E-Target Rules Changes

[Puzzaz01]

Why don't we all just start shooting sporting clays in a long range or F class discipline? We wouldn't need any E targets, when you see a black cloud that'd be an X.

 

[jkl]

A pin wheel X is no better than a ink spot where the target was in the air.

John

 

[allen529]

I started shooting F-Class in 2009. When I started I was lucky enough to meet some great guys who helped point me in the right directions. We pulled targets in the pits and that is where I learned the in's and out's of the rules and being a good puller. Unfortunately I had to stop shooting for several years. Now I am on o2 full time and unsteady walking but I am going to shoot this year and I look forward to hearing "targets up"

From what I have read there are issues with eTarget centers being shot to hell under the paper center along with alignment issues. In reading the proposed changes I see an honest effort to begin a standard where one doesnt really exist now. Okay for the sake of advancement, the same standards need to be established for all units used at every match no matter which manufacturer. But until thats done and verified then in matches where national records can be made then we need paper targets and manual pullers.

I dont have the magic number but 1/4 is too big a number I would prefer .125". Aim small miss small.

Allen

 

[Bindi2]

Every time you patch a hole on a paper target you are maintaining it at close to 100%. Why do people think there is no maintenance on ETs. Without maintenance the error factor grows.
Depending on what sort of ET is being used dictates when things have to be done. The targets are not at fault when people don't look after them.
The miss mentioned in an earlier post could have been fired on the wrong target, a real miss , short of powder, bullet blow up, ETs don't just not record every hit even if it cannot place it correctly it will show it as a hit on the diagonal wide. This is a rule issue for the RO/match director so they have to be up to speed on ETs
The paper centre is only an aiming mark it can be anywhere on a frame the acoustic centre is the scoring bit that sends the message of where the hit is. You alter too the spotter on the monitor because there is not one on the paper. As long as your reference aim point is the same the spotter will move to where you want it. if you aim off the same applies.

 

[Ron Gorski]

I started shooting F-Class in 2009. When I started I was lucky enough to meet some great guys who helped point me in the right directions. We pulled targets in the pits and that is where I learned the in's and out's of the rules and being a good puller. Unfortunately I had to stop shooting for several years. Now I am on o2 full time and unsteady walking but I am going to shoot this year and I look forward to hearing "targets up"

From what I have read there are issues with eTarget centers being shot to hell under the paper center along with alignment issues. In reading the proposed changes I see an honest effort to begin a standard where one doesnt really exist now. Okay for the sake of advancement, the same standards need to be established for all units used at every match no matter which manufacturer. But until thats done and verified then in matches where national records can be made then we need paper targets and manual pullers.

I dont have the magic number but 1/4 is too big a number I would prefer .125". Aim small miss small.

Allen

I'm a little fuzzy as to the 0.25" tolerance. Is the 0.25" measured from the center of the bullet hole or from the edge of the bullet hole. This makes a huge difference.

 

[allen529]

I'm a little fuzzy as to the 0.25" tolerance. Is the 0.25" measured from the center of the bullet hole or from the edge of the bullet hole. This makes a huge difference.

Certification Standards:

1. Max .25 inches in a summary Standard Deviation, at all courses of fire, for all calibres, under any environmental and setup conditions experienced, repeatable in match scenarios.

That means (l think) that if your shot cut a line or was close to cutting a line on the eTarget it could be scored a lower point value as the line is electronically fuzzy .25" compared to your impact. Also remember your paper facing pasted on the sensors will also have some "creep" when changed realistically so that electical line has to take that into account too.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

From what I have read there are issues with eTarget centers being shot to hell under the paper center along with alignment issues. In reading the proposed changes I see an honest effort to begin a standard where one doesnt really exist now. Okay for the sake of advancement, the same standards need to be established for all units used at every match no matter which manufacturer. But until thats done and verified then in matches where national records can be made then we need paper targets and manual pullers.

You're right Allen

If there is no Certification then the question that begs an answer is WHAT'S MY X REALLY WORTH? Or what's my record really worth. It needs to be the same from match to match and range to range.

 

[Dos XX]

You're right Allen

If there is no Certification then the question that begs an answer is WHAT'S MY X REALLY WORTH? Or what's my record really worth. It needs to be the same from match to match and range to range.

With .25" accuracy, you still don't know what your x is really worth, or your record.

 

[243Mendoza]

Rick,

Despite my opposition to the .25" standard of accuracy, I have a comment on the protocol you suggest.

In your testing protocol, I disagree with using standard deviation. A normal distribution is well known with only 68% of outcomes falling within one standard deviation and 95% within 2 and 99.7% within 3.

