E targets in longrange benchrest

[tom]

Never said anything against that Mike, I agree. Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago. Actually I just asked for more data a couple posts ago. Shall we suppress the facts as we learn them too?

Tom

 

[Ccrider]

Never said anything against that Mike, I agree. Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago. Actually I just asked for more data a couple posts ago. Shall we suppress the facts as we learn them too?

Tom

Nope.

 

[Evan]

Never said anything against that Mike, I agree. Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago. Actually I just asked for more data a couple posts ago. Shall we suppress the facts as we learn them too?

Tom

I appreciate you sharing, Tom. How do the groups compare? There is clear translation that would affect the score, but group shape and size still seems well represented.

 

[tom]

Nope.

Are you sure, I don't want to hurt any feelers?

Evan, that data is there on my ballistic x app. Right or wrong I used the same scale reference, so the numbers are "comparable". Look at photo 1 vs 2, and 3 vs 4 and you'll see it.

Tom

 

[Bc'z]

Are you sure, I don't want to hurt any feelers?

Evan, that data is there on my ballistic x app. Right or wrong I used the same scale reference, so the numbers are "comparable". Look at photo 1 vs 2, and 3 vs 4 and you'll see it.

Tom

I saw a difference of .18 between 3&4,or am I missing something else

 

[tom]

I saw a difference of .18 between 3&4,or am I missing something else

.189 lol, but you're on it

 

[Evan]

Are you sure, I don't want to hurt any feelers?

Evan, that data is there on my ballistic x app. Right or wrong I used the same scale reference, so the numbers are "comparable". Look at photo 1 vs 2, and 3 vs 4 and you'll see it.

Tom

thanks, haha. Don’t mind me, my toddler has scrambled my brains and my reading comprehension seems to have been affected.

 

[TZaun]

Tom are these examples from the same person? I don't have a lot of experience with SM but it almost looks like the measurements from sensor to sensor is off. SM pulled the high, right shots down and left and the low, left shots up and right. If that's the case, it will no doubt make the group size incorrect too.

 

[tom]

Tom are these examples from the same person? I don't have a lot of experience with SM but it almost looks like the measurements from sensor to sensor is off. SM pulled the high, right shots down and left and the low, left shots up and right. If that's the case, it will no doubt make the group size incorrect too.

These were yes, the same day, same target, and ideal low wind solid frame conditions as it was explained to me. There were 40+ holes, and 100% were pulled closer to center than reality so.... maybe. I've only been introduced to this recently, so I can only go by what I can actually see. Nothing I've been "shown" has given me a warm fuzzy feeling yet. These guys don't necessarily want to get involved on social media stuff, but do encourage testing for yourself. 1" grid paper, and plot them is how it's explained to me to do it. Generally speaking, I'm a total caveman with this tecky crap, but I have eyes still lol. But as I understand it, they've seen the acoustic center move 2-3" when wind gets up a bit.

Tom

 

[Mulligan]

Hey folks,
just wanted to point out we are still in the "discovery" phase of this endeavor. It is obvious it is functional and fairly accurate. I have been working with Adam and Laura on a couple of tweak's to the program for Freedom's three target 600 yard eTarget program.

Tim Barber, a shooter at our club tested one of the systems a week or two prior to the last match. His new system was NOT calibrated, and after 8, 4 shot groups at 600 yards pulling paper for each target, he had a total error of .070" for the 8 targets combined. So there are several things to look at and consider. I think all of us agree, big errors are not acceptable at all. Tim's experience with a system that was not calibrated is very promising. More testing to come.

I sent a note to the Shotmarker folks after the last match, and ask some questions. They asked for a copy of the backup on the Access Point. After several additional emails so they could get the info they needed, it turns out that I had some targets that were NOT at a right angle to the firing line. This caused some issues, 15* is about the outer limit..... and I had one frame about 19*. Of course we are addressing this issue, and after Saturdays match (10th of Feb) we will know more.

We are still working on the "Best Practice" doc and will be for some time. I appreciate all the Match Directors, and shooters who have reached out in support of this project. The intention is not to sugar coat anything. I am hopeful we all go into this with both eyes wide open and everything fully daylighted.


Kind regards
CW

 

[lawman29]

Since it is "a thing" now, I also plan to collect data and educate myself on something that I was ignorant about a month ago

Educating yourself includes really understanding how electronic targets work so any conclusions you're coming too are sound. Analyzing data from electronic targets would include for any data submitted; information such as initial set up calibration such as TZaun posted regarding sensors, target frames (rigidity, square to firing point...), weather conditions, etc. If you're going to analyze targets you need to have a clear understanding of how it was collected and ask important questions of those submitting data. Last and just as important is that those submitting data and yourself are being totally objective and unbiased throughout the process! If you conduct your analysis with a preconceived notion against the use of etargets you're building in bias to the process and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You're already showing a biased with "lol" comments...

