SMT accuracy test, Camp Atterbury

[Heman]

Accuracy test, enjoy. Sorry about grammar, ain't an english teacher.............

http://cihprs.wildapricot.org/SMT-Accuracy-Test/

 

[HighpowerIndiana]

Great test Shawn, I know how much work this must have been. Thanks for taking the time to complete it, and present the results. At Wildcat, we only have 300 yards, but the little bit of accuracy work we've done (not nearly as comprehensive as yours) bears the same results.

Dave

 

[BT1]

Thanks Shawn for the detailed report. I have shot over the SMT many times and always have to smile when I show up for a match that I do not have to pull targets. I am ready, willing and able to pull, but I feel the shooter gets the best pit service from these e-targets. I have pulled strings of shots in an average of 6 to 8 seconds when the bullets can be easily spotted in the berm. I have also made a mess of it when it was hard, if not impossible to see a bullet strike. The cost of these systems seems to be coming down and also becoming more accurate. Great point in that setting them up properly and calibrating may be the most important consideration.

Steve

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Shawn,

Thank you for taking the time to do this testing. We all appreciate your help in this difficult subject.

Based solely on your data and your numbers, I will disagree with your conclusions. Any target that has errors of the magnitude your data shows is not good enough.

Consider this: The NRA rules require an accuracy of 0.25" How many of the shots you fired had errors greater than that? I counted; 43 out of 60 shots that failed to meet the NRA rules.

From the standpoint of rules compliance, any system that fails to meet the standard once, much less 3/4 of the time is not suitable.

I'm an advocate for fresh paper faces and paper verification of score, more now than before your testing.

 

[ngb1787]

We have found that smt’s are more accurate and reliable than the shooter, my thoughts to the shooters would be go out and practice shooting and reading the wind, the ever so slight chance of smt being not accurate will not matter. My opinion 99% of the time, blame the shooter not the equipment.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Shawn,

Thank you for your insults, I will assume from them that you have no way to debate my position.

While I'm thinking about insults, I would recommend that you apologize to all of the shooters that you insulted by strong implying, in your position paper, that they are untrustworthy cheaters.

I got a pretty good chuckle out of your assertion that I cannot hold better than the 1+ inch error of your target at 600 yards.

If you think about it, the 1/10 of a ring rule allows a single digit decimal to be added to the score of a shot, so it is 1.5" between the x ring and the 10 ring of a MR1FC target. I calculate 1/10 of that as .150 inch. If you hold the position that it is 1/10 of the entire ring diameter the 3" X ring gives you an accuracy requirement of .300 inch. That bigger number is roughly 1/3 the error you experienced on multiple shots at that range.

I see that you are trying to use the bandwagon logical fallacy to support your position. I am simply citing your own numbers as not being indicative of complying with the rules. I am not alone in my position.

In the end, I see it this way:

You did the experiment.
You published the numbers.
You proved my position.
You don't appear like that and have resorted to name calling.

Here is the big test question:

You are driving down the road at exactly the speed limit. A police officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket for speeding 10mph over the limit. You decide to contest the ticket in court. During your court appearance, the police officer admits that his radar gun is flaky and frequently reads as much as 11 mph greater than the actual speed of the vehicle being tracked.

The Judge should:

A) Admonish the officer for using such an untrustworthy device and find you Not Guilty
OR
B) Find you Guilty and admonish you that you should have driven slower to compensate for the radar gun error.

Fairness is fairness. Logical fallacies, insults and unsupported conclusions won't change that.

 

[avidflyer]

Keith your are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong I may think it is. Like aholes everybody can have an opinion and I've been assured from a couple people that know you, that you have both an opinion and are grade A ahole. As far as the error, you can't hold tight enough, you can't adjust small enough that the error will effect the outcome of your shooting. Have not heard any of our top Fclass shooters who place quite well at nationals complain about the accuracy. Maybe as a previous poster said aim more in the middle and you won't have to worry about it You are just trying to find reason to complain, which you are entitled to do. As I said this test was done in wind conditions that some say are the death of open mic systems. SO if this is the case you are getting the worst possible situation. As far as the NRA rule, that itself is up to a lot of discussion. When the electronic rules were copied into the rule book as D. Willing told me they just copied some stuff in and it is a work in progress. As most people feel the NRA rule should be that of the international rule being 1/10 the size of the smallest scoring ring. A linear distance based rule is silly because a target with .25" error at 100yds is completely useless. As far as wanting to shoot on paper, you can keep doing that. We are going to keep running electronic targets. When you are shooting by yourself, you are welcome to come shoot with us.

