Status of NRA rules, E-Targets, certification and records?

[Longtrain]

…The problem here is that the 5% of the competitors who have the skill to win care, the other 95% are just happy they got to shoot, they got a score, didn‘t have to pull targets, and the match was over by noon.

+1

We use ET’s for all our matches, they are convenient, makes for faster matches, no pit duty, etc.
Can’t really complain, except for the wide uncalled “7” or “8”, that makes no sense to the conditions and prior string of X’s. We don’t paste new targets after relays and offset the target so impacts are physically high in the “8” ring, leaving scoring rings clean in the middle. We accept the possible shortcomings and I guess will deal with legitimate issues as they arise.

 

[XTR]

+1

… I guess will deal with legitimate issues as they arise.

I am on the same page as Keith G. I agree with what he says in the video, they are great for personal use and club/approved matches. I understand that they get people out to shoot, but I also believe that until the systems are further improved then a point one way or the other every so often is a legitimate issue.

@MikeMcCasland I think they should vacate all records shot on E-targets until they are approved and certified. Period.

 

[Medic505]

I am on the same page as Keith G. I agree with what he says in the video, they are great for personal use and club/approved matches. I understand that they get people out to shoot, but I also believe that until the systems are further improved then a point one way or the other every so often is a legitimate issue.

@MikeMcCasland I think they should vacate all records shot on E-targets until they are approved and certified. Period.

OMG!!! Watch out, I've nearly been burned at the stake for making similar comments.

 

[effendude]

If they don’t tell me I can’t then obviously it’s ok….. Considering the non responsive staff at NRA you could probably print that you were allowing 260Rem in F-TR and they wouldn’t notice. Surely that would be fine by the above logic. As the MD I’d think it was your responsibility to run the match in accordance with the rules.

The problem here is that the 5% of the competitors who have the skill to win care, the other 95% are just happy they got to shoot, they got a score, didn‘t have to pull targets, and the match was over by noon.

Seriously, why the rip on a volunteer? If I was the first match director to host a registered event with E-targets, I'd be willing to take the heat. Every match must be approved by both the state and national NRA staff. They definitely read the bulletins I send them because I require NRA membership to shoot in a match and the national office always say that it is not a requirement.

I would venture to guess there aren't many matches not shot on E-targets. I know of none here in MN. I'm not saying this is right, but the NRA has had plenty of time to work on this issue. Heck, at least come out with a position statement one way or the other.

Scott

 

[Longtrain]

Not trying to hijack this thread, but in the vein of ET’s and their potential approval, if the NRA does ever approve them for general official use, the implementation of the standard .308 bullet diameter in scoring treats everyone equally (as in the International rules), and would IMHO be fair to all.
We have electronically opened submitted Shotmarker targets and modified the bullet diameter and on ocassion it has changed a score. Why should a .22 cal shooter suffer a “9”, when a .284 or .308 shooter breaks the line and scores a “10”, when their point of impact is identical? I realize this is rare, but, it levels out that issue IMO.

 

[Albany Mountain]

Why should a .22 cal shooter suffer a “9”, when a .284 or .308 shooter breaks the line and scores a “10”, when their point of impact is identical?
Because the bigger caliber shooters are dealing with more recoil.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Note 17.1(a) below states that the rule becomes effective January 2021. Records fired prior to that on ET's stand according to that rule. While I have personal preferences on things, if something complies with the written, published rulebook, I have no objection. Now, the confluence of the two rules gets a little sticky. One cannot have a registered match (a requirement for a record) without license and certification.

This would be so very easy for the NRA to resolve. All they would need to do is issue a temporary license and certification for the existing E-Target systems until mid-2022, then get to work on the hard work of finding out if the systems can even meet the standards in the rulebooks. (spoiler - go look at the testing done by Hexta at the Rattlesnake range, or by the Australians. It isn't going to work out without changing the rules, or coming up with some slimy statistics.)

