E-Target Rules Changes

[dcali]

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.

No. This is not even remotely realistic. James Bond himself is more likely to show up at a match.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

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

I'm sure your aware that the NRA's current rules require .25". We're just saying we're ready to comply with that providing there is a Certification process.

 

[dcali]

I'm sure your aware that the NRA's current rules require .25". We're just saying we're ready to comply with that providing there is a Certification process.

I havent really kept up. But for 600 yard f open, I would argue that 1/4” SD of error is way too much. We have guys shooting x counts in the 30s. That’s more than a few near enough to the line to turn it into a crap shoot at the top. 300 yard f class is already kind of silly, but that kind of error would make it totally pointless.

 

[FatBoy]

This is a response Adam posted up in his target thread . Maybe it'll help quell the hysteria .

I've read many threads on this topic of accuracy requirements and I hesitate to get into a debate. But this thread is about my new product so I suppose I might as well chime in once. I know math, I know e-targets, and I know running matches, and I know competing in F-class. Here is the intersection of all four.

The answer to how much accuracy is required comes down to statistics. Suppose you have 4mm of random error. You are shooting a group at 600 yards that is 3 inches (1/2 moa).

Yes it is true that on each shot, the shot might be reported up to 4mm in either direction, and 4mm is enough to put you outside the line, or inside and change the score you would have got on manual targets for that shot.

But you shouldn't think about it in terms of whether individual shots are reported correctly. You don't see the paper, you only see what happens on the electronics, you are scored on the electronics, and everyone you are shooting against is shooting on the same target. You shoot multiple shots, and so does everyone else. The error is random and unpredictable.

The question is does that amount of error added compared to scoring manually negatively influence the competition? If the random error was large then it would be like everyone is shooting a slightly less accurate rifle and then the results would tend more towards random luck, and the value of the competition would be reduced.

So we can work it out. 3 inches is 76.2 mm. If your "true" group on paper was 76.2mm, then the target with random error of 4mm would increase your group size to... sqrt(76.2*76.2 + 4*4) = 76.3 mm.

This level of accuracy is so ridiculously insignificant in terms of competition. It's not even worth thinking about.

4mm at 600 yards is 0.026 minutes. When you are making 0.125 moa adjustments in F-class, another 0.02 moa of random error is small enough that it will not influence any decisions you make while shooting. It's just a tiny bit of noise that no one will ever notice. At 300 yards, it can be argued that it is noticeable, but just barely.

There are more important things to think about. The real problem is whether the target will throw a shot way out. Practical issues such as shockwave interference from other shooters can not only cause missed shots, but shots to be reported way off. Having 8 mics helps with this. If the target is shaking in the wind, or worse, rocking back and forth, this can cause 1/2 to 1 moa of vertical error (unless you have 8 mics). This is unacceptable. Using e-targets in matches requires properly built, sturdy, stable target frames. It does not require 4mm raw accuracy capability of the system.

Whether it's 4mm or 8mm, both the ShotMarker and the SMT are equally capable of the raw accuracy required for the top level of competition. The question is whether the practical implementation issues are addressed, such as network reliability, protocols for troubleshooting and handling target errors, protocols for crossfires, etc. E-targets bring new challenges in terms of running matches in a fair way, and over the last 3 years I've seen it all. E-targets are the future and to get there sooner we need to accept that raw precision of the system has progressed far enough across the board (with ALL vendors of e-targets, at this point) that it no longer matters, and start to understand what does matter.

I intend the ShotMarker to be used in competition, and I will put my focus into addressing these practical concerns through better software, warning messages and providing relevant data to the shooter/scorer when odd things happen, reliable network, an easy to use interface, educating ranges on what is important when building target frames, etc. I've shot e-targets in a concrete tunnel and the accuracy can be incredible - 1mm or thereabouts. The problem is not the technology, it's how we choose to use it.

 

[dcali]

There's nothing wrong with his math or reasoning, but there is a big difference between an error with a standard deviation of 1/4" and a total error of 4mm. The former just isn't good enough in my view. The latter, while not ideal, is only going to piss off the guys with true 1/4 minute capable rifles (of which there are few).

 

[FatBoy]

The 1/4" SD was just a reference in the proposal. I don't know any of the target makers who advertise this, or if this is even what Keith intended in his post.

