E targets in longrange benchrest

[DHuffman]

If the margin of error for the Shotmarker is greater than the normal margin of victory, it seems simple to me that the Shotmarker should not be used to measure group size in a br match.

Appreciate your response, BR matches regularly come down to a few thou so that's very telling.

This topic has gotten pretty polarizing, some people are willing to give up the accuracy of the measurement and the ability to ever check or verify it and some are not so who's wrong here?

Nobody really I guess but I plan on spending my money going to matches that measure paper and give you the target so you can check it and dispute an error if it's going to change the outcome of a match whether it's in my favor or not.
If that makes me a pain in the ass I guess it is what it is.

 

[davidjoe]

Maybe said already, but a shootmarker error induced by Doppler effect of a wind shift in F-Class may cause that shot to drop a point, but it won’t wreck the value of the prior shots or the subsequent shots.

Groups are judged by the worst shot relative to the others, so the stakes of a single error, real or perceived, are multiplies higher in BR.

 

[Ccrider]

I don’t think any of the post were intended to be personal. It’s winter. Everyone has cabin fever to some extent.

There is no right or wrong answer. It’s strictly a matter of preference. If you want paper measured targets, shoot those matches. If you are ok with electronic measured targets, shoot both types of matches.

The good thing is that we are having the discussion and identifying the problem and jamming none that we will not compromise br accuracy for convenience sake. The open conversation may ultimately lead to the development of better, more accurate systems.

 

[Aero]

A little off topic, but I'm curious about how accurate the ballistic-x group measuring thing is? I've never used it or even seen it used in person.

Im also curious that if you were to take 10 paper targets with 5 shot 1000 yard groups on each and had 10 different experienced guys Measure them all, what would be the expected and acceptable variance?

 

[Northridge]

A little off topic, but I'm curious about how accurate the ballistic-x group measuring thing is? I've never used it or even seen it used in person.

Im also curious that if you were to take 10 paper targets with 5 shot 1000 yard groups on each and had 10 different experienced guys Measure them all, what would be the expected and acceptable variance?

As a person who has been a part of scoring a lot of targets there will be a variance person to person of maybe .010 maybe .015 but the great news is when scoring a days worth of targets that will come out of one operator scoring each target so A given eye is shared to only that scoring tech so the +-is very low . If it’s a possible one target record it will be measured by a committee then the difference will develop a average… all being done in support of a physical target as a guide…. If clubs opt to use e targets to zero , sight in etc. or not that’s there decision to make as a club but what I would like clarified from a stat or “record “stand point is, there would have to be a separate record category for both. But a record with out physical support of a target is really imaginary …. Wanting to move forward as a collective is important to me as I love that aspect the most but second to physical backing… again for clubs that feel its doable to assist in a match so be it go after it but talking about how accolades will be documented depending on the choice needs to be tabled… personally nothing better than receiving a paper target with a personal best group on it… “pit life” though cold and hot and with some low level work is where some of my best relationships have developed … bottom line with discussion most things are achievable. It’s going to be a great year of shooting and I’m definitely looking forward to it

Shawn Williams

 

[tom]

A little off topic, but I'm curious about how accurate the ballistic-x group measuring thing is? I've never used it or even seen it used in person.

Im also curious that if you were to take 10 paper targets with 5 shot 1000 yard groups on each and had 10 different experienced guys Measure them all, what would be the expected and acceptable variance?

on the ballistic x used here, I would say I'm not that precise on giving a "certifiable" measurement at all...however, I am using the same scale reference without leaving the app, so "comparable" measurement differences will be very good.

Humans...hang on for an edit, I need to go digging, stand by

Okay, here's the only example I have saved. Below is the same day The Glenn shot that HG group record back in his non Hallmark days. The 3 numbers with signatures are Alex, Carson, and myself. Mine of course I did 3 and averaged them to the 4th decimal. You can see that there's about .010", even though mine is right lol.



Now below you see the confirmed record from the records committee...apparently Carson knew the paper would shrink over the few months because we all know mine was right the first time!




Edit to add, unlike a picture of a computer screen, but a nice perpendicular picture of real paper. The ballistic x app can get very close, but humans still win.



Tom

 

[DaveTooley]

With the lack of precision and lack of a consensus I think for the BR disciplines the answer is obvious.
Rule #1 in my shop is don't make the phone ring. This, E targets in BR, violates that rule.

 

[JFrank]

I’m a bit concerned that our longe range community will continue to get smaller and increasing isolated between the organizations, if this trend continues we’ll be competing against ourselves without supporting the other clubs. How do we survive following such a model ?

 

[Northridge]

I’m a bit concerned that our longe range community will continue to get smaller and increasing isolated between the organizations, if this trend continues we’ll be competing against ourselves without supporting the other clubs. How do we survive following such a model ?

