changes[edit]

This IP (192.92.126.164) changed two links position. Sorry, but they are blusterers as usual. They did the same in Italian Wikipedia and the admins stopped them. Can you reset the original positions? Thanks! You can see "field target" in Italian Wikipedia to verify it, if you want. Have a nice day.

Using .22 calibre in crosswinds[edit]

I've seen this advice a few times but my research points otherwise. .22 calibre pellets are heavier so it is assumed they suffer from wind drift less than the smaller .177 calibre. Wind drift, though, is a affected by the combination of velocity and ballistic coefficient (BC) not simply weight.

I did a test using Crosman Accupells (am I allowed to mention manufacturers ?) and got the following :-

.177, zero range average velocity = 782.6 fps, 45 feet range velocity = 728.67 fps giving a BC of .0263

.22, zero range average velocity = 527.04 fps, 45 feet range velocity = 494.5 fps giving a BC of .0294

Although the .22 calibre has a better ballistic coefficient which would make it less affected by wind, the higher velocity of .177 more than compensates for this deficit.

Using a ballistic calculator set for a cross wind of 20 mph and a range of 35 yards the wind drift of the .177 and .22 calibres is 4.41 and 5.8 inches respectively. Increasing the distance and/or cross wind speed makes the difference more pronounced i.e. with a 30 mph cross wind at the same distance the figures are 6.6 and 8.7, the .177 is more than 2 inches closer to the target.

Unfortunately I don't have the equipment to be able to do an actual test i.e. firing a .177 and .22 at the same target at the same time using comparable rifles.

The maths seem to stack up though, am I missing something for instance should I be using larger downrange distances to calculate the BC ?

Twostage 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twostage, it may be my fault for including a statement which was based on hearsay, rather than mathematics - I just used the general concensus amongst the people I have spoken to on the matter at my club and in competitions (not good practice for an encyclopaedia, granted).

Regarding the ballistic coefficient, you appear to have calculated it in the direction of travel, whereas I would imagine that the ballistic coefficient for the "side" of the pellet would be more relevant to determining the effects of a crosswind. I can't, however, argue with a ballistics calculator that includes crosswind calculations, so provided you've fed it the correct "sideways" ballistic coefficient, I will believe your results, and would suggest removing the offending comment from the article.

Duncan Jaques 12:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duncan,

Nearly all of the people I talk to say heavier is straighter also but they seem to be repeating accepted 'knowledge' (the same people tend to think that .177 calibre is the work of the devil). The two calculators I used only requested one ballistic coefficient, haven't seen any mention of a sideways bc before or how you would go about calculating one (shoot it sideways ?). I do have experience of using both calibres on a windy day and the .22 was deflected more but that could be pure chance and would put us back in hearsay territory. Physical proof would require repeated firing of two benchrested PCPs one above the other fired simultaneously and although I now have both one is 28 ftlb which would probably skew the results a bit :-). I'll so more research/borrow someone's rifle.

Twostage (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

white suites comment[edit]

I felt that the comment was a bit snide and at least explained the reason for them wearing the suits. Also, several comments regarding shooting at 20fpe versus 12fpe seem to be more "political" than "physical" (physics). I softened the words a bit and (hopefully) added some accuracy.

Jrmcdaniel 20:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American English[edit]

Somebody made an edit to change all the non-American English spellings (e.g. colour to color). Please may I draw people's attention to the following Wikipedia guidleines, in particular item 1:

English dialects All common forms are welcome on Wikipedia. An abridged version of the related policy could be stated as: 1. Do not edit a page simply to "correct" the spelling in either direction. 2. If the subject is related to the U.S., then U.S. English is preferred: Child labor laws in the United States 3. If the subject is related to an organization using British English (UK, Commonwealth, Ireland, UN, etc.) then British English is preferred.: On-licence 4. If the subject is not regional (such as astronomy), the original contributor's usage should be followed. See American and British English differences if you have difficulty with this. 5. The usage should be consistent throughout an article, unless it mentions both US- and Britain/Commonwealth-related topics. In that case, Policies 2 and 3 prevail. 6. When you create a new article, generally the most commonly used title is preferred. A simple way of testing this is to try a Google Test either on the actual Google or on GoogleFight.com, or on a different search engine to your preference, and see which generates more results.

I am not going to change things back, because I could then be seen as a hypocrit, but please bear in mind that this article is about a sport that originated in the UK, and that the original form of the article was written by me, an Englishman, before "correcting" any more perfectly good English words.

Rant over.

Duncan Jaques (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to shootingWiki.org[edit]

Replaced the External links. I put our link in there, and no-one has the right to remove it.

Adam Welsh Secretary NZAFTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.120.238 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is there anyone can justify this link staying?

http://www.shootingwiki.org/

It has no bearing on Air Rifle Field Target, and the WFTF is not an affiliate of ISSF. While individual Country NGB's may or may not be ISSF affiliated through other activities, Field Target is not an Olympic or Commonwealth discipline. (as much as I would like it to be)

I see no merit in linking through to the page of an organisation that does not recognise or aknowledge the WFTF, nor Air Rifle FIELD TARGET in the slightest.

I ask before attempting to edit, as someone may have other views.

Also (25/4/08) added info on New Zealand rules into "other Coutries rules" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.169.50 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greyskull70 (talk) 06:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC) [1][reply]

Make the topic global[edit]

Appreciate that field target started in the UK but given it is now a sport participated in Globally under essentially the same name can I suggest that the article is rewritten to add the UK to the other countries and rename the section to "Rules by country". Not sure if the topic should be made more about the WFTF and their rules or if there is a better way to rewrite?

SomethingAndNothing (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Hunter Field Target ?[edit]

Hi folks, pretty much the same as Hunter Field Target. Should that be a specific topic here or what ??? --MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]