So it is ok to keep improving your shooting equipment but not the range equipment. Every change to the shooting equipment has changed the game from the day range shooting started. I never said I machine gun but I do score for some very fast shooters and I am in awe of their skill. I have also seen the train wrecks when they miss a wind change just like the slower shooters. Dual port actions are a treat to watch but they give very little away to a polished single porter. ETs have saved TR sling shooting here from dying for a little while. The F classes are growing mainly with the clubs that have gone with ETs. Clubs using manual targets are in the minority with small membership. As I have said I am further down the same road, there is no need to make the same mistakes but you will because you will not believe what is being said until you have to deal with it. It is a vicious vindictive circle in the early stages.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E-Target Certification
- Thread starter Rick Ratzlaff
- Start date
So it is ok to keep improving your shooting equipment but not the range equipment. Every change to the shooting equipment has changed the game from the day range shooting started. I never said I machine gun but I do score for some very fast shooters and I am in awe of their skill. I have also seen the train wrecks when they miss a wind change just like the slower shooters. Dual port actions are a treat to watch but they give very little away to a polished single porter. ETs have saved TR sling shooting here from dying for a little while. The F classes are growing mainly with the clubs that have gone with ETs. Clubs using manual targets are in the minority with small membership. As I have said I am further down the same road, there is no need to make the same mistakes but you will because you will not believe what is being said until you have to deal with it. It is a vicious vindictive circle in the early stages.
Let me throw out my observations and opinions on this subject. IN talking about etargets too much emphasis is being spent on comparing paper targets to etargets. The open censored etargets are probably the most controversial. People are always comparing the bullet strike on the etarget against the paper targets and then declaring accuracy standards. I believe the way to certify the etargets is to check each target for consistency. That is: does each shot record the same way for each shot and is it the same for each target. Certification should test that. When shots on etargets are compared to bullet holes in paper targets each shot may record a difference in direction based on where on the target the bullet impacts. This can be related to many factors; location of sensors and firmness of target if the sensors are mounted on the target frame and the velocity of the bullet when it reaches the target. All these factors shouldn’t matter as long as the target is consistent each and every time and all targets are consistent with one another. We currently have partial certification in that NRA has set forth the size of the scoring rings. The etarget rules must also set standards which the manufacturer must meet. Ie: 7sec delay if called for in the rules and how the 7seconds will be handled during firing; scoring rings on the aiming area to accommodate scopes in F-class and Target rifle; ability of the software to handle convertible sighters; and other parameters.
As has been pointed out earlier, training operating personnel on target setup and calibration should be done and procedures laid out in an operating manual and not be part of certification.
Jetjock
As has been pointed out earlier, training operating personnel on target setup and calibration should be done and procedures laid out in an operating manual and not be part of certification.
Jetjock
...
As has been pointed out earlier, training operating personnel on target setup and calibration should be done and procedures laid out in an operating manual and not be part of certification.
Jetjock
I may be wrong, did you not ask for inputs for how the NRA will 'certify' etarget about a year ago? What did the NRA with submitted suggestions?
Steve, we incorporated as many practicable into the rules.I may be wrong, did you not ask for inputs for how the NRA will 'certify' etarget about a year ago? What did the NRA with submitted suggestions?
Jetjock
The etarget rules must also set standards which the manufacturer must meet. Ie: 7sec delay if called for in the rules and how the 7seconds will be handled during firing;
Would you please explain how you will deal with cross fires with the 7 second delay for scoring purposes which is equal to all shooters on the range that day.
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
Same way they are dealt with today on paper. If I crossfire on the target next to me during his aming period the target goes down, and he yells "I didn't shoot" (at least that is what has always happened when I do it) and he'd got 7 seconds to wait. Just like the target going down and coming back with my X on it.
If the impact comes in during the 7 sec delay or immediately after he shoots it's ignored and he gets his shot when the target comes up. Or you could show both impacts and award the higher score as it's done today. Or if your tech is good enough you show the shooter shot and the x fire for what they are and award the shooter the appropriate score.
That's not so hard is it?
If the impact comes in during the 7 sec delay or immediately after he shoots it's ignored and he gets his shot when the target comes up. Or you could show both impacts and award the higher score as it's done today. Or if your tech is good enough you show the shooter shot and the x fire for what they are and award the shooter the appropriate score.
That's not so hard is it?
Same way they are dealt with today on paper. If I crossfire on the target next to me during his aming period the target goes down, and he yells "I didn't shoot" (at least that is what has always happened when I do it) and he'd got 7 seconds to wait. Just like the target going down and coming back with my X on it.
