E targets in longrange benchrest

[Dave Way]

I am not in any way in disagreement with you, Dave. But what I have noticed with F-Class shooters in my area is that they really, really, REALLY like getting home an hour or two earlier in the day than when we pulled targets, without the physical effort of having to pull targets. In other words, I have not yet personally observed a single case where a competitor needed E-targets because they were physically unable to pull targets. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, just that the frequency is relatively low.

The real question boils down to what are folks willing to give up with respect to their shooting discipline in order to use E-targets so they can go home from matches earlier with perhaps a little less physical effort? That may perhaps be a slight over-simplification, but it's not too far from the mark. Anyone considering the use of E-targets has to weigh what they will get for what they might have to give up after making the switch. In other words, can they live with whatever they might have to give up after making the switch? Or is it a deal-breaker?

I’ll be honest, I know next to nothing about F-class. From what I hear though seeing sighters would have to be a huge help when shooting for score. If that’s the case I understand why that group would like e-targets. I would think it’s a lot easier to hold off to hit a ten ring than to put your last few shots into a group that may have started off of center.

I’m not picking a fight and hope people don’t take it that way. E-Targets have their place, I just don’t think it’s in LR Bench-rest.

Dave.

 

[Evan]

I’ll be honest, I know next to nothing about F-class. From what I hear though seeing sighters would have to be a huge help when shooting for score. If that’s the case I understand why that group would like e-targets. I would think it’s a lot easier to hold off to hit a ten ring than to put your last few shots into a group that may have started off of center.

I’m not picking a fight and hope people don’t take it that way. E-Targets have their place, I just don’t think it’s in LR Bench-rest.

Dave.

What if, through proper target construction, yada yada yada, we arrived at 0.005” accuracy across all targets in a match?

I am interested to know what the results of a measurement test would be for paper scoring of 1000yd targets. Get 20 skilled people to all score the same 20 targets, separately and blind to the other measurements, and see what the accuracy would be across a whole 5-person “match”. I imagine it might be 0.010” of total error or more. Regardless I would argue that is the benchmark etargets should hit for parity with traditional scoring.

 

[ngb1787]

I have owned and used electronic targets for the last 8 years. First Silver Mountain, now Shot Marker. 95% of the time at 600 or 1000 yards. While I find them absolutely great for practice or local club matches, I know from the countless thousands of rounds I've fired on my well-maintained target they are not accurate enough for benchrest. I am also not convinced they should be used for National level championships.

Isn’t the NRA suppose to certify these before use at a match?

 

[Evan]

Isn’t the NRA suppose to certify these before use at a match?

Only if they are the governing body, which isn’t the case for IBS or Freedom BR. I don’t know anything about F-class.

 

[sdean]

Isn’t the NRA suppose to certify these before use at a match?

Yes they were to be checked for .250 accuracy for NRA events I believe. If that is good for a group shooter then good luck. I think Adam admits .250 error is possible.

 

[bpd459]

I have owned and used electronic targets for the last 8 years. First Silver Mountain, now Shot Marker. 95% of the time at 600 or 1000 yards. While I find them absolutely great for practice or local club matches, I know from the countless thousands of rounds I've fired on my well-maintained target they are not accurate enough for benchrest. I am also not convinced they should be used for National level championships.

What Andy said!

 

[Acyr]

NRA is supposed to certify the accuracy of the E Targets used in approved/registered matches. Apparently, they have more pressing issues at hand. The competition division is down to one employee now.

 

[Evan]

Yes they were to be checked for .250 accuracy I believe. If that is good for a group shooter then good luck. I think Adam admits .250 error is possible.

His website says “2-3mm of average error”. I would be interested to talk through it with him, but I don’t want to take his time like that for a discussion that, apart from my curiosity, likely wouldn’t change anyone’s use of it.

 

[Acyr]

Yes they were to be checked for .250 accuracy for NRA events I believe. If that is good for a group shooter then good luck. I think Adam admits .250 error is possible.

I have personally seen larger than that. BUT I have also seen it be dead nuts accurate. Thats the issue, depending on conditions, it can change.

 

[jackieschmidt]

This conversation has got me to thinking about a use for E Targets in 100/200/300 yard Benchrest.
To take the place of a mechanical moving backer system.

