PSA - Field Target (AAFTA and XFT) - April 14, 2024 - Palmyra, PA + Match Report

Hope to be there!

HM

We had a great turnout to kickoff the 2024 outdoor season at Palmyra Sportsmen's.  The weather forecast for the day of the shoot was bouncing between rain and no rain all week.  Fortunately, the day of the match turned out to be a very nice day to be outside and with no rain in sight.  However, it was windy most of the day, which caused some challenging targets to be more challenging.   

The 3 course average difficulty was 30.2 (Hard) and the individual course sections had the following avg difficulties (not including environmental factors):

• Blue - 29.6 (Moderate)
• Green - 29.4 (Hard)
• Red - 31.5 (Hard)

The Blue course was on our range, the Green course had a bunch of slightly uphill shots and some targets that were tricky in the wind, and the Red course had a bunch of downhill shots.

Scores - Each course is a possible 20, and the 3 course total is of a possible 60 (ties are not broken):

2024 Seasonal PSA FT scores are available at PSA 2024 FT League Results

The XFT course was setup on the competition range. There were 10 targets, 6 targets were kill zone type targets and 4 targets were knock down style targets.

Scores for the 20 shot XFT course are:

Thanks to everyone that came out to shoot this weekend.  We hope to see you at our next FT event on May 12.

Thanks to Rod, Mike, Troy, and all the rest of the team that setup the match!

It was great fun shooting with Brian Wagner, we went "mano a mano" for the whole course and, even if we are not in the same division/class, it was fun.

Congrats to Mark K and Brian V-L on their excellent shooting!

I am still experimenting and, for once, I think I am getting to where I want to be.

I noticed a shift in the POI's when we moved from the covered range to the open, and sunny, section of the course (green and red courses). By the lane #1 of the Red loop, I decided to sacrifice a shot and noticed there was a 0.3 mRad shift DOWN, which is somewhat concurrent with the unmounted shift of the scope when temps rise above the 80°F, but in this instance the temp had only risen to 80°F, not exceeded it. Still I took a note in the scorecard, adjusted the clicks, and continued shooting with somewhat better results.

We had a small glitch with one target that was solved by Mike as the MD for the match.

After the match, returning to selected targets (part as "revenge" and part as a learning experience, LOL!) I noticed that even under cooler conditions and under the covered range, the 0.3 mRad correction was still valid for targets in the upper lanes of the green loop.

So, I am thinking that the scope/mount/gun has begun to finally settle down to where it will stay. It's a bit annoying to pay almost $100 for the Signature mounts just to see them "settle", but it is not unheard of, so, we'll see. At least in the LGU, the ZR mounts are not an absolute necessity at 12 ft-lbs with the current "tune". And that, allows a lower LOS with the corresponding smaller sensitivity to short shots' elevations. We'll test that at DIFTA with their 3/8" KZ up close and personal.

For the time being, and after changing also the buttpad for a Morgan adjustable that I hope will be less "fragile", we'll try to get the whole thing "hooked up" for the rest of the season (IF I can resist the temptation to move things around, LOL!)

Anyway, for your viewing pleasure, here are some pictures of a wonderful day spent with friends/almost family out in the woods and the sun, shooting "metal critters".

Brian taking the kneeling shots standing.

With a wind from the left, the pellet should go to the left, right? Wrong! it goes up a little and could even go a bit left also. That wall is the cause.

Wind is always tricky at the covered range, look at the nearest wind flag going limp, while the one immediately behind is going far left.

There are times when they are going in opposing directions, LOL!

The whole of the covered range:

 And some detail of the longer targets:

That pink bunny . . . . . 

Now, let's head out into the woods

 A little bit of an upwards angle, a bit of wind here and there, some deep shadows:

Luckily, targets were white in this case.

Another example:

 And the detail:

 And then things get real tricky (even if you have only taken 2 steps between the lanes) :

 A closeup:

 This one looks like a piece of cake, right?

 Except that that is the closeup, what you really see is:

 LOL!

You get the idea. A challenging course.

