That's wasteful of space. You can get rid of one column of walls and one of the two adjacent columns of gaps, in that design, to get the same number of target ranges in a smaller space, or more ranges in (to within a one tile or so) the same width.
It's a waste of space I wasn't using, and it conserves more bolts than a space economic design.
You missed what I meant (I could have phrased it better), and thus probably also what I actually previously posted.
It's a 90-degree equivalent to your design, and being represented by the upper Z only, but...
Central to my marksdwarf training is a "low-loss archery range" design, more or less as follows:
####################
# #
+>+++++++++++++++X #
# #
+>+++++++++++++++X #
# #
...etc...
...except long enough to get maximum-length ranges.
[snip rest, that you already know]
Your design may conserve bolts that badly miss from one range, yet hits the target of another (adjacent or even further over), however, so maybe a marginal improvement in that respect. (Other than that, I'm using 2
n+3 tiles of sideways space (including external walls) rather than 4
n+1 (ditto), for
n butts. That was all. And if you've got the space and time to dig/build, no problem. Just saying. Efficiency isn't always
my watchword, either, especially if personal aesthetics trumps it. No argument sought, please do continue.)