E-Target Precision Poll

The past several years have seen copious dialog about E-Targets and many aspects of the same. Several record keeping houses have set rules regarding E-Targets. There is much passion about the precision and what it should be.

However, we would objectively and realistically like to know from shooters, what the acceptable "line-in-the-sand" precision of E-Targets should be?

To be objective, we must be honest, realizing that the "Paper Standard" is not pin-point, and that E-target technology is ruled by physics, not by smoke and mirrors.

The assumption is that this measurement is for all match conditions.

 

I wouldnt want to even add .094 to my score so I didnt even vote. I thought they were better than that.

 

I was at the TSRA L/R Championship this past weekend.. For the first time in my "competitive life" I "challenged" a score. It turned out to remain a "9" and I paid 2 bucks. But it was so close it actually LOOKED like a 10. There were several such challenges this weekend. I have ZERO doubt that they were so close some had to be within a "hairs breadth" of the higher score. So my vote for acceptable accuracy is NOT 3/32nd or anything like that, it is ZERO ERROR! When you need a magnifier to see paper between the edge of the bullet hole and the target line, there is no room for error! Just MY opinion..

 

How about a poll that asks whether shooters want E targets at all?

 

That's a ridiculous standard. I just shot a registered 300 yard match. Towards the end of the string, the x-ring was so obscured by pasters that I couldn't make see any lines. I shot 17 straight X's. On shot 20, it came up a '10'. It looked close maybe, but couldn't tell with no lines. It was just a big black blob. I let it go. The puller brought me the target and when I peeled back pasters, it was a solid X. Not even close to a 10. The puller said he couldn't tell, but it looked like a 10.

The point is, "zero error" doesn't exist and is ridiculous to even talk about in this context. If you are going to debate the topic, at least take a position that has some basis in reality.

 

I think that question has been answered pretty resoundingly, judging by the sales of e-targets around the world.

 

That is your opinion Jay, and I think it's ridiculous.

 

Can you point out a single sport around the world where error does not exist? Heck I'll cast the net wider - is there anything, anywhere, where perfection has been achieved? No?

Perfection is a wonderful concept, never achieved. And a useless bar to set as a standard for doing something. It should be strived for, but you can't possibly make it a requirement.

At any rate, I don't really care. I'll show up to shoot no matter what the range is choosing to do for targets. I don't hold manual pulling on a pedestal like some and I don't look down on e-targets for their short-comings either. Either system introduces issues that a shooter will have to work around and adapt to.

 

So if we are never to achieve "perfection", then we set the standard down to whatever the majority "vote" is to determine just how large of a "built in" error we can handle! Until we can get to the same "level of error" there is in "pull targets", which is very diminutive indeed and few and far between, I would NOT want e-targets at any "BIG" event, as in State Championships, Regionals or The Berger SW Nationals or The Nationals etc..etc..

 

Wonder when the last time was when you laid a measure over a paper target & confirmed that it was dimensionally correct according to the rules?

Look at those Camp Pery targets: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/tag/palma/page/2/

 

A few points to ponder.. just my $.02

Regarding f-class/300 I personally think the face should be changed half way through. If the scorer has to “guess” or “give” the higher score, the face should have been replaced prior.

Sometimes when I paste I carefully cover 1/2 the hole so I know the hole is marked but done in such a way just to maintain the outside line for future shots. I do everything I can to maintain the outside of the line and to give the shooter a good visual. Even if it takes two seconds more I think that is better “service”.

Maybe all targets should be stapled so that they can be removed and pasters pulled off one at time to verify the score... there is too many issues with that ...Ugh

Are e-targets more accurate as the sensors are placed closer together? If so, there is no reason to have them 48” apart on a fclass/300 frame.

I consider a .050” e-target error at 300 much different than the same .050” error at 1000.

I personally like e targets (when they work well) and not having to goto pits.

I do think that different targets on the line are bound to have different amounts of error. How can this be accounted for?

I also think a paid puller pulling 9-12 strings a day is bound to make a mistake.

All things considered... I would prefer etarget where an individual shoots on more than one target throughout the day to help spread the error more eveningly.

 

I'm kind of old school and resistant to change, but here is my take on the e-targets.
In one sense I look at it it as leveling the playing field. For instance, shooting in an all day drizzle. I'm getting wet and so is every one else.
The other half of me doesn't like them because it give an unfair advantage to shooters in club matches where not everyone shoots on e targets. Also, please correct me if I'm misinformed on this, but are the "shot plots" adjustable for bullet diameter, or are they defaulted to a .30 caliber bullet? If they are able to be changed that's great. But if not, a shooter using anything smaller than .30 cal. that got a inside 9 could be conceivably be awarded a 10.
Edited for proper punctuation.

Lloyd

 

In reality, a very small number of individuals have often made the decision that a particular range is going to switch over to e-targets, in many cases with little or no input from the other members. It is generally billed as "progressive thinking". Unfortunately, once costly e-targets are installed, matches are run such that shooters are forced to use them or else not participate.

