E-Target Certification

[WindSurgeon]

E-targets suck. All of them. I don't understand the need in competition other than people not wanting to pull targets. There is no getting back a 0 score and no way to verify once the shooting has started. You are at the mercy of variability in equipment from range to range, and even variability of accuracy across targets on the same range. It is less perfect than paper.

 

[F Class John]

I get the point of people in favor of pulling paper but here’s a real world example. I’m at a match several months ago, some wind and weather going on. I’m scoring and my shooter has been 10 and x through the first 8 or 9 shots. His next shot comes up a miss. I call for a challenge. Target goes down and a minute later comes back miss again. Shooter is pissed, rails off the remaining rounds still managing to stay pretty much clean for the remainder. The relay ends and as they’re pasting up the targets someone suddenly found a ‘hidden’ hole on his target. Maybe it was his, maybe it was old. Who knows but either way the shot shouldn’t count under NRA rules and that mistake could easily cost him the match. Is that any better than the errant shot an e-target misses? In fact according to NRA rules, with an E-target he would have at least some level of recourse albeit not a great one. So far the one time I’ve seen an e-target not register it did so because of a simple hardware cable failure and under the NRA rules the second shot wouldn’t register either meaning he can move to another target without penalty. On paper he wouldn’t get that option. Both ways are gonna make mistakes, we ain’t playing golf here. I would strongly argue that even at a regional match the level of pulling and scoring varies so greatly in speed and accuracy based on age, physical ability and experience that it could affect who wins. But we all roll the dice when we show up and get squaded and know we are all shooting with the same chance of getting a bad puller. And when you are the one with the bad puller your whole day can go sideways very quickly. Shooting on e-targets is no less risky in my experience and in most cases it provides a more even playing field than paper as people are then free to dictate their own pace, removing one more variable.

And don’t even get me started on the accuracy of paper scoring once a spotter has been inserted into a hole and someone calls for a challenge...

 

[KenOath]

E-targets suck. All of them. I don't understand the need in competition other than people not wanting to pull targets. There is no getting back a 0 score and no way to verify once the shooting has started. You are at the mercy of variability in equipment from range to range, and even variability of accuracy across targets on the same range. It is less perfect than paper.

Some don’t have an option but to shoot on ETs, I’m one of them and I’d rather shoot/compete than not..

 

[brxbrad]

WOW..,..,,.,,........

 

[NZ_Fclass]

They have been used for the Olympics for some time - and for some Commonwealth shoots. The jury can, and does check the calibration - but I have seen "lost" shots. Lets be honest - they will take over as the preferred target. Difficulties in getting range staff - and even club members to pull targets, costs of range staff etc.

Standards? I think that they are already set in rules for paper targets, which the E-targets have to duplicate.

I enjoy shooting FTR on E-targets. Quick feedback and extra shooting time.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

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.

So Adam, can you objectively tell us what influence the immature "technology" has on precision under typical match conditions?

If the technology "is still being invented", objectively how far short does the current technology fall for acceptable reliability?

And how does the in-"stability" manifest itself in the field?

 

[calishooter123]

1- I use the Shotmarker electronic target
2- The shots plotted inaccurately are not always in the same place nor do they repeat or cause a pattern. I have had many conversations with the manufacturer and seems as though this is not a rare occurrence. Flex in the target frame and even the wind can distort the sonic wave to some extent accounting for some of the errors.

Never took your post as being argumentative just trying to deal with the facts.

It’s a good thing that paper targets in carriers can’t flex and move a half inch when it’s gusty...otherwise they could also not be trusted to give fair results.

 

[6.5x47 lapua]

So Adam, can you objectively tell us what influence the immature "technology" has on precision under typical match conditions?

If the technology "is still being invented", objectively how far short does the current technology fall for acceptable reliability?

And how does the in-"stability" manifest itself in the field?

Maybe Rick you should actually shoot some matches so you actually understand where the technology falls short. Imo the technology i have seen from the provinces home range is nowhere near reliable enough to run matches of any meaning on them if they rely on wifi to relay shot info.

 

[XTR]

Yes, systems* should be certified, but here is a reality, all the certification in the world isn't going to get a system that approaches $10k a target on more than a couple of ranges in the US. The economics don't work.

