Extreme Troyer Factor

[Franklink]

(Full credit goes to Brad Troyer on all of this. And thanks to CTAC for this particular image)

I really enjoy analyzing the numbers for sub 20fpe field target matches, and that typically entails using Brad's chart. 

A few days ago I realized how cool it would be to extend this out, in both kill zone sizes and distances, for the Extreme Field Target monthly matches we're having here in AZ. I tinkered with it off and on for a few hours during work today and got sucked in enough that I had to stay up late to get it finished. 

First off, as useful as the Troyer factor is, it does have some limitations. The biggest of which is that there is a bit of a drastic jump in difficulty level at 46 yards. That is simply due to the difficulty factor of 0.125 being applied to all targets past 45 yards. The other limitations are the somewhat subjective "windy" and "extreme" light and dark or "extreme" up or down. Most of us are well aware of how much harder it is to hit a target with a sub20 fpe pellet at 55 yards than 30 yards. I believe that was the reasoning for the "shots past 45 yards" difficulty factor. Ideally, there would be a few more distance difficulty factors, incremental ones at incremental distances, to more approximate the gradual increase in difficulty as targets get further away. 

The Extreme Troyer Factors are identical to Brad's original Troyer chart until 45 yards. 

For my initial modification of Brad's chart I decided that, since we are allowed fpe's up to 100, to not start the first distance difficulty factor until 50 yards. Reasoning behind that is that I know my 40fpe gun doesn't need much hold off in less than 10mph winds until past 50 yards, but also because cut-offs of 50 and 75 yards in a discipline with a max of 100 yards, makes my OCD happy. So, I implemented a 0.125 difficulty factor to targets between 51 and 75 yards, and a difficulty factor of 0.25 for targets from 76-100 yards. 

So the Extreme Troyer Factor is calculated as the following:

25-50 yards = distance/kill zone size

51-75 yards = distance/kill zone size (1+0.125)

76-100 yards = distance/kill zone size (1+0.25)

For the real number-crunching nerds amongst us, the Excel equations looked like this:

25-50 yards =A2/$B$1

51-75 yards =(A28/$B$1)*(1+0.125)

76-100 yards =(A53/$B$1)*(1+0.25)

(A28 was the row corresponding to 51 yards and A53 was the row corresponding to 76 yards. Distances start at 25 yards in Extreme FT so the first distance/row is 25 yards. 

Because I kind of went off the reservation to account for the increased kill zone sizes and distances and fpe, Brad's relative ratings of easy, moderate, hard, expert, and illegal don't really apply to the Extreme Troyer factor. Also, "B" in the Excel formula corresponds to the kill zone size column, so B was 0.5 inches, C was 0.75 and so forth).



Here is how that all looks. KZ size in inches across the top, distances down the left side. (tough to get it all screen shot'ed in and still be visible so this is three screen grabs, and yes, the 50 and 75 lines appear twice)

I took that and compared the numbers from the October and November matches. The kz sizes from the offhand lane were not recorded for October so I also threw out the offhand lane data for November. I did not add any factors for wind or angle or light level. I wasn't at the Oct match but was told it was in the 1-3mph range. I think it was sometimes a bit more than that for the November match. Both were held in full sun. 



Oct:

Hardest target was a 50.6 Extreme Troyer (2inch kz at 81 yards)

Easiest target was a 26.7 Extreme Troyer (1.5inch kz at 40 yards)

Average Extreme Troyer for Oct was a 37.89

High score in Oct was a 35/40 (was shooting pellets)



Nov:

Hardest target was a 55.6 Extreme Troyer (2 inch kz at 89 yards)

Easiest target was a 30.6 Extreme Troyer (2 inch kz at 30.6 yards)

Average Extreme Troyer for Nov was a 39.9

High score in Nov was a 27/40 (was shooting slugs). 



The biggest limitation here is that some of the targets have odd-shaped kill zones. The match director measured these kill zones as the width (left to right) of the best approximation of the vertical midpoint. 



