E-Target Certification
- Thread starter Rick Ratzlaff
- Start date
Rick, the APRA starts shooting in April, again next year. Grab an F-class rifle, or sling it with a TR rifle, come shoot a season on electronic targets.
Then you can objectively give us your opinion on reliability as someone who has a stake in the game other then to make money from it.
Thanks to all for your input. I will answers a few of your comments here.
Don't worry about my desire or ability to shoot. I concur with the "need" for me to shoot competitively. 3 hip repairs and wore out knees have wore out my hunting passon. I started hand-loading when we bought 4831 in 20 lb. kegs for 20$. Before some of you were born. But to transport shooting gear back and forth across the US/CDN border has a lot of scary stories. I'd probably have to seek political asylum to get back into Canada. Although moving south seeking asylum has crossed my mind. 6.5x47 - you learn the technology real fast when you have to be the 1-800-HELP line for 3 ranges. However, you have a point as in 1 whole season to-date I have not had 1 call to broken "technology". There has been some learning curves at the MD, but that's to be expected.
Someone in this forum talked about the "maturity" of the technology.
Our 3 US ranges have now run 9744 shooters records, for 800 plus shooter, and the targets have not missed a shot, had ghost shots, or gross errors. Not of the shooters are screaming at me or the MD's on the forum's. The MD's are not screaming at me. No one is asking to dumb down rules to fit the technology. In fact the opposite is true. To say nothing of the 7 plus years these targets have been running in Australia on 40 plus clubs. Original targets still in place.
John we invesion a process where stakeholders (shooters, vendors, and governing bodies) develop an equitable, scientific, fair, repeatable process to 'qualify' for your confidence. I'd recommend that the testing process configuration initially take place at the same range, with targets side by each, under the same condition. But that would be worked out by the stakeholder/governing body consultations.
On another forum, I was able to ask a second question, about the confidence level with E-Targets. Out of 40 shooters 75% don't have confidence in E-Targets. That's a shame.
However, unless shooters send us a clear message through a process like this, it will remain without principle. And I know people are saying paper and puller don't ..... but in essence they do. The standard is as everyone can see with their own eyes, and thoroughly know. But with E-Target technology, and the physics, most of us lay people are only left subjectively speculating.
I see $10,000 guns on the firing line to say nothing of the rest of the investment, and we're happy with "close"? E-Targets are sophisticated measuring devices! Their limits, and capabilities are easy to objectively access and measure.
So why not! VOTE and send in the letter!
Don't worry about my desire or ability to shoot. I concur with the "need" for me to shoot competitively. 3 hip repairs and wore out knees have wore out my hunting passon. I started hand-loading when we bought 4831 in 20 lb. kegs for 20$. Before some of you were born. But to transport shooting gear back and forth across the US/CDN border has a lot of scary stories. I'd probably have to seek political asylum to get back into Canada. Although moving south seeking asylum has crossed my mind. 6.5x47 - you learn the technology real fast when you have to be the 1-800-HELP line for 3 ranges. However, you have a point as in 1 whole season to-date I have not had 1 call to broken "technology". There has been some learning curves at the MD, but that's to be expected.
Someone in this forum talked about the "maturity" of the technology.
Our 3 US ranges have now run 9744 shooters records, for 800 plus shooter, and the targets have not missed a shot, had ghost shots, or gross errors. Not of the shooters are screaming at me or the MD's on the forum's. The MD's are not screaming at me. No one is asking to dumb down rules to fit the technology. In fact the opposite is true. To say nothing of the 7 plus years these targets have been running in Australia on 40 plus clubs. Original targets still in place.
Ned - you make a point on socializing that used to come up often. However, shooters find E-Targets providing much more socializing on tailgates without having to be concentrated of providing good pit service.
John we invesion a process where stakeholders (shooters, vendors, and governing bodies) develop an equitable, scientific, fair, repeatable process to 'qualify' for your confidence. I'd recommend that the testing process configuration initially take place at the same range, with targets side by each, under the same condition. But that would be worked out by the stakeholder/governing body consultations.
On another forum, I was able to ask a second question, about the confidence level with E-Targets. Out of 40 shooters 75% don't have confidence in E-Targets. That's a shame.
However, unless shooters send us a clear message through a process like this, it will remain without principle. And I know people are saying paper and puller don't ..... but in essence they do. The standard is as everyone can see with their own eyes, and thoroughly know. But with E-Target technology, and the physics, most of us lay people are only left subjectively speculating.