What “trend” you reference jim, clubs will agree to adopt the systems or not and that is ok, discussing how a ever changing world will adjust and where within a comparative is a healthy discussion to have… if it becomes impossible there are plenty of plate shoots to participate in “hit” or “miss” simple enough just bring sun screen Lol all things work out another thing for guys to consider out side of avoiding some medial tasks etc. As individuals is infrastructure adjustments and the additional load or time that comes from directing matches by very “few” you increase there work load to set up, manage, tear down and trouble shoot Technology while attempting to reduce personal accountability in regard to a given match. Nothing is a free lunch for some. Again I’m not in opposition to clubs going in a different direction, but all aspects should be discussed and I promise people are wanting
Clarification but they are shy to ask..

Shawn Williams

 

[Bottom Fodder]

Don’t have a dog in this hunt, but have a question what’s the governing body of BR opinion of this

 

[whatwind?]

Raise the price of the entry fee and invest in more benches or more people or R&D to make it better

 

[JFrank]

What “trend” you reference jim, clubs will agree to adopt the systems or not and that is ok, discussing how a ever changing world will adjust and where within a comparative is a healthy discussion to have… if it becomes impossible there are plenty of plate shoots to participate in “hit” or “miss” simple enough just bring sun screen Lol all things work out another thing for guys to consider out side of avoiding some medial tasks etc. As individuals is infrastructure adjustments and the additional load or time that comes from directing matches by very “few” you increase there work load to set up, manage, tear down and trouble shoot Technology while attempting to reduce personal accountability in regard to a given match. Nothing is a free lunch for some. Again I’m not in opposition to clubs going in a different direction, but all aspects should be discussed and I promise people are wanting
Clarification but they are shy to ask..

Shawn Williams

There’s quite a bit to consider in your excellent post , I’ll just say the trend I was referring to is clubs going their own way and guys not wanting to shoot another clubs format. That seems to make the community smaller.
You know I shoot whatever rules are in place at the club I shoot at and do the best I can. I didn’t mean to speak out of line.

Respectfully
Jim

 

[Northridge]

There’s quite a bit to consider in your excellent post , I’ll just say the trend I was referring to is clubs going their own way and guys not wanting to shoot another clubs format. That seems to make the community smaller.
You know I shoot whatever rules are in place at the club I shoot at and do the best I can. I didn’t mean to speak out of line.

Respectfully

There’s quite a bit to consider in your excellent post , I’ll just say the trend I was referring to is clubs going their own way and guys not wanting to shoot another clubs format. That seems to make the community smaller.
You know I shoot whatever rules are in place at the club I shoot at and do the best I can. I didn’t mean to speak out of line.

Respectfully
Jim

Jim you didn’t speak out of line, all good I just added more thoughts…

Shawn Williams

 

[lawman29]

Don’t have a dog in this hunt, but have a question what’s the governing body of BR opinion of this

Which one:
1) Freedom Benchrest
2) IBS Internatiional Benchrest Shooters
3) NBRSA National Bench Rest Shooters Association
4) Global Benchrest Association (Henry Jones Memorial Range)
5)??

 

[Bottom Fodder]

Which one:
1) Freedom Benchrest
2) IBS Internatiional Benchrest Shooters
3) NBRSA National Bench Rest Shooters Association
4) Global Benchrest Association (Henry Jones Memorial Range)
5)??

Well as far as that goes any or all of them. You tell me I’m not really into BR shooting so I’m clueless

 

[artiglio]

I don’t shoot benchrest , however do any of the E target manufacturers guarantee performance down to the accuracy required by several of those that have posted in this thread?
Here in the UK , Bisley has 3 different electronic target systems.

Kongsbergs - used at upto 300 yards, these are by far the best and most reliable in my experience.

Shotmarker - generally used at 300 yards, these do work when set up properly and looked after.

Intarsos - available at 600-1000 yds. Again can work when well maintained.

However the reality of both the Shotmarker and Intarsos in the real world on a commercial range ( ie not maintained by a club by members invested in getting the best from the systems) is that they’re so unreliable as to be useless. The intarsos are as likely to flatter your shooting as denigrate and this is the only reason there are not vastly more complaints ( very few people complain about personal best scores/ groups)

Very few fclass shooters will use the electronics, to the extent that one of the annual competitions which is shot at 800-1000 yards and has been shot using electronics for several years , struggled to attract more than a handful of entries. This year it’s going back to manual marking to try and attract entries.

No other competitions are shot using them ( with the exception of the 300m slingshooters whose organisation owns and maintains its own Kongsberg systems) and as current performance stands it’s unlikely they ever will.

