I would love to try it. Unfortunately, I am a mac user and it is a PC based product.

Is there a mac based version or similar?

Edit: I tried to outshoot my last target with the Stealth today. I shot my best 5 shot group to date, .390" on virgin Lapua brass. Unfortunately, my other groups were not so consistent. I will be loading up some more on once fired to see if I can tighten things up. I am looking forward to pushing the envelope in the SPR division.

The one group is pretty buggered up from me folding the paper in half down the center of the group so there was a little guess work on that one.

I wasn't real happy with a couple of the trigger control issues causing a low round on a couple of the groups, but I didn't want to do the challenge more than once with this rifle because it serves a different purpose.  I would like to eventually have an entry in every division though that is why I went ahead and shot the challenge with this rifle once any way.

IM sent, it is available for MAC.

On Target for OSX






I used it on the targets from my ruger american rimfire this last weekend pretty happy with it for a $250 rifle.  I printed off a couple targets and I will hopefully have a sub MOA 5 group sheet this in a week or two when I can get to the range, l lost this entire weekend to duty.  Very cool program but I had to play around with it a little as the interface isn't all that great on the MAC version, and I screwed up the math by using .224 as the bullet size, either way I am pretty close so hopefully I will get a proper entry in this thread shortly.

-Mike

I have to admit I was bothered by my target being brought into question.  At first I was convinced I must have made an honest mistake and felt bad about it.  I have measured and rechecked my groups several times including having my mama double check.  We are both convinced that my measurements are correct after rechecking several times.  I have previously posted each individual group with calipers on it for everyone to see.  I also looked up the on target program online.  Unfortunately I don't have a paypal account so I cannot purchase the program without sending them a money order.  I was able to run the trial version of the program on my target and my results came out almost identical to the results I posted previously.  In fact the total score was within 0.005 of what it was when I used calipers to measure it.  I am not able to upload my project from on target from the free version.  I considered taking a picture of my monitor with the project open just for proof, but was afraid I would be violating some type of copyright.

I think the program is cool as shit though and may end up purchasing it anyway even if I have to mail in payment.

I don't understand how my caliper measures matched up very well with the numbers I got from on target while not matching those of Mr. LaRue's friend.  The only thing I can think of was if the reference size was done incorrectly or he didn't use the correct bullet hole size of 0.264 for the 260 Remington.  The whole thing made me even question myself, but after checking, rechecking, and even running it in on target myself I'm now convinced my numbers were accurate.

it did seem a little "call out" to randomly choose your target to scrutinize with the software

post a pic of your monitor if you want you're not violating anything, I believe you tho bro

I was able to purchase the on target program as a guest through paypal.  It says 24 to 36 hours for the unlock key to be emailed to me, but I do have the receipt of payment email from paypal now.  I will wait until I get the key emailed to me and try to figure out how to upload it then rather than risk any violations posting a picture of my monitor.  Funny thing is my score with calipers was 0.695 moa total and with the on target program first attempt was a final score of 0.694  I do really like the program and will use it from here forward to avoid these types of things in the future.

I know one picture is out of format, but do I need to edit? No problem if I need to, just want to make sure.

This was a bit of an afterthought and doesn't follow the rules to a T, so it'll be an "out of competition" entry unless y'all think otherwise.




At my range, we split the 20 shot Prone Slow course of fire into two 10 shot strings.











I fired from prone, but you get the idea.




Service Division at 100 yards, HighpowerRifleBrony, Essential Arms AR15 .223 with RRA NM barrel, RRA freefloat tube, Bushmaster NM 1/2x1/2 sights, and front and rear lead weights, 50gr VMAX handload.

0.932" + 1.026" = 1.958" = Avg. 0.979" = 0.979 MOA (edit: range confirmed 100yds, so actually, 0.935 MOA)

Now that I actually have experience with the program I can say it does have some user input that doesn't make it the be all end all and certainly no more accurate than calipers.  Since you are using your mouse to mark an item of known size to setup the reference for the program there is a little opportunity for error there.  You are also placing the holes with the mouse so there is also a human margin of error there.  I did run it a few times and got answers so close to each other that they were within the margin of error.  Certainly none of the answers I got from it were any where near as far off as yours were and all of my answers were within the margin of error of the program.  It is also more accurate with a scanned target rather than a picture of a target, but even so using my picture my answers were so close to my calipers that I feel confident in saying my original numbers I posted in my entry are as accurate as anyone else's numbers in their entries.

