Field Archery

8/18/2019 Field Archery

1/16

1

Field ArcheryBy Lars-Göran Swensson

Translation Claes Göran Colmeus

Measuring

orestimating distance?

Photo an Otterström


2/16

2

Field ArcheryBy Lars-Göran Swensson

Being a devoted field and forest archer all since 1960 I am very eager to preserve our popu-

lar and decisive international field round with all its unique qualities of forest archery and ashigh status as target archery. I have always appreciated the atmosphere and the challenge of

field archery – your competitors are your companions and you compete against the organ-izers! During the eighties I was a member of the Swedish national field archery team and won

14 national championship medals in forest and field rounds. Two national field championshipgold medals and a 5th place at WG 1989 are my best merits. I was the main author of a field

archery compendium published by the Swedish Archery Association in 1985. Later, Per E

Bolstad used it as the basis for the FITA Field Manual, published on the FITA web. The information below is a summary of a series of articles published in the Swedish magazine Båg-

skytten (The Archer) with the intention to create a package of information to influence fieldarchery in the direction I consider necessary for its future existence

Contents1. Preserve Field Archery – modify the field round (Bågskytten 1-2/2007) 2

2. Target design (Bågskytten 3/2007) 5

3. Results from the poll at the Field nationals (Bågskytten 12/2007) 6

4. Distance estimating competition and the field round test (Bågskytten 1-2/2008) 7

5. Final proposal (Bågskytten 3/2008) 10

1. Preserve Field Archery – modify the field roundYou may look at field archery from two opposite viewpoints:

•

Either field archery is a complement to target archery, with the rules designed to al-most certainly make a good target archer a good field archer too.

• Or field archery is an independent sport with rules designed to demand special skills

of the archers. This will also attract new archers who do not need to or want to focus

on target shooting.

Unfortunately the first point of view seems to be the most common one, but that will never

give field archery its well earned wide scope and high status. The main idea with field archery

must be to offer a form of competition with qualities and demands different from target

archery. Compare the athletics track running (target archery) and cross country running

(marked field round). The participants are the same! But orienteering attracts a totally differ-

ent category and much larger numbers of participants. The fact that field archery is practised

in small groups in natural surroundings is surely attractive to many people. But is it enough

that the social and physical surroundings are different? If the differences in demands and

skills are small, there is no sporting reason to have championships in two similar disciplines.

The most important differences today (except the social environment) are shooting from un-

known distances and shooting up- and downhill. Thus the field archer must be able to:

1.

Estimate distances, (measuring is NOT allowed), also considering the up or down

direction to the target.

2.

Master his technique shooting uphill and downhill, and with uneven or slanting

ground at the shooting position.

We must preserve these unique qualities!


3/16

3

At the World Field Championships in Gothenburg I saw that archers regularly draw their bow

to measure the size of the target in relation to some detail on the bow, such as the scope, the

sight ring or the plunger. This will give a good indication of the distance. According to the

FITA rule 9.3.11.3 this procedure is not allowed, but it is described in an article on the FITA

website, thus teaching how to cheat. Traditional range estimation is obviously not important

any more

But one of the essentials of field archery was (and is) to make use of nature itself (vegeta-

tion, level differences, slopes, lighting conditions etc.) in conjunction with shooting skills,

just like orienteering where reading nature is an essential complement to running. Range

estimation should be about reading nature, not being a good surveyor with technical aids.

What we need is a field round which rewards the skill of range estimation even if you do

not know the size of the target.

Below follows a proposal for a modified field round (the first version). All important is a set

of new target sizes! We need four: 70 cm, 50 cm, 30 cm and 15 cm. They must all be printed

in such a way that logos, lettering etc. cannot give any clue about the target size when studiedwith or without binoculars from the shooting position. In other words, logos and lettering

must be very small and/or be proportional to the target size. Table 1 shows my proposed new

marked and unmarked distances and target sizes. For the unmarked round I suggest three tar-

gets of each size. I also give alternate solutions for the number of target faces for all sizes

from 30 cm to 60 cm, to make target size estimation even more difficult.

