Discussion in 'Competition Forum (All Calibers)' started by noload, Jul 29, 2017.
You should have also posted the reply by SMT about the set up and that the tester is affiliated with the other.
SMT has replied? I'd be interested in seeing that.
Here it is:
Thanks for posting this link. I couldn't find it myself.
In my experience, clever engineers and designers tend to be pretty skilled at using their chosen language. No doubt good language skills are automatic for some while others have to work at it. But published articles about highly technical hardware are usually well written and carefully proof read.
B.S. artists and charlatans, on the other hand, often have poor command of the English language.
This is not true in every case, of course. It's quite likely that the SMT targets are quite good. I've never shot a match using them, but I hear good things about SMT. Unfortunately, the above referenced document makes me wonder why someone trying to sell a rather expensive and very sophisticated system would publish a paper which looks like it was written by a lazy person with less than a high school education. Surely that's not true, but I couldn't help myself wondering about SMT's public relations policy. Where is their attention to detail? It's a shame really, but first impressions are important.
Ive worked with Dan, Wayne and Mark from SMT over the past year and a half or so and their attention to detail is top notch and they always make it right!! They are also some really good guys who have their hearts in this stuff.
I have shot on both systems, Hex & SMT. For a Tuesday training session one cannot beat the ease of setup of a SMT system. If one looks at the range, and I shoot at Malvern and put side and plunge angles in their system, I get very good results. I have compared my paper targets with the electronic printouts. My results have been one heck of alot better than the Reade report. Therefore, I question the setup or programming for the report at Reade.
There is also some inherent deviation in the SMT because it is an open system. The SMT response acknowledged that factor.
The experience with the Hex was the device or server, showing the shot display locked up for my firing point. This happened numerous times. It also was an issue on a couple other firing points. I cannot make a statement on accuracy of shot location. I had to use a non-Hex viewing device because of these repeated failures.
The 8 mic system promised for the SMT looks interesting.
My conclusion, at this time, both systems are good but both need some improvements.
While the 8 sensor system was being installed at Winnequah, the range was also expanded in firing points. The added targets were installed the the big end. The firing lines however had to be added on the small end. Then all firing points were shifted left, in order the square up the range. This way your firing point is actually perpendicular with the target line. This is done to get proper readings from the sensors. From my reading of the Hex test, they didn't shoot from the proper firing point. Intentionally shooting from firing point 6 onto target 2, can throw of the sensor readings. It certainly doesn't appear to be a fair test.
I don't know any of the folks associated with either target system, but I suspect you're correct when you say the SMT guys have their hearts in their work. Unfortunately, when I read the test report rebuttal I had to cringe. The document left the same impression that a job applicant might present if he/she showed up for a high paying executive job interview with a big blob of mustard on their shirt and mismatched shoes.
I'm convinced the SMT system can't possibly be as bad as the test report claims. If it were, folks who use the SMT system would be telling the world how horrible it is. In fact, real world reports from those who operate and/or use the SMT system are very complimentary. I will have a chance to shoot a match using the SMT system in two weeks and I look forward to it. After communicating with the match director, I feel confident that the targets will function reliably and the scores will be fair.
But that doesn't change the fact that the SMT company rebuttal made me wonder why in the world they would risk their reputation by publishing a document without doing a little bit of proof reading. Removing some typos and cleaning up the grammar a little bit would make their argument so much more persuasive. When it comes to marketing, image is everything.
There are other user reports:
".....the SMT system can't possibly be as bad as the test report claims. If it were, folks who use the SMT system would be telling the world how horrible it is."
Hi, I am looking into electronic targets for our club in the UK.
It will be used for ‘F’ Class competitive shooting. I see that from the comments made on this forum that the accuracy of the Silver Mountain system is totally dependent on the skill of the person setting them up. Can someone confirm this and if setup correctly what accuracy can be achieved ?
The Silver Mountain website has no details on expected accuracy. How can shooters get confidence using this system if it cannot guarantee consistency ?
