• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

7 Sec delay

There is one off spin I agree with in local rules is NO EMPTY CASES TO BE TAKEN TO THE MOUND loaded rounds only.
counting empty cases solves many issues. Claimed score when no shot fired being one.


That no empty cases to be taken to the mound rule is a good one!
I would prefer a delay built in of 10-12 seconds and as others have said believe issues could be fixed if they were discussed. Demoncali has some good ideas.
 
There is some fancy logic applied - too much to detail here. Here's a basic explanation.

All [muzzle] discharges are recorded and time stamped (with 1 mSec granularity) as are all shots received by a target. We know that a shot has been fired from a particular firing point, who fired it, when it was fired (to within 1 mSecs), at what it was supposed to be fired at, and subsequently when/if it arrives at its intended destination. Theoretically variations in times of flight between shooters can result in potential confusion at the target - basically a faster bullet overtaking a slower one that was fired first. But this turns out to be quite rare - we have been looking for instances of this for some years now. It happens, but as I said, it's rare.

When the shooter mound units are employing a wired LAN the mound units are able to syncronise their clocks (time) to the master clock to within 1 mSec. When using the wireless LAN (wifi) it is generally about 4 or 5 mSecs and somewhat variable (due to the vagaries of wifi). In any event, the time stamping of discharge events is rather precise, as is the time of arrival at the target. We use this to accurately measure the time of flight (that allows us to calculate average velocity).

So, if a discharge is recorded at a firing point that the system expects to see arrive at a particular target some time shortly thereafter, but instead appears at some other target (within the TOF window for the range) then that discharge is deemed to be a cross fire. That shooter is informed (on the screen) that a crossfire occured and is awarded a miss. A cross fire miss cannot be discarded or disclaimed. He/she is not told which target received the shot (that is, which target they actually fired at) - only that it occurred. Unlike with manual targets, whoever is supposed to be shooting at that target is not informed. There is no pair of "spotters" from which that shooter can select the best - if they happened to have fired. If they haven't fired then to them it's like nothing happened at all.

I guess to fully answer your question, unless the cross fired bullet collides with the legitimate shot at the target, or over takes it during flight, there is a pretty good chance that the system will "get it right" and record the proper result for both shooters. Experience has shown that it generally does - we have plenty of experience with crossfires! :)

There is also the instance of a shot being fired hitting the target which is registered but can not be placed is allocated a zero by the system, there are no zeros on the target. We know the answer to this and how to fix it. This is an experience thing ( the target is telling us it needs attention). There is another problem that appears from time to time which testing by knowledgeable people with the right equipment will prove one way or the other. Our thoughts are it is a harness issue. Testing still to occur shortly.
 
There is also the instance of a shot being fired hitting the target which is registered but can not be placed is allocated a zero by the system, there are no zeros on the target. We know the answer to this and how to fix it. This is an experience thing ( the target is telling us it needs attention). There is another problem that appears from time to time which testing by knowledgeable people with the right equipment will prove one way or the other. Our thoughts are it is a harness issue. Testing still to occur shortly.
Yes, under ICFRA rules a hit on the the "rest of target - or ROT" must score at least a 1. However, the defined scoring area for a particular range might be smaller than the physical dimension of the target. For example, the scoring area of 300Y and 400Y is only 1200mm but few ET's use a 4ft target. The ROT is really only that area between the edge of the defined scoring area and the outside of the 2 ring. Anything outside the scoring area must be a 0 (miss). Dealing with this is easy - a software thing.

In the case where the scoring area happens to be the same as the outside dimension of the target it is easy. Any hit detected - even on the frame where it can't really be accurately positioned - will be a 1 (under ICFRA rules). It becomes complicated if the target frame extends beyond the scoring area a bit as the system cannot accurately determine an impact position (due to all the errors induced by the frame shot). A 1 might be awarded when it's really a miss. Who might care?

Targets that flop around inside the carriage (or harness) in the wind can set one or more sensors off and trick the system into thinking that a shot has arrived. Basically the random rattling is detected, and resolving this can be complicated. With my system that employs muzzle blast detection I ignore sensor triggers that are outside the shot event window (that is, not associated with a reported discharge from the firing point and pending arrival of a bullet). But CPU time is still taken up dealing with the false triggers and this can cause problems also. It is best to try to eliminate all sources of false sensor triggering. Don't let ET's flop and rattle around in a target frame/harness/whatever and also be wary of any wind whistling by sensors in a strong crosswind situation.
 