Table 1. Distances and number of faces per target for unmarked and marked course.

Red peg Blue peg Number of faces per target

for unmarked (U) and marked

(M) courseFace size Un-

marked

Marked Un-

marked

Marked□

□□ □□

□□

□□□□ □□□□ □□□□

80 cm 35 - 55 60, 55, 50 30 - 45 50, 45, 40 U/M

New 70 cm 30 - 50 55, 50, 45 25 - 40 45, 40, 35 U/M

60 cm 20 - 35 45, 40, 35 15 - 30 40, 35, 30 U*** U/M*

New 50 cm 20 - 30 40, 35, 30 15 - 25 35, 30, 25 U/M U*

40 cm 15 - 25 30, 25, 20 10 - 20 25, 20, 15 U*** U/M

New 30 cm 15 - 20 25, 20, 15 10 - 15 20, 15, 10 U/M U**

20 cm 10 -15 20, 15, 10 5 - 10 15, 10, 5 U/M

New 15 cm 5 - 10 15, 10, 5 5 - 10 10, 5, 5 U/M

*) The buttress should be somewhat larger than standard, especially if it is circular. A proper size fora rectangular buttress would be about 128 x 140 cm.**) If the buttress is circular it MUST be larger than standard. A proper size for a rectangular but-tress would be about 128 x 140 cm.***) Should not be used on a marked course. Risk for arrow collisions.

To create similar visual impressions for different target sizes we also need a new buttress de-

sign. The rules should explicitly state that the buttress sizes for the unmarked round shall be

adapted to the target sizes, and that the ”buttress size” can be modified by a attaching a card-

board sheet (or by pasting the target face to cardboard), larger than the buttress itself . See

fig. 5, page 11. Below, this is called ”background”. Of course scoring zones and an adequate

safety zone (from the lowest scoring zone to the edge of the buttress) must remain within the

buttress. The same quality of paper should be used for all sizes, giving no clues to the target


4/16

4

size. The present rules allow for a background larger than the buttress, as long as the safety

zone is at least 5 cm.

Table 2 shows the background sizes required to give same visual impression for three alterna-

tive relations between face and background size, for each of the four variations of target setup

(A, B, C and D). The starting point is the 130 cm background, suitable for the common but-tress size 125 – 128 cm. For alternative 2 we see that:

• a 70 cm face on a 130 x 130 cm background at 39 m or

• an 80 cm face on a 149 x 149 cm background at 45 m or

• a 60 cm face on a 111 x 111 cm background at 33 m

will create exactly the same size image on the archer’s retina. See fig 7, page 12.

Table 2. The background size required to create the same visual impression for different face sizes.

A) 1 face per buttress B) 2 faces per buttress

Face size Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

80 cm 130 149 173

70 cm 114 130 152

60 cm 98 111 130 130 156 195

50 cm 108 130 163

40 cm 87 104 130

C) 4 faces (2 x 2) per buttress D) 12 faces (3 x 4) per buttress

Face size Alt 7 Alt 8 Alt 9 Alt 10 Alt 11 Alt 12

50 cm 130 163 217

40 cm 104 130 173

30 cm 78 98 130 130 195 260

20 cm 87 130 173

15 cm 65 98 130

This method gives no clue to the face size on the target, and without knowing the target size it

is impossible to measure the range. A faulty target size guess, then measured with the sight

ring, will yield a 6 m range error, or, if the guess is two sizes off, up to 12 m error (mixing up

a 60 cm and an 80 cm face).

To establish the correct face size it will be necessary to estimate the distances using the terrain

with a margin of error better than around ± (6 m – the maximum measuring error). Assuming

a maximum error of 2 m for measuring, it will be necessary to estimate distances in the terrain

with better accuracy than ± 4 m, definitely needing practice. An archer who estimates with ±

4 m error will now and then establish the wrong face size, making measuring too uncertain,which is our aim. The targets in groups A, B and C are the ones most difficult to estimate, and

the ones where measurement is most necessary. In chapter 4,”Range estimating contest and

the field round test” I present a survey of the difficulties of estimating ranges on the suggested

field round, and the effect of guessing the wrong face size.

