Load Development Targets - feedback wanted

[Glassaholic]

Wasn't sure which forum was the best to post this so thought I'd start here since it is related to reloading (load development). I've visited a lot of websites and grabbed a lot of nice "free" targets but none of them really gave me what I wanted for load development work so I decided to design my own. Please provide constructive criticism on the attached targets, I'm sure I forgot something but wanted to get these out there to get some feedback on how they can be improved. I designed these using CAD so they are accurate with the mil grid. I tried to place the items that won't change much for each target at the top and then the section below each bullseye with the information that will change for each group. I also designed them to be printed on 8.5x11 card stock and allow room at the top for a 3 hole punch to be put into a 3 ring binder for future reference/storage. Finally, these are free of charge so please feel free to print them out for your own purposes. Thank you.

03-13 - Updated PDF's with changes to include ogive and pressure signs, made a High Magnification version and a Low Magnification version (with larger center dot)

03-14 - Added new PDF of 6 zone/bullseye target. Smaller font and minimum area to write information, but more rounds on target.

04-05 - Updated all targets and eliminated the small center dot version altogether, unless there is a glaring error, these should be the final versions.

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

That's a great looking target! The only things I would request is a colored Bullseye.

 

[Juggerxxx]

Look great! I never reference COAL so base to ogive would be preferable for me.

 

[Glassaholic]

That's a great looking target! The only things I would request is a colored Bullseye.

Thank you Doc, curious, I've used targets with red center dots before and never found them to be much of a help over black/gray. How do you find the colored bullseye to be helpful and which color would be most beneficial?

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

I really like the red, orange or dare I ask for a "hot pink" color. I shoot in AZ so that color really POP's out her. I think it helps me really focus on where I want to hold my aim and the rest kinds fades into the background.

Also as much as this is helpful for experienced shooters I often take new shooters with me and it would be easier to explain to them you want to aim for the "orange" and see have your crosshairs split into 4 equal pieces.

I hope you don't mind I took some liberties with your document and added some color. I made the cold bore pink just to indicate it is different than the others, again a reference for new shooters.

Also I went through my old targets and I find I reference my OAL to the Ogive, I find with OTM projos I get more repeatability with this measurement.

 

[USPcompact]

Those look great.

I also use 8.5x11 card stock in a three-ring binder. The only thing I'd change is to rotate the data fields 90° so that the target card can face the reference page where I noted the loading process used to assemble the rounds that were fired on the target.

 

[vitalemj]

I designed these using CAD so they are accurate with the mil grid.

Thanks, I was just going to look for something like the ones we used to use to confirm zero every morning. These are pretty close.
I didn't print this out and measure, are the small grids in 1/4" or are they in mils?

 

[Glassaholic]

Those look great.

I also use 8.5x11 card stock in a three-ring binder. The only thing I'd change is to rotate the data fields 90° so that the target card can face the reference page where I noted the loading process used to assemble the rounds that were fired on the target.

I'm not quite sure I follow, when you say turn the data fields I'm assuming you mean the ones at the bottom with velocity and all that, but what do you mean by reference page, what reference page?

 

[Glassaholic]

Look great! I never reference COAL so base to ogive would be preferable for me.

Do you think I should have both, a box for COAL and a box for Ogive or just one and label COAL/Ogive: that way if someone prefers COAL they can use the box and circle COAL or vice versa.

 

[Glassaholic]

Thanks, I was just going to look for something like the ones we used to use to confirm zero every morning. These are pretty close.
I didn't print this out and measure, are the small grids in 1/4" or are they in mils?

It is in the fine print at the top left, you'll see it says .1 mil grid, but I decided to mark a dimension within each target zone so it can be quickly referenced. I also put a faint 1" square around each target center, this is to verify after you print, make sure that square is 1" square on the printed piece of paper, it should be if you use "Actual Size" when printing from your PDF reader.

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

Do you think I should have both, a box for COAL and a box for Ogive or just one and label COAL/Ogive: that way if someone prefers COAL they can use the box and circle COAL or vice versa.

Maybe a check box to indicate which way you measure your rounds?

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you all for your feedback. Please see my original post above (top), I have replaced the original targets with the v2 versions based on feedback so far.

