Target dimensions
George Branning
I need the diameters of the rings on a tournament paper target, including
the X ring. Thanks
George Branning
gbr...@ix.netcom.com
shady...@hotmail.com
gbr...@ix.netcom.com (George Branning) wrote:
> Help:
>
> I need the diameters of the rings on a tournament paper target,
including
> the X ring. Thanks
>
the innermost ring (the 10 ring or X-ring on imperial rounds) is 12cm
in diameter. There used to be an even smaller ring inside this for the
compound archers to use as a 10-ring but I believe FITA has now dropped
this.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Murray Elliot
Branning) wrote:
>Help:
>
>I need the diameters of the rings on a tournament paper target, including
>the X ring. Thanks
You'll find exact dimensions, including line widths and pantone colour
references in the FITA rules, section 7.2.1 (outdoors) and 8.2.1
(indoors)
Fita's home page can be found at:
http://www.archery.org
You'll find the rule book under "FITA constitution & rules"
Rgds,
Murray.
--
Murray
The views expressed herein are my own personal views and opinions, and are not made on behalf of Memory Corporation
Perry A. Ratcliff
follows:
20 cm Target
X-Ring: 2 cm
Spot: 4 cm
4-Ring: 12 cm
3-Ring: 20 cm
35 cm Target
X-Ring: 3.5 cm
Spot: 7 cm
4-Ring: 21 cm
3-Ring: 35 cm
50 cm Target
X-Ring: 5 cm
Spot: 10 cm
4-Ring: 30 cm
3-Ring: 50 cm
65 cm Target
X-Ring: 6.5 cm
Spot: 13 cm
4-Ring: 39 cm
3-Ring: 65 cm
Good Shooting!
Perry
George Branning
pe...@archersadvantage.com wrote:
Perry:
Thanks for the info.
At what distances do you shoot for each of the Targets above?
George
Perry A. Ratcliff
The ranges shot for each size NFAA Field target is as follows:
65 cm Target
One Position Targets: 55, 60, 65 yards
Four Position Targets: 80, 70, 60, 50 yards
50 cm Target
One Position Targets: 40, 45, 50 yards
Four Position Targets: 45, 40, 35, 30 yards
35 cm Target
One Position Targets: 30, 25, 20, 15 yards
20 cm Target
Four Position Targets: 35, 30, 25, 20 feet
NFAA Field Rounds are my favorite shooting rounds. Unfortunately, I do not
have room to set up a field range at home. To practice for field rounds at
home, I have scaled all of the targets up or down in size to shoot at 20
yards. For example, to simulate shooting a 65 cm target at 80 yards, you
would scale the spot size down from 13 cm to 4.33 cm. To simulate shooting
a 65 cm target at 70 yards, you would scale the same 13 cm spot to 4.44
cm. For a 20 cm target at 20 feet, you would scale a 4 cm spot up to 12cm.
You would be surprised at how effective this is in simulating shooting a
Field Round at 20 yards. You go through many of the same physiological
changes when shooting at different spot sizes at 20 yards as you would out
on a field range. You tighten up on the small spots and get sloppy on the
big spots. In shooting a 14 target field unit at home, I score within 2-3
points of what I typically shoot at the local range. While this type of
practice may not help with wind shooting, uphill-downhill shots, or chasing
marks, it is very good at helping you prepare for field competition and
honestly evaluate your capability in this area.
I have been considering adding an article on the subject to my web site
with the calibrated spots available for printing. If there is significant
response to this, I will go ahead and do the work.
Good Shooting!
Perry
Steve Ellison
>In article <gbrann-2405...@dal-tx48-25.ix.netcom.com>,
> gbr...@ix.netcom.com (George Branning) wrote:
>> Help:
>>
>> I need the diameters of the rings on a tournament paper target,
>including
>> the X ring. Thanks
>>
>The outdoor target is 120cm in diameter and divided into 10 rings. so
>the innermost ring (the 10 ring or X-ring on imperial rounds) is 12cm
>in diameter. There used to be an even smaller ring inside this for the
>compound archers to use as a 10-ring but I believe FITA has now dropped
>this.
