I've been looking at this conumdrum for some time now. So, I sat down and wrote out some figures. Here's how it works -

A 30 Troyer is defined as a 1" hole at 30 yards. Therefore, a 30 Troyer is also a 1/2" hole at 15 yds., etc.

But if you look at the figures, it's not really the case since we're not dealing with best edge scoring. We're dealing with worst edge scoring. Hit the edge of the hole (a splitter) and you get pellet that enters at an angle and doesn't have enough forward energy to knock down the paddle etc.

In actual usage, you have to subtract a full pellet width from the total hole diameter in order to determine your actual "useable" hole size. Therefore, a 1" hole has .823" of useable space and a 1/2" hole only has .323" of useable size. Over 2 1/2 times the useable space at twice the distance.

I would argue that it is easier to hit inside of a .832" hole (1 inch minus .177") at 30 yds than it is to hit inside of a .323" hole (1/2" minus .177") at 15 yds. There is a whole lot more room for error at 30 yds than at 15 yds.

I would assume there are wiser heads who have discussed this before me and have decided to leave well enough alone.
John

years. My background shooting BR50 (worst edge scoring) goes back about 14+ years. Not sure when the Troyer scale came out but when it did we (the BR50 group that also shot FT)discussed the issue amongst us  benchrest shooters.

I know Ray and Brad and probably Kevin Allen all discussed it years ago and I figure like you they decided(or someone did) to leave it alone. Not sure why??? Afterall more accurate figuring/deciphering would be best in my opinion.

Anthony

"actually shooting" !
This is a hobby at best and a thank you from me to those of you that put your efforts into making this sport enjoyable for us.







"Thumper2"

Its one of the many reasons our club pretty much ignores using the system. When you couple it with the vagaries of accurately factoring wind, shooting position, and elevation issues, its use beyond a general discussion point is questionable.

When you consider at our June Match, 19 shooters set up the course in about 20 minutes. Everyone grabbed a target, found an empty lane and put the target somewhere appropriate for KZ size that made for a challenging shot. I guess that's why we have such a great time! Numbers are for those who feel they need them. A difficult shot is a difficult shot, regardless of the "T-Factor"!

RicG

I wouldn't get my panties in a wad over it.

When we first started our club in Texas, I didn't know what in the hell is was doing. Many would also agree that currently I'm in the same position.

The Troyer scale was a great tool that we utilized in setting up ever match. It helped us learn at what leval we need to setup a match and what leval we were as shooters. We now utilize it at the ROT and will most certainly utilize it at this years AAFTA Nationals.

With that said, L.D. is correct in his statement about accurately factoring wind, shooting position, elevation issues, etc. so concerns over ½ of a pellet in our game is not worth changing the overall Troyer scale.

I hope this doesn't mean I'm going to Field Target Hell for agreeing with LD. lol


Cheers,

Hair Bear
aka - Scotty York
Yegua Airgun Club - Texas
http://www.yeguafieldtarget.com/

I met the man when he came to Tacoma. A better individual would be difficult to find and his contributions to field target vastly exceed the Troyer Factor. It just occurred to me that the Troyer Factor doesn't accurately describe the difficulty of a particular course. It does serve a useful purpose tho'.

And as commented above, who really cares. Like I tell our shooters, "No one cares what you are shooting until you win". We just concentrate on making the match fun enough that everyone enjoys it and tough enough to tick off the good shooters a little. hee hee
John

"Troyer Rating" system, well prior to its introduction. Brad's primer on making inexpensive Field Targets, or his unselfish establishment of the AAFTA Field Target site (the one prior to the existing one), or his setting up and operating about the first and still best Airgun Classifieds ... well ANY of those was more important than the target factor scale to many of us, especially since the timing of those efforts was spot on to help jumpstart the burgeoning sport of airgunning in general and Field Target in particular within these American shores.

I developed the diffiulty factor back in the 1996 time frame as a method for me to layout a course and have some was to gauge how hard it would be. It is an estimating tool, not a precise measurement that can be used for comparison. The tool is really for match directors, not shooters, and is somewhat subjective. However, if a match director uses it for a period of time they should be able to use it to design the course to a desired level of difficulty.