Getting back on topic, as an ET developer I am somewhat ambivalent about whether or not there should be a delay in presenting a score and position. I decided to make it optional, as some shooters want it and others don't. I can't predict how the rule makers will deal with it. It was not difficult to implement in my case.

As a shooter, well, I'm not sure I like the idea. In Australia, the idea was shot down at national governing body level but I suspect it will be raised again in the future.
 
That no empty cases to be taken to the mound rule is a good one!
Except if a guy's of a mind to cheat, he's smart enough to manage a bit of sleight of hand.

Standing behind the firing line as a range officer, I've come to realize that F class shooters don't manage ETs as well as they do paper targets. In the latter case, the shooter is looking down his scope most of the time except when he's reloading, so he keeps a good acquisition on his target. With ETs, he has to look away to a monitor or like device to the side & is thus more inclined to bump his back bag & without correction, this results in a crossfire.

As Geoff said, with his system, those crossfires are not identified but two other systems, which don't use the muzzle mike do register crossfires in the same manner that would occur on paper targets. In most instances, which belongs to the shooter will be identified up by the scorer according to when the shot arrived relative to him firing, but there will be instances when shots arrive too quickly for that judgement to be made & domestic rules will be needed to sort that our.

But there are exceptions & conundrums. Both times I presided over Aussie State championships, targets that were in the air as hot standbys caught friendly fire & with no scorer monitoring them, it can take a little time to find that out - as late as the end of the match. Likewise, scorers tend to lose interest in their equipment once a shooter has finished his string, so donations from other targets made after that time are easily overlooked.

For this reason, I'm not crazy about any type of delay. The shooter & everybody else involved knows on a paper target that you likely have a hit from the moment the target is pulled. It would be a bugger not to have similar information with similar dispatch on ETs.And unless advice of a hit is transmitted over a speaker, then it would require that the screen be refreshed twice for a single shot, once to post some sort of "Hit Recorded" and a second time to carry out the proper update. Hmmm!
 
[some snipped]

For this reason, I'm not crazy about any type of delay. The shooter & everybody else involved knows on a paper target that you likely have a hit from the moment the target is pulled. It would be a bugger not to have similar information with similar dispatch on ETs.And unless advice of a hit is transmitted over a speaker, then it would require that the screen be refreshed twice for a single shot, once to post some sort of "Hit Recorded" and a second time to carry out the proper update. Hmmm!
My system has a speaker but it's not very loud.

While my system maintains scores it is rare for there not to be a scorer or someone else watching the monitor - sometimes from quite some distance away. When the delay is enabled, and a shot is fired, an orange window is immediately displayed that shows a down count of the time remaining. While the shooter might not want to look at that a scorer might. A shot fired during the delay will be detected by the target but no result will be presented to the shooter - it is effectively ignored. It needs to be processed otherwise as normal by the system as there could well be other shooters shooting at that target also, and everything needs to be kept in context.

Once the delay is complete the window disappears and the score and spotter are presented.
 
My system has a speaker but it's not very loud.

While my system maintains scores it is rare for there not to be a scorer or someone else watching the monitor - sometimes from quite some distance away. When the delay is enabled, and a shot is fired, an orange window is immediately displayed that shows a down count of the time remaining. While the shooter might not want to look at that a scorer might. A shot fired during the delay will be detected by the target but no result will be presented to the shooter - it is effectively ignored. It needs to be processed otherwise as normal by the system as there could well be other shooters shooting at that target also, and everything needs to be kept in context.

Once the delay is complete the window disappears and the score and spotter are presented.

The second shot maybe the shooters not the cross firer.
 
The second shot maybe the shooters not the cross firer.
Yes. But the probability of an overtake down range with a shot that is deemed to be a crossfire is pretty low.

Unless a collision occurs at the target, both will be detected and measured - but the second will be flagged as "unsolicited" as for that target, there's only one muzzle blast event registered but two impacts.

In such a situation, if someone queries a crossfire result, there is a lot of logged data available to study to work out which shot belonged to which shooter.

High resolution logged event data is crucial to post event analysis. Without it we forever sit and wonder what might have been instead...
 
Except if a guy's of a mind to cheat, he's smart enough to manage a bit of sleight of hand.