I suppose if you want to play with the reference size and wiggle the hole sizes around with a mouse a touch you could find a little difference with any target that has ever been posted here.

I would agree, the chance for error would mostly be dependent on the marking of the reference size. That's one reason I use the targets I do, where the squares are of a known distance, and make it easy for me to specifically mark 1". Sometimes taking the 1" measurement on a round target can be a little off, depending on the angle of the picture too.

Either way, I don't think Mark meant any offense, and he said himself he wasn't meaning it as a call out. He was just taking notice per the results a 3rd party gave him.

At the end of the day, it's still damn fine shooting by anyone's standards. You should be proud.

I trust you. You know that.

Maybe you want to check my 1665 yard shooting and make sure I'm not bluffing.  139 grain lapua scenar at 2830 ft muzzle velocity shot on March 23, 2015 near Laura Illinois at around 12 o'clock pm.  Check the time of flight with that bullet at that velocity in that density altitude at that location and time to see if I'm lying on the distance.  Actually my bushnell elite one mile range finder wouldn't range it so I took Jim's range estimate that he got using his leica range finder.  He is the guy that runs the range.  I have plenty of other long range videos as well if you want to check them out.  Maybe you want to post a video of you hitting a less than 1.5 moa target at almost a mile?
260 remington at 1665 yards

I'm sure if I was running a larue rifle my numbers wouldn't have been brought into question.  You realize we are debating a few hundredths on the average score for a target that doesn't even qualify in the top 15 of the bolt division right?  I'm out you guys can have fun with your little challenge I've already posted the pictures with calipers on each group.

In fact I want my numbers from the spr division and the red dot division removed I don't want anything to do with your little game.

Alright... Working it now!

There ya go, Mark. That's including the 6th shot in the middle. Rotated the image slightly in order to get as close to a straight 1" line as I could. 1.0128 MOA using all 5 as they are.

I saved it from a page or two back where you posted it. Let me know what targets you want done and I'll jump on it. I'll go further back to see which I can find.

ETA: You can e-mail me targets too if you want. In case they aren't uploaded or something.

At the end of the day I know what I measured with calipers and I know what I'm capable of at long ranges in any wind conditions, but I don't like people using inaccurate information to try and discredit me.  You know kind of like you with all of the nutnfancy threads you started.

Like I said I want the OP to remove my score in the spr division, the red dot division, as well as ignore my latest entry in the bolt division.

I would rather compete against you in an organized long range shooting match than compete in this online 100 yard thing anyway just to see what is really what.

It's a great test piece. The target has clear lines in order to set the reference point from a known distance. Regardless of overlapping holes or not, that's one of the biggest issues with the program. If you don't know an exact distance on it, then it's easy for people to get slightly different measurements.

BTW if you'll be up for a few more minutes, wanna knock out that thing we were talking about? I know it's late there and Easter-eve.

Lefty, I understand your frustration but you've got great groups and nothing to prove! This is all in good fun, you should keep your stuff up there.

just because you're having a spat with larue is no reason to pull out of the challenge - it's not his game you know it's a site-wide thing

asking akethan to remove you just because you had an issue with another participant is pretty

This will be my last post in this thread.

I want all my entries removed from the leader board, but I will leave all of my previous posts in this thread as they are unedited from this point forward.

I originally posted up an entry measured with calipers only with a total score of 0.695 moa.  I then used the on target program to measure the groups and got a final score of 0.694 on my first attempt.  I ran it through on target 3 times with a low of 0.694 and a high of 0.702.  With a little experience it was obvious that it was a very accurate tool, but very dependent on an accurate size reference.  I measured the dots on my target with calipers and they varied from 0.970 up to .999 so that could add in almost 0.03 which is about the amount of difference in final score between my measurement and the re-measure that I was called out on.  I then decided to take a picture of the target with a quarter on it for my size reference.  I ran the program on it this way and here is the result I got.  I have purchased the program and have receipt.  I just haven't received my unlock code so I can save and upload my finished target.  Without the unlock code it encrypts it or something so I couldn't save a useable picture.  I don't know I'm not a computer guy so maybe I'm just not doing something right.

