E-Target Certification

[KenOath]

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.

Ned,
A question, if you had no other choice but to shoot on ET Targets would you persevere with them and possibly look at ways to improve there effectiveness or quit the game all together?

 

[Bindi2]

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.

I have just returned from a competition where I shot in what was bluntly shocking conditions twice followed by nil conditions with perfect scores shot. My team mate shot in the nil conditions both times. This competition was shot on ETs where fast shooting was of no help to those in the washing machine except to get off the mound to ask what the hell happened.
ETs work no matter what make. They certainly have highlighted issues that are wrong with manual targets and layouts of ranges with all the testing they have been subjected to including the scoring of targets. They will tighten up procedures for scoring and scorers duty will be more intense.
The only rule change needed is in scoring cross fires. Award the cross firer a miss annul the firers shot who then carries on with an extra shot. The shooters true score is recorded.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

The only rule change needed is in scoring cross fires. Award the cross firer a miss annul the firers shot who then carries on with an extra shot. The shooters true score is recorded.

This is the way 45 HEXTA ranges do it today. There are 2 monitors. A scorers monitor, and a shooters monitor. The Scorer functions just as he does with paper. He must still pay attention to his shooter. If his monitor picks up a shot that his shooter didn't shoot, he needs to stop his shooter and call the RO over to resolve it.
He then, upon a ruling from the RO, "dismisses" that shot out of his shooters record.

The shooter that cross-fired looses a shot. He does not get another one.

If his shooter fires and nothing shows up, the scorer better be looking for someone to claim a crossfire. If NOT then he missed his target.

 

[6BRinNZ]

I have just returned from a competition where I shot in what was bluntly shocking conditions twice followed by nil conditions with perfect scores shot. My team mate shot in the nil conditions both times. This competition was shot on ETs where fast shooting was of no help to those in the washing machine except to get off the mound to ask what the hell happened.
ETs work no matter what make. They certainly have highlighted issues that are wrong with manual targets and layouts of ranges with all the testing they have been subjected to including the scoring of targets. They will tighten up procedures for scoring and scorers duty will be more intense.
The only rule change needed is in scoring cross fires. Award the cross firer a miss annul the firers shot who then carries on with an extra shot. The shooters true score is recorded.

I bet those shooting in the tricky conditions were glad of the extra 7 seconds per shot they had up their sleeve to wait or snap them off a couple at a time. And those shooting in the null conditions were glad they could be all done with no risk of taking an extra 7 seconds per shot pushing them into those tricky winds that don't show on the flags just before the winds build.

 

[JohnKielly]

I bet those shooting in the tricky conditions were glad of the extra 7 seconds per shot they had up their sleeve to wait or snap them off a couple at a time. And those shooting in the null conditions were glad they could be all done with no risk of taking an extra 7 seconds per shot pushing them into those tricky winds that don't show on the flags just before the winds build.

I bet you recall those occasions when the puller beside you worked like greased lightning while yours was obviously an escapee from the casualty ward.

ETs, correctly selected, maintained & operated offer the same quality of service to all shooters.

 

[6BRinNZ]

I bet you recall those occasions when the puller beside you worked like greased lightning while yours was obviously an escapee from the casualty ward.

ETs, correctly selected, maintained & operated offer the same quality of service to all shooters.

Yip. I like ets and shoot on them regularly. You missed my point.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Ned,
A question, if you had no other choice but to shoot on ET Targets would you persevere with them and possibly look at ways to improve there effectiveness or quit the game all together?

I think you already know the answer. I don't have to compete to enjoy shooting. But that's neither here nor there. I don't doubt now and have never doubted the eventual proliferation of e-targets in the sport. However, I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask that their incorporation into the sport follow the format, rules, and spirit of the sport as they ALREADY exist. That doesn't mean changing something as critical as how fast you can feasibly shoot during a match, simply because it is the path of least resistance to implementing the use of e-targets.

 

[Bindi2]

However, I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask that their incorporation into the sport follow the format, rules, and spirit of the sport as they ALREADY exist.

Then why dosent this statement apply to the game changing improvements done to rifles and gear used on the ranges today as to what was used 100 + years ago when the rules were written. You cant have it one way only. ETs have not changed the structure of the game only allowed all to add another skill and added a means to have fairer scoring done on old ranges. Building new ranges is where they will have the biggest gains being less cost to build with simpler requirements needed.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Then why dosent this statement apply to the game changing improvements done to rifles and gear used on the ranges today as to what was used 100 + years ago when the rules were written. You cant have it one way only. ETs have not changed the structure of the game only allowed all to add another skill and added a means to have fairer scoring done on old ranges. Building new ranges is where they will have the biggest gains being less cost to build with simpler requirements needed.

