Tossing this idea out for next year, if there is any interest in having a 100yd ground hog shoot. To keep it simple, same position for shooting as the 50yd. Any centerfire rifle, cast bullet, any scope. Good chance to use the "chuck rifle" with cast at 100yd. I sure would be willing to help with such a match. Just checking to see if there is enough interest to move forward with this.
Bob
Iowa
Attached Files
hi gwarden ... this pretty close to what a lot of guys are thinking would be good ... since we have a little time, how about expanding on ::
any scope ? ? one sight class or still irons and scopes scored separately ?
allow gas checks?
.... and yeah, i gotta admit that groundhog target is a grin to shoot at ... my groundhog keeps jumping around just as i shoot ... heh ..
ken
Attached Files
I think the use of field positions is what makes the groundhog target interesting.
Attached Files
Ken
Any power scope would be allowed, we can also go with IS if there is interest, allow gas checks. Just want to make it as easy for all that have an interest in shooting this venue. Again, great chance to use our CF rifles for a challenging match. I agree, how in the world does that ground hog target know when we are getting ready to shoot at it, until I get into position to shoot that target just stands there perfectly still. When I get ready to shoot that darn thing is jumping around like a turpentined cat.
It sure is hard for this body to get down in the prone position, wasn't hard 40 years ago, surely has nothing to do with age does it? Again, would be glad to help out with this shoot, be glad to do the scoring and compiling results. Have a great day.
Bob
Iowa
Attached Files
delmarskid
I agree, field position makes it much more challenging and interesting.
Bob
Attached Files
To all,
Field position, yes.
Offhand yes as a seperate class.
Any sight any power, yes maybe a 3x9 power on scopes. I think 3x9 is the most common in use.
Different class for scope and iron yes.
Gas checks, ?? not sure. Not to easy to find molds that are not G.C.
I to will help in anyway you might need.
My 2 cents.
Jon
Jon Welda CW5 USA Ret.
Attached Files
My idea of allowing any scope power or IS, GC or plain base bullets: The big factor in this 100 yd. shoot is using only field position, not shooting from a bench. As soon as we start making limits it might eliminate some shooters. I can think of some of the older single shot varmint rifles that fellas have 12 power and up on their rifles, such as the older Lyman STS or Fecker of Unertl scopes.
Bob
Attached Files
... just a comment on any power scope .... i think that from true field positions once you have 2 or 3 power, the extra magnification does little or nothing for your score on paper targets with a well defined bullseye .
for hunting, the higher power can be used to better find the target in shadows or between tree branches .....
so yes i am in favor of any scope power, especially if it brings in some neat old 219 Wasp with a 12 power Litchert .
ken
Attached Files
The pain in the patootie for the current GH match is having to remove my 6X scope from my scoped military rifle to install the 4X, then change it back to the 6X.
Duke
Attached Files
The 6X allows one to see the scoring circles on the groundhogs chest. I can't see the circles with a 4X. If we actually do a 100 yard match in addition to the 50 yd, I would be in favor of standardizing any requirement that we can.
I am going to go to the range and shoot some 100 yd groundhogs one of these days. I am thinking that field positions at 100 yds are going to be very challenging.
Jim
Attached Files
Duke
For the very reason you mention, having to change scopes for a specific match. My idea of allowing any power scope allows us to use what we have on a rifle without having to change scopes.
Bob
Attached Files
.jpg?width=20 "Dukem")
thanks for the discussion guys ... we are actually listening ... heh ...
ken
Attached Files
I'm in if we are shooting 100 yds. I vote for gas checks and any scope. My groundhog rifles are a 218 bee and a 223. I've no use for pb loads in those rifles. Any possibility of doing something this year?
Steve K
Attached Files
PB 22 cal bullets might be challenging at 100 yards for sure. Perhaps allowing GC but showing the results divided between PB and GC makes the most sense? Several of the "older rifle" guys may prefer to just continue on with PB. My intention would be to shoot PB I think.
Again in general we do not want to discourage anyone from playing with their favorite gear.
Jim
Attached Files
Ken and I have been a bit evasive about doing another shoot this year. Ken still has a few busy days ahead of him getting the 50 yd results pulled together. Also we HAVE noted the names of some volunteers. There is still plenty of time to do a shoot this fall and I can tell you for sure that Ken and I are discussing everyones suggestions as they come in.