>
>
>--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Just to be picky, it's actually 122cm. The astute observer will notice
that that is almost exactly 4 feet, within the printer's line
thickness. For once, the Metric community followed Imperial units (at
least, they're called Imperial in england. Not sure what you call them
in the States). Might be 'cos the UK had a lot to do with FITA early
on?
Brian Simmons
from gbr...@ix.netcom.com (George Branning) contains these words:
> I need the diameters of the rings on a tournament paper target, including
> the X ring. Thanks
> gbr...@ix.netcom.com
Faces : 80cm = 31.5", 60cm = 23.6", 40cm = 15.75"
Scoring Rings (excl Clout)
On the 10 zone scoring faces, the inner gold is 1/100th the outer
gold is 3/100th
the inner red is 5/100th the outer red is 7/100th
the inner blue is 9/100th the outer blue is 11/100th
the inner black is 13/100th the outer black is 15/100th
the inner white is 17/100th the outer white is 19/100th
of the total area of the face
On the 5 zone scoring faces, the gold is 4/100th (1/25th)
(incl Vegas & Worcester) the red is 12/100th (3/25th)
the blue is 20/100th (5/25th)
the black is 28/100th (7/25th)
the white is 36/100th (9/25th)
of the total area of the face
Face size Gold Outer Colour Face Area
Dia Rings Width
122 cm 24.4 cm 12.2 cm 11689.86 cm2
80 cm 16 cm 8 cm 5026.55 cm2
60 cm 12 cm 6 cm 2827.43 cm2
40 cm 8 cm 4 cm 1256.64 cm2
16 in (40.64cm) 3"(8.13 cm) 1.6"(4.064cm) 1297.49 cm2
On 10 zone faces, the inner and outers are of equal width.
Scoring Rings - Clout
The rings are of unequal widths. The 5 zone is 1/64th of the whole area
the 4 zone is 3/64th
the 3 zone is 12/64th
the 2 zone is 20/64th
the 1 zone is 28/64th.
The face is 24 feet in diameter - this is 6 time the normal 122cm face
Inner dia 3ft, 4 zone width 1.5 ft, all other zone widths 3ft. Face
area 452.38in2, 420283.45 cm2 The area is 35.95 times the 122cm face
area.
ok ?
Brian
shady...@hotmail.com
st...@tenzone.u-net.com wrote:
>
> Just to be picky, it's actually 122cm. The astute observer will notice
> that that is almost exactly 4 feet, within the printer's line
> thickness. For once, the Metric community followed Imperial units (at
> least, they're called Imperial in england. Not sure what you call them
> in the States). Might be 'cos the UK had a lot to do with FITA early
> on?
>
Whoops, yes, I was rounding. It looks like it was some sort of US
format that was required anyway. It's a problem with posts sometimes,
there's no way of telling whether the poster requires details relating
to US or international standards, hunting or target, compound or
recurve, unless they state explicitly what their interest is. Maybe we
need a list of abbreviations, like they use in personal adds: "TC3
seeks tuning info" - translation "target compound used for 3D..." ;-)
Angus Duggan
> NFAA Field Rounds are my favorite shooting rounds. Unfortunately, I do not
> have room to set up a field range at home. To practice for field rounds at
> home, I have scaled all of the targets up or down in size to shoot at 20
> yards. For example, to simulate shooting a 65 cm target at 80 yards, you
> would scale the spot size down from 13 cm to 4.33 cm. To simulate shooting
> a 65 cm target at 70 yards, you would scale the same 13 cm spot to 4.44
> cm. For a 20 cm target at 20 feet, you would scale a 4 cm spot up to 12cm.
>
> You would be surprised at how effective this is in simulating shooting a
> Field Round at 20 yards. You go through many of the same physiological
> changes when shooting at different spot sizes at 20 yards as you would out
Perry,
I did something the same recently for Fita targets, but also took into
account the diameter of the arrow I was shooting , since I do most of my
practice at very short range (6m). Taking the arrow diameter into account
introduces a slight non-linearity, in that the 10-ring is relatively smaller
than the difference between the ring radii. I found that I got some of the
same psychological effects as sighting at the real distance. I'm not sure how
well it correlates with outdoor scores yet, but so far the evidence is that
it's not a good indicator. I shot a fake 90m round for a score of 319, which
is pretty good for any recurve. I was shooting very well that day, but I've
still never shot quite *that* well outdoors.
