E-Target Precision Poll
- Thread starter Rick Ratzlaff
- Start date
I wouldn't be able to get back up! I'm quite comfortable just sitting on my stool at a bench , under cover of course
SPJ
dcali
Bullet Maker
That may be true, but a lot of shooters won’t bother without one. I’d rather have a delay and some crossfire issues than a rapid fire contest.
Alexander-M
Gold $$ Contributor
Laurie,
Thank you for your comprehensive explanation - it is very interesting. The politics involved also are worth noting.
Alex
Now there is a new wrinkle in the time delay debate! This may make time delay moot.
SteveWell we can always shoot "Pair Fire" and you guys can have all the delay you want,problem solved.
I don't understand what crossfiring has to do with a delay? We did it at f class nationals last year. I actually see crossfire handling, equal pit service, and reduced scoring errors by inexperienced or inattentive scorers as the major plus for e targets.
I haven't fully introduced myself up to now. I am Chief Range Officer of the Queensland Rifle Association. I am responsible for conducting the North Queensland Rifle Associations Queens Prize Meeting (on Kongberg targets), The Queensland Rifle Association's Queens (on Hexta Targets) & assist with the National Rifle Association's event (also on our Hextas).
Towards the end of last year, Australia considered & voted against introducing a delay on electronic targets. I suspect that my submission below had a degree of influence in arriving at that decision:
I understand that the domestic issue is that some shooters (particularly but not exclusively F class shooters and particularly at short distances) continue to load & fire while they believe that the conditions will allow a properly executed shot to score the highest value, irrespective of the speed of the system & scorers. This is an opportunistic use of ETs that while not currently illegal, permits a shooter with particular skills of decision-making & execution to gain an advantage over those who function in a more determined manner. Beyond our shores, there are concerns, in the United States, for example, that records achieved when scores were achieved on competitor marked paper targets are likely to be (readily) superseded by scores on ETs. Of course, in the latter case, nobody is prepared to acknowledge the inexactness of scoring rings on paper targets. Undoubtedly that issue (and the contrary one claiming ETs aren’t adequately accurate) will be raised here too.
There are two issues that I believe need to be addressed when ET inbuilt delay is considered.
(1) Will it mitigate against assessing intrasystem communication lapses?
(2) How can the in no way unusual case of crossfires be managed, a situation which I believe has become more prevalent when shooters do not have all the previous means to identify their targets as they did with paper.
In the first case, one suggestion that has been promoted is that the range end devices do a count back from the suggested delay back to one, at which time the shot value is recorded.
That would indeed answer the situation, were suppliers willing & capable of the design. It definitely requires ETs to be provided with a mechanism that acknowledges that a shot has been fired immediately, full stop, even if the value & location are displayed subsequently.
Now, here’s the tricky bit - crossfires: if a shot is fired in that countback/delay period, will it be recorded and if so, how & when?
If the answer is in the negative, that is that the shooter’s shot fired during the countdown is automatically valued as a miss, then how will crossfires be identified (on the majority of local ETs, which are unable to assess the origin of a shot)? It’s not acceptable that a shooter gets any more or less than what he’s entitled to on a paper target, that is when two shots strike the target in close consecution (and not a moving target), then he gets the value of the better shot and a convertible sighter.
If the answer is that one will be reported after the delay/countdown for the previous shot, then a range officer loses the opportunity to assess whether we do have two shots striking in a short or longer time period, and, if the shooter hasn’t clouded the issue by letting off his next shot, then we are forced into the situation due to lack of evidence of automatically granting the shooter the higher value of the two shots and offering an optional sighter in every instance. We have no way of knowing in this circumstance how quickly the shots strike. We might guess, if we’re lucky enough to have a lost shot called immediately on an adjacent target, but that isn’t then norm. Shooters tend to wait a bit before conceding that they’ve donated a shot elsewhere and ask for assistance, the more so if they are now to expect some form of delay.
I believe that introducing delays will be counterproductive & unnecessary for us to permit ETs to be used in an equivalent manner to paper targets – equivalent, not exactly equal.
Towards the end of last year, Australia considered & voted against introducing a delay on electronic targets. I suspect that my submission below had a degree of influence in arriving at that decision:
I understand that the domestic issue is that some shooters (particularly but not exclusively F class shooters and particularly at short distances) continue to load & fire while they believe that the conditions will allow a properly executed shot to score the highest value, irrespective of the speed of the system & scorers. This is an opportunistic use of ETs that while not currently illegal, permits a shooter with particular skills of decision-making & execution to gain an advantage over those who function in a more determined manner. Beyond our shores, there are concerns, in the United States, for example, that records achieved when scores were achieved on competitor marked paper targets are likely to be (readily) superseded by scores on ETs. Of course, in the latter case, nobody is prepared to acknowledge the inexactness of scoring rings on paper targets. Undoubtedly that issue (and the contrary one claiming ETs aren’t adequately accurate) will be raised here too.