2. Target designToo many different sizes of buttresses and/or backgrounds would be impractical. Assuming a

standard buttress, the following background sizes could be useful to approximate the sizes

given in table 2 (first version):

•

90 x 90 cm (close to 98, 87, 78 and 98 cm)• 110 x 110 cm (close to 114, 111, 108 and 104 cm)


5/16

5

• 150 x 150 cm, close to 149, 152, 156 and 153 cm)

• 180 x 180 cm (close to 173 and 195 cm)

These backgrounds can be used to create several different visual impressions of target and

background sizes (fig. 1 below).

Fig. 1 The visual impressions of different sizes of target faces and backgrounds.

The following alternatives are available:

With only one buttress size, 128 cm, only alternatives 3, 6, 9 and 12 in fig 1 will create a

similar visual impression for all target face sizes. All these demand 180 cm backgrounds, but

alternatives 9 and 12 with, respectively, 50 cm and 30 cm faces would need even larger back-

grounds. Large buttresses will be beneficial because the safety zone is wide. However, 180

cm backgrounds are very difficult to transport and handle, and they are easily damaged by

rain and wind as there are 25 cm of unsupported edges. This is not a good solution.

With two buttress sizes, 128 cm and 108 cm, alternatives 2, 5 and 8 will create a similar visual

impression for different target face sizes. And, with a lower level of ambition for the 12 faces

setups, you can get away with three backgrounds, 150 cm, 130 cm and 110 cm. If these back-

grounds can be folded along the centre line they are easy to handle and transport, the largest

transported item will be 75 x 150 cm. The unsupported edges will not be wider than 10 cm,

see fig 5, page 11. These two buttress sizes will give you very similar visual impressions for

all face sizes and acceptable safety zones. This is a good solution. In the range estimating

contest and the field round test presented in chapter 4 the targets were designed according to

alternatives 2, 5, 8 and 11. The figures 7 – 11 on pages 12 – 13 shows these alternatives on a

field, placed at distances so that they all look the same size.

Number and sizes of faces vs background sizes


6/16

6

With three buttress sizes, 128 cm, 108 cm and 88 cm, alternatives 1, 4 and 7 will create the

same visual impressions for different face sizes. Alternative 10 will not work for all sizes, the

15 cm faces should be on a smaller background. Ignoring this, the background sizes will be

130 cm, 110 cm and 90 cm. There will be almost no unsupported edges, only 1 cm. But the

safety zones will be (too) small for the two smaller face sizes in all the alternatives, clearly

not a very good solution. Of course you can mix alternatives to avoid small buttresses on tar-gets with an obvious need for larger safety zones. However, using three buttress sizes seems

unnecessary.

3. Results from the poll at the Field nationalsAt the Field nationals in Stocka 2007, I had the opportunity to check out the archer’s opinions

of how the field round should be, about 50% of the participants answered my poll, and to test

my suggested new round. The first question about field archery experience yielded 41% very

experienced (I have participated in WC/EC/WG and at least 4 Nationals). These were consid-

ered “elite”, the rest, 59%,”enthusiasts”. When these categories are not specifically men-

tioned, the results refer to all the participants. Roughly:

•

7 of 10 want the Nationals and the qualification and elimination rounds atWC/EC/WG to be shot at the same number of marked and unmarked distances, 2 of 10want only marked, and 1 of 10 only unmarked distances. (Fig. 2)

• 4 of 10 want the finals at WC/EC/WG to be shot at a combination of marked and un-

marked distances, 4 of 10 want only marked and 1-2 of 10 want only unmarked dis-

tances. (Fig. 2)

• The enthusiasts are consistently in favour of a combination of unmarked and marked

distances, while the elite favours the combination in qualification and elimination

rounds only, they prefer marked distances in the finals.

