Accuracy of electronic targets

[SWRichmond]

FWIW... I do think e-targets are the way to go... I'm just not convinced that its a good idea to try and force them thru on a short notice to run a national championship in less than one years time i.e. 2016 FCNC @ Lodi, WI just to make it so a range that can't fit 50 firing points can still *maybe* run enough shooters thru. For a small local club like the one I'm at, where we're faced with either rebuilding targets and the berm sometime in the next 5-10yrs, or start incorporating e-targets for our club/Approved matches, is one thing. Before we start hanging the fate of national championships on e-targets, I'd like to see them a bit more pervasive and used at medium to large state/regional events *first*.

Emphasis added above. This is my main concern. I would actually love to see these things work, be at least as reliable and accurate as paper targets, and inexpensive enough to be widely adopted. There are so many potential positives. Being in complete control of your time on the line would be completely awesome. Training on one of these would be remarkable.

I work in IT, and my long history of working with this stuff makes me more than a bit leery. If I seem like I'm digging my heels in, that's probably why. It would just suck to have a large match screwed up by tech. And make no mistake, this is a software product.

Whoever is doing this needs to really think it through. I want to see it work.

 

[chkunz]

I challenged the score knowing I fired 10 good shots. Never crossed my mind I might have lost a bullet on its way to the target. Figured the puller missed a double. Only after the match was completed I was told I had only 9 impacts by the target puller.

OH Well

By the rules you should have been given a refire. The rules do not have anything to do with observed impacts or suspected bullets blowing up. That may have happened but by the rules you should have been given the option of a refire.

 

[memilanuk]

It would just suck to have a large match screwed up by tech. And make no mistake, this is a software product.

Which brings to mind another point that will probably be controversial... security.

Is the data being transmitted in the clear? What kind of authentication is being used?

I'm sure the argument could be made that an unscrupulous target puller could have a dramatic effect on scores. I recall in 2009 being told that the national teams couldn't move their gear up to the ready area even, until the pullers were already in the pits and (theoretically) couldn't know which team they were pulling for.

This particular venue doesn't have a lot of cash money riding on championship events, but there is a lot of pride/prestige/sponsorship involved. I don't know what, if any, security is implemented... but short of the hard-wired systems I'm guessing the answer is 'none'. Does anybody know otherwise?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

FWIW... I do think e-targets are the way to go... I'm just not convinced that its a good idea to try and force them thru on a short notice to run a national championship in less than one years time i.e. 2016 FCNC @ Lodi, WI just to make it so a range that can't fit 50 firing points can still *maybe* run enough shooters thru. For a small local club like the one I'm at, where we're faced with either rebuilding targets and the berm sometime in the next 5-10yrs, or start incorporating e-targets for our club/Approved matches, is one thing. Before we start hanging the fate of national championships on e-targets, I'd like to see them a bit more pervasive and used at medium to large state/regional events *first*.

Emphasis added above. This is my main concern. I would actually love to see these things work, be at least as reliable and accurate as paper targets, and inexpensive enough to be widely adopted. There are so many potential positives. Being in complete control of your time on the line would be completely awesome. Training on one of these would be remarkable.

I work in IT, and my long history of working with this stuff makes me more than a bit leery. If I seem like I'm digging my heels in, that's probably why. It would just suck to have a large match screwed up by tech. And make no mistake, this is a software product.

Whoever is doing this needs to really think it through. I want to see it work.

I agree. As an engineer, I've seen the rush to adopt new technologies before the software is mature bite early adopters too many times. These kinds of systems tend to be sold on their features rather than on validated accuracy and reliability in the same environments where they need to be used. These kinds of systems also tend to have very high profit margins (and the companies selling them keep it that way.) Consequently, if the price points are attractive, odds are that a lot of corners were cut in choosing the hardware components, so the hardware won't be anywhere as reliable as the olympic systems.

