Thoughts on reforming RF

If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true

Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H

Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
Mike M.
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:59 am

Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Mike M. »

I'd like to throw out some ideas I've had concerning Rapid Fire, see what people think....

1. At present, RF is a very rare sport. Mostly due to the lack of RF target bays. These are good for little other than RF, but are too large and often too fragile to be left at most ranges unattended - the Duffer Brigade will shoot them to shreds.

2. RF also suffers from being slow to score. Especially since if you are trying to use a shot timer, you have to score after every series.

3. To keep RF viable in the long term, changes are needed. In particular, we need a target system that is inexpensive enough for the average competitor to own personally, compact enough for him to carry in the back of his car to the range for training...and possibly for competitions.

4. In revising the target system, we must remember that the current 25m target bay is 3.5 meters wide (.75m center-to-center, plus one 0.5 meter target diameter). An RF Air target bay would therefore be 1.4 meters at 10 meters distance...about 5 feet. Which is marginal for car transport. SUV or pickup truck. That's IF you wanted to go for RF Air...which ISSF has taken a fairly hard line against. I don't blame them, they know that if RF Air were made an Olympic event today, there would be legislation banning RF pistols in a half-dozen countries tomorrow morning.

5. The other option would be adopt a smaller target. Bear in mind that we effectively have DONE that with the RF final. A target the size of the 8 or 9 ring is shootable...and offers the option to tighten up the spacing. To fit five targets into the space that we fit three today.

6. The other advantage of a smaller target would be that it could be implemented as either a falling plate or a breakable target (clay pigeon, perhaps?) system. Easily scored on a hit/miss basis (hey, just like the RF final), easy for spectators to understand.

Thoughts? Other than my having drunk too much Scotch?
merlin32
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2023 10:44 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by merlin32 »

are you talking about 25m RFP targets or are you advocating clubs start shooting 10m RFP? I'm struggling to understand why RFP is an issue - perhaps our ranges in aus are set up differently?

down here in aus, for 25m RFP, we use turning targets - so a range set up with 15 turning targets 3 lots of 5 targets, so you can have 3 people shooting a RFP match, or 8 bays/shooters using single targets for the other 25m disciplines on every second target position.

In practice, I might do 4 rounds of shots or more before going out and scoring/patching targets. In regard to using a shot timer, I use this for practice, I just set a 7 second delay, and then a 4 second par time. But in a match, I use the range timer to turn the targets - that pretty much does the delay + 4 seconds of facing time.
User avatar
Azmodan
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:00 pm
Location: Romania

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Azmodan »

or just abandon RF (and centerfire) and have everybody shoot the 25m pistol, the event that is now shot only by women and juniors
Airpistol: Feinwerkbau 100 / Feinwerkbau P8X
STP: Walther GSP 22
CFP: Walther GSP 32
Freepistol: TOZ-35
PPC: CZ Shadow 2
PCC: Nova Modul CTS9
User avatar
rmca
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:55 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by rmca »

Mike,

I believe that your comments on RF come from a place were shooting ranges are not set up for ISSF 25m disciplines.
If so, any of the ISSF disciplines would be difficult to train/compete in if you have to set everything up from scratch, especially RF.
Beside this, even in countries with ranges set up for 25m ISSF, RF doesn't seam to have the same appeal than the other disciplines. This manifests in lower number of participants, fewer matches, etc. At least this is what is happening in my country.
I don't think the 5 lanes per shooter is the problem, although it doesn't help.
RF is a event were you find out that you suck very fast. It takes a lot of practice to get ok at it, and a lot more to be good.
Excellent is another level altogether... Most people egos can't cope with it.
It also demands a lot of ammo, making it the more expensive of the 25m ISSF disciplines in the long run. When a practice session can easily demand 300 to 500 rounds, this quickly adds up. And this is at amateur levels...

I don't see a bright future for RF, which is unfortunately, because it's very fun to shoot it...
Azmodan wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2024 2:06 am or just abandon RF (and centerfire) and have everybody shoot the 25m pistol, the event that is now shot only by women and juniors
If I was to bet on a change, this would be it.
User avatar
j-team
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:48 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by j-team »

rmca wrote: Mon Apr 08, 2024 8:40 am
RF is a event were you find out that you suck very fast. It takes a lot of practice to get ok at it, and a lot more to be good.
Excellent is another level altogether... Most people egos can't cope with it.
It also demands a lot of ammo, making it the more expensive of the 25m ISSF disciplines in the long run. When a practice session can easily demand 300 to 500 rounds, this quickly adds up. And this is at amateur levels...

