E-Target Rules Changes

[243Mendoza]

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.

That is the problem communicating over the internet = misunderstandings!

I apologize for reading you wrong!

I think that the NRA is in dire need of your skills!

 

[corning]

I apologize for reading you wrong!

No need for any apologies. I understand, but never remember the shortcomings of written communication, it always has more than one meaning. Attempts at humor should always be done face to face, where the expressions, can be viewed while listening to the words.

 

[allen529]

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.

I agree with your assessment. But if you really think about it most of the old guard is slow with computers today (not everyone mind you). It comes down to a trust issue. People dont trust something that is not 100% dead nuts accurate and confirmable.

With paper targets and a new faced target I can protest a given score with surety because I know my dead nuts laser beam shooting mater stake only shoots X's. We all forget slow service and heaven help them crooked scorers because we like to believe humans are better than that.

Now you have some IT guys making comments on how easy it could be to adjust impacts via the match network. So until the kinks are worked out with peer reviewed standards I am not in favor of them in matches with national importance.

Allen

 

[dcali]

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.

I read it as "the standard deviation of the error must be less than .25 inches". But it is very unclear.

 

[Bob Sebold]

I shot in a match that was pulled by all paid pullers, won't say where you figure it out. It was a big match. Ever had a "walking spotter"? Shot a liner 5 and challenged it once. They moved the spotter-very evident. My scorer went nuts and challenged it 4 more times until it was almost a 3. Line officer witnessed this and really chewed out the pullers. I shoot at Lodi on E targets a lot. I have never seen one move on me. If you think people are more accurate than e targets you are dead wrong. I could give you many instances of this. As far as shooting fast, I can shoot much faster than 7 seconds with a good puller. Target flop alone on a windy day is WAY over .25 inches. Our targets do not move in wind. Target faces are accurate. Anybody who thinks E targets are not accurate should look into them, or ask a rocket scientist. I think Brian Litz knows more about it than most. He would echo the above.

 

[LCJM]

If you think people are more accurate than e targets you are dead wrong. I could give you many instances of this. Anybody who thinks E targets are not accurate should look into them,

It’s not uncommon for someone to take on a challenge and make efforts to excel in an event. I started shooting F-Class not too long ago in an effort to improve upon my field shooting. I was fortunate to attend the 2016 F-Class nationals in Lodi along with experiencing the e-targets for the first time. During the event, I shot a 200-13X (T/R), a potential service record. As of today, this score was never recognized as a record. Why? If e-targets are more accurate than humans, wouldn’t there be no reasonable explanation to not recognize this record? If e-targets are not precise then we all need to look into them.

Why would this score not be recognized as a national record? Is it because of a .25” acceptable error or something else? Bob and anyone else, your comments are welcome on this post.

Don

 

[corning]

It’s not uncommon for someone to take on a challenge and make efforts to excel in an event. I started shooting F-Class not too long ago in an effort to improve upon my field shooting. I was fortunate to attend the 2016 F-Class nationals in Lodi along with experiencing the e-targets for the first time. During the event, I shot a 200-13X (T/R), a potential service record. As of today, this score was never recognized as a record. Why? If e-targets are more accurate than humans, wouldn’t there be no reasonable explanation to not recognize this record? If e-targets are not precise then we all need to look into them.

Why would this score not be recognized as a national record? Is it because of a .25” acceptable error or something else? Bob and anyone else, your comments are welcome on this post.

Don

This should be a discussion you have with the match sponsors (or director), and the NRA. I would start with the match sponsor to see if the scores were submitted, and, if not, why not. If submitted, than a call to the NRA to understand why it wasn't recognized. I don't believe this is an e-target issue, as I am aware of one national record set on e-targets, and have been told that there are others.

 

[LCJM]

This should be a discussion you have with the match sponsors (or director), and the NRA. I would start with the match sponsor to see if the scores were submitted, and, if not, why not. If submitted, than a call to the NRA to understand why it wasn't recognized. I don't believe this is an e-target issue, as I am aware of one national record set on e-targets, and have been told that there are others.

I was informed in 2016 that records on e-targets would most likely not be recognized due to the inability to validate the score. I had no reason to inquire further combine with not seeing the national champion aggregate also not in the book. I know there was discussion from several shooters concerned with e-targets and the validity of scores and records during the 2016 match. As previously mentioned by others, an additional ruled .50” shot to shot variance, roughly an equivalent to a 50 Cal, seems to be a little excessive for F-Class.