National Field Championship participant’s opinions on

number of unmarked and marked targets at NC and

EC/WC/WG

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

The same number of

unmarked and marked

targets

Only marked Only unmarked

NC and elimination atEC/WC/WG

Elimination at EC/WC/WG

Finals at EC/WC/WG

Figur 2.


7/16

7

National Field Championship participant’s

opinions on target designs and measuring rules.

26%

15%

26%

33% No design change and acceptmeasuring.

No design change and warnfor measuring

More target and buttress sizesand accept measuring

More target and buttress sizesand warn for measuring

Figur 3.

Furthermore:

• 5 of 10 are in favour of warning archers who try to measure with the bow, and 5 of 10

accept measuring as it is difficult to enforce a ban. (Fig. 3)

• 6 of 10 are in favour of more target sizes in order to make measuring more difficult

and reward direct estimation. (Fig. 3)

It is worth remembering that the elite has become elite under today’s rules. Thus it is probable

that they are reluctant towards changed conditions, intended to make them lose control. And

also remember that more participants in field archery means that more enthusiasts must beattracted.

4. Distance estimating competition and the field round testHere follows a presentation of the distance estimating competition and the test, also carried

out at the Field nationals in Stocka 2007. The intentions were to assess:

• how difficult it is to estimate distances and face sizes with 8 different faces, 80, 70, 60,

50, 40, 30, 20 and 15 cm on adapted backgrounds, and

• how the distance estimation is affected when the face size estimation is wrong.

The targets were set up immediately after the end of Saturday’s shooting. The participantswalked through the 12 target course in groups of 2 to 4, judging face sizes and estimating

distances. The targets were set according to the suggested round for unmarked, red peg, with

intervals are 35-55, 30-50, 20-35, 20-30, 15-25, 15-20, 10-15 and 5-10m. The “buttresses”

were made up from white cardboard with wooden strips on the rear side to keep them flat.

They were anchored to the ground with pegs and supported by wood strips. See fig.6, page

11. The sizes used were 150 x 150, 130 x 130, 110 x 110 and 90 x 90 cm. Each buttress had

only one target face, even on targets which should have 2, 4 or 12 faces. Otherwise the work

of making up the new target sizes would be overwhelming. The targets were carefully made,

to look exactly like the existing faces from the shooting pegs. Any text and symbols on the

faces were covered with white paint. The competitors had a protocol, also with a description

of the suggested new round. Using the bow for distance measuring was explicitly allowed,however very few actually did it (1 yes, 2 partly and 36 no).


8/16

8

Thus the distance estimation was mainly direct, the results were as follows:

1.

Markus Ottosson (Barebow) won with a mean error of 1.3 m per target and one target

size error. He won a free participation fee for the nationals.

2.

Martin Ottosson (Barebow) was second with a mean error of 1.4 m per target and two

target size errors.3. Fredrik Lindblad (Compound) was third with a mean error of 1.5 m per target and two

target size errors.

The median error for all participants was 3.1 m per target.

Other important points:

• Only one participant judged all 12 face sizes correctly (Christian Hedvall, Compound)

and was fifth in the competition.

• Two participants judged 11 face sizes correctly, and six had 10 correct sizes.

• The median for all participants was 8 correct sizes.

Fig 4 shows that:a) there is a (weak) correlation between the number of face size errors and the mean error per

target at direct estimation (Pearsons coefficient of correlation = 0.55), the straight line of re-

gression for face size errors is roughly parallel to the curve for mean errors per target. If this

relationship is true, measuring with the bow would probably not improve the distance estima-tion as any measuring based on the wrong target size will yield a distance error which cannot

be corrected because of lack of skill for direct estimation. b) there is a large variation in the number of target size errors even for the same level of mean

error, i.e. there are individuals who seem to estimate distances rather independently of how

they determine face sizes. Compare individual results 5 – 7, 7 – 9, 15 – 17, 17 – 19, 30 – 32

and 33 – 35. The conclusion is that it is possible to determine the distance without knowing orguessing the face size.