Because individuals can choose whether or not to try a new item. Their choice doesn't force everyone to do the same thing, unless they choose to. No one has the "choice" whether to use e-targets. In obvious contrast, once a specific shooting range has spent the money on e-targets, they WILL be used for all competitors, whether they like it or not. The only way to opt out of using them once they are installed would be to quit shooting, as Rushty mentioned above. That is a ridiculous suggestion, and one I'm not even going to seriously discuss. If you honestly believe there is no difference between arbitrarily changing the entire scoring system used by every single competitor at a given match and changing the rules of the game to accommodate said new scoring system, versus some individual that decides individually to try a different bullet, powder, or barrel length, then it is a complete waste of time to discuss it any further. I believe there IS a difference between the two scenarios, and it is a HUGE difference, not a minor one.

All anyone has to do to see the difference is to read through any one of these e-target threads. They consist of page after page of arguments as to whether they work well enough/consistently enough for widespread use, and if not, how to fix it so that they can be used. Most of the suggestions I've seen proposed seem to involved something that will change the existing manner in which the game has been played up to this point, or at the very least the spirit in which the game has been played. All to fix some perceived problem that didn't even exist. The 7-second delay is a perfect example of that. I can't imagine thinking that having no delay at all couldn't be a big advantage. It most definitely can be. It may not be an advantage/disadvantage for the individuals within that particular match, where it should be relatively even for everyone. But it could make a big difference relative to shooters at other venues, especially where National Records are concerned. Likewise, to say that e-targets haven't changed the way F-Class shooting is carried out at venues where they are employed is ludicrous. It can and does change the way the game is played. Once you have people playing a sport by different sets of rules in different locations, you really don't have much of a sport any more. Why is it even necessary to consider doing that? Why can't e-targets be modified so as to incorporate their use in the sport without changing any of the existing rules, format, or spirit of the competition? Is that really too much to ask?

 

[adamjmac]

In any case, whether there is a delay or not, is just software, so it's really not worth arguing about. I have four shooting modes in ShotMarker and it seems to have satisfied everyone. If you set "delayed" and turn off the grid the experience is very much like manual targets.

I think the greatest benefit to the delay is to avoid confusion about crossfires. It's very common for someone to miss, look at the screen and see their previous shot, and believe (with emphasis) that is their score. Having a delay causes you to expect the shot to appear after a few seconds, and if it's already there too soon, it's clearly not your shot.

All - shows the whole group
Recent - shows one shot at a time, or two within 20 seconds
Delayed - same as recent with a 7 second delay
Delayed & Restricted - shots arriving within the delay period are scored 0 (but can be modified)

 

[Jdne5b]

Because individuals can choose whether or not to try a new item. Their choice doesn't force everyone to do the same thing, unless they choose to. No one has the "choice" whether to use e-targets. In obvious contrast, once a specific shooting range has spent the money on e-targets, they WILL be used for all competitors, whether they like it or not. The only way to opt out of using them once they are installed would be to quit shooting, as Rushty mentioned above. That is a ridiculous suggestion, and one I'm not even going to seriously discuss. If you honestly believe there is no difference between arbitrarily changing the entire scoring system used by every single competitor at a given match and changing the rules of the game to accommodate said new scoring system, versus some individual that decides individually to try a different bullet, powder, or barrel length, then it is a complete waste of time to discuss it any further. I believe there IS a difference between the two scenarios, and it is a HUGE difference, not a minor one.

All anyone has to do to see the difference is to read through any one of these e-target threads. They consist of page after page of arguments as to whether they work well enough/consistently enough for widespread use, and if not, how to fix it so that they can be used. Most of the suggestions I've seen proposed seem to involved something that will change the existing manner in which the game has been played up to this point, or at the very least the spirit in which the game has been played. All to fix some perceived problem that didn't even exist. The 7-second delay is a perfect example of that. I can't imagine thinking that having no delay at all couldn't be a big advantage. It most definitely can be. It may not be an advantage/disadvantage for the individuals within that particular match, where it should be relatively even for everyone. But it could make a big difference relative to shooters at other venues, especially where National Records are concerned. Likewise, to say that e-targets haven't changed the way F-Class shooting is carried out at venues where they are employed is ludicrous. It can and does change the way the game is played. Once you have people playing a sport by different sets of rules in different locations, you really don't have much of a sport any more. Why is it even necessary to consider doing that? Why can't e-targets be modified so as to incorporate their use in the sport without changing any of the existing rules, format, or spirit of the competition? Is that really too much to ask?

You should just order a RBLPRE action and get on board the machinegun express. You'll like it once you're there, we have booze..