I don't see a bright future for RF, which is unfortunately, because it's very fun to shoot it...
Totally agree with this. The current generation don't seem to have the dedication to do any of the "hard" shooting disciplines, it's not just RF that is suffering.
Mike M.
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:59 am

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Mike M. »

Here in the United States, I don't think there are more than 20 RF bays...in a county with 320 million people. Part of this is the cost - an RF bay is several thousand dollars. Part is the fragility - an RF bay can't be left out for the Duffer Brigade to shoot up with 9mm. My thinking is that RF could be a lot more popular if we had more RF bays. Which implies an RF bay small enough for a shooter to put in his car and take home.

No, I'm not talking about RF Air. ISSF looked at that and said "NO". And I agree with that. I'm thinking about a plate system, cheap enough for a competitor to own personally, compact enough for him to put in an ordinary car (NOT a truck). And with HIT/MISS scoring easily seen for fast, easy scoring.
David M
Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:43 pm

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by David M »

If you can find 5 fixed targets then have your own light system to clip on for timing training.
Kight should be easy to transport.
Grippy
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:05 pm

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Grippy »

I'm not convinced accessibility of capable ranges is really what prevents wider adoption of RF. Here in Switzerland 25m ranges with that capability are ubiquitous yet basically no one recreationally shoots rapid fire. Even if you have the capability, holding competitions is still impractical. You end up with like a 1:1 ratio of people staffing and competing. Also it is "too hard" in the sense that the amount of training required to consistently do ok in the 4s is just impractical for such a niche. A capable shooter can shoot most of the other "exotic" ISSF events on the side. But RF requires a disproportionate amount of very specific dedication.

The one change I'd like to see is the ISSF in general acknowledging that there is competition outside the Olympics and world cups. Since that seems the only thing they consider when writing the regulations. There should be some concept of more "amateur" competition. Which among others could have an adjusted RF event that uses 10s, 8s and 6s for example.
dino911
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:35 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by dino911 »

" Which among others could have an adjusted RF event that uses 10s, 8s and 6s for example. "
that is a great idea , as we get older the 4 second series are getting impossible...
lyoke3
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2021 7:57 am

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by lyoke3 »

I really enjoy RF. I spend most of my training time for it by dry firing. I am lucky to have an empty open pistol bay at my club that will allow me to put up my own paper targets to make a 25M range. It does take some extra set-up time for sure.

There is a lack of matches for RF here in the US. There is more interest being gathered in some areas, which is good. Overall it has to be one of the least represented events here.

I would agree with the above comments that there is a hard training pivot when it comes to the crucial 4s series. To switch from the precision events or even Standard Pistol/Bullseye to 4s is quite the jump. I am going to spend more time on the precision side of the house with 10-20 matches coming up this year compared to the 1-2 Rapid matches.

I would be in favor of a 10,8,6 RF "fun" or amateur match. I believe SASP (I could be wrong with the group) has a version of RF that uses steel plates.

I think there is an opportunity for 10M Air RF as well. I know the idea goes back and forth but to have an RF Air match as a side match or evening match at 10M precision tournaments would be nice. I think a lot of people have 5-shot air pistols that don't get used enough.

To the original point of targets. Ciblelec in France has made some light weight electronic targets. They are relatively new and don't have the FCC certification to get them to the USA yet. But they seem to be the most affordable and transportable option I have seen yet. https://ciblelec.fr/en/
New account - locked out of previous account "lyoke2"
Gwhite
Posts: 3230
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:04 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Gwhite »

The Cibelec's appear to be designed for .22, which is fine if that is your game. However, if you read the fine print, the Cibelec targets require air gun energy greater than 5 joules, which is at the upper range for most competition air pistols. With 8.2 grain pellets, you'd need a velocity of 524 FPS, or 160 m/sec. 160 m/sec is the top of the recommended velocity for Steyrs. I think they run faster than most other air pistols. I know Morinis are spec'd at 155 m/sec max. If you shoot lighter pellets, you need to go much faster.

Basically, they look very nice for .22, but not for 10m RF.
K38
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 2:18 pm
Location: Buda, TX

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by K38 »

In the US are there more than a couple of places where you can even practice RF in the whole country? Might be better to replace RF with FP or SP in the Olympic program. At least you can practice those with rather simple range equipment.

D.
User avatar
crankythunder
Posts: 252
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:57 pm
Location: The ugly side of Hell, Michigan
Contact:

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by crankythunder »

Well, I live in Michigan, USA and there are many opportunities to compete in Bullseye Pistol Competition within a hour or so from my house. I know of many bullseye matches across the state so Bullseye Competition is holding on but struggling in this area.

