, just painted white. I wonder when they were last replaced?, they look like they've been there for a long time. The easiest thing to do would be to restack them with two from the top of the stack moved down and replaced by the holed ones with the offending bits cut off and a new sleeper cut to size and inserted where the cut off pieces would go, fitted in a stretcher pattern (like blockwork).

As for the lights in Rathdrum, it's probably an academic exercise at the moment, as we are reluctant to spend any money on what is likely to end up as a pile of rubble within the next year!

As the ceiling in the new range will be considerably lower (about 8 foot), ceiling mounted lights will probably be the way to go, to allow for 3P shooting and to keep the floor clear for air rifle shooting when shooting across the range. Plenty of fluorescent tubes augmented by ceiling mounted, angled GU10's at the target end, should keep running costs down, and provide enough light to keep everyone happy.

Sparks

The easiest thing to do would be to restack them with two from the top of the stack moved down and replaced by the holed ones with the offending bits cut off and a new sleeper cut to size and inserted where the cut off pieces would go, fitted in a stretcher pattern (like blockwork).

That's what we did, though we had to throw away the ones that had been badly shot up as they were beyond repair. That was about three or four years ago, and within a year (around 6-7000 rounds), they were back to the same condition. But it didn't take 6-7000 rounds to penetrate the sleepers, of course. Just how many, I don't know for sure - but since a .22lr will merrily go through a lot more than you'd think it would, I'd be guessing on a rather low number. Like one

As for the lights in Rathdrum, it's probably an academic exercise at the moment, as we are reluctant to spend any money on what is likely to end up as a pile of rubble within the next year!

Exactly!

Plenty of fluorescent tubes augmented by ceiling mounted, angled GU10's at the target end, should keep running costs down, and provide enough light to keep everyone happy.

Sounds good, but you'd be surprised how much it takes to get the illumination at the target up to ISSF standard - it's taking 150w bulbs six inches from the targets in WTSC...