Difference between F class and Any/Any 600 yard target

[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.

 

[XTR]

How many corners does a circle have?

 

[Erud]

for those that Failed math, that is called AREA.

Here's another man who needs to accept the inherent dorkiness of his hobby!

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

How many corners does a circle have?

All of them.

 

[6bra1k]

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.

when comparing the targets of TWO DIFFERENT sports, then yes AREA is important.
GROUP is measured from hole to hole, not from the center to a hole. calculated from center of hole to center of hole.

 

[Erud]

when comparing the targets of TWO DIFFERENT sports, then yes AREA is important.
GROUP is measured from hole to hole, not from the center to a hole. calculated from center of hole to center of hole.

Group size is not a factor in either f-class or prone sling shooting, which was what the original question was about. Targets for both are graded by score. Twenty X’s all touching the X-ring line are worth exactly the same as 20 all piled in one hole on the letter X. 20 piled in one hole in the 9-ring would cost you 20 points. Are you thinking of benchrest or something?

 

[kzin]

when comparing the targets of TWO DIFFERENT sports, then yes AREA is important.
GROUP is measured from hole to hole, not from the center to a hole. calculated from center of hole to center of hole.

Your argument is self defeating.
Even if we bring in group to what was a score discussion.
The definition of group that you give is linear.
Yes, the linear measurement of center to shot goes away but it's replaced by a linear measurement shot to shot.
Granted, it's the worst-case linear measurement of a two dimensional group.

The better group is usually but not necessarily the lower area.
2x2 = 4 sq in = 2 inch group = winner
1x3 = 3 sq in = 3 inch group = loser
Groups are not usually rectangular but the principle is sound.

 

[kzin]

How many corners does a circle have?

My corner
Your corner
2 neutral

 

[6bra1k]

Your argument is self defeating.
Even if we bring in group to what was a score discussion.
The definition of group that you give is linear.
Yes, the linear measurement of center to shot goes away but it's replaced by a linear measurement shot to shot.
Granted, it's the worst-case linear measurement of a two dimensional group.

The better group is usually but not necessarily the lower area.
2x2 = 4 sq in = 2 inch group = winner
1x3 = 3 sq in = 3 inch group = loser
Groups are not usually rectangular but the principle is sound.

excuse me, my last reply.
but the discussion was HORIZONTAL LINE not straight line of a group. YOUR NUMBERS only work in the discussion of ALL SHOTS are in a horizontal line. real life says that does not happen...so we are back to the original discussion not your variation....horizontal line or area......

 

[Erud]

Ok, let me try to put this a different way. In F-class and sling shooting, there is no “group”. You can look at a target at the end of a string and call that the group, but it’s only incidental, and it doesn’t count for anything. Each shot is graded individually on how far (in a straight line) it is from the center of the target. At the end, the total value of all of those shots is added up for your final score. It makes no difference how far apart shots are from each other, only how far each shot is from the center.

 

[Laurie]

Ok, let me try to put this a different way. In F-class and sling shooting, there is no “group”. You can look at a target at the end of a string and call that the group, but it’s only incidental, and it doesn’t count for anything. Each shot is graded individually on how far (in a straight line) it is from the center of the target. At the end, the total value of all of those shots is added up for your final score. It makes no difference how far apart shots are from each other, only how far each shot is from the center.

Yes, ......... and you're commenting from a US/Australian string shooting perspective. In the UK (Canada too) we shoot two or even three on the mound, firing in turn. The Shot Marker 'group statistics' at the end of a match with 40+ or in my case on New Year's day in a 600 Yard F-Match 65 rounds on target (5 non-converted 'sighters' + one second sighter converted to a score shot) with three of us on one target, are meaningless, and the two or three individual scores all that matter. With this degree of delay between each shooter's shots, even with the speed-up using e-targets, it's the combination of rifle/ammunition precision, shooter consistency on mounting the rifle, hold, tracking on bipod feet / forend / in the front-rest / sling control etc allied crucially to (re)reading the wind for each shot that gives the points and match position. It's POI elevation consistency everybody wants as using the full half-MOA from the target centre for extreme 6 or 12 o' clock strikes gives absolutely no latitude to the wind-reading call.

I remember years ago, when 'Target Rifle' (sling shooting) rings were a bit bigger, a number of the top Bisley competitors would run and run their barrels on their 'practice' or second 308 rifle up to 7,000 or more rounds (allegedly 10,000 even in a few cases) until the elevations became so poor they exceeded 2-MOA and could no longer provide a max score even with 20 perfect wind calls. Their wind-reading was so good, they'd continue to be well up the leader board even in long-range club matches with large entries. As ammunition and standards improved though and the target 'Bull' (10 to Americans) and V-Ring (X) diameters started to become 'generous' in relation to the shooters and their kit, they dropped down as more people shot HPS or only dropped a single point and the V-Count became ever more important in determining match place - as it is now in F-Class - so they had to pull their barrels when elevations increased to a full-MOA.

