Re: OP. Understand. Nevertheless, the world has changed. Lots of folks go to the range who have no interest in more formal type target shooting. They are more tactical and action oriented. Fine. Years ago servicemen fired at bullseye targets. Nowadays their training is not shooting targets in another time zone but hitting reactionary targets at the ranges they will more likely engage with the enemy. Good. Such training is more practical. It has more utility.
The range of which I am a member has provision for shooting paper targets at 7, 15 and 25 yds. This is a improvement over simply having 25 yd. target frames. Membership has grown from about 125 to over 400; most of the new members much prefer the less formal shooting. Steel plates have been installed at 25yds. On the rifle range a plate has been installed at 200 yds. This is a good thing. Better will be when these plates are installed at shorter ranges as appropriate. It is no different than when the Army went from shooting at odd looking silhouettes of the post indian-war era to the more common bullseye targets. JMHO.
There is good reason to hope that the shooting sports will show a increase in participation. Young people in school or just married with small children do not typically have piles of disposable income. Guns and ammunition are expensive. Places to shoot are not easily found. Many local govt.'s are not sympathetic to the idea of building ranges due to the issues of land usage, objections of adjoining land owners, zoning, etc. It is a very good forward thinking idea for clubs/ranges to offer more than just traditional target shooting. Reactive targets, combat/tactical type shooting has a much wider appeal. Sincerely. bruce.
" Unlike most conservatives, libs have no problem exploiting dead children and dancing on their graves."