I think shooters need to ask lots of questions and express lots of doubt to encouage the bugs to get worked out before widespread adoption. I'd love to shoot a match or two on an electronic target with a new paper target in place to compare the results. For me personally, a point or two discrepancy would not be a big deal, but most shooters take it more seriously than I do. I know a lot of shooters who would hate to lose a match (or miss a classification) due to an electronic glitch. With all the effort to prepare for and travel to matches, it seems silly to trust the outcome to a software system that has not really been tested thoroughly.

 

[Jetjock1]

I went to a match using targets. The first match was fired and then the paper centers were brought back to the firing line for comparison. There was not one discrepancy between the paper and etarget scores.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I went to a match using targets. The first match was fired and then the paper centers were brought back to the firing line for comparison. There was not one discrepancy between the paper and etarget scores.

Reports of no discrepancies should include hard numbers for the number of correct scorings in cases where shots barely hit or barely missed scoring rings. The attachment shows that some targets are much easier to score than others, yet most of us have days where outcomes are determined by shots that barely hit the scoring ring (like the shot at 9:00) more often than days where the center of the target is shot out (like the inset).

In the electronic dog and pony shows, a lot of care is taken to show the systems in the best light. I'd be more interested in hard numbers from validation experiments where a large number of test cases are used, there is a significant sample size (> 100) of bullets within 0.05" of a scoring ring, there is a significant sample size of transonic (< 1200 fps) and subsonic bullets, and there are enough cases of clean misses, cross fires, harsh conditions, and heavy volumes of fire to represent more realistic indications of how these systems will perform.

 

[r bose]

I went to a match using targets. The first match was fired and then the paper centers were brought back to the firing line for comparison. There was not one discrepancy between the paper and etarget scores.

Reports of no discrepancies should include hard numbers for the number of correct scorings in cases where shots barely hit or barely missed scoring rings. The attachment shows that some targets are much easier to score than others, yet most of us have days where outcomes are determined by shots that barely hit the scoring ring (like the shot at 9:00) more often than days where the center of the target is shot out (like the inset).

In the electronic dog and pony shows, a lot of care is taken to show the systems in the best light. I'd be more interested in hard numbers from validation experiments where a large number of test cases are used, there is a significant sample size (> 100) of bullets within 0.05" of a scoring ring, there is a significant sample size of transonic (< 1200 fps) and subsonic bullets, and there are enough cases of clean misses, cross fires, harsh conditions, and heavy volumes of fire to represent more realistic indications of how these systems will perform.

I had heard (was not there) that at the First EIC pistol match held at the CMP Talladega range their were some 45 ACP shooters questioning the e-scoring system where, just as you pointed out above, the big 45 cal bullet was touching the next higher scoring ring but the computer was giving them the lower score because the CENTER of the bullet passed thru the lower scoring ring.

I believe for the e-targets to be perfectly accurate, you'll have to program in the caliber of the projectile you're shooting.

 

[dbramley]

How are NRA records going to be handled? I am sure many records were shot and I know some missed by less than a 1/4 inch at the 1000 yard line.

 

[Bindi2]

I have been shooting on e targets for 4 years. this also includes 3 State champs. All the anti arguments are the same when a new venue goes e-t. The e-t systems work, and work well. No E-T range has been returned to manual targets. The only critical factor is target maintenance. There are factors that can only be learnt by using them or listening to what others who maintain them say which I do both. Do I shoot on manual targets yes, do I think they are as good as E-Ts NO. I have shot and pulled targets since the early sixties. Waiting for a better cheaper system is a wash out. Well maintained targets do work @ 1000yds with 223 firing 80gn pills.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

The only critical factor is target maintenance...

Well maintained targets do work @ 1000yds with 223 firing 80gn pills.

I regularly attend matches at clubs that still haven't published their match bulletins for 2015 (using 2014 info) and are many months behind getting the results of approved and registered matches to NRA (or other overseeing organization). Some things are well-organized and maintained, but some things are not. At some clubs, the more technological things are less likely to be well maintained. So I gotta wonder how well targets and systems work when they are not well maintained.

