Relativity in E-Target Accuracy

[watercam]

Lot's of experience and stories regarding E-Targets lately. Heard a comment made to our High Power Director at the COSSA Range in Central Oregon that deserves mention. Those who shoot on the West Coast and Canada know the former High Power director at Sac Valley,CA Jim McConnell. Heck of a guy and extremely knowledgeable and a great shot. Last March a few ShotMarker units were brought to the range by our High Power Director. He is a life long competitor, Military Sniper, Guard Team shooter, etc, etc.. He knows his s__t. When the time came in the set up process to calibrate the target to shots fired Jim's comment was "Why?". His reasoning that the 'target' is no longer the paper version that we are shooting at, it is the electronic image on our devices. It does not matter where the shots are going on the paper target. The only shots that matter are what comes on the screen of the shooter and scorer. It is all relative. We need something to aim at so we have a target. The shots are recorded electronically based on the same target only it is a simulation on our tablets based upon the input from the microphones on the target frame which are all installed at the same position on every frame via careful measurement. If every one is shooting at targets downrange but scoring on electronic images, everyone is on a level playing field as the image is the same for every device who receives the image. Those having their target pulled and scored are at no advantage or disadvantage since we are all shooting at the same dimensional target.
It was a bit of a revelation to me.
Jim McConnell was a career Marine Pilot and a very smart cookie as well as super coach and Match Director. His point of view is spot on in my book.
Nooowwww, here comes the commentary...

 

[Doug Beach]

I have our ShotMarkers calibrated so a hit 7.5” low on the paper target will show as a center X on the display. This way the ragged hole does not obliterate the X ring.
This has caused exactly zero problems.

 

[6BRinNZ]

Take a line of ets with different acoustic centers and shoot on them. Trust me it's does your head in as you move up the line and your no wind zero and elevation are out from one target to the next.
The essence of what is being discussed is correct but I do think it is sensible starting point to have aiming marks and acoustic centers consistent from one target to the next. This doesnt mean the acoustic centre has to align with the x but it is good to know what elevation you should have before starting.

 

[Doug Beach]

I calibrate them as stated above, because I want my shooters to be able to switch targets, and have their zero hold. I also want the x axis to be accurately calibrated, so a shooter’s wind zero will remain useful.

 

[Warren Dean]

Leave it to Jim to explain it brilliantly. Getting the centers set up very close is a good idea for the reason Doug stated.

 

[6BRinNZ]

Imo ditch the word calibrate and think of it as a service you are providing to shooters. Where each et has a consistent aim point which is consistent in position to the acoustic centre.

 

[Mudeat]

Lot's of experience and stories regarding E-Targets lately. Heard a comment made to our High Power Director at the COSSA Range in Central Oregon that deserves mention. Those who shoot on the West Coast and Canada know the former High Power director at Sac Valley,CA Jim McConnell. Heck of a guy and extremely knowledgeable and a great shot. Last March a few ShotMarker units were brought to the range by our High Power Director. He is a life long competitor, Military Sniper, Guard Team shooter, etc, etc.. He knows his s__t. When the time came in the set up process to calibrate the target to shots fired Jim's comment was "Why?". His reasoning that the 'target' is no longer the paper version that we are shooting at, it is the electronic image on our devices. It does not matter where the shots are going on the paper target. The only shots that matter are what comes on the screen of the shooter and scorer. It is all relative. We need something to aim at so we have a target. The shots are recorded electronically based on the same target only it is a simulation on our tablets based upon the input from the microphones on the target frame which are all installed at the same position on every frame via careful measurement. If every one is shooting at targets downrange but scoring on electronic images, everyone is on a level playing field as the image is the same for every device who receives the image. Those having their target pulled and scored are at no advantage or disadvantage since we are all shooting at the same dimensional target.
It was a bit of a revelation to me.
Jim McConnell was a career Marine Pilot and a very smart cookie as well as super coach and Match Director. His point of view is spot on in my book.
Nooowwww, here comes the commentary...

Well, calibrate so that your known zero is as close as possible to what you would expect on a paper target, for starters. The flip is if you can’t calibrate, what you have is suspect.