4.1.2 Electronic Target Systems—Where electronic target systems are being used, only NRA Licensed and Certified electronic target systems shall be used in NRA Registered Tournaments and NRA sanctioned State, Regional and National Championship Tournaments. NRA Approved Tournaments and other events where national records are not at issue may use electronic scoring systems that are not NRA-Licenses and Certified. NRA licensed and Certified Electronic Target Systems shall meet all minimum requirements set forth elsewhere in these Rules

17.1 Where Scores for National Records Can Be Fired—Scores to be recognized as National Records must be fired in NRA Registered competition as defined in Rule 1.6, paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). National Records must be approved by the NRA before being declared official. National Records may not be established during re-entry matches.
(a) National Records may be set on electronic target systems only were NRA-Licensed and Certified targets systems are used and where proceedures set forth in the Rules for the use of electronic targets and systems are used. *Note: this rule will be effective January 2021.

 

[jelenko]

Why should a .22 cal shooter suffer a “9”, when a .284 or .308 shooter breaks the line and scores a “10”,

I had heard the reasoning was that 223/556 had less recoil, hence it was a way to make up for the advantage that 223/556 had over 30 cal.

 

[Punkinslinger]

At E target matches have you heard any of the following?

1. Well, just take another shot.
2. It must be a ghost shot, circle the shot number and we'll go back at the end of the relay.
3. Did you cross fire ?
4. My target isn't picking up any shots ?
5. At the end of the relay, move to target 8 hopefully that target will pick up shots.
6. How many sighters do I get, now that I've moved ?
7. It doesn't matter how many sighters I get, because I've moved twice now and only have enough ammo for record shots.

Please don't set me on fire with the flaming, these are all things that I've said or have been said to me at an E match and I'm quite certain I'm not alone. It is convenient shooting on E targets yes, but until the obvious issues get worked out, I'm a non believer. Will I still shoot on E targets ? Yes . Will I travel farther to shoot on paper with pit service ? Also yes. Just my $.02 and my opinion really isn't worth that.

 

[XTR]

At E target matches have you heard any of the following?

1. Well, just take another shot. Yes
2. It must be a ghost shot, circle the shot number and we'll go back at the end of the relay.Not exactly, but I have had ghost 7s appear when I hadn't fired a shot
3. Did you cross fire ?Yes
4. My target isn't picking up any shots ?Yes
5. At the end of the relay, move to target 8 hopefully that target will pick up shots.Yes
6. How many sighters do I get, now that I've moved ?Yes
7. It doesn't matter how many sighters I get, because I've moved twice now and only have enough ammo for record shots. Again, not exactly, but I've looked in my ammo box as someone else got moved and thought to myself, "if that happens to me I don't have enough ammo to finish. " I used to bring at least 5 or so extra rounds for a one day in case I wanted an extra sighter or two or I had a FTF. With E targets I try to bring at least 10 just in case there are target issues.

 

[m1jeff]

The only things “Big NRA” cares about right now is staying out of jail and continuing to steal the Golden Eggs. So we were told in slightly more polite language at the last competitors meeting at the Nationals by Director of Competitions Cole McCullough.

Ok, the golden eggs part was me.

Competitions staff was down from 11 to 2 during the “bankruptcy”.

Aaron has been hired back, and Terry has been hired back part time.

There is to be a permanent Competitions contingent stationed at Camp Atterbury. Cole says he has been authorized to start hiring for there and Virginia. Who can say what the housing of refugees at Atterbury affects those plans.

All of this is to say don’t expect any e target rule changes for a couple of years (in my opinion).

As always, run a good match and they will come.

Restating, this is only my opinion, and worth what you paid for it.

 

[davidjoe]

I feel the NRA is in a bit of a no-win situation here. Shooters (which includes the body of competitors and club leadership) basically insisted that long-preexisting matches be allowed to now utilize these systems.

The NRA didn’t have a problem with us pulling targets and honorably reporting our scores, as had always been done.

