7 Sec delay

[Highpower-FClass]

...programmed with a random algorithm so some shooters get prompt, accurate marking & some get annoying delays and obviously erroneous values so they equate with the level of skill & accuracy of pullers you might come across.

This made me chuckle, such an accurate description of manual pit service and the frustration that sometimes comes with it.

E-targets is a great way to improve an already great sport by the opportunity to provide 'good pit service' to everyone (10 - 12 seconds ideally). To change it to instantaneous scoring would bypass that opportunity and instead change the spirit of the game. Might still be a fun game but it would in my opinion not be the same as current F-class. And I really like current F-class.

 

[ShootDots]

I have been reading this thread with some interest. I have only shot 3 and 1/2 matches on an e-target. My trigger broke in the middle of a match! LOL! I was not impressed in the least with those targets. I spoke extensively with a shooter who was at the Nationals shooting on E-Targets. My conversations with him, lead me to believe that these targets, in their present state, are fraught with a wide variety of "rules" issues as well as operational problems. These need to be addressed before any other REAL i.e. state and regionals.. matches transpire. The discussions brought out in this thread need to be taken seriously, as in a more formal atmosphere, if a concrete set of rules are to be set. And the "rules", whatever they become, need to be consistent across the entire F-Class spectrum as "pull targets" are now. A group of shooters, very familiar with e-targets, along with long standing F-Class shooters, should be formed into a "committee" of sorts to iron out these problems. Then "hearings" should be held to give a voice to everyone who is interested. Then these rules should be implemented with an avenue for tweaking the rules for unforeseen "problems".

 

[3081FTR]

Yep don't make the mistake of wanting to change something after the horse has bolted, now in this transitional time is the time to sensibly and unemotionally evaluate and change.

 

[mgdietrich]

Long term for E targets should not require a scorer, that should be the goal.

If we want this "game" to be more enjoyable the systems should evolve into something similar to the suis system where no manual scorer is needed.

Like others, I think 7 seconds is too fast. 10-12sec delay seems much realistic to very good put service.

 

[Bindi2]

You blokes are going through the same discussion that has been held in Australia. We had a vote on time delays it was defeated at the National level NRAA. There are more important concerns with ETs than time delays depending on which system is used. Maintenance , wire harness, aerials and more will be more of a problem. Speed shooting will not change the entire game it will only be a small part, faster shooting will occur as peoples skill level improve, but most of the time gain has been through less time wastage in the pit area. The mound now has more time waste than Manual because half the job is now done on the mound. In my home state you can no longer shoot at a DRA PM on manual targets. 10 years ago they were all manual. Even the small clubs are installing ETs.

 

[3081FTR]

You blokes are going through the same discussion that has been held in Australia. We had a vote on time delays it was defeated at the National level NRAA. There are more important concerns with ETs than time delays depending on which system is used. Maintenance , wire harness, aerials and more will be more of a problem. Speed shooting will not change the entire game it will only be a small part, faster shooting will occur as peoples skill level improve, but most of the time gain has been through less time wastage in the pit area. The mound now has more time waste than Manual because half the job is now done on the mound. In my home state you can no longer shoot at a DRA PM on manual targets. 10 years ago they were all manual. Even the small clubs are installing ETs.

Just to provide some perspective on this post. This is an excerpt from an Aussie forum.

http://ozfclass.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8269

7 seconds is about right in my opinion. I think the majority of F-Class shooters here would prefer it, but our campaign was derailed, in part because it was put to the vote at NRAA level as a 10 second delay. Will be interesting to see if the delay becomes the norm in the US. If it does then over time they will gain a competitive advantage in wind reading over countries like Australia.

 

[Bindi2]

I also disagree with that author 7 seconds would have failed as well. Some people like string others like Bisley. If you want to beat the Poms at their own game you practice it that is you not the whole country. They shoot to your rules when they visit, you to theirs when you visit.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I would take the point of view that it's incumbent on the target manufacturers to meet our needs, not the other way around. I get that these systems are deceptively complex and adding more increases cost. I write software for a living, so I get it. But if the targets don't work to enhance the experience and keep within the spirit of High Power Rifle (F Class), then we ought not to be using them at all in my view.

The customer is only right if they represent enough market share to dictate product features AND in cases where the system has not been purchased yet.

Once a system is purchased, changes to the proprietary system software will not be a priority for the vendor.

Further, it is not clear yet that F-Class shooters represent a big enough market share to dictate new features for future installations, much less existing installations.

The largest electronic target installation in the SE US is at Talladega CMP. This venue hosted 4 F-Class matches in 2016, and there has been preliminary talk of about that many in 2017. These matches probably represent less than 1% of the annual revenue for the range, less than $3000 per year. Adding an NRA rule requiring a programmed delay is most likely to keep the event running as a non-NRA sanctioned event like every other F-Class match in Alabama.