If the impact comes in during the 7 sec delay or immediately after he shoots it's ignored and he gets his shot when the target comes up. Or you could show both impacts and award the higher score as it's done today. Or if your tech is good enough you show the shooter shot and the x fire for what they are and award the shooter the appropriate score.
That's not so hard is it?
Sorry it is harder than that. shot is fired target goes into 7 second delay second shot hits target whose shot arrived first. There is no way you can tell. So how do you score it fairly to all shooters on the range. Awarding the higher value is unfair to all shooters as it can win or loose a match for some one as it may not have been fired by the shooter on that target
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
That's the way it's done today on paper.Awarding the higher value is unfair to all shooters as it can win or loose a match for some one as it may not have been fired by the shooter on that target
and..
I've seen Adam write that a well designed system can tell the difference based on angle of entry. Just write better code.
whatwind?
Silver $$ Contributor
I would also like to see ranges with e targets go full electronic and not use scorers, just have a central computer keep score and post on a monitor for all to see......because I would love to bring ftr and f open or whatever combination of rifles and shoot two matches in the time of one! That would be fun and I don’t care if not “official” just a lot of shooting.....
Use Hexta, all done. Can give you the website if you like, so you can see what all electronic looks like. By the way, the usual disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the company, just a satisfied user.I would also like to see ranges with e targets go full electronic and not use scorers, just have a central computer keep score and post on a monitor for all to see......because I would love to bring ftr and f open or whatever combination of rifles and shoot two matches in the time of one! That would be fun and I don’t care if not “official” just a lot of shooting.....
This.That's the way it's done today on paper.
and..
I've seen Adam write that a well designed system can tell the difference based on angle of entry. Just write better code.
Its been established that crossfires can be excluded in other threads by the vendors.
Bindi - tech can solve the problems you state are insurmountable.
Last edited:
That's the way it's done today on paper.
That might be the way it is done on paper which dose not mean it is correct or fair. ETs are giving us the means to correct a problem that paper targets have in the area of scoring should that not be adopted.
That maybe the case I am yet to see it on the ETs I have shot on. Just remember the ETs you buy are already out of date when you receive them as is the new car you just bought. That in its self is a problem for the club/ranges who are trying to give the best service possible with limited funds with shooters using the most modern up to date gear without debate while refusing the club/ranges the same opportunity.This.
Its been established that crossfires can be excluded in other threads by the vendors.
Bindi - tech can solve the problems you state are insurmountable.
Crossfires with a 7 second delay can be handled this way. The question was what if there was a crossfire during the 7 second delay? The record shot being scored during the delay would be shown on the monitor followed immediately by a miss being scored because the shot was fired during the 7 second delay. The observer/scorer and the competitor would both know that no shot was fired by the competitor for that target. The block official would be called over to the firing point and told about the crossfire. He could scan the target presentation and determine where the crossfire came from or just eliminate the miss on the record monitor. The block officer might even have a call from a target either side of the one in question with a “target missed the shot request,” which is a whole ‘nother situation.
Jetjock
Jetjock
I said before the technology was not yet mature. What I mean by that is when one guy like me can enter a market and completely shake things up overnight, it's not a mature technology.
What I've seen is that new technologies seem to go through three phases. First you have the expensive, industrial version which is the earliest incarnation of the concept, sold at a high price to businesses that can afford it. A niche product is available in low volume, and the primary concern of the day is patents, sales reps, getting large contracts, and recouping R&D costs. The example that comes to mind is Stratasys, the manufacturer of the $100k 3D printers that represented the state of the art. R&D happens, but it's in order to make something even more expensive.
The next phase is where startups see the opportunity to apply more modern techniques that were not possible before in order to scale the fundamental concept into something more widely accessible. Makerbot did this in 2012 with their $2000 3D printer that could sit on your desktop. All of a sudden innovation happens at a crazy pace as volume increases and R&D efficiency becomes key.
The larger manufacturers then have to react. They might firmly plant themselves into the high-end market and go in a different direction. Or they might release a reduced version of their existing design, or market against the other product based on quality or features. They might buy a company and enter the market that way. But it's hard for an established company to just straight up compete with a startup that has a different mindset towards innovation.
The third phase would be when China gets a hold of it. Now you can get open source 3D printers for $200 and Makerbot has established themselves as a higher quality brand. I doubt this will happen with e-targets because the market is pretty small.
The question being posed now is whether e-targets today are good enough.
I am the one that is innovating. I am changing e-targets on a day to day basis. What they were like yesterday doesn't seem relevant to me. To me, problems with e-targets are not something bad about the technology, they are items on a priority list of things that I can actually do something about.