It could, of course, indicate that I really can shoot that well but my arrows
are different enough in fletching, drag and weight to spoil such beautiful
groups. That's what I'm hoping, anyway...
a.
--
Angus Duggan, Harlequin Inc, 1201 Third Ave, | 40lb 68" Hoyt Elan, 30"
Suite 2380, Seattle, WA 98101, U.S.A. | ACE 470, 30" Kudlacek Multirod
http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/ajcd/archery/ | AGF sight, 20 str DynaFlite
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~ajcd/archery/ | Email adverts unwelcome
Perry A. Ratcliff
You are correct in assserting that you should also scale for arrow diameter.
However, I got lazy and did not include this in my calculations. My experience
with coorelating simulated Field Rounds with Real Field Rounds has been better
than yours. My scores track very well, but my x-counts are noticably higher on
the simulated rounds.
Good Shooting!
Perry
>
Steve Ellison
Linear scaling isn't accurate. David lane took a look at the angular
dispersion as a function of distance; turns out that it doesn't go up
proportionally to distance, but theres a distance-squared contribution
(that figures if it's due to wind & weather). unfortunately, i can't
give you chapter and verse on the reference - just don't expect to
shoot real distance as well as scaled down targets (incidentally,
that's a thing i do too. But the only way I'll get 319 is to shoot 4
dozen...:-( )
On 26 May 1999 21:54:42 -0700, Angus Duggan <an...@harlequin.com>
wrote:
Perry A. Ratcliff
First everyone, please note that this response is meant as a friendly discussion.
Second, it will bore the hell out of a number of you.
I disagree that there is a distance-squared function to scaling spots over range.
There is a distance-squared relationship to the dispersion of light, but not with
pointing angles. Moving a sight from the center of a spot to the edge of a spot
can be represented by an angle. This angle can be derived from the equation:
o ASIN(Radius of Spot)/Range
Where the radius of the spot is 1/2 the diameter of the shaft in centimeters and
the Range is also represented in centimeters.
Once you know this pointing angle, you can represent the relative spot size at any
range by applying the following equation:
o SIN(Pointing Angle) * Range
If you buy into this method for determining relative spot size, you will find that
the result is a linear scale; i.e. if you shoot a target 1/4 as far away, the spot
should be 1/4 the size of the original. This means that you do not need the
complicated math above to figure out relative spot size.
An earlier post noted that to accurately represent scores on a simulated field
round, you would also have to take into account the diameter of your shaft. You
would account for this difference as follows:
o Calculate the radius of the shaft in centimeters (a 0.30” diameter shaft would
have a 0.381 centimeter radius)
o Scale the radius of the shaft up or down for the range you intend to shoot (to
simulate an 80 yard shot at 20 yards, the scaled radius would be 0.381 / 4
for .09525 centimeters)
o To properly scale your target you would adjust your spot size as follows:
reduce the spot size by the actual radius of your shaft – the scaled radius (in
this example you would reduce the scaled spot size by [0.381 - .09525] or 0.28575
centimeters)
If anyone is really interested in following this through, email me directly & I
will respond with a spreadsheet that provides these calculations. If anyone
disagrees with my assumptions, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on
the subject. It won’t improve anyone’s shooting, but the discussion exercises the
brain better than watching TV, especially during summer reruns ;-).
Good Shooting!
Perry
shady...@hotmail.com
pe...@archersadvantage.com wrote:
> Steve:
>
> I disagree that there is a distance-squared function to scaling spots
over range.
> There is a distance-squared relationship to the dispersion of light,
but not with
> pointing angles. Moving a sight from the center of a spot to the
edge of a spot
> can be represented by an angle. This angle can be derived from the
equation:
>
There is an assumption here: that arrows travel in a straight line!
