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

[davidjoe]

So much controversy over national records and etargets. As someone who has shot a couple national records I can tell you a couple were shot on etargets and since then I have bested my own records on pulled targets in major events.
So was one record better than the other? Absolutely yes, when dealing with manually pulled targets it is much sweeter knowing that the person or persons that worked their ass off to get your target marked and back up for you was part of your success. This is a thank you to the folks who contributed to that success by doing the pull job with diligence and great speed. Without excellent pullers and score keepers who are paying attention it would not be possible.

Jenn upped the bar to those who have shot records on both target systems and it got quiet.

 

[sdean]

Jenn upped the bar to those who have shot records on both target systems and it got quiet.

It was quiet except for the cheating foolishness since Arron stated the NRA's ruling on the matter. It is what it is. JENN is free to feel however she wants. It hasn't stopped her from shooting on Etargets.

 

[Erud]

It was quiet except for the cheating foolishness since Arron stated the NRA's ruling on the matter. It is what it is. JENN is free to feel however she wants. It hasn't stopped her from shooting on Etargets.

The “NRA’s ruling on the matter” is that they aren’t following their own published rule, and this “ruling” came in the form of an email to one guy. Not exactly carved into stone, is it?

You guys who are appalled at the mere idea of cheating in the shooting sports really need to go to a big match fired on e-targets and count the number of unclaimed crossfires that occur over the course of a day. I used to think that competitive shooters were the most honest bunch of folks on the planet, but e-targets have opened my eyes on that. On more than one occasion I’ve seen a shooter next to me fire onto my target; heard & saw the shot in my periphery, watched the trace go into my target with my spotting scope, saw the shot come up on my screen, and nothing on his target. I tell my scorekeeper “That’s not my shot” and he calls the line officer. Line officer starts asking around; “Any extra shots?” and of course there aren’t any. Meanwhile guy next to me keeps shooting and finishes with 10 points more than he earned. I’ve witnessed this with some pretty well-respected shooters. Heck, the same shooter once did it twice in the same day on my target. I now have to admit that competitive shooters are no more or less honest than the rest of the world, human nature is human nature. It’s not everybody, but it definitely isn’t nobody.

 

[Jennb]

You guys who are appalled at the mere idea of cheating in the shooting sports really need to go to a big match fired on e-targets and count the number of unclaimed crossfires that occur over the course of a day. I used to think that competitive shooters were the most honest bunch of folks on the planet, but e-targets have opened my eyes on that. On more than one occasion I’ve seen a shooter next to me fire onto my target; heard & saw the shot in my periphery, watched the trace go into my target with my spotting scope, saw the shot come up on my screen, and nothing on his target. I tell my scorekeeper “That’s not my shot” and he calls the line officer. Line officer starts asking around; “Any extra shots?” and of course there aren’t any. Meanwhile guy next to me keeps shooting and finishes with 10 points more than he earned. I’ve witnessed this with some pretty well-respected shooters. Heck, the same shooter once did it twice in the same day on my target. I now have to admit that competitive shooters are no more or less honest than the rest of the world, human nature is human nature. It’s not everybody, but it definitely isn’t nobody.

This was happening before the etargets, they just made it more obvious. This falls not only on the shooter but the score keeper. We still use scorekeepers on the etargets and it is up to them to call the shooter out for taking a shot that did not hit their target. At least with etargets seeing target velocity kind of verified the shooter the crossfire came from and with people who know how to use the other parts of the system they can check angles and such. I have had shots on my target with pulled and etargets that came from 10 targets away.
No matter etargets or pulled targets cheaters are going to cheat. At least etargets leave a trail.
Scorekeepers have to watch their shooters no matter what system and have to make the call!

 

[Erud]

This was happening before the etargets, they just made it more obvious. This falls not only on the shooter but the score keeper. We still use scorekeepers on the etargets and it is up to them to call the shooter out for taking a shot that did not hit their target. At least with etargets seeing target velocity kind of verified the shooter the crossfire came from and with people who know how to use the other parts of the system they can check angles and such. I have had shots on my target with pulled and etargets that came from 10 targets away.
No matter etargets or pulled targets cheaters are going to cheat. At least etargets leave a trail.
Scorekeepers have to watch their shooters no matter what system and have to make the call!

Lazy scorekeepers are definitely a part of the problem. With e-targets, many (most?) believe that scorekeeping duty is now nap time. I'd estimate that 25% at most still bring a spotting scope to the line, while the rest just have a tablet in their lap and zone out for 15-20 minutes. That and the unreliability/uncertainty of the electronics (Missed shot? Ghost shot? Asterisk next to the score?, etc) have made it a lot easier for unscrupulous shooters to pretend they didn't shoot when they actually did. Sure e-targets sort of leave a trail, but from what I've witnessed, a shooter who argues enough is generally given the benefit of the doubt.