 

[dcali]

The customer is only right if they represent enough market share to dictate product features AND in cases where the system has not been purchased yet.

Once a system is purchased, changes to the proprietary system software will not be a priority for the vendor.

Further, it is not clear yet that F-Class shooters represent a big enough market share to dictate new features for future installations, much less existing installations.

The largest electronic target installation in the SE US is at Talladega CMP. This venue hosted 4 F-Class matches in 2016, and there has been preliminary talk of about that many in 2017. These matches probably represent less than 1% of the annual revenue for the range, less than $3000 per year. Adding an NRA rule requiring a programmed delay is most likely to keep the event running as a non-NRA sanctioned event like every other F-Class match in Alabama.

Well, if we want a delay and they don't have one, we won't buy their stuff, right? But to your point, the economics of these targets appears to be their biggest weakness. All these "simple changes" to the software have to be implemented and tested by the manufacturers, and software is not cheap. (Incidentally, I have NO IDEA how anyone makes money selling smartphone ballistics apps. Talk about a nightmare of cost).

How much would a 15 target system cost over 10 years? That's what my club would need, and I have a feeling that it's way more than we can afford, and we have some pretty decent sized local matches- 30-40 shooters, and a full slate of 60 for our state match, with the host club having a membership of around 2000. (Eastern Nebraska Gun Club just outside of Omaha).

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Well, if we want a delay and they don't have one, we won't buy their stuff, right?

"We" in purchasing decisions of this magnitude are seldom a unified perspective. I know of very few gun clubs/shooting ranges where F-Class shooters are the dominant voice in capital decisions of this magnitude. Demanding a delay requires BOTH that F-Class shooters' viewpoint has veto power in the decision AND that the F-Class shooters' in the relevant purchasing discussion regard the delay as important enough an issue to exercise that veto power.

But to your point, the economics of these targets appears to be their biggest weakness. All these "simple changes" to the software have to be implemented and tested by the manufacturers, and software is not cheap. (Incidentally, I have NO IDEA how anyone makes money selling smartphone ballistics apps. Talk about a nightmare of cost).

How much would a 15 target system cost over 10 years?

I can't see how the anticipated F-Class usage in most ranges in the SE US would justify the real anticipated expenses over 10 years.

 

[B Nettesheim]

I have been reading this thread with some interest. I have only shot 3 and 1/2 matches on an e-target. My trigger broke in the middle of a match! LOL! I was not impressed in the least with those targets. I spoke extensively with a shooter who was at the Nationals shooting on E-Targets. My conversations with him, lead me to believe that these targets, in their present state, are fraught with a wide variety of "rules" issues as well as operational problems. These need to be addressed before any other REAL i.e. state and regionals.. matches transpire. The discussions brought out in this thread need to be taken seriously, as in a more formal atmosphere, if a concrete set of rules are to be set. And the "rules", whatever they become, need to be consistent across the entire F-Class spectrum as "pull targets" are now. A group of shooters, very familiar with e-targets, along with long standing F-Class shooters, should be formed into a "committee" of sorts to iron out these problems. Then "hearings" should be held to give a voice to everyone who is interested. Then these rules should be implemented with an avenue for tweaking the rules for unforeseen "problems".

During the nationals members of the high power committee were present observing the match. After the match a meeting was held with the NRA judges, members of the high power committee, and us shooters to discuss the previous match. The delay feature was discussed along with other items. Maybe there will be a new chapter in the rule book.

 

[Bindi2]

ETs replace the manual system for all target shooting not just F class. What you see down range is just an aiming mark recording comms setup. The monitor has the target that is required in the software that is purchased. ETs just remove the requirement for a full pit crew.

 

[Zilla]

For F-Class in the U.S., there has to be a target face on the target.

 

[Bindi2]

For F-Class in the U.S., there has to be a target face on the target.

As in Australia we call it the aiming mark one for each distance. One down side we have had to manage because there is no on going patching the centre gets shot out so we place another inner on the aiming mark with velcro as required. Sling and F class shoot side by side using the same aiming marks.

 

[GeoffR]

The ET system I have built here in Australia and have installed at a few sites has provided automatic cross fire detection and [optional] post shot delay (up to 15 secs) for some years. Along with some other fancy features. Making the changes to the software when asked wasn't really a big deal. It was all about providing what some shooters asked for.

When the post shot delay - or throttling - is enabled, the way I currently have it is that any shot fired during the delay is ignored. But it could just as easily be treated as a miss - could probably be an option also.

Geoff
Ozscore.

 

[GeoffR]

As in Australia we call it the aiming mark one for each distance. One down side we have had to manage because there is no on going patching the centre gets shot out so we place another inner on the aiming mark with velcro as required. Sling and F class shoot side by side using the same aiming marks.

