E targets in longrange benchrest

[Dave Way]

It’s a pretty difficult idea to support that seniors should just stay home if they can’t handle pit duty. That’s a perspective problem, not a reality of our competitions. This is a game that we all play as a hobby. Excluding others was wrong in kindergarten and it’s wrong now. Would we turn away a 26yr old amputee from participating because they need help up to the line, much less the pits? Personally, I would bend over backwards to get them on the line and participating because I view that as part of being a member of the community. Same for anyone who needs help. Developing new ways to run matches utilizing available technology to allow everyone to participate should be a core value. To me that means resolving the question of e-target veracity or developing a protocol to work around it because the advantages it presents are significant for a lot of people who are otherwise pushed out.

I never said seniors, that implies an age. What I did say is, and I quote. “if a competitor doesn’t want to, or isn’t physically able to pull target duty, the time may have come for them to quit the sport. Maybe they bring a friend or pay someone to pull target duty.”

Please don’t try to put words in my mouth, there’s too many in it already! No one seems to read the part about bringing or asking for help. That is the solution to avoid switching to an electronic system before it is refined enough to not diminish the validity of our sport. With an error of 3/16” as some have said or an error so big it is visible to the naked eye as others have said, are you really comfortable in a match that can, has and will again be determined by .001” after two days of shooting? That is the question.

I’m not even close to comfortable with it until someone, anyone, can show me we aren’t accepting the possibility of more error than we currently have. Anything less than that is a step backwards in a sport designed to drive the limits of extreme accuracy.

Then again I see where people have said the error is worse in the wind. Maybe I shouldn’t worry. We never seem to have wind at matches…

Dave.

 

[JFrank]

Dave,
I interpreted your paragraph to include seniors along with physically unable, if that that was a misinterpretation on my part I certainly apologize for that.
Myself I would prefer to just enjoy the weekend and shoot my assigned targets and skip the drama, getting old sucks but we all slow down. I don’t want to interfere with guys trying to shoot their records, I don’t wish to be singled out either.

Jim

 

[DHuffman]

I never said seniors, that implies an age. What I did say is, and I quote. “if a competitor doesn’t want to, or isn’t physically able to pull target duty, the time may have come for them to quit the sport. Maybe they bring a friend or pay someone to pull target duty.”

Please don’t try to put words in my mouth, there’s too many in it already! No one seems to read the part about bringing or asking for help. That is the solution to avoid switching to an electronic system before it is refined enough to not diminish the validity of our sport. With an error of 3/16” as some have said or an error so big it is visible to the naked eye as others have said, are you really comfortable in a match that can, has and will again be determined by .001” after two days of shooting? That is the question.

I’m not even close to comfortable with it until someone, anyone, can show me we aren’t accepting the possibility of more error than we currently have. Anything less than that is a step backwards in a sport designed to drive the limits of extreme accuracy.

Then again I see where people have said the error is worse in the wind. Maybe I shouldn’t worry. We never seem to have wind at matches…

Dave.

That's the way I read it and agree 100% Dave.

 

[tom]

I knew what Dave meant, as he's very respectful and thoughtful of others. Dave is good people, and we are all going to be senior citizens at some point lol. It's definitely probably the opposite, as most of today's seniors actually have a work ethic. It's ironic how things become sluggish when it's time to go pull pits, and yet manage to move along pretty quickly when it's time to head for the bench or prize table lol. It's work to tune them, and keep them tuned and mantainanced, but yet we somehow manage! The work is part of the experience, and part of the sport.

I'm not against E-target ran matches to determine a winner, as shooters know going in. I just will choose a paper match myself to go to. Everyone is different, and I suppose that's what makes the world go around. I'm not in favor of E-target records after some thought. I know they'd be separate, but we'd still compare. Personally, I think it would suck to shoot a zero at 1,000, and not be sure it actually happened. But, one guys opinion is just that, nothing more and nothing less.