I see $10,000 guns on the firing line to say nothing of the rest of the investment, and we're happy with "close"? E-Targets are sophisticated measuring devices! Their limits, and capabilities are easy to objectively access and measure.
So why not! VOTE and send in the letter!
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
What then do you call the problems that I had, or the problems that the shooter that I was squadded with had where the target would not score more than 3 shots in 20?
I know you argue that your equipment worked as designed, and the range failed to maintain the targets but to this shooter X-10-10-miss-X is a gross error.
Again, the system including the operation and maintenance needs to be certified for Registered, State or National level matches.
Wade
Thanks for asking.
Like we Claimed. The target did NOT "MISS" you're shot. In fact it warned you that something was wrong.
That is better that taking a wild guess, plotting it's guess, and you'd never been the wiser.
Then the problem could be examined and corrections made.
You saw Mike Bushes response to your post, and apology for not having understood a maintenance issue, and his commitment to never drop the ball on their maintenance responsibilities again. And I believe an invitation to come back.
The maintenance issue was indeed repaired before the next match.
A "MISS", is when an bullet hits the E-Target but nothing happens.
The HEXTA targets have 8 independent sensors listening for the pressure wave. Even if you hit the target frame, it will tell you that "it probably hit the frame". They even pick up subsonic shots.
I might add, in 7 years in Australia and millions of shots, our record stands.
Like we Claimed. The target did NOT "MISS" you're shot. In fact it warned you that something was wrong.
That is better that taking a wild guess, plotting it's guess, and you'd never been the wiser.
Then the problem could be examined and corrections made.
You saw Mike Bushes response to your post, and apology for not having understood a maintenance issue, and his commitment to never drop the ball on their maintenance responsibilities again. And I believe an invitation to come back.
The maintenance issue was indeed repaired before the next match.
A "MISS", is when an bullet hits the E-Target but nothing happens.
The HEXTA targets have 8 independent sensors listening for the pressure wave. Even if you hit the target frame, it will tell you that "it probably hit the frame". They even pick up subsonic shots.
I might add, in 7 years in Australia and millions of shots, our record stands.
As politely as I can say it, I’d vote if I agreed with the question but you can’t quantify it simply as “should there be certification”. It’s like asking “do you still steal work supplies from the office?” There’s no good answer to it. People saying yes to certification probably have the best intentions but may not fully understand the path that leads down and the no people are certainly no different. The answer is somewhere in between. That’s why other questions need to be asked, so a proper scope of needs is determined before time, energy and money is wasted fixing a problem that wasn’t there to begin with. It’s a no win situation as currently asked and I have no doubt that some of the people answering either of your surveys have probably never shot on an e-target either. FWIW the surveys need to be more inclusive of questions that help give context to the answers given, for instance asking “have you ever taken product without permission from the office” gives a lot more context to the question “do you still steal work supplies from the office?”. Just as “have you ever shot on an e-target?” or “do you own an e-target system” would help. There’s certainly other question that would help as well to understand the problems or concerns people at have when using them.
For me at its core it begs the question why are we so special to have the NRA or anybody for that matter spend all this time on us? To my knowledge and I could be well off base but I don’t see other disciplines being certified by the NRA other than paper targets handled by a select group of printers. Trap throwers and clays, no way. I’ve seen all kinds used. Timers for speed steel, 3-gun and IPSC, nope; I’ve seen every kind of timer used at matches from kitchen timers to to phones to acoustic triggered timers. Certified steel targets at speed competition? Again I’ve seen them run the gammet of sizes and weights. Clearly not certified. PRS matches, where do I start. Even existing e-targets that have been used for years on small bore competition aren’t certified. All of the above have an effect on scores at matches or events but all of the above are accepted, rarely challenged BUT all share the values of having policies and procedures around them to ensure that at any one competition it’s a fair playing field. That’s what I am in favor of. But you can’t just throw out certification as if it’s some magic bullet that will suddenly make every e-target perform infalably just as nobody currently ensures I don’t get some guy that takes 2 minutes between x’s to mark my target. S@@t happens at any match and there’s always a person or two who are on the receiving end of misfortune at a match no matter the gear used. I accept it could be my turn every time I show up.