Mean error in the distance estimation competition

and the number of face size errors

0,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

7,00

8,00

1 B M 1 9

2 B M 1 9

3 C M 1 9

4 B M 1 9

5 C M 1 9

6 C M 1 9

7 R W 1 9

8 R M 1 9

9 R M 1 9

1 0 R M 5 0

1 1 R M 6 0

1 2 C W 1 9

1 3 C M 1 9

1 4 B W 1 9

1 5 R M 1 9

1 6 C W 5 0

1 7 C M 1 9

1 8 C M 5 0

1 9 B M 6 0

2 0 u n k n o w n

2 1 R M 6 0

2 2 B M 6 0

2 3 C W 1 9

2 4 C M 1 9

2 5 C M 4 0

2 6 R W 1 9

2 7 B M 4 0

2 8 B W 1 9

2 9 R M 6 0

3 0 B M 4 0

3 1 B W 1 9

3 2 L B

3 3 L B

3 4 u n k n o w n

3 5 R M 1 9

3 6 B M 6 0

3 7 u n k n o w n

3 8 u n k n o w n

3 9 B M 6 0

Place

M e a n e r r

o r ( m e t r e ) p e r t a r g e t

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

N u m b e r

o f f a c e s i z e e r r o r s

Mean error per target

Number of face sizeerrors

Linjär (Number of face size errors)

Figur 4.

For a better presentation of how the archers estimated individual targets, table 3 shows theresults target by target.


9/16

9

The table should be interpreted from left to right as follows (for target 3):

• The face was placed at the left side of the buttress (room for one more face)

• The face was 50 cm and the true distance was 27 m.

• The estimated distance (median) for all archers was 28 m.

•

10% thought the face size was 40 cm, Their median distance was 24 m.• 67% got the size correctly, 50 cm, their median distance was 27 m.

• 20% thought the face size was 60 cm, their median distance was 33.5 m.

• 3% (one archer) thought it was a 70 cm target, peculiar as the face was not centered.

Also from table 3:

• The expected and wanted effect was fully reached at five targets (numbers 3, 7, 9, 11and 12) and partly reached at four targets (numbers 1, 5, 8 and 10). The expected and

wanted effect means that a minority estimated the distance too short or too long be-

cause of a target size error, and that their mean error was just enough to cause the ar-

row to just hit or barely miss the scoring zone. It is not desirable that many archersmiss the buttress because of a target size error.

• That only two targets did not at all yield the expected and wanted effect (numbers 2

and 4).

• That the difficulty and thus the distance error was very evident at one target, number

6. A 60 cm face was estimated to be 70 cm by 63% and 80 cm by 17%, causing the

latter group to be 17 m in error. But note that even with today’s rules this could hap-

pen, as 60 cm and 80 cm faces are sometimes mixed up.

Table 3 , results from the distance estimation contest, target by target.Tar-get

num ber

Target face position = (■)

Positions formultiple faces= (□)

Face size

Targetdistance

Estimated targetdistance(median)

Number of estimated sizes (grey fields are expected range because of face placement, correct size underlined)

Estimated distance for each estimated face size (median = middle value,50% above, 50% below)