Here are a couple pictures of my monitor to show the results.  Each group varied a little from my original numbers measured with calipers, but my total score was 0.699 moa which was 0.004 off from my caliper measurements.  The on target software claims a margin of error of 0.005 so that seems like a pretty accurate claim to me as long as you get the size reference correct.





This wasn't about the small amount of difference in total score between my measurements and your friends measurements.  This was about being called out using inaccurate data to question my integrity.  Knowing that and how many threads and comments you made about the ordeal between Larue and nutnfancy I'm sure you know exactly how I feel about this situation.  I even defended you in that discussion a few different times after I gathered some information on the subject.  

I plan to start doing long range precision tactical matches soon and have been practicing for that for a while now.  I will let my results there be my personal judgment on my progress as I still have a lot to learn.  

At the end of the day my family and I know what kind of man I am.

Your contributions to this thread are significant, lefty. Be a shame to pull out.

Here is what I got. Only counted 4 shots on the lower left, I assume that's because of the 6 shot group in the center.

Looks like there will always be slight variations. It's just the nature of the beast. I'm willing to bet it's due to the 1" reference size, as no 2 people will get that perfect unless they're using the exact same picture and the exact same reference point.

For example, when I did your target, Mark. I rotated it a few degrees so that the actual BFL, which is 1" is closer to true vertically, so that I could use a straight line when measuring top to bottom. I do this all while zooming in so that I can see the line is definitely straight. While using OnTarget you can see the estimated measurement in the bottom left, of what it is you're measuring for reference. The note in that location shows the line length and angle you're currently measuring at. I only make the entry when it's a perfectly straight line showing 1". The reason I do it this way, is because in the program, when you have an angled reference line, it's possible to actually have a line which is a hair off, and actually longer. This is probably what is causing the slight difference in results from one person to another.

ETA: It's also possible that the ever so slight difference in hole location can result in the change as well. As again, everyone will place it slightly differently.

When you add the reference line variation to the hole marking, you'll definitely see the slight difference in group size. It's an insanely small difference, but like tolerance stacking when building an AR, when you combine the multiple differences, well... You get the idea.

This. I doubt Mike_P and I are using the exact same mouse/surface for mouse. I don't have a high end gaming mouse that can sense a movement every time blood is pumped through my hand. I tried my best to get it as close as I could. While trying to do that I did see the circle twitch a little as the mouse picked up on a spot on my desk. I really need to get a mouse pad. But being off by a few hundredths isn't much in my opinion. Course I'm not in the top 5

*edit* Also want to mention, I didn't square the picture up, so measuring the lines for a reference point for the software could be an issue too. I measured off of the lines, not the BFL.

Start your own thread if you want to discuss any of this.


Go shoot and post up.  


This ain't no competition it's a friendly challenge  

This is an awesome thread im going to redo some groups this weekend with my r700 aac 308.  only have one group photographed want to do 5 groups of 5 shots see if i can beat my old .512 i have photographed ill be back soon!!!!!

Finally, the weather has broken...

Please let me know if I've done this right.

.22LR Optics @ 50 yards

Verified with a rangefinder.

Ruger 10/22, Volquartsen barrel, Timney trigger, Silencerco Sparrow, bipod.

Hawke Optics Sidewinder 8-32x

Eley segmented hollow point.

No rear bag, just fist.











22LR Magnified @50yds - goloud, 10/22, Volquartsen bbl, Timney trigger, Hawke 8-32x, Eley 40gr hollow point : .374" + .514" + .57" + .655" + .483"  AVG = 0.5192"  = .992 MOA

* I don't think I'll use the glow shot targets for future entries because measurements were tricky. In fairness, I overestimated when I couldn't tell where the grease mark landed.

* I think the hollow points I have are a little less tight then the club or match I have. Just too cheap to shoot my stash.