The electronics are generally used by recreational plinkers and clubs, who like the convenience and ability to shoot fast which for visiting clubs mean they need to book fewer targets.

It seems that the expense of maintaining the systems to the level required for ultimate accuracy is too expensive and time consuming ( largely due to the number of rounds the plinkers and clubs put through the systems). Several discussions with NRA (UK) staff basically came to the conclusion that the maintenance and repair of the systems was geared towards use by more casual shooters and that anyone who want’s guaranteed accuracy needs to shoot on paper with a manual marker.

 

[gpoldblue]

Convenience always comes with compromise.

 

[Mulligan]

I believe the e-Target systems do have a place in benchrest.

IBS short range requires an additional backer besides the moving backer for short range group.
NBRSA requires a moving backer. Both to prove there really are 5 shots on the target and in the case of the IBS, to help determine where an errant shot may have came from.............well, because not all cross fires are mistakes and folks sometimes do not own-up to the errant shot.

Using moving backers or e-Targets for counting shots at long range was discussed on this forum several years ago because groups are getting smaller. It was a good and friendly discussion as I recall. When you look at the tiny group Bart Sauter shot which is the current world record for a single target shot at 600 yards, it is not hard to imagine the case where a target gets disqualified for only having 4 shots on target when there really are 5 but there is no evidence to prove that on the paper.

Amazing Accuracy — Sauter Shoots 0.282″ Group at 600 Yards « Daily Bulletin

World Record group shot by Bart Sauter in IBS 600-yard Match on April 21, 2018 in Memphis, TN. 0.282 inches, 0.04 MOA... at 600 Yards. Simply amazing... What can we say... this 0.

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

As a match director I have seen many times the referees doing mental gymnastics having to tell a friend they are DQ'ed from the match because the target only shows 4 shots. I have been in that pair of sneakers myself, and have also been the recipient of the call. When I looked at my own target, I could not see any evidence to point at either.......... but I let five go and I know how well my rifle was shooting that day.

I know we had a range in the south that was using e-Targets to count shots instead of moving backers in the short range game, and it was working for them. So the electronic target systems do have a place in benchrest. In my opinion they are likely better that any other system we have for counting shots and determining the angle of incoming shots.


The yaw in the above screen-shot is the angle of the bullet as it approached the target. In this case, I had my system set well off from square to the firing line. But as you can see, it does show the angle and would help prove if a shot came from the correct bench or the rascal down the line.

Using e-Targets for sighters shots is also a very good use of the systems. With e-Targets we do not have bullet fragments from sighter plates to deal with. Which as a match director the safety issues this causes is real. Shooters can readily see their sighting shots and make adjustments with out having to do the mental match to figure out how much to move the sights or hold off because the clay targets are on a berm well in front of of behind the record targets. The real time aspect of sighting shots, and going to record with out a delay from the pits is also a big factor.

How accurately the systems place the shots relative to the paper target is the only question in my mind.

Adam is telling me if the frames are constructed without warpage, are absolutely square to the firing line (this means the bullets are close to a right angle ((90*)) when they cross the microphones listening area), and are not blowing in the breeze, we should see 1mm accuracy. By the way, the frames on most ranges with pits have plenty of movement in the wind also. Evan brought that point up several pages back on this thread and it was ignored. No system is perfect.

Below is part of the last correspondence with the good folks in Canada.




Hi Clay,

In Benchrest, since you are sighting on one target and scoring on another, it's important that the calibration on all of the aiming marks be correct. That means that constant errors due to the frame being crooked will matter and will show up as an apparent calibration shift when you move between aiming marks.

Therefore I think it is important to fire shots in the corners of your active scoring area to ensure that the calibration (center of group, not random error) is close enough everywhere on the frame that matters. In a perfect world, when everything is measured perfectly and there is no movement, every shot will be within 1mm. It's always a matter of the type and amount of sources of error that apply.

Thanks,



We are still working on this project, and I will post updates as we get testing done. Weather conditions are tripping us up this week, so tests of any quality will have to wait until the current storms clear out of the valley.

I heard a rumor that there are a few short range group shooters in Calif that were working on some accuracy tests for their sport. If anyone has info on testing being done, please send me a PM or connect through email or phone. There are a Lot of really good minds on this forum, sharing info will help us all.

CW
wcrsc600ibs@gmail.com

 

[Northridge]

I believe the e-Target systems do have a place in benchrest.

IBS short range requires an additional backer besides the moving backer for short range group.
NBRSA requires a moving backer. Both to prove there really are 5 shots on the target and in the case of the IBS, to help determine where an errant shot may have came from.............well, because not all cross fires are mistakes and folks sometimes do not own-up to the errant shot.