Just a reminder to all MD's:

It would be very hard to justify the application of the wind factor to some targets and not to others. Unless one section is shot virtually "indoors" (and we see what shooting close to a fence sometimes is), if there is wind, there will be wind for all the course. AND the factor is a 0.25 additional figure, so if we take the 30.2 and multiply it by 1.25, then the result is 37.8 and that, my friends, is going into "Expert" territory.

In that vein, statistically speaking, there is NO WAY to recuperate the "resolution" of measuring the shooters' performances once the whole thing has been "mushed" by an overly hard course. The IDEAL course for a local "population" is one where one or two shooters gets REAL CLOSE to cleaning the course and the rest, are in a proportionate way scoring lower scores under a Gaussian bell system:

Analyzing the data of the match, would yield this:

Which means that for this crowd, under these conditions, the course would need to be planned closer to an average BTDR of 25-26 without wind to really spread out all the scores.
If you really want to raise the bar, then 27-28 is more than acceptable.

I do think this crowd presented a fairly equitable sample of the shooters in the sport, that is why I feel it is correct to use it. And, by experience, it is one of the reasons why GP's are held to a 28 T minimum, while SUCCESSFUL GP's are usually very close to that.
If you do the numbers, even the WFTC's are around that number. The New Zealand WFTC's that have been one of the hardest matches because of the wind (apart from Italy), had T ratings of: 29.1, 29.2 and 29.2 for each of the three days.

YES! we need to elevate the sport, but we also need to promote it. If we keep on pummeling the beginners and not so newbies with extremely hard courses, we are not doing the sport any service.

This year's GP scoring system is fraught with dangers, precisely because the scores are going to be adjusted to the FINAL T rating, and that opens, IMHO, the door to a LOT of personal interpretation from the responsible parties when reporting the results.

As we saw in this match, the 1.25 factor for the wind, threw a hard course into the expert territory.

Where is a definition of "Windy"?
Where do we draw the line?

On a per target basis:
Where do we start with the "Up/Down" factor?
Where do we start with the "Light/Dark" factor?

I applaud the idea of approaching a "Handicap" system, which clearly was the intent of the BoG's because the system is going to be applied per Division/Class, I just think there needs to be more clarification as to what is what.

In any case, sorry to have channeled my internal "Maths Prof", but habits die hard, LOL!

Apologies and please do not think it is rant, or a complaint, I loved the Match and I admire Palmyra in what they have achieved in less than 2 full years of existence.

Just my $0.02

Thanks again for holding the Match, keep well and shoot straight! 

HM

@hector_j_medina_g - 

I don't recall where I read it, regarding the multipliers for difficulty -

• For wind, if it is windy enough to require the cross hair be held off target (assuming this means off the KZ) to achieve the shot, then it is windy.  So, not every target would require a wind multiplier, but most of the long range targets on this day would have needed it.  Not sure how this suggestion applies when we are comparing 12fpe to 20fpe, because I am sure the hold off is less for the 20fpe guns. 
• For elevation, if +/- 15 degrees from level, or if it is uncomfortable to shoot up/down.  There were clearly a few targets that were +/-15 degrees, but I also applied the elevation multiplier to the targets in the "tunnels", figuring they were slightly uncomfortably "up".  Also, what's uncomfortable for a ground sitter vs. a bucket sitter is a up for debate.  Question, if the target is 50yds by sight, but downhill 30 degrees, what's the distance number to use in the troyer calc?  Is it 50 or ~43. 

I am not really sold on the Troyer difficulty calculation being a reflection of reality.  Take this event, the Red course was identified as the most difficult section, yet the scores suggest that's not the reality of it.  The Red section saw the highest average scores, and the Green (the easiest course) the lowest scores.  

Maybe Green's average was pulled down because it had the easiest target across all courses.  Maybe because Green had a hard standing lane compared to the other sections' forced positions.  Maybe because Green had uphills and uphills are more demanding than down hill shots.  Green had 2 more targets calculated as >35 difficulty when compared to Red.

Red had the hardest target (the 50yd downhill), calculated as a 45.8 difficulty after all the modifiers were applied.  Red's forced position lane was the easiest forced position lane of the 3. 

The average Troyer difficulty for a course is a BS number.  Good for planning purposes, but it is not a reflection of the ease or difficulty of an entire course. 