I don't think Steve was arguing with this idea as a basic model, the
trouble is that it doesn't hold up experimentally for the "average"
archer. The "David Lane" Steve referred to compiled the Handicap tables
for the GNAS, by surveying a shed load of target archers in the UK. The
figures which came out of the survey suggest that the relationship is
not linear. Why? Wind and weather mostly I suspect, maybe also
something to do with downrange arrow speeds and shaft instability at
longer distances...
Narrower, heavier, faster arrows would probably be a better match to
the straight line model than wider, lighter slower ones, so I suppose
we'd see the best match from a compound hunter shooting carbons in
light wind, worst from a recurve target archer shooting aluminium
arrows on a blustery day...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Perry A. Ratcliff
o ASIN(Radius of Spot)/Range
Should have read
o ASIN(Radius of Spot/Range)
Good Shooting!
Perry
Steve Ellison
And you thought YOURS was going to be dull...
I understand the theory. I agree if you are interested in apparent
spot size. Similar triangles and all that, and not really arguable.
But that only tells you how big the target looks, not where the arrows
land. What i was saying is that they actually do land further apart
than you'd expect from a linear model, based on a fairly sound study -
unfortunately done by someone I know, not by me. What follows is what
I recall of the findings. (For the less patient, it says "They really
do scatter more at 90m than you'd expect")
What David lane did was calculate a best fit angular dispersion to
scores at each distance in a number of record status UK shoots (he had
complete records of these for the better part of a season). The
dispersion can be estimated for a given score from a model for arrow
dispersion on the face (lane used a bivariate Normal distribution,
which is not bad)
What actually happened was that the actual angular dispersion of
groups on a target gets bigger faster than you'd expect. From what I
saw of the data, I would have said that the curvature didn't really
come in until past 70m. But the score for 100Yd/90m was substantially
lower than expected for a linear model - and we're talking about
championship shoots, here, not tyros. The curvature was, I believe,
more than statistical artefact (though to be fair, a: any curved model
could have been used - a square law is just the simplest one and b:
with only a few hundred scores at each distance and a wide spread of
score, statistical accident remains possible, if unlikely; I don't
know what significance tests david used to verify the curvature))
For david's purposes - setting up consistent handicapping for the
different distances - that was important stuff. First, it accounted
for an apparent difference between male and female performance (they
both fit the same square law, but you need different straight line
models) So our UK handicap system - which seems to work very well
across outdoor target distances - now uses the same table for men and
women, where we used to use two. Second, an archer shooting
consistently at all distances should expect worse scores at longest
distance than a simple 'scaled spot' model wold predict.
And that's where we came in, with someone finding exactly that, and me
saying "that's what you'd expect from..... "
You can theorise a bit, for fun; try calculating the final angular
dispersion of projectiles that take off at small angles and then
decelerate along the target line without losing lateral velocity
significantly. I suspect it's a duff model, but it gives the right
sort of answer. Also, side winds acting with constant force lead to a
distance^2 effect (constant sideways acceleration leads to r^2 angular
dispersion) and most 90m shoots are outdoors. But to my knowledge,
no-one has ever tried to get a handle on all that for archery; david
stopped at the empirical rule he needed. It would be interesting if
anyone knows of comparable studies on other projectiles - someone with
a military mind must have done that sometime.
On Mon, 31 May 1999 21:08:12 -0700, "Perry A. Ratcliff"
<pe...@archersadvantage.com> wrote:
>Steve:
>
>First everyone, please note that this response is meant as a friendly discussion.
>Second, it will bore the hell out of a number of you.
>
>I disagree that there is a distance-squared function to scaling spots over range.
>There is a distance-squared relationship to the dispersion of light, but not with
>pointing angles. Moving a sight from the center of a spot to the edge of a spot
>can be represented by an angle. This angle can be derived from the equation:
Ken Laux
> sort of answer. Also, side winds acting with constant force lead to a
> distance^2 effect (constant sideways acceleration leads to r^2 angular
> dispersion) and most 90m shoots are outdoors.
