E-Target Rules Changes

[FatBoy]

Changing the rules and/or scoring systems used in such way that it actually changes HOW a sport is played, or merely for the purpose of attracting larger numbers of competitors is a foolish goal and in the long run will hurt the sport more than it will help. At some level, the competitors themselves have to possess a certain level of motivation, dedication, and a desire to participate in a given sport the way it is already played. If they don't possess these attributes, I'd personally much rather they chose some shooting sport other than F-Class/High Power that is more in line with their goals and expectations, rather than change the Rules and Match formats merely to appease them. Even if it meant fewer competitors on the line, I'd much rather be shooting alongside people that are dedicated to shooting a specific discipline the same way I am and that really want to be there. If they want to change the sport into something different, they are always free to go and start their own shooting discipline elsewhere in any form they choose.

I find this iroinic in that this is the same argument we got against F Class when we started shooting it back in 2001/2002. The same push back we got when Larry set out working with us to set up a proposed rule set to "legitimize" F class.

Glad your ranks are growing, curious how many shooter you have for a normal approved match and where you shoot. Are you using paper or e-targets?

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I have been shooting on E Ts for six years. I would fight these rule changes. If I lost I would walk away from the sport.
The seven second rule will cause more trouble than it is worth for scoring, who owns which shot.
The speed the shooter uses is his choice there are pitfalls.
The forming of a group or the display of X & Y is not coaching people plot their shots on paper now.
I could go on but why this post negates all benefits ETs bring to shooting.
You still want a full pit crew, new paper centres for each shooter with perfect alinement to the acoustic centre.
My Question to this paper why spend money buying ETs when you want to use them as pulled targets

I will disagree with you on several of those points because I think they are important to the discussion.

You say "The seven second rule will cause more trouble than it is worth for scoring, who owns which shot."

I respond - Yet, with a pit-pulled target, the same problem exists. that is why we have a "benefit of the doubt rule" that I recommended be extended to E targets.

You say "The speed the shooter uses is his choice there are pitfalls."

I respond - While there are pitfalls to speed shooting, I believe that we have a duty to prevent that fad from becoming widespread and changing the basics of our game. What game do you want to play?

You say "The forming of a group or the display of X & Y is not coaching people plot their shots on paper now."

I respond - Yes, indeed, shooters do plot their own shots. There are pitfalls. The time taken to plot a shot might cause the shooter (in string fire) to miss an opportunity to get one more shot on target before a wind switch. If it isn't coaching, why am I not allowed to have an assistant sit directly beside my rifle and plot my shots while I shoot, displaying those to me continuously? The answer is likely that the practice would eliminate the risks and tradeoffs of plotting shots.

To your final question, paraphrased - Why even buy electronic targets?

Until the target systems and associated match processes mature a bit, I believe we need to work hard to prevent undesirable outcomes. I'll post a picture of what ETs look like on the wilds of the US separately.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I think it important to show what we are talking about here. This is a target that I shot in a mid range match. Three of us used this target (2 Fclass and one sling) for 66 shots each. By the last relay, I was looking through that hole to see where I was hitting.

The registered match later in the year was much worse, but I don’t have a photo.

The question is how do you treat any shooter fairly when the system does something funny like we have all seen?
What basis does one have for making it right?
What real proof is there that the score was 200-20 instead of 200-16 or the opposite?

 

[Jennb]

Conventional shooter numbers may have decreased in recent years, but F-Class is still growing at a healthy rate as a sport. If some shooters choose to pursue alternative shooting opportunities solely so they can spray more rounds down range "with way less rules and half the time on the range", then they probably won't be missed anyhow.

