FP - AP, relative scores

[Bi-gunner]

I have been fumbling around, trying to correlate proficiency levels of Freepistol and Airpistol scores, olympic ISSF programs, 60 shots.

These are my suggestions:
FP 581 equals AP 594 (world records)
FP 560 AP 580
FP 540 AP 570
FP 500 AP 540

Plottet in a diagram, FP scores along the horisontal axis, AP scores vertical, this brings a graph that is concave from 500 to 540 pts FP, then convex from FP 540 to 581. Well, not necessesarily incorrect, but...

Any suggestions for corrections of the relative scores, anyone?

[LukeP]

IMHO,
FP 581 equals AP 593 (world records)
FP 567 AP 582 (score to be finalist on world cup event)
FP 540 AP 570
FP 520 AP 555 (Basic point to be a bit up of the lowest level)

[Mellberg]

Personally I think FP is a lot harder than AP. On scored training I shoot 540-550 in FP and 575-583 in AP. On competitions the scores are usually 540-550 in FP and 573-578 in AP. Sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little lower.

But, does anyone else think that FP is harder than AP? (I'm not talking about shooting 580 i fp just becuase you do so in ap, it's more of a feeling that it's harder.)

[David M]

The Australian grading system is a reasonable comparison system.

Code: Select all

Grade      Master         A          B        C         D
Free         555           540       510     465       below
Air           575           560       540     500       below
C/fire       583           565       540     500       below
Std          570           555       530     500        below
Rapid       575           560       525     470        below

[Richard H]

Better question whats the point in comparing two things that are different?

[AAlex]

I'd also like to hear opinions on what is "harder" - FP or AP.

The grip is better on FP, and the trigger is lighter, so why is it often perceived as "harder?" Is it just because of the fact that the target is farther away and the average scores are lower, or because of the added aspect of recoil management or what? Would AP be "harder" if it was shot on the same target at 20m instead of 10?

Also, is it more difficult to get into finals in AP or FP?

[Steve Swartz]

The original comparison table looks about right to me. At least in my personal experience.

Is FP "harder?"

No reason why it should be . . .

Assuming identical "errors" and adjusting for distance, projectile size vs. ring size etc and "all other things being equal" (which they never are) the FP scores should be higher.

But plug in that we all *think* FP is harder . . . "the targets really small, and really far away" type thinking; we psych ourselves out of a proper shot process.

It's harder psychologically- but not in reality.

Steve Swartz

[Richard H]

The original comparison table looks about right to me. At least in my personal experience.

Is FP "harder?"

No reason why it should be . . .

Assuming identical "errors" and adjusting for distance, projectile size vs. ring size etc and "all other things being equal" (which they never are) the FP scores should be higher.

But plug in that we all *think* FP is harder . . . "the targets really small, and really far away" type thinking; we psych ourselves out of a proper shot process.

It's harder psychologically- but not in reality.

Steve Swartz

Well the fact that you have to deal with the weather in FP adds an extra variable as well as the fact that pellets have less variation than .22lr ammo. So I think it is harder technically and really not so much psychologically (the ten is still in the middle).

[ausdiver99]

I am no mathematician but after some head scratching I recollect the ramblings of my maths teacher of many years ago about some Greek bloke, Pythagoras who worked out triangles.

Shooting is about angles as bench resters well know. The range can be divided into a triangle, the distance from the shooting position to the target is known and the target ought to be at 90 degrees to the shooter and we know the width of the targets so we should be able to work out the angle a shooter can be off-centre before he/she scores a miss – I’ll call this their “wobble angle”.

An air pistol target is 155.5mm from 1 ring to 1 ring (ISSF 6.3.2.6). The range distance is 10 metres. Half the target width (7.75 cm) is the "opposite" side of the triangle, 90 degrees is one angle in the triangle and 1000cm (the range length in cm) is the other side.

A handy internet trigonometry calculator (link below) shows the angle subtended at the shooting position from the centre of the air pistol target to the edge of the 1 ring is 0.444 degrees.

The target used for "free pistol" is 50 cm from 1 ring to 1 ring (ISSF 6.3.2.5). The triangle's known dimensions thus are 250 cm, 90 degrees and 5000 cm. The angle subtended from the centre of the target to the outside edge of the 1 ring is only 0.286 degrees!

A wobble of 0.29 degrees in "free" scores zero, whereas in air the shot would be 6.04 cm from the centre and score 3.

Hopefully a mathematician in the forum will be able to confirm or refute my suggestion.

Pete

http://ca.geocities.com/xpf51/ANGLE_CAL ... S.html#SAS

[IPshooter]

Pete,

I generally agree with you. I know this will start an argument, but here's what I say. If the degree of difficulty (shooting a 10) for FP is 1.0, then AP is 1.15, Standard/CF Precision is 2.0 and RF is 4.0.

Stan

[IPshooter]

The Australian grading system is a reasonable comparison system.

Code: Select all

Grade      Master         A          B        C         D
Free         555           540       510     465       below
Air           575           560       540     500       below
C/fire       583           565       540     500       below
Std          570           555       530     500        below
Rapid       575           560       525     470        below

David,

Looks reasonable to me. I always felt like, if you were executing similarly, you should score about 20 points higher in AP than FP.