Jim
Attached Files
Steve
I would be up to doing the scoring and compiling the results for the shoot if we could get something going this year.
Bob
Attached Files
OK then I think it is a go. Bob - PM sent.
Ken is seeking ways to do multiple rifles more cheaply. The most costly items are the targets. They cost $.50 each if I order 50 and $.40 each is I order 100. Mailing the targets is surprisingly expensive too. We will do a post on just targets later today.
The other place we can save money is by eliminating mailing forms and results. Again postage, envelopes and printing add expense.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS WOULD IT BE OK WITH EVERYONE IF WE DID VIRTUALLY ALL COMMUNICATION BY EMAIL? The goal would be that the only mail we would sent would be the targets.
Jim
Attached Files
Jim,
I think you/we could save money by just providing two targets for each rifle registered...one record and one practice. I'd wager most of us sight in on a regular target, then use the practice GH target to get a feel for the sight picture. You can also use pasties on the practice target instead of posting a new target each time.
To your question regarding email...I wholeheartedly agree to do everything else by email. In this day and age, there's no reason for anyone to have to print forms and use snail mail to go back and forth (maybe with the exception of sending a check to register.) Let's face it, if the members who want to participate are reading this forum, they have a means to read/respond to email.
BTW, I think your suggestion a few posts above regarding PB/GC is a good one; separate them into classes (just like scopes & IS.) I'd also allow any scope, so guys like me who have a 6-18X on my 1885 don't have to change it for one shoot. If you think the GH jumps around with 4X, try a 6X and watch him dance! Ed
Growing old is mandatory, growing up, however, is totally optional!
Attached Files
Ed
You are on target. It will be any power scope as suggested by many. The option of providing fewer targets was where Ken and I were going to go with the next post. You are ahead of us. It is useful to think about the targets as almost $1 @ by the time they are in the shooters hands.
Jim
Attached Files
Jim
Agree, doing all communication by email.
Bob
Attached Files
would it be possible to come up with a target we could print on a personal printer
maybe 4 sections taped together, take a picture and submit it, we did it a similar way when Pat Iffland was running the muzzleloader shoot
if you put a colored paper behind the target the holes show with distinction
Attached Files
We just started thinking about about some way to electronically transmit the target or replicate the target. Frankly we were thinking about this from the standpoint of allowing participation by our international members. Canada works with regular old mail of course.
I don't think we should reinvent the wheel here unless there is a tangible outcome. I can mail 6 targets for about $1.75. This of course does not include the cost of the targets. For me part of the charm is the use of the actual NRA target. When you staple up that target and get out the cross sticks, other shooters on the line just naturally come down to see what on earth you are doing. Good recruiting that.
Jim
Attached Files
Jim,
I think we all would pay for the cost of targets and postage. To have fun in this kind of shoot is worth the price of admission!
Thanks for all your time you are spending on this.
Jon
Jon Welda CW5 USA Ret.
Attached Files
You can count me in on this. Love shooting the GH regardless of range!
Attached Files
Maybe for 100-yards our allowable field positions rule can be bent a bit?
when I shot prairie dogs, it was always from a supported rest of some sort. Maybe a contractor’s pail with a couple of sand bags on it or prone with a couple of bags under the firearm of the rifle resting on the ground. Those were “field positions”. But... that was well in excess of 200-300 yards.
For this new game in 2019 could stab in the ground x-sticks be allowed? If you thought the hog was jumping around at 50-yards from a sitting position...wait until the little devil is at 100-yards....and your gun weighs 12-pounds.
I sold my PDog gun—-Stolle Panda 6BR—-watched the movie Quigley Down Under 10- times too many—-and bought my Model 74 Sharps. I look for any excuse to shoot it and will for this 2019 enterprise, regardless of the “rules”
Just askin’!
Tom
Attached Files
Tom
Good point about rest that can be used. If we were shooting GH, certainly would be using sand bags, or something under the firearm to make it more stable, I'm sure that GH is going to really be dancing around at 100yds- can't hardly wait for this shoot. It will be a humbling experience, but fun.
