E-Target Precision Poll

[Toejoe12]

Aieeeeee!!!!!

I can't take it anymore, you people don't understand error, metrology and probability.

LMAO.....you tell us then what the probability of human error is in scoring targets correctly since you want to take such a scientific approach to disproving e-targets. Hold the human element to the same standards! By the way referencing your point of metrology.....again what standardization of measurement are you using to measure the accuracy of the human scorer professor Catfur????

 

[Catfur]

LMAO.....you tell us then what the probability of human error is in scoring targets correctly since you want to take such a scientific approach to disproving e-targets. Hold the human element to the same standards! By the way referencing your point of metrology.....again what standardization of measurement are you using to measure the accuracy of the human scorer professor Catfur????

I don't know what the average, standard distribution, distribution function, etc... of a bunch of humans scoring targets would be. Running an experiment like what you proposed would probably be a good way to establish that. But you proposing that an etarget that will randomly place 1 out of 20 shots more than .5"* away and between 6 & 7 shots out of 20 more than .25" from their actual location will give the same results every time is just not believable.

Human error and machine error look different, of course. Misplacing a shot that hits a giant stack of pasters is different than just randomly misplacing shots all over the place. But human mistakes are auditable, an e-target is FINAL, even when it massively F-s up. I have seen, and made, my fair share of errors scoring targets, but I've never misplaced a shot by a half inch. I have, and have seen done, forgot to move the score marker or put it on the wrong score, but that is an error easily corrected after the fact, unlike ANY ERROR an e-target produces.

*IIRC the current tolerance offered by e-target manufacturers is an SD of .25"

 

[Toejoe12]

I don't know what the average, standard distribution, distribution function, etc... of a bunch of humans scoring targets would be. Running an experiment like what you proposed would probably be a good way to establish that. But you proposing that an etarget that will randomly place 1 out of 20 shots more than .5"* away and between 6 & 7 shots out of 20 more than .25" from their actual location will give the same results every time is just not believable.

Human error and machine error look different, of course. Misplacing a shot that hits a giant stack of pasters is different than just randomly misplacing shots all over the place. But human mistakes are auditable, an e-target is FINAL, even when it massively F-s up. I have seen, and made, my fair share of errors scoring targets, but I've never misplaced a shot by a half inch. I have, and have seen done, forgot to move the score marker or put it on the wrong score, but that is an error easily corrected after the fact, unlike ANY ERROR an e-target produces.

*IIRC the current tolerance offered by e-target manufacturers is an SD of .25"

I think its all healthy debate if it leads to improvement. A new e-target just hit the market at a substantially lower price with several upgrades (in my OPINION). I think this is great as competition is certainly going to get us at an acceptable standard way before our differing opinions here!
I rarely post but I do travel around and shoot different ranges in F Class. I have shot e -targets many times as well as pulled targets. I do understand a good bit about the SMT system and know there are some short falls but most can be corrected with proper set up and care by those running the matches. Same as the point you made about the shaggy targets pictured above.
I find it odd many like to hold the e-targets to standards that seem to be lost on the "traditional" methods. Your points on human mistakes above being mostly correctable are valid but what I didn't see listed above are a few points that never seem to be mentioned in these comparisons. All references to pulled targets are based on the assumption that the targets are all linear. They are not! Forget replacement centers being out of line. How many mm is a wrinkle represent in a glued replacement center that has one through the middle? I would say I see more glued centers with wrinkles than without. How much bow in a cardboard target does it take to get 2 to 3 mm off? Can a .25" bow in a 6' X 6" or 4' X 6' cardboard target be seen by the naked eye? If so and target 2 has a .25" bow through the middle with a perfectly glued center and target 3 is perfectly linear, dosent target 3 have a .25" advantage? Does all the targets have the same wrinkle or bow? After all we are talking about fairness and standardization. Most club ranges I shoot have targets they try and get all the life they can from them before replacing. With e-targets these issues I raise are corrected, but I acknowledge there are other issues I just believe in the proper context of the whole picture they are not as big or as far off the "traditional" ways as many want to believe.
I'll keep shooting on whatever target choice the ranges I go to offer and be happy doing so. I'm sure there will be challenges a long the way but that's how we grow and get better. I for one do this for fun, camaraderie, and competition

 

[rardoin]

Lots, and:

a) They get cleaned up before being put up.

