Electronic target test report

[FatBoy]

FWIW, we ran 2 x SMTs this weekend at AEDC. 9 shooters over 2 days and the only issues we had was the tablets overheating, which was a non-issue as just about everyone had their smart phones connected as well.

Second was a unit that wouldn't start the record count. It would say it started but just kept putting sighters up. I'm sure this it probably a SW update, and since we record on paper as well it didn't matter. Tim is going to get with Wayne on this to see if it's a setup thing or a SW upgrade.

Overall, I'm pleased with the system. Took about 10 minutes per target to set up in the pits and we left them up all weekend.

There was one other thing, we shot a jumper from the top right sensor sometime early on during match 3. Wind was terrible at AEDC. That said, we finished the day with zero perceivable accuracy issues and no lost shots that I know of. Easy repair on the wire. I'll be looking at building an external frame for the sensors and transmitter in the future.

I don't know any of the target makers/sellers except Wayne. I'm not trying to impune anyone, but a lot of what I read on all of these targets sounds a lot like negative marketing and user error. Could just be my perception, but that's how most of this comes off to me.

 

[Mudeat]

Anecdotal information, while interesting, is no substitute for a well structured test, results analysis, and formal report. Up to now, the report referenced at the beginning of this thread is all there is.

 

[XTR]

One thing you can be certain of is that no club or range that has invested 10s of thousands of $$ in a target system, with no option for a refund, is going to disparage their chosen system.

 

[Ringostar]

If Jeff took the SMT for the Hex test, and helped set it up. Then why would you let them shoot cross firing on it for the test? Knowing that you have to shoot perpendicular to the target, to get proper readings with an external sensor system. The entire test was not an accurate way to do it!

 

[FatBoy]

Anecdotal information, while interesting, is no substitute for a well structured test, results analysis, and formal report. Up to now, the report referenced at the beginning of this thread is all there is.

While I tend go agree, it seems each of these systems has their own pecularisms that prevent apples to apples test. I guess it could be done, side by side at the same time with target backers to verify with actual bullet holes (or an overlay) The only real bit of info I tend to get from any of these threads/tests is that all of the current crops of e targets have had issues. There is no perfect system available.

 

[memilanuk]

Curious that there is never any mention of the side-by-side test of these two systems during the practice/clinic days @ the 2017 BSWN. Each set up by their respective vendor reps. One system worked, one... did not.

 

[brucedaniel]

I am the author of the test report on HEXTA and SMT targets.

Before this report there was no publicly available comprehensive test data on SMT targets. Electronic targets are measuring instruments. Users need to know their actual performance. Without good information, they can’t make informed decisions on the best system for their needs.

On page 1 of my report I acknowledged my connection with HEXTA (as I said, I am a consultant, not an employee, shareholder or director). But I made every effort to carry out the test without bias. I used exactly the same method I’ve used on 100+ HEXTA targets over the last few years. I described the method in detail so others may judge for themselves.

The SMT system was operated by the owners of the system, Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club. They had in their possession the same user instructions I downloaded from the SMT website, “SMT v2 software reference guide”. The German manual Wayne referenced was not available online at the time of the test.

The manual makes no mention of alignment of the range, nor firing position. It clearly states that you don’t need to calibrate at every range. The owner’s practise was to calibrate at 200y for ease of shot placement.

There is nothing technically wrong with mounting an SMT on a HEXTA – the SMT can be mounted on any flat surface. It was an interesting opportunity to use the HEXTA as a second reference. The results I got with the HEXTA were consistent with all published data.

In the SMT results, I was expecting X and Y shifts due to misalignment. I was expecting vertical shift due to different angle of impact at the longer range distance. At the time of the test I did not know the range was misaligned, so I was not expecting large horizontal shifts. I understood from the user instructions that calibration is simply a correction for these offsets, and should not affect the accuracy performance once the X and Y shifts have been corrected for (which I did).

I did not expect the significant radial shifts that I found. I believe (although I am not certain) this was also caused by the misalignment. I suspect this radial shift could happen inward or outward, depending on the direction of the misalignment. To my knowledge, my test report was the very first mention of this problem. Shooters should be concerned because it directly affects scores. Calibrating at every range will not solve it. The effect can be minimised only by aligning the target perfectly with the trajectory at point of impact, which is very difficult, considering most ranges are misaligned horizontally, many vertically, and the angle of impact varies with distance of flight. And even then, errors in chronograph readings may cause radial shifts.

