Target size question- for Nerds, Newbies, & Competitors

[Hawkeye7br]

Ok, so here's something that can be cussed and discussed.

Target size, based on 2 MOA (and let's be real and just call it 2 inches at 100y). A 2 inch circle at 100y is 3.14 square inches, based on (radius squared) times Pi, which would be 1x1x3.14=3.14 square inches surface area.

At face value, it should be 1 inch at 50y, and 4 inches at 200y. Yet the math...….a 1 inch circle at 50y is only (.5x.5x3.14) =.785 square inches of surface and only a quarter of the 100y target, . And a 4 inch circle at 200y is (2x2x3.14)=12.56 square inches, roughly 4 times the surface area of the 2 inch target at 100y.

So....open ended question...…..if you wanted to maintain 2 inch @ 100y capability, how big should targets be at 50y, 75y, & 200y? and how much advantage would a square be versus a circle. Example: a 4 inch circle (200y) is 12.56 square inches versus a 4 inch square being 16 square inches. Is that truly an advantage/disadvantage?

All answers debating the real value of MOA vs. inches will be disregarded, beaten with a stick, and posters will be blatantly told to stick it up their ***.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I cannot put my finger on exactly how to express this, but a circle =/= a square of the same area for this discussion. There is more distance between corner to corner diagonally than there is edge to edge vertically or horizontally. For MOA we are effectively measuring a cone that gets wider as it gets longer from point (muzzle) to base (target). your diagonal distance would be more MOA than H/V distances of travel.

At least that is my gut feeling.

 

[Hawkeye7br]

Using the lowly 22 Long Rifle.

So if you wanted to maintain the same challenge regardless of distance, what would the target sizes be? Based on simple math that 4 is twice as much as 2, or based on square inches of the target at the differing distances (6.28 is 2 times as much as 3.14)?

I ask because when you put it on paper it sounds easy. But when shooting, a 1 inch circle at 50y seems a lot harder to hit than a 2" circle at 100y.

A 2" circle is 3.14 square inches, and placed at 100y. A 6.28 square inch circle at 200y is twice the surface area at twice the distance, but equates to only a 2.83 diameter circle at 200y. And that seems a hole lot harder than a 2" circle at 100y.

What am I missing? and why?

 

[Twangbanger]

Forget surface area. It's a "square function" which increases faster than simple linear deviation. You are making this too hard!

The reason the closer targets are harder, is because people are not tuned into the necessity of having their gun *exactly* sighted in at that distance.

 

[Goodcat]

MOA and the concept of, is circular in nature from a given point. Therefore, surface area has no bearing. A square gives you more opertunities to clip corners if you miss what would otherwise be the circle. Either one is equally challenging if you follow MOA and stick with the SAME shape.

2” target at 100 = 2 moa
1” target at 50 = 2 moa
0.5” target at 25 = 2 moa

as mentioned, the challenge in those different distances is based on the ballistics of the bullet and knowing the different zeros, or holdover/under, not really surface area.