 

[GSS]

Lot's of experience and stories regarding E-Targets lately. Heard a comment made to our High Power Director at the COSSA Range in Central Oregon that deserves mention. Those who shoot on the West Coast and Canada know the former High Power director at Sac Valley,CA Jim McConnell. Heck of a guy and extremely knowledgeable and a great shot. Last March a few ShotMarker units were brought to the range by our High Power Director. He is a life long competitor, Military Sniper, Guard Team shooter, etc, etc.. He knows his s__t. When the time came in the set up process to calibrate the target to shots fired Jim's comment was "Why?". His reasoning that the 'target' is no longer the paper version that we are shooting at, it is the electronic image on our devices. It does not matter where the shots are going on the paper target. The only shots that matter are what comes on the screen of the shooter and scorer. It is all relative. We need something to aim at so we have a target. The shots are recorded electronically based on the same target only it is a simulation on our tablets based upon the input from the microphones on the target frame which are all installed at the same position on every frame via careful measurement. If every one is shooting at targets downrange but scoring on electronic images, everyone is on a level playing field as the image is the same for every device who receives the image. Those having their target pulled and scored are at no advantage or disadvantage since we are all shooting at the same dimensional target.
It was a bit of a revelation to me.
Jim McConnell was a career Marine Pilot and a very smart cookie as well as super coach and Match Director. His point of view is spot on in my book.
Nooowwww, here comes the commentary...

Watercam (name?) Thanks for posting.

This should be an excellent / interesting thread if it gets constructive, positive responses and information shared from those of us here in the US that are working to use the new Quality / Affordable SMT and ShotMarker ET systems to help grow the sport at our clubs that host NRA and CMP matches.

I have posted repeatedly that once you are on an ET all that really matters is what the tablet says.
(Saving / comparing paper targets to verify each shot is absurd)
As we all have seen this typically gets blown way out of proportion with exaggeration and emotion to the inth degree from E target haters. Much of it from very few but very vocal people,,, some that don't even compete any longer,,, go figure

I got my club to purchase 2 ShotMarkers early last year, 4 more late last year and 4 more that I am putting online now. We will use them for the 1st full season this year in our 200, 300 and 600 yard Cross the Course NRA and CMP Matches and NRA Mid Range Prone matches.

For XTC I will always line up my acoustical center so that it matches point of impact so people zero's hold true from target to target on my range.

I am looking to hear more pro's and cons about offsetting the acoustical center for the prone matches where shooters have plenty of sighters and the F Class shooters complain their X / Aiming Point gets obliterated and their X count gets reduced.

Hoping this stays a positive / constructive thread to help those of us working to grow the sport.

Thanks again,
George Smith
www.nfga.org

 

[Jennb]

I have shot matches with centers matched up and matches with an offset so to not blow out the center. My preference is an offset either high or low so the the aiming point to does not get blown out. I would rather adjust my elevation and not need to change my windage.

On a target with with matched up centers and several relays it does not take long and the X and 10 ring lines for aiming have disappeared. I have not however noticed a reduction in my X count but I am a hold off shooter and my reticle has moa marks so I just find a suitable aiming point.

 

[500Stroker]

I have our ShotMarkers calibrated so a hit 7.5” low on the paper target will show as a center X on the display. This way the ragged hole does not obliterate the X ring.
This has caused exactly zero problems.

They do the same thing at Big Piney except is one MOA high. Works very well.
I have gotten spoiled on E targets, I may never shot a pull target again.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Hmm. A new problem, not!

Any good F-class shooter will obliterate the X ring of their target at mid range in just a matter of a few shots in a pull-and-paste environment. Biasing the target up or down just makes the game easier, again.

*Acrimony deleted prior to posting*

I think we need to have a conversation about what draws new shooters, and what the long-term effects might be of everyone making high-master in their first year or two.

 

[Alexander-M]

I have been shooting several times a year at Camp Atterbury/CIHPRS 1000-y matches since 2016, on SMT's. There were few problems early on, but Shawn has solved them all, and the matches of lately have proceeded without any issues to speak of. Since the beginning, I believe Shawn had calibrated the targets so the impacts were one-MOA low, so as to save the paper target centers as previously described. This was not a problem for any of the shooters, and we simply adjusted our elevation to match the SMT displayed target.