I know that the majority of the ranges will eventually go to some kind of electronic system. The number of open mic systems out there today, and the support they have from their users will prevent them from being excluded from use unless there is some compelling evidence that they are inadequate for the task. Note that it's going to have to be very compelling. Throw all the shade you want to but popular support from some influential locations can not be underestimated. (and pissing off some of those people will do more harm than good) I also see support from a huge number of shooters who really don't seem to be concerned at all about the accuracy and precision of the systems. As long as the shots show up and they don't have to go to the pits, and can get the match over with quickly it's all good.(note that at the time of this posting 30% of the respondents to this survey don't see a need for certification)

Personally I'd like to see this technology live at the club level for a several more yrs. I've shot on open and closed systems and had some pretty well documented issues with both. The systems* are not there yet in my personal and not always humble opinion. Not everyone in this game has a background in QA/QC or even know the difference, nor to they have any experience in maintenance schedules or implementation of programmatic controls. We are moving from a paper and pasters system to a sophisticated electronic computer controlled sensor system. Not all of the people running matches have the skills to make that transition. This is the part that the manufacturers need to get. They may only be selling the technology part of the system, but the real world performance, good or bad, will be attributed to them.

*that is the complete system meaning all the range personnel and materials, and includes the requirements for how to maintain them, maintenance schedules and their flaws and limitations.

 

[F Class John]

As a person who runs a 600yd club match weekly I can say I forgive the minor issues in favor of the fun it adds back in. That being said I don’t envy the decision of a Ben Avery or Raton type club to switch over. I’m sure there are many more factors involved than my decision to switch over as I only average 30 shooters a week. But at the end of the day our sport is about having fun and getting more people to participate. Having e-targets allows me to do that in more than one way. I’m working on converting over 100% but in the meantime we have some personal ones that we share with people and I already hear more people talking about coming because of it. The smiles are priceless even if it’s not perfect. It more than compensates for the other reaction I get when I explain to people how to pull targets and/or explain to a shooter they’re on the reciprocal end of a new puller or a double-pull. In the end the pits are, well the pits. We shouldn’t lament the loss of pulling in pits simply because it’s some kind of rite of passage. “I miss pulling targets” said no one. It doesn’t make me lazy or hate my sport, it just means I want to spend more time doing the part of the sport I actually participate for, the shooting. It’s like saying manual locking hubs on a 4x4 should never be replaced with electronic locking hubs. Sure my electronic hubs occasionally have an issue but there’s never a time I wish I had to go out in the mud or snow to turn my hub locks because of that.

I’m no QA/QC specialist or an engineer so I’ll let them do their thing and postulate the what if’s of the systems. In the meantime this idiot non-degree holding high-master will accept that shots missed on the system are on par or better so far than the myriad of problems I face every week from all kinds of puller issues and enjoy the e-targets for what they are. As they improve I have no doubt all of our enjoyment with them will as well.

 

[NZ_Fclass]

Actually - the economics do work. I shoot in a small club that has 4 E-target systems (Silver Mountain). We have 15 or so members. For a "normal" club day, 2 or 3 targets are adequate, due to the reduced time for each detail. We dont have to wait on target pullers or shifts of club members going down range. Shooters can set up ready for their detail.

Local, regional shoots are run on 4 targets. We normally shoot 2 distances each club day - before lunch.

 

[Ned Ludd]

As a person who runs a 600yd club match weekly I can say I forgive the minor issues in favor of the fun it adds back in. That being said I don’t envy the decision of a Ben Avery or Raton type club to switch over. I’m sure there are many more factors involved than my decision to switch over as I only average 30 shooters a week. But at the end of the day our sport is about having fun and getting more people to participate. Having e-targets allows me to do that in more than one way. I’m working on converting over 100% but in the meantime we have some personal ones that we share with people and I already hear more people talking about coming because of it. The smiles are priceless even if it’s not perfect. It more than compensates for the other reaction I get when I explain to people how to pull targets and/or explain to a shooter they’re on the reciprocal end of a new puller or a double-pull. In the end the pits are, well the pits. We shouldn’t lament the loss of pulling in pits simply because it’s some kind of rite of passage. “I miss pulling targets” said no one. It doesn’t make me lazy or hate my sport, it just means I want to spend more time doing the part of the sport I actually participate for, the shooting. It’s like saying manual locking hubs on a 4x4 should never be replaced with electronic locking hubs. Sure my electronic hubs occasionally have an issue but there’s never a time I wish I had to go out in the mud or snow to turn my hub locks because of that.

I’m no QA/QC specialist or an engineer so I’ll let them do their thing and postulate the what if’s of the systems. In the meantime this idiot non-degree holding high-master will accept that shots missed on the system are on par or better so far than the myriad of problems I face every week from all kinds of puller issues and enjoy the e-targets for what they are. As they improve I have no doubt all of our enjoyment with them will as well.

You're wrong. I agree that pulling targets shouldn't be viewed as a "rite of passage". However, it is often the best opportunity to BS and interact with your fellow shooters in between strings/pulling targets. Most are too busy at the other end of the line scoring or preparing to shoot themselves. I, for one, would miss doing pit service if the ranges close to me ever adopted the use of E-targets. I'm not interested in getting a match over a couple hours sooner...I actually plan in advance to spend the better part of a day at a match. I'm not interested in looking over at a tablet every time I shoot, I'd rather be paying attention to the conditions.

