E-Target Certification

[243Mendoza]

I own an ET and use it as a tool to help my wind reading as well as for load development. It is a great tool but do not think it should be utilized in matches....quite yet. When practicing on the LR firing line I have seen many shots that measure up to 1/2" outside the recognized value when compared to the physical target. Personally I do not believe its a fair trade off to save time but sacrifice accuracy even if the entire field is affected equally.

The difference between an etarget and paper target can be more than one inch on the outer rings.

 

[Ned Ludd]

...As an aside...whether we like them or not, e targets are here to stay. It is akin to electronics being introduced on cars in the 70s. I heard more than one old timer say "I ain't workin' on no carburetor with wires hanging out of it!!". Well, the rest is history.
Just sayin.....

I hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid you're right. It's analogous to ObamaCare...first they f**ked up the system to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with, then they started adding all kinds of new rules, new costs, and new headaches, just to try and make the system that was supposed to fix something wasn't even broken to begin with actually work. Seems a lot like what's happening now with the e-targets. The whole thing's a complete gong show. Now, we also have to be worried whether the e-targets have been "calibrated" or not . I guess the fastest and latest computer tablets will soon be regular expenses, just like bullets, powder and barrels LOL.

 

[jkl]

Money never stopped this bunch! And here we go again how many pages this time?

John

 

[AndyTaber]

These are two pictures from a large number posted by a competitor at the latest f-class Nationals in New Mexico. They were just some pictures taken showing the pits and were not intended as anything else. Not intended as criticism, just an example of paper targets at a national competition.

 

[Erud]

indeed.
Where are the standards for acceptable wrinkles in glued paper, warped, and/ or out of plane backers, vertical stability in wind, vision testing of scorers...?

While that’s true, at the end of the day you still have a hole that you can look at. If a paper target is hung, refaced, or scored incompetently, there is a chance that it will be noticed and can be addressed, and the shooter always has the option to challenge. With electronic targets, how do you know if it’s not working properly? Sure, some systems will report some errors, but what if the part of the system that reports the errors isn’t working properly? There have already been quite a few national records fired on electronics that were never confirmed to meet the criteria that the NRA has listed in the rule book. I don’t think the NRA is the right group to take on a project like this (They’d likely screw it up), but it’d be nice to be able to know for certain that targets are performing how they should.

 

[Mulligan]

Several ranges in and around Colorado have started hosting F-class matches because of e-target....... they do not have pits and do not have the funds to build them.
Darn happy to have the e-targets!
Like everything with this group, the innovators amungst us will find a way to improve the technology.

Another plus to e-targets, I have seen some older shooters at matches that otherwise would have hire pit service or stay home...... I like shooting with the ‘ol duffers.
CW

 

[FatBoy]

What it comes down to is shooters will migrate to what is acceptable to them. Always have, regardless of what equipment we're talking about. This will be no different.

 

[watercam]

FWIW several clubs in Oregon are using the Shotmarker system with good results with local matches. Personally, I have stationed myself in the pits to check shots on or near scoring rings and the system has worked very well so far. No skewed results when calibrated properly even at our windiest range in the High Desert. It can and will tell you when you are off target completely and in which direction. I found the system very reliable with few dropped shots. Our days move along at a faster pace and all who use it seem happy. I clicked on the website at the bottom of the OP and he is associated with a different system which is fine. The concept of certification gives the impression that he believes he has a more precise system. Time will tell.
That said for Regional, State or National competition I would prefer a human eye on my target.

 

[ED3]

While that’s true, at the end of the day you still have a hole that you can look at. If a paper target is hung, refaced, or scored incompetently, there is a chance that it will be noticed and can be addressed, and the shooter always has the option to challenge. With electronic targets, how do you know if it’s not working properly? Sure, some systems will report some errors, but what if the part of the system that reports the errors isn’t working properly? There have already been quite a few national records fired on electronics that were never confirmed to meet the criteria that the NRA has listed in the rule book. I don’t think the NRA is the right group to take on a project like this (They’d likely screw it up), but it’d be nice to be able to know for certain that targets are performing how they should.