Last weekend I had a chance to shoot at 600 yards using the SMT system for the first time. The experience was perfect. It took the RSO and one helper only a short period of time to set up the target faces and a few more minutes to turn on the WiFi system at the firing line. The RSO showed up with everything on a small trailer pulled by a four-wheeler, but it could as well been pulled by a car and set up anywhere where there were a set of poles installed ahead of time. In other words, it's quite portable. I imagine two different agencies might even share a single target system and use it on alternating weekends. It was apparently very easy to put up and take down. The time required was similar to mounting target faces on the mechanical targets I normally use.
Each shooter was provided with their own touch screen monitor and most of us also logged on with our personal phones, tablets, or lap top computers. Getting connected was quick and easy even for non geeks. I was able to capture around 20 screen shots so that I could take the scoring data home with me. Not a shot was missed all day and as far as I can tell the system was flawless. Nobody attempted to measure the accuracy of the system, but nobody detected any errors either. My friend shoot a couple of 20 shot strings in the high 190's. One was a 198 with 14 X's so I imagine if the system were to be a piece of junk, that would be an unlikely score. Bottom line: Seeing the SMT in action for the first time certainly didn't match with the negative review which is the subject of this thread.
My only other experience with electronic targets is with the Kongsberg electronic target system, a much more expensive system. The match was a complete flop when the system simply didn't work and there was no back up.
I'm gonna' guess that based on my very limited experience, that the SMT system isn't really perfect even though my experience was indeed perfect. Likewise, I'm guessing the Kongsberg system isn't a total piece of junk even though that is exactly what I saw on my only attempt to use the Kongsberg equipment. At this point, if I were purchasing a system or advising a club on what to buy, I would be very much in favor of the SMT system, especially considering the cost. I'll have a chance to use the SMT system again in September.
Oh boy. Here we go. I am going to make some Popcorn and watch this one play out as the Nay Sayers get in line.
Good to see your likeing the E targets.
Poor maintenance on any ET system will soon show up problems. We use Kongsberg ET's on our range and when properly maintained they are reliable. The problem we have are technical problems introduced by people with technical ability that is almost nonexistent.
I must have missed the paper that proved there was a correlation between scores measured on an ETarget system and the quality of the system. The higher the score, the better the system?
No............ that's not what I said and it certainly wasn't what I meant to imply. My comment was in response to a rather negative review of the SMT system written by one of their competitors. If the review were true, one might expect the SMT system to be a real piece of junk. In fact, my experience was quite positive. You're reading something into my post that simply isn't there.
Let me see if I can clear up your misunderstanding. If an experienced shooter is putting nearly every bullet inside the 10 ring shot after shot, it would be a surprise and a disappointment to suddenly be credited with a score of 6.
That sort of unexpected surprise, of course, is a concern when shooting electronic targets. You don't want the system to suddenly give you a score that is way out in left field for no apparent reason. An experienced shooter would suspect a target malfunction. That is in fact exactly what happened when I shot in a match last year using the Kronsberg target system. All shooters experienced malfunctions. Competitors who were very capable of shooting high scores, were getting results all over the target or complete misses; results they KNEW were wrong. Yet the organizers kept insisting that their system was good and the shooters were unable to compensate for the wind in spite of hundreds of years of accumulated experience on the firing line. Those kinds of crazy measurements lead one to doubt the quality of the system. In fact, that particular Kronsberg system was eventually shown to have a complete system failure, and it wasn't the first time.
The point is that we enjoyed a lot of shooting with the SMY system the other day without any mysteries, malfunctions, or questions. Nailing the 10 ring shot after shot is what my shooting partner expected and that's what showed up on the target system. An unreliable and erratic system is unlikely to do that. I was doing some load testing and I got results commensurate with what I expected.
Electronic targets are like any other measuring system. If you continue to input data which is, as far as you can tell, quite consistent you would expect reasonably consistent measurement results. I have very limited experience with electronic targets, but I have confidence that based on the scores displayed on the SMT system it must not be as bad some of their competitors say.
