I shot in the Silver Mountain test at Lodi. I had a lot of questions ahead of time. The concern of targets being lined up with the sensors was one of them. It was explained that exact elignment wasn't a concern, because the target that we're seeing down range is only an aiming point. Even if it's a half inch off, you adjust to what the monitor tells you during sighters. If your bottom of ten ring according to the monitor, then your going to adjust up accordingly. Your hold offs by scoring rings will be the same way. If you have a left to right wind, and you hold 3 rings left. The monitor tells you it's a center X. Your going to continue shooting by what the monitor tells you. That's what's important. Another feature that I liked was the velocity readings at the target. They might not be exact, but here is what happened to me. I was hitting high X ring, then shot a 12 o'clock 9 just barely out. On paper targets you question yourself was it me, or a condition change that through the shot higher? I looked at the monitor list of velocities. Sure enough, that shot had a higher at target velocity than all the prior shots. I know right away that it wasn't me that caused it.
Accuracy of electronic targets
- Thread starter Bryan Litz Ballistics
- Start date
Appreciate Bryans post is about accuracy of ETs.
Device used to look at eTarget can be an issue...I rocked up with my iPad as I like a large a screen but suddenly the safari browser would no longer stay connected - had to drop down to a kindle, the small screen is hard to use...that took a lot of adjustment which was all she wrote as I was having to think about the wrong thing, having to look at something close and then something far didn't help either..also a lot of talk with respect to the speed of shooting that e-Targets allows as well.
I love load dev on ETs.
ETs will be fait accompli I just hope the adoption is well thought through...it is frustrating to walk away from a match knowing you could do better but a stupid browser issue changed the game....maybe its just what we are used to as to where the game changers will come in.
Device used to look at eTarget can be an issue...I rocked up with my iPad as I like a large a screen but suddenly the safari browser would no longer stay connected - had to drop down to a kindle, the small screen is hard to use...that took a lot of adjustment which was all she wrote as I was having to think about the wrong thing, having to look at something close and then something far didn't help either..also a lot of talk with respect to the speed of shooting that e-Targets allows as well.
I love load dev on ETs.
ETs will be fait accompli I just hope the adoption is well thought through...it is frustrating to walk away from a match knowing you could do better but a stupid browser issue changed the game....maybe its just what we are used to as to where the game changers will come in.
I shot recently at 1000 using electronic targets and I loved it. The target monitor position was easy to adjust and great to relay my progress within a second or 2 of the shot.
All competitors had to sight in and adjust using fluro paint on dirt marker on the backstop which lets you adjust your scope before a short practice detail. No stress with waiting or seeing shot results and group size/scores are automatically done. Maybe not purist, but I think it is good for the sport.
All competitors had to sight in and adjust using fluro paint on dirt marker on the backstop which lets you adjust your scope before a short practice detail. No stress with waiting or seeing shot results and group size/scores are automatically done. Maybe not purist, but I think it is good for the sport.
I have not had the opportunity to shoot on the things yet. But, from what I gather about the e-target is that I WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SEE THE SHOT MARKER OF THE PREVIOUS SHOT RIGHT THERE IN MY RIFLESCOPE...BUT ONLY BY GLANCING SIDEWAYS TO VIEW IT ON THE E-TARGET MONITOR. I consider this a disadvantage from our current paper target system where I can concurrently easily/timely gauge an aim point when using a "chase the spotter" technique :-[ :-\, if I should choose to use that technique, in contemplating an aim point for a follow-on shot.
Danny Biggs
Danny Biggs
Weekly I review, test and play a role in acceptance or rejection of many types of technology. Not all new stuff makes the cut. Software and device companies fail every day because their new idea wasn't quite heavy enough on the advantage side to offset the pain of change. I can assure everyone that this will be the same. Debates are good but at the end of the day if the pros outweigh the cons (mostly determined by actual usage) Danny and I will be shooting on electronic targets very soon. I'm sort of set on seeing my last shot in the scope too. Heck, I hate those 1.5 inch orange things, I can't see em at all. I do know from experience however that I can get used to just about anything - except socialists or a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
While more than a little off-topic, I have a couple of concerns about using E-targets:
First is the rate of fire issue. With F-Open especially, it will be far too tempting to rattle 22 down to the target as fast as one can pull the trigger. I don't think that would make the game as much fun.
My second concern is probably a bit more academic. If we get to rattling rounds down range, there is a higher chance of exceeding the capability of the system and having it "miss" shots fired. Are we going to get into that whole alibi thing?
I see a simple solution to both concerns. Have the system delay showing results for 5-10 seconds after impact. That should be long enough to eliminate the machine-gunning concerns.
First is the rate of fire issue. With F-Open especially, it will be far too tempting to rattle 22 down to the target as fast as one can pull the trigger. I don't think that would make the game as much fun.
My second concern is probably a bit more academic. If we get to rattling rounds down range, there is a higher chance of exceeding the capability of the system and having it "miss" shots fired. Are we going to get into that whole alibi thing?