So I struggle to contribute to this discussion. I would much rather talk about whether e-targets will be good enough soon, once everyone is on the same page as to what the state of the art actually is.
I'm not saying there is a new version of ShotMarker coming that will be drastically different, I am saying aspects of the system are evolving rapidly on many fronts at the same time, and now is not the best time to make sweeping judgements about e-targets. I appreciate reading everyone's opinion and it helps me shuffle my priorities around somewhat. I just need some time to focus on getting my vision completely implemented.
One part of this is to write an in-depth article on e-target accuracy and competition. This has become a widely muddled topic and I feel something is needed to better inform the rule makers, range operators, and shooters what matters. My goal is to have a product with specifications, instructions on how to install to those specifications, and a clear understanding of what those specifications actually mean. This is a solution, not just some hardware. There is no certification until we at least get to this point.
What I've seen is that new technologies seem to go through three phases. First you have the expensive, industrial version which is the earliest incarnation of the concept, sold at a high price to businesses that can afford it. A niche product is available in low volume, and the primary concern of the day is patents, sales reps, getting large contracts, and recouping R&D costs. The example that comes to mind is Stratasys, the manufacturer of the $100k 3D printers that represented the state of the art. R&D happens, but it's in order to make something even more expensive.
The next phase is where startups see the opportunity to apply more modern techniques that were not possible before in order to scale the fundamental concept into something more widely accessible. Makerbot did this in 2012 with their $2000 3D printer that could sit on your desktop. All of a sudden innovation happens at a crazy pace as volume increases and R&D efficiency becomes key.
The larger manufacturers then have to react. They might firmly plant themselves into the high-end market and go in a different direction. Or they might release a reduced version of their existing design, or market against the other product based on quality or features. They might buy a company and enter the market that way. But it's hard for an established company to just straight up compete with a startup that has a different mindset towards innovation.
The third phase would be when China gets a hold of it. Now you can get open source 3D printers for $200 and Makerbot has established themselves as a higher quality brand. I doubt this will happen with e-targets because the market is pretty small.
The question being posed now is whether e-targets today are good enough.
I am the one that is innovating. I am changing e-targets on a day to day basis. What they were like yesterday doesn't seem relevant to me. To me, problems with e-targets are not something bad about the technology, they are items on a priority list of things that I can actually do something about.
So I struggle to contribute to this discussion. I would much rather talk about whether e-targets will be good enough soon, once everyone is on the same page as to what the state of the art actually is.
I'm not saying there is a new version of ShotMarker coming that will be drastically different, I am saying aspects of the system are evolving rapidly on many fronts at the same time, and now is not the best time to make sweeping judgements about e-targets. I appreciate reading everyone's opinion and it helps me shuffle my priorities around somewhat. I just need some time to focus on getting my vision completely implemented.
One part of this is to write an in-depth article on e-target accuracy and competition. This has become a widely muddled topic and I feel something is needed to better inform the rule makers, range operators, and shooters what matters. My goal is to have a product with specifications, instructions on how to install to those specifications, and a clear understanding of what those specifications actually mean. This is a solution, not just some hardware. There is no certification until we at least get to this point.
This is the point - don't say don't put in a delay because of all of the problems that can't be overcome. Acknowledge that is solved let the system come into play and using your words let the system evolve.That maybe the case I am yet to see it on the ETs I have shot on. Just remember the ETs you buy are already out of date when you receive them as is the new car you just bought. That in its self is a problem for the club/ranges who are trying to give the best service possible with limited funds with shooters using the most modern up to date gear without debate while refusing the club/ranges the same opportunity.
I strongly suspect that once a club is on an 8 sensor system it is pretty much code releases thereafter to meet any needs.
Yes there is a paradigm shift for the club decision makers but that s got zip to do with putting in a 7 second delay or not.
This post has one day left. I want to thank all participants. And especially objective comments.
To clarify some comments or inferences from forum posts that goBallistic has been involved in.
It has been implied that our Business Plan is to eliminate competitors. I have been in sales of many products in my 71 years. And have never shied away from competition. That is NOT our Business Plan.
Our Business Plan is single mindedly focused on excellence. Mediocrity has no place in our goal. We are OCD enough to believe anything else, is a compromise. I’ve chased my tail around like most trying to solve “fliers”, precision is where it’s at.
We flush enough money down the proverbial toilet chasing the classification of “High Master”, so “close enough” does NOT cut it. We’re just thankful our wives don’t keep a ledger on all our costs chasing bragging rights. If “Close enough is good enough” for you, then we can’t, and won’t help you.
I read on these pages, copious subjective comments and message’s like “performed flawlessly”, what the heck does that mean. Or “as long as the score is not affected”. Really? There is a lot of real estate in the 9 ring!