Consider these situations - 

1: A course with 22 targets that are a 45 difficulty, and the remaining 8 targets are a 10 difficulty.  Avg = 35.67

2: A course with 10 targets that are 45 difficulty, 11 that are 36 difficulty, and the remaining 9 are 25 difficulty.  Avg = 35.7

Which do you think will see the higher scores?  These are equivalent, per the average.  Because the average is equivalent, should we expect the shooters' scores to be equivalent? 

@shootermeb 

Dear Mike;

First off, thanks for answering my questions. Of course, all answers will raise even more questions, LOL!

As examples:

"Windiness":

WHO is to measure the hold-off and at what distance with which power level? The MD as he shoots the course?
OR should we look at the local weather station and determine from that whether we apply it or not?
OR, should we ask the shooters? In your covered range, even the close up targets required some wind correction, and not always sideways.

"Extreme Up or Down":

In GENERAL, inclinations or declinations higher than 15° require some correction from the ballistic standpoint, but you are right in that the "comfort" is different for uphills than for downhills.

So . . .There are many ways and the issue here is that AAFTA should give some guidelines/determinations about how to make those calls.

Now, as to the BTDR's:

There are a number of things that are not taken into account: the BTDR of the course does not take into account if you need to shift your position from shots 1-2 to 3-4 (or shots 1 to 2 in the case of single shot per target format).

Nor does it take into account some "shooting boxes" that are more challenging than others; either by confinement, or angle of the terrain, or pointy stones where you do not want them under your bumbag, etc...

So, in very many ways, we agree that the number is sort of a general idea of what MAY happen. And here is where Probabilities and statistics play into the game.

Statistics and Probabilities are sometimes hard to understand because they deal with average results over long times and large populations.
In general, NO number extracted from a statistical analysis can be taken as a "hard" number. It may be more or less "probable", but it is just that.

Again, we agree that the Troyer is a planning tool.
What I am saying is that, perhaps, we are not paying too much attention at the feedback phase of that process.

And, in the absence of that, the most we can do, is look at matches over the years and see what is a "stable" number that pops up/out.

For example:
There was an MD at a NY club that kept statistics of EACH target. The BTDR of the specific target (and its location in the range) and the number of positive hits at both power levels.
So, he could tell that a certain location was more difficult than any other in the relatively small range, and adjust.
Were all the matches perfect? No, but they were challenging and even with low BTDR's no one ever cleaned a course he set.
He used to set the Northeast Regional (that later became the Crosman FT Challenge, and later still was inherited into the Rochester Brooks Gun Club GP). In its original form, ALL targets were full sized KZ's, and still no one even came near to cleaning those courses. And the BTDR's of those courses, IIRC, was a bit under 28 average.

Another Club in the area sets up "easy courses" (nowadays a bit easier than in the past), and yet there have only been, IIRC, a couple of "cleans" and those in recent history.

Still another Club in the area uses tiny KZ's to raise the Troyer of the course, but only lately has it started to play with longer and longer shots.

No one has cleaned a course there either.

There are no "easy shots" in FT because anyone can miss a "gimmee", we've all "been there and done that" LOL!

We also need to think that some targets will have different BTDR's according to the time of day they are shot, so a target, or a full "loop", may have been shot MOSTLY, at a time where the sun was not washing out the reticles, or the wind was blowing sideways, not up into your face, etc. YES, the BTDR does not take into account these nuances.

And it is because of that the idea of large numbers and long histories come into their own. Over long times and many shooters, the averages and the standard deviations become more and more solid as an indicator of PROBABILITY, not as a "sure thing", but as a probability.

Statistical analysis will never give you the exact picture of special cases, it is geared to averages of all the possible cases, the hard and the not so hard ones.

So, to sum it up: In almost 25 years of shooting FT, and 13 World's Matches attended, with some serious data gathering of the distances to targets, and sizes of KZ's, I BELIEVE, that PLANNING for a 28 BTDR for a course is more effective (I am not saying better), than planning for a 30 and upwards.

And, again I emphasize that this is JMHO.

Thanks again for all the great Matches that Palmyra has hosted over the years, and I hope to see you this weekend at DIFTA.

Keep well, my friend, and shoot straight (except when there is wind... 😉  )

HM