I see a simple solution to both concerns. Have the system delay showing results for 5-10 seconds after impact. That should be long enough to eliminate the machine-gunning concerns.
Having shot on E targets I have several concerns.
1. If the very center of the bullet is plotted for score, the computer must calculate for caliber being used and the shooter should be allowed to program the caliber they are shooting.
2. Shots fired that do not reach the target. Errant shots that fall high, low or between the target frames, bullets that blow up before impact, crossfires, etc. Without a pit puller or scorer how are these shots accounted for?
3. Many Fclass shooters use the "hold over" technique, not adjusting windage on the scope. Targets without rings would make this very difficult.
1. If the very center of the bullet is plotted for score, the computer must calculate for caliber being used and the shooter should be allowed to program the caliber they are shooting.
2. Shots fired that do not reach the target. Errant shots that fall high, low or between the target frames, bullets that blow up before impact, crossfires, etc. Without a pit puller or scorer how are these shots accounted for?
3. Many Fclass shooters use the "hold over" technique, not adjusting windage on the scope. Targets without rings would make this very difficult.
Silver Mountain's E-target used standard NRA Lr paper targets for sling and F-class centers for there aiming black,all rings included.Now some of the F-class guys said they would have definately liked a shot spotter in the center X ,for me shooting sling it wouldn't matter.
Their system would also let you know if your shot went high,low,or between the targets as long as it made it past the censors.Saved time and sighters for those without a hard zero.
I will also say there were shots that didn't register.I had one during sighters no big deal with unlimited but at mid range with only 2 not good.The other came when I was scoreing a guy shooting F-open .The match director came over looked at his previous shots almost all 10's and said not to count it as a miss .The shooter was given the benefit of the doubt.
Hope that helps
John
Their system would also let you know if your shot went high,low,or between the targets as long as it made it past the censors.Saved time and sighters for those without a hard zero.
I will also say there were shots that didn't register.I had one during sighters no big deal with unlimited but at mid range with only 2 not good.The other came when I was scoreing a guy shooting F-open .The match director came over looked at his previous shots almost all 10's and said not to count it as a miss .The shooter was given the benefit of the doubt.
Hope that helps
John
Mr Jim,suberjc said:
The first time you don't have to go to the pits you will be sold on the new system. I too am "old school" cutting my teeth on highpower shooting across the course back in the day. Many enjoyable trips to Camp Perry to pay tribute to those that shot before me. As we all know, age has it's way of humbling the strongest among us and I eventually evolved to F Class competition which I enjoy immensely.
This last year I have had the chance to shoot on the Silver Mountain target system at Blakely, Ga for both mid and long range. I admit after the first relay I was not convinced I would like the new system as my score was less than stellar. I knew I was rushing for no reason as I had plenty of time left when I finished the first relay. On the second and third relays I slowed to my usual pace and the scores returned to normal. When completed (four person relays) it was all of 10:00am. We had started at 8:30am. I am completely sold on shooting the electronic targets.
I know there will be distractors as with anything new, but just give it a try and see the ease of using technology to make a fun sport even more enjoyable.
I have shot on various e targets over last 3 years.
There have been many issues regarding accuracy, timely reporting and at worst "misses" recorded.
I have not shot over Silver Mountain.
The only accurate system I have witnessed has 8 sensors.
Maintenence of targets is critical.
Shoot 300 yards over e targets and errors will appear at longer ranges due to centres being shot out.
Faces still need to be replaced. To maintain visibility of scoring rings.
As the distance increases and impact velocity is lower e target reporting accuracy degrades.
Even if accurate
1. Ability to measure with reticle wind / elevation corrections is lost.
2. Main difference is that down range wind flag focus is lost as once shot is fired one turns to the monitor!
3. Viewing other targets already mentioned - I watch at least 5 targets at times.
The best test for reporting accuracy is to fire 50 rounds of .223 with an accurate rifle and verified zero at 1000 yards. This is a valid caliber for F Class and any competition has the responsibility to provide accurate reporting of shot placement.
Review actual shot impact on fresh target face against e target reporting.
This will be an enlightening test!
My personal opinion is that e targets are great for club days.
We shoot major matches in Australia with paid markers - and they are most usually congratulated on speed and accuracy!
Similar speed to current US system of shooter markers.
Shooters mark as they would hope markers / scorers will do same for them when situation reversed?
Shane Green
There have been many issues regarding accuracy, timely reporting and at worst "misses" recorded.
I have not shot over Silver Mountain.
The only accurate system I have witnessed has 8 sensors.
Maintenence of targets is critical.
Shoot 300 yards over e targets and errors will appear at longer ranges due to centres being shot out.
Faces still need to be replaced. To maintain visibility of scoring rings.
As the distance increases and impact velocity is lower e target reporting accuracy degrades.
Even if accurate
1. Ability to measure with reticle wind / elevation corrections is lost.
2. Main difference is that down range wind flag focus is lost as once shot is fired one turns to the monitor!
3. Viewing other targets already mentioned - I watch at least 5 targets at times.
The best test for reporting accuracy is to fire 50 rounds of .223 with an accurate rifle and verified zero at 1000 yards. This is a valid caliber for F Class and any competition has the responsibility to provide accurate reporting of shot placement.