Doing the math, 32% of shots would be expected to have errors GREATER than .25" under your suggestion. Sickeningly, 5% would be more than .5"

If we are to use a protocol based on the .25", I suggest it should be .25" total error in extreme spread.

"Max .25 inches in a summary Standard Deviation"

What does this mean? 'summary standard deviation' is not a statistical term. It should say "a mean error of .25 inches with a SD of 0.xx" Or better yet: a mean of 0.25" with a 6sigma of 0.xxx" in. which includes a measure of extreme spread (assuming a normal distribution). Does the NRA understand statistics; I don't think so.

 

[Ned Ludd]

With .25" accuracy, you still don't know what your x is really worth, or your record.

Yes, I do. It's worth (1.00 - 0.25")X = 0.75X...that's it...that must be the answer...it's worth 0.75 of an X. Right? Right???!!! That must be the right answer!

IMO - All the e-target folks are going about this in a totally wrong way. As I see it, the main problems the e-targets are supposed to address are poor pit service and overly long match times, right? What we should be focusing our efforts on are other more expedient ways to address these issues. I propose that as an alternative to e-targets, we simply hire an overseas genetic tech company to clone Matt Scwartzkopf. Anyone who's ever had their target pulled by Matt knows that you won't find faster or more accurate pit service anywhere on the planet. Then, any time a big match is coming up, the directors just call up the company and ask them to spin up an extra 50 or 75 Matt embryos in time for the match. Problem solved. Besides which, Matt's a really good guy, so having a bunch more clones of him around will only be of positive benefit to the rest of us. The only real problem I see is deciding who's going to hold him down while someone collects the initial sample for cloning .

 

[SWRichmond]

In spite of some posters' insistence on narrowing the issues, as far as I know, remaining unaddressed, or inconsistently addressed between different ranges, are

• Scoring device: am I required / allowed to bring my own tablet? Am I responsible for battery life / charging the device?
• Visual clarity: I need reading glasses to see close objects. Am into be required to put on reading glasses in between each shot to see the tablet? And no, I do not need to do this for scope adjustments as these are merely changes from a starting point.
• Security: never have I seen addressed network security concerns. If we are wirelessly connected to someone's "scoring server", using devices we brought, I promise you that server can be either hacked or crashed easily. Someone will demo sooner or later. You guys who don't know about network security don't have any idea what goes on. Hacking tools are now automated, no real skill required. You wouldn't see anyone doing anything or paying any extra attention to a device. The whole thing can be scripted. "I get x's and you get 8's." And the e-target said so so you have no recourse. Think it won't happen?

 

[FatBoy]

server is a closed system, not connected to the internet. If someone was malicious enough to cheat or brick a $4000 server, winner will be dragged into the woods and shot . Simple.

 

[jkl]

You’re forgetting the hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorships endorsements commercial deals and other lavish winnings that this sport has the offer. You will rarely see the top shooters show up in a limo with a gaggle of groupies.

But I’ve never seen people fight harder for a line of printer ink making the top of the list.

 

[ngb1787]

You’re forgetting the hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorships endorsements commercial deals and other lavish winnings that this sport has the offer. You will rarely see the top shooters show up in a limo with a gaggle of groupies.

But I’ve never seen people fight harder for a line of printer ink making the top of the list.

Not me, just shooting against myself, lol,

 

[B Nettesheim]

Remember these are a set of recommendations sent to the NRA, this is not written in stone.

 

[corning]

Remember these are a set of recommendations sent to the NRA, this is not written in stone.

Unfortunately, when the "recommendation" is sent by the e-target manufacturer, it is a rather self serving recommendation.

 

[SWRichmond]

server is a closed system, not connected to the internet. If someone was malicious enough to cheat or brick a $4000 server, winner will be dragged into the woods and shot . Simple.

Doesn't have to be connected to the internet it only needs to be connected to anyone. Someone could leave a laptop in in their car in the parking lot connected to the match wifi system. That laptop could be running an automated toolset, with self selecting scripts to execute during a match depending on circumstances, who is on which firing position and so on. Unless you work in this business you just really don't understand. You think there aren't fighterpilot-sized egos in this game?

I really don't want to describe this in any more detail.

 

[Bindi2]

Would not encrypted passwords for control instructions be the way.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

...Unlessyou work in this business you just really don't understand. You think there aren't fighterpilot-sized egos in this game?

I really don't want to describe this in any more detail.

FFS.

 

[dcali]

A standard deviation of .25" is no where near the required accuracy for F class. You may as well flip a coin.