Scott, The SMT and your Shotmarker use external mics. Yes these systems don’t require a good solid target to record a shot. The Hexta and Kongsberg use an enclosed box with internal mics. They have a front and rear rubber membrane to enclose the system. I’ve never shot on one of these type, however hear that if the membrane gets shot up, it can effect readings. The membrane systems don’t sound like the best way for mid range matches where it could get damaged rather quickly. Like I said, I haven’t shot on them, so don’t know for sure.
E-Target Bashing
- Thread starter One Shot One Thrill
- Start date
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
I've also experienced issues with paper targets and human pullers. No one is claiming they're error-free. However, the use of paper targets and human pullers is the way our sport has been run since its inception. In your specific case, it wasn't a problem with the paper target, it was a problem with the person that initially failed to repair it properly, and later failed to recognize that the "miss" actually went through the repaired hole in the target center. To be honest, neither one of those issues ever should have happened. The target should have been repaired correctly, and the puller should have been able to immediately identify from the dirt splash that your shot went very close to the target center. Nonetheless, it happened.
I do not expect E-targets to be "perfect"; that has never been my issue with them. My issue is with E-targets is two-fold. First, they change the way our sport is carried out. A 7-second delay correlates to about the very fastest human target service (on average) over the course of a match that you're ever going to obtain, even with two pullers. That allows machine-gunning of rounds in a way that no paper target/human pit service will usually permit, thereby altering the interpretation and impact of changing wind conditions. Further, when my target goes down, I eject and box the spent brass, insert a fresh round without closing the bolt, and watch flags/mirage for potential changes in the wind conditions as I'm waiting for the target to come back up. Once I hear my scorer call out the same value I see on the target, I am ready to fire again. I do not have to take my head off the gun or look away from the range over at a little computer tablet to see my score and shot placement. It does make a difference. One of the major reasons I enjoy shooting competition is it allows me to get away from electronic devices like computers/phones/tablets. I deal with those items enough on a daily basis that I don't want to have to look at them when I'm shooting.
Second, once a range has made the decision to adopt the use of E-targets, anyone that wishes to participate is forced to shoot on them, or stay at home. This is also changing the sport and is typically done in a way such that only a very few individuals ever really have any say in its execution. So I find your argument about not calling for E-targets to replace crappy paper targets to be unconvincing. It is the E-targets that are changing how our sport has been carried out from day 1, not the other way around, and the majority of participants will rarely have any input as to whether that decision is made. They are given the choice of either accepting the use of E-targets, or not participating; there is no middle ground. Do you find it surprising that myself and others don't particularly like that? If so, envision a scenario where E-targets had been in use as long as you had participated in the sport and someone suddenly gave you the option of shooting on paper targets only, or else staying at home. If you're honest about what your reaction would be in that scenario, I think you might begin to understand the resistance to the use of E-targets.
Last edited:
Ned,
I really like your last paragraph!
Your statement “A 7-second delay correlates to about the very fastest human target service (on average) over the course of a match that you're ever going to obtain, even with two pullers”, got me to thinking… With pulled targets I reload as soon as I shoot and then watch through my rifle scope until the target comes back up and shoot rather quickly. With ET’s I tend to look at the tablet until my score comes up to see where the shot went. Then go back on the scope, hopefully check the mirage/flags and shoot. So… that adds a few seconds to the time between shots even when a 7 second delay is use. More like the time a human puller takes. I also feel ET’s make for more crossfires due to the shooter tending to move out of position more to look at the scoring tablet. Perhaps we are moving the rear bag? I know it took me a few shoots to realize this.
I really like your last paragraph!