I don't disagree.
It takes a far greater faith, and understanding in 'electronics' than I possess be completely comfortable with something as intangible as a computer screen.

But when I read about the supposed infallibility of paper targets scored by humans, I think back to a personal experience a few years ago. It was one of the first matches I shot.
I was pulling and scoring for a guy we both know and respect.
It was well into the days shooting when I saw what I believe to this day to be a '9' - so close to the 10 ring that there was just the smallest sliver of black between the bullet hole and the white line of the 10 ring.
I marked the shot and scored it a 9.
There was a challenge, and due to the spotter deformed bullet hole, it could not be proved it wasn't a 10.
The shooter went on to shoot a clean for the day.
If I saw the same shot today, I would first call for a confirmation before marking the shot.
I still believe the shot was a 9, but more importantly was the lasting impression the incident made upon me, that even the best of intentions, small, seemingly insignificant acts can create errors with huge ramifications.

Fortunately, errors with regard to target mounting/ gluing are most critical in a small area of the overall target, and can - and should be remedied before shooting; a wrinkle across the X/ 10 ring will create a higher percentage of error, as well as effect a competitor's standing far more than a wrinkle in the middle of the 9 ring.
But ultimately there will always be humans, making decisions with the available information observed.

While I suspect that due to human abilities and performance variations, the overall realm of of accuracy/ error amongst the humans pulling/ scoring paper targets, is greater than the state of the art e-target, with existing methods in place, the human error can be more likely detected and addressed.

 

[One Shot One Thrill]

I don't think the op understands America. Here in the land of the free We maintain the right to keep and bear arms. This is a right many of us have shed blood for.
We are free to own fire arms. We can transport them to almost any safe location and shoot them. I'm not talking about in the big cities but about rural America which may not make up the majority of the population but without a doubt covers the most Geographic area.
This is not a country where you can only shoot at a designated/regulated location.
Even if Hexta was at all the big locations how many targets would that be? I don't think we are talking about enough money for y'all to keep stirring up a bunch of crap.
I've shot etargets (all brands) for awhile in all kinds of weather. All things considered I would not hesitate to shoot them at a match.
The biggest issues are the current rules ad written and the ability to challenge a shot (which all brands suffer from).
I believe a simple camera system added to et that would allow a challenge would be a plus.
Rules need updated.
Attempting to belittle your comp will not work in the

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

Get out the sticks! We have to go one more round beating the dead horse. It keeps coming to life.
If I didn't know any better, I would think that HEXTA is trying to drive the certification process and criteria in their favor.
On a more serious note, any certification process has to come from the shooters, not the NRA desk jockeys, or the influence of the target companies.
John Corning

I'm glad you agree John in the motivation needing to come from shooters. That's why I opened the opportunity for you to send a message to regulators and vendors. I trust you voted.

Secondly, I did mental grinding for months about "getting out the sticks" AGAIN. However the issue I bring up in this posting has NEVER been directly addressed. There has been tons of rhetoric and emotion, wasted in subjectivity and misinformed understanding. That would all have been circumvented 4 years ago if a fair, equitable, agreed upon objective Certification process would have been implemented.

Lets be clear. Paper Targets are "Certified". Correct me if I'm wrong. There is a limited number printers commissioned to print copy written targets. That's fixed. We all have seen what happens in the pits. But the human eye can challenge everything that happens there to a 3rd party.

When it comes to E-Targets, we are so used to reading our digital alarm clock and believing it to be true, that when we see a number on a E-Pad we believe it to be gospel. The example above demonstrates a physics issue with the environment and E-Targets.

So we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is. That's a simple solution to the smoke and mirrors that exists without a scientific defined Certification process.

I would expect everyone to applaud that, in order to once and for all answer the questions posted above.

