E-Targets for F-Class

[Rick Ratzlaff]

30 pages or more

This has been the most objective technical discussion to date on E-targets. Long over due. Us laymen need to listen to the tech-giants discussion. We'll all learn more than we've emotionally spouted from ignorance.

As a vendor, not an engineer, I'm reading. There should be no reason for a vendor to go of line in discussion.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

A big shout out to this post. When the regulating body told us 5 years ago they were leaving qualifications "up to the vendors", it invoked the remembrance of a game of horse shoes.

Obviously since then the community knowledge of the physics and mathematics required for acoustic E-targets to work has matured somewhat. The more important discussion is about standards, calibration methods, and independent result verification methods, which should highlight the practical issues with the different kinds of E-targets and hold manufacturers to account on the accuracy of their systems.

We highly second that motion.

WE at lodi have shot with a 7 sec delay since we held the first nationals on e targets and there were many records set at that match as I am a whitness to how many hours were spent filling out national records forms.

So in light of the maturing of E-Target understanding, the questions that beg answering Earl are: 1) did you just coincidently get more World Class shooters there for that match, 2) were environmental conditions perfect so wind and mirage were not a factor, 3) what circumstance was prevalent to add a higher than usual number or records set? Which pattern seemed to follow in other matches.

 

[Ned Ludd]

30 pages or more

This has been the most objective technical discussion to date on E-targets. Long over due. Us laymen need to listen to the tech-giants discussion. We'll all learn more than we've emotionally spouted from ignorance.

As a vendor, not an engineer, I'm reading. There should be no reason for a vendor to go of line in discussion.

This works BOTH ways. The tech-giants can also listen to the people that buy their products and make their products perform exactly the way their customers request.

 

[XTR]

This works BOTH ways. The tech-giants can also listen to the people that buy their products and make their products perform exactly the way their customers request.

Just a hunch, but something tells me that the ones listening will sell more targets than the ones trying to tell shooters what they need.

 

[sdean]

This works BOTH ways. The tech-giants can also listen to the people that buy their products and make their products perform exactly the way their customers request.

Ned how much would you pay for a target that met your specs?

 

[XTR]

Ned how much would you pay for a target that met your specs?

I think the market has pretty well established that price point to be in the range of about $800USD. Shot Marker has sold 1000+ units at that point in the last yr. I don't think any other target approached those kind if numbers at a higher price.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Although I'm not a big fan of the general idea of E-targets, I've seriously considered buying one of Adam's targets. It's not about the price for me, which is pretty reasonable, and in the same ballpark as a good target cam system. My only real objection currently is having to haul around the target/frame. My reason for responding is that Ratzlaff's denigrating comments about E-target users are getting more than a little tiresome.

 

[GSS]

Although I'm not a big fan of the general idea of E-targets, I've seriously considered buying one of Adam's targets. It's not about the price for me, which is pretty reasonable, and in the same ballpark as a good target cam system. My only real objection currently is having to haul around the target/frame. My reason for responding is that Ratzlaff's denigrating comments about E-target users are getting more than a little tiresome.

I have seen some pics on the web where people used hinges on wood frames for it to fold / unfold in half to make easier to transport to the range. One also folded into quarters.

 

[sdean]

Although I'm not a big fan of the general idea of E-targets, I've seriously considered buying one of Adam's targets. It's not about the price for me, which is pretty reasonable, and in the same ballpark as a good target cam system. My only real objection currently is having to haul around the target/frame. My reason for responding is that Ratzlaff's denigrating comments about E-target users are getting more than a little tiresome.

If you hadn’t sold any more targets over here than he has in the last two years you might have an attitude too.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

I apologize Ned if it sounded degrading. What I'm trying to point out is that the reliability of E-Targets is extremely techie. That come's through loud and clear in reading the engineers and scientists on these threads. So without a sufficient understanding of the physics, my novice opinion is just that. We are looking for real objective truth, not "works good enough for me".

I regard to sales if you were to compare the metrics of Australia to the USA, there would be the equivalent of 1500 HEXTA targets here. They have been at it for 10 years or more, NA maybe 5.