Your statement “A 7-second delay correlates to about the very fastest human target service (on average) over the course of a match that you're ever going to obtain, even with two pullers”, got me to thinking… With pulled targets I reload as soon as I shoot and then watch through my rifle scope until the target comes back up and shoot rather quickly. With ET’s I tend to look at the tablet until my score comes up to see where the shot went. Then go back on the scope, hopefully check the mirage/flags and shoot. So… that adds a few seconds to the time between shots even when a 7 second delay is use. More like the time a human puller takes. I also feel ET’s make for more crossfires due to the shooter tending to move out of position more to look at the scoring tablet. Perhaps we are moving the rear bag? I know it took me a few shoots to realize this.
We've pretty much come to the same conclusion here.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
The only puller I've ever personally experienced that could do it faster than about 7 seconds on average is Matt Schwarzkopf. The guy just isn't human LOL...the target is on the way back up before ever reaching the bottom. It's really quite incredible to watch. As a scorer, you really can't afford to look away from the target even for a second when Matt's pulling, or you might easily miss the fact that the target's back up and ready. My gut feeling tells me that a delay of 9 to 10 seconds would be more appropriate; that is, closer to what we typically experience with a decent puller...not necessarily the absolute fastest puller, but reasonable/good pit service. I shoot F-TR with a more traditional loaded bipod setup, which is a little different in terms of the rear bag and gun handling. Nonetheless, when I am in a solid rhythm shooting 10s/Xs, I don't like to have to come up off the gun and look around. As you noted, doing that only increases the odds of introducing some new and potentially undesirable variable into your shooting position/form.
In general, I think anyone that pays attention to these types of topics has to realize that E-targets are likely to be the future of F-Class shooting, whether they like it or not. But I also believe these types of discussions at a relatively early time point in their adoption may bring about better implementation and use of the technology than simply racing forward blindly without regard to all of the many ways they may potentially impact the sport. So even though these discussions currently tend to be very polarized and can also become very heated at times, over the long term they will likely be of benefit to all.
I totally agree and believe this would go a long way towards avoiding the unintentional alteration of our sport's fundamental characteristic.
Ned,
Matt is quick but in my younger/faster shooting days the late & great Jerry Tierney bet me he could pull & mark fast than I could shoot. He won the bet and I won the match! He could put ET’s to shame
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
Larry,
Keeping the shots in the middle helps quite a bit. Shooting 7's on either side sure slows things down.
Keeping the shots in the middle helps quite a bit. Shooting 7's on either side sure slows things down.
cross fires and moving the rear bag is a maybe but not the real cause. Another thing to look at is the rear bag really centred to the rest to the to the target because you are moving your head of the rifle. I woke up to this whilst watching a true free recoiller setting up and shooting off a table. I finished up buying a Mini to get it right.
Warren Dean
Team Savage F-TR
Yes it would.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
So what's wrong with having a simple delay to simulate a hand-marked target? Why would we not do that and make the game harder?
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
If one follows through with the shot, a lot of that stuff gets better.
If the rifle returns to battery on centre before the first shot is fired follow through is faultless and crossfires non existing. Using a high recoiling rifle is a great teacher in this.
As a Range Officer, I shudder to think how a "simultaneous" crossfire would be managed on Hexta & Kongsberg targets (the ones I'm familiar with).
Here, if a target is scored with two hits, which indicates two shots fired close to each other, then the shooter is given the higher value & granted a convertible sighter. The same currently applies on our ETs. Whether or not the transgressor can be found is immaterial & the offended shooter can continue without significant or unmanageable disruption.
Now Hextas, I have been told can discriminate between shots to 1/100 of a second. So with a closely previous or after crossfire, a shot will appear after X delay, followed by another one when - a short time later or after another X delay? If it's the latter, then the shooter could well adjust his sight/aim if necessary & drill off a shot before the second hit on his target appears and the possibility of applying the Aussie crossfire rule would not be able to be applied - and remember we're then waiting for the third shot to show up.
As it appears now, there's a second or so delay before the result is propagated & we have the opportunity of applying a precise definition of what is deemed to be two simultaneous hits on the target, ie if the shots show up 1,2, it's an acceptable simultaneous hit; if it is shot 1, yawn, stretch shot 2, then it's obvious that the latter shot can reasonably be assigned to a subsequent crossfire & discounted without a sighter being warranted.