The last line of your post would be great if it were true.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Here is a question for all of you that rely on the email noted above:

Why would we use a private communication method (email) to transmit a rule change when the NRA maintains a web site for rules? Why can't a rule change/waiver notice be published there?

I mean, any rule-following match director that doesn't have that email may disadvantage their shooters by not applying the new exemption to their benefit. How is that fair again?

 

[davidjoe]

Here is a question for all of you that rely on the email noted above:

Why would we use a private communication method (email) to transmit a rule change when the NRA maintains a web site for rules? Why can't a rule change/waiver notice be published there?

I mean, any rule-following match director that doesn't have that email may disadvantage their shooters by not applying the new exemption to their benefit. How is that fair again?

I wonder what he means by “exempt” status? He needs to get that position he’s taking duly ratified and retroactively. Being an employee of the NRA Competitive Shooting Division would not be expected to come with rule-amending authority.

 

[Jdne5b]

This was happening before the etargets, they just made it more obvious. This falls not only on the shooter but the score keeper. We still use scorekeepers on the etargets and it is up to them to call the shooter out for taking a shot that did not hit their target. At least with etargets seeing target velocity kind of verified the shooter the crossfire came from and with people who know how to use the other parts of the system they can check angles and such. I have had shots on my target with pulled and etargets that came from 10 targets away.
No matter etargets or pulled targets cheaters are going to cheat. At least etargets leave a trail.
Scorekeepers have to watch their shooters no matter what system and have to make the call!

That trail doesnt matter even when the extra shot matches the crossfire shooters velocity, angle of impact, and the side angle and no one believes the target. The shooter receiving that shot sure didnt want the 9 and was appreciative of the evidence it wasnt his. Of course the shooter who shot that shot, just happened to have the target not register the shot and would never crossfire. MDs need to have the guts to believe the target and not let shooters out of a crossfire, even when they’re buddies.

Score keepers watching the shooter and trace would help the situation. They also need to have the guts to say, I saw the trace impact the target next to you.

 

[sdean]

We should be so lucky....

Looks like you were right. Don’t know how to put the beating the dead horse on here.

 

[Erud]

Looks like you were right. Don’t know how to put the beating the dead horse on here.

Just stop reading the thread. Those of us who want to continue the discussion will do just fine without you. Or just keep saying “ Stop talking about what I don’t want to talk about!” And maybe we’ll listen eventually.

FyI, your post was what brought me back into the discussion.

 

[effendude]

Looks like you were right. Don’t know how to put the beating the dead horse on here.

If you don't like a conversation, stop following it and don't continue to comment on it.
Scott

 

[Jennb]

Scorekeepers need to have the fortitude to stand up for what it is right also but first they need to pay attention.

 

[Erud]

Scorekeepers need to have the fortitude to stand up for what it is right also but first they need to pay attention.

I agree 100%, but most don’t do either of those things.

 

[flintcreek6412]

I totally agree with the scorekeeper comments. And I've even been guilty of it myself.

I should never have to look for the person that shot on my target. The very first thing a shooter and scorekeeper should do when a missed shot happens is ask the targets next to them if they picked up an extra shot. But instead I have to ask if anyone had a ghost shot and then they will sheepishly admit it and the scorekeeper is clueless there was even a missed shot 90% of the time.

How many scorekeepers get 3-5 shots behind because they are talking to a buddy that came up to them?

How many scorekeepers get 3-5 shots behind because they set their tablet to another competitors target to see how the "competition" is doing. Yes....I've been guilty of this for 1 shot max.

And I have especially seen younger scorekeepers messaging on their phones not even paying attention to scoring getting many shots behind and then completely startled when asked if there was a x-fire.

But, with all this said I am still a fan of e targets. But it has contributed to laziness and inattention on the line and that needs to be addressed at the club level.

 

[Erud]

I agree with the above 100%. I always bring my spotting scope and watch trace whether regardless of what type of targets are used. I encourage others to do the same, and occasionally someone even listens.

 

[243Mendoza]

I... But no etarget system has yet even met that threshold of error, and when one does, it will rec..

... 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..

Not quite true. This is true for open systems with external mikes. But for closed systems, errors are within 1 or 2 mm which is very close to eyeball accuracy.

 

[243Mendoza]

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.

Which system did you test? 5 mike or 8 mike systems?

 

[243Mendoza]

Do the Hexta targets eliminate the errant shots? In another forum, I've seen a rep from Hexta explaining how their system is more fail safe.

you won't see wind effects or missing shots because of a simultaneous shot on a nearby target or shots off by more than 1 or 2mm.

 

[rardoin]

Which system did you test? 5 mike or 8 mike systems?

I'll answer for Doug- they were/are 8 microphone systems.

 

[243Mendoza]

I'll answer for Doug- they were/are 8 microphone systems.

Thanks. How much worse was the error?