You said "If I didn't know any better, I would think that HEXTA is trying to drive the certification process and criteria in their favor". Firstly this is goBallistic. Secondly: NOT If a 3rd party, like the NRA develops a Certification process in consultation with stakeholders. One that is fair, equitable, repeatable according to engineers and scientists would you agree that, that would be fair to all stakeholders in HP competition? That's all we have been asking for. You can see our Standard of reliability at CERTIFICATION.

In the mean time, here is your chance to send a message. If you don't ......

 

[adamjmac]

I'm not getting sucked into this again... I just want to say one thing. E-target accuracy is complicated. The wind, the warping of the frame, the placement of the paper target, the movement of the carriers, the placement of the paper target, interference from other targets... all plays a role. Different types of error matter for competition a lot more than others. I should probably write a detailed paper on the sources of error, how they come about, and whether they are significant in a match at a given distance, and what can be done about it. But this paper would be extremely technical and I doubt it would put the argument to bed.

So all I want to say is, my opinion. As an innovator of e-targets, one of a few people in the world who understand this subject in detail, with the ability to model and characterize e-target errors, the ability to improve the technology, someone who stands to make money from the sale of e-targets, and someone who truly wants e-targets to become widely accepted for the good of the sport. Also someone who is a serious F-Class competitor, Canadian national champion, and who would be (as has been) the first to challenge the use of inaccurate e-targets at matches if it were going to affect fair competition.

I know without a doubt that the technology is plenty accurate, when implemented properly. The unavoidable errors are small and do not matter in a practical sense. I'm not saying they are 1mm accurate in all circumstances, I am saying open sensor e-target technology is accurate and reliable enough for national level F-Class competition. Rules need to be changed to make more sense, to allow challenging in certain circumstances, the hardware needs to be doing its part, and software needs to alert shooters and range staff to accuracy problems, and many other things have to happen. But the physics are sound, there are no inherent problems, the path forward is clear. Just hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride, but we're going to get there very soon.

 

[_Raining]

I have used the Kongsberg electronic targets and have had to switch to a different position because the target was behaving oddly.

A good system:
Laminated targets from the factory. Laminated targets will prevent any issues with folds or wrinkles and the bullet holes will be more defined so it will be easier to determine if the bullet actually struck the ring vs close enough that the paper ripped in a way to cross the line. It will also be more wieldy so it should be easier to staple to the backing than a paper target flopping around in the wind. It will cost more but I don't think guys would be upset about another 5 bucks if it meant more accurate scoring.

You want to avoid pit duty, well it would be easy enough for 1 or 2 guys to staple up laminated targets, now we just need to deal with scoring. Electronics can help us with this. Those 1 or 2 guys can be on standby if the electronics ever fail and the targets themselves will be replaced for each shooter. I believe until the electronic targets improve it would be better to set up a camera and use software to show the shooter and scorer where the bullet struck. So from your end as a shooter and scorer on the firing line you can have a tablet that shows the image and each shot can be artificially marked by software as well as zoom in so you can physically see the bullet hole. The scorer can mark the score card and the shooter can adjust based on the shot placement. If the bullet hole is too close to tell from the image then they can make a note and the target can be checked later or verified by the pit crew.

The biggest problem with this is not being able to deal with a situation where the bullet went through the same exact hole without distorting it whatsoever. This is unlikely but you could have a situation where to many shots go to the same spot and make it harder to distinguish each shot. In this case you could radio down to the pit and they can pull the target and add pasters to it. Maybe the better shooters can chime in about how often this situation would show up. I suppose you could have just a standard roll of paper that the scorer can control and have it scroll past behind the actual target and then you could see if a bullet went through the same hole and you would only need assistance from the pit crew if one of the border lines was distorted from too many consecutive impacts in the same area.

This allows you to have the physical target for disputes and utmost accuracy, you won't have to do pit duty and you won't have to wait for someone to pull a target quickly.

If I have missed any edge cases or exploits that you can think of, I would be happy to hear it.

Electronic targets are very expensive so I would bet that a remote camera setup with some software + a couple bucks extra per laminated target would still be less then the current electronic targets.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

So all I want to say is, my opinion. As an innovator of e-targets, one of a few people in the world who understand this subject in detail, with the ability to model and characterize e-target errors, the ability to improve the technology, someone who stands to make money from the sale of e-targets, and someone who truly wants e-targets to become widely accepted for the good of the sport.