If the NRA had shunned E-Targets, most monthly matches would have proceeded anyway with them, as non-NRA sanctioned matches with the classification system, and probably all the rules, simply falling by the wayside. I likely would have had to consider the feasibility of using both manual and e-targets at the same time, to let new guys wanting to chase classification carry on in an approved match, beside non-reported shooters electing to just compete.

If the NRA accommodates E-Targets, which they have no technological power to improve, then they have to try to draft around their faults with rules that unfortunately serve to highlight those problems. For example, since when is ok to take the liberty to score a 10 for a shot with .25 inches of black showing before the edge of the white line? (Or score a 9 where the shot is easily a 10.) But no etarget system has yet even met that threshold of error, and when one does, it will receive certification with a margin of error built in that no human puller could get away with, in fact would be DQ’d for.

And as Keith pointed out separately, some targets on the line work better, maybe even in terms of accuracy, apart from just reliability, than others work. But shooters can’t have it both ways.

 

[Erud]

Why should a .22 cal shooter suffer a “9”, when a .284 or .308 shooter breaks the line and scores a “10”, when their point of impact is identical?

Because the bullet they are shooting is smaller, and doesn’t actually break the line.
If you want to make .30 cal holes on target, shoot .30 cal bullets.

 

[sdean]

The 5 percent are also chasing V2 points and don’t see them complaining.

 

[dskogman]

We have done extensive testing at Bayou Rifles and decided they are not accurate enough for our TSRA state matches (unless it rains so hard we have no choice). We do use them for club matches because everyone loves them and we get more shooters.

What we found is under relatively calm conditions accuracy is pretty good most of the time for good solid target frames. When the wind picks up they start to deteriorate. How much and how fast depends on the range topography, wind speed/direction, distance, caliber, among others. If you have target frames that move around and flex it’s worse.

The current NRA accuracy requirements are very restrictive making it impossible for an any open mike system to qualify except under ideal conditions IMHO.

Should the rules be modified to make it easier to qualify an open mike system? Probably.
Should the manufactures improve their systems to make them more accurate and easier to find and resolve issues during a match? Absolutely.

 

[davidjoe]

The 5 percent are also chasing V2 points and don’t see them complaining.

Would someone complain if I reshot a probable blown up 195 orange box bullet on shot 19 after 12 sighters, maybe now for an X, because the default rule with etargets is to reshoot, which was put in place because they are known to fail to read shots more often than saums blow up bullets? I took a 0, no problem, and so did a top Open shooter, in the same match, because Avery does not use them.

I saw in video that no-reads occurred at the V2 Finale. The wind there wasn’t the magnitude that pushes the bounds of their accuracy, and it’s inherently fair to share a target. V2 is probably the best use of them imaginable. I’m not complaining about their usage, and am amazed they can do what they do from sound alone, but they have real limits.

 

[One Eye Pete]

I am a lifetime NRA member and here is my two cents.
Nothing in life is perfect. E targets make it much easier and more enjoyable to shoot a match. I used to hate Pit duty. I guess that's one of the reasons more competitors show up for matches using E targets. I'm perfectly willing to accept some target inaccuracy problems until the technology is eventually perfected. As long as all shooters at the match have the same advantages / disadvantages. Let's face it conditions constantly change during a match so there is always some degree of luck involved but the really good shooters always seem to finish highest.
E targets are basically good for the sport of shooting.
What's not good for the sport of shooting is all the BS going on at the NRA. This is a disgrace to an organization that has been around for so long and done so much good for the sport of shooting.
If the NRA wants to pass some meaningful rules how about TERM LIMITS. Especially for the position of Executive VP aka "King"

 

[sdean]

Just saying none of this is new. If a shooter doesn’t like Etargets then don’t shoot on them. If you are worried about records for your hobby then it’s probably just tough luck. Life will go on.

 

[Dos XX]

Because the bullet they are shooting is smaller, and doesn’t actually break the line.
If you want to make .30 cal holes on target, shoot .30 cal bullets.

This.

 

[TylerFromMS]

Why are we beholden to the NRA at this point?