There are two issues that I believe need to be addressed when ET inbuilt delay is considered.
(1) Will it mitigate against assessing intrasystem communication lapses?
(2) How can the in no way unusual case of crossfires be managed, a situation which I believe has become more prevalent when shooters do not have all the previous means to identify their targets as they did with paper.
In the first case, one suggestion that has been promoted is that the range end devices do a count back from the suggested delay back to one, at which time the shot value is recorded.
That would indeed answer the situation, were suppliers willing & capable of the design. It definitely requires ETs to be provided with a mechanism that acknowledges that a shot has been fired immediately, full stop, even if the value & location are displayed subsequently.
Now, here’s the tricky bit - crossfires: if a shot is fired in that countback/delay period, will it be recorded and if so, how & when?
If the answer is in the negative, that is that the shooter’s shot fired during the countdown is automatically valued as a miss, then how will crossfires be identified (on the majority of local ETs, which are unable to assess the origin of a shot)? It’s not acceptable that a shooter gets any more or less than what he’s entitled to on a paper target, that is when two shots strike the target in close consecution (and not a moving target), then he gets the value of the better shot and a convertible sighter.
If the answer is that one will be reported after the delay/countdown for the previous shot, then a range officer loses the opportunity to assess whether we do have two shots striking in a short or longer time period, and, if the shooter hasn’t clouded the issue by letting off his next shot, then we are forced into the situation due to lack of evidence of automatically granting the shooter the higher value of the two shots and offering an optional sighter in every instance. We have no way of knowing in this circumstance how quickly the shots strike. We might guess, if we’re lucky enough to have a lost shot called immediately on an adjacent target, but that isn’t then norm. Shooters tend to wait a bit before conceding that they’ve donated a shot elsewhere and ask for assistance, the more so if they are now to expect some form of delay.
I believe that introducing delays will be counterproductive & unnecessary for us to permit ETs to be used in an equivalent manner to paper targets – equivalent, not exactly equal.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
I'd suggest that the system be programmed to automatically give the shooter the better of the two shots, just as the rules would have a pit scorer do in the event of finding two holes in the target.
Of course, a shooter could intentionally fire another shot during the countback, but an attentive scorer at the firing line would figure out really quick what had happened, and a miss would be recorded for one of the shots.
Of course, a shooter could intentionally fire another shot during the countback, but an attentive scorer at the firing line would figure out really quick what had happened, and a miss would be recorded for one of the shots.
That's only offered when the shots arrive simultaneously or thereabouts, not when a second shot is separated by a significant time?
dcali
Bullet Maker
Are crossfires not the responsibility of the scorer? If you get a score and your shooter hasn't fired, there's been a crossfire. If your shooter fires, and there is no score, that shooter missed or crossfired. I can see how electronic targets might make untangling the events a little more challenging, but at the end of the day, this is the scorer's job.
If the shots hit at nearly the same time, shooter gets the higher score, per the rules. This hardly seems like an obstacle worth changing the game over.
If the shots hit at nearly the same time, shooter gets the higher score, per the rules. This hardly seems like an obstacle worth changing the game over.
My understanding was that were a delay introduced then shot 1 might signal after X time & shot 2 after another X time delay, thus making it problematic to determine if the shots arrived near enough to simultaneously.
The last conundrum occurs the shooter accepts the first signalled shot & drills off his next during the delay period of the second of the original two shots.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
John,
I understand your concern, but the shooter is responsible for making sure the target is ready to accept another shot when using hand-pulled targets. If one is so foolish as to fire a shot while the target is not up, or is in motion, the result is the responsibility of the shooter.
I'm no super-programmer, but even I can code my way to have the system keep the timing and impact locations of multiple shots for analysis when something goes wrong. If I understand the technology correctly, current 8 microphone systems are capable of determining incoming direction, so picking the actual shooter's shot wouldn't be terribly hard to do today, even easier as the technology gets better.
I understand your concern, but the shooter is responsible for making sure the target is ready to accept another shot when using hand-pulled targets. If one is so foolish as to fire a shot while the target is not up, or is in motion, the result is the responsibility of the shooter.
I'm no super-programmer, but even I can code my way to have the system keep the timing and impact locations of multiple shots for analysis when something goes wrong. If I understand the technology correctly, current 8 microphone systems are capable of determining incoming direction, so picking the actual shooter's shot wouldn't be terribly hard to do today, even easier as the technology gets better.
Have you shot on the Intarso targets at Bisley Ian? (If so, any thoughts? - the NRA Journal report reads well - but it is written by Intarso's CEO!
)
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.