Another interesting if irrelevant aside is that for the first couple of years of F-Class (slightly longer in Canada I'd imagine as the F-Class story started there) we all continued to shoot on the traditional 2-MOA Bull target, but with the 1-MOA V counted as 6 points (11 in the US scoring method), so we shot F out of a total possible score of 120 in the usual 20 round match whilst the sling shooters remained at 100 + x number of Vs. Standards rose so fast (especially after 6.5-284 became the default chambering) that today's smaller ring target had to be introduced, and it was decided at international level (ICFRA) that F-Class would revert to the older xx points dot y number of Vs with 100.0v defeating 99.19v. Many competitors here didn't agree and argued that the competitors who got more shots close to the centre should beat somebody else with a larger or less well centred 'group' but which barely stayed within the 5-ring. I'm unsure as to whether the 'extra' point for Xs was ever used in US F-Class.

Bryan Litz has a nice target illustration of a perfect but inaccurate group on a target that would score nothing.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2020/01/accuracy-vs-precision-they-are-not-the-same-thing/

 

[kzin]

excuse me, my last reply.
but the discussion was HORIZONTAL LINE not straight line of a group. YOUR NUMBERS only work in the discussion of ALL SHOTS are in a horizontal line. real life says that does not happen...so we are back to the original discussion not your variation....horizontal line or area......

Wut. Who was discussing "horizontal line"? Where?

As I said myself, my examples would require unlikely rectangular groups to be exactly accurate.
I was just trying to quantify the fact that a long skinny group can be both officially bigger and have lesser area than a more roundish or squarish group.

 

[Warren Dean]

 

[Doug Beach]

In my perfect, imaginary world, we would have perfectly accurate E-targets. Each shot would generate a “score”, that was simply its distance from dead center. Your match score would be the sum of all your individual shot scores. Low score wins. This would end all concerns about whether or not a target was “hard” enough.

 

[Laurie]

In my perfect, imaginary world, we would have perfectly accurate E-targets. Each shot would generate a “score”, that was simply its distance from dead center. Your match score would be the sum of all your individual shot scores. Low score wins. This would end all concerns about whether or not a target was “hard” enough.

That's an interesting concept. The first such targets that I shot on were the older and much more expensive Kongsbergs at Blair Atholl range in the Scottish Highlands some years ago. This model gives a 'graduated' score from x.0 to x.9 for the one to four value rings and IIRC V.0 to V.5 for the V (X) ring where you cannot be more than quarter-MOA from the exact target centre. So, you knew who was the jammy b*st*rd who'd just scraped a 5 on the line with the target displaying 5.0, and also by the sucking of teeth and sometimes muttered imprecation of those who'd just missed a 5 or V being scored 4.9 or 5.9. It was treated by some as a bit of a consolation prize if they dropped a point, saying words to the effect of "Well, at least it was a 'high-scoring' 4." (or what novelist Tom Clancy refers to such and such being akin to a kiss from your sister). I never encountered anyone recording these full scores though, let alone suggesting places should be based on their aggregate value. (You'd have to go back to the V or X = 6 or 11 to make it work of course.)

 

[JEFFPPC]

In my perfect, imaginary world, we would have perfectly accurate E-targets. Each shot would generate a “score”, that was simply its distance from dead center. Your match score would be the sum of all your individual shot scores. Low score wins. This would end all concerns about whether or not a target was “hard” enough.

I believe way back when this was called a string MATCH.

 

[DR_2297]

excuse me, my last reply.
but the discussion was HORIZONTAL LINE not straight line of a group. YOUR NUMBERS only work in the discussion of ALL SHOTS are in a horizontal line. real life says that does not happen...so we are back to the original discussion not your variation....horizontal line or area......

Sure does if you hook the Shotmarker microphones up backward

 

[Old Navy]

The OP is long gone. Probably has his new targets on the way.

 

[Laurie]

The OP is long gone. Probably has his new targets on the way.

Yes, probably ............ but you can't just shut down this sort of discussion once it starts, Ha! Ha! Put 20 long-range Effers and/or sling shooters together in the range house and they'll argue till the sun sets about whether target rings are too small / too large / should be square or pear-shaped and that's before they get onto scoring systems and electronic targets.