Well maintained targets do work @ 1000yds with 223 firing 80gn pills.

What about 200 yard rimfire? What about the black powder rifle matches held on the high power range out to 600 yards? One of the maintenance challenges is that a diverse group of matches is held at the high power range of many gun clubs. Maintaining an electronic target system well requires a small group of people willing to focus on that task. Getting the various constituencies working together at most gun clubs is like herding cats. In the past couple of years, I've seen significant falling out between XTC and mid-range/long rage guys regarding calendars, scheduling, and sharing stuff much simpler than electronic targets with high maintenance requirements. Getting the XTC, mid-range/long range, 200 yard rimfire and black powder guys all working together operating and maintaining an electronic scoring system is a management challenge beyond the abilities of many gun clubs.

The other thing I've seen is much higher match entry fees at the clubs with the electronic systems. This has the predictable effect of reducing participation numbers, so the matches may not be making enough money to cover the costs in these cases. Now, there are matches with very strong attendance, where this will not be an issue, but there are also matches where monthly attendance is dropping even with a $25 entry fee. I'd rather attend a well-attended match with a $25 fee and paper targets than a match that is electronically scored but costs over $50 and consequently is combining most of the classifications and still not recognizing the 2nd place.

 

[Bindi2]

We only use CF 223 up to 8mm.
You will have to try any thing else before you buy.
We have dedicated busy bees for range maintenance and named groundsmen for ongoing running operations/ break downs.
People who just walk in pay shoot and leave without helping setup/pack up soon don't come back or pitch in.
Our frames work with paper or electronic targets. Some ranges have both in the air at the same time for different matches being shot at the same time at the same distance.
Electronic targets quickly show who are the better condition readers and who are target watchers. Personally I don't think your monitor should show any other target. ETs do show that normal range flags are not as good as personal vanes for conditional changes within the range. I say this because not all our ranges are flat or open. ETs allow the shooter to run or hold or a better way to say would be manage their mound time better or as they like within the time rule.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I guess my main point was that if maintenance is important for proper system operation, a shooter traveling some distance to participate at a match has no way of knowing whether the electronic system being used will be accurate, because he has no way of knowing how good the range hosting the match has been about maintaining the system. Video cameras are getting really cost effective. I wonder how far away a reasonably priced system that can also take a picture of a paper target after every shot is fired. Sure there is more work putting up a paper target before each shot string, but this would provide a means of challenging a score if one thinks the electronic system has made an error. One BIG problem in using the current systems in competition is that there is no way to challenge a perceived scoring error. Once the system decides a shot was read or not read or a 8, 9, 10, X or miss, there is no double check. And one missed score over 60-120 shots can mean the difference between first place.

Talladega has a new CMP range with one of the electronic scoring systems and being that the system is in use 5 days every week, I would suppose the system is likely maintained fairly well. Any idea if they are planning any F-Class matches in 2016? That would be a good chance to evaluate the potential of a well-maintained system. But I've seen lots of ranges where the existing infrastructure is just not well maintained, and things that are electronic just don't get cared for. I don't think many folks are eager to trust all the expense and efforts in preparing for a match to a high maintenance electronic system unless there is a strong case the system is getting the required attention.

 

[BradY]

As mentioned, ET's can be great. They reduce the amount of time taken to complete a shoot- which means you can add extra matches/ranges in! I have tested brand new targets vs old ones that have seen in excess of 4000 rounds through them at club shoots and yes there is still potential for good accuracy under the right conditions- Im talking within 5mm of actual shot location.