I have burned a pile of money traveling after ranges who said, “It’s about precision, not price”. To find out precision really does NOT matter at all. (don’t feel sorry about my money, I was fleeing snow, and my Corn Flakes is a tax write off). Just stating the truth.
We feel strongly that with so much subjectivity, poor confidence in E-Targets, emotional arguing without understanding, that we as vendors need to put our best foot forward, objectively prove we qualify for your confidence, and that we goBallistic has a “mature” product in the United States. We have long ago proved that, if you look across the beach to the Auzzie’s.
We also believe that every vendor should welcome the opportunity to transparently and objectively illustrate our performance expectations.
We feel there needs to be some scientific process to determine a standard performance criterion that covers us all without dumbing down the rules or evolving the sport to fit technology. That’s stupid. We think stakeholders can develop that.
You can find a summary of what we think the standards should be at Certified.
And remes of independent test results at Library
So please take the opportunity to vote, and send a letter.
To clarify some comments or inferences from forum posts that goBallistic has been involved in.
It has been implied that our Business Plan is to eliminate competitors. I have been in sales of many products in my 71 years. And have never shied away from competition. That is NOT our Business Plan.
Our Business Plan is single mindedly focused on excellence. Mediocrity has no place in our goal. We are OCD enough to believe anything else, is a compromise. I’ve chased my tail around like most trying to solve “fliers”, precision is where it’s at.
We flush enough money down the proverbial toilet chasing the classification of “High Master”, so “close enough” does NOT cut it. We’re just thankful our wives don’t keep a ledger on all our costs chasing bragging rights. If “Close enough is good enough” for you, then we can’t, and won’t help you.
I read on these pages, copious subjective comments and message’s like “performed flawlessly”, what the heck does that mean. Or “as long as the score is not affected”. Really? There is a lot of real estate in the 9 ring!
I have burned a pile of money traveling after ranges who said, “It’s about precision, not price”. To find out precision really does NOT matter at all. (don’t feel sorry about my money, I was fleeing snow, and my Corn Flakes is a tax write off). Just stating the truth.
We feel strongly that with so much subjectivity, poor confidence in E-Targets, emotional arguing without understanding, that we as vendors need to put our best foot forward, objectively prove we qualify for your confidence, and that we goBallistic has a “mature” product in the United States. We have long ago proved that, if you look across the beach to the Auzzie’s.
We also believe that every vendor should welcome the opportunity to transparently and objectively illustrate our performance expectations.
We feel there needs to be some scientific process to determine a standard performance criterion that covers us all without dumbing down the rules or evolving the sport to fit technology. That’s stupid. We think stakeholders can develop that.
You can find a summary of what we think the standards should be at Certified.
And remes of independent test results at Library
So please take the opportunity to vote, and send a letter.
Some crossfires. I've presided over enough matches for enough years to conclude that there are crossfires where the two shots are more or less simultaneous, enough that you wouldn't swear on a bible that the shooter's shot was the first or the second. Automatically discounting the second might not be the fairest outcome to the shooter in that case & in no way recognizes the method of managing the same on paper targets.Crossfires with a 7 second delay can be handled this way.
Some crossfires. I've presided over enough matches for enough years to conclude that there are crossfires where the two shots are more or less simultaneous, enough that you wouldn't swear on a bible that the shooter's shot was the first or the second. Automatically discounting the second might not be the fairest outcome to the shooter in that case & in no way recognizes the method of managing the same on paper targets.
We are just further down this path and seeing the issues with more experience from a better perspective as quoted above. A 7 second delay will penalize all shooters on the mound every match.
At this point in time there is no delay, multi types of targets out there in use, putting restrictions on the use of some will incur expense in replacing them and is unnecessary. Changing the way crossfires are dealt with on ETs is a better option. Fast shooting is not a game changer. Scorers will have to work harder to see that all is correct this is the big game changer with ETs not shooters.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
You're dead wrong. Shooting as fast as an e-target with no delay allows CAN be a big advantage to scores. More importantly, you're changing the game AGAIN so that your little e-targets will work properly. What else are you going to change? Pretty much whatever it takes to make them work is what it seems like from where I'm sitting.We are just further down this path and seeing the issues with more experience from a better perspective as quoted above. A 7 second delay will penalize all shooters on the mound every match.
At this point in time there is no delay, multi types of targets out there in use, putting restrictions on the use of some will incur expense in replacing them and is unnecessary. Changing the way crossfires are dealt with on ETs is a better option. Fast shooting is not a game changer. Scorers will have to work harder to see that all is correct this is the big game changer with ETs not shooters.
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.