Review actual shot impact on fresh target face against e target reporting.
This will be an enlightening test!
My personal opinion is that e targets are great for club days.
We shoot major matches in Australia with paid markers - and they are most usually congratulated on speed and accuracy!
Similar speed to current US system of shooter markers.
Shooters mark as they would hope markers / scorers will do same for them when situation reversed?
Shane Green
I've guess I've scored and/or marked too many targets with multiple hits barely touching/missing the X ring or the 10 ring to think that 1/4" accuracy isn't going to cause significant scoring errors for the better shooters.
I've also seen too many cross fires, exploding bullets, and clean misses to trust a system that is not rock solid with respect to these issues.
"Average" accuracy is irrelevant, when it is "worst case" accuracy that will ruin a match or screw up a personal best or national record. I also agree with earlier posters who point out the propensity for the electronic scoring systems to be less accurate with bullets close to the speed of sound. As long as the rules permit subsonic holes to be scored, the electronic targets are not doing their job if they only register supersonic bullets. A bullet that goes subsonic needs to register and be accurately scored rather than either being mis-scored or allowing a shooter to fire again because it fails to register at all.
I've also seen too many cross fires, exploding bullets, and clean misses to trust a system that is not rock solid with respect to these issues.
"Average" accuracy is irrelevant, when it is "worst case" accuracy that will ruin a match or screw up a personal best or national record. I also agree with earlier posters who point out the propensity for the electronic scoring systems to be less accurate with bullets close to the speed of sound. As long as the rules permit subsonic holes to be scored, the electronic targets are not doing their job if they only register supersonic bullets. A bullet that goes subsonic needs to register and be accurately scored rather than either being mis-scored or allowing a shooter to fire again because it fails to register at all.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
The concerns above about subsonic impacts, etc. got me to thinking. With the extensive number of people with talents in all forms of technology, why can't we brainstorm how to make an electronic target that does work?
FWIW, I first saw electronic targets at Wolf Creek Shooting Complex. That was during the trials for the 1996 Olympic games. The rapid-fire pistol shooters were shooting on them with subsonic 22 caliber rimfire pistols. They seemed, if memory serves, to register those shots just fine, but I do clearly remember seeing the rubber band stretch during impact.
FWIW, I first saw electronic targets at Wolf Creek Shooting Complex. That was during the trials for the 1996 Olympic games. The rapid-fire pistol shooters were shooting on them with subsonic 22 caliber rimfire pistols. They seemed, if memory serves, to register those shots just fine, but I do clearly remember seeing the rubber band stretch during impact.
memilanuk
Gold $$ Contributor
Keith Glasscock said:
Keith,
There are targets that work with subs, its just a matter of price point. The SMT targets are appealing because they would allow ranges to re-use much of their existing infrastructure - no special target, just mount the sensors to existing frames, use existing carriers, etc. Most other designs *do* use echo-chambers (rubber membranes front and back), and handle subsonic impacts just fine. The resulting target frames are significantly bulkier/heavier, and may require some form of additional bracing to hold them in the air if used with existing carriers. Part of the additional cost also stems from that they make the target frames, to make sure they are made to spec, not depending on the vagaries of local 'volunteer' labor. Making/shipping those frames ain't cheap. Other systems (Kongsberg) have hard-wired transmitters and monitors, and require some sort of AC power - whether permanent or via generator. The newer generation equipment (SMT, Hexta, etc.) seems to have the ability to be all battery powered and use any browser capable device as a viewer - which further cuts the costs.
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*.
dannyjbiggs said:
Danny,
I know what you mean, on the other hand, on those heavy mirage days like we frequently have here in the south, when you glance over at that monitor displaying the location of your last shot on target crystal clear, and not bouncing around like a basketball, you will have specific info vs a guess.
6brmrshtr said:
I don't think that really satisfies the issue. In heavy mirage, the whole target bounces around not just the spotter but the spotting disc still serves as a reference relative to the entirety of the target. I will also not like not seeing a spotting disc as it provides relevant feedback while looking down the riflescope.
I was shooting in an XTC "leg" match about 3 weeks ago 300 yards rapid fire prone. Targets came up, we went down and shot. My target came up 9 Yes. (9 shots on paper all in the 9 ring or better) I didn't call any bad shots and the 10th hole was never found. I was scored 4-X's, 3 -10's and 2 -9's........and a miss. (possibly a double?)
E- target would have told us if the 10th bullet had passed thru the target but their's no substitute for a pit puller counting impacts and a scorer counting shots fired.
I fired 10 shots, puller counted 9 impacts. I had a bullet come apart mid air before the target.
E- target would have told us if the 10th bullet had passed thru the target but their's no substitute for a pit puller counting impacts and a scorer counting shots fired.
I fired 10 shots, puller counted 9 impacts. I had a bullet come apart mid air before the target.
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.
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.