One reason many Clubs have abandoned Short Range Group in favor of Varmint for Score is the hassle of maintaining and setting up a moving backer system.

Could a single E Target sensor mounted atop each frame to be used to verify shot count?
Of course, if you had a 20 bench range, that would mean 20 individuals shot markers. The cost might be prohibitive.

I know very little about E Targets, so ………

 

[Evan]

This conversation has got me to thinking about a use for E Targets in 100/200/300 yard Benchrest.
To take the place of a mechanical moving backer system.

One reason many Clubs have abandoned Short Range Group in favor of Varmint for Score is the hassle of maintaining and setting up a moving backer system.

Could a single E Target sensor mounted atop each frame the be used to verify shot count?
Of course, if you had a 20 bench range, that would mean 20 individuals shot markers. The cost might be prohibitive.

I know very little about E Targets, so ………

I think a whole shotmarker might be expensive for that single task, but Adam or someone else might have a simple single microphone solution that could be much cheaper.

 

[Mulligan]

This conversation has got me to thinking about a use for E Targets in 100/200/300 yard Benchrest.
To take the place of a mechanical moving backer system.

One reason many Clubs have abandoned Short Range Group in favor of Varmint for Score is the hassle of maintaining and setting up a moving backer system.

Could a single E Target sensor mounted atop each frame the be used to verify shot count?
Of course, if you had a 20 bench range, that would mean 20 individuals shot markers. The cost might be prohibitive.

I know very little about E Targets, so ………

Jackie
You could likely use one system per frame of 4 or 5 targets (shooters)
CW

 

[Ned Ludd]

What if, through proper target construction, yada yada yada, we arrived at 0.005” accuracy across all targets in a match?

I am interested to know what the results of a measurement test would be for paper scoring of 1000yd targets. Get 20 skilled people to all score the same 20 targets, separately and blind to the other measurements, and see what the accuracy would be across a whole 5-person “match”. I imagine it might be 0.010” of total error or more. Regardless I would argue that is the benchmark etargets should hit for parity with traditional scoring.

Evan, I routinely use a fresh target face when I practice at 600 yd, which has allowed me to compare the actual holes in the target against the ShotMarker image file. Although most of the shots typically are spot on via the E-target, I have observed more than a few shots where the placement on the two differs by an amount readily visible to the naked eye. It is my feeling that in some cases this can be exacerbated by the wind conditions (i.e. strong cross wind at the target face), but that is not such an easy thing to prove. I completely agree with your assessment regarding the use of E-targets in BR matches given the current state of accuracy/precision of the more commonly-used E-target systems. This is an issue of confidence that the results delivered are accurate, because if they aren't, then the results may not accurately reflect the actual performance of the competitors. But in fairness, sometimes we have to jump in with both feet and use things that may not be exactly what we'd like. It's possible that doing so in this case may help drive the improvement of some E-targets to the point where accuracy/precision that would be satisfactory to BR shooters is routine, but I don't think they have reached that point as yet.

JOC - how could triangulation (shot location) be achieved with a single microphone? I would not have thought that possible.

 

[Evan]

Evan, I routinely use a fresh target face when I practice at 600 yd, which has allowed me to compare the actual holes in the target against the ShotMarker image file. Although most of the shots typically are spot on via the E-target, I have observed more than a few shots where the placement on the two differs by an amount readily visible to the naked eye. It is my feeling that in some cases this can be exacerbated by the wind conditions (i.e. strong cross wind at the target face), but that is not such an easy thing to prove. I completely agree with your assessment regarding the use of E-targets in BR matches given the current state of accuracy/precision of the more commonly-used E-target systems. This is an issue of confidence that the results delivered are accurate, because if they aren't, then the results may not accurately reflect the actual performance of the competitors. But in fairness, sometimes we have to jump in with both feet and use things that may not be exactly what we'd like. It's possible that doing so in this case may help drive the improvement of some E-targets to the point where accuracy/precision that would be satisfactory to BR shooters is routine, but I don't think they have reached that point as yet.

JOC - how could triangulation (shot location) be achieved with a single microphone? I would not have thought that possible.

I have seen that too and it was always in a strong cross wind at the target, which lead to my supposition that baffles and such to control wind around the microphones would be needed to reduce possible error. Maybe a simple 12 inch “wall” around the target face? Many possibilities that could be explored if we really wanted to nail that down.