However, if they are not maintained or managed correctly for sanctioned matches or major championship shoots, then there is a risk of problems. One thing I see as a potential problem is over a large event for a week or so, each target may see 500+ shots through it a day. At that rate, I have doubts accuracy can be maintained over the whole event without repairing the layers and sound chamber and removing debris from inside them. Targets should be managed accordingly with either spare targets or a day or maintenance in the middle I feel. Ive also seen too many times that targets with lots of shots through them can fail if there are strong head or tail winds blowing through them. As soon as the wind changes back to a cross wind, they work brilliantly. And also in head wind or tail wind conditions the smaller calibers do not seem to pick up as reliably as larger calibers on targets that have lots of shots through them. My tests show a fairly significant difference between a 223 with 80gr bullets and a 243AI and 105gr bullets at 900 meters in a tail wind. 6.5, 7mm and 30 cal bullets werent tested by me but I would make the assumption that they are better choices at long range in rough conditions.

I totally agree with the positives as Bindi says. The busy bee days and packing up and setting up the ET's educates shooters about the targets and their habits, and also helps maintain a good club morale. If the ET's are set up, maintained and used correctly then you will have a very good experience with them. Just dont let them get to the point where many people are having poor experiences often, and dont come back. I would try to advise clubs of getting specialist people or teams to do all the work. At matches they are often required to drop all their shooting and focus on targets which isnt always fair. Ive seen alot of pressure put on those people when target systems are having problems and have seen one walk out the front gate and not come back after being given an earful after trying their best to rectify a problem. Every person in that club should have some exposure to them and how they operate, and the target manufacturers should be available to sort technical problems if they occur. If its a major shoot then contingencies like spare targets should be available, or if one stops working that list of shooters need to be divided up onto other known good targets which is what we do. The last thing needed is for some education for range officers in determining when targets have shots that should be considered as errors. I have seen people hammering an X ring to get a 10 oclock 2 (icfra target) and be told that their loading for that bullet was wrong or they didnt see a condition change. Also heard of the same scenario and the RO said no the shot must stand so the shooter took another shot and an error message came up! That goes back to target maintenance but the RO's need to be aware of it and make a consistent ruling across the firing line regarding these.

Every person has a different opinion regarding ET's. Some still love doing manual targets and dont mind marking. This needs to be kept up as some newer shooters often are not able to mark and score correctly when having to pull targets. Pulling manual targets is always going to be the cheaper option though and its a fair point to bring up regarding the ever increasing cost of our sport. After being on the pro ET side for so long, I still think they are the option for the future provided they are continually improved and are always in good condition. But its really good fun shooting on manual targets once in a while.

 

[aussiepowderburner]

I call BS on e target reliability at 1000 yards with .223 x 80 gr.
That is why I initially said my test for target accuracy would be a minimum of 50 rounds but 100 better of 223 at 1000 yards.
Compare actual placement on new target face against e target position given?
When you have 100 % proven results at this test then you have an acceptable system.
APB
BTW if you have a system which cannot read better than 1/4 inch at a given distance then it is possible to modify the reporting software to show the higher value if within that 1/4 inch of a scoring line. Thus giving the shooter the benefit of doubt.

 

[Cyclops]

I'm relatively new to the F-Class shooting world with my son shooting F-TR for just over 1 year. He's been shooting a Savage .223 from 300 to 1000 yards mostly on Silver Mountain E-Targets.

My observations are based my watching and scoring his shooting.

For the .223 shooter an E-Target is much better.

The average manual marker struggles to observe and mark a .233 shot especially at longer ranges. Frequent challenges and rechecks are required to get the .223 scored correctly especially if a .308 is being fired at the targets on either side. One can struggle to fire one's shots within the time limit due to time taken to get the target marked properly.

The E-Target doesn't know or care about the shooter's calibre. It registers the shot if it hears it, quickly and accurately (with exceptions below). There are no challenges or remarking. If the calibration for the E-Target is off then it is a constant error for all shooters - at the end of the day scoring is relative.

Two issue with SM Targets are "phantom" shots and missed shots.
A missed shot seems to occur when bullets arrive at neighbouring targets simultaneously overwhelming both sets of sensors. Both targets don't show a hit. Local practice is to allow each shooter an extra shot. Scorers know to look out for this.
A phantom shoot is a shot that registers without a shot being fired. These are usually identified by a velocity about 2x the usual velocity at target. This allows these to be identified and ignored.