This all may need tweaked and I'm open to any and all suggestions for improvements. My first thought is that perhaps a greater than 0.25 difficulty factor should be applied for the 76-100 yard targets? That's coming from a Extreme Troyer factor of 31.3 for a 4inch kz at 100 yards versus a factor of 30 for a 1inch kz at 30 yards. I'm thinking the 4 incher @ 100 is harder to hit than the 1 incher at 30. 

I also think it'd be nice to define "windy" as maybe greater than 10mph? (so a match held on a day with 10+ mph winds would get an additional 0.25 difficulty factor applied). I also think a 100+ degree day should have a difficulty factor applied to the entire match. 



I'll try to work up numbers for future matches so we can keep track of the relative difficulty of each match. 



Again, let me know what you think. 



(really hoping Ben stays far, far away from setting a 1/2 kz target at 100 yards, ETF of 250!!! Statistical chances of knocking that one down start to look like odds of winning the lottery)

 

[Guest]

Good thinking. What about just developing a set of equations that could be used to generate the the "Troyer" number for any set of conditions?

I'll give this a read and see if I can work something up that gives the same answers as the charts?

 

[Motorhead]

A lot of the increase in difficulty could be seen as being tied to a DIABLO pellet slowing down quickly over distance and why when out past 46 yards a pellets drop and windage stability is quickly deteriorating. IF one was to shoot slugs and come up with a revised GRID, those data points of equal difficulty over distance would shift pretty radically IMO.



All said, with the current interest in FT type events shooting beyond 55 yards and with higher power guns the ENTIRE rating system of difficulty should be reconfigured.

Higher power PERIOD makes it easier if up close yet alone out far !! In a Long Range game this entire system we currently use is based off a MAXIMUM 20 FPE power limitation and this IMO simple is incorrect in its entirety for a different High Power game.



Scott S

 

[Franklink]

A lot of the increase in difficulty could be seen as being tied to a DIABLO pellet slowing down quickly over distance and why when out past 46 yards a pellets drop and windage stability is quickly deteriorating. IF one was to shoot slugs and come up with a revised GRID, those data points of equal difficulty over distance would shift pretty radically IMO.



All said, with the current interest in FT type events shooting beyond 55 yards and with higher power guns the ENTIRE rating system of difficulty should be reconfigured.

Higher power PERIOD makes it easier if up close yet alone out far !! In a Long Range game this entire system we currently use is based off a MAXIMUM 20 FPE power limitation and this IMO simple is incorrect in its entirety for a different High Power game.



Scott S

As stated, open to suggestions. 

Or better yet, let's see a Schneider Factor. 

 

[Motorhead]

A lot of the increase in difficulty could be seen as being tied to a DIABLO pellet slowing down quickly over distance and why when out past 46 yards a pellets drop and windage stability is quickly deteriorating. IF one was to shoot slugs and come up with a revised GRID, those data points of equal difficulty over distance would shift pretty radically IMO.



All said, with the current interest in FT type events shooting beyond 55 yards and with higher power guns the ENTIRE rating system of difficulty should be reconfigured.

Higher power PERIOD makes it easier if up close yet alone out far !! In a Long Range game this entire system we currently use is based off a MAXIMUM 20 FPE power limitation and this IMO simple is incorrect in its entirety for a different High Power game.



Scott S

As stated, open to suggestions. 

Or better yet, let's see a Schneider Factor.

Lol ... am thinking that's a nod of confidence in my opinion, tho being I don't see myself in the foreseeable future doing much in this "New" game I'm not going to think that deeply about it.

There are LOTS of folks who are ramping up the interest that will I'm sure voice there thoughts of what is best suiting and required for the game to be fair among competitors.



Tho will add that I would think that just like EBR events the PELLET and SLUG classes require separation due the radical differences in ballistics at longer ranges ... wind drift etc.

Also do not think RANGE should be known prior to addressing a shooting lane, tho personal miens of determining needs to be worked out in the pending rules.