I have been reading the information that has been distributed about both the SMT and Hex target systems. Here at the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club we began testing the SMT targets about 4 or 5 years ago. Mark Trew was present at one of out tests at 1000 yards. I have had numerous conversations with both Daniel Chisholm and Wayne about the target. In September of 2015 the club purchased an SMT target with the idea of installing them for our 600 yard matches and 1000 yard matches. We used the system at many of our 1000 yard practices and the primary issue was connectivity. We had a difficult time remaining connected at 1000 yards. During 2016 I began discussions with the Hex target people. Over the winter I found that the folks from Reade Range in Altoona were also in discussions with the folks at Hex. After discussing the matter with those folks each club decided to purchase 10 targets each of the Hex system. While there were many reasons for the decision perhaps one of the most important was the ease of setup, no calibration required and no wires, except for a connection for a battery. In February of 2017 several of us from both clubs participated in the Orange Blossum Open in Florida. It was our first experience with shooting on a range with multiple electronic targets, specifically SMT. Without going into detail, we saw several problems occur throughout the match. While in Florida a report was release that showed the effects of a crosswind on an open system. That did not increase our confidence. The 20 Hex targets were delivered to Reade Range first, due to the 1000 yard Regional match they sponsor during the first week in June. Two representatives from Hex were present to assist in the setup. This being my first experience I was extremely pleased at the fact there were no issues that were not caused by user error the entire weekend. We then took our 10 and 5 of Reade's Hex target down to Bridgeville for our Mid-Atlantic Long Range Regional 1000 yard match at the end of June. Again, there were no problems that were not caused by user error. While Mark Trew alluded to a "lockup" issue, it was not the target. As shooters are want to do, they knew better than the system and caused data entry problems.
The report that Hex targets released about the testing that was done with their target and SMT was conducted at Bridgeville and Reade ranges. I was present during all the testing. The SMT system was installed and calibrated right on one of the Hex targets. In my opinion that provided the best method for conducting a "side by side" comparison. Every effort was made to ensure that the test was done properly. The results are in the report.
Without going into specifics, I believe that comparisons of the target systems must be done on at least two levels. One is technical and best left to the experts to determine. The other is the experience of shooters and match directors. I have run matches and participated in High Power rifle competition for about 40 years. I found the Hex targets easy to setup, easy to use and extremely easy in producing match results. There are no missed shots, no ghost shots. With the right connections results can be seen real time online. The competitors target plot with each shot in order is displayed.
There are only 30 of the Hex targets in the United States. There are many more in Australia. The reports are all the same. No problems.
I have read the report from Hex and I have read the response from SMT. Having been there, I can safely say, there are numerous inaccurate statements in the SMT rebuttal.
Based on what I have been reading I felt compelled to post the above, even though I do not post very often. There are too many armchair quarterbacks out there that have not shot on both targets or set them up.
I have a SMT system and have used it a 600 and 1000yd with minimal problems. I use a tablet to monitor my shots. I have even used it in the mountains. I don't think you could do this with the HEX system. BTW, I do not think the test report mentioned did not the properly calibrated
of the SMT. This is obvious when you see the group shows not be centered/
I never said the SMT didn't have its uses. It's like the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevy. Both have their application. Not sure what you meant about the calibration. I am more concerned about match conditions. Having been one the few competitors to have used both systems I believe the Hex system is the better choice for matches, primarily due to ease of use, no need to calibrate at different distances, preparing match results and no wires. Look at how the Bullseye Camera system was promoted. What they didn't tell you is that shooting into a black bullseye, such as a 200 yard XTC center doesn't trigger the camera. The hole is not "visible" to the camera. However, it works great if you have a white background and create a new hole.
The Test Report came out July 12th and the SMT aficionados claimed the target wasn't set up properly, even though it was set up by the club that owned it just like they would for a match at their range. The majority of the work has been done in designing the experiment, documenting everything, designing the analysis, and running the test - even as a pilot. Now, all the equivocators have to do is set up their SMT to their complete satisfaction and rerun the test. It's now September 5th, why haven't they rerun the test and published the results? Possibly the results are like the 1st test.
Separate names with a comma.