I tend to design my courses first without any wind, then with what I expect to be normal wind, and then with heavy wind. This allow me to have an idea of how difficult it could be at match time. The difficulty will vary day to day. For instance, at the GOB match this year I had to shoot the Red course on day one with heavy wind. Day two when some other in my class shot it the wind was a lot less. The difficulty across the two days was different. That is par for the course though in this game. That is one reason that I opposed the use of the difficulty rating to compare courses to each other. A 30 difficulty at one match could be very different from a 30 difficulty at another match do to a whole host if reasons.

Ray has wanted to add other difficulty factors to the rating system to try to make it more accurate but the idea was to keep it simple so that any average person could quickly calculate the estimated difficulty. Even adding things like the additional width of a pellet or something really won't make it that much more accurate, it will still be an estimate at best.

One other problem with the splitter problem is that every target has the same problem with splits, if the nose of the pellet is on the inside of the kill zone edge the target will go down. I have tested nearly every target type that has been available over the years and all will fall if the pellet nose is inside the edge of the kill zone. That means that the affect of a split can be pretty much ignored, since the difficulty is an estimate you really don't need to worry too much about it.

Brad Troyer,
brad@airguns.net
www.airguns.net

Back in about 2004 I made the same statements. Also a 1 inch at 44 yards doesn't suddenly get 12.5% harder when moved to 45 yards. There is a gradualy progression to the distance difficulty factor or so I believe. I came up with what I call the Advanced Troyers which is what I use when planning a match. The caclculations are complicated when done by hand but in my spread sheet are non consiquencheal. Put in the distance and kill zone size and it puts in the distance progression and subtracts the split factor and does the whole thing. It does give a more consistent difficulty progression and I believe more accurate difficulty annalysis. I can upload it to our website some time when I have a chance if I haven't already.

A Team PCP Tuning Document

(please note the site does go down with high
traffic so check back if it isn't available)

a 44 on the T-scale and a 1" at 45 calculate out to a 45?

How are you calculating it to be that it is 12.5% on the scale?

1.125 multiplier is added in. that is 12.5% for targets 45 yards and further. It should be a steady progression but isn't.

Here is the system in Brads words:

"FT Course Difficulty Rating System
Years ago I developed a simple method for estimating the difficulty of the courses I was designing. It gave me an idea of how easy or hard the individual target and overall course would be for an upcoming match. There have been some questions about the system recently so I thought it would be a good time to write about it again.

When I first developed the rating system, I played with some factors and equations until I settled on using the distance (in yards) divided by the kill zone size to give a difficulty rating for each target. For example, a ½ kill zone Squirrel placed in a tree at 21 yards would have a difficulty rating of 42 while a 1 skunk at 32 would be rated at 32. Once the individual difficulty rating for each target is known the overall course rating can be determined be averaging all the individual target difficulty ratings.

After a few years of using the system and input from other users, the following difficulty rating charts were developed. The chart on the left relates the difficulty factor to a degree of hardness for individual targets while the chart on the right does the same of the overall course difficulty. Two charts were developed since there can be different factors involved when figuring the overall course difficulty. A single target with a DF of 37 is considered Hard, but if you string a whole bunch of them together on a course then there are fatigue and concentration factors that come into play during the match which puts the course on the Expert level.

T.D.F.= Troyer Difficulty Factor Difficulty Ratings
Rating TDF
Easy 0-19
Moderate 20-29
Hard 30-39
Expert 40+

As others used the system it was pointed out to me that some another factor needed to be added to the system for shots that were more difficult than others like standing, kneeling or extra windy shots. So a difficulty factor was added to the equation making the difficulty rating equation:

Difficulty Rating = (Distance / Kill Zone Size) * Difficulty Factor

With a bit of testing and tweaking of the difficulty factors, the following difficulty factors have been developed:

Type of Shot Difficulty Factor
Standing 1.75
Kneeling 1.5
Windy Shot 1.25
Extreme Up/Down 1.25
Extreme Dark/Light 1.25
Shots past 45 yards 1.125

