E-Target Precision Poll

[243Mendoza]

... Faces are stapled onto the target centre and it only takes seconds to put a new one on ...

I find that a bullet hole on a pasted target is better defined than one on a stapled target, not to mentioned that a wet target enlarges the perceived bullet hole...so another source of error for pulled targets

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Keith, we did just that, sort of. Our firing points were not square as most are not, that I have shot on. We did not own the land required to do that. We bought that 40 acres, squared the points up with the help of a surveyor and lots of equipment, and engineered a really good layout with aluminum posts that fit into a fixture bolted to the concrete butt wall. They don't move in even a strong wind. I bet if you would come to Lodi you would be impressed with the E targets. I will be glad to give you a tour. I doubt any other setup can match ours.

That being said, shooters are what they are, and some will bellyache no matter what. They would complain if you used a new rope to hang them! In 5 years shooters will be complaining about something else because E targets will be proven to the nay sayers. If gun clubs want to see how to lay out a range with E targets, they need to come to Lodi. I forget sometimes these targets are used with less than ideal setups, and yes, that can lead to problems. I don't think we have that type of setup at Lodi. Give them a try on a proper setup.

Maybe that is where our disagreement originates. You have been shooting on the best equipment and setup possible. I will defer t you about the accuracy of the targets you shoot on. I really like the fact that you have a mandatory 7 sec delay. If I were just a little closer to your neck of the woods.

I don't know your experience with less expensive systems that other clubs have in use. I have to verify my results during load testing...

If we can get all of them up to the standards of your range (8 mic systems, solidly built, square, etc.), I think this whole discussion would be nothing but a memory.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

I would love to shoot on some. I damn sure aint got time to do pit duty.

 

[RDavies]

What is not mentioned yet is how accurate the targets are after they have had 1000, 5000 shots or whatever through them and the rubber backing has big holes through the back of the sound chamber. I have been shooting on ETs for 9 years (Australia is plagued with them). While the E targets are new or have been rebuilt recently, they are all pretty accurate, but if not, the accuracy can go real bad in some systems if they are let go far enough. My home club has had ETs for 8 years and is a very calm range, so discrepancies stand out if you have accurate gear.. I don't shoot at our club regularly enough now to know which particular targets are working well at the time, so I check in with the local hotshots which ones to avoid before doing load testing. Though I hate E targets , and won't compete on them for other reasons, I will admit that the HEX targets at least are accurate enough for me when maintained well.

 

[dannyjbiggs]

How many target sheds have targets like this? Is this the standard?

View attachment 1047788

That probably is the norm for poorly maintained paper targets! I see them a lot at the clubs where I shoot. But, this particular target ring distortion is not of any concern to many F-Class shooters that tend to use the full 9-ring inward, or otherwise tend to shoot on water-line. I like to think that few serious F-Class shooters place their shots in that part of the target face : Quartering shots on the 7-8 ring margin. And, as to the one small bullet hole shown in that area on this particular target face...why that's a 6mm DASHER bullet hole...not a good cartridge to be using at 800/900/1000 yards anyway.

Dan Biggs

 

[mahalan]

Keith, once again, and I hate to single you out, I have seen pullers that do not realize you get the scoring ring! I have seen pullers who cheat! I have heard of pullers pasting a shot and sticking a scoring disk somewhere else. Pulling for buddy, etc.

Bob, I can't believe you've had these experiences. Mine have been the opposite. I think my fellow F Class shooters are great people with a lot of integrity. If I were to see someone do those things, I'd call them out publicly and very loudly for everyone else in the pits to see.

 

[clowdis]

That probably is the norm for poorly maintained paper targets! I see them a lot at the clubs where I shoot. But, this particular target ring distortion is not of any concern to many F-Class shooters that tend to use the full 9-ring inward, or otherwise tend to shoot on water-line. I like to think that few serious F-Class shooters place their shots in that part of the target face : Quartering shots on the 7-8 ring margin. And, as to the one small bullet hole shown in that area on this particular target face...why that's a 6mm DASHER bullet hole...not a good cartridge to be using at 800/900/1000 yards anyway.