Standing behind the firing line as a range officer, I've come to realize that F class shooters don't manage ETs as well as they do paper targets. In the latter case, the shooter is looking down his scope most of the time except when he's reloading, so he keeps a good acquisition on his target. With ETs, he has to look away to a monitor or like device to the side & is thus more inclined to bump his back bag & without correction, this results in a crossfire.

As Geoff said, with his system, those crossfires are not identified but two other systems, which don't use the muzzle mike do register crossfires in the same manner that would occur on paper targets. In most instances, which belongs to the shooter will be identified up by the scorer according to when the shot arrived relative to him firing, but there will be instances when shots arrive too quickly for that judgement to be made & domestic rules will be needed to sort that our.

But there are exceptions & conundrums. Both times I presided over Aussie State championships, targets that were in the air as hot standbys caught friendly fire & with no scorer monitoring them, it can take a little time to find that out - as late as the end of the match. Likewise, scorers tend to lose interest in their equipment once a shooter has finished his string, so donations from other targets made after that time are easily overlooked.

For this reason, I'm not crazy about any type of delay. The shooter & everybody else involved knows on a paper target that you likely have a hit from the moment the target is pulled. It would be a bugger not to have similar information with similar dispatch on ETs.And unless advice of a hit is transmitted over a speaker, then it would require that the screen be refreshed twice for a single shot, once to post some sort of "Hit Recorded" and a second time to carry out the proper update. Hmmm!

hmm - sounds like uncertainty with the technology driving outcomes/rules - wouldn't the scorer still have recorded a miss so the net outcome as to whether the shot ended up on an unmonitered target is moot, they missed the target. I just came from a multiday shoot where it was so windy that pasters were being blown off, the targets (manual) were regularly coming up with multiple spotters and there were many legitimate misses because of the wind (watched one relay - 18 targets 3 misses down the line), and many calls for service as the markers couldn't tell shots had come through with the frames shaking so much, a helluva situation, ICFRA protocols were followed and all shooters were happy.
I really can't see how a delay changes anything much to the scored outcome.
It seems to me that most of the arguments for not having a delay are because of perceived limitations with the technology.
 
hmm - sounds like uncertainty with the technology driving outcomes/rules - wouldn't the scorer still have recorded a miss so the net outcome as to whether the shot ended up on an unmonitered target is moot, they missed the target. I just came from a multiday shoot where it was so windy that pasters were being blown off, the targets (manual) were regularly coming up with multiple spotters and there were many legitimate misses because of the wind (watched one relay - 18 targets 3 misses down the line), and many calls for service as the markers couldn't tell shots had come through with the frames shaking so much, a helluva situation, ICFRA protocols were followed and all shooters were happy.
I really can't see how a delay changes anything much to the scored outcome.
It seems to me that most of the arguments for not having a delay are because of perceived limitations with the technology.

Probably limitations with just one, two, maybe three examples of the technology. Not all.
 
Yes. But the probability of an overtake down range with a shot that is deemed to be a crossfire is pretty low.

Unless a collision occurs at the target, both will be detected and measured - but the second will be flagged as "unsolicited" as for that target, there's only one muzzle blast event registered but two impacts.

In such a situation, if someone queries a crossfire result, there is a lot of logged data available to study to work out which shot belonged to which shooter.

High resolution logged event data is crucial to post event analysis. Without it we forever sit and wonder what might have been instead...
You are right if both shooters are using the same or similar loads. Put TR, FCS(308,223) FO ( heavy slower /Light faster) on the same mound together what then. There is about 700fps difference at my home range that I know about and I don't know what the 6mms are doing, more again I would think.
3081FTR it is the creation of a problem that is brought about by some who think they are losing an advantage to others who can decide, then execute faster than them. It is a personal decision on how fast you shoot even on manuals.
 
hmm - sounds like uncertainty with the technology driving outcomes/rules
Hey, I was only commenting on the claim that not carrying empties onto the firing point might assist if contention arose - and that circumstance apples to both ETs & paper targets. I've presided over shoots on paper targets for getting on for 30 years now and while it's not commonplace for shooters to claim not to have fired a shot, it was certainly a regular enough occurrence for it to be unsurprising.

Cheating in this manner can't occur without the cooperation or lack of application of the scorer to his duties. If he ignores or can't be bothered calling each shot as it is fired & likewise the score when semaphored (in Australia anyway), then he isn't doing his job, be the target paper or electronic.
 