15 cm 20 cm 30 cm 40 cm 50 cm 60 cm 70 cm 80 cm

1

■ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

20 cm13 m 12 m

18 %10 m

74 %13 m

8 %14 m

2■ □ □ □

30 cm19 m 20 m

87 %20 m

13 %20 m

0 %

3■ □ 50 cm

27 m 28 m

10 %

24 m

67 %

27 m

20 %

33,5 m

3 % *

28 m

4

■ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

15 cm8 m 8 m

97 %8 m

3 %7 m

0 %

5■ □ 60 cm

33 m 33 m0 % 13 %

30 m74 %33 m

13 %*34 m

6 ■ 60 cm35 m 41 m

3 % *32 m

17 %35 m

63 %41,5 m

17 %52 m

7■ □ 40 cm

22 m 25 m3 % *

19 m

48 %23 m

43 %27 m

3 %30 m

3 % *

30 m

8 ■ 80 cm47 m 49 m

0 % 33 %46 m

67 %50 m

9

■ □

□ □

40 cm

24 m 23 m3 % *20 m

10 %

19 m

64 %

23 m

23 %

27 m

10

■ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

30 cm

20 m 18 m

0 % 13 %

14 m

87 %

18,5 m

11 ■ 70 cm41 m 42 m

5 %38 m

77 %42 m

18 %50 m

12

■ □

□ □

50 cm

29 m 30 m

0 % 5 %

25,5 m

56 %

29 m38 %*34 m

*) These guesses should not be possible because of the face position on the background.


10/16

10

The level of difficulty, 8 target face sizes, seems reasonably well chosen, with the exception

of the smallest face which did not cause any mentionable problems. Judging all face sizes

correctly on a 24 target course would probably be rather uncommon, but not impossible. A

good skill for direct distance estimation would be necessary for a good score.

5. Final ProposalHere follows my proposed new field round and competition form. The tested round gave ex-

pected and wanted results for all target face sizes except the smallest. Therefore, according to

table 4, the smallest face, 15 cm, is discarded and replaced by a 25 cm face, to make face size

determination difficult even for short ranges. The target background should probably not be

white, but uniform and adapted to natures colours (fig 11). Possibly they could be all black on

the unmarked round (figs 12 and 13). The shorter shooting time (3 minutes) makes no sense

unless all targets are manned by a judge/timekeeper, which is impossible. The shooting time

could very well be as before, only aimed at not delaying the competition.

Table 4 Final proposal 2 x 24 targets marked and unmarked (3 of each face size)

Red peg Blue peg Number of faces per target on unmarked(U) and marked (M) course and recom-

mended background size (buttress size)

for unmarked targets.

Face

size

Un-

marked

(U)

Marked

(M)

Un-

marked

(U)

Marked

(M) □ □□ □□

□□

□□□□ □□□□ □□□□

80 cm 35 - 55 60, 55, 50 30 - 45 50, 45, 40U and M

150 x 150

70 cm 30 - 50 55, 50, 45 25 - 40 45, 40, 35U and M

130 x 130

60 cm 20 - 35 45, 40, 35 15 - 30 40, 35, 30U

110 x 110

U and M

150 x 150

50 cm 20 - 30 40, 35, 30 15 - 25 35, 30, 25U and M

130 x 130

U

150 x 150

40 cm 15 - 25 30, 25, 20 10 - 20 25, 20, 15U

110 x 110

U and M

130 x 130

30 cm 15 - 20 25, 20, 15 10 - 15 20, 15, 10U and M

100 x 100

U

150 x 150

25 cm 10 - 20 20, 20, 15 5 - 15 15, 15, 10U and M

130 x 130

20 cm 10 - 15 20, 15, 10 5 - 10 15, 10, 5U and M100 x 100

Grey markings signify changes from the first version.

Two day competitions, including National Championships and EC/WC/WG qualification

rounds are implemented according to the proposal for marked and unmarked rounds accord-

ing to table 4. Championships are always shot at new courses, thus no competitor is allowed

to see or walk the course in advance. For other two day competitions it is suggested that if the

competition course has 24 targets and is changed from unmarked to marked on day 2, it

should be newly built on day 1. If two courses are needed because of a large number of com-

petitors, the marked course could be a permanent training course. No archers from the same

country/club are allowed to start on different courses. All test and qualification competitions

for EC/WC/WG should be two day events as above. Elimination rounds at EC/WC/WG

should be shot at a suitable course with equal numbers of marked and unmarked targets. The

final rounds would be much more interesting for the public if they too were shot with bothmarked and unmarked targets, however, for sporting reasons they could be marked only.