As I said, this was the first test I had seen with evidence of scaling error. More objective testing needs to be done. I encourage others more independent than I to take up the task. They are welcome to use my test method.


Bruce Daniel
Daniel Consultants Pty Ltd

Note: pdf version of this post is attached.

 

[XTR]

My first thought for SMT would be that if they are that sensitive to alignment or angle of impact, how do they accurately deal with conditions where you end up with 8½ MOA left on the rifle? That puts the angle of approach at the target coming from the target in the next lane. Targets are only ~6 moa wide, so an 8½ correction (which I had at one point at Connaught last month) puts you aiming a distance that equals target and a half left of the left edge of your target. Granted that the bullet doesn't get that far over, but it certainly enters from outside the frame well to the left of your target.

The folks at Connaught were more than happy to regale us with stories of 12MOA or more during matches there. (not getting into the issue of that much wind with an open detector system.)

 

[Stumpy1]

Hi All,

In light of all this information, I would also imagine that the angle of approach (from above) would vary by caliber/velocity of a given round (especially at long range). That is, the angle of approach from a 223 would be different than 308, would be different than 6 BR, would be different from 6.5-284 or a 300 winmag. IF that is true, then how does a single calibration take that into account for the SMT target?

Just asking out loud,

Frank

PS -Monte, could you please elaborate on your comment above regarding the 2017 BSWN? I am in ignorance of that test.

Thanks!

 

[kiwial]

Great test Bruce and thanks for sharing.
Have never shot on an Hex but have an lot of experience with SMT and your article explained in an clear/ easy to understand way that even an numb skull like myself the science on how both the open and closed systems work and the short comings that the open system just can't get around.
Allan White

 

[B Nettesheim]

My first thought for SMT would be that if they are that sensitive to alignment or angle of impact, how do they accurately deal with conditions where you end up with 8½ MOA left on the rifle? That puts the angle of approach at the target coming from the target in the next lane. Targets are only ~6 moa wide, so an 8½ correction (which I had at one point at Connaught last month) puts you aiming a distance that equals target and a half left of the left edge of your target. Granted that the bullet doesn't get that far over, but it certainly enters from outside the frame well to the left of your target.

The folks at Connaught were more than happy to regale us with stories of 12MOA or more during matches there. (not getting into the issue of that much wind with an open detector system.)

Look at someones trace next time your at a match. You will clearly see the arc headed towards the neighbouring target on a windy day, at about halfway to the target will be the widest arc correct?(assuming the same wind speed from the muzzle to the target) When your bullet travels through the target it'll be close to a right angle no matter the amount of wind it just encountered.

 

[XTR]

Look at someones trace next time your at a match. You will clearly see the arc headed towards the neighbouring target on a windy day, at about halfway to the target will be the widest arc correct?(assuming the same wind speed from the muzzle to the target) When your bullet travels through the target it'll be close to a right angle no matter the amount of wind it just encountered.

I have watched the traces, more that I can remember; I've shot in more than a few matches. Specifically a few weeks ago during the Easterns at at Connaught it was obvious (or at least appeared so from my coaches chair) that the trace was well outside of the target frame at 900m. And it appears to make the majority of it's path correction in the last third of it's flight. (I'm sure some ballistician can give us the correct trajectory)

When your bullet travels through the target it'll be close to a right angle no matter the amount of wind it just encountered.

SMT in their response does not specify what is close enough. What specifically is "close enough". Statements from SMT are clear that there will be inaccuracy if the bullet enters from other than square in front. They stated the the issue. I'm asking at what point does the issue present inaccuracy great enough to be a scoring problem? So just how inaccurate is a SMT if I'm lobbing a 308 into the target with 8, 12 or 18 MOA of windage from 1000 yards? A few mm, or a few inches? They go so far in their 6 page response as to say that you should calibrate the target from the range from which you are firing. Begging the question, how much difference is there in the calibration between a 7RSAUM with 26MOA of elevation and someone shooting 175SMKs with 36MOA, or my 200s with 30MOA or so? Do you need separate calibrations for varying range of "come ups" on the bullets? What is the range of acceptable variation and how should it be determined?