But somebody had to shoot the last shot on that target....and someone had to score it.

 

[JFrank]

I don't know what the average, standard distribution, distribution function, etc... of a bunch of humans scoring targets would be. Running an experiment like what you proposed would probably be a good way to establish that. But you proposing that an etarget that will randomly place 1 out of 20 shots more than .5"* away and between 6 & 7 shots out of 20 more than .25" from their actual location will give the same results every time is just not believable.

Human error and machine error look different, of course. Misplacing a shot that hits a giant stack of pasters is different than just randomly misplacing shots all over the place. But human mistakes are auditable, an e-target is FINAL, even when it massively F-s up. I have seen, and made, my fair share of errors scoring targets, but I've never misplaced a shot by a half inch. I have, and have seen done, forgot to move the score marker or put it on the wrong score, but that is an error easily corrected after the fact, unlike ANY ERROR an e-target produces.

*IIRC the current tolerance offered by e-target manufacturers is an SD of .25"

This is a very interesting thread and I just wonder if perhaps an official template for confirmation is possible.
I picture a thin clear acrylic target with etched rings overlaid on a shooters blown out target to recreate the original or official size that all could agree on or let's say live with?
Just a morning coffee thought "
SPJ

 

[SWRichmond]

" If you feel that strongly against e-targets the solution is simple: all you have to do is NOT GO."

Oh my goodness.

 

[Catfur]

" If you feel that strongly against e-targets the solution is simple: all you have to do is NOT GO."

Oh my goodness.

I don't want e-targets to go away. I want them to get better.

 

[Ned Ludd]

" If you feel that strongly against e-targets the solution is simple: all you have to do is NOT GO."

Oh my goodness.

So because a very few people have decided that e-targets are the way to go, thereby changing how already existing sports are played, those that aren't willing to accept that change should simply not participate and stay home? You want to change my sport and then tell me to stay home if I don't like it? That's a BS solution to this issue and and a poor way to treat your fellow competitors. You and everyone else knows it. This is exactly why the lines for/against e-targets are so firmly drawn. As I've stated previously, start your own separate competition and do whatever you like; leave mine alone, it's fine just the way it is.

Anyone can post whatever statistical analysis they like regarding e-targets or human scorers. It's beyond question that neither the e-target or human scoring systems are perfect. However, as long as no malice or poor sportsmanship is involved, I'll take the human eye in terms of accuracy every time. I've dropped points before by a distance that was described as "out by the width of a human red blood cell". However, when I looked at the bullet hole myself, it was absolutely clear it wasn't touching the line, so I had no complaint. I don't think the e-targets have come anywhere close to reaching that level of accuracy, regardless of what people may want to believe. They may reach it at some point in the future, and discussions such as this may well expedite that development. But they aren't there yet.

 

[dcali]

I don't understand where people get that human beings are so unreliable. Anyone with normal eyesight can probably resolve a gap of ten thous or better between a hole and a ring. It's right in front of your face. Even when the X ring is pretty well shot out, you can still get it pretty darn close, and by then you need a new face just to have something to aim at. Not knowing the rules can be a problem, but that's pretty rare. I've never heard of (let alone seen) someone cheating in F Class. (I assume this all about F class - e targets seem perfectly adequate for sling). Maybe only for today, but John Henry still wins this one.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I don't understand where people get that human beings are so unreliable. Anyone with normal eyesight can probably resolve a gap of ten thous or better between a hole and a ring. It's right in front of your face. Even when the X ring is pretty well shot out, you can still get it pretty darn close, and by then you need a new face just to have something to aim at. Not knowing the rules can be a problem, but that's pretty rare. I've never heard of (let alone seen) someone cheating in F Class. (I assume this all about F class - e targets seem perfectly adequate for sling). Maybe only for today, but John Henry still wins this one.

