For other disciplines, the target sizes are such that it is practically impossible to shoot the absolute result, while for AR disciplines it has been done several times now, and near perfect results don't surprise anybody anymore.
The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
.48820.0
Air Rifle targets - why so big?
Moderators: rexifelis, pilkguns
-
Lucho
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
Well said. All this talk about getting rid of plants to bring the scores down. Why not just make the scoring rings smaller?
: For other disciplines, the target sizes are such that it is practically impossible to shoot the absolute result, while for AR disciplines it has been done several times now, and near perfect results don't surprise anybody anymore.
: The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
: So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
.48824.48820
: For other disciplines, the target sizes are such that it is practically impossible to shoot the absolute result, while for AR disciplines it has been done several times now, and near perfect results don't surprise anybody anymore.
: The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
: So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
.48824.48820
-
David Levene
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
: For other disciplines, the target sizes are such that it is practically impossible to shoot the absolute result, while for AR disciplines it has been done several times now, and near perfect results don't surprise anybody anymore.
: The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
From my quick calculation, which I admit may be wrong, in order to have the same accuracy requirement on a 10m AR target as you have on a 50M rifle target the sum of the diameter of the 10 and the pellet diameter would need to be 3.2mm. That is a bit difficult with a 4.5 mm pellet.
I may be wrong.
: So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.48861.48820
: The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
From my quick calculation, which I admit may be wrong, in order to have the same accuracy requirement on a 10m AR target as you have on a 50M rifle target the sum of the diameter of the 10 and the pellet diameter would need to be 3.2mm. That is a bit difficult with a 4.5 mm pellet.
I may be wrong.
: So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.48861.48820
-
Val
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
If you change the scoring system to be such that in order to score a 10 the inner dot is to be shot out completely, than the diameter of 10 becomes the diameter of the pellet minus the diameter of the dot (4.5-1.5=3mm). If the dot is shot out partially, which is scored as 9, the diameter of the 9 is the diameter of the dot plus the diameter of the pellet: (4.5+1.5=6mm). The other rings proceed at 3mm increments.
.48864.48861
.48864.48861
-
David Levene
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
: If you change the scoring system to be such that in order to score a 10 the inner dot is to be shot out completely, than the diameter of 10 becomes the diameter of the pellet minus the diameter of the dot (4.5-1.5=3mm). If the dot is shot out partially, which is scored as 9, the diameter of the 9 is the diameter of the dot plus the diameter of the pellet: (4.5+1.5=6mm). The other rings proceed at 3mm increments.
The dot is only 0.5mm not 1.5mm
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.48865.48864
The dot is only 0.5mm not 1.5mm
dalevene-at-blueyonder.co.uk.48865.48864
-
Richard
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
Have you guys shot on AR targets and scored them I really don't think you can physically make the ten smaller. The only way to accomplish what you guys are talking about is to onlt shoot on electronic targets (how many of them exsist in NA). The perfect score thing is bull anyways. They talk about wanting to add excitment, have you ever been to a match where someone shoots a perfect score, its pretty exciting as far as shooting goes.
.48912.48824
.48912.48824
-
Mark Dennehy
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
As pointed out, reducing the size of the scoring rings is not really viable. And something does have to be done to "reduce the noise". But the one suggestion I haven't seen discussed much (and it's not my idea, so I'm not taking any credit on this one) is to shoot the entire 60-shot match as normal - but score the targets out of 10.9 as is done in the finals. It means that the maximum score will go up to 654, which isn't a round number - but who cares? It's a solution that allows for finer distinction between elite shooters, it can be applied in all scenarios from international to club shooting, it requires the purchase of an outer scoring guage for manual scoring (a matter of a few pounds/dollars, as opposed to a few hundred being lost on trousers), and it gives a better impression of the precision required for shooting.
Compared to the proposed measures, it seems far more reasonable, far more safe, and far more effective (since the odds of someone shooting 60 10.9's in a row is somewhat low, it's not likely we'll ever see a maximum score being reached).
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.48944.48820
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
As pointed out, reducing the size of the scoring rings is not really viable. And something does have to be done to "reduce the noise". But the one suggestion I haven't seen discussed much (and it's not my idea, so I'm not taking any credit on this one) is to shoot the entire 60-shot match as normal - but score the targets out of 10.9 as is done in the finals. It means that the maximum score will go up to 654, which isn't a round number - but who cares? It's a solution that allows for finer distinction between elite shooters, it can be applied in all scenarios from international to club shooting, it requires the purchase of an outer scoring guage for manual scoring (a matter of a few pounds/dollars, as opposed to a few hundred being lost on trousers), and it gives a better impression of the precision required for shooting.
Compared to the proposed measures, it seems far more reasonable, far more safe, and far more effective (since the odds of someone shooting 60 10.9's in a row is somewhat low, it's not likely we'll ever see a maximum score being reached).
mark.dennehy-at-cs.tcd.ie.48944.48820
-
Steve
Re: Air Rifle targets - why so big?
Sorry for my ignorance, but I can't figure out the meaning of MOA.
: For other disciplines, the target sizes are such that it is practically impossible to shoot the absolute result, while for AR disciplines it has been done several times now, and near perfect results don't surprise anybody anymore.
: The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
: So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
.48986.48820
: For other disciplines, the target sizes are such that it is practically impossible to shoot the absolute result, while for AR disciplines it has been done several times now, and near perfect results don't surprise anybody anymore.
: The 50m target, for example, has the 10 size of 1.1 MOA, while for the 10m target the size is 1.72 MOA, which is 1.5x as large.
: So why did they decide to make the actual target larger, providing for the possibility of the absolute result? So they could b!tch about it later and have pseudo-reasons to ban equipment? I mean they've gone the opposite way in 50m in 1989, reducing the size of the target, in order to prevent such occurence, so I really don't know what were they thinking here.
: Also, when interpreting near-perfect results of several skilled competitors, the differentials are crudely discretized, which adds noise to the measurement of skill, increasing the probability of false positives (when we have two competitors that are very close in skill (near-perfect), if we try to measure their skills with "crude" scale, which is not fine enough to accomodate the skill differential, it would enable the lesser-skilled competitor to "outperform" the better competitor due to random noise). To put it in plain engilsh, if we compare 599 and 598, it does not necessarily mean that the first shooter is more skilled, as *on average* the second one might be better, and here the first guy simply got lucky (false positive due randomness).
: Smaller target would provide finer degree of measurement, decreasing the room for random noise, and having the numerical score a more accurate representation of skill.
.48986.48820
-
Len
MOA = Minute of Angle
Basically would be 1 inch at 100 yards...unfortunately he got the number wrong to start with so all his calcs are off as to the air rifle target.
the center bull on an air rifle target is .5mm, not 1.5 a significant difference.
.48989.48986
the center bull on an air rifle target is .5mm, not 1.5 a significant difference.
.48989.48986