Nobody has run the SMTs with paper targets in enough conditions, and documented the results, to convince me that they are the answer for competition shooting outside of a club setting. I'd consider buying one for practice and load work, but I don't keep score then. The test referenced in this thread is the first test I've seen documented and published to the shooters.

And, I wasn't going to go there but now that I'm into this. The SMT rebuttal is very critical of the presentation of the information in the referenced report. It goes so far as to say that "As an engineer, if this report was sent to me and these guys worked for me I would send it back and tell them to start again."

As someone who reviews and prepares documents as a part of my profession I would have re-assigned the SMT response. If I did a full on internal technical review of that document my comments might take more space than the original document. In my mind it certainly raised far more questions that it answered, and it in no way made me more trusting of their product, nor does it seem to significantly challenge the results considering that the only defense is that "the SMT wasn't set up and calibrated correctly" when you consider that it was set up my the club members who owned it and I will assume thought they were doing it correctly. The units don't come with an onsite tech rep to perform calibrations and setups. (I also deal with instrument calibrations and how they relate to data collection)

And for the record, prior to this report my only concern with ETs was how they have the potential to change F class into a rapid fire event. I had assumed (wrongly it appears) that someone had done the due diligence to demonstrate that they were operationally sound with regard to reporting the location and scoring of impacts.

 

[FatBoy]

Wade,

Why not borrow one and just go shoot the damn thing on a target and find out for yourself? You wanna make it a tough test? Put the 200gr away and shoot 155s.

People are making this out to be rocket science. It's bullets making holes. If the e-hole and paper hole line up what else matters? I get that we want it as accurate as paper, I do too but for Christ's sake....

You know who I'm not hearing from? Match directors. Everyone else can speculate on whatever they like. Unless you're running matches with these the opinions is really just background noise. I dont see a pile of people lining up to run matches either. Who's going to skip a match because it has one brand of e-target over the other? Please..

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Find me a match director that hangs a new center for every relay and then compares the paper scores to the electronic scores, and you'll have something to talk about. Outside of that, the reliability of the wifi signal and the ability to say "yup, something hit the target" every time the competitor fires dominates the discussion about these targets...

The few matches I've shot on them have had 180+ shots fired into a single face - how are we going to judge the accuracy of the system from that?

Heck, on the last match, there was no x ring left to shoot at by the final relay - we were shooting at the dirt behind the hole.

 

[FatBoy]

I think if national records are going to be set, the NRA is going to have to come up with some form of calibration verification. Could be as simple calibrate and fire five shots into the target(s) to verify they are accurate. Otherwise there may be a lot of * next to the names in the record book

 

[dannyjbiggs]

Wade,

Why not borrow one and just go shoot the damn thing on a target and find out for yourself? You wanna make it a tough test? Put the 200gr away and shoot 155s.

People are making this out to be rocket science. It's bullets making holes. If the e-hole and paper hole line up what else matters? I get that we want it as accurate as paper, I do too but for Christ's sake....

You know who I'm not hearing from? Match directors. Everyone else can speculate on whatever they like. Unless you're running matches with these the opinions is really just background noise. I dont see a pile of people lining up to run matches either. Who's going to skip a match because it has one brand of e-target over the other? Please..

The real question is...who is going to skip a match BECAUSE they are using e-targets!

Dan

 

[Mudeat]

This guy might ........

Silver Mountain targets. They have some mayor problems with the WIFI and the target missing shots and who really knows what the accuracy really is from target to target. With no way to tell if one cross fires without a scorer watching the traces. There needs be some rules changes for range alibi. When you get to the 17th shot at 1000 yards and you are being ask to shoot your 7th extra shot. There is no conceivable way to shoot a winning score when you are having that much trouble. The day before I was shooting the Palma I fired my two sighting shots. The second sighter the WIFI stopped working on my pad and could not see the hit. So, after two or three minutes they gave me a different pad and the WIFI started working again. So, on a windy day at Lodi I had to fire my first shot for record with this delay. I lost 3 points getting back in the center. This was just enough to lose the match. There needs to be some large improvements before I shoot the Midwest Palma next year or I will not be there!
Randy Gregory

 

[mrmax]

Interesting comments ,"obligatory "court-ordered community service" in the pits" . Leo I'll bet you have pulled a fair share of targets as I had but did that stop people from shooting matches ?