Bob
Attached Files
Bob & Tom,
While I appreciate that using sandbags is a good idea for shooting GH (or Prairie Dogs) at ranges >200 yds, I think the simplicity of “standard” field positions with/without handheld shooting sticks is what makes this shoot challenging and fun. If you allow Homer buckets and bags, then why not bipods? Would we then have another class for bag/bipod supported shooters? It certainly wouldn’t seem fair for someone to shoot sitting with sticks to be scored against someone shooting supported on sandbags. Just my $0.02. Ed
BTW, Quigley didn’t use bags! 
Growing old is mandatory, growing up, however, is totally optional!
Attached Files
Ed
See your point, but this is strictly a fun shoot that we want to get as many shooters to participate in as possible. I agree a shooter using cross sticks vs. one shooting prone off a sand bag is not equal. On the other hand I would hate to see us prevent someone from enjoying this shoot for such restrictions. I would guess that most of the shooters are experienced( nice way to say older) shooters, and it gets more difficult as the years go by and the ol' body doesn't cooperate in getting into shooting positions that we did many years ago to use sand bag or some other aid. I would no doubt use a sand bag if on a actual GH shoot. Just my .02 cents worth, and I do appreciate your input Ed. Have a great day and a enjoyable shooting season.
Bob
Attached Files
We are liberalizing several rules - any rifle -any scope -GC bullets. Everyone was OK with these changes because the use of field positions would keep this a very challenging event. I guess I am in favor of staying the course this year.
Tom - That hand canon you shoot in the matches is legal. I'll even buy your targets if you shoot that thing off cross sticks. Now before anyone gets offended Tom and have shot at least 250 matches together so this is a respectful needle LOL.
Jim
Attached Files
Quigley huh? A bucket at over 500-yards, 3 consecutive hits, off hand? Would love to see that for real! The NRA BPCR silhouette event requires offhand @ 200-meters using a rifle like Matthew's.....and there aren't very many shooters who get 5 out of 10 chickens doing that! But he's an actor and that's Hollywood.
I was not suggesting buckets or sandbags for the GH shoot. That was an example of those "field positions". I just had a comment about the use of X-Sticks.
Jim.....is it only 275 matches? Seems like a lot more than that...I must be getting old! See you Wed. at the match.
Tom
Attached Files
Everyone who spends much time with me says it seems like a lot more. Tis a puzzlement.
Jim
Attached Files
... a few nights .. ok, mornings ... mornings ago i awoke with an epiphany ...
we should call the next shoot a " Woods Walk " .... and since we are trying to pull this off sometime sooner rather than later ... how about
Fall Woods Walk ...
notice * FALL * ... we are trying for a fun shoot this fall ... hoping the weather is a little cooler by then ....
and WOODS walk ... kinda describes the sense of this fun shoot ..... shoot one of your old favorites that you might dig out for a nostalgic day in the woods .... maybe for me remembering the times here in iowa in the fall when our hedge trees dangle about a hundred hedge balls about 3 inches in diameter ....takes a pretty good whack to blow them all to pieces ...
and * WALK * points to equipment that you might actually carry with you on such a sabbatical ... maybe sticks ... heck, maybe a ground cloth ..... probably not a benchrest or a pickup hood or car window .....
more to follow, i bet ...
ken
Attached Files
We are thinking about a target due date of October 1. This would keep us clear of the Nationals as well as a number of due dates for other postal matches. Ken or I will reach out to everyone who participated in this springs match via email - but not until after we have the spring shoot wrapped up.
New sign ups send me a PM with your email address. A "me too" in the forum thread can get missed too easily.
Jim
Attached Files
Put my name on the list when communication time comes around. Ross. I'll be here all summer this year for a change, if you need help.
Attached Files
Ken,
I like your Idea. A woods walk. Perfect.
Sign me up!
Jon
Jon Welda CW5 USA Ret.
Attached Files
Aaron
20
jeff houck
20
Tom Acheson
15
Wilderness
14
John Carlson
13
sghart3578
10
MarkinEllensburg
9
Spindrift
5
alphabrass
5
SkinnerD
5
.jpg?width=50&crop=0,0,50,50)