I do not know of one Rapid Fire facility in the area at all which is a shame. I would love to give it a try but just do not have the opportunity without significant travel. If anybody knows of a rapid fire match close by let me know please.

Geo
JamesH
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:26 am
Location: Australia

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by JamesH »

A means to make it popular would be to create a match the duffer brigade can shoot with their 9mm - 8, 6, 4 seconds with two hands is doable.
Then they can move on to one hand and .22

I'm surprised CISM hasn't become popular as a means of progressing 9mm duffers into target shooting.

As for targets all the mechanism can be hidden and protected, all you need is five pieces of plywood or corflute standing up - Bisley was set up this way
It could be made robust enough to survive 9mm strikes so it doesn't need protection, or if it only needs to survive .22 it could be lightweight and portable.

Failing that I'm sure the olympics would be very happy to switch to 10m rapid fire and not have the (minimal) trouble of setting up live fire ranges.
10m five shot air pistol would be far more accessible for the average person to get into, could train at home etc etc.
Dr. Jim
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Dr. Jim »

All that went on thirty years ago, but didn’t find enough traction and it seems ISSF has abandoned it. At least some of those rapidfire air pistols are still around. Maybe you could lead a resurrection?

Cheers. Dr Jim
David M
Posts: 1633
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:43 pm

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by David M »

JamesH wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:39 am A means to make it popular would be to create a match the duffer brigade can shoot with their 9mm - 8, 6, 4 seconds with two hands is doable.
Then they can move on to one hand and .22
Shooting Rapisfire with a 9mm exists..in Action match.

NRA ACTION PISTOL SHOOTING RULES
REVISED JANUARY, 2012
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
Official Rules for NRA Action Pistol Shooting Matches

7. COURSES OF FIRE

7.4 International Rapid Fire Modified - This course will be 30 shots at 25 meters. The course is subdivided
into 6 strings of 5 shots each, two in 8 seconds, two in 6 seconds, and two in 4 seconds.

17.5 Courses of Fire for Which National Records Are Recognized -
NOTE: National Action Pistol Shooting Records are maintained for scores fired over the following courses for
"Open," "Woman," "Junior" and "Senior" categories.
Records in the above categories will be maintained for “Production Firearm” "Optical Sights", "Metallic Sights"
for "Outdoor" and "Indoor" courses.
(d) International Rapid Fire modified

19.4 Matches Used for Individual Classification - Scores used for Action Pistol classification and Rimfire
Action Pistol or reclassification include all scores fired in NRA sanctioned individual and team competitions of the
types defined in Rule 1.6 (except Postal Matches) over the following courses of fire:
(c) International Rapid Fire Modified
Mike M.
Posts: 665
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 11:59 am

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Mike M. »

Dr. Jim wrote: Mon Apr 22, 2024 8:04 am All that went on thirty years ago, but didn’t find enough traction and it seems ISSF has abandoned it. At least some of those rapidfire air pistols are still around. Maybe you could lead a resurrection?
More like ISSF quietly strangled RF Air. And rightly so, in my opinion. Had it gotten traction, the IOC would have ditched RF for RF Air...and the day after, there would be legislation in a dozen countries to confiscate RF pistols.

My big point is that the current RF target set makes it impossible for a competitor to own his personal, portable RF bay. Something he can stuff into the trunk of his car, take to the range, practice, and take home. Shooting a match? Everybody brings their bays, and you can have four, six, or even ten competitors shooting at once. Hit/Miss scoring, just like the current RF Final, so it's easy to score.
Dr. Jim
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:32 pm
Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by Dr. Jim »

Mike, what you suggest was exactly like the RF air setup. Not practical for 22 fire, though I did know a father-son pair who had a ‘reduced’ 10 metre set up in their basement. Perhaps rather than the horizontal setup it might be worthwhile to break the traditions and use a modified vertical setup with standard pistol centres. Or how about a Rolodex type system that’ll flip targets up at precise intervals on a single shooting bay. This would be amenable to the ‘fire or miss’ sequence, and relatively easy to design. I know it violates tradition and history, but otherwise we may be looking at as much of a dodo as pistol shooting is likely to become in Canada under its current administration. Hope you do better.

Cheers Dr Jim
K38
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 2:18 pm
Location: Buda, TX

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by K38 »

The qualifying RF match is scored not hit or miss? or am I way off? Things change.

DLB
PirateJohn
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:33 pm

Re: Thoughts on reforming RF

Post by PirateJohn »

K38 wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:58 pm The qualifying RF match is scored not hit or miss? or am I way off? Things change.

DLB
Qualifying is integer scoring. Finals are hit/miss the 9.7 ring.
Post Reply