 

[Erud]

I regard to sales if you were to compare the metrics of Australia to the USA, there would be the equivalent of 1500 HEXTA targets here. They have been at it for 10 years or more, NA maybe 5.

I don't think I understand this statement. What would "the equivalent" of 1500 targets be?

Also, my club in MN has had e-targets for about 15 years now. Not the equivalent of 15 years, actually installed in 2004 or 2005.

 

[sdean]

I regard to sales if you were to compare the metrics of Australia to the USA, there would be the equivalent of 1500 HEXTA targets here. They have been at it for 10 years or more, NA maybe 5.[/QUOTE

So in layman’s terms how many targets have you sold here in the last two years? I shoot on a Hexta target at my closest range, where else in U.S. can I shoot on one.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Successful marketing strategies typically take advantage of a bi-directional flow of information between producers and consumers. At the most basic level, this flow of information can occur by at least two methods. One method involves a simple economic mechanism; that is, consumers will generally purchase the product(s) that satisfy their needs at a reasonable cost. Producers can evaluate over time based on sales whether their products satisfy consumers' needs. However, this mechanism is limited and inefficient in the short-term. A more efficient approach is for the producers to directly solicit and carefully evaluate consumers' needs/wants and generate a product that satisfies those needs as fully as is possible.

Using terms such as "emotion" and "ignorance" to describe potential E-target consumers is not conducive to a productive flow of information between them and the producers. There is little question that the use of E-targets will change how certain shooting disciplines are conducted, even if only in subtle ways. It is human nature to be apprehensive with respect to change and uncertainty, and emotional responses are to be expected when it is unclear to what extent the use of E-targets might change a given shooting discipline. Moreover, as an example I would bet that a significant percentage of shooters do not have a comprehensive grasp of how the specific mechanisms inside their rifle triggers actually work. Nonetheless, they can tell you very specifically what they consider to be "desirable properties" in a good trigger (i.e. crisp break, minimal creep, appropriate pull weight, reliability, etc.). The same is likely true of E-targets. I am fortunate enough to have a sufficient background in physics and mathematics that I can generally follow the technical discussions here regarding the various methods used in E-target design, even if it would be far beyond my skill level to design one. However, I also suspect there are many shooters that have little understanding of the specifics of how E-targets actually work that can nonetheless tell you exactly what properties they want from an E-target. So "ignorance" is probably not a term I would choose to describe potential customers, either. The bottom line is that E-targets are not going away and threads such as this will likely ultimately lead to better products. The more civil we keep these discussions, the more effective the exchange of information in both directions will be.

 

[MattPeetz]

I regard to sales if you were to compare the metrics of Australia to the USA, there would be the equivalent of 1500 HEXTA targets here. They have been at it for 10 years or more, NA maybe 5.[/QUOTE

So in layman’s terms how many targets have you sold here in the last two years? I shoot on a Hexta target at my closest range, where else in U.S. can I shoot on one.

Thats as secret as to how much they cost

 

[GSS]

I actually feel a bit sorry / bad for Rick & Hexta.
They were early developers and created an excellent system. The Ferrari of E targets !

Last I saw Silver Mountain sold just over 600 units in the 1st year on the market.

Shotmarker sold over 1000 in their 1st year. I believe this range alone has 175 Shotmarker targets from 100 - 1000 yards,,, https://www.deadzeroshooting.com/ranges/#section-rifle-pistol-ranges

Shotmarker just going into the 2nd year in E Target business is now developing more and more features like (Begin Quote "built-in support for match statistics and reporting and a web portal for clubs to upload scores, and for competitors to view results interactively, shot by shot. Also, I plan to add the ability to import or design custom target faces, improved pair-firing functionality, plot-o-matic, and more..." End Quote )
https://www.autotrickler.com/april-2019-update.html

I would think Silver Mountain is continuing to develop and enhance their product as well...