Jason, if your thread gets out of control, I'll put Glenn on starting a prize table thread lol. Or Dave could test burn rates again!

Tom

 

[Evan]

I hope there aren’t hurt feelings. Tone and attitude is not conveyed well over an Internet forum and none of this was written in accusation, anger or with vitriol.

I think there’s a lot of “common knowledge” about e-targets based upon a very broadly differing uses on a very broad variety of target frames, etc. that doesn’t represent what we want them to be able to do in a BR match. They were developed for F-class and their interface is a clear indication of that. Is a 2x4 frame that wobbles in the wind really going to give us the right assessment of the accuracy they are capable of? If we identify that a prescriptive deployment of a fixed target frame with guy wires and wind baffles around the target frame all defined reduced the mean absolute measurement error to 0.010, would that be acceptable? I think that is possible and I think it gets us into the discussion of just how accurate are our measurements currently so that we can fairly determine what the benchmark is for the e-targets to meet so that we aren’t degrading our records. Thinking that targets are currently measured with an accuracy of 0.001” is not the real error. That’s just what is read off the calipers and typed into the scoresheet, but we accept that the errors in that measurement are reasonable without having quantified them, particularly when we look at aggregate records or across many clubs around the country with different scorers.

 

[Dave Way]

I hope there aren’t hurt feelings. Tone and attitude is not conveyed well over an Internet forum and none of this was written in accusation, anger or with vitriol.

I think there’s a lot of “common knowledge” about e-targets based upon a very broadly differing uses on a very broad variety of target frames, etc. that doesn’t represent what we want them to be able to do in a BR match. They were developed for F-class and their interface is a clear indication of that. Is a 2x4 frame that wobbles in the wind really going to give us the right assessment of the accuracy they are capable of? If we identify that a prescriptive deployment of a fixed target frame with guy wires and wind baffles around the target frame all defined reduced the mean absolute measurement error to 0.010, would that be acceptable? I think that is possible and I think it gets us into the discussion of just how accurate are our measurements currently so that we can fairly determine what the benchmark is for the e-targets to meet so that we aren’t degrading our records. Thinking that targets are currently measured with an accuracy of 0.001” is not the real error. That’s just what is read off the calipers and typed into the scoresheet, but we accept that the errors in that measurement are reasonable without having quantified them, particularly when we look at aggregate records or across many clubs around the country with different scorers.

Dave,
I interpreted your paragraph to include seniors along with physically unable, if that that was a misinterpretation on my part I certainly apologize for that.
Myself I would prefer to just enjoy the weekend and shoot my assigned targets and skip the drama, getting old sucks but we all slow down. I don’t want to interfere with guys trying to shoot their records, I don’t wish to be singled out

No problem guys. It’s just a discussion.

Dave.

 

[Greg@wfcustom]

I hope there aren’t hurt feelings. Tone and attitude is not conveyed well over an Internet forum and none of this was written in accusation, anger or with vitriol.

I think there’s a lot of “common knowledge” about e-targets based upon a very broadly differing uses on a very broad variety of target frames, etc. that doesn’t represent what we want them to be able to do in a BR match. They were developed for F-class and their interface is a clear indication of that. Is a 2x4 frame that wobbles in the wind really going to give us the right assessment of the accuracy they are capable of? If we identify that a prescriptive deployment of a fixed target frame with guy wires and wind baffles around the target frame all defined reduced the mean absolute measurement error to 0.010, would that be acceptable? I think that is possible and I think it gets us into the discussion of just how accurate are our measurements currently so that we can fairly determine what the benchmark is for the e-targets to meet so that we aren’t degrading our records. Thinking that targets are currently measured with an accuracy of 0.001” is not the real error. That’s just what is read off the calipers and typed into the scoresheet, but we accept that the errors in that measurement are reasonable without having quantified them, particularly when we look at aggregate records or across many clubs around the country with different scorers.