As far as certification goes, I used to work for a large retailer and was in the employee training department. We were tasked with creating a process to “certify” employees in various aspects of customer service. A year later and who knows how many thousands of dollars we rolled it out. Every employee and manager went through the process, all the records were compiled showing they had and yet the very next week we still got complaints from customers saying their customer service was wrong for one reason or another. And since they were certified and should’ve known better people got written up and fired much faster and easier. The certification as it turned out didn’t really help the customer experience initially but in fact ended up mostly helping the dismissal of employees be more legally compliant and defendable since they should’ve known better from being certified. From a true training standpoint we had missed the mark in our department by not asking the right questions. Ultimately we had to ask more questions and create more certification to certify that the people doing the certification were properly certified to do so as well as more polices and procedures around them. Bureaucracy at its best. In the end it taught me that the tighter the controls the more people will find the faults and then nobody wins. I can certify a submarine to be waterproof but there’s always a chance someone leaves a hatch open if there’s no P&Ps. Policies and procedures would tell us not to leave the hatch open and to go through a checklist to ensure as much whether it’s certifed or not and frankly that’s more important to me if I’m in the submarine.
Adding in e-targets doesn’t and wouldn’t affect my enthusiasm to shoot however I would like to know that the range using them has some set of standard (or policies and procedures) they go by during a match just as we currently know how their target pullers and targets work at any given range. For instance I think people would feel a lot more confident if they showed up and were told during the safety briefing...
1)all units were fully charged
2)all pads are set up identical and fully charged
3)calibration was done by one of our top shooters on a calm day and repeated for verification
4)all frames were checked for properly anchoring
5)all sensors (in my case magnets) and cables were clear of debris before placed securely in their bases (sometimes they pick up staples or something causing a weird angle)
6)NRA e-targets rules are in effect, please notify the MD/RO if you have a miss that’s challenged
7)all shooter pads have been locked from manipulation by the MD so that only the MD can make a score change
8)all targets were checked for acoustic viability when set up and properly paired with their respective pads and shooting position
9)and so on...
You get the idea and yes I’ll be first one to admit there always the chance of a technical error. I get it, but if I do this list above every time I have a match it builds confidence that I’m doing what I can to ensure a fair match on reliable equipment. I know others will say this is stupid or the wrong way but for me this is what I see as a much more viable way of ensuring people gain confidence in them as well as seeing them grow in use. But I’m the first to admit I’m all-in on these and barring some ultra f-up across the board won’t be going back to pit pullers if I can help it.
Also, I do appreciate the conversation we’re having here as it really helps me continue to understand the assorted reservations, concerns and fears people will come in with as they shoot e-targets for the first time and how I can best resolve them.
For me at its core it begs the question why are we so special to have the NRA or anybody for that matter spend all this time on us? To my knowledge and I could be well off base but I don’t see other disciplines being certified by the NRA other than paper targets handled by a select group of printers. Trap throwers and clays, no way. I’ve seen all kinds used. Timers for speed steel, 3-gun and IPSC, nope; I’ve seen every kind of timer used at matches from kitchen timers to to phones to acoustic triggered timers. Certified steel targets at speed competition? Again I’ve seen them run the gammet of sizes and weights. Clearly not certified. PRS matches, where do I start. Even existing e-targets that have been used for years on small bore competition aren’t certified. All of the above have an effect on scores at matches or events but all of the above are accepted, rarely challenged BUT all share the values of having policies and procedures around them to ensure that at any one competition it’s a fair playing field. That’s what I am in favor of. But you can’t just throw out certification as if it’s some magic bullet that will suddenly make every e-target perform infalably just as nobody currently ensures I don’t get some guy that takes 2 minutes between x’s to mark my target. S@@t happens at any match and there’s always a person or two who are on the receiving end of misfortune at a match no matter the gear used. I accept it could be my turn every time I show up.
As far as certification goes, I used to work for a large retailer and was in the employee training department. We were tasked with creating a process to “certify” employees in various aspects of customer service. A year later and who knows how many thousands of dollars we rolled it out. Every employee and manager went through the process, all the records were compiled showing they had and yet the very next week we still got complaints from customers saying their customer service was wrong for one reason or another. And since they were certified and should’ve known better people got written up and fired much faster and easier. The certification as it turned out didn’t really help the customer experience initially but in fact ended up mostly helping the dismissal of employees be more legally compliant and defendable since they should’ve known better from being certified. From a true training standpoint we had missed the mark in our department by not asking the right questions. Ultimately we had to ask more questions and create more certification to certify that the people doing the certification were properly certified to do so as well as more polices and procedures around them. Bureaucracy at its best. In the end it taught me that the tighter the controls the more people will find the faults and then nobody wins. I can certify a submarine to be waterproof but there’s always a chance someone leaves a hatch open if there’s no P&Ps. Policies and procedures would tell us not to leave the hatch open and to go through a checklist to ensure as much whether it’s certifed or not and frankly that’s more important to me if I’m in the submarine.
