Difference between F class and Any/Any 600 yard target

[Chaotik]

Can someone tell me if there is any difference between these 600 yard MR-1 F-class target and the 600 yard Any/Any target in terms of size of the x-ring or 10 ring, etc.
Thanks!

 

[Lbart]

The F-Class Target is 1/2 the size of the Prone target.
600 Yard Target (a) MR-1 target—Enlarged aiming black for use in 600-yard matches only.
Aiming Black (inches)
X ring ...................................6.00
10 ring ................................12.00
9 ring ..................................18.00
8 ring ..................................24.00
7 ring ..................................36.00
Rings in White (inches)
5 ring................................60.00
6 ring................................48.00

MR-1FCA – F-Class Repair Center for use at 600 yards on 37” paper Aiming Black (inches) Rings in white (inches)
Aiming Black (inches)
X ring ...................................3.00
10 ring ..................................6.00
9 ring ..................................12.00
8 ring ..................................18.00
7 ring .................................24.00
6 ring .................................30.00
5-ring..................................36.00
Rings in white (inches) None

 

[Chaotik]

Thanks!

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Correction. The F-class target is 1/4 the size of the Prone target. We shoot on two dimensional targets. The diameter is 1/2 but the area is 1/4; there is a square in the formula.

 

[kzin]

Correction. The F-class target is 1/4 the size of the Prone target. We shoot on two dimensional targets. The diameter is 1/2 but the area is 1/4; there is a square in the formula.

No, the size is not more correct as area than diameter.
If you don't specify area or diameter (or circumference) then what you say is whatever you mean.
Size is simply ambiguous.
Given the specifications are in diameters contextually 'twice the size' fits diameter better.

 

[Warren Dean]

Correction. The F-class target is 1/4 the size of the Prone target. We shoot on two dimensional targets. The diameter is 1/2 but the area is 1/4; there is a square in the formula.

Denys....stop it.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

No, the size is not more correct as area than diameter.
If you don't specify area or diameter (or circumference) then what you say is whatever you mean.
Size is simply ambiguous.
Given the specifications are in diameters contextually 'twice the size' fits diameter better.

You're arguing using word-thinking; trying to confuse the definition of size. Waste of time and electrons.

While Larry shoots a waterline that is extremely small and thus, he's only concerned with one dimension on the target, the vast majority of shooters have to deal with two dimensions. Let me introduce you to elevation issues.

The size of the X ring in the MR-1 FC is 7 square inches, compared to 28 square inches for the X-ring in the MR-1 prone target.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Denys....stop it.

Warren, ...piss off.

I mean that in a kind, gentle manner. And happy New Year.

 

[kzin]

You're arguing using word-thinking; trying to confuse the definition of size. Waste of time and electrons.

While Larry shoots a waterline that is extremely small and thus, he's only concerned with one dimension on the target, the vast majority of shooters have to deal with two dimensions. Let me introduce you to elevation issues.

The size of the X ring in the MR-1 FC is 7 square inches, compared to 28 square inches for the X-ring in the MR-1 prone target.

You're confusing the definition of size of a circle by pretending there is one.
Your plausible argument that we should sometimes consider area over diameter does nothing to establish that size = area is correct and size=diameter is incorrect.
If you want to insist that 1/4 is correct then you have to say area, not size.

On an FC target I have half as much vertical to work with AND half as much horizontal.
I've never gotten confused and thought that a 9 at 6 oclock was an X because I was thinking in 1 dimension.
There aren't many scenarios where thinking 'quarter area' rather than 'half distance' helps.
We all make our adjustments by thinking in 1 dimension twice not two-dimensionally once.

One time I was trying to estimate my average score if my group size was the 9 ring shooting FC with an AR. THEN I had to think in area.
eta - the answer turned out to be "buy an f-class rifle"

 

[Warren Dean]

Warren, ...piss off.

I mean that in a kind, gentle manner. And happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you as well.

 

[Dgd6mm]

Dang double talk. Now I'm confused, kinda, sorta.... I'm following.

 

[Warren Dean]

All this talk of area doesn't seem to be worth much. Holding rings with knowing that each ring is an additional 1/2 minute on each side is pretty a common tactic in F-Class. The less I have to think of that kind of thing, the better for me.

 

[Rocketvapor]

What about the corners of the circles?

 

[Rope2horns]

What about the corners of the circles?

The corners only appear on the outside of the good circles....I know them well.

 

[Lbart]

SPJ,
Since Chaotik referred to F-Class & Any/Any targets, as an old NRA prone shooter I am sure he was referring to the NRA 600 yard prone target used for “any rifle, any sight” matches, not a BR target.

 

[6bra1k]

bullets do not know that you are shooting only left right, they encounter wind and bad holds/trigger pulls that induce vertical. and now we have area of the 10 ring, cause if you were shooting at a LINE that was 3" long you would not be scoring 190's.

 

[Rocketvapor]

I think you ought to get half credit for a shot in the corner.
Like 9 and a half for an almost 10 in a corner
Steel shooters often take corners as a hit.

 

[Erud]

The size of the target by area is completely meaningless, as it really doesn’t have any impact on the score. The only thing that matters is the diameter of the rings, because each shot will be measured as a radius on that circle. When scoring a target, it’s scored based on how far it is in a straight line from the center, regardless of direction. On a 600-yard f-class target the x-ring is 3” diameter, so you have 1.5” in any direction from that where you can land and still score a X. The sling target has a 6” X-ring, so you can be 3” in any direction to score an X. That’s double. Insisting that the area of the target is the relavent number just seems like a sad attempt to make one discipline seem really hard and the other seem really easy. In the end it’s important to realize that no one outside of a very small group of people gives a damn about how hard or easy it is anyways, and it’s just a dorky game that we like to waste a lot of our time and money on.

 

[6bra1k]

The size of the target by area is completely meaningless, as it really doesn’t have any impact on the score. The only thing that matters is the diameter of the rings, because each shot will be measured as a radius on that circle. When scoring a target, it’s scored based on how far it is in a straight line from the center, regardless of direction. On a 600-yard f-class target the x-ring is 3” diameter, so you have 1.5” in any direction from that where you can land and still score a X. The sling target has a 6” X-ring, so you can be 3” in any direction to score an X. That’s double. Insisting that the area of the target is the relavent number just seems like a sad attempt to make one discipline seem really hard and the other seem really easy. In the end it’s important to realize that no one outside of a very small group of people gives a damn about how hard or easy it is anyways, and it’s just a dorky game that we like to waste a lot of our time and money on

for those that Failed math, that is called AREA.

 

[kzin]

for those that Failed math, that is called AREA.

Nobody disputes that diameter and area are mathematically related ways of looking at the same thing.

What is in dispute is if looking at targets in terms of area is in some way more correct or advantageous.

I agree with Erud that the absolute essential core that we're measure by is directionless, unsigned 1-dimensional distance from center. For decades we've used pre-printed circles as the best field expedient method for measuring distance from center. I haven't seen the source code but I bet etargets compute distance from center and compare it to reference values for points.

I doubt if anybody has ever forgetten that the target is two dimensional because they accepted diameter as the basis of comparison between targets.