You are right if both shooters are using the same or similar loads. Put TR, FCS(308,223) FO ( heavy slower /Light faster) on the same mound together what then. There is about 700fps difference at my home range that I know about and I don't know what the 6mms are doing, more again I would think.
3081FTR it is the creation of a problem that is brought about by some who think they are losing an advantage to others who can decide, then execute faster than them. It is a personal decision on how fast you shoot even on manuals.

It is not the MV that matters in this but the time of flight. A bullet might start out faster but due to its drag (BC) might decelerate faster than the slower bullet. And be slower when passing through the target.

I measure times of flight, as I have said. You would be amazed at how they differ between shooters/rifles/calibres/whathaveyou at the same ranges!

However, generally, the variation in TOF (SD if you like) in most loads is low. A good hand loader can achieve an SD of 4 or 5 mSecs over 600Y. Most variations outside of this are either a fault in the ammo (like a split neck that we know can lose you 60 mSecs over 500Y - generally resulting in a low shot that the shooter generally disbelieves!) or measurement "glitch". So if we want to, we can actually determine whether or not a bullet overtook another down range. The more shots fired in the string the better as we then get a better idea of how fast that batch are flying. Because we also know the time of discharge to within 1 mSec. I don't recall ever being asked to do this - no-one here seems to care!

Overtaking is more likely to occur at longer ranges. At 1000 yards we see times of flight ranging from 1.4 secs to 1.6 secs and sometimes more - a 200+ mSec spread (1/5th sec). At 300 yards measured times of flight vary by perhaps 40 mSecs - often less than 20 mSecs across 20 shooters.

While overtaking certainly can occur, given that crossfires amount to perhaps less than 100th of 1% of shots fired, maybe it's not the issue you think it is in the overall scheme of things. Remember, times of discharge by shooters on a firing line is stochastic, and with TOF variations, so are times of impact. About as random as you can get. If two shooters tried to fire within 20 mSecs of each other (1/50th second) then it's unlikely that they would be able to.

Addressing loads to achieve faster MV, well, to a great extent what matters with an acoustic target is terminal velocity. Not so much as to determine a shot position (a mathematical process) but in general, the greater the terminal velocity (whatever it is) the better the quality of measurement. But not always. We have considerable evidence supporting the view that with an acoustic ET, bullet shape also plays a factor in how accurately the shot position can be determined - using multi-lateration at least. Long sleek bullets measure very well. (There is more to it than that though). Basically, whatever effect velocity has on flight characteristics, velocity alone does not necessarily determine the quality - or accuracy - of the position measurement.

Getting back to topic (delays and I suppose crossfire scenarios) the technology available (if utilised) can go a long way to removing human fallibility in the scoring process. It won't be perfect - what technology ever is? What is the point of embracing electronic target technology if all that is to be done is question its limitations compared to the manual human system it's being expected to replace? It seems to me that it is pointless considering all the time what and how an electronic target system does things only to harp back to how things have been done in the "good old days" - right back to the Civil War! :-) If you want a manual shooting system then use one. If you want an electronic system, then I suppose you can do well to study what can be done and what's available, and evaluate that. Neither will ever be perfect.
 
Hey, I was only commenting on the claim that not carrying empties onto the firing point might assist if contention arose - and that circumstance apples to both ETs & paper targets. I've presided over shoots on paper targets for getting on for 30 years now and while it's not commonplace for shooters to claim not to have fired a shot, it was certainly a regular enough occurrence for it to be unsurprising.

Cheating in this manner can't occur without the cooperation or lack of application of the scorer to his duties. If he ignores or can't be bothered calling each shot as it is fired & likewise the score when semaphored (in Australia anyway), then he isn't doing his job, be the target paper or electronic.
I don't think we should ever get rid of human scorers behind the shooter. Not allowing empties in the firing point certainly aids in maintaining the integrity of the exercise.

I just think that it is very advantageous if the computer system also knows how many shots have been fired. Just in case the scorer missed one...
 
GeoffR I will leave the tech stuff to you. I don't want a time delay and I want to know who fired each shot so the right score is put were it should be. Any thing else is a red herring. Give me that and if the computer can not split the two shots it indicates so and the shooter gets another shot the cross firer is recorded a miss on his monitor. The sighters could be used as a means to establish shot time /velocity. Cross fires at this time just cancelled and misses recorded for the cross firer.
 