I know without a doubt that the technology is plenty accurate, when implemented properly. The unavoidable errors are small and do not matter in a practical sense. I'm not saying they are 1mm accurate in all circumstances, I am saying open sensor e-target technology is accurate and reliable enough for national level F-Class competition. But the physics are sound, there are no inherent problems, the path forward is clear. Just hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride, but we're going to get there very soon.

Thanks Adam for chipping in. It's safe to assume then, with your expertise, background, and the confidence in your product that you would totally concur and commit to a equitable, repeatable, objective, scientific process to see all E-Targets testing procedure while going through a Certification process!

 

[adamjmac]

Yes, I am all for certification, eventually, once the technology is mature and stable.

However no one can be certified to certify a technology that is still being invented.

 

[F Class John]

As someone who’s looking to adopt them for their range on a large scale I see both sides. For me I use Shotmarker, my buddy uses a Solo. Several others around my group have Shotmarker as well and are using them on a private basis for their smaller matches with no ill effects. We are all using them on solidly built frames, almost no torque or twist and we don’t see winds over 10mph except a rare occasion. We all love them no matter the occasional hiccup.

Spoiled is the word I use the most when I’m shooting now. Instant feedback, yep. No waiting for pullers while my condition changes, yep. Seeing my shot order, data and score immediately, and being able to capture it for study later, yep. No pit changes, yep. Additional safety by having nobody in the pits, yep. Providing my range officers the ability to set their attention more squarely on line safety and not constantly calling the pits, yep. Allowing all shooters regardless of age, ability and physical limitation to shoot without having to pull a reciprocal target, yep. All while accepting an average error rate plus or minus the that of a human, final yep.

But as to the post, the minute the word “certification” comes up it causes panic because I think we’ve all seen how that affects people in any number of industries and nobody likes that. Heaven knows I dealt with way too much of it in both the food and firearm business myself. But for e-targets what constitutes certification and who decides? That’s the scary part. I guess I see it this way. Do I think there should be a certification that requires someone coming out to to certify every e-target system at a range, no way no how. Should there be a commonly agreed upon frame system and method to calibrate to reduce errors, possibly but that’s a ways away. But to start (and I think Adam touched on it) the technology needs to reach its own level of certification first. I doubt it’ll be long before people agree they work and work better than they realize. What works and what error rate is acceptable will become the standard and how they work will most likely set what the certification is and as they improve so will the certification along with it. Anyone who makes them in the future will have to meet or exceed that to be a player in the market.

Keep in mind your frame construction, frame material, calibration, ability to set the target up and other things will all have ability to cause bad data and results if you don’t do them right.

For me I believe that in the end you can’t fully adopt or appreciate e-targets until you let the notion of paper targets go. It sounds weird but it’s like saying you want to take a digital picture and then say you can’t verify it’s a good photo until you take a second picture on 35mm, have it developed and then compare them. It’s just doesn’t and won’t work that way. I didn’t believe or understand that until I used them. It’ll take a while I have no doubt, but every person I’ve talked to so far who’s used them more than a couple times says they accept the quirks right now and would still never go back to paper.

Change is scary, I get that but e-targets are here to stay. The best thing users can do now is help the manufactures with real unbiased feedback when an issue does occur. The more we do this, the better the tech improves and the easier it’ll be for the skeptics to try and maybe even embrace.

 

[GeoffR]

Here we go again.

1. Acoustic electronic targets are driven by physics.

2. The accuracy is highly dependent on the physical condition of the target and prevailing environmental conditions. These are highly variable and largely outside of the control of the ET vendor. For this reason "Certification" is probably not viable.

3. Calculation of impact position based on time (distance) only is in my opinion a method superior to one that requires angles. I have had this argument before and am not inclined to go through it again. When the positions of sensors relative to a reference point are known then the timing relationships are very precise, and from any deviations we can derive the error (or Area of Uncertainty).

