E-Target Certification

[Rick Ratzlaff]

Preamble: In every sport there must be defined goal posts for scoring. In a “Tack Driving” sport it is only expected that the “goal posts” from match to match meet a guaranteed standard of reliability without regard of the target used.
Therefore currently, without a certification Standard governing the reliability of E-Targets, the validity of scoring results is relegated as subjective. If there is no certifying standard for scoring, the real value of the “Record”, may well be skewed.
It also opens the door to plethora of vendors marketing new E-Targets with no Reliability standards.
Consequently, we think the future of the sport may be threatened.
We believe all stakeholders will concur that an equitable Certification process would be recommended by all.

Therefore, we want to give High-Power shooters the opportunity to inform all stakeholders, that you believe it is in the best interest for integrity of the sport that the National Rifle Association entrenches a Certification process to qualify E-Targets for appropriate record keeping.

Questions:

1. Do you think it is appropriate that the National Rifle Association design and enforce an objective scientific Certification process for Electronic Targets when used for all Regional, State, and National High-Power Rifle, competitors?

Send letter to NRA

 

[243Mendoza]

It has also important that valid statistical criteria are understood and applied. For example a simple SD or average will not do.

 

[JohnKielly]

Why bother. Accuracy has never been an issue when gluing up paper targets.

 

[ED3]

Why bother. Accuracy has never been an issue when gluing up paper targets.

indeed.
Where are the standards for acceptable wrinkles in glued paper, warped, and/ or out of plane backers, vertical stability in wind, vision testing of scorers...?

 

[Jacob.A]

indeed.
Where are the standards for acceptable wrinkles in glued paper, warped, and/ or out of plane backers, vertical stability in wind, vision testing of scorers...?

Don't forget target pullers who can't get the target back up in under 30 seconds. Whatever issues E targets may have, it'll work in my favor as often as it works against me, and it's far better than human pullers and scorers.

Not to say we shouldn't be looking for the best solutions possible, but the ones we have are pretty damn impressive and only improving. I'm not aware of any manufacturer that has issues with accuracy - a particular range might, but that's on the range not the manufacturer.

 

[chkunz]

We do not certify target pullers. They have set a low bar for the E targets.

 

[SWRichmond]

Don't forget target pullers who can't get the target back up in under 30 seconds. Whatever issues E targets may have, it'll work in my favor as often as it works against me, and it's far better than human pullers and scorers.

Emphasis added.

That is patently absurd. When an e-target gives you a zero, there is no meaningful appeal. When an e-target gives you a nine, there is no appeal. With paper targets, the shooter can challenge and the pit boss can go look. There is lasting physical evidence of the actual result. There is even an opportunity for the "wrinkle" issue to be examined, discussed and resolved. With an e-target there is code, and that is all. Also, records are never decided on the placement of the repair center, so there is no issue with "gluing up paper targets". That is one of the purposes of the repair center: to provide a clean starting point, and a lasting physical record which can be meaningfully examined.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I would think that the introduction of e-targets should not affect the scores. If after the e-targets are introduced at a range, everyone becomes a high master or notice a sudden drop in score under similar conditions, there is an issue with the e-target setup.

What has been said earlier on this thread is very correct, we rely on fallible humans to paste a target on sometimes less than perfect target holders and then these same humans score each shot with various levels of service and personal interpretation.

 

[ballisticdaddy]

I own an ET and use it as a tool to help my wind reading as well as for load development. It is a great tool but do not think it should be utilized in matches....quite yet. When practicing on the LR firing line I have seen many shots that measure up to 1/2" outside the recognized value when compared to the physical target. Personally I do not believe its a fair trade off to save time but sacrifice accuracy even if the entire field is affected equally.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

I own an ET and use it as a tool to help my wind reading as well as for load development. It is a great tool but do not think it should be utilized in matches....quite yet. When practicing on the LR firing line I have seen many shots that measure up to 1/2" outside the recognized value when compared to the physical target. Personally I do not believe its a fair trade off to save time but sacrifice accuracy even if the entire field is affected equally.

Understood. Can I ask a few questions?

1- What brand do you use?
2- You noticed a 1/2 inch error compared to the physical target. Is that error always in one direction or can it occur if all directions during that string of fire? In other words, was it off a half inch out the right and another shot was off a half inch out the left?

Not trying to start an argument here, just getting data points.

 

[ballisticdaddy]

Understood. Can I ask a few questions?

1- What brand do you use?
2- You noticed a 1/2 inch error compared to the physical target. Is that error always in one direction or can it occur if all directions during that string of fire? In other words, was it off a half inch out the right and another shot was off a half inch out the left?