That fact alone is enough to prove your point, and should be
comprehensible to anyone with high school-level physics knowledge. (No
need to stipulate "side" winds though; the same is true for components
in the vertical direction)
> But to my knowledge,
> no-one has ever tried to get a handle on all that for archery; david
> stopped at the empirical rule he needed. It would be interesting if
> anyone knows of comparable studies on other projectiles - someone with
> a military mind must have done that sometime.
There have been any number of analyses of projectile trajectories with
wind present; one of the first was by one of the greatest minds of
Western civilization (though not a military man), Isaac Newton in his
/Principia/ (publ. 1686)....
Ken
Perry A. Ratcliff
I agree with both of you about wind effects being magnified at longer
distances. A second non-linear effect is the slight variations in speed
that result from inconsistent draw length from shot to shot. At shorter
ranges, you are unlikely to notice the difference in impact from these
slight changes in speed but will see them much more clearly at longer
distances (that is if you could shoot accurate enough otherwise).
Despite these factors, I still think practicing at scaled spots is helpful
preparation for field shooting.
Good Shooting!
Perry
Ronny Yurong
be hosting an indoor McKenzie's targetface tournament. The simulated animal
target faces is proportioned to 40 yds.
Ronny
Michael Ney
ballistics of all this. Clearly, the influences of wind and weather will
be greater the longer the arrow is exposed to them. Similarly, over a
short distance the arrow trajectory will be far flatter and its velocity
greater than at the "real" 60m, 70m and 90m. One cannot, therefore,
project a direct comparison and say that by practicing in the back
garden on a 20cm face at 12yds this will be the exact equivalent of a
120cm face at the real 80yds or 90m or whatever. Scoring the round will
never be completely realistic. The best it will do is give a rough guide
as to one's form.
After all, if it were that easy, wouldn't we just set up the stands at,
say, 30 yds and plink away at different sized faces rather than go
through all the tedious target or shooting-line moving we do on most of
the outdoor rounds?
--
Michael Ney
Marty Sasaki
psychological differences, I find the main difference with longer
distances is body position. To compensate for this I would put the
longer distance targets higher on the target butt.
There is a difference between the arrow path length and the distance
from the shooting line to the target. With faster bows, this
difference is relatively small. With slower bows, or arrows with more
drag this could be significant.
Is this difference significant enough to factored into target size
calculations or effects of wind?
Marty Sasaki
Steve Ellison
>worst from a recurve target archer shooting aluminium
>arrows on a blustery day...
Yup, thass me. 1913 XX75's out of 37lb at 90m in a gale for 10 years.
ACE's and a new bow now; something's improved over last year - but
that may just be the price incentive...
Actually, X10's should be a tad better if the speed's there. Smaller
shaft and a bit more mass should tighten it up at 90m. I'm dreaming...
Steve Ellison
<pe...@archersadvantage.com> wrote:
>Well, I think we have just about beat this dead horse as far as it can go.
>
Oh, I don't know.... I'm sure it twitched a minute ago ;-)
>Despite these factors, I still think practicing at scaled spots is helpful
>preparation for field shooting.
Yes indeedy. I've used it for target, myself, but the same thing holds
true. The technicalia were really about whether you can believe the
apparent score (and what's this here group about here if you can't get
technical occasionally?) .
But as far as practice goes, at the very least you get a handle on the
apparent spot size you'll see, the real aiming needs for the distances
and a very good idea of whether, say, your sight ring covers too much
of different targets before you get out there. I was doing just that
in the back garden myself t'other night, checking out different front
apertures (I've always used a pin, but I was getting concerned that it
let me aim a little off, and it wasn't always the same amount off...
:-( ). i even got about equally depressed about my groups - if you
can't get your target scores on a scaled face, it's REALLY hard to get
it for real :-(
Mark Lind
Ellison) wrote:
>Just to be picky, it's actually 122cm. The astute observer will notice
>that that is almost exactly 4 feet, within the printer's line
>thickness. For once, the Metric community followed Imperial units (at
>least, they're called Imperial in england. Not sure what you call them
>in the States).
Over here, we are much more biggoted. We call them "conventional
units". I guess that would suggest that all the other countries
(except the UK and US) are UNconventional.
Mark
-+-+-+-+-
Mark W. Lind
mark...@pacbell.net