 

[Glassaholic]

Went out today and put your target to the test. First thing I noticed was with my 2.5-10x scope I had trouble making out the "Orange Dot" I made. I know that's a limitation of my scope and a better scope may not have that issue. I was able to line up my crosshairs fairly well.

For this particular scope I will fill in the full circle w color.

Also I printed off but forgot the other target so I had to zero on this as well. All in all I really think you have something great going on here. Thank you!

That's great feedback Doc, you beat me to the range Hoping to get out Friday. So it sounds like it would be beneficial for lower powered scopes if the .2 mil outer circle were solid color, so maybe I'll make a high magnification version and a low mag version.

 

[vitalemj]

It is in the fine print at the top left, you'll see it says .1 mil grid, but I decided to mark a dimension within each target zone so it can be quickly referenced. I also put a faint 1" square around each target center, this is to verify after you print, make sure that square is 1" square on the printed piece of paper, it should be if you use "Actual Size" when printing from your PDF reader.

Ok, I see it now. didn't read the fine print. This is pretty good work. Thanks, I for one appreciate the effort.

Do you think I should have both, a box for COAL and a box for Ogive or just one and label COAL/Ogive: that way if someone prefers COAL they can use the box and circle COAL or vice versa.

Not sure how most people feel but it seems the COAL/Ogive in one box would be easiest. If people prefer one or the other there doesn't seem to be a need for an extra box down south that's going to get left blank. And if anyone uses both they could just write it "COAL/Ogive: 2.9105/2.177"

 

[spife7980]

Thank you all for your feedback. Please see my original post above (top), I have replaced the original targets with the v2 versions based on feedback so far.

I dont see anything linked in the original post now... That said I dont mind color so long as it still prints out with clear differentiation when printed black and white. So no light pinks or greens but a dark color would be fine.

 

[USPcompact]

I'm not quite sure I follow, when you say turn the data fields I'm assuming you mean the ones at the bottom with velocity and all that, but what do you mean by reference page, what reference page?

The one I make with details on what steps were used in the loading process to assemble the rounds that were fired on the target. I also record lot numbers for powder, primer, and bullets, how many firings are on the brass, annealed or not, etc.

The way my binder is organized, having the target oriented in portrait instead of landscape makes it easy to reference between load variables and results on target.

The one I typically shoot uses alternating white and an almost fluorescent green rings with a spacing of .2 mil for each colored ring. The green I settled on, to me, stands out better than either red or orange.

My targets don’t have any spaces to record load data. I like yours better.

 

[Glassaholic]

I dont see anything linked in the original post now... That said I dont mind color so long as it still prints out with clear differentiation when printed black and white. So no light pinks or greens but a dark color would be fine.

Sorry, took them out while making changes and then took the dogs for a walk and forgot to add them back in. They are back up now and I have added the new low mag versions with larger center dot. I also did the colors so that when printed out in grayscale they still show up nicely. I also changed the COAL section to include COAL and Ogive with a check box next to each, let me know what you all think.

 

[Glassaholic]

The one I make with details on what steps were used in the loading process to assemble the rounds that were fired on the target. I also record lot numbers for powder, primer, and bullets, how many firings are on the brass, annealed or not, etc.

The way my binder is organized, having the target oriented in portrait instead of landscape makes it easy to reference between load variables and results on target.

The one I typically shoot uses alternating white and an almost fluorescent green rings with a spacing of .2 mil for each colored ring. The green I settled on, to me, stands out better than either red or orange.

My targets don’t have any spaces to record load data. I like yours better.

Can you attach a picture of one of your targets as an example. I thought of putting in a section for # FIRED, but had not thought of Annealing. Lot numbers for primers, powder and bullets can be put on the lines for those in the top section, but I wonder if # FIRED and ANNEALED should be in the bottom section instead of the top.

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

That's great feedback Doc, you beat me to the range Hoping to get out Friday. So it sounds like it would be beneficial for lower powered scopes if the .2 mil outer circle were solid color, so maybe I'll make a high magnification version and a low mag version.

Happy to help.

I think having both would be beneficial. I've also been thinking about the color option. As some else stated a high contrast color that prints nice and dark would work well for anyone running an illuminated reticle that might wash out against an orange target.