E-targets change F-Class into something different than it was, and IMO, something less than it was.

 

[F Class John]

Fair enough and I appreciate where you’re coming from. However you also have to consider the fact that many clubs including mine have multiple disciplines that share a facility or campus and finishing earlier (especially on a weekend) is actually a benefit to all members of the club and goes a long way towards me being able to book more dates for shooting since I will have less of a footprint on the other club disciplines. It’s a two way street for me and I try to play nice with my club in general since we are so big (6,000 members). And yes, lots of good times are had in the pits but I don’t think it lessens f-class to get rid of them, but that’s me. In the end there’s a lot of emotions and opinions that e-targets are eliciting and none of them are probably wrong depending on the need. But for me and my club e-targets a much bigger benefit long term than pit service. Your situation may differ and that’s ok too.

 

[JohnKielly]

I, for one, would miss doing pit service if the ranges close to me ever adopted the use of E-targets.

E-targets change F-Class into something different than it was, and IMO, something less than it was.

This is the essence of the relative takeup of E targets worldwide. Virtually all other countries have traditionally used paid pullers & E Targets substantially reduce the cost.

 

[XTR]

I’m no QA/QC specialist or an engineer so I’ll let them do their thing and postulate the what if’s of the systems. ...

Therein is exactly the problems, the MD or someone responsible for running the target system at the range during the match needs to understand the system and how to maintain it. Go read the monkey poop fight on the thread about Hexta targets missing shots. Those who show up to participate won't care a lot one way or another as long as they get a score, but those who compete for the top of the list do, and the issues in the case mentioned above were caused by a failure of the staff, including scorer and MD, to maintain the targets or to recognize what the messages being displayed meant.

You make my case that what you are doing at a club level is exactly where these need to stay and not in Registered, Regional, State or National matches w/o certification.

 

[KenOath]

You're wrong. I agree that pulling targets shouldn't be viewed as a "rite of passage". However, it is often the best opportunity to BS and interact with your fellow shooters in between strings/pulling targets. Most are too busy at the other end of the line scoring or preparing to shoot themselves. I, for one, would miss doing pit service if the ranges close to me ever adopted the use of E-targets. I'm not interested in getting a match over a couple hours sooner...I actually plan in advance to spend the better part of a day at a match. I'm not interested in looking over at a tablet every time I shoot, I'd rather be paying attention to the conditions.

E-targets change F-Class into something different than it was, and IMO, something less than it was.

I can see how people enjoy the pits for different reasons other than pulling and scoring targets and I won’t disagree with them on that...But you do have more time at the shooters end to BS because shooting on ETs is faster and yes you do finish earlier but again it gives you more time to catch up in the club house for more BS ... It’s great to look over the tablet at the end of the shoot and reflect on where you went wrong or right!!

 

[Bindi2]

E targets are here to stay. Get over it they are accurate. The only problems they have are caused by humans rough handling cables or lack of maintenance. I own a S M T g2 for practice. I have just rebuilt 70+ Kongsberg targets to a hard chamber with a replaceable cassette centre which has lowered the rebuild time from 2 1/2 hours to less than 5 minutes, cost from $1700AUD to $50AUD, and increase target life from 800 shots to over 3k shots on a cassette to try and find the extreme life.
Yes E Targets have changed shooting just like cartridges changed shooting from muzzle loading. Shooting has been a continuous evolution from bow and arrow till today and will continue on. Stop complaining embrace it enjoy it or move out you can not stop evolution you are it.

 

[XTR]

@Bindi2 this thread isn't about whether or not to shoot on ETs, or for that matter about delays, it's about certifying their accuracy and precision. You are beating on the wrong drum.

That said...

The only problems they have are caused by humans rough handling cables or lack of maintenance.

you also contribute to my case as stated above.

 

[Bindi2]

@Bindi2 this thread isn't about whether or not to shoot on ETs, or for that matter about delays, it's about certifying their accuracy and precision. You are beating on the wrong drum.

That said...


you also contribute to my case as stated above.

They have to meet accuracy standard for use here. They do easily, certification is a red herring to stop a perceived advantage to other shooters. Have been down this path already. I am not beating the wrong drum I am further down the same road than you in fact many versions of E Targets modifications.

 

[F Class John]

Perhaps a more appropriately acceptable term would be ‘policies and procedures’ surrounding the use of e-targets just as we have for current paper targets. I think most people would be good with that. Certification sounds like the government is getting involved, things are going to get exponentially more complex or someone is looking to start a new business at others expense. Nobody ‘certifies’ targets or pulling systems now and we seem to be just fine however there are agreed upon policies and procedure that are followed best as possible that we all agree on. I expect e-targets will be no different.