^^^^^^^
This!
If I get really bored this winter, I may actually compare the groups the SM measured at our matches vs what the actual targets were measured at. Maybe after I sort the 2 cases of RF ammo I just got in!
I would expect to find that the variance was more pronounced on the 2 outboard targets on the frame than the 2 middle ones. This would be expected because of the way the system works. If I do the research I will report my findings on here.
One thing I do know is they are not capable of being used for group measurement at short range. (Yet)
I will point out though that we had several 2 Gun Agg's (100/200) this year that were decided by less than .001 inches. IE: in the tenths over a 20 target Agg. If those 20 targets for each shooter were remeasured I will guarantee there is at least a 50% chance the results would have changed.
Something to chew on for those worried about the accuracy of target measuring (e-targets or not.)
Long Range will be dependent on your acceptable level of precision.
At LR the triangulation problem is reduced as you only have 1 or at most 2 targets per frame.
As the distances increase and the group size increases the odds of Agg's being within the MOE also increase.
As someone who has set multiple NBRSA LR records (most of which have been long since broken,) and won multiple National Championships, I for one would have no problem with using them at a 600 or 1000 Registered match. Maybe have a similar requirement for records like SR has where the record has to be broken by a certain amount to qualify? Maybe the MOE?
Just JMHO based on years of experience both as a MD and a competitor.
YMMV
G

 

[RGRobinett]

^^^^^^^
This!
If I get really bored this winter, I may actually compare the groups the SM measured at our matches vs what the actual targets were measured at. Maybe after I sort the 2 cases of RF ammo I just got in!
I would expect to find that the variance was more pronounced on the 2 outboard targets on the frame than the 2 middle ones. This would be expected because of the way the system works. If I do the research I will report my findings on here.
One thing I do know is they are not capable of being used for group measurement at short range. (Yet)
I will point out though that we had several 2 Gun Agg's (100/200) this year that were decided by less than .001 inches. IE: in the tenths over a 20 target Agg. If those 20 targets for each shooter were remeasured I will guarantee there is at least a 50% chance the results would have changed.
Something to chew on for those worried about the accuracy of target measuring (e-targets or not.)
Long Range will be dependent on your acceptable level of precision.
At LR the triangulation problem is reduced as you only have 1 or at most 2 targets per frame.
As someone who has set multiple NBRSA LR records (most of which have been long since broken,) and won multiple National Championships, I for one would have no problem with using them at a 600 or 1000 Registered match.
Just JMHO based on years of experience both as a MD and a competitor.
YMMV
G

Even a difference of several digits in the third decimal place amounts to a statistical tie - remeasuring (by another, or, even the same scorer) could completely mix-up/reshuffle the results. Many (point-blank) HoF points have been won/lost via nothing more than the artifact of division - that ridiculous fourth decimal place.

In stating that any single group, or aggregate within 0.009" qualifies for record consideration, the rule books (IBS/NBRSA) clearly identify the precision potential. The capture and measurement isn't very precise - we just agree to accept the result(s). We hate ties . . .

That said, with potential 0.1xx" error, for point-blank BR, E-scoring isn't going to, "cut it". Presuming an economical method, I can see the potential for replacing the moving backer. RG

Edited to add this: In hope of getting some credibility, I was match director, target crew, and often "scorer" for NBRSA and IBS registered tournaments (both group and score) at River City Rifle and Pistol Club, Mason City, IA, for 15 seasons, including the PINTA (pain-in-the-ass)moving backer system: BTDTGT-S.

 

[Greg@wfcustom]

Even a difference of several digits in the third decimal place amounts to a statistical tie - remeasuring (by another, or, even the same scorer) could completely mix-up/reshuffle the results. Many (point-blank) HoF points have been won/lost via nothing more than the artifact of division - that ridiculous fourth decimal place.

In stating that any single group, or aggregate within 0.009" qualifies for record consideration, the rule books (IBS/NBRSA) clearly identify the precision potential. The capture and measurement isn't very precise - we just agree to accept the result(s). We hate ties . . .