Changing the rules and/or scoring systems used in such way that it actually changes HOW a sport is played, or merely for the purpose of attracting larger numbers of competitors is a foolish goal and in the long run will hurt the sport more than it will help. At some level, the competitors themselves have to possess a certain level of motivation, dedication, and a desire to participate in a given sport the way it is already played. If they don't possess these attributes, I'd personally much rather they chose some shooting sport other than F-Class/High Power that is more in line with their goals and expectations, rather than change the Rules and Match formats merely to appease them. Even if it meant fewer competitors on the line, I'd much rather be shooting alongside people that are dedicated to shooting a specific discipline the same way I am and that really want to be there. If they want to change the sport into something different, they are always free to go and start their own shooting discipline elsewhere in any form they choose.

E-targets may ultimately be the future of F-Class/High Power whether people like myself want it or not. If so, now is the time to lay out a very specific and well-though out set of rules to govern their use in the sport, not wait until later and "see what happens". Keith's suggested rule changes are clearly a good start toward that goal.

Agree and watching.

 

[m1jeff]

I could very easily be mistaken, and don't have a rule book with me to look, but for as long as I've been shooting, the competitor has always been allowed to request a new target face at the beginning of his relay. As far as I know that still holds true even in the etargets age.

I've certainly replaced several faces at Perry per shooter request.

 

[corning]

Certification Standards:

1. Max .25 inches in a summary Standard Deviation, at all courses of fire, for all calibres, under any environmental and setup conditions experienced, repeatable in match scenarios.

I've posted this elsewhere, and it might as well be here too:

That is an inadequate "standard". Technology should allow accurate precision, not a .25 inch "slop". A person in the pits is more precise than the "standard" above. If the manufacturers want to instill confidence in competitors, they should insure, and guarantee 100 percent accuracy in the precision of their targets, when set up properly. The NRA is wrong to permit .25 inch "slop", and the manufacturers should find that unacceptable for what you describe the targets to be used for (ie: national level competition, national records, etc).

John Corning

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Rick,

Despite my opposition to the .25" standard of accuracy, I have a comment on the protocol you suggest.

In your testing protocol, I disagree with using standard deviation. A normal distribution is well known with only 68% of outcomes falling within one standard deviation and 95% within 2 and 99.7% within 3.

Doing the math, 32% of shots would be expected to have errors GREATER than .25" under your suggestion. Sickeningly, 5% would be more than .5"

If we are to use a protocol based on the .25", I suggest it should be .25" total error in extreme spread.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I get that some guys dislike e-targets (or simply the *idea* of e-targets in some cases), but let's not get carried away waxing poetic about the benefits of target pullers in the pits. I've seen some pretty bad service, bad/inconsistent scoring decisions (depending on who is doing the scoring), and shooters eating mistakes made by the puller because the puller is inexperienced, doesn't care, or doesn't know the rules. It all adds up in different (and again, inconsistent) ways.

There's room for improvement sure - but if the standard is "hey, let's equal current pit service", well - we're already there if you care to compare the pros/cons of each, IMO.

The *single* point that I see needing to be urgently addressed is the error tolerance. It's one thing for a puller to score a shooter down by accident or on purpose (which is disgusting, but happens) - it's another to accept a full .25" of error on a shot to shot basis. I came relatively close to the standing LR record at Lodi (and another shooter even closer) and I'm glad I didn't quite make it because I feel like there would have been an asterisk next to it.

 

[Mudeat]

I haven’t seen “bad” target pullers very often and when there is you can challenge it - not so with etargets, you have to eat it. Ya, you can get squad with a green junior who doesn’t care or an old guy who wants to shoot the breeze in the pit rather then pay attention. But that’s rare and pretty obvious.

 

[Jay Christopherson]

I haven’t seen “bad” target pullers very often and when there is you can challenge it - not so with etargets, you have to eat it. Ya, you can get squad with a green junior who doesn’t care or an old guy who wants to shoot the breeze in the pit rather then pay attention. But that’s rare and pretty obvious.

That's cool - I'll disagree though.

 

[corning]

Jay, at least one can challenge what appears to be a bad call when there is someone in the pits. With e-targets, the current rules just have you sucking it up and accepting the score.