4. It is possible to challenge the result of an ET if the numerical error (Area of Uncertainty) is derived. If it is not derived, why not? It is a fundamental engineering concept.

5. Area of Uncertainty (measured error) is arguably more a gauge of target condition (in prevailing environmental conditions) and is probably best not used for absolute accuracy of individual shots. We know that in addition to target condition, factors such as bullet terminal velocity, shape, air density (temperature/altitude), to name a few, affect accuracy (and reliability).

I agree with one of the previous posters to this thread. Electronic targets are different to paper targets. Best to separate them in your minds instead of comparing them. Paper target have the luxury of a human eyeball at close range making the judgement calls: electronic targets do not.

If you don't like or trust electronic targets by now then perhaps you simply don't shoot on them.

Not all acoustic electronic targets are the same. In the USA you have experience with I suppose only four (of the six or seven out there). As far as I know only two employ open frames.

Geoff Roberts
Ozscore. (Australia).

 

[Steve 451]

I think most of you don't understand why there are knobs on rifle sights and scopes. It's so you can put the bullet where you want it on target. Your talking a .5 moa circle for FC targets and 1 moa for sling. Thats 5 inch diameter at 1000 yards and 10 inch diameter. Your shooting a circle. An x is an x is an x period.

I wish people would quit making mountains out of mole hills. I'll take electronic targets over bad pit service an day.

 

[Warren Dean]

I think most of you don't understand why there are knobs on rifle sights and scopes. It's so you can put the bullet where you want it on target. Your talking a .5 moa circle for FC targets and 1 moa for sling. Thats 5 inch diameter at 1000 yards and 10 inch diameter. Your shooting a circle. An x is an x is an x period.

I wish people would quit making mountains out of mole hills. I'll take electronic targets over bad pit service an day.

It's tempting to comment on this thread, but Steve said it all. Can we just put this to bed and move on?

 

[ngb1787]

I think most of you don't understand why there are knobs on rifle sights and scopes. It's so you can put the bullet where you want it on target. Your talking a .5 moa circle for FC targets and 1 moa for sling. Thats 5 inch diameter at 1000 yards and 10 inch diameter. Your shooting a circle. An x is an x is an x period.

I wish people would quit making mountains out of mole hills. I'll take electronic targets over bad pit service an day.

It works even for

I think most of you don't understand why there are knobs on rifle sights and scopes. It's so you can put the bullet where you want it on target. Your talking a .5 moa circle for FC targets and 1 moa for sling. Thats 5 inch diameter at 1000 yards and 10 inch diameter. Your shooting

It's tempting to comment on this thread, but Steve said it all. Can we just put this to bed and move on?

A Man Walks Into a Bar...
he leans over and says to the bartender, "Hey, will you give me a free beer if I show you something so amazing that I can guarantee you've never seen it before?"

The bartender says, "Okay, but it had better be good."

The man reaches into his coat pocket and pulls out a hamster. He sets the hamster down on the bar. It scurries about, jumps off the end, turns a perfect somersault in midair, and lands on the piano. He then begins to dance across the keys, playing the piano beautifully. The bartender says, "Wow! That was truly incredible! Have a beer."

The man finishes his beer and says to the bartender, "Hey, if I show you something else that is so amazing I can guarantee you've never seen before, will you give me another free beer?"

"If it's as amazing as that hamster, then sure," the bartender replies.

So the man reaches into his other coat pocket and pulls out a frog. He sets the frog down on the bar, and the frog begins to sing beautifully. The bartender is again amazed, and the man earns another beer.

As the man is drinking his beer, a guy at the other end of the bar walks over and says, "What a performer! I'll give you $500 for that frog."

The first man says, "It’s a deal!" and sells the guy his frog. The bartender shakes his head slowly. "Not that it's any of my business, mind you, but that was a real, live singing frog. Why would you sell it for only $500? You could have made millions off of it."

The man says, "Nah, don't worry. The hamster's also a ventriloquist."
Hope this helps, lol