Scott S

 

[Centercut]

Good start Cole, nice job...

I think there should be a way to input the odd shaped targets (oval, star, etc) into the formula. I do think that the wind factor might be increased when over 80 yards, since drift really starts becoming harder to judge. Look at how much harder it is to shoot a 100 yard EBR target compared to 75 yards.

As far as the range, we are trying to make this as close to hunting as possible, and no one that shoots over 55 yards doesn't use a laser rangefinder. We could do that, but sicne everyone would come up with the same range its just easiest to provide the range in the interest of time...

 

[Centercut]

PS., I'd call this the Reardon Factor...

There is a difference in ballistics from pellets to slugs, but if shooting high BC pellets (.22 RD Monster at 0,050, or .25 JSB Heavy at 0,055) compared to lower BC slugs (JSB KO at 0.084), the difference isn't as much as one would initially think...

 

[Franklink]

I just noticed I've got an error in the easiest target from Nov. 

Nov:

Hardest target was a 55.6 Extreme Troyer (2 inch kz at 89 yards)

Easiest target was a 30.6 Extreme Troyer (2 inch kz at 30.6 yards)

Average Extreme Troyer for Nov was a 39.9

High score in Nov was a 27/40 (was shooting slugs). 



Easiest from November was a 1.5in kz @ 48 yards for a ETF of 32. 

That makes the November match average ETF a 40.1. 

 

[Franklink]

I like the known ranges. Regular field target range by focus rules are a big hindrance to FTs growth. 

By doing away with that pointless aspect, Extreme Field Target is much more inclusive for the guys who aren't gonna drop $4500 on a Khales or even $1250 on a Sightron. I feel like the range by focus rules in regular ft were made up by somebody who happened to have a really good ranging scope and was trying to give themselves an unfair advantage over those who didn't own the same scope.

(I shot with a $300 scope and was not at a disadvantage, which can be seen in the scores, by doing so like I would be if this were regular field target). 

As for the higher fpe, I tried to account for that by increasing the distance before the distance difficulty factors kick in. 

I agree that the oddshaped kill zones are the biggest wrench in the works here. 

As for slugs vs pellets, they are each in their own class. Prior to the matches taking place I fully expected the slug shooters to have much better scores, but that has not been the case.

We're only three matches in so it'll be fun to see how it goes as we get more data. 

 

[AirNGasman]

I don't envy you the task you've tackled. As if quantifying difficulty factors isn't challenging enough for regular FT, Extreme FT introduces several obvious complications; probably several not so obvious as well.

Odd-shaped KZs are obvious flies in the Troyer ointment. Not so obvious would be the fact that assigning ONE multiplier for wind, lacking enough in FT due to no quantifying of wind speeds, becomes exponentially more lacking in EFT.

Having (myself) been one of the two individuals responsible for coming up with a 1.75X multiplier across the scale to convert rifle Troyers to pistol, then later lowering that multiplier as pistol FT and its practitioners evolved, think the most I can do to help with your endeavor is wish you well.

To parpahrase, being allergic to complicated puzzles, I'm in over my head! 

 

[Scotchmo]

...
As far as the range, we are trying to make this as close to hunting as possible, and no one that shoots over 55 yards doesn't use a laser rangefinder. We could do that, but sicne everyone would come up with the same range its just easiest to provide the range in the interest of time...

If allowed, I'd still use my range finder since I tend to trust my own measurements more so than someone else's. I don't agree that everyone would come up with the same range.

 

[Centercut]

Nothing preventing anyone from using their own laser rangefinder. In fact some of the shooters carried one.. 

 

[steve123]

...
As far as the range, we are trying to make this as close to hunting as possible, and no one that shoots over 55 yards doesn't use a laser rangefinder. We could do that, but sicne everyone would come up with the same range its just easiest to provide the range in the interest of time...

If allowed, I'd still use my range finder since I tend to trust my own measurements more so than someone else's. I don't agree that everyone would come up with the same range.