Hey, I was only commenting on the claim that not carrying empties onto the firing point might assist if contention arose - and that circumstance apples to both ETs & paper targets. I've presided over shoots on paper targets for getting on for 30 years now and while it's not commonplace for shooters to claim not to have fired a shot, it was certainly a regular enough occurrence for it to be unsurprising.

Cheating in this manner can't occur without the cooperation or lack of application of the scorer to his duties. If he ignores or can't be bothered calling each shot as it is fired & likewise the score when semaphored (in Australia anyway), then he isn't doing his job, be the target paper or electronic.

Yip - I see it regularly enough, more so in windy conditions, the markers can't easily tell if the shot came through on their target or the one next door so sometimes the wrong target gets pulled, and the shooter has to follow the protocol of advising the scorer/working with the scorer of no shot offered, target up. The trick is when it comes up with a spotter in a new location and no one on the line is advising they have a miss.
Again I just don't see how ETs with a delay affect anything (I shoot on ETs extensively as well as manuals) that is occurring and the real question is where does the sport want to go (earlier posts have have asked the same).

I can't agree with Bindi in that currently time is a significant factor influencing decisions such as when to start and when to stop shooting and therefore the range of conditions you may have to shoot over, this has been an inherent part of the sport and I think it will be a mistake to loose that fundamental aspect.
Maybe at some ranges this isn't the case as the wind typically blows from one direction or is typically benign but a range with fast moving, strong winds, time is a huge factor, you see it now with manual targets.
All up having shot extensively on manual and ETs my scores (as are all others in the club) are up on ETs and my personal experience is that the job is easier on no delay ETs.
While all would be on the same playing field with no delay my experience to date is I don't think it will be in the best interests of the sport longer term and so far I have only seen technical impediments raised as reasons not to implement a delay.

@GeoffR - yes, understand that not all ETs are equal.
 
The OP was, I think asking about the USA NRA rules which I referred him to. Around the world there are 3 different styles of shooting, USA string, the Australian string/squad and the English or Bisley (2 or 3 to a target) style. In all three styles with manually pulled targets there is an inherent delay. It is unavoidable. I therefore believe we must have a delay to retain the spirit of this style of shooting, but more so (at least in the USA) to equalize the ability to set records. Without the delay built in it would only be fair to have separate records for ET’s and manually pulled targets.

What the time should be is open for discussion but am a fairly fast shooter and am usually reloaded and looking through my scope waiting for the target to come up and the round is usually gone in 1-2 seconds if the last shot is in the 10/X ring. I am happy with 7 seconds. The only time I was rushed by a puller was when dearly departed friend, Jerry Tierney bet me he could pull & mark faster than I could shoot. He won the bet and I won the match. Good pulling/marking means a lot.

Therefore I firmly believe we need, at least in the USA, a time delay during registered matches UNTIL the last manual target system is retired from match use.
 
The OP was, I think asking about the USA NRA rules which I referred him to. Around the world there are 3 different styles of shooting, USA string, the Australian string/squad and the English or Bisley (2 or 3 to a target) style. In all three styles with manually pulled targets there is an inherent delay. It is unavoidable. I therefore believe we must have a delay to retain the spirit of this style of shooting, but more so (at least in the USA) to equalize the ability to set records. Without the delay built in it would only be fair to have separate records for ET’s and manually pulled targets.

What the time should be is open for discussion but am a fairly fast shooter and am usually reloaded and looking through my scope waiting for the target to come up and the round is usually gone in 1-2 seconds if the last shot is in the 10/X ring. I am happy with 7 seconds. The only time I was rushed by a puller was when dearly departed friend, Jerry Tierney bet me he could pull & mark faster than I could shoot. He won the bet and I won the match. Good pulling/marking means a lot.

Therefore I firmly believe we need, at least in the USA, a time delay during registered matches UNTIL the last manual target system is retired from match use.

In Phoenix and Raton I have had the option to shoot at a blazing fast speed because A the puller was on the ball and B I had looked at the conditions and liked what I saw. Yes I was done in around the 7 minute time frame but I took the time I THOUGHT necessary to make My decision and fire the shot. This was my decision to shoot at this speed. I didn't have to wait unless i chose to. I think a mandatory wait period of anything above 5-7 second is changing the style of shooting that is out there right now. Just my two cents.
James Crofts
Fast Shooter
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,796
Messages
2,203,612
Members
79,130
Latest member
Jsawyer09
Back
Top