This whole issue of e-targets has turned into a complete gong show, with people continuously debating and arguing about what is an acceptable level of accuracy. There is currently even another thread that has begun discussing how to use camera systems as an alternative to acoustic e-targets. All of this simply to fix a paper target system that wasn't broken to begin with and possibly get out of doing pit duty. How about this: create alternative versions of existing disciplines such as F-Class. You could call it EF-class, use e-targets to your hearts content, and at the same time leave my sport alone.

 

For what its worth, considering I’ve only participated in a couple of dozen matches in my life and all of which have been in the last 3 years. I would happly take the etargets over poor pit service, or a persnickety scorer.
CW

 

ICFRA rules (which govern the fullbore disciplines including F-Class) state that .30 calibre is the norm and that other calibres' bullet holes should be adjusted to suit. In a high level match, the butts crew should have a shot gauge (a 308 bullet is good enough) available to be pushed into smaller than 30-cal holes to enlarge them if they are barely 'out' but might just have broken the ring-edge if the full diameter. Otherwise a 223 shooter in FTR for instance suffers an inbuilt disadvantage against a 308 user.

In real life few if any club shoots go to this trouble - you either break the line or don't. If e-targets are sophisticated enough they would identify the shot-hole's exact centre and the software would assume the hole edges are on a 0.154" radius - but I'be no idea if that level of precision and sophistication apply.

On 300-yard F matches, refacing the target regularly is essential and the butts crew should do it as a matter of course. I've seen as many as three or even four new faces put on our 300 yard match targets during a relay. (But as we shoot two or three on a mound in the UK, a relay = a maximum possible 44 or 66 shots excluding any 'converted' sighters that'll reduce that figure.) Faces are stapled onto the target centre and it only takes seconds to put a new one on if the bits and pieces have been brought to the target in good time beforehand when it's obvious that the existing face is reaching an over-patched condition.

 

I don't mind etargets or paper but some of the scoring I have seen in the last year etargets get my vote some shoots I have been to I could let a round go get up go to my esky have a bite of some food and lay down ready for the next shot.

Cheers Trev.

 

I have said for quite some time that .040" is about the maximum random error you will get from a human puller.

What I mean is this, if the edge of the hole is within .040" of the ring, there is a seemingly random aspect as to whether the shot is initially scored higher or lower.

The human puller will take, with another puller confirming, a very close look if challenged.

I'd suggest that I'd be most comfortable with a random error that mimics human performance - .020" , 0.5mm radius with the ability to challenge the result (after the string is finished).

 

If the general argument against E-Targets is that they aren't as accurate as paper then the tolerances of paper targets could be used a basis for setting the acceptable tolerance of E-Targets. So with this in mind I went to see what the various rule books say:

NRA International Fullbore Prone Rifle Rules
Section 4: Targets, doesn’t specify a tolerance for target dimensions.
Section 14.3: How to Score, the tolerance for the scoring gauge is +/- 0.001”. Interestingly they specify different gauge diameters for 223 and 308.

ICFRA Technical Rules & Regulations for Fullbore Target Rifle Shooting
Annex D: Dimensions of ICFRA Targets, doesn’t specify a tolerance for target dimensions.

ISSF
Section 6.3.4.1: 300m Rifle Target,

• Inner 10 and 10 ring tolerance is +/-0.5mm (close enough to 0.020”),
• 9 & 8 ring tolerance is +/-1mm (close enough to 0.039”),
• 7 to 1 ring tolerance is +/-3mm (close enough to 0.118”),
• Ring Thickness is 0.5mm to 1mm

Section 1.4.2 in Annex – Rules for Paper Target Scoring the tolerance for the scoring gauge is +0.05 (close enough to 0.002”) /-0.00 mm


With the NRA and ICFRA not setting target dimensions who knows what the actual sizes are in use. This wouldn't be an issue if everyone is shooting on the same batch of targets in a competition.

The ISSF 300m target tolerances have been around for a long time and E-Targets have been in use in international competitions for a long time as well. The ISSF 300m target has a 0.57 moa diameter X ring and a 1.14 moa diameter 10 ring so it is comparable to the F-Class targets.

So if an E-Target can meet or exceed the tolerances of the ISSF 300m target I would be happy to shoot on them in international competition.

 

From testing ET’s I have found that error can also work in a shooters favour. People don’t challenge a 10 that looks like it’s actually a 9. Plus or minus one bullet hole is fine to me. I can’t read wind to the bullet hole at 1000yds. Be a brave person to say you could. If manual targets were so much more foolproof than ET’s how come people still win challenges? I’m all for manual targets in big matches, but I can see that well maintained, and tested to be reliable ET’s can and do have their place. Do the work in testing, share the results, prove the ET’s worthy and use them. We did and when we saw 2mm at 1000yds both us and our prospective patrons were very happy to come and shoot at our range recently and not once was there ever any doubt about a target nor did a target give reason to cause doubt.

 

How many target sheds have targets like this? Is this the standard?