 

[USPcompact]

Can you attach a picture of one of your targets as an example. I thought of putting in a section for # FIRED, but had not thought of Annealing. Lot numbers for primers, powder and bullets can be put on the lines for those in the top section, but I wonder if # FIRED and ANNEALED should be in the bottom section instead of the top.

Probably top, as I only rarely mess with annealing variations on target. This happens for me very early in load development and then I settle on a number that gets used for the life of the brass/barrel.

I’d put #FIRED in the bottom as I don’t mix brass batches on the same target, but I very often have brass batches with differing numbers of firings in the same range trip. For example, target 1 on the sheet may be brass fired 4 times while target 2 may be brass fired 5 times.

The target I made and use only contains data recorded when the target is shot - velocity, ES, SD, and environmental. The “reference sheet” I mentioned earlier is created as/when the rounds are loaded and is just a blank sheet with the info written on it.

I’ll upload the actual target later this evening when I get back to my iPad, but it’s nothing impressive.

Edit: Turns out I had it with me. This is for a Tikka CTR in .260, and is a quick check to see if it liked the 130 Hybrid.

 

[Glassaholic]

^^^ Thanks USP, now I get what you're saying. You like the target to be vertical instead of horizontal or portrait vs. landscape layout. I was also trying to think of how I could get more target zones onto one sheet. I think I might try a vertical example with the 6 zones like this but with the sections for all the notes and load development details in smaller font. Looking at your data made me think of something else, Pressure Signs, that is definitely something to put in for each load group.

 

[Glassaholic]

I've updated the attachments in the first post once again, this time adding Pressure Signs (PRESS. SIGNS: ) to the zone list.

 

[Juggerxxx]

Again these are great targets and thank you for sharing. We are going to drive you crazy with suggestions but here are a few more (only if you want them)
-add a 5th target so you can fit 5 on one 8.5x17 sheet.
-add bushing size
-add neck tension or neck ID dimension

 

[USPcompact]

^^^ Thanks USP, now I get what you're saying. You like the target to be vertical instead of horizontal or portrait vs. landscape layout. I was also trying to think of how I could get more target zones onto one sheet. I think I might try a vertical example with the 6 zones like this but with the sections for all the notes and load development details in smaller font. Looking at your data made me think of something else, Pressure Signs, that is definitely something to put in for each load group.

Like I said, yours look way better. I do like a field for pressure signs.

What about a small empty box below the target data fields for recording whatever other info may be pertinent?

Say I’m checking primer seating depth. That’s not necessarily something that needs its own field, but having a space to record it would be helpful.

 

[Glassaholic]

Again these are great targets and thank you for sharing. We are going to drive you crazy with suggestions but here are a few more (only if you want them)
-add a 5th target so you can fit 5 on one 8.5x17 sheet.
-add bushing size
-add neck tension or neck ID dimension

I'm working on one with 6 zones/bullseyes right now. Regarding Bushing size and neck tension or Neck ID, would that be in the top section for all loads or in the bottom section for each zone/bullseye?

 

[Glassaholic]

Like I said, yours look way better. I do like a field for pressure signs.

What about a small empty box below the target data fields for recording whatever other info may be pertinent?

Say I’m checking primer seating depth. That’s not necessarily something that needs its own field, but having a space to record it would be helpful.

I was thinking of some empty boxes but was running out of space, I could make the box size smaller but then you'd have to write really tiny, let me think about it some more...

 

[Glassaholic]

Okay, here's my first attempt at a 6 zone target in portrait/vertical orientation. Had to put the font pretty small and used a "narrow" font but still not sure if there is enough room especially after VELOCITY AVG:. Let me know if you have other thoughts...

Edit: See first post for latest version.

 

[Juggerxxx]

Okay, here's my first attempt at a 6 zone target in portrait/vertical orientation. Had to put the font pretty small and used a "narrow" font but still not sure if there is enough room especially after VELOCITY AVG:. Let me know if you have other thoughts...

Now that is pure sexy. Awesome work man!

 

[Juggerxxx]

I'm working on one with 6 zones/bullseyes right now. Regarding Bushing size and neck tension or Neck ID, would that be in the top section for all loads or in the bottom section for each zone/bullseye?