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

(Big snip)

Likewise, to say that e-targets haven't changed the way F-Class shooting is carried out at venues where they are employed is ludicrous. It can and does change the way the game is played. Once you have people playing a sport by different sets of rules in different locations, you really don't have much of a sport any more. Why is it even necessary to consider doing that? Why can't e-targets be modified so as to incorporate their use in the sport without changing any of the existing rules, format, or spirit of the competition? Is that really too much to ask?

The reason I'm responding to this post is because I get the impression Ned is saying the eTargets are changing the sport by making it inconsistent.

(Get a coffee before reading further.)

In 1982 I went to the pits at Connaught for the first time in my competitive career. Sometimes I think I’ve been in the pits ever since. Anyway over the decades one would think that I would have seen just about everything that could happen in the pits, but one would be wrong. In a universe of fallible human beings, I keep seeing new ways to screw up pulling targets or variations on a theme.


I’ve officiated at lots of matches over time and I have seen lots of things occur that would not happen with eTargets.


I have seen people in the pits during live fire:

Fall asleep.

Totally not pay attention because they are too busy talking, even after repeated calls from the line.

Walk away from the target to go to the bathroom.

Pull the target off the frame.

Break the target frame.

Pull the target while the bullet is in flight.

Pull the target down when the shooter did not shoot and examine the target for a LONG time.

Put the spotter black on black.

Forget to put the spotter or the scoring disk.

Take more than one minute for each and every shot.

Not be able to score a high shot because they are too short.

Faint because of the heat.

Get splattered by a hit on a spotter.

Get splattered by a low hit on the protective berm.

Fall off the bench.

Paste targets all wrong: wrinkles, misaligned, half-glue a target so it loses corners or sides.

Get called for a mark for every. Single. Shot.

Take 30 seconds to find the hole in the X ring.

Give the shooter the lower value if the shot touched the line from the inside. (A shot is in the 10 ring but it touches the line between the 10 and the 9 and the scorer marks it as a 9. It happened to me, it was a new shooter and he didn’t know the rules.)


From the line, I have seen shooters:

Crossfire and not be recorded as such by the scorer who missed it.

Get angry and I mean FURIOUS at slow pit service.

Ask for various size spotter disk during a string.

Continue to argue even after losing a challenge.

Shoot less than the required number of rounds and argue with the scorer.


I have also seen scorers:

Fall asleep during a string.

Consistently misread the score.

Write the wrong score down.

Miss crossfire events.


Here's a fun anecdote. I was scoring for a top shooter at the Worlds in 2013. He fired his first shot and we waited for the target to be serviced. And waited. And called for a mark. And waited And called for a mark. And waited. You get the drift. It took almost 5 minutes to get the target serviced. In the meantime, the shooter was cursing and swearing up a storm. Thankfully it was all in French so the shooters around us were not offended or disturbed except for just the noise. Unfortunately, I speak French, so I listened to all this diatribe and it was funny. This guy never repeated himself and described the pullers and their ancestors' reproduction protocol in incredibly vivid detail. (I still think the saddle on the pig was improbable.)

It's too bad there was not a blood pressure cuff to be found; I'll bet we could have recorded new records.

If there had been eTargets, I would not have expanded my French vocabulary anywhere near as much.

All this to say that the range of vagaries using human pullers is far wider ranging and impacts the shooters a lot more than what eTargets may inflict. It just won't be as funny as it used to be.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Denys - you're obviously happy to turn even more of your life over to a tablet or laptop. I'm not.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

Denys - you're obviously happy to turn even more of your life over to a tablet or laptop. I'm not.

Ned, computers have been my profession for the last 44 years. I had a TI Silent 700 in my apartment with the acoustic coupler and 110Baud back in 1976. I had my first PC in 1984 and my first laptop in 1991. I have a 12 inch tablet, a Note 8 smartphone and I wear a Samsung Gear S3. My laptop has more computing power than NASA had in total at the start of the space shuttle program, it has 2 SSDs and 1 HDD, giving me more storage than most every desktop on the planet and more RAM than most computers had disk space a decade ago.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with computers, tablets and laptops. As I grow older, these devices make my life easier by reminding me of appointments, conference calls, shooting matches and other events throughout the day, week, month and year.

It also allowed me to rapidly upload several hundred photos of national and world matches I attended over the years and most recently, a daily update of pictures in Raton. Technology is not all bad; a few people here have enjoyed my pictures which flowed through my computing equipment.

My car has quite a bit of technology also, and that was of great help when I drove to Connaught (3 days), Phoenix (2 days), Raton (1 or 2 days,) etc. GPS, Bluetooth phone/texts, Satellite Radio, Adaptive cruise control, auto braking, lane assist, etc.

You can fight the technology, or you can embrace it and master it. I choose to embrace it and master it.

 

[XTR]

I think that Tedd and I (and others competitors) are concerned about is that the game is being changed to accommodate the tech and not the other way around.