Nope.

 

[Mudeat]

I don't understand where people get that human beings are so unreliable. Anyone with normal eyesight can probably resolve a gap of ten thous or better between a hole and a ring. It's right in front of your face. Even when the X ring is pretty well shot out, you can still get it pretty darn close, and by then you need a new face just to have something to aim at. Not knowing the rules can be a problem, but that's pretty rare. I've never heard of (let alone seen) someone cheating in F Class. (I assume this all about F class - e targets seem perfectly adequate for sling). Maybe only for today, but John Henry still wins this one.

Exactly right

 

[Laurie]

What is not mentioned yet is how accurate the targets are after they have had 1000, 5000 shots or whatever through them and the rubber backing has big holes through the back of the sound chamber. I have been shooting on ETs for 9 years (Australia is plagued with them). While the E targets are new or have been rebuilt recently, they are all pretty accurate, but if not, the accuracy can go real bad in some systems if they are let go far enough.

The Kongsberg e-targets at Blair Atholl in Scotland started to have such problems a few years back and pretty well wrecked a GB F-Class league round, so much so that many GB 'Effers' became distinctly unfriendly to the whole concept. The SMTs don't use a closed chamber system with internal rubber membranes rather have externally mounted microphones, so they're unaffected by the round count on the target frame. No doubt though, somebody will point up a different set of reliability issues.

I mention all this though because my new quarterly issue of the (UK) NRA 'Journal' arrived today with a report on the 11 Intarso (Intelligent Target Solutions) e-targets installed last August on Bisley's Stickledown Range that has firing points at 800 - 1,200 yards. As with the Kongsberg type, the Intarso target uses a twin rubber membrane 'chamber' design - required to cope with subsonic bullets which the SMTs and their external microphones don't register. Unlike the e-targets I've seen elsewhere in the UK, one of the eleven (that installed as Target #50, the extreme right-hand lane) is 'intelligent' recording both the number and physical distribution of bullet strikes. Intarso claims that as a result and allied to tests carried out on the wear and tear of the rubber membranes a hit-density profile has been worked out for the targets with membrane patching needed when the hit-density on any part of the membranes reaches 10 shots / sq centimetre which in Stickledown's case equates to 20,000 shots (9 months use). At double those figures, the membranes will need to be replaced completely.

These count figures will be considerably reduced if and when e-targets are installed on Century range with its maximum 600 yards distance which will produce a much higher concentration of centre-strikes, but the same processes and software will be used to (hopefully) retain reliability in use.

 

[RDavies]

" If you feel that strongly against e-targets the solution is simple: all you have to do is NOT GO."

Oh my goodness.

A lot of good shooters are already doing so.

 

[JFrank]

The Kongsberg e-targets at Blair Atholl in Scotland started to have such problems a few years back and pretty well wrecked a GB F-Class league round, so much so that many GB 'Effers' became distinctly unfriendly to the whole concept. The SMTs don't use a closed chamber system with internal rubber membranes rather have externally mounted microphones, so they're unaffected by the round count on the target frame. No doubt though, somebody will point up a different set of reliability issues.

I mention all this though because my new quarterly issue of the (UK) NRA 'Journal' arrived today with a report on the 11 Intarso (Intelligent Target Solutions) e-targets installed last August on Bisley's Stickledown Range that has firing points at 800 - 1,200 yards. As with the Kongsberg type, the Intarso target uses a twin rubber membrane 'chamber' design - required to cope with subsonic bullets which the SMTs and their external microphones don't register. Unlike the e-targets I've seen elsewhere in the UK, one of the eleven (that installed as Target #50, the extreme right-hand lane) is 'intelligent' recording both the number and physical distribution of bullet strikes. Intarso claims that as a result and allied to tests carried out on the wear and tear of the rubber membranes a hit-density profile has been worked out for the targets with membrane patching needed when the hit-density on any part of the membranes reaches 10 shots / sq centimetre which in Stickledown's case equates to 20,000 shots (9 months use). At double those figures, the membranes will need to be replaced completely.