Most likely in the top section

 

[USPcompact]

Okay, here's my first attempt at a 6 zone target in portrait/vertical orientation. Had to put the font pretty small and used a "narrow" font but still not sure if there is enough room especially after VELOCITY AVG:. Let me know if you have other thoughts...

Now THAT is slick.

 

[Bandaid]

very nice!

 

[Glassaholic]

Now that is pure sexy. Awesome work man!

Well I don't know about sexy but thanks for looking Give me feedback on how I could improve on the data strips on the sides, I'd hate to go smaller than the font I have, but if you think it would benefit then I'd be happy to try.

 

[USPcompact]

Well I don't know about sexy but thanks for looking Give me feedback on how I could improve on the data strips on the sides, I'd hate to go smaller than the font I have, but if you think it would benefit then I'd be happy to try.

Take out "Velocity" from the last three fields and just use AVG, ES, and SD, or abbreviate it and use VEL AVG, VEL ES, and VEL SD? Maybe just “#Fired" or “Times fired" instead of "Brass # Fired"?

Super nitpicky stuff, I know, but more thinking out loud than any sort of criticism.

 

[Glassaholic]

Take out "Velocity" from the last three fields and just use AVG, ES, and SD, or abbreviate it and use VEL AVG, VEL ES, and VEL SD? Maybe just “#Fired" or “Times fired" instead of "Brass # Fired"?

Super nitpicky stuff, I know, but more thinking out loud than any sort of criticism.

Don’t overlook the simple stuff. Those are good ideas, let’s see what else I can come up with tomorrow with some more updates.

 

[Glassaholic]

Made changes based on feedback to the 6 zone target, also made space below PRESS. SIGNS: to give additional space to write a note on what, if any, pressure signs were observed. The target will appear upside down in the viewer but this was to allow the proper layout for space for the 3-hole punch holes without cutting into the information too much.

 

[pmclaine]

TAG...........

 

[spife7980]

Made changes based on feedback to the 6 zone target, also made space below PRESS. SIGNS: to give additional space to write a note on what, if any, pressure signs were observed. The target will appear upside down in the viewer but this was to allow the proper layout for space for the 3-hole punch holes without cutting into the information too much.

I really like that with 6 points on one page.
I never take time to write out individual details on each target, I know what Im testing so Ill only note the one factor thats being tested so all of that extra is wasted space to me but Im just one data point. So personally I would scrap it all but that goes against every one else so far wanting more and more detail

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

Is the "0.1mil @ 100yds" shifted on accident?

 

[Glassaholic]

Is the "0.1mil @ 100yds" shifted on accident?

Good catch Doc, it's the way AutoCAD rendered it but I've now updated the files.

 

[Glassaholic]

I really like that with 6 points on one page.
I never take time to write out individual details on each target, I know what Im testing so Ill only note the one factor thats being tested so all of that extra is wasted space to me but Im just one data point. So personally I would scrap it all but that goes against every one else so far wanting more and more detail

But will you remember everything else 3 months from now, 6 months, a year? I've done the same and go back to targets and data I shot a few months previous and don't remember all the details, that's partially why I came up with this target because I don't remember as well as I used to

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you Doc for the input, it is very helpful, my trip to the range was put off so I still have yet to try these myself; however, I have added a few more features and updated the upper sections. Hopefully these will be even more usable with the new wind and light direction symbols. Check out the attached and let me know if you like these better or worse and reasons why. The four zone target was my original, it was a user request to create the six zone target and I agree, it is a bit cramped but I think works for those who want to fit in as many groups as possible, thank you.

 

[pell1203]

wjm308, you've put lots of work into creating and refining these targets! Nice job!

Perhaps once you get them all figured out, stable, and finalized, you'd consider creating a version with slightly altered grids for use at 100 meters using a 1 cm square grid (0.1 mil = 1 cm @ 100 meters).

I realize many may only have access to a 100 yard range, hence your effort to develop this target using accurate mil inch equivalents scaled to 100 yard distance (0.1 mil = 0.36" @ 100 yards).

Once again! GOOD JOB!

 

[demolitionman]

Tag for future reference. Thanks wjm.