I may be incorrect in what I will say next, but I think a few matches ago, perhaps mid 2018 or the last match in 2018, Shawn mentioned that he had re-calibrated the SMT's so the impacts were on the actual paper target centers. (I do not remember why.) Again, not a problem - we simply adjusted our sights or scopes to match the SMT displayed target.

I have also shot several times at Lodi, and at Big Piney, and in no instance did the point of impact calibration of the E-targets, vs the actual paper target center, present a problem.

Bottom line: Regardless of where our bullets are making holes on the paper target, as long as where we shoot these holes coincide with the E-target calibration, we are good to go.

Am I wrong?

Alex

 

[Keith Glasscock]

The only thing that would be a major concern for a lot of shooters would be windage deviation. We all work hard to develop no-wind zeros over a period of time. It becomes important when the flags suddenly drop in the middle of a relay.

For me, I watch the bullet go through the target. Being able to see where I hit helps me improve the quality of my wind picture during a relay. If the target is set to hit too low or high, it is hard to judge the windage visually.

 

[Doug Beach]

Hmm. A new problem, not!

Any good F-class shooter will obliterate the X ring of their target at mid range in just a matter of a few shots in a pull-and-paste environment. Biasing the target up or down just makes the game easier, again.

*Acrimony deleted prior to posting*

I think we need to have a conversation about what draws new shooters, and what the long-term effects might be of everyone making high-master in their first year or two.

If part of the idea of e-targets is no one in the pits, then a center calibrated target in a 3x600 might have 150-200 shots through the x & 10 ring, with nary a paster, or reface. Since NRA rules require a re faced target at the shooter’s request, I thought it wiser to keep the aiming point clean.

 

[Mudeat]

".......
Since NRA rules require a re faced target at the shooter’s request, I thought it wiser to keep the aiming point clean.

Well, right. If it’s shot out too much - request a new face. Seems simple, a 25 cent piece of paper fixes it.

 

[GSS]

Hmm. A new problem, not!

Any good F-class shooter will obliterate the X ring of their target at mid range in just a matter of a few shots in a pull-and-paste environment. Biasing the target up or down just makes the game easier, again.

*Acrimony deleted prior to posting*

I think we need to have a conversation about what draws new shooters, and what the long-term effects might be of everyone making high-master in their first year or two.

Thank you for not posting the Acrimony

I think many people already make HighMaster in the 1st year or two easily enough in F Class on paper targets.

George
Service Rifle Shooter

 

[Jennb]

Thank you for not posting the Acrimony

I think many people already make HighMaster in the 1st year or two easily enough in F Class on paper targets.

George
Service Rifle Shooter

Its not because of the targets, it is the level of equipment that is available and the willingness of competitors to help each other learn and improve!

 

[XTR]

Thank you for not posting the Acrimony

I think many people already make HighMaster in the 1st year or two easily enough in F Class on paper targets.

George
Service Rifle Shooter

You would be wrong, at least at long range. Mid range is a different story.

 

[GSS]

Sorry Wade / All, I was referring to Mid Range.

I have never shot 1000 yards.
I'm just a NRA Mid Range Prone Master with a service rifle.

I'm only 59 and am saving F Class for when I'm too old for the mental and physical challenges of Service Rifle that I still enjoy very much working to make High Master ( Full Course ) with a service rifle.. Hopefully this year

I earned my Distinguished Rifleman in 2009 at 50 yrs old so I'm not new at this.
Love the Service Rifle Challenge...

 

[rardoin]

As far as offsetting the aiming center from the acoustical center I find that the concerns I had were not well founded at 600yds. The biggest issue with obliteration of scoring rings is associated with the pasters. With no pasters used on e-targets I, as well as my shooting compadres, find that at 600yds we can see the x and 10 rings quite clearly even near the end of a 3x20 match with greater than 50% x count. Simple enough to paste over a new aiming center between matches for registered tournaments if need be.