These count figures will be considerably reduced if and when e-targets are installed on Century range with its maximum 600 yards distance which will produce a much higher concentration of centre-strikes, but the same processes and software will be used to (hopefully) retain reliability in use.

Good morning Laurie'
May I ask your opinion on these E targets vs the paper targets?
Are they in your experience more reliable and definitive than the conventional method?
I have no doubt that there will always be some controversial questions about scoring, how do your clubs in the U.K. arrive at the final Talley for the event or what method is established for settlement of disputes?
I'm curious as to the sportsmanship displayed by your fellow shooters.
I have no experience with E targets only paper versions at our local events we score our own than turn in the target for a second opinion, the event director measures if needed. We congratulate the winners 'shake hands and carry on.
Regards
SPJ

 

[Jennb]

One thing I know for sure. If someone crossfires on an e target it is going to be known and someone is getting a zero. I scored for Jason at the TSRA championship and watch him very closely to protect his score. He got no less than 4 shots on his target that were someones crossfires and I did not see one miss show up on a target at that time. Only one of those was early enough in a string to have been someones sighter. I am not saying anyone cheated, I may have just not seen the marks. What I am saying is the possibility of large human error is much larger than and way more frequent than many want to admit.

It was my job to ensure he had not shot those and to make sure his target was not pulled out of under him when they happened. How many score people watch their shooters that close. Obviously not enough and I have to say I have been guilty myself in the past. Fortunately after the first time it happened I realized how important it was going to be then and from now own!

 

[Jay Christopherson]

So because a very few people have decided that e-targets are the way to go, thereby changing how already existing sports are played, those that aren't willing to accept that change should simply not participate and stay home? You want to change my sport and then tell me to stay home if I don't like it? That's a BS solution to this issue and and a poor way to treat your fellow competitors. You and everyone else knows it. This is exactly why the lines for/against e-targets are so firmly drawn. As I've stated previously, start your own separate competition and do whatever you like; leave mine alone, it's fine just the way it is

Since that quote is originally mine, but taken out of the larger context of my statement, I'm not sure if you are responding to me or the guy who mis-quoted me. Assuming it's me, the point I was making is that bitching on the Internet is not going to get you the result you want. If you want to draw a line in the sand and call the game good as-is, then simply DON'T GO to matches with e-targets. If you are in enough of a majority, clubs and match directors will get the message pretty quickly.

Call it "your" sport all you like. But just like everything else in this world, it will evolve whether you choose to participate or not.

 

[500Stroker]

This give me "confidence".

 

[INTJ]

Interesting topic. I am a LR BR shooter and I could see e-targets being used for the sighter period, then put up paper for record.

However, don’t e-targets fundamentally change the character of F-Class? Wouldn’t you get much quicker feedback on the wind and shoot faster if you didn’t have to wait for a target to be pulled and marked?

In fact, you could almost run your shots in a string in the same wind condition like we do in BR.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Interesting topic. I am a LR BR shooter and I could see e-targets being used for the sighter period, then put up paper for record.

However, don’t e-targets fundamentally change the character of F-Class? Wouldn’t you get much quicker feedback on the wind and shoot faster if you didn’t have to wait for a target to be pulled and marked?

In fact, you could almost run your shots in a string in the same wind condition like we do in BR.

They have a delay built in

 

[rardoin]

Wouldn’t you get much quicker feedback on the wind and shoot faster if you didn’t have to wait for a target to be pulled and marked?

In fact, you could almost run your shots in a string in the same wind condition like we do in BR.

Yes....saw that today with great success. A programmed delay as per current NRA rules would halt the practice. I am just not that fast I have a skill imposed delay regardless