I suspect, by the time a good study is done with the new systems, further enhancements will be made to make them even more accurate and probably more secure. Maybe dedicated pads fpr shooting points and a monitor behind the line, etc. With some regional matches and state championships being shot on e-targets now it would be wrong to say maybe this discussion is too early, but the tech is moving at a pace I suspect the NRA won't be able to keep up with for the short term.

 

[corning]

I'm sure your aware that the NRA's current rules require .25". We're just saying we're ready to comply with that providing there is a Certification process.

The NRA recently solicited input for what appears to be an effort to revise the e-target rules. Even under the best of circumstances, .25 inch is too much "slop" for a target that will be used for state, regional, and national championships, as well as establishing national records. Heck, a .25 inch is the difference between a close 9 or 10, or a close X or 10. With the skill of the shooters, and the accuracy of rifles, that .25 inch might as well be the Grand Canyon. I believe that a person in the pits has a higher degree of accuracy than .25 inch. .25 inch is a ridiculously large margin of error, given what the targets are to be used for. Rick, instead of saying you are ready to comply with a .25 inch margin of error, per the current NRA rules, you should be instilling confidence in shooters by telling them how small a margin of error your system operates to.

John Corning

 

[MattKubic]

I must respectfully disagree with some of you on one point, and that is that .25" sd is too much allowable error. My argument is in purely practical terms. Let's consider this. If the wind is not blowing or blowing consistently, you have a great rifle and load, and you are a top level shooter, that .25" sd costs you nothing in terms of score. You will be in the middle of the target. So, it's a moot point. If there is a 10mph crosswind with pickups and letoffs at 1k yds and you have 5-6 moa of wind on your sights (for a F Open or Any Rifle), it could potentially turn a 10 into a 9, BUT that .25" sd represents much less than 1 click of wind on your sights. Is there someone on this planet that can call wind within 1 click or 1/4 minute? That 1/4 minute is 2.5" at 1k. The points I am trying to make are:
1. that the people winning most of the matches will still be winning most of the matches because they consistently make better wind calls and/or have a better strategy.
2. If you are within the sd range out wide in the 10 ring, you made a bad wind call anyway and not by just 1 click.
3. There is a little luck involved in this sport already. I would say a lot more already than this issue represents. In your next match, count the number of times you get caught unaware on a wind change. Who here has never broken a shot dead center, felt good about it, and then watched the target come up as a 8 or 9 and wondered "where in the hell did that come from?" Did that .25" sd really hurt you?

 

[dcali]

If the SD is 1/4” it will not be uncommon to have shots that are two or three times that error. When you’ve shot out the x ring in one relay, that matters. It’s not going to make a marksman win by accident but it makes the guys at the top shooting 600s much more dependent on luck to actually win. Perhaps it’s just academic and there are no real targets that bad, but that standard is very low. Too low (if you ask me) for mid range f class. For sling targets and long range it’s probably fine.

 

[Dos XX]

We aren't shooting for group. We are shooting for score.

 

[Joe Silvia]

No offense to anyone. But I find it absolutely hilarious that people who call themselves "precision paper punchers" and who pour over components for hours and measure things to the .1g will simultaneously rationalize accepting the point of impact of the bullet within 1/4" of where it actually hits. MORE or LESS!

 

[allen529]

I must respectfully disagree with some of you on one point, and that is that .25" sd is too much allowable error. My argument is in purely practical terms. Let's consider this. If the wind is not blowing or blowing consistently, you have a great rifle and load, and you are a top level shooter, that .25" sd costs you nothing in terms of score. You will be in the middle of the target. So, it's a moot point. If there is a 10mph crosswind with pickups and letoffs at 1k yds and you have 5-6 moa of wind on your sights (for a F Open or Any Rifle), it could potentially turn a 10 into a 9, BUT that .25" sd represents much less than 1 click of wind on your sights. Is there someone on this planet that can call wind within 1 click or 1/4 minute? That 1/4 minute is 2.5" at 1k. The points I am trying to make are:
1. that the people winning most of the matches will still be winning most of the matches because they consistently make better wind calls and/or have a better strategy.
2. If you are within the sd range out wide in the 10 ring, you made a bad wind call anyway and not by just 1 click.
3. There is a little luck involved in this sport already. I would say a lot more already than this issue represents. In your next match, count the number of times you get caught unaware on a wind change. Who here has never broken a shot dead center, felt good about it, and then watched the target come up as a 8 or 9 and wondered "where in the hell did that come from?" Did that .25" sd really hurt you?