Shooters need to be disciplined in their shooting to watch the sight picture and not turn too quickly to the monitor. That's up to each shooter and how they choose to shot.

Given the choice I'd choose E-Targets over manually marked.

 

[Bindi2]

APB you can call BS it is your right to. I wouldn't use a 223 at that range myself but have scored for those that do with there scores being competitive when the conditions are favourable.
BY 1983 raises some good points. The worst wind that affects our range are the side quarter from the rear if the target is starting to need repairs. There are tricks to improve the total number of shots per target. Palma match only the count is very high compared to F class which may be down to 1,000 before a minor repair to the original target is required which can then give another 1,000/1500 before further work is required. Our rebuilt targets are running 2500 between rebuilds unless a major comp is coming up in which case they are redone. We have had total shut down when the sun has access to the control box on the target frame. A piece of insulation covering the box fixed that. A shade for the range monitor ie a piece of shade cloth will suffice.
There are more problems with inattentive scorers and uneducated ROs in use of ETs.
ETs are real time scoring to conditions which paper is not.
Scored for a 60.10, ten shots only in just over 60seconds. You have to on your toes for cross fires at that speed.

 

[r bose]

Someone above made a very good point about the match fees. I was looking on the net for a place to go shooting. The Talladega CMP Marksmanship Park is having a multi day event in December. An M1 Garand match, shooting 35 shots at 200 yards, is 50 Dollars. WOW.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Someone above made a very good point about the match fees. I was looking on the net for a place to go shooting. The Talladega CMP Marksmanship Park is having a multi day event in December. An M1 Garand match, shooting 35 shots at 200 yards, is 50 Dollars. WOW.

My doubts remain about the suitability of electronic targets for precision shooting a mid and long range, but the CMP Marksmanship Park at Talladega (and similar facilities, if there are any) seem just about ideal for mid-range practice. $20 for half a day and $35 for all day seem like a pretty good deal for electronic scoring, no pit duty, and the amount of practice likely under the circumstances. 1/2 price for juniors.

 

[SDDasher]

Comparatively, when you add up what we spend ( I refuse to do that here for fear my wife might read it) just to get to the firing line even on a budget, the price of the ticket seems pretty reasonable in most cases. I just paid $100 for a five relay match using conventional targets over two days. This is an out-of-town match adding food and lodging to the bottom line. The prize for winning is a nice plaque.
I don't think too many of us are in the game for the money or prizes won at the end of the day. To me, it is the test of my skills vs those of my fellow shooters on a given day. If e-targets make that more enjoyable then quibbling over cost of the match or nano accuracy of the system is mute to me personally as long as it is applicable to all. JMTCW.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Comparatively, when you add up what we spend ( I refuse to do that here for fear my wife might read it) just to get to the firing line even on a budget, the price of the ticket seems pretty reasonable in most cases. I just paid $100 for a five relay match using conventional targets over two days. This is an out-of-town match adding food and lodging to the bottom line. The prize for winning is a nice plaque.
I don't think too many of us are in the game for the money or prizes won at the end of the day. To me, it is the test of my skills vs those of my fellow shooters on a given day. If e-targets make that more enjoyable then quibbling over cost of the match or nano accuracy of the system is mute to me personally as long as it is applicable to all. JMTCW.

I agree, and I don't have a problem paying the extra to avoid pit duty. But a lot of matches I attend are borderline on having enough participants to award 2nd place or to separate F-Open from F-TR. I really prefer F-Open and F-TR not to be grouped. Doubling the entry fees at poorly attended matches is likely to reduce attendence even more.

It is also not a consideration for me, but several places I attend regularly have legitimate contenders for national records. I can easily see how an accuracy of 0.25", a missed shot, or the diameter of the bullet could cause a shooter to miss a national record. I would love to see one of these shooters/teams accomplish a national record, and it would be frustrating to see/hear of electronic scoring messing that up.