 

[Dos XX]

"It didnt register my shot."

"Well, just shoot another one."

Can't count how many times I heard this at natonals last year. Nationals is no place for "well, just shoot another one."

 

[Jay Christopherson]

"It didnt register my shot."

"Well, just shoot another one."

Can't count how many times I heard this at nats last year.

Yep, that is a problem. Just like:

"X, X, X, 10, M!??"
"There's no shot on target, mark it a miss"
"Challenge for mark!"
"Shooter loses"
"Well, count the holes!"
"Sorry, there's more than one shooter on this target..."

"huh, sorry, maybe the guy pasted two holes or something"

or

"Uh, well, he was shooting X's and 10's, just give him a 10" <--- because there's no other possible explanation, right?

All I am saying - is that the familiar always looks better than the new/unknown. NO system is perfect (including the existing puller system). There are just as many issues with the puller system as with the e-target system (though they are different issues mostly) and they tend to balance out on the whole - EXCEPT the built in tolerance for .25" slop in the e-targets, which is/would be unacceptable. People tend to favor their most recent bad experience, which, until the SWN, is going to be the e-targets at Lodi most likely (for F-Class).

I was in Ottawa and the service was - "uneven" is a polite way to put it, but a lot of guys forget that in the wake of some of the issues experienced at Lodi and their distaste for change.

 

[Dos XX]

Yep, that is a problem. Just like:

"X, X, X, 10, M!??"
"There's no shot on target, mark it a miss"
"Challenge for mark!"
"Shooter loses"
"Well, count the holes!"
"Sorry, there's more than one shooter on this target..."

"huh, sorry, maybe the guy pasted two holes or something"

or

"Uh, well, he was shooting X's and 10's, just give him a 10" <--- because there's no other possible explanation, right?

All I am saying - is that the familiar always looks better than the new/unknown. NO system is perfect (including the existing puller system). There are just as many issues with the puller system as with the e-target system and they tend to balance out on the whole - EXCEPT the built in tolerance for .25" slop in the e-targets, which is/would be unacceptable.

Yeah, I agree. I have had a scorer not catch the target go down and back up and not mark the shot before and been assigned a miss for it. That does suck. But, part of that was on me for not making sure it was clearly called out by the scorer.

There are problems with manual pulling, too. That said, my preference is pits, at this time.

 

[jkl]

I am on a text thread with some shooters in New Zealand shooting the championship matches as I type. Over the last 10 days some of the pulling in New Zealand has exceeded 30 second service.

Now the Southwest Nationals are starting at Ben Avery, I am sure during a ride to the pits, on the cat walk or firing line I will hear someone taking about slow or bad service. I can't remember a match I haven't heard speed up the service on some target number. 7 seconds I cant remember if I have ever seen a consistent 7 second pit service.

I own an E target and will not give it up for practice. Registered matches I don't mind pulling targets, but you are all going to get drug in to the next century even if your are kicking and screaming.

The catwalk with friends is like a comedy club at times. And I have enjoyed talking with some amazing senior shooters between strings. So enjoy the pits or the firing line. Maybe laughing at friends reviewing a poor shot on a tablet on an E target.

John

 

[Bindi2]

I will disagree with you on several of those points because I think they are important to the discussion.

You say "The seven second rule will cause more trouble than it is worth for scoring, who owns which shot."

I respond - Yet, with a pit-pulled target, the same problem exists. that is why we have a "benefit of the doubt rule" that I recommended be extended to E targets.

You say "The speed the shooter uses is his choice there are pitfalls."

I respond - While there are pitfalls to speed shooting, I believe that we have a duty to prevent that fad from becoming widespread and changing the basics of our game. What game do you want to play?

You say "The forming of a group or the display of X & Y is not coaching people plot their shots on paper now."

I respond - Yes, indeed, shooters do plot their own shots. There are pitfalls. The time taken to plot a shot might cause the shooter (in string fire) to miss an opportunity to get one more shot on