On my range, we require that shooters not proceed with a subsequent shot before the scorers confirm the shot. Of course that delay won't equate to paper marking, but it precludes the liklihood of short range benchrest shooting cadences.
This internet thing is something. Turning everything into half for and half against. The 25 people or so involved in FClass rule dream changes and other stuff on here doesn't amount to much percent of the total Fclass population.I
would think if you spent this time and effort lobbying the NRA or the range owners you might make a few points.
To me all this looks like a bunch of gun toting whiners. My home range is in the fire of this thread and a few phone
calls has gotten way more addressed than this thread ever will. There are still plenty of choices available to shoot and we should be happy for that.
With what Ned said earlier about him being happiest pulling targets well to each his own. I am happiest with being in the shade in front of my fan bullshitting the 20 guys not shooting or scoring. Or wandering around watching someone shoot. I am all for 10 second delay.
ET targets are allowed under the rules today. Until that changes you will have to learn to live with them or don't shoot them. What a specific club chooses to use for a target is none of your business unless you are a member.
would think if you spent this time and effort lobbying the NRA or the range owners you might make a few points.
To me all this looks like a bunch of gun toting whiners. My home range is in the fire of this thread and a few phone
calls has gotten way more addressed than this thread ever will. There are still plenty of choices available to shoot and we should be happy for that.
With what Ned said earlier about him being happiest pulling targets well to each his own. I am happiest with being in the shade in front of my fan bullshitting the 20 guys not shooting or scoring. Or wandering around watching someone shoot. I am all for 10 second delay.
ET targets are allowed under the rules today. Until that changes you will have to learn to live with them or don't shoot them. What a specific club chooses to use for a target is none of your business unless you are a member.
Last edited:
I have a problem with this ruling: If the scorer is doing their job correctly they can tell which shot belongs to who most times , The correct score should be allocated to the shooter and continue on. In the case of simultaneous recordings both shots be discounted optional sighter continue. The correct shot should be recorded not a maybe. This is why delays on monitors will cause huge problems.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
I think I'm missing something in that argument.
In the case of two closely spaced (in time) shots, the system could, and should, calculate the impact point for both. It would then, after the delay, show the impact points of all shots that arrived, the initial shot, and all shots that arrived after it during the delay. It would be easy to have it award the higher value.
I don't see why the system can't, or shouldn't, display the order that the shots arrived. That would give the scorekeeper the opportunity to override the result to award the correct shot in the case of an identifiable cross-fire (as described in your second paragraph).
If it were a cross-fire, then the shooter would get the higher value (as described in the rules), and whatever the cross-fire rule is in the local area would be applied by the scorer/range officer.
I'm not a computer whiz, but even a dolt like me can code a system to do something that simple.
If the shooter on that target had fired both shots (shooting too rapidly), then the scorer would score the first shot value (because the arrival time would be shown), and the second shot a miss.
What isn't possible in that? I'm just not tracking...
Keith, My point was that as it stands now, shots that hit a paper target before it's pulled and ETs where the shots hit bang, bang are identifiable & granted sighter relief.
If I got your suggestion right, then a shot that landed say 6 seconds after a shooter's obvious shot would be simultaneously presented with his after the time delay. In that case, we would need give the shooter the benefit of what would not be a beneficial condition right now on our paper targets & ETs. It's my experience that identifiable crossfires are far, far more prevalent than simultaneous hits on both target types, so the outcome that you suggest IMO would be unjust.
If I got your suggestion right, then a shot that landed say 6 seconds after a shooter's obvious shot would be simultaneously presented with his after the time delay. In that case, we would need give the shooter the benefit of what would not be a beneficial condition right now on our paper targets & ETs. It's my experience that identifiable crossfires are far, far more prevalent than simultaneous hits on both target types, so the outcome that you suggest IMO would be unjust.
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.