Also please note as I said there is some new software coming which will tighten up the error.

Today we had one of the US F open team members get 2 7's and instantly the target came into question.... (Only reason I mention him is, he's a known shooter) He had asked to have you look into those shots. My opinion is as bad as the wind was it was the shooter. but does bring them into question. With more time I think we will have more confidence in them but are not there yet for the masses.

 

[pat fulghum]

Keith your are entitled to your opinion, .... I've been assured from a couple people that know you, that you have both an opinion and are grade A ahole. ....Have not heard any of our top Fclass shooters who place quite well at nationals complain about the accuracy..

I call foul. I know Keith personally and shoot with him quite often. He is not a “hole”. Just because you “heard it from some who know him”. That is pure bs.

Secondly he is a top f-classer and national record holder in f class long range. You might actually want to check his shooting history


I normally don’t engage in these types of posts, but you are dead wrong on Keith.

 

[gilmillan1]

If you ever get to be a top shooter in f class, you will realize how important accuracy is in a scoring system.

 

[Heman]

If you ever get to be a top shooter in f class, you will realize how important accuracy is in a scoring system.

If I ever decide to shoot FClass. But please note that in the test, the score is the exact same as the results on the monitor. Also unlike paper targets where each shooter gets treated differently per the scorer. EVERYBODY gets the same treatment on the electronic targets. Score is important to sling shooters to.

Yes people were quesioning shots today. A palma shooter questioned how he could possibly miss the target to the left (shooting 155s) after a 30mag got blown completely left and a very good f open shooter was holding on the corners of the frames. Errors on the etargets are usually elevation errors people have to accept that they are not shooting lasers they are shooting bullets. On my target I had a close friend who has made several Leech and Wimbledon shootoffs. He shot some 6's. He wasn't questioning the targets. People let their ego's get in the way and don't think they can ever shoot a bad shot and if they do it is the target not them.

As far as crying foul I call them as I see them, don't be a snowflake.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

I am honestly surprised these targets didn't do better given their wide spread use. I am also surprised they are being used if this type of result is common. It would be great if this tech got to the point we could use it for groups.

 

[BradY]

Any testing on ET systems is a positive step forward. If the systems don’t meet the requirements needed, then it’s good and sound feedback for manufacturers to take back and use to improve their systems. Most of all if tested prior to an event and they exceed the required accuracy, it gives competitors confidence that they are not wasting their time and money.

We have recently tested our re designed and constructed Kongsberg ET systems at our range and have consistent accuracy up to 1300 rounds from 300-900 meters with consistent accuracy of up to plus or minus one bullet hole at 900m. Often it is much less in the range of plus or minus 2-6mm. This is much less than what people are able to wind read at that distance. But we are always striving for better. Best of all, Kongsberg are very interested in the results and are working with us on our findings.

 

[SDDasher]

IMHO Insecure shooters will use excuses (pullers/ET’s, etc.) for errant shots and secure shooters (usually those winning) will accept their poor shots as operator error.

 

[adamjmac]

Keith your are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong I may think it is. Like aholes everybody can have an opinion and I've been assured from a couple people that know you, that you have both an opinion and are grade A ahole. As far as the error, you can't hold tight enough, you can't adjust small enough that the error will effect the outcome of your shooting. Have not heard any of our top Fclass shooters who place quite well at nationals complain about the accuracy. Maybe as a previous poster said aim more in the middle and you won't have to worry about it You are just trying to find reason to complain, which you are entitled to do. As I said this test was done in wind conditions that some say are the death of open mic systems. SO if this is the case you are getting the worst possible situation. As far as the NRA rule, that itself is up to a lot of discussion. When the electronic rules were copied into the rule book as D. Willing told me they just copied some stuff in and it is a work in progress. As most people feel the NRA rule should be that of the international rule being 1/10 the size of the smallest scoring ring. A linear distance based rule is silly because a target with .25" error at 100yds is completely useless. As far as wanting to shoot on paper, you can keep doing that. We are going to keep running electronic targets. When you are shooting by yourself, you are welcome to come shoot with us.