So after the disaster with the Grendel barrel, I've decided to go back to .223 for my SPR. This time I decided to go full on precision instead of precision/3-gun for the build. That meant a slightly longer barrel and high mag optic. Today's outing was only the second range trip with the new Krieger barrel. I wasn't actually planning on shooting the challenge today as this was my first day of load development, but the results are good enough to post. I'm hoping to improve once I find the right load. I'm open to suggestions on where to go from here as far as development goes.

Anyways pictures:




Older picture of my range because I forgot to take one today:


SPR division:
Lennyo3034: Home build 223, Krieger 7.7 twist, March F 3-24X42, 77SMK over 8208. Groups: .568"/.526"/.661"/.503"/.581"= .568" average= .542 MOA

I'm pretty happy with the results considering the barrel is nowhere close to being broken in and all groups were with different loads. It Irks me a little that the factory ammo had the lowest SD, but I've been having issues with my scale. I can measure the same charge three times and get three different results. Velocity jumped a huge amount going from 22.7 to 22.9 grains of 8208 and SD went to hell. I think the vertical dispersion in that group is telling of the SD of that group. It did not show any pressure signs however so I might push up a little more to get a little more velocity. I might also poke around the 22.5-22.7 around to see if there is a node there.

Did a trial run this weekend, but forgot to get pics of the range and my setup on the bench.

I have a magnified optic Vortex pst 1-4 x. I typically shoot it at 50 yards.

Will shooting with a AR in .223   with magnified optic at 50 yards qualify for this competition?

the 1-4x optic is not quite powerful enough at 100 yards to put decent groups together (especially with the dinky targets I had)

Only saw one other competitor using this optic and he chose to shoot at 1x @50 yards. but then he got an asterisk.

Sorta surprised there isn't a category for 1-4x optics. Any future consideration for a low power optics division?

Thanks for your help! Great shooting fellows!

lennyo3034 nice shooting!

His 1-4 is still a magnified optic even if shot a 1.

Finally got a chance to put together a submission for this thread.  Now to start working on bolt action and spr submissions.

Target set at 50yds


Unmarked target


On target was used


Calipers - I actually feel like I get slightly better numbers using the calipers, however on target gives me more useful data in an simple format


set up as I shot


1: 0.947
2: 1.250
3: 0.769
4: 1.034
5: 0.712

Total: 4.712
AVG: 0.9424

Ruger American Rimfire 22lr, Leupold 2-7 Rimfire, CCI SV ammo, Form 1 Suppressor

22lr Magnified Optics at 50yds; MJMJR1312: Ruger American Rimfire 22lr - Form 1 suppressor + Leupold VX1 2-7 rimfire  CCI SV - .496/.654/.402/.541/.373 = 0.4932 = 0.9424 MOA

Any good tips on controlling my technique so that my reticle isn't bouncing with my heartbeat while shooting prone? I can control my breathing fairly well, but trying to time the trigger break with my heart rhythm is a challenge.

When controlling your breathing you'll eventually be able to predict and feel the heartbeat. You'll end up shooting in between beats and won't have to worry about it. Sometimes it takes controlling anxiety, in which case if I'm at a range I turn my electronic ear-pro all the way off/down in order to reduce outside noise and everything that could influence the shot and my bodies reaction.

Thanks. I'm new to real precision shooting. It's fcking addictive.

Exactly. Practice when you get in bed, close your eyes and pay attention to your breathing. A couple good breaths increases the oxygen in your system and reduces the demand on your heart rate. Your heart rate will drop. Then pay attention to the pattern of your heart rate. Once you nail the relationship between your breathing and heart rate you are getting close. FWIW, the O2 levels in your system will also affect your vision. Relax, breath with purpose and enjoy the shot...

A bit different:

Ruger 77/357, 8" bbl, Volquartsen sear, Liberty Mystic, 148gr Match wad cutters. Vortex Diamondback 1.75-5x







Ruger 77/357 bolt action, magnified, Match wadcutters: 1.952 + 1.41 + 1.714 + 1.6 + 1.902 = AVG 1.76 = 3.28 MOA