"Moreover, invariably there will be equipment malfunctions." yes Leo that is precisely the problem, 'there will always be problems' !

1 Battery failure to hold the charge as stated.

2 Range extending unit failing.

3 Ghost shots.

4 Shots not showing up on target display.

5 Sensors not in the correct location when set up on the carrier.

6 Systems failure, have to re-load system.

7 Failure do to units getting too hot and shutting down.

8 Accuracy of the system , we now have the report from the test that you could have done when you bought your units . Every one that has bought them has previously REFUSED to state from test what the accuracy of the units was , WHY ! You've had over a year on this thread , what did you know that you wouldn't tell us and you had the paper targets to compare scores with.

9 ICFRA used common sense in not allowing NZ to use them in the 2019 WLRC in NZ , after NZ ran a highly questionable event in the Commonwealth events in 2010 in India on e-targets, that was NZ's fault not India's !

10 NRA engaging in physiological phrase opps like George Orwell in 1984 , " E-Targets are the way of the future".

11 NO ONE has as of yet accounted for the inaccuracy of the system due to meteorological conditions of acoustical error in high winds that cause increased angle of bullet strikes not being perpendicular to targets,,, which is a stated requirement that bullets strike the target perpendicular .

12 No one has shown that the e-targets are more accurate than paper targets.

13 There is NO !!! certification process to confirm nor prove that any specific target is producing any degree of accuracy comparable with the accuracy requirements of paper targets.

14 There is NO redundancy in the system at the target ! The acoustical pick ups do NOT consistently match paper shots, well known and not an acceptable system of redundancy.

15 No system in effect to prove that all targets are equal in pick up ability , else why would you have to move a shooter from one target to another to finish a string of shots ?

16 How many times have you been to a range where they checked the perpendicularity of the target face to the position of the shooter, aka , sine error ?

17 Loved that one, higher propagation, of shots to the center that were not evidenced by the shots on paper , is this a failure of the 4 vs 8 sensor units ?

18 Have you paid the several hundred dollars to up grade from the 4 to the 8 sensor units ?

19 If 4 sensor units were so good why add 4 more ?

20 Why has it taken so long to realize that 4 sensor units weren't good enough, did some one really need to point that out when you should have seen the results on the paper targets that did NOT match the electronic scores.

21 Now many want to blame it on the shooters who have had bad experiences on e-targets as, 'inexperienced', double talk ?

22 Getting the bugs out that only occasionally happen, would you like the words of a person who has spent a few hundred dollars to attend a shooting event that ahh well the targets were damaged from the shed to the target carriers by inexperienced target handlers, "50 ways to leave your lover".



PS to the shooters ,' If you don't like the e-targets we have, don't come back'. 'We have 100% satisfaction with the people that use our targets" .

Welcome to "1984" !

 

[mrmax]

This can be picked up on http://www.usrifleteams.com/lrforum/index.php?showtopic=16306&page=1, which has been going on for 2 years . We have MAJOR failures in NZ with SMT's I have zero interest in shooting on them and we have no choice about that , so Danny I refuse to shoot on targets that are not equal to different calibers and bullets and have double the error ; e-target system; when a shooter has a Right and Left wind as opposed to a single wind direction. If your still continuing to make the claim that SMTs are so darn good, be fair about it , put a paper target up, use the SMT as your reference and count the score on the paper, how about that ? What did you just say ??? Any takers on that ?

 

[mrmax]

The real question is...who is going to skip a match BECAUSE they are using e-targets!

Dan

The issue may be more about the reliability of the system used at that range . How many will not go back to the EIC match at Camp Perry when the CMP couldn't get them from the shed to the carriers with out damaging them and canceled the match with over a 100 shooters, don't think I would go back. But that is not the first time CMP had target failure it happened at Talladega as well and the 600 portion of the match was canceled. All of this is worthless when you have spent the bucks to attend a match and the e-target system fails or is not properly set up , then Dan you'll reconsider what you've said. Whats the ole saying , shame on you for fooling me once, but shame on me if you do it twice .