More than likely the e-targets at Lodi are nowhere near the plus/minus .25” allowed by current rule. I am using Lodi during 2016 as a basis for my argument as this is the only match I have attended with e-targets. Humans can make mistakes and provide less than desirable service. But to what degree and frequency? Is the average human in the pits capable of scoring much less than an observed .25” margin of error allowed by current e-target rule? I would certainly hope so and the majority of competitors I have worked with in the pits have been able to make a good judgement line call estimated to be within .05”

Why not test and validate e-targets with posted results? If e-targets are not precise to within what an average competitor can determine as a correct score, is it not in our best interest to examine why and strive for the same reasonable service?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Just as a clarification, my submitted suggestions are/were intended to serve a simple purpose:

Either prove that the existing technology is accurate enough that we can eliminate the verification steps after a couple of years of solid performance without any changed scores *OR* prove that the verification is necessary until the makers of targets accomplish the above.

Realistically, until we have a year or two of solid, paper-backed performance to analyze on an objective basis (not one, or two, or twenty targets - hundreds), we will not have a full understanding of the limitations (or lack thereof) of these systems.

 

[Ron Gorski]

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?

The 0.25" error has nothing to do with Wind, clicks on a scope or your ability to call the wind. It has to do the the ability of the electronic target to place your shot in the correct place regardless of the shooters ability. Also, you must be able to verify this error with some type of measuring device. Not just state the ones target is within a 0.25".

 

[Ron Gorski]

I shot in a match that was pulled by all paid pullers, won't say where you figure it out. It was a big match. Ever had a "walking spotter"? Shot a liner 5 and challenged it once. They moved the spotter-very evident. My scorer went nuts and challenged it 4 more times until it was almost a 3. Line officer witnessed this and really chewed out the pullers. I shoot at Lodi on E targets a lot. I have never seen one move on me. If you think people are more accurate than e targets you are dead wrong. I could give you many instances of this. As far as shooting fast, I can shoot much faster than 7 seconds with a good puller. Target flop alone on a windy day is WAY over .25 inches. Our targets do not move in wind. Target faces are accurate. Anybody who thinks E targets are not accurate should look into them, or ask a rocket scientist. I think Brian Litz knows more about it than most. He would echo the above.

One still needs to be able verify the uncertainty of the shot placement on the target to verify the manufacturer's specifications.

 

[corning]

I was informed in 2016 that records on e-targets would most likely not be recognized due to the inability to validate the score.

Wow! Who would say something like that? E-targets are being touted as the future of the sport.

There have been national records set on e-targets, so I don't understand the reasoning behind what you were told.

 

[GeoffR]

Wow! Who would say something like that? E-targets are being touted as the future of the sport.

There have been national records set on e-targets, so I don't understand the reasoning behind what you were told.

I think a lot of these decisions regarding the use of electronic targets in high stakes competitions (and for the attainment of records) were made before a full and proper understanding of the physics behind their operation, and limitations, were known or at least understood.

I think the whole subject needs to be revisited and all the "old wives tales" be expunged! I say this as an acoustic ET designer.

Geoff.
Ozscore.

 

[Heman]

Don I run the matches at Camp Atterbury and we run Silver Mountain targets. You have been told the wrong information In 2017 season the following National Records were set at our range last year
1000yd Any Sight 20 round Junior
1000yd F-Open 20 round Police
500yd Fullbore 15 shot
3-5-6 Fullbore Mid Range Agg 45 Shot
300yd F-Open Fullbore 15 Shot Police
500yd F-OPen Fullbore 15 Shot Police
600yd F-Open Fullbore 15 Shot Police
800yd F-Open Fullbore 15 Shot Open/Civilian
800yd F-Open Fullbore 15 shot Police
900yd F-Open Fullbore 15 shot Police
1000yd F-Open Fullbore 15 shot Police
3-5-6- Fullbore F-Open Mid Range Agg 45 shot Civilian/Open/Police

When you submit the forms you just fill the forms out as you would if it was shot on a paper target. YOU DO NOT have to send in a copy of the electronic target. You do not have to validate your targets. You were either told incorrectly or the match director did not understand. I submitted all the paper work and all of the mentioned records were acknowledged and are in the books. Also Cody Richardson shot a 20 shot 500 yard F-Open National Record at Lodi.

 

[LCJM]

Don I run the matches at Camp Atterbury and we run Silver Mountain targets. You have been told the wrong information In 2017 season the following National Records were set at our range last year
1000yd Any Sight 20 round Junior
1000yd F-Open 20 round Police
500yd Fullbore 15 shot
3-5-6 Fullbore Mid Range Agg 45 Shot
300yd F-Open Fullbore 15 Shot Police
500yd F-OPen Fullbore 15 Shot Police
600yd F-Open Fullbore 15 Shot Police
800yd F-Open Fullbore 15 Shot Open/Civilian
800yd F-Open Fullbore 15 shot Police
900yd F-Open Fullbore 15 shot Police
1000yd F-Open Fullbore 15 shot Police
3-5-6- Fullbore F-Open Mid Range Agg 45 shot Civilian/Open/Police

When you submit the forms you just fill the forms out as you would if it was shot on a paper target. YOU DO NOT have to send in a copy of the electronic target. You do not have to validate your targets. You were either told incorrectly or the match director did not understand. I submitted all the paper work and all of the mentioned records were acknowledged and are in the books. Also Cody Richardson shot a 20 shot 500 yard F-Open National Record at Lodi.