This system has worked really well for accurate course planning and it allows for better comparisons between matches from different venues. The system can be teamed up with a spreadsheet program to facilitate match planning. A sample of the course planning spreadsheet I use (in Microsoft Excel) has been posted on the AAFTA website (www.aafta.org) under the Free Downloads link. The website also has this difficulty rating system posted on it for future reference. I would encourage all clubs to use the rating system when planning their courses and report the course difficulty in their write-ups. That will allow the rest of the Field Target community to more accurately compare match results. If there are any questions about the difficulty rating system, please feel free to contact me about it.
"Brad Troyer
AAFTA Chairman"

A Team PCP Tuning Document

(please note the site does go down with high
traffic so check back if it isn't available)

Interestingly enough... I've read that a few times over the last couple years and have not remembered or noted that "distance multiplier".

hmmmmm....(thinking this through here) That is an interesting quandry isn't it. It isn't really that much further at all. But now that I think bout it, I have noticed that the trajectory on each of my airguns definately drop more rapidly right about at 45yds.

I have a couple at 12fpe, 14.25fpe and one at 17fpe. But I shoot lighter pellets with the 12fpe guns and the 17fpe is shooting heavies. That probably evens them out some but the 12fpe definately have the shorter flat range. My R-9 at 14.25fpe with its preferred pellet shoots the flattest of my airguns and when I'm shooting at our 45 yard buzzard I can see my pellet just starting to drop as it travels into that targets KZ. And.... on that same lane I have a much easier time with the other target that is usually placed at 40-44 yards to.

I'm certainly no chairgun whiz, and I'm sure that different fpe and pellet combos will give varied results, but based on my humble experience I would guess that is what that multiplier is all about. I wouldn't want to have to figure it out for each airgun especially since the method was designed to rate a course but I don't think its to far off the mark either as far as an average goes.

Dag-nabit Ray!... now you have me curious. I'm going to have to shoot those yardages and see what happens. Guess that isn't the worst thing ever.

This is just an estimating tool, all the modifications and stuff doesn't make it all that more accurate since some of it is subjective.

The whole split think doesn't affect the overall rating since a pellet that gets the nose on the inside of the edge will take down 99.99% of targets. If the nose hits on or outside of the edge, generally the target won't go down. It is the same for all kill zones and distances so it is pretty much a wash for the difficulty estimate.

I have been considering removing the additional difficulty factor for targets past 45 yards since the distance itself adds to the difficulty value. That particular factor was rather subjective when we picked it and after some time, experience, and thought it doesn't really make sense to me anymore. It doesn't make sense that a 1.5" kill zone at 46 yards is that much more difficult than the same kill zone at 44 yards. Removing that factor would keep the equation simple to use while still giving a good estimate of the course difficulty.

Brad Troyer,
brad@airguns.net
www.airguns.net

Takes the fun out of shooting for me. I like the Troyer scale the way it is myself. Easy to figure out in my head. I don't need it to be scientific and exact. I'd rather shoot and have fun than calculate that out to a "T" and a "Q"

Half the time I can't tell if I split the pellet anyway unless there is fresh paint on the target.











"It doesn't get done til someone does it"

It would seem to be that the 1" hole at 45 yard become more difficult considering the fact that a pellet rifle has limits on it's accuracy. That being that they are less accurate at longer ranges then they are at shorter ones.

Also let's remember that that 1/2" hole looks like it's 20 miles wide at 15 yard with Xfactor applied a scope level, so anyone shooting certianly knows its a much easier shot to take in the wind from that distance as oppose to the 1" shot at 45 yards with a 20 mph gust.

Yes the pellet will take up space but let's remember that its not "part of the hole", but rather the rock you have to toss though the hoop the get a point. That is the challenge if I remember correctly. To shoot straight enough to occupy space in a KZ that makes the paddle fall down to kill the target.

Honestly who is here ain't seen the 1" KZ at 25-30 yards and said this will be easy versus the 1/4" shot at 10-18 yards that leave most people cussing? You cant tell me based on how I hear some of u cussing that across the board they considered the small shot easier. We all know (if we're honest) that it's really more of a challange factor to shoot the 1/4 KZ.

It is what it is, because it is!!!

Some are but many are not. That's a factor of velocity and pellet. I do think that reliable accuracy ends somewhere after 60 yds for most airguns but that's because of what they are. A light pellet at low velocity. Eventually, things just go bad. Pick a heavier pellet and push it a little faster and you've a totally different outcome.