That said, with potential 0.1xx" error, for point-blank BR, E-scoring isn't going to, "cut it". Presuming an economical method, I can see the potential for replacing the moving backer. RG

Randy,
I agree with your points 100%
Most people unless they have a fair amount of shop experience don't realize just how small a "tenth" is.
Reminds me of what my Machine Tech professor told me when I was throwing "tenths" around.
"Greg I want you to go out and buy the very best micrometer you can find/afford. Get to know it really well and then we'll sit down after class with some gauge pins and talk about measuring 10ths"
But I'll guarantee you one thing, the first time someone wants me to re-measure 20 targets (40 actually) because they lost an Agg by a couple of 10ths is the time I will resign and go crack a cold one!
Hell we are using freaking calipers to measure with! Sometimes when its really sporting at a LR match in the Ione Triangle we use a yardstick like Evan.
It IS NOT an exact science as much as we strive to make it such.
My guess is it will be in the .005-.010 range difference between paper & e-targets, but I guess I will have to find the time to analyze the data and then we will have a base (1000 +/- targets) comparison at the least.
Again the big problem is not using them as "e-backers" just counting shots but the accuracy (triangulation) differential that occurs the farther you get from frame center.
In other words on our 4 target frames Tgt 1 & 4 would "potentially" not be measured as accurately as 2&3.
This could be solved by having individual frames & sensor hubs, but at 500.00 plus per frame (for the sensors/hub), not many clubs can afford that.
I'll try and get the data I have up and posted in the next couple of weeks for everyone's amusement.
G

 

[davidjoe]

You guys shooting groups in BR have the potential to do something with ShotMarkers that I have always been curious about.

Since you don’t necessarily need to aim at the middle, you could put aim points in the middle of four quadrants, or two side by side, vertically etc.

By doing this, the same unit and the same wind conditions might be shootable for several guys on a single system, which potentially addresses the concern that some of the systems or target locations are advantageous relative to others.

I don’t know that anyone has yet explored how much difference in time is required between arriving bullets, for good reads to occur, but I suspect from seeing crossfires pop up, that it would be extremely difficult to overwhelm the system.

What this means from a ramping up standpoint, if E-Targets were to be tried, is that some economies may be gained.

 

[newbieshooter]

I just wanted to point out that my ShotMarker for group measurements:

* If it is under 10 inches - it only displays the group size to 2 decimal digits. For example: 1.51 in.



* If it is over 10 inches - the group size is displayed with only 1 decimal digit: 10.1 in

 

[davidjoe]

The NRA wants our Fclass targets to be bigger than typical Fclass patterns, but even so, it can be remarkably easy to put on a match. My club’s shooters aren’t asked to go forward of the nice, covered firing line at all. Makes everyone happy.

This little modified trailer concentrates a 60 plus foot wide line of shooters into whatever small portion of the mid berm I put it in front of, maybe 13 or so feet wide.

BR could shrink this down even further, or at this small size, have 30 shooters. This little trailer, which has never been shot by the way, can hold four targets if needed with an extension, three very comfortably, with four shooters on each target, with three matches shot in ~2.5 hours.

These were old pictures and I’m working on new frames a bit more compact.

 

[Evan]

I just wanted to point out that my ShotMarker for group measurements:

* If it is under 10 inches - it only displays the group size to 2 decimal digits. For example: 1.51 in.

View attachment 1513996

* If it is over 10 inches - the group size is displayed with only 1 decimal digit: 10.1 in

I think I may ask Adam more probing questions about the system because mine does that too, and if that is a reporting of significant figures based on the assessed errors in the system that would change how I view using these for measuring groups. But it may be artificial/code with no basis in any analysis or error.

The export file reports x,y positions in whole millimeters. If this is the assessed measurement floor, and not a decision made for readability or otherwise, then at least we know that is where we stand on maximum resolution.