As Bindi says, we have been using throughout Australia corflute sheets with the various aiming marks screen printed onto them. These are velcro'd to the target face, suitably aligned so that the visual and acoustic centres align as closely as possible. In fact, I was the first to produce them for my ET customers - as well as some manual target ranges.

As the plastic in the centre gets shot out, it is quite easy to splice in a fresh square (whatever) to extend its life.

The black of the aiming mark is a matt black that goes a long way to reducing sun reflections back into the eyes of shooters. Depending on the orientation of the range, that happens from time to time.

The plastic is very dimensionally stable and the rings are accurate to less than 1 mm.

My aiming marks also have a 3/4" white dot in the dead centre for the scope shooters (that disappears pretty quick!)

To cover all the ICFRA ranges - both metric and imperial - nine different aiming marks are required.

I am sure the same thing could be done in America for the targets you use. As Bindi says, scope and open sight shooters use the same aiming marks.

Geoff.

 

[3081FTR]

The ET system I have built here in Australia and have installed at a few sites has provided automatic cross fire detection and [optional] post shot delay (up to 15 secs) for some years. Along with some other fancy features. Making the changes to the software when asked wasn't really a big deal. It was all about providing what some shooters asked for.

When the post shot delay - or throttling - is enabled, the way I currently have it is that any shot fired during the delay is ignored. But it could just as easily be treated as a miss - could probably be an option also.

Geoff
Ozscore.

Do you know what they do when there is a crossfire slightly ahead of the shooters shot - do they have the ability to "show/record/whatever" the shots?
Thanks for the input.

 

[Bindi2]

Do you know what they do when there is a crossfire slightly ahead of the shooters shot - do they have the ability to "show/record/whatever" the shots?
Thanks for the input.

I wont reply for Geoff and his system. We shoot on the Kongsberg system. The scorer watches the monitor for registration of shots in a way that he /she is aware when the shooter fires. I have called 8 away cross fire (score) 8 away score thus telling the shooter he has fired his 8th shot there was a cross fire scored then his score, also have called 8 away score cross fire score, called for RO both times. This is why a time delay of any sort will make it harder to score correctly for the shooter without upsetting the shooter. If the scorer cannot differentiate between who owns which shot the RO has the rule book and decides, have only seen this happen once when the scorer wasn't concentrating on their job ( talking to his mates) I was the shooter and I knew which was my shot.

 

[Bindi2]

There is one off spin I agree with in local rules is NO EMPTY CASES TO BE TAKEN TO THE MOUND loaded rounds only.
counting empty cases solves many issues. Claimed score when no shot fired being one.

 

[GeoffR]

Do you know what they do when there is a crossfire slightly ahead of the shooters shot - do they have the ability to "show/record/whatever" the shots?
Thanks for the input.

There is some fancy logic applied - too much to detail here. Here's a basic explanation.

All [muzzle] discharges are recorded and time stamped (with 1 mSec granularity) as are all shots received by a target. We know that a shot has been fired from a particular firing point, who fired it, when it was fired (to within 1 mSecs), at what it was supposed to be fired at, and subsequently when/if it arrives at its intended destination. Theoretically variations in times of flight between shooters can result in potential confusion at the target - basically a faster bullet overtaking a slower one that was fired first. But this turns out to be quite rare - we have been looking for instances of this for some years now. It happens, but as I said, it's rare.

When the shooter mound units are employing a wired LAN the mound units are able to syncronise their clocks (time) to the master clock to within 1 mSec. When using the wireless LAN (wifi) it is generally about 4 or 5 mSecs and somewhat variable (due to the vagaries of wifi). In any event, the time stamping of discharge events is rather precise, as is the time of arrival at the target. We use this to accurately measure the time of flight (that allows us to calculate average velocity).

So, if a discharge is recorded at a firing point that the system expects to see arrive at a particular target some time shortly thereafter, but instead appears at some other target (within the TOF window for the range) then that discharge is deemed to be a cross fire. That shooter is informed (on the screen) that a crossfire occured and is awarded a miss. A cross fire miss cannot be discarded or disclaimed. He/she is not told which target received the shot (that is, which target they actually fired at) - only that it occurred. Unlike with manual targets, whoever is supposed to be shooting at that target is not informed. There is no pair of "spotters" from which that shooter can select the best - if they happened to have fired. If they haven't fired then to them it's like nothing happened at all.

I guess to fully answer your question, unless the cross fired bullet collides with the legitimate shot at the target, or over takes it during flight, there is a pretty good chance that the system will "get it right" and record the proper result for both shooters. Experience has shown that it generally does - we have plenty of experience with crossfires!