I personally like the Troyer Factor because it is easy to understand and helps in setting up a course of fire without over burdening the match director.

The whole purpose of the original posting was to make the point that we can't assume that an identical course rating will let us compare two different matches. A 30 Troyer rating on a course with predominantly longer shots will probably score higher than a 30 Troyer rated course shot at closer ranges.
John

"Some are but many are not. That's a factor of velocity and pellet. I do think that reliable accuracy ends somewhere after 60 yds for most airguns but that's because of what they are. A light pellet at low velocity. Eventually, things just go bad. Pick a heavier pellet and push it a little faster and you've a totally different outcome."

Okay John but your debate seems to favor pellet size displacement as it related to a 1/2" KZ size @ 20 yards or so, which you said would be affected by the added size of the pellet's diameter causing a reduction in the KZ, hence making it harder to kill because the pellet occupies space within the KZ.

In fact we really only have to worry about reticule displacement in a KZ to a small degree on targets with 1/4" and maybe 3/8" KZs all things being equal imo.


"I personally like the Troyer Factor because it is easy to understand and helps in setting up a course of fire without over burdening the match director."

Oh I hear ya. Its a quick way to setup a match using Brad's numbers as a guide.


"The whole purpose of the original posting was to make the point that we can't assume that an identical course rating will let us compare two different matches. A 30 Troyer rating on a course with predominantly longer shots will probably score higher than a 30 Troyer rated course shot at closer ranges."


Here I agree with you as well, but it did seem that for a second a few people decided it was time to crash the party by saying that Brad's was wasn't the way!!...lol I think anyone that has had a chance to really setup a course knows that Brads number are not meant to be a spot on cure all to target difficulty. As such I dont thing anyone's numbers will ever be for the reasons already discussed above by you.


It is what it is, because it is!!!

I found this statement interesting"

"A 30 Troyer rating on a course with predominantly longer shots will probably score higher than a 30 Troyer rated course shot at closer ranges."

While that would would seem logically to be true, statistically the opposite is actually true. During the 2002-2004 I analyzed results of some of my matches to see if what targets were being hit and missed. The close small kill zones were hit way more often than the long bigger kill zones. A 3/8" @ 12, 3/4" @ 25, and 1 1/2" @ 50 are essentially the same difficulty (with the removal of the .125 for shots over 45 yards). The 3/8, though smaller, would be knocked down more than the 3/4" and a lot more than the 1 1/2" killzones. I was really surprised at these results but it makes sense as more of the enviromental factors are taken out of the equation on closer targets. It is just point and shoot. I actually started to lay out my courses with fewer close targets and more longer shots because of this.

Brad Troyer,
brad@airguns.net
www.airguns.net

the close ones are hit more often also because scopes range find better at close distances too. Lack of wind, ect also.

In actual shooting the 1/2' KZ at 15 yards is just as easy as 1" at 30. I would prefer to shoot the 1/2" at 15 if given a choice because wind isn't a factor at that range. Of course, this is my opinion, but the little close ones don't seem to bother me unless they get down to 1/4".

When I was shooting FT using medium mounts on my R9's and my R7 I found the close shots to be almost "gimme's". When I put my 6-24x56 Sidewinder (with a 30mm tube) in a BKL one-piece mount atop my TX200HC the story changed radically. Shane

"The lower your scope height, the easier the short shots are.. When I was shooting FT using medium mounts on my R9's and my R7 I found the close shots to be almost "gimme's"."

Hey Shane,

I appreciate the advice, but I have t Big Niiko that requires the height to clear the breech and barrel. I also like it a alot, so I do what you suggest I would have to drasitcally change my rifles setup. Its a bit late to ever think about doing that, not to mention the fact that I would have to change scopes to go lower. Consideringthe amount of trigger time I dont get (6 matches a year roughly) I don't really see that as a productive venture for me.

Also how da hell u been?...

It is what it is, because it is!!!

Heck, if I could get away with a lower scope height I'd have do it in a minute, but I am also "married" to my set-up now. But life was easier when my scope was huggin' my gun!

Although, I wouldn't mind trying out that new 10-50 Hawke I just heard about. Of course, my scope height would stay the same either way..

I'm doing well, how 'bout you? Shane