 

[Evan]

Randy,
I agree with your points 100%
Most people unless they have a fair amount of shop experience don't realize just how small a "tenth" is.
Reminds me of what my Machine Tech professor told me when I was throwing "tenths" around.
"Greg I want you to go out and buy the very best micrometer you can find/afford. Get to know it really well and then we'll sit down after class with some gauge pins and talk about measuring 10ths"
But I'll guarantee you one thing, the first time someone wants me to re-measure 20 targets (40 actually) because they lost an Agg by a couple of 10ths is the time I will resign and go crack a cold one!
Hell we are using freaking calipers to measure with! Sometimes when its really sporting at a LR match in the Ione Triangle we use a yardstick like Evan.
It IS NOT an exact science as much as we strive to make it such.
My guess is it will be in the .005-.010 difference between paper & e-targets, but I guess I will have to find the time to analyze the data and then we will have a base (1000 +/- targets) comparison at the least.
Again the big problem is not using them as "e-backers" just counting shots but the accuracy (triangulation) differential that occurs the farther you get from frame center.
In other words on our 4 target frames Tgt 1 & 4 would "potentially" not be measured as accurately as 2&3.
This could be solved by having individual frames & sensor hubs, but at 500.00 plus per frame (for the sensors/hub), not many clubs can afford that.
I'll try and get the data I have up and posted in the next couple of weeks for everyone's amusement.
G

Hmmmm. I’m not sure. If I reason that each microphone has a certain resolution in time, and that to get position it is taking differences between the time located peaks of the shot between the 4 microphones, then the difference between those 4 when the shot is in the middle of the target is the smallest, providing the least accuracy for a given time resolution. Out toward the edge, the difference in time is larger between the 4 microphone measurements.

 

[Greg@wfcustom]

I just wanted to point out that my ShotMarker for group measurements:

* If it is under 10 inches - it only displays the group size to 2 decimal digits. For example: 1.51 in.

View attachment 1513996

* If it is over 10 inches - the group size is displayed with only 1 decimal digit: 10.1 in

Oh come on Jeff, anyone who has watched you shoot knows you don't shoot groups over 10"
Hope your doing well and will see you at the Nationals, (if they happen).
G

 

[Spoonbill]

My club uses the shot markers for f class. I think they are great. A hiccup every now and then but no major problems. Aging crowd at my club and pit service would be too hard on most anymore. Testing my abilities and playing with the e targets is what got me into the game. Better than driving down to the pits to check and mark holes

 

[tom]

Your thread has opened the door to folks sharing their own data with me Jason. If anyone has a single bullet hole, that has actually been plotted exactly right, please send the photo so I can start a folder for "correct" lol. We are at 52 in the "incorrect" folder fyi.

Tom

Just some samples.....



But don't worry about over correcting, she'll just relocate them the other way, lol

 

[Dos XX]

Your thread has opened the door to folks sharing their own data with me Jason. If anyone has a single bullet hole, that has actually been plotted exactly right, please send the photo so I can start a folder for "correct" lol. We are at 52 in the "incorrect" folder fyi.

Tom

Just some samples.....

View attachment 1519570View attachment 1519571

But don't worry about over correcting, she'll just relocate them the other way, lol
View attachment 1519572View attachment 1519573

But you get to go home early!

 

[Dave Way]

Your thread has opened the door to folks sharing their own data with me Jason. If anyone has a single bullet hole, that has actually been plotted exactly right, please send the photo so I can start a folder for "correct" lol. We are at 52 in the "incorrect" folder fyi.

Tom

Just some samples.....

View attachment 1519570View attachment 1519571

But don't worry about over correcting, she'll just relocate them the other way, lol
View attachment 1519572View attachment 1519573

Electronic representations of what may or may not have happened. But hey, it’s close enough right??? You look at Tom’s targets and let me know.

Dave.

 

[Ga. Dawg]

Damn guys, it’s a chance for clubs that WANT to give it a try to do so!! Let them decide

Mike