11/16

11

One day competitions including District Championships are implemented either as marked

or unmarked. If shot at a permanent training course, it is carried out according to the proposed

marked course in table 4. If the course is newly built, the competition will be shot as un-

marked. The main idea is

• that one day competitions on new courses are unmarked in order to attract more forest

and 3D-shooters to field archery and• that more marked one day field competitions are arranged, very probable if they can

be shot at a permanent training course, to attract target archers to field archery.

In both cases this could be the way to arouse interest

in two day competitions with marked and unmarked rounds.

To make distance estimation even more important on the unmarked course a scoring system

like in forest and 3D-archery could be implemented, thus only one arrow counts! The score

for arrows 1, 2 and 3 could be multiplied by 3, 2 and 1, respectively, (easy to remember). The

resultant score for each arrow is recorded but only the highest value is summed up.

•

The first arrow may score 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 or 18 (if the first arrow is a 4 or better, youcould just as well stop shooting here).

• The second arrow may score 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 (if the second arrow is a 3 or better,

you could just as well stop shooting here).

• The third arrow may score 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (the actual score)

We must use numbered arrows, I, II and III, and the archer determines the number of arrows

to shoot, see table 5. On a tie, the least number of arrows breaks the tie.

Table 5. Scoring example, single arrow scoringFirst arrow I Second arrow II Third arrow III Target score Sum

Score Score x

3

Score Score x

2

Score Highest ar-

row score

Arrow

number

total

6 18 18 1 18

4 12 6 12 12 1 30

3 9 5 10 10 2 40

2 6 3 6 6 6 1 46

1 3 2 4 5 5 3 51

M 0 6 12 M 12 2 63

Fig 5. 150 x 150 cm background on a 128 cm

Egertec

Fig 6 . During the test in 2007 the backgrounds

were not mounted on buttresses, only supported by a wood batten


12/16

12

Fig 7 . From the left: an 80 cm face on a 150 x 150 cm background at 45 m, a 70 cm face on a

130 x 130 cm background at 39 m and a 60 cm face on a 110 x 110 cm background at 33 m.

Fig 8. From the left: a 60 cm face on a 150 x 150 cm background at 33 m (the position for the

second face is indicated), a 50 cm face on a 130 x 130 cm background at 27 m and a 40 cm face on a 110 x 110 cm background at 22 m.

45 m 39 m 33 m

33 m 22 m27 m


13/16

13

Fig 9. From the left: a 50 cm face on a 150 x 150 cm background at 27 m (the positions for

the other three faces are indicated), a 40 cm face on a 130 x 130 cm background at 22 m anda 30 cm face on a 100 x 100 cm background at 17 m.

Fig 10. From the left: a 30 cm face on a 150 x 150 cm background at 17 m (the positions for

the other 11 faces are indicated), a 25 cm face on a 130 x 130 cm background at 14 m and a20 cm face on a 100 x 100 cm background at 11 m.

27 m 22 m 17 m

17 m 11 m14 m


14/16

14

Fig 11. Maybe the backgrounds should not be white, but uniform and maybe adapted to the

environment. From left to right the backgrounds are “camo” green, tar paper black and

corrugated cardboard brown.

Fig 12. Possibly the faces could be all black like the old Hunters face (also see fig 13). Note

that without covering the buttress with the background it will be possible to determine the face size by comparing the yellow spot with the wooden batten.


15/16

15

Fig 13. For an all black target to be meaningful all rings and printed text and logos must bevirtually invisible from the shooting position and the background and the target face must

have the same black colour and the same surface structure to make the face’s edges invisible,or the face must be printed on a paper large enough to cover the background (the left target).

If the face’s edges are visible the distance estimation will not be more difficult for the allblack target than for the standard target on a white background (compare the two targets tothe right). Simply printing today’s faces all black and changing nothing else is not very

meaningful, it will be much better to follow this proposal and print eight (four new) sizes ofthe standard face.


16/16

16

Field Archery

Documents

Transcript of Field Archery