As an ex target rifle shooter who was really rather good back in the day (50.8 in the Corporation at 1000 yards on a fairly windy day, I thank you, so you know where I'm coming from), I got really rather bored of this type of shooting, since it had become less of a test of shooting than of wind judgment. This is why, at the end, I spent far more time on team shoots as coach than shooting. This is my take on how the sport lost its way, and I shall avoid NRA personality politics as far as possible... Back in the good old days, a good, target grade smle, P14 or No.4 was capable of shooting 2.5 minutes of angle with an average batch of Mk. VII ammunition provided for Bisley. Consequently, some wise chaps made the size of the bull at all distances of the order of 2.5 minutes of angle. All was well until the late 1950s. Then, the Army switched to the SLR, a four minute (plus!) of angle rifle. In contrast to the Swiss, who adapted accordingly to their new rifles on the target shooting scene, the NRA chose to slacken the link between target rifle shooting and Defence of the Realm, since they didn't like the fact that the new rifle did not shoot as straight as the old one, and enlarging the targetry to compensate was unthinkable. In addition, the new rifle was far more expensive than the old one, which would have made getting into the game more difficult (we shall return to this point in a minute...). As a result, they went down the route of heavy barrel 7.62 NATO conversions, and the traditional target shooting input into the service rifle was stopped in one fell swoop. One should consider whether the problems of the SA 80 would not have been solved rather more rapidly if the shooters and the trade had had free rein with private versions... So, standard equipment for many years after this was a converted Mauser or P14/M17 for short range, and a converted No.4 for long range. All affordable stuff, and capable of around 1.5-2MOA with the provided ammunition (on a good day). Over the years, the size of the bull did reduce ever so slightly, and once it became apparent that it was becoming slightly easy to shoot a possible, the V.-bull was introduced. Skip forward: By the mid-1990s, the old conversions, which were affordable at around Â£300 for a reasonable one, were not able to hold their own against a Musgrave/Swing/Paramount/RPA, the cheapest of which was starting at around Â£600 (which would need a new barrel in a few seasons), and you weren't getting much new for less than Â£1500 (see point about affordability above!). The accuracy of these rifles with the provided ammunition was now sub-MOA, and was only enhanced by the introduction of the 155 grain ammunition (possibly the world's most accurate FMJ [i.e. not HPBT] factory ammunition). However, the size of the bull has remained static at 1.75-2.5MOA depending on distance. So, you now have a bull which can be as much as five times as large as the inherent accuracy of the rifle and ammunition combination (0.5MOA is entirely possible; better with handloads). Hence, to be getting anywhere, you cannot be dropping a single shot into the inner, except on a really windy day. By the way, my 50.8 in the Corporation only earned me fourth place! When I raised this problem a number of years ago to an old chap, he couldn't see what the problem was: he thought it was great that even an old duffer like him could occasionally shoot a possible. I, however, argued that this was the entire problem, and while the size of the bull should be within the inherent accuracy of the rifle and ammunition combination used by the top chaps, it should be so tight that the world champion should shoot a possible occasionally, and then only on a calm day. Even though the possibility of a tighter "metric" target was mooted back in the 1990s, the old buffers didn't like it. As a result, target rifle is an inherently "negative" sport at anything above club level, in that you don't gain points by letting off a good shot, you lose them by letting off a bad one. Every shot is a bull unless you screw up. Psychologically, I don't see this as a good thing. In most shooting disciplines, e.g. ISSF air pistol, even a top shooter (570+ ex 600) who puts in a bad shot can work extra hard and pay it off, however in target rifle it is gone, never to be seen again. On one occasion, at a top-level individual match over three distances, I nearly went home after dropping a single point at 300 yards (premadonnaish, I know...). Also, this excessive bull's-eye size creates logistical problems for the NRA: when I was still shooting the Imperial meeting, they had to extend the length of the prize lists on several occasions since more than 150 people shot possibles! My personal opinion is that if you tightened the bull to around .75-1.0 MOA, and doubled the number of scoring rings at twice the density they are today, you would stop it being "easy" at the top level and would inject some life into it. it would certainly stop the boredom of loosing mediocre shots all day and yet still coming away with possibles. Merely reducing the size of the V-bull like they did in Canada (because there is no issued ammunition) is not addressing the problem at all. Just for comparison, the ISSF 300 m bull's-eye is 100 mm, which is 1.2 MOA (1.3 if you include the bullet diameter). Just my two penn'orth!