 

[Dave Way]

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

Mike

No one is telling them what to decide Mike. They need information to decide though so shouldn’t information be posted about real world results? I guess I don’t see the problem unless someone is wanting to see things go electronic so they don’t like what Tom has pointed out.

Dave.

 

[Dave Way]

Educating yourself includes really understanding how electronic targets work so any conclusions you're coming too are sound. Analyzing data from electronic targets would include for any data submitted; information such as initial set up calibration such as TZaun posted regarding sensors, target frames (rigidity, square to firing point...), weather conditions, etc. If you're going to analyze targets you need to have a clear understanding of how it was collected and ask important questions of those submitting data. Last and just as important is that those submitting data and yourself are being totally objective and unbiased throughout the process! If you conduct your analysis with a preconceived notion against the use of etargets you're building in bias to the process and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. You're already showing a biased with "lol" comments...

The photos don’t lie. Who may be biased here?

Dave.

 

[tom]

Dave, I probably am somewhat, but shouldn't groups measure the same at least? It doesn't matter what my opinions are going in, when someone SHOWS ME fake holes plotted exactly on top of real holes I will save that data and report it. But so far all I have is an empty folder. I have never been afraid of being wrong, but don't tell me, show me! Setup seems to be part of it, but doesn't that need to be rather Tom proof as well?

Tom

 

[Evan]

Just as a reference point, I've attached a picture of my shotmarker frame with guylines to secure it. It is solid and anchored in very strong wind. I also make sure it is plumb with a bubble level. Large wind switches, which the open prairie gives me regularly, can cause pretty large translations on target - 0.25" is about what I've seen. Shooting through a switch could mean good subtraction or bad additions to your group size, but no one keeps shooting during a switch, right?

I've always assumed, but not verified, that the target wobbling in and out of plumb, or the worst case, twisting the frame under an angling wind load, would be devastating to the accuracy of the system, and many target frames at ranges with pits have a fair bit of movement and flex to them by the nature of them being movable up and down for service. It's made worse by also being so large for 1000yd work.

This is a problem for shooting paper too. If the target moves, your bullet isn't punching a hole where it would if the target held still. A bit of off the cuff trigonometry: 6ft tall target, pivoting about the bottom, that can move +/-4 inches at the top of the frame would result in the center of the target moving back and forth +/-2 inches. As the target swings back and forth 2 inches, the X is moving up and down 0.11 inches. If we go through this excercise with all the degrees of freedom in our range frames, we might accumulate a pretty large error before calipers ever touch a target. I'm not saying this in defense of electronic targets, but just to point out that the setup of our ranges, targets, scoring, etc. all matters if we want to rigorously defend the measured results are comparable across the country at the many different clubs with different setups.

 

[Acyr]

I think this should be a challenge to someone to build as perfect an E Target setup that can be made. Like a brick sh*t house strong. Eliminate any frame variable that alters the group. Set it at 100 yards and measure and compare just like Tom is doing and post the results.

 

[Mulligan]

I think this should be a challenge to someone to build as perfect an E Target setup that can be made. Like a brick sh*t house strong. Eliminate any frame variable that alters the group. Set it at 100 yards and measure and compare just like Tom is doing and post the results.

We have a local shooter building a rigid frame for testing the system with a ppc at short range.
I received a text from him a day or two ago stating he was going to put the frame in our target shed so several of us could test.

When it’s up and running, we will get some data posted
CW

 

[Dos XX]

Also, if you replace the paper target during a match, the center needs to be in the exact same spot as the paper target that was used to calibrate the e target, or the e target needs to be calibrated again to that new paper target.

It might be interesting to compare your paper targets for variation from edges of targets to bull. How those targets are cut might matter if you are referencing paper target position off the edges and aren't recalibrating the e target for every paper change.

 

[Dos XX]

I had an idea for a fixture / gage to change paper on e targets. It would attach to the target frame, maybe holes in the gage and pins on the frame. I originally envisioned it being a corner that would reference one corner of the paper target. I now think it might be better if it had a circle the diameter of the bull and referenced to the center of the target.

 

[Acyr]

We have a local shooter building a rigid frame for testing the system with a ppc at short range.
I received a text from him a day or two ago stating he was going to put the frame in our target shed so several of us could test.

When it’s up and running, we will get some data posted
CW

Excellent. Can't wait for the results.