Using moving backers or e-Targets for counting shots at long range was discussed on this forum several years ago because groups are getting smaller. It was a good and friendly discussion as I recall. When you look at the tiny group Bart Sauter shot which is the current world record for a single target shot at 600 yards, it is not hard to imagine the case where a target gets disqualified for only having 4 shots on target when there really are 5 but there is no evidence to prove that on the paper.

View attachment 1521143

Amazing Accuracy — Sauter Shoots 0.282″ Group at 600 Yards « Daily Bulletin

World Record group shot by Bart Sauter in IBS 600-yard Match on April 21, 2018 in Memphis, TN. 0.282 inches, 0.04 MOA... at 600 Yards. Simply amazing... What can we say... this 0.

bulletin.accurateshooter.com

As a match director I have seen many times the referees doing mental gymnastics having to tell a friend they are DQ'ed from the match because the target only shows 4 shots. I have been in that pair of sneakers myself, and have also been the recipient of the call. When I looked at my own target, I could not see any evidence to point at either.......... but I let five go and I know how well my rifle was shooting that day.

I know we had a range in the south that was using e-Targets to count shots instead of moving backers in the short range game, and it was working for them. So the electronic target systems do have a place in benchrest. In my opinion they are likely better that any other system we have for counting shots and determining the angle of incoming shots.

View attachment 1521145
The yaw in the above screen-shot is the angle of the bullet as it approached the target. In this case, I had my system set well off from square to the firing line. But as you can see, it does show the angle and would help prove if a shot came from the correct bench or the rascal down the line.

Using e-Targets for sighters shots is also a very good use of the systems. With e-Targets we do not have bullet fragments from sighter plates to deal with. Which as a match director the safety issues this causes is real. Shooters can readily see their sighting shots and make adjustments with out having to do the mental match to figure out how much to move the sights or hold off because the clay targets are on a berm well in front of of behind the record targets. The real time aspect of sighting shots, and going to record with out a delay from the pits is also a big factor.

How accurately the systems place the shots relative to the paper target is the only question in my mind.

Adam is telling me if the frames are constructed without warpage, are absolutely square to the firing line (this means the bullets are close to a right angle ((90*)) when they cross the microphones listening area), and are not blowing in the breeze, we should see 1mm accuracy. By the way, the frames on most ranges with pits have plenty of movement in the wind also. Evan brought that point up several pages back on this thread and it was ignored. No system is perfect.

Below is part of the last correspondence with the good folks in Canada.




Hi Clay,

In Benchrest, since you are sighting on one target and scoring on another, it's important that the calibration on all of the aiming marks be correct. That means that constant errors due to the frame being crooked will matter and will show up as an apparent calibration shift when you move between aiming marks.

Therefore I think it is important to fire shots in the corners of your active scoring area to ensure that the calibration (center of group, not random error) is close enough everywhere on the frame that matters. In a perfect world, when everything is measured perfectly and there is no movement, every shot will be within 1mm. It's always a matter of the type and amount of sources of error that apply.

Thanks,



We are still working on this project, and I will post updates as we get testing done. Weather conditions are tripping us up this week, so tests of any quality will have to wait until the current storms clear out of the valley.

I heard a rumor that there are a few short range group shooters in Calif that were working on some accuracy tests for their sport. If anyone has info on testing being done, please send me a PM or connect through email or phone. There are a Lot of really good minds on this forum, sharing info will help us all.

CW
wcrsc600ibs@gmail.com

In response to recording the shots that come naturally we want to account for those shots and really very , very few truly get lost even shooting small at both yardages.. my experience to this point at least in regard to the e Target approach has been every match I’ve shot with them they have “ghosted” shots every single match costing people there entire trip . Not because they only sent 17 shots 19 shots but simply did not see a shot or multiple shots come in, not always when the wind is up either… in my time we have DQ’d very few . So I get the ideal of a better way or addition way to record shots but in practice the technology isn’t there yet in regard to technological error. Maybe in time but not to this point.

Shawn Williams

 

[Mulligan]

In response to recording the shots that come naturally we want to account for those shots and really very , very few truly get lost even shooting small at both yardages.. my experience to this point at least in regard to the e Target approach has been every match I’ve shot with them they have “ghosted” shots every single match costing people there entire trip . Not because they only sent 17 shots 19 shots but simply did not see a shot or multiple shots come in, not always when the wind is up either… in my time we have DQ’d very few . So I get the ideal of a better way or addition way to record shots but in practice the technology isn’t there yet in regard to technological error. Maybe in time but not to this point.

Shawn Williams

ghosted shots are recorded, you just have to look.



the shot that is labeled "unrealistic incoming angle" is a ghosted shot. The match director can look .
And yes, the system is fairly simple.

As rare as it is, it still SUCKS to be DQ'ed because you actually accomplish what you set out to do.....SHOOT SMALL.
CW