Jeff Cooper: "Target Angle"??

You've read it; usually when he's describing a hunting situation: "the animal was at target angle such-and-such"...What does he mean? I'm guessing it's akin to an "azimuth", but there's a confusing passage in The Art of the Rifle where my azimuth theory doesn't jive.

[Ledbetter]

Greetings,

I think you're describing references to the angle of bullet entry, or presentation of the muzzle to the target animal.

For example, there is the straight front-on head shot, the front quarter shot, the broad side shot, the hind quarter shot and the, umm, shot better not taken unless you have no choice.

Regards.

[Jay Baker]

Don't forget the "Texas Heart Shot." Ledbetter didn't. J.B.

[Erik]

He is describing the position of the target relative to the shooter.

Imagine a compass laid out in front of the shooter.

(Please correct this if I remembered it or described it incorrectly.)

That didn't answer my question. Here's the passage:

It was departing at top speed, but when she put the sight on it, all she could see was its rump. Quite properly, she held on target and waited. In a matter of 60 meters, the pig broke to the right and exposed its head at a target angle of about 145, whereupon she broke its neck with one quick, compressed surprise break.

I'm guessing straight away is target angle 000, and the angle is measured clockwise; at target angle 145, does that mean the pig turned more than 90 degrees back toward them? "Exposed its head" doesn't imply that to me. Maybe it's a misprint - maybe it should read 045? On the other hand, 000 may be facing straight at you, with the angle measured counterclockwise, in which case 145 would be about right. Rich, you've hunted with him. What's the call?

I know I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, but hey - it's my molehill, dammit

[Sodbuster]

My explanation was theory, and long-winded. I meant to clear the fields.

[The Plainsman]

Jeff;

I wouldn't presume to read Col. Cooper's mind, but waaaayyyyy back in my old nautical days, target angle referred to your relative bearing from the target (as seen from the perspective of the target). In other words, if the target angle was zero (or 360), the target was facing directly at you. If the target angle was 90 degrees, then the target was facing to your right and you were directly to his right (or broad off the starboard beam as we used to say). This was used to determine torpedo shots so as to determine the target's profile and direction of travel.

So - a target angle of 145 degrees would place the shooter at the right rear quarter of the target (the target is moving away and to the right).

Now - that's MY (and the U.S. Navy's) definition of target angle. You'll have to ask the Colonel what his definition is, but I'd guess it's the same.

[Casey]

The Plainsmen is exactly right.

I was a navigator and a OS (Operation Specialist) in the Navy a while back, and the way to think of it is to put an imaginary circle over the target, with 0/360 degrees straight ahead of it. That would put 180 degrees behind it, 90 degrees to the right, and 270 degrees to the left. Therefore, 145 degrees would be to the right rear of the animal; that is what would be in your direction.

It is also referenced as relative bearing, meaning relative to wherever the animal would be heading.

Hope this helped.

Casey

[Glamdring]

I wouldn't presume to read Col. Cooper's mind, but waaaayyyyy back in my old nautical days, target angle referred
to your relative bearing from the target (as seen from the perspective of the target).

I am guessing that is what Cooper means. He was a Marine stationed on a ship during much or most of WWI as a gunnery officer IIRC.

Plainsman, Casey, that must be it. It jives with the passage I quoted (which describes a right rear quartering shot).