Shawn,

To clarify, I wasn’t informed of the possible issues with validating an e-target score compared to an actual target by the match director. Additionally, I had no reason to question the information regarding precision with e-targets during the time that I received it. Again this was back in 2016. There should be nothing but praise and thanks for directors that desire to host a tournament let alone a major one. Too often their work is expected without an understanding of what it takes to run a match. Thank you Shawn for what you do and the same to the crew in Lodi.

It’s great to see all those Police scores you mentioned along with the others. Just curious, how do you ensure your individual e-targets stay “in tune” on a regular basis? For example, a police radar is initially set at the factory then tuning forks are used to validate the accuracy of the radar on a continuing basis. It is presumed if a radar has a confirmed “tuned” accuracy during one date/time and the radar stays in tune on a following date/time, then all the readings obtained between are considered correct and admissible in a court as evidence. Do you utilize a method on your e-targets to verify the accuracy and precision on a regular or scheduled basis similar to what the police use on a radar? These results then can be published along with the individual e-target visible to the competitor shooting on that target. This would be similar to a police officer showing the actual speed captured on a radar to a suspected citizen. Showing these results and the frequency of the tuning can elevate a lot of questions.

Thanks again for your time and dedication to the Atterbury range,

Don

 

[Heman]

Don,

The 20shot 500yd F-Open National Record Cody shot was a Lodi in 2016 on their electronic targets. If that score would still stand as a National Record and you have the match results have Karin send it in, Aaron will honor it.
When you set up the target the crucial input is the target mic width and heights along with the temperature. You fire a shot and calibrate it in to match up the target center as best as you can then you are good. You don't and we don't do anything after that. In 2 years of use if you put the zero on the rifle for that yardline it goes where it should. Actually last year we offset the fclass targets 1MOA so a center X isn't a center X on the paper.

We don't measure the SMT screen to what the paper shows. Our center by the end of the season will have 1000 or so shots on them before we reface. The SMT system is the determining factor not the paper as far as who is the better shooter. I suppose we could but they are not going to loose accuracy over the year so long as the mics don't move, which they don't because they are fixed. There isn't a tuning system such as what you are talking about with Police radars.

There are a couple ways you would know if something is way out of whack one is the * that shows up on the 8mic system once the admin has set the parameters. The other is if all of a sudden you have a drastic zero shift. Which as I said only happens if sensors get moved/misaligned. Which would trigger the * alerting you to check something. But the * can just mean that 1 of the 8 sensors didn't fire which doesn't affect accuracy. The * just means hey take a look. With our S25 server upgrade last year but still running 5 mic systems we get * on every shot so we just ignore it.

 

[Dmitri]

Now you have some IT guys making comments on how easy it could be to adjust impacts via the match network. So until the kinks are worked out with peer reviewed standards I am not in favor of them in matches with national importance.

Allen

Hi Allen

Unfortunately they don't know what they are talking about. Yes it is possible to sabotage any system, but to adjust impact - they must to know the protocol, encryption etc. So the protection level is totally depends on the systems design.

DK

 

[GeoffR]

Hi Allen

Unfortunately they don't know what they are talking about. Yes it is possible to sabotage any system, but to adjust impact - they must to know the protocol, encryption etc. So the protection level is totally depends on the systems design.

DK

I'm with Dimtri on this.

I think the greatest vulnerability would be denial of service (DOS) attacks via the wifi. This would be detected more or less instantly. As for getting into the system and causing damage or changing data flow within it (in other words fudge a result), well, first they have to get in and then know what they can do without the effect being instantly apparent. We don't make it easy for un-authorised people to get into the systems and especially to do such things.

Someone would need the means, motive, and opportunity. As for motive, are there any sheep stations up as prizes??? As for means and opportunity, well, who knows?

Geoff.

 

[DBailey]

Don,

Actually last year we offset the fclass targets 1MOA so a center X isn't a center X on the paper.

Hi Mr Agne,

Out of curiosity was the 1 MOA offset you spoke of in the vertical or horizontal plane on the targets?

Thank You
David Bailey

 

[Earl338]

I Have just read the thread on target accuracy the .025 measure was not stated or was intended to be the accuracy of the target or the scoring. the .025 was meant to be a measure of calibration. that means that the center has to be within .025 of the center of optical center. It was never meant to be a number for scoring accuracy. I don't know what the number should be but I understand the targets used in Europe that have been used for many years require a 2MM or less variation on the center most scoring rings. That allows as much as 7MM on the outer rings. I believe that our e targets at Lodi will meet that spec. if properly installed and maintained. I will stand behind this.
EARL LIEBETRAU