Adding in e-targets doesn’t and wouldn’t affect my enthusiasm to shoot however I would like to know that the range using them has some set of standard (or policies and procedures) they go by during a match just as we currently know how their target pullers and targets work at any given range. For instance I think people would feel a lot more confident if they showed up and were told during the safety briefing...
1)all units were fully charged
2)all pads are set up identical and fully charged
3)calibration was done by one of our top shooters on a calm day and repeated for verification
4)all frames were checked for properly anchoring
5)all sensors (in my case magnets) and cables were clear of debris before placed securely in their bases (sometimes they pick up staples or something causing a weird angle)
6)NRA e-targets rules are in effect, please notify the MD/RO if you have a miss that’s challenged
7)all shooter pads have been locked from manipulation by the MD so that only the MD can make a score change
8)all targets were checked for acoustic viability when set up and properly paired with their respective pads and shooting position
9)and so on...
You get the idea and yes I’ll be first one to admit there always the chance of a technical error. I get it, but if I do this list above every time I have a match it builds confidence that I’m doing what I can to ensure a fair match on reliable equipment. I know others will say this is stupid or the wrong way but for me this is what I see as a much more viable way of ensuring people gain confidence in them as well as seeing them grow in use. But I’m the first to admit I’m all-in on these and barring some ultra f-up across the board won’t be going back to pit pullers if I can help it.
Also, I do appreciate the conversation we’re having here as it really helps me continue to understand the assorted reservations, concerns and fears people will come in with as they shoot e-targets for the first time and how I can best resolve them.
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
In this case it wasn't, due to untrained staff. I was told in no uncertain terms that if the target said i missed I missed because the target doesn't make mistakes. The second time it happened the staff began to agree that maybe there was an issue and awarded me the score on my second sighter.
Not until after I raised a stink both at the range and here.
My point is that the hardware I was shooting on at that range certainly cost north of 6 figures to install (I believe it's 12 Hexta targets with the associated scoring pads, shooters pads and computer network system) and even at that level the staff had inadequate training. How much more likely is this scenario with a target system that costs 10% of that to install on a club range and not at a range that actually operates as a business as that one does?
Rick, I'm agreeing with you, sort of.. I believe that more than just the hardware needs to be certified. Autocad is a recognized tool in industry, but I'd willing to bet you that not one in 10 people using this BB could render a shoebox with it in less than an hour, but with a straight edge and a pencil they could draw one in a minute or two.
My belief (and experience in more than one field) is that people need training, and that training needs to be formatted and documented for the people running the hardware/software because that training is going to determine whether or not the technology is perceived as working or not.
I totally agree which is why I keep bringing up the point of policies and procedures. As I move towards the adoption of e-targets I’m creating a written guide for my staff to make sure everyone understands not only how to set it up but how each part affects the overall operation and ways to correct any issues that arise best that I can.
Your partially right. The had been trained, but in all their experience up until then, it was as they portrayed. We have shooters from the firing line often say "target missed my shot". It's become very common in the E-Target world. But up until you're situation it has been the shooters fault. And you know how that can happen. Just forgetting to crank sight turrets when moving from one range to another. et. etc. And that was always the case at Bar 3. So they did not realize that one issue. When each target turns on the CPU shows if all 8 sensors are working. But for simplicity sake ranges wire all targets into one power source, so all you have is one switch to power them all. So if for whatever reason, we missed that training part, or they had a "brain freeze" (most of us do that once in awhile), Bar 3 had to learn a hard lesson. But as you know they apologized profusely. So, I think it's time to bury that dog. The point being, the target did not miss the shot, and performed just as designed.
We COULD NOT AGREE MORE. That's what we are pushing for. Some standard of expectations. UI's need to be complete, updated, and shipped with every update. RO's need to understand "Best Practices". Otherwise we're shooting horse shoes.
Shotmarker allows you to set a regulated delay to comply with NRA rules.
I know for f-class it’s 7 seconds between shots. Not that I’ve ever actually seen it enforced but thats most likely because by the time a target is pulled and marked its more than that. But with e-targets it’s possible to go faster so you need a physical delay in the system.
Last edited:
DR_2297
Silver $$ Contributor
And then there is HP where we have to fire 10 in a minute (sitting) + a mag change / reload and the first 15-20 seconds is spent plopping down from standing and rebuilding your position (CMP EIC & National Trophy Matches). Figure a round coming in every 3 - 5 seconds. Maybe less if a shooter has and issue and is trying to beat the clock and get all 10 off (no alibis).
The pluses outweigh the minuses. No certification system, so far as I know, exists for paper targets, so it would seem to be overkill to make it a part of e targets. As part of our planning for our maintenance schedule, we have at varying times placed paper target centres on to the e targets and carefully measured the actual bullet holes from the physical centre of the target and compared that to where the electronics thought the bullet hole was in relation to the acoustic centre of the target. Even after 5,000 rounds through the electronic target, the paper and the electronics were well within acceptable agreement.
Perhaps the electronics were at greatest error state towards the outside of the target, if at all. The greatest error we were able to measure was 3 mm at 600 yds. We do not use external sensor targets, favoring an enclosed sound chamber system. If you want to see an explanation of the relative accuracy of the two types I can give you a web address to look at. One of our major ranges did extensive accuracy testing of all available systems, and now use electronics exclusively and these are enclosed targets. More expensive but more accurate without any re-calibration required when changing yardages from 300 to 1000.
I will accept the loss of one point due to electronic error over losing the whole shot due to puller error as has happened to me more than once in state championships.
Because of the type system that we use, when I was laid up due to a health problem earlier this year, I was able to watch my friends shoot in real time. By that I mean that I can view another users target as if I were on the spot, watching each shot in a string, from anywhere in the world. The only downside to this is explaining to my wife why that shot at one oclock was so far out when I get home.
Perhaps the electronics were at greatest error state towards the outside of the target, if at all. The greatest error we were able to measure was 3 mm at 600 yds. We do not use external sensor targets, favoring an enclosed sound chamber system. If you want to see an explanation of the relative accuracy of the two types I can give you a web address to look at. One of our major ranges did extensive accuracy testing of all available systems, and now use electronics exclusively and these are enclosed targets. More expensive but more accurate without any re-calibration required when changing yardages from 300 to 1000.
I will accept the loss of one point due to electronic error over losing the whole shot due to puller error as has happened to me more than once in state championships.
Because of the type system that we use, when I was laid up due to a health problem earlier this year, I was able to watch my friends shoot in real time. By that I mean that I can view another users target as if I were on the spot, watching each shot in a string, from anywhere in the world. The only downside to this is explaining to my wife why that shot at one oclock was so far out when I get home.
A DELAY CAUSES MORE ISSUES FOR SCORING THAN IT SOLVES BELIEVE ME I HAVE BEEN THERE. Fast shooting is a very hard skill to learn. Those who cant feel they are at a disadvantage and it should be banned. Those that cant read wind flags would like them removed to equal the game for them. I would like personal wind flags/windmills allowed because flags tell lies. ETs are the pits butt area catching up with whats been happening on the mound for years. If you don't go with evolution you will join the dinosaurs. I don't see muzzle loaders or trap doors on the line any more.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
AND A LACK OF A DELAY CHANGES THE SPORT INTO SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS, OR WAS EVER INTENDED TO BE. If you want to turn F-Class into machine-gunning rounds down range with your little electronic targets, create your own classification and do whatever you want. Personally, I prefer to stay with the dinosaurs rather than do what you call "evolution"...it seems a lot more like de-evolution in my book. All anyone that needs to know what e-targets are capable of in their current state is to read this thread and observe the complete gong show the use of e-targets has become...it's utterly ridiculous.
Let me start by saying I don’t want the delay removed which is why I’m glad ET developers are allowing them to be implemented.
However, taking the paper vs ET debate out of it, I’ve observed there is the total gammet of shooters at any match I attend regardless of paper or Et’s being used. Some guys will find a condition and go full benchrest and be done in 5 minutes and others will take the full 22 minutes, and I’ve seen both styles win. It’s been this way long before ETs were introduced. Everyone reads and shoots through conditions differently and at different paces, it’s just the way it is.
FWIW, I dont think the use of e-targets either increases or decreases the desire to rail rounds down range. But it does give anyone using them an equal playing field to determine HOW they want to spend their 22 or 30 minutes without worrying about their pit service dictating it for them.
However, taking the paper vs ET debate out of it, I’ve observed there is the total gammet of shooters at any match I attend regardless of paper or Et’s being used. Some guys will find a condition and go full benchrest and be done in 5 minutes and others will take the full 22 minutes, and I’ve seen both styles win. It’s been this way long before ETs were introduced. Everyone reads and shoots through conditions differently and at different paces, it’s just the way it is.
FWIW, I dont think the use of e-targets either increases or decreases the desire to rail rounds down range. But it does give anyone using them an equal playing field to determine HOW they want to spend their 22 or 30 minutes without worrying about their pit service dictating it for them.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.