1- I use the Shotmarker electronic target
2- The shots plotted inaccurately are not always in the same place nor do they repeat or cause a pattern. I have had many conversations with the manufacturer and seems as though this is not a rare occurrence. Flex in the target frame and even the wind can distort the sonic wave to some extent accounting for some of the errors.

Never took your post as being argumentative just trying to deal with the facts.

 

[Ned Ludd]

So someone can make money from certifying targets? I don't think so. The whole notion of using e-targets is ridiculous IMO. However, as has been pointed out previously, we do not currently "certify" paper targets, target pullers, etc. Why should e-targets require special certification? Are they capable of being that far off? Like with many other aspects of competition shooting, it is expected that the people who set up the range knew what they were doing and followed instructions. If they did not, it is arguable that no amount of "certification" will ever fully correct the problem. Further, if e-targets have a propensity to be ridiculously far off calibration, the real question is why they are being used at all, not whether they should be certified.

 

[Turbulent Turtle]

1- I use the Shotmarker electronic target
2- The shots plotted inaccurately are not always in the same place nor do they repeat or cause a pattern. I have had many conversations with the manufacturer and seems as though this is not a rare occurrence. Flex in the target frame and even the wind can distort the sonic wave to some extent accounting for some of the errors.

Never took your post as being argumentative just trying to deal with the facts.

Thanks for the detailed information.

I wonder if one could extrapolate and say that if the wind is predominantly from one general direction, the offset in one direction will be consistent? Of course, if the wind has a tendency to go back and forth during a string, then stay away from the lines.

 

[chkunz]

wind can distort the sonic wave to some extent

Can you quantify this? I am thinking that a 10 mph wind is insignificant compared to an 800 mph shock wave.

 

[ballisticdaddy]

Can you quantify this? I am thinking that a 10 mph wind is insignificant compared to an 800 mph shock wave.

I am no engineer, this is what the manufacturer mentioned to me when trying to make me understand why the virtual and physical target did not match perfectly. In reality being off 1/2" over the course of 1,000 yards in moderate winds is still impressive which is why I believe they all want to express the accuracy in way of standard deviation in lieu of a given number.

 

[Warren Dean]

1- I use the Shotmarker electronic target
2- The shots plotted inaccurately are not always in the same place nor do they repeat or cause a pattern. I have had many conversations with the manufacturer and seems as though this is not a rare occurrence. Flex in the target frame and even the wind can distort the sonic wave to some extent accounting for some of the errors.

Never took your post as being argumentative just trying to deal with the facts.

How about some input from the folks using Silver Mountain G2 or Solo? With only one manufacturer as an example, it is hard to make any kind of judgement of e targets in general.

As an aside...whether we like them or not, e targets are here to stay. It is akin to electronics being introduced on cars in the 70s. I heard more than one old timer say "I ain't workin' on no carburetor with wires hanging out of it!!". Well, the rest is history.
Just sayin.....

 

[okshooter]

While 1/2" accuracy may be pretty impressive for the current technology in e-targets, I have never heard of a human in the pits that couldn't get the score right with better accuracy then that. If they don't, the score can be challenged and it's easy to verify. If this technology is going to be used in registered matches, any records set with them should be kept separate then those set on paper targets that don't have these issues. Scores shot on them should not be compared with those shot on paper targets. Personally, I think all registered matches should be shot using the same targets.

While I think this is going to be a great addition to our sport, but I don't think they are ready for registered matches. When they are, there should be standards set by the NRA (or some other governing biodynamic that is more responsive) to make sure that any target used at any match is up to the same standards as every other.

 

[chkunz]

I am no engineer, this is what the manufacturer mentioned to me when trying to make me understand why the virtual and physical target did not match perfectly. In reality being off 1/2" over the course of 1,000 yards in moderate winds is still impressive which is why I believe they all want to express the accuracy in way of standard deviation in lieu of a given number.

I am all for E targets and understand that there are some issues however I think it is important to understand each issue and charterise its importance. We all understand wind but not many of us understand shock waves so I will help by saying do not be concerned with the effect of the wind on the shock wave. The wind may buffet the target carrier and that may be an important issue. Best wishes as we work thru the issues and bring e targets on line.

 

[MattPeetz]

Really??? This all over?? Especially from the OP!!!

 

[corning]

Get out the sticks! We have to go one more round beating the dead horse. It keeps coming to life.

If I didn't know any better, I would think that HEXTA is trying to drive the certification process and criteria in their favor.

On a more serious note, any certification process has to come from the shooters, not the NRA desk jockeys, or the influence of the target companies.

John Corning