I think Ben used an actual tape measure when he set the target distances but if someone had their dope calibrated to their own laser range finder then their LRF could read a couple yards different, especially the least inexpensive ones. I found that out the hard way at our state match this year when I borrowed one to set targets with, ranged 10Y and it was closer to 8Y, lol, well unless the stake got moved or the target got moved, will never know I guess.

I would be curious to know how mine would read on the EAFT course as compared to the stated distances, but mine is a pricey one so there shouldn't be but a yard off if that???

I haven't a clue to advise what to do for a ETF with the different shaped KZ's??? My vote would be to pick one shape, like a sideways rectangle or sideways oval, just to make wind estimation less critical at the longer distances when using pellets, and because we already use circles in regular FT.

Last spring a MD in a NRL22 match used a Corona Viras shaped steel that had the middle cut out. So we were trying to hit a wide 1" ring, that was 4" ocross, with 3/4" C crowns sticking out. 10 shots, 2 shots each CV target in 120 seconds, at 40Y, 60Y, 80Y, back to 60Y, then to 40Y. I hated that stage because of it's difficulty with wind involved, lol! Try an EFT on that one, !!!

 

[Scotchmo]

I haven't a clue to advise what to do for a ETF with the different shaped KZ's??? My vote would be to pick one shape, like a sideways rectangle or sideways oval, just to make wind estimation less critical at the longer distances when using pellets, and because we already use circles in regular FT.

...

I think a triangle (equilateral or isosceles) would make an interesting KZ shape. The shooter would be required to compromise between allowance for more windage error (aim low) or allowance for more elevation error (aim for the middle).

 

[CampFussell]

Wow, I think you've done a fine job with this Mr. Franklink AKA Cole! I'll be following this thread.

Oh by the way, what's you video channel? Sometimes I can't seem to put profiles and names together sorry.

Fuss

 

[Franklink]

Wow, I think you've done a fine job with this Mr. Franklink AKA Cole! I'll be following this thread.

Oh by the way, what's you video channel? Sometimes I can't seem to put profiles and names together sorry.

Fuss

Thanks Fuss. 

Before I sat down and worked this Extreme Troyer thing up I reached out to Brad. I just heard back from him this morning and he sees no reason why we can't continue to use the distance divided by the kill zone size. He also suggested increasing the distance before the first distance difficulty factor kicks in and scaling it by adding another distance factor around 75 or 80 yards. I told him that was basically what I had also come up with and what was presented here a few days ago. 

I think I'll leave it as-is and figure out the numbers on another couple monthly matches and see how it goes before making any changes. 

As for my YouTube channel, I do have one (Backyard Precision Airguns) but what I post there is typically unedited, single take vids from my phone. I've not gotten into any high-end camera equipment and have zero editing skills. I really haven't put much time or effort into YouTube. It's just not a priority as monetization of my fun/hobby isn't a goal.

My name here was created way back in the times of the Crosman Green Forum. I can't remember what question I needed answered but had to make a profile and just thought this up on the spot. It doesn't have any special meaning and is basically just gibberish. It's what I've used on the various forums ever since. 

 

[thomasair]

Looks nice Cole. 


A while back I suggested that we use square kill zones for standard ft and the idea was poo-pooed. It would make high power scopes mostly unnecessary. For a typical 55 yard full 1.5” KZ....you could misrange by 6 yards or so each way and you would still have just as wide of a KZ as if you got the range perfect. I like the skill set being wind reading and positional stability...neither of which would be diminished by going square.


Since you guys are starting fresh...you might consider it.


I would be reluctant to trust stated ranges because they may or may not be accurate. I’ve been to lots of regular FT matches where the practice targets with ranges printed on them were not very accurate. I just trust what I have. If kzs were square...it would also eliminate the cost of a rangefinder. Just a thought.