Biggest problem at CRC? The guide rails for the target frames allow a significant amount of slop in the target fore and aft, so there is easily enough freedom to twist as well. So before we even talk about wind on the microphones, we need the frame to be perfectly rigid. I achieve this, as best I reasonably can, with my personal target with stakes and guy wires that I tension to lock the frame in place.

 

[Greg@wfcustom]

This conversation has got me to thinking about a use for E Targets in 100/200/300 yard Benchrest.
To take the place of a mechanical moving backer system.

One reason many Clubs have abandoned Short Range Group in favor of Varmint for Score is the hassle of maintaining and setting up a moving backer system.

Could a single E Target sensor mounted atop each frame to be used to verify shot count?
Of course, if you had a 20 bench range, that would mean 20 individuals shot markers. The cost might be prohibitive.

I know very little about E Targets, so ………

Jackie,
We (Sloughhouse Benchrest Shooters) have been using them as “e-backers” for our NBRSA group matches on a “trial basis” for the past year plus.
We use one set of sensors per 4x8 frame (4 targets per frame. I will try and post some pics of the frames but there is an old thread about it somewhere on here with pics, etc.
About the same reliability as paper backers “ie: yeh that one in the backer sort of looks like 2 bullet holes” biggest issue with e-targets in SR BR is the increased chance of doubling. Happens once or twice a match, just need a procedure for how to rule on it if you can’t determine the shots on target. Adam was kind enough to make a 4 target format that fits on to a 4x8 frame. Counts records as A-B-C-D’s and sighters as zeros. Works great!
Frames made out of 11 gauge Aluminum & coroplast weigh @ 35 lbs. Sure makes setup easy!
Greg

 

[DHuffman]

I keep hearing the match runs faster, you get home an hour earlier etc.

It's 400 miles to the closest range I shoot LR BR, close to 700 out to DC, 800+ down to the valley and I spend a fair amount of money traveling to shoot these matches as is my choice because I enjoy it that much and I don't complain about match fees.

That being said if I can't see some holes in paper and take that paper home with me I'm not sure I want to continue with the discipline.

 

[Acyr]

This conversation has got me to thinking about a use for E Targets in 100/200/300 yard Benchrest.
To take the place of a mechanical moving backer system.

One reason many Clubs have abandoned Short Range Group in favor of Varmint for Score is the hassle of maintaining and setting up a moving backer system.

Could a single E Target sensor mounted atop each frame to be used to verify shot count?
Of course, if you had a 20 bench range, that would mean 20 individuals shot markers. The cost might be prohibitive.

I know very little about E Targets, so ………

You need one sensor hub for each target. That is the majority of the cost of the system. Sensor hub is $500, entire system is $800. So even if you could get away with only one mic it would not save a ton of money. Adam would have to write special software to have the hub ignore the error messages of the missing mics. One access point will handle something like 250 targets.

 

[DirtySteve]

The whole key to an accurate e target system is to make the frame as large as practical and as rigid as practical. All measurement inputted need to be accurate as well. This minimizes error. I should have mine in a month so I can get more hands on knowledge. I have shot on them but never experimented with them.

 

[DirtySteve]

This conversation has got me to thinking about a use for E Targets in 100/200/300 yard Benchrest.
To take the place of a mechanical moving backer system.

One reason many Clubs have abandoned Short Range Group in favor of Varmint for Score is the hassle of maintaining and setting up a moving backer system.

Could a single E Target sensor mounted atop each frame to be used to verify shot count?
Of course, if you had a 20 bench range, that would mean 20 individuals shot markers. The cost might be prohibitive.

I know very little about E Targets, so ………

Jackie, $7,775 for ten e target systems.

Steve

 

[tom]

I keep hearing the match runs faster, you get home an hour earlier etc.

It's 400 miles to the closest range I shoot LR BR, close to 700 out to DC, 800+ down to the valley and I spend a fair amount of money traveling to shoot these matches as is my choice because I enjoy it that much and I don't complain about match fees.

That being said if I can't see some holes in paper and take that paper home with me I'm not sure I want to continue with the discipline.

You're not going to need to worry here Dave. You will continue to get your holes to take home.

Tom