Dan Biggs

Danny,
I know we have both seen the 2 piece 1,000 yd. targets at Camp Perry and other ranges around. If these things are withing 1/2 in. they are declared "good to go". One piece repair centers are OK and you can score them pretty close but there is error on everything including paper and E-targets. How much is acceptable is a good question that will always circle around the E-targets. They're the coming thing so I guess we need to get used to them. I understand that the CMP matches at Butner are going well this week with no issues surrounding the Kongsberg E-targets.

 

[dcali]

One more thought - we are talking an awful lot about how accurate the shots are. What about the scoring rings? Have you ever measured the rings on a paper target? They're rarely the same size as the ones in the rule book, and change with the weather. How do E targets account for the actual dimensions of the aiming target? Or do they?

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

I appreciate all this dialog. I'm sure much of it has been said many times before.

This poll was started to give shooters a clear, objective message to Rule Makers and Vendors.

Here's your chance! If Precision really matters VOTE.

 

[Laurie]

I find that a bullet hole on a pasted target is better defined than one on a stapled target, not to mentioned that a wet target enlarges the perceived bullet hole...so another source of error for pulled targets

Yes, so true! Still, fewer errors than having an over-patched target where the markers have to guess where the lines are. Moreover, it NEVER rains on my home range of Diggle. (What we need here but lack is a 'lying through the teeth' smiley - visitors say the only time it's not raining on this range is when there is thick fog or it's snowing, but it does produce a hardy breed of shooter. )

We used to run 200 yard F matches too, but as F-Class equipment and shooters improved the rate of target centre destruction and number of refacings required got everybody so fed up, we made 300 our minimum - but this distance is going the same way unless there is a gale blowing or terrible mirage.

Over here in the UK, we've had the Kongsberg hard-wired e-target system in use for some years on a few ranges, for F-Class the main one being the Glen Tilt Range above Blair Atholl in the Scottish Highlands - some American forum members have experience of shooting over it. Last weekend, we ran our first GB F-Class league round fixture using the Silver Mountain kit (at Diggle in Northern England) which performed faultlessly and competitors were delighted. So, a good start for SM targets here.

 

[johnnyi]

I love the idea of eTargets. full disclosure I have never shot on one... But if 3/32 is the best we can get for scoring resolution, I hope we could get better resolution for scoring accuracy. I know that zero is not obtainable in either case (manual or eTarget), but 3/32" is pretty big!

shot #2 on this sample target 1 i found on from a random spot. scored as an 8. Perhaps just the way the screen displayed the shot. Perhaps the x,y axis will indicate that it is too far from center to be scored as a 9.

Target 2 shot number 12 scored as a 10. visually looks more into the white as opposed to the visual on target 1 appears to be floating in the shadow of the ring. again the x,y axis could confirm.

target 3 shot 17 appears closer that number 2 on target 1.

at any rate 3/32 accuracy resolution would for sure come into play on all of those shots.

agreed Pulled targets are not all shimmering with gold either. Dropped shot spotters, errors with pasting holes and replugging the old hole, shot out spotters with delays. pullers simply not looking at the berm needing to be called for a mark for every shot (that's always my favorite). speed for pulling targets between lanes. One shooter could benefit from having an experienced puller, or one that is paying attn that runs a target in 4-5 seconds vs a puller that is giving inconsistent 20-40 seconds Ok I'm talking myself into even more error just not 3/32...

 

[johnnyi]

is the NRA going to track national records shot on eTargets? Anyone know?

 

[corning]

I appreciate all this dialog. I'm sure much of it has been said many times before.

This poll was started to give shooters a clear, objective message to Rule Makers and Vendors.

Here's your chance! If Precision really matters VOTE.

I would vote, but the options for "precision" are too loose. There needs to be tighter tolerances than what you have in your poll.

 

[corning]

is the NRA going to track national records shot on eTargets? Anyone know?

There are already some national records out there that have been shot on e-targets. I would suspect that the type of target that the records are shot on will not be identified.

 

[Toejoe12]

I love the idea of eTargets. full disclosure I have never shot on one... But if 3/32 is the best we can get for scoring resolution, I hope we could get better resolution for scoring accuracy. I know that zero is not obtainable in either case (manual or eTarget), but 3/32" is pretty big!

shot #2 on this sample target 1 i found on from a random spot. scored as an 8. Perhaps just the way the screen displayed the shot. Perhaps the x,y axis will indicate that it is too far from center to be scored as a 9.