 

[Dooby]

Really cool targets! i agree with pell1203 for the (0.1 mil = 1 cm @ 100 meters)

 

[Glassaholic]

Thank you pell. Here in the US almost every range is setup in yards and sighting in for zero at 100 yards is pretty much standard. I assume you are outside the US, so if you have access to 100 meters then you're looking for a grid that will match 1 mil at 100 meters, that makes sense. It would be very easy for me to scale any of the targets to match 1cm width, do you have a preference for which target(s) you'd like me to convert?

 

[straightshooter1]

Great job! I really like what you've done and particularly the one I've attached, as the horizontal layout makes it easier to see what's going on the the POI's in finding the node an finding the middle of the node.

There's just a couple of things "I" would change to make is a little better for "load" development:

One key element missing (which one could put in the notes section, but it'd be nice to have an actual place for it) is the Jump distance or how fare one is off the lands, which can be important to have recorded over time to help maintain accuracy.

For load development, there's no need for the small boxes/grid and just makes it look busy. Without them, it's easier to see the POI.

As much as I like to collect data, I find recording every velocity of little use. If anything, I find the High's and Lows of any string more useful (if at all). So, instead of showing all five velocities, just use some of that space for the high's and low's of the string and the string can be more than 5 shots if one so desires (you've already got a place to keep track of number of shots).

 

[Glassaholic]

For load development, there's no need for the small boxes/grid and just makes it look busy. Without them, it's easier to see the POI.

You're probably right, It makes sense for my sight in target where you might be sighting in and it's helpful sometimes to see exactly how many clicks up/down left/right but there's plenty of times I simply used the reticle to figure that out so maybe it's not that big of a deal. What is the consensus of others on that one - to grid or not to grid, also easy enough to offer both versions I suppose.

As much as I like to collect data, I find recording every velocity of little use. If anything, I find the High's and Lows of any string more useful (if at all). So, instead of showing all five velocities, just use some of that space for the high's and low's of the string and the string can be more than 5 shots if one so desires (you've already got a place to keep track of number of shots).

I hear what you're saying ss1, this was probably more a carryover of my old Chrony but now that I have my Magneto speed it will tell me the Avg, ES and SD within a string, so maybe you're right, maybe having all the numbers is not really necessary, if I cut it down to Vel High, Vel Low, Vel Avg, Vel ES and Vel SD that should be sufficient. I typically use the Average number for the ballistics app anyway. Does anyone have a good reason why having all 5 velocity numbers would be beneficial as I'm leaning towards ss1's recommendation of just having High/Low/Avg along with ES/SD.

 

[pell1203]

Thank you pell. Here in the US almost every range is setup in yards and sighting in for zero at 100 yards is pretty much standard. I assume you are outside the US, so if you have access to 100 meters then you're looking for a grid that will match 1 mil at 100 meters, that makes sense. It would be very easy for me to scale any of the targets to match 1cm width, do you have a preference for which target(s) you'd like me to convert?

wjm308, I am here in the US (western WA), just find it much easier to use mils, a 1 cm grid and to multiply and divide by ten vs dealing in MOA (1.047" @ 100yd), 0.36" grids, and dividing and multiplying by 4. Nothing wrong with MOA, it's just more mentally taxing to me than mils and base ten math.

Fortunately, in my home range we have access to distances out to 600 yards and on the 200 yard ranges we can place targets at any distances between 25-200 yards. Conveniently, there is a 100 meter distance marked as well.

No rush on this, but once all comments and improvements have been rolled in, it would be nice to get the four across target for load development converted to a cm grid. Everything is very usable and well thought out as is, so converting is more of a nitpick than anything else. Thanks again for your effort!

 

[pell1203]

With regards to grid or no grid... while doing load development, I personally find it easier to compare where shots landed on four different targets with respect to each other if there is a grid reference present.

As a compromise, perhaps a slightly grayed out grid, designed to recede into the background but still available for reference would be acceptable to most.

 

[straightshooter1]

As a compromise, perhaps a slightly grayed out grid, designed to recede into the background but still available for reference would be acceptable to most.

Yeah, good idea . . . having the grid using light gray lines would be a good compromise.