Hey Matt been quite a while since we last talked. Good luck on the new start up. I look forward to getting up that way and shooting a match.

My comment about the 2.5" deviation. A X Ring is 5" at 1k currently. So if your off to the side and not dead center it could now be scored a 10. Ive seen several matches won by X-counts alone. Honestly there should be zero deviation. Cut a line get scored up but with imaginary lines thats not practical.

Dont get me wrong anyone. I am not against eTarget systems. I think they are the future and I appreciate those who are trying to keep this sport going forward.

 

[swadiver]

Yep, that is a problem. Just like:

"X, X, X, 10, M!??"
"There's no shot on target, mark it a miss"
"Challenge for mark!"
"Shooter loses"
"Well, count the holes!"
"Sorry, there's more than one shooter on this target..."

"huh, sorry, maybe the guy pasted two holes or something"

or

"Uh, well, he was shooting X's and 10's, just give him a 10" <--- because there's no other possible explanation, right?

All I am saying - is that the familiar always looks better than the new/unknown. NO system is perfect (including the existing puller system). There are just as many issues with the puller system as with the e-target system (though they are different issues mostly) and they tend to balance out on the whole - EXCEPT the built in tolerance for .25" slop in the e-targets, which is/would be unacceptable. People tend to favor their most recent bad experience, which, until the SWN, is going to be the e-targets at Lodi most likely (for F-Class).

I was in Ottawa and the service was - "uneven" is a polite way to put it, but a lot of guys forget that in the wake of some of the issues experienced at Lodi and their distaste for change.

yes, "uneven" is a very nice, polite way to say it

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Perhaps a workable approach is to have a higher standard for Registered matches than for Approved.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

Rick, instead of saying you are ready to comply with a .25 inch margin of error, per the current NRA rules, you should be instilling confidence in shooters by telling them how small a margin of error your system operates to.

Thanks John. Hex Systems publishes copious amounts of precision data on their web site. Some independent testing. I haven't looked in a while. But I haven't seen any others post precision or test confirming specs.

 

[243Mendoza]

The 1/4" SD was just a reference in the proposal. I don't know any of the target makers who advertise this, or if this is even what Keith intended in his post.

...

I suspect the NRA has a problem understanding statistics. .25SD is meaningless without a complete description of acceptable error. I suspect they meant an average of .25" or a maximum error of .25" or extreme spread of .25". Who knows what they meant.

 

[corning]

I suspect the NRA has a problem understanding statistics. .25SD is meaningless without a complete description of acceptable error. I suspect they meant an average of .25" or a maximum error of .25" or extreme spread of .25". Who knows what they meant.

The NRA is specific in the rule book as to what it "wants"/"expects":

• 10.17.1 Electronic Target Requirements- Any electronic target system that meets the requirements of these rules may be used for NRA Sanctioned matches.

(a) Electronic scoring targets must be capable of scoring shots to within .25 inches of accuracy.

No mention of any fancy statistical mumbo-jumbo.

 

[243Mendoza]

The NRA is specific in the rule book as to what it "wants"/"expects":

• 10.17.1 Electronic Target Requirements- Any electronic target system that meets the requirements of these rules may be used for NRA Sanctioned matches.

(a) Electronic scoring targets must be capable of scoring shots to within .25 inches of accuracy.

No mention of any fancy statistical mumbo-jumbo.

Accuracy requirements are going to need statistics or error bars that you consider as "mumbo-jumbo". Life is not simple as one number. Ever look at manufacturing drawings? Dimensions are not single numbers but give tolerances. That .25" of accuracy needs to be verified by tests which requires a certain number of hits (data) to get that number and since you can't use unlimited number of hits to verify a standard, you are going to need statistics that you don't want to understand or like.

 

[FatBoy]

Can anyone remember a topic, in the last 20 years, that caused this much controversy? I wasn't shooting HP when black rifles were allowed, but was fully involved in F class and I can't think of a single thing that gets shooters as polarized as e-targets.

 

[corning]

steve_podleski, statistical "mumbo-jumbo" was my feeble attempt at humor. At one time in my life, I worked as a statistician. I understand, and like statistics. NRA rule is devoid of any statistical banding. The banding and certification will have to be done, and proven, by the manufacturers, and presented to the end user.