Stan

[Richard H]

I am no mathematician but after some head scratching I recollect the ramblings of my maths teacher of many years ago about some Greek bloke, Pythagoras who worked out triangles.

Shooting is about angles as bench resters well know. The range can be divided into a triangle, the distance from the shooting position to the target is known and the target ought to be at 90 degrees to the shooter and we know the width of the targets so we should be able to work out the angle a shooter can be off-centre before he/she scores a miss – I’ll call this their “wobble angle”.

An air pistol target is 155.5mm from 1 ring to 1 ring (ISSF 6.3.2.6). The range distance is 10 metres. Half the target width (7.75 cm) is the "opposite" side of the triangle, 90 degrees is one angle in the triangle and 1000cm (the range length in cm) is the other side.

A handy internet trigonometry calculator (link below) shows the angle subtended at the shooting position from the centre of the air pistol target to the edge of the 1 ring is 0.444 degrees.

The target used for "free pistol" is 50 cm from 1 ring to 1 ring (ISSF 6.3.2.5). The triangle's known dimensions thus are 250 cm, 90 degrees and 5000 cm. The angle subtended from the centre of the target to the outside edge of the 1 ring is only 0.286 degrees!

A wobble of 0.29 degrees in "free" scores zero, whereas in air the shot would be 6.04 cm from the centre and score 3.

Hopefully a mathematician in the forum will be able to confirm or refute my suggestion.

Pete

http://ca.geocities.com/xpf51/ANGLE_CAL ... S.html#SAS

Don't forget projectile diameter and velocity also play into this excerise in scaling ap and fp.

[Opinion]

Hello,

I shoot both and free pistol target is smaller than air pistol If you want to check out how your front sight looks on a Free pistol target at 50 m and then go to the air range and check it against a 10 m air target.

The grouping possible with a free pistol is a lot larger in comparison area wise to the one you can produce with an air pistol.

Finally, there is more of a controlled environment in air than free. (wind, noise, light changes during a match)

A good athlete may shoot a 570+ on air but when they get the free they can barely muster 525.

Think about it I know some of you have been there.

[Steve Swartz]

Taking those geometric points into consideration, the 540=570 table is indeed accurate. Probably closer to 550=570.

For me personally, it is also accurate- but only when I properly execute the FP, and mentally ignore the "it's harder" syndrome.

Your mileage may vary. Yes, physically the dimensions are smaller with FP by about the amount the table shows. So why can't good AP shooters achieve similar (scaled down) results in FP?

One other data point to consider: I use the "barn door front sight" with "open barn doors light on sides" with "sub six hold" for AP. This is typically a much "sloppier" arrangement than most competitive pistols come with from the factory.

It wasn't unitl I got me some "barn doors" for my FP that I was able to break 540.

Think about it . . .

Steve Swartz

(p.s. as far as "wind" goes the "wind between your ears" is a much bigger factor than the physical effect of wind on a .22 at 50 meters.)

[Richard H]

(p.s. as far as "wind" goes the "wind between your ears" is a much bigger factor than the physical effect of wind on a .22 at 50 meters.)

I know the FP target is much bigger than the 50m rifle target but there is definately an effect and the effect is even magnified by the fact the wind can be acting on the shooter standing there holding the pistol up with one hand. If that is the attitude FP shooters have towards the eefects of the wind that might explain some of the poor performance.

[Fred Mannis]

I agree with you Richard. There is a noticeable difference between shooting at a 50 yd B-6 (Bullseye) target outdoors on a breezy day, and shooting at a (scaled) 25 yd B-16 target indoors.

As far as AP vs FP goes, I find the small, blurry, FP bull to be more difficult than the larger, blurry, AP bull. In my mind? Perhaps, but real nonetheless.

Fred

[alb]

Personally, I suspect that FPs are inherently less accurate than APs. There is more variation in .22 ammunition than in .177 pellets, FP is shot at about 5 times the distance, so any instability in the projectile has much more of a chance to develop (in a non-linear way), effect of variations in recoil, etc.

Since the accuracy of the shooting system is comprised of the accuracy of the shooter added to the accuracy of the pistol, the FP shooter has to be more accurate to compensate for the lower accuracy of the pistol, in order for the FP shooting system (shooter + pistol) to have the same accuracy ast the AP shooting system.

So, in that sense, it is harder to shoot the same scores in FP than in AP.

Regards,

Al B.

[Mike M.]

I think Richard H had it right to begin with. Effectively, each scoring ring is the mark on the paper plus half the bullet diameter. The 10-ring of an AP target plus half a pellet diameter, nultiplied by five, is a lot bigger than the 10-ring of a FP target plus .11 inch.

[David Levene]

Effectively, each scoring ring is the mark on the paper plus half the bullet diameter.

Surely it should be plus the full bullet diameter (half on each side).

[Richard H]

Also velocity has to be scaled into the equation as well because the lock time in a free pistol is much less than an air pistol. I really don't think there is any sense comparing the two, the comparison is as useful as comparing Air Pistol to Trap. Air psitol and Free Pistol are different dicsiplines that share some commonalities, thats it.