SMT accuracy test, Camp Atterbury

[sdean]

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.

On my Bulleyepro the last shot blinks. Easy to plot your string. You would still have to go change the targets each relay.

 

[Medic505]

last shot blinks

That's cool, didn't know they did that.

 

[243Mendoza]

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.

Does the "plus or minus one bullet hole" mean plus or minus 0.308" for a 30 caliber?
Is that an average value or the maximum error during the test?

Are your tests available to the public?

 

[243Mendoza]

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.

Adam
What statistic did you use to get an extreme spread of 1.2 from an SD of .3"? It seems that you multiplied sigma by 2? (2*.3=.6 which multiplied by 2 gives a spread of 1.2)

 

[adamjmac]

Adam
What statistic did you use to get an extreme spread of 1.2 from an SD of .3"? It seems that you multiplied sigma by 2? (2*.3=.6 which multiplied by 2 gives a spread of 1.2)

By definition, with normally distributed data, +/- 1 standard deviation is expected to cover 67% of the data, +/- 2 is 95%, and +/- 3 is 99%.

So, if you are told an SD, then you must expect 19 of every 20 data points are within an extreme spread of 4 SD and 1 in every 100 will be outside of 6 SD.

With a data set of between 20 and 100 points, it’s reasonable to say the extreme spread is expected to be 4-5 times the SD.

 

[gilmillan1]

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.

Camera systems already have the last shot blinking. No problem there.

 

[BradY]

Does the "plus or minus one bullet hole" mean plus or minus 0.308" for a 30 caliber?
Is that an average value or the maximum error during the test?

Are your tests available to the public?

I can email our results if you want to pm me. That figure is about average and the error could be in the shooters favour or out of the shooters favour. I know it’s still not perfect but neither is manual marking 100% of the time or there would be no need to challenge from time to time. We have just held two events, one three days from 300-900m and the other two days 700-900m and there has been no issues.

 

[memilanuk]

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 you actually *tried* this on an F-class target?

 

[ED3]

Have you actually *tried* this on an F-class target?

That's an excellent point.
I use my 1st edition Bullseye camera extensively for load development, and the software likely is up to the task of allowing match scoring. However, reliably spotting a bullet hole on a black target is not something I can do.
On a white target,or shoot - n - see, it's great.
I considered creating a 'negative' or color inverted target; black rings on white paper, for camera viewing and positioning it x moa laterally from an aiming target , and adjust the scope accordingly.....then I read about the upcoming release of the Shot Marker system.

 

[memilanuk]

That's an excellent point.
I use my 1st edition Bullseye camera extensively for load development, and the software likely is up to the task of allowing match scoring. However, reliably spotting a bullet hole on a black target is not something I can do.

That was kind of point #1.

Point #2 is that when you're talking mid-range F-class, with Master and High Master level competitors... shooting on e-targets, a number of ranges (ours included) offset the acoustic 'center' from the optical center i.e. the X/10 ring that you physically *see*... because otherwise by the end of the day it would be just plain *GONE*. Pretty sure that they don't make camera systems that can 'see' a bullet hole that disappears into a gaping 3-4" ragged hole where everybody else's shots have been going.

 

[B Nettesheim]

If you were going to use a camera system in f class you would need to change targets between relays... Then you might as well just go back to manually pulled targets.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Changing targets each relay is far from the difficulty involved in hand-pulling targets. In reality, a very few people could change targets as compared to having to have one person on every target. The shooters unable to pull targets could be relieved of duty, and the match would proceed forward.

It won't be a speed contest, but that's OK, barrels need time to cool...

 

[memilanuk]

True enough... but I'd want to see some serious testing of a camera system that can capture a fresh bullet hole in the X-ring... out of say, a 200-15X string...

...and still be able to do *that*, while having a wide enough field of view to cover the entire 6' x 6' target frame with sufficient resolution to pick a bullet hole out when it goes through the 'hole' in the middle of the number '6' clear out by the edge. If we're going to be setting standards here, lets keep them even across the playing field.

Can it be done? Most likely. By one single camera lens per target... I have my doubts.

And that's even before we get into things like rain, dust or glare across the lens as the lighting angles change throughout the day as the match progresses.

Again, I'm not saying its impossible. Just that its not as simple as it might appear at first blush.

 

[Bob Sebold]

Monte is right on the camera thing. It will not work. It can work for site in and load development but that's it. I doubt many ranges are going to be willing to change a target on every relay. That's just not going to happen. Not to mention, you have to do pit changes! What in hell would you invest money in camera's if you have people down there that could pull.

Keith, I understand you hate E Targets and I doubt anything could be done to change your mind. That's to bad. I know people want to watch all the spotters to read wind, which is the biggest complaint of E Targets. It is one tool in the tool box that gets taken away, but for all the gain, it is worth it. Nit picking about an 1/8 inch when the acoustical center is off slightly simply means you do not understand how they work. It is true you are shooting at a target that is about 3 feet in front of the paper. It MAY not be centered perfectly, but that does not mean they are not accurate.

I would put my wind zero against anyone else's, and if I have to click once or twice to get to zero, that's my fault, not the targets. Gotta do that on paper targets also. I have seen shooters come to the line a full minute off! Sometimes more. Does that mean you get all screwed up when you only have to click 7 instead of 8 clicks? For those who do not have to run a match, or never have, E Targets make things A LOT easier. They save a lot of time, they save on targets and you get fair pit service. The accuracy is FAR better than human pullers.

Again, ever have some clown from Italy pulling your targets! They do not speak our language and could not care less about shooters. I think the only reason they came over was for a free trip. One time shooting at a worlds match with them would make anyone long for e targets. I was skeptical at first, until I tried them out. You doubters should do the same. Danny B gets a pass on this as he is WAY to old to change his mind. Luv ya Danny!

 

[Jay Christopherson]

That's to bad. I know people want to watch all the spotters to read wind, which is the biggest complaint of E Targets. It is one tool in the tool box that gets taken away

I have to admit that's one loss that I am not happy with when it comes to e-targets

 

[FatBoy]

I have to admit that's one loss that I am not happy with when it comes to e-targets

I find the last spot market on the SMT display accurate enough to chase, though I do miss the white aiming point when I'm shooting with a scope.

 

[ngb1787]

I have to admit that's one loss that I am not happy with when it comes to e-targets

It does let the cream rise to the top however,

 

[Jay Christopherson]

It does let the cream rise to the top however,

eh, not so much I don't think. It's a skill, like any other. It's just as easy be led wrong as right if you aren't careful. I guarantee you that top shooters (sling included) aren't ignoring useful data like spotters around them if it gives them even the slightest edge.

 

[ngb1787]

eh, not so much I don't think. It's a skill, like any other. It's just as easy be led wrong as right if you aren't careful. I guarantee you that top shooters (sling included) aren't ignoring useful data like spotters around them if it gives them even the slightest edge.

I agree, spotters are 100% helpful, it is interesting to see results without spotters, reading conditions become so much more important

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I agree, spotters are 100% helpful, it is interesting to see results without spotters, reading conditions become so much more important

good point, and yes it is.