Target 2 shot number 12 scored as a 10. visually looks more into the white as opposed to the visual on target 1 appears to be floating in the shadow of the ring. again the x,y axis could confirm.

target 3 shot 17 appears closer that number 2 on target 1.

at any rate 3/32 accuracy resolution would for sure come into play on all of those shots.

agreed Pulled targets are not all shimmering with gold either. Dropped shot spotters, errors with pasting holes and replugging the old hole, shot out spotters with delays. pullers simply not looking at the berm needing to be called for a mark for every shot (that's always my favorite). speed for pulling targets between lanes. One shooter could benefit from having an experienced puller, or one that is paying attn that runs a target in 4-5 seconds vs a puller that is giving inconsistent 20-40 seconds Ok I'm talking myself into even more error just not 3/32...

View attachment 1047992

View attachment 1047993

View attachment 1047994

These targets are great examples to make a point. I would of liked to have these 3 targets posted here without the scores given by the e-targets and have everyone score them independently and see the difference in scores from a sampling of say 100 opinions on what the scores should have been. I would wager a strong bet out of 100 there would be well more than a 10% error in comparing human judgements/decisions. The e - target would have been 100% the same call on all 3 every time. Point being whether you think it was or was not a 8, 10 or 9 in the examples, the e - targets would have scored it the same 100% of the time!! 100 different individuals.......no way it would be 100%!

 

[Catfur]

I didn't vote because the options are bunkum. Average is not a particularly useful term for error (thought it is a factual one). The appropriate term is Standard Deviation. A minimally acceptable standard deviation for an e-target (for med-long range F-class) to me is <1mm (this means that ~68% of shots will be marked within less than 1mm of the true shot location and ~95% will be within 2mm, this also means that ~5% will be MORE THAN 2MM FROM THE ACTUAL LOCATION, that's 1 out of every 20 shot string, on average). An ideal tolerance to me would be an SD of .1-.2mm).

If I shot one of the tiny-target disciplines (say, smallbore), I would be absolutely incensed about an SD that represented anything readily visible (I'd probably tolerate an SD of <.1mm). For benchrest, the SD would have to be in the single digit microns.

 

[Catfur]

Everybody experiences the same average error.

This is not how statistics and random distributions work. Each individual will experience a different, discreet set of errors. Only a very large group in aggregate will experience the average error.

Most people in a match might have no particular grave cause for complaint, but one or two will have been screwed or unfairly aided by probability. Unless, of course, the distribution isn't random, in which case someone has been truly f'd (because that means there is a problem with the one or more of the targets).

There are obvious advantages to e-targets, from ease of use to time-savings. Precision ain't one of them.

 

[Catfur]

How many target sheds have targets like this? Is this the standard?

View attachment 1047788

Lots, and:

a) They get cleaned up before being put up.
b) The visible differences in where the score rings line up ARE SMALLER THAN THE SMALLEST ERROR LISTED IN THE POLL. So if you are complaining about targets that look like that but aren't about the errors available in the poll, you aren't making a logical argument.
c) If you are shooting on the edge of the repair center, you probably aren't in the running. The error on an etarget is spread equally throughout the target (or more likely distributed by some arcane formula that the manufacturer knows but will not divulge to us hoi-polloi).

 

[Catfur]

So here is an example for the e-targets. I was scored a 9 by .036" of an inch. Do you think a live person would be able to see that on a torn hole? I did not protest or anything and I'm not complaining one bit. I feel like everyone is on the same playing field so we all have to adjust to the new technology.

Vanwhy

No, you were befuddled by false precision. A device that is not capable of reading an increment of .036" gave you a misleading readout. This would be like measuring a plot of land with an unmarked string one rod long and reporting the measurement in inches.

 

[Catfur]

These targets are great examples to make a point. I would of liked to have these 3 targets posted here without the scores given by the e-targets and have everyone score them independently and see the difference in scores from a sampling of say 100 opinions on what the scores should have been. I would wager a strong bet out of 100 there would be well more than a 10% error in comparing human judgements/decisions. The e - target would have been 100% the same call on all 3 every time. Point being whether you think it was or was not a 8, 10 or 9 in the examples, the e - targets would have scored it the same 100% of the time!! 100 different individuals.......no way it would be 100%!

Aieeeeee!!!!!

I can't take it anymore, you people don't understand error, metrology and probability.