While I do not particularly like any of the etargets that I have shot on for competition I accept that we will be using them before I quit shooting, assuming I stay in this for a few more yrs. What I don't want to see is HP shooting become a race to see who can get all their shots in the fastest. As much as I kid some friends about it I don't want to have to build a RBLPRE 223 for mid range. Though if I did I wager I could probably get a 20 shot match off in 2 minutes or less. Is that really the game we want to play?

I keep proposing that all matches fired on E targets be pair fired, when I do the pounding of keyboards in response is almost perceptible across the interwebs.

however, we've digressed to the same arguments that always come up on these threads. The original question had nothing to do with this.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

I think that Tedd and I (and others competitors) are concerned about is that the game is being changed to accommodate the tech and not the other way around.

We agree XTR. If things remain the way they are you can count on more vendors putting more E-Targets on the market. With NO, ZERO, NONE minimum regulated expectations we may as well play horse shoes 10 years from now.

I read instructions to ranges to decide what "shot loss" number will be acceptable for them.

I read the discussion about how far apart to put targets, to avoid "ghost shots".

"If the target misses a shot, just take another one". Hugh?

But the biggest concern is what I have heard and read from RO's. The first time I heard this was at a match 4 years ago. I didn't believe him. But I keep hearing it, and got it in an email recently. "I don't give a .... how accurate our E-Targets are". Or as I got email just days ago. " (It didn't take me long to come to the realization that all that didn't matter all that much. Once your shooting on the E targets the common belief is becoming all that really matters is what comes up on the screen."

I guess I can't compute that.

But to dumb down the rules to fit our technology would be treasonous or worse! We have discussed for 4 years about compromising our standard. CAN'T!

To claim 1mm precision.... We can't get that kind of precision out of 8 sensors and 56 co-ordinates.

I know ours are more expensive. But so are $3000 scopes. We find a way to do it.

The HEXTA Match-Grade is mature. They are live as we speak.

 

[Bindi2]

For those that support the current crossfire scoring method think about this. In todays world it is a form of cheating that swindles other shooters out of their rightful place in the rankings for a match.
Speed in its self will not win matches. Fast shooting is a very high level skill.

 

[XTR]

.
...Fast shooting is a very high level skill.

A skill that should remain in BR, and not be required or even useful for HP shooting.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

For those that support the current crossfire scoring method think about this. In todays world it is a form of cheating that swindles other shooters out of their rightful place in the rankings for a match.
Speed in its self will not win matches. Fast shooting is a very high level skill.

Swindles other's out of their rightful place in the standings? How's that work in your mind? I think having an extra sighter when someone crossfires would be a distinct advantage over your competitors when conditions are changing. I can imagine how a teammate that isn't in the running for a match could give one a huge advantage during a critical moment in a match.

I'll disagree on your assessment of fast shooting skill. It is a symptom of a lower skill level that is exhibited by the use of a crutch (fast shooting).

Why would one shoot fast if they have the skills to read the wind? By fast I mean more than one shot every 7 seconds.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Ned, computers have been my profession for the last 44 years. I had a TI Silent 700 in my apartment with the acoustic coupler and 110Baud back in 1976. I had my first PC in 1984 and my first laptop in 1991. I have a 12 inch tablet, a Note 8 smartphone and I wear a Samsung Gear S3. My laptop has more computing power than NASA had in total at the start of the space shuttle program, it has 2 SSDs and 1 HDD, giving me more storage than most every desktop on the planet and more RAM than most computers had disk space a decade ago.

Yeah, I'm comfortable with computers, tablets and laptops. As I grow older, these devices make my life easier by reminding me of appointments, conference calls, shooting matches and other events throughout the day, week, month and year.

It also allowed me to rapidly upload several hundred photos of national and world matches I attended over the years and most recently, a daily update of pictures in Raton. Technology is not all bad; a few people here have enjoyed my pictures which flowed through my computing equipment.

My car has quite a bit of technology also, and that was of great help when I drove to Connaught (3 days), Phoenix (2 days), Raton (1 or 2 days,) etc. GPS, Bluetooth phone/texts, Satellite Radio, Adaptive cruise control, auto braking, lane assist, etc.

You can fight the technology, or you can embrace it and master it. I choose to embrace it and master it.

I have used computers at home and work extensively throughout most of my life. I have no issues with them at all for many purposes. On the other hand, I don't care to look and fiddle with one when I'm shooting, particularly when it's totally unnecessary. You can embrace and master this technology all you want, I don't care to...and I don't need to, in order to enjoy shooting. If it's inevitable that this technology takes over F-Class competition and changes it into something different than it was before, something it didn't need to be, and something it was never intended to be, so be it. I'll shoot on my own and enjoy it just as much. Until that time, I'll continue to voice my opinion of it.