Also please note as I said there is some new software coming which will tighten up the error.

Shawn, your response was completely unfair. His criticism of your test results is sound. An SD of 0.3 inches implies an extreme spread of 1.2 inches. It's arguable whether this is good enough for long range competition but it certainly indicates an e-target that is not set up properly. The SMT system is capable of better than this, let alone the ShotMarker.

Your test results indicate that you did not have an ideal set up of the system and therefore it is not fair to claim that this accuracy is representative. It is also not right to shut down criticism. I wrote very detailed responses to your questions on my other thread about accuracy last night, and now after reading this post I regret that I, yet again, tried to use forums for meaningful technical discussion.

I'm the first person to say the NRA rule of 0.25" is ridiculous. It should at a minimum be based on MOA. If we all measured our rifle accuracy in inches at 10 yards then it wouldn't be very useful would it. Error of an inch indicates a problem with the installation, not a limit on the capability of the system.

If anyone would like to understand the facts behind e-target accuracy and is willing to discuss in a positive, unbiased, technical way, please email me off this forum at adamjmac@gmail.com.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

Feel free to continue this discussion without Heman's input on this thread going forward.

As a general statement, if you can't handle a dissenting opinion, then don't post.

 

[Medic505]

If I ever decide to shoot FClass

I hope you don't. We don't need you.

It's been my observation that the first response from any "snowflake" that has been disagreed with is to start slinging insults.

You sir, are a pot calling a kettle black.

 

[FatBoy]

Why is it every time an e-target thread comes up it comes down to this crap? It's not going to be long before NRA Highpower dies off. The average age of a shooter on the line is around 60, as near as I can estimate. The "younger" F class shooters, in general, don't run or help run any of the matches or sit on the boards of any of the clubs that hold the insurance, etc. (I know there are exceptions, but they are exceptions). So where is the future of the sport, with or without e-targets?

This is how I see it going over the next 2-3 years. More clubs are going to move to e-targets. Some will complain, for whatever reason - justified or not, run the match down and be invited to not come back. This will split the classes, literally, and lower attendance on both sides. In short order there won't be money for insurance, awards (which many basically demand now) and maintenance. That time comes, the clubs fold and guy get to set their gear in the closet and take up golf.

edit to fix some spelling, etc.

 

[Bob Sebold]

A little perspective on the perfect puller would be in order. I recently (last year) shot in a BIG match. They had pullers of the best quality supplied. I shot a liner 5 at 3 o'clock. Now I had 80 power on this, I am sure it was a 5. The shooter before me, pair firing, shot a 4. Young lady forgets to move spotter. No big deal, so I challenge it. Now remember, they (pullers) get gigged if they screw up, so they do not want to admit any fault. Spotter is moved well into 4 ring. Canadian shooter I was paired with goes ballistic and calls range officer over, this happens 3 more times until spotter is very close to 3 ring. 3 people saw this happen thru scopes. I was asked what I want to do? I guess I will take the 4 because I sure don't want the 3 that's coming off the walking spotter. Nice thing about it was the Canadian shooter writes down another 4. So I get two 4's for the price of 1 five.

Error on puller and on shooter scoring me. Of course he did not own up to what he did either, and could not explain how I had 1 shot left at the end of my string. I use a loading block with 22 rds in it for this purpose. In the end, you are forced to sign the card and suck it up! Protesting would not work. Maybe I should have but they were screaming at us to get off the line as we were the last shooters done. Puller did get fired.

This stuff does not happen with E targets.

 

[gilmillan1]

A camera system works better than a faulty electronic scoring system. Shoot an f class target, place a camera that is monitoring each shot. Have two monitors, one for the shooter and one for the scorer that is next to him. Have the scorer score each record shots. Save every target shot in case there is a dispute about the score. Thats a simple and cheap way to have an effective electronic system.

 

[Medic505]

A camera system works better than a faulty electronic scoring system. Shoot an f class target, place a camera that is monitoring each shot. Have two monitors, one for the shooter and one for the scorer that is next to him. Have the scorer score each record shots. Save every target shot in case there is a dispute about the score. Thats a simple and cheap way to have an effective electronic system.

Good thought but I don't think it would ever work. There would be no way to mark or cancel each shot. About shot 15, neither shooter or score keeper would know what shot was what. Let the protests begin after that.