Mike

 

[AirNGasman]

Scott and Mike make very interesting and pertinent points about kill-zone shapes and ranging. Specifically, "a triangle (equilateral or isosceles) would make an interesting KZ shape. The shooter would be required to compromise between allowance for more windage error (aim low) or allowance for more elevation error (aim for the middle)", square kill-zones are more forgiving than round ones, and not trusting the accuracy of posted target distances. 

No question triangle kill zones would be considerably more difficult than round KZs, and would force an added element of strategy on the shooter(s). As regards Troyer Factors, obviously triangle KZs would demand no small difficulty multiplier; square KZs a difficulty reducer.

Allowing shooters the option to use their own rangefinders or rely on posted target distances effectively closes that particular discussion.

I've dreamt of Extreme Field Target for years (decades?), so am absolutely STOKED that it's finally becoming reality. Also stoked about the level of interest and discussion developing. 

BTW, I will be hosting a TEXtreme Field Target event in March 2021 at my place, Ranchito Robinson (outside Waco, Texas). More information/details to come. 

Happy Shooting Y'all,

RR 

 

[Centercut]

Great points Ron and Mike N. I think I saw at least 2 or 3 shooters using their own laser rangefinders this past November just to confirm accurate range. Almost all of us that shoot EAFT hunt, so we already have laser rangefinders if we want to use them... Having the actual range does put the emphasis on wind reading and positional stability as Mike N mentions above, which is as it should be. We also set shooting position on bucket (or stool) and sticks (unattached bipod), plus limit scope Mag to 25x to make it as fair as possible for everyone. As of now, no bum bags or prone allowed. Ben and I discussed minimum seat height of 8 inches, which will be added to the rules as the sport evolves...

We don’t just have round or triangle, there are other odd shapes that are used on these targets. Going forward as new targets are acquired I’m sure they’ll be a uniform shape, square would be my preference.

This is a very fun event, and it was discussed with Ron and Robert B at the TexTreme Benchrest in October. Looking forward to your first match in March, Ron! Are you looking at doing that one day and BRS another?

Mike B.

 

[steve123]

I haven't a clue to advise what to do for a ETF with the different shaped KZ's??? My vote would be to pick one shape, like a sideways rectangle or sideways oval, just to make wind estimation less critical at the longer distances when using pellets, and because we already use circles in regular FT.

...

I think a triangle (equilateral or isosceles) would make an interesting KZ shape. The shooter would be required to compromise between allowance for more windage error (aim low) or allowance for more elevation error (aim for the middle).

Since the distances are known there theoretically shouldn't be a need to aim anywhere but at the water line of the KZ or slightly below it, except for of course windage allowance if needed. But I guess it depends on the size and shape of the triangle. The triangle KZ's I shot at EAFT were during the offhand stage, it was too wobbly to try any strategy on them. But honestly I don't favor them.

If a person were to aim low-ish in the KZ they risk splitting a pellet low, or missing the KZ low, but might sneak one into the KZ if they get the wind wrong. Sure don't want to use that strategy with a circle KZ do we, LOL, right?!

One of the targets at EBR had a star shaped KZ, that was my least favorite, just sayin.

A guy we know is designing some EAFT targets that have a system to put different sizes and shapes of KZ's on them so after a future point in time the powers that be can make any decisions they would prefer to use.

It's fun to discuss all this and will be fun to see what becomes of EAFT! Especially if a subsonic 22rf is introduced as well as slugs getting dialed in as superbly as Mike N has done. That 3" at 100Y might become childs play. Hit ratios will probably increase dramatically to 1 or 2 misses, and occasional perfect scores, like we see in FT at our local club. 

I guess at this point my vote is taking a square and increasing it's size by 20% to create a sideways rectangle which would give a hairs leneance for windage error. 

But the different shapes we have now give a certain entertaining fun factor even though they are not what I'm used to. I don't really mind leaving them as is because of that. 

I like that Ben tries to make the playing field as fair as possible "even though I can't use my new scope on 35x", just a little funny jab at Ben