New 2019 NRA HP rules...

Ok, I have been reading the E-target thread since it started and all of the discussion seemed to be going in circles...so I wrote to Aaron Farmer and he provided me with the rule changes voted on in January...I have attached them, however as you work your way through them you will have to remember that they are in their raw format, you will have to break out your previous copy of the rules and insert/modify it with this information...they are still working on the format that will be hopefully posted later this month...

You will notice right away that these rule changes are very heavily invested in E-targets...

 

Anyone care to freeze a F-Class repair center after gluing it to a choloroplast backer down to -40F, and then heat it to +122F, and tell us what it looks like? What possible eTarget system (other than a military certified one) could comply with this storage requirement?

 

I assume they are referring to the electronic components based upon my reading. I do think the 'aiming' target should be the proper center for that particular class...not just a black center on white but the entire NRA certified center for that class.

 

"National records may be set on electronic target systems only where NRA-Licensed and Certified targets systems are used and where the procedures set forth elsewhere in the Rules for the use of electronic targets and systems are used"

Nowhere in this document is the procedure to certify etarget stated.

 

Did you not notice the sentence that followed that:


*Note: This rule will be effective January 2020.

However, I did ask the question if there was a list of approved systems. Here is his response:

"As far as the licensing thing that is suspended until 2020. So, right now there is not a list. I would just make sure that they will work properly for your range and the courses you run as well as the set up you plan to put into place. As long as they meet the requirements that are set forth at least currently, then you should be good to go."

 

The Jan 2020 should be made at the beginning of the document.

.25" accuracy requirement will be very difficult to achieve or prove.

 

I agree.

Regarding .25" (6mm) accuracy of all shots at all ranges, presumably anywhere on the target, is a big ask. I don't think it is achievable. For one thing, as an acoustic starts leaking (due to holes in the rear as it gets shot out) we know that accuracy, or measurement quality, degrades. By in large I aim for and like to see 10th of 1/4 MOA on average. But that's just me. It's about 3mm at 300Y and 8mm at 800Y. Roughly.

The storage and operating temperatures are a bit unrealistic but possibly doable. Not sure about the lower -40 degF but the 122 degF upper storage and 113 degF upper operating temperatures should not be a problem with industrial grade equipment - I have industrial equipment here rated to 160 degF (junction temp). I don't think anyone here in Australia would ever get to shoot at 5 degF but during the summer just gone I had shooters using the system on a regular basis at 104 degF. I thought they were nuts... but the gear held up throughout. Apparently the shooters also! In general semiconductors hate heat. I think life expectancy will diminish when subjected to this sort of thing.

Overall I think in respect to acoustic ET's it's not a bad start. Not that what I think matters much so this is simply an observation. But who put it together (can I ask)? Is it simply a case of outlining "desirable and mandatory" features and standards now and later ask those who might now about the physics and limitations of ET's (especially acoustic ones) what are realistic expectations and deliverables? Who is actually defining the standards to which ET's need to meet in order to be certified?

This is mainly my curiosity. It doesn't really affect me. We don't have any such standards here in Australia. None that anyone takes any notice of anyway...

Geoff.

 

I still don't see anything about changing the bullet diameter from the default .308 to what the competitor actually used if it's a NR? Did I miss it?

 

Also, these new rules will replace the 300/500/600 yd course of fire with an all 600 yd course of fire for F-Class Mid-Range Prone (7.20) and F-Class Mid-Range Championship (7.21) courses.

 

It did not replace it, it just added the 3x600 as a course of fire. At least thats how I read it. But they did that already.

 

That is how I read it also. (f) is still 300,500,600. (g) becomes the new 3x600 and the old (g) The current National Championship Aggregate course becomes (h) and so on. Simply inserted the 3x600.

 

No Disrespect to Archer (name ? from location Mayberry USA in his / her profile) intended, BUT

Before going off too many deep ends with what Archer posted...

Should we keep in mind that this is NOT an NRA Official Final Document.
What was posted in this thread is a not 100% complete draft that was UnOfficially Leaked to the public.

Personally I'd wait until the final OFFICIAL Version is released to the public from the NRA.

Aaron has told me that should be in the coming weeks as well.

George Smith
www.nfga.org

 

So question -
Does this mean there will be 2 national records to track in mid range?
1 for 300,500,600 course of fire
1 for 3 - 600 course of fire

 

Not hard to do the test

 

We do have a accuracy standard . The NRAA put it out . Trying to adhere to it is the big learning curve. This will also show the big difference between open and closed systems.
We use score rings / full size centres for each range. The black blob trialled and discarded.
Certification is a good question Geoff the world could end up with several different lots of regulations , not one. That will be fun for international shoots not.
We have had our system shut down , heat related the fix was simple and cheap. A piece of reflective insulation put over the electronic box on each target.

 

I have mixed feelings about this. Of course, we'd like to see the correct bullet diameter used for the shooter and this happens auto-magically on paper targets....but, on -e-targets, this means the admins / ROs will have to go down the line every relay and set the bullet diameter on every target. Does anyone see a problem with this??? Letting shooters do it means unlocking the admin interface....too many chances of disaster with that option. We are just setting the bullet diameter to .284 and calling it a day....you .223 shooters are getting over!

 

As an F-TR s

As an F-TR shooter that is particularly fond of the .223 Rem, I would be perfectly satisfied with either 0.284" or 0.308" bullet diameters.

 

Of course the proper sized gauge is used on paper targets for each calibre. Just go with the maximum calibre allowed. Which in our case is 8mm . If people want to use 223 from 500 back they need all the help they can get. I have not seen an 8mm on the range yet.

 

We only change it if a NR is set. Pretty simple really. If someone sets a potential record we go in as admin on their target and change it from 308 to whatever caliber they used. It will then recalculate. We have never seen a score change yet but it’s always possible. So we only do it for NRs not every shoot and every position because yes that would be a pain.

 

perfect.