We may never know how many Hex systems were sold in the US in the last year since the new SMT and SM systems came to market. The latest I could find on their website is 3 clubs in the USA, https://www.hexsystems.com.au/history/

At any rate,
Hex Developed and Marketed an awesome system and now it appears they have been priced out of the market by the competition.

Unless they can convince the NRA the CMP and us Consumers their Competition is Not Good Enough.
Sad story and situation for them actually.

 

[RDA72927]

A big shout out to this post. When the regulating body told us 5 years ago they were leaving qualifications "up to the vendors", it invoked the remembrance of a game of horse shoes.



We highly second that motion.



So in light of the maturing of E-Target understanding, the questions that beg answering Earl are: 1) did you just coincidently get more World Class shooters there for that match, 2) were environmental conditions perfect so wind and mirage were not a factor, 3) what circumstance was prevalent to add a higher than usual number or records set? Which pattern seemed to follow in other matches.

I bet you STILL will not let us (consumers ) know what it cost. So, your just a bee buzzing in my ear and have nothing to add....

 

[corning]

I regard to sales if you were to compare the metrics of Australia to the USA, there would be the equivalent of 1500 HEXTA targets here. They have been at it for 10 years or more, NA maybe 5.

What kind of BS statement is that? The goballsitic.us web site states that there are "Globally 48 clubs using 200 targets". What in the world the "the equivalent of 1500 HEXTA targets here" mean, when there only appear to be 200 installed worldwide?

John Corning

 

[GSS]

Earl338 said: ↑
WE at lodi have shot with a 7 sec delay since we held the first nationals on e targets and there were many records set at that match as I am a whitness to how many hours were spent filling out national records forms.

So in light of the maturing of E-Target understanding, the questions that beg answering Earl are:
1) did you just coincidently get more World Class shooters there for that match,
2) were environmental conditions perfect so wind and mirage were not a factor,
3) what circumstance was prevalent to add a higher than usual number or records set?
Which pattern seemed to follow in other matches.

I'm unsure how I feel about this post / question from Rick the HEX Salesman...

Is he just asking a simple honest question,
Or is he trying to cast doubts on the National Records that have been set on his Sales Competitors E Target Systems.

Rick has a track record of picking and choosing which questions asked of him that he responds to and which ones he ignores.

Maybe he will clarify the quoted post of his above ...

Maybe he will more clearly answer some of the other questions that have been asked of him here.

Integrity is a good trait in any salesman that wants to earn respect from potential customers.

You can't change the past,
But we will see how he continues to interact here....

G-

 

[MattPeetz]

Earl338 said: ↑
WE at lodi have shot with a 7 sec delay since we held the first nationals on e targets and there were many records set at that match as I am a whitness to how many hours were spent filling out national records forms.



I'm unsure how I feel about this post / question from Rick the HEX Salesman...

Is he just asking a simple honest question,
Or is he trying to cast doubts on the National Records that have been set on his Sales Competitors E Target Systems.

Rick has a track record of picking and choosing which questions asked of him that he responds to and which ones he ignores.

Maybe he will clarify the quoted post of his above ...

Maybe he will more clearly answer some of the other questions that have been asked of him here.

Integrity is a good trait in any salesman that wants to earn respect from potential customers.

You can't change the past,
But we will see how he continues to interact here....

G-

He will be the same as before. Quiet and a horrible salesman.

 

[Crow]

So in light of the maturing of E-Target understanding, the questions that beg answering Earl are: 1) did you just coincidently get more World Class shooters there for that match, 2) were environmental conditions perfect so wind and mirage were not a factor, 3) what circumstance was prevalent to add a higher than usual number or records set? Which pattern seemed to follow in other matches.

I may get hammered for this, but I think Rick Ratzlaff asks a fair question, while strangely (for an e-target salesman) expressing some of the same sentiments that have led many to distrust e-targets and/or want to impose limitations on their use.

I don't question accepted records, and I'm pretty darned sure they were all earned, but I say the answer to his question is obvious: Rapid, consistent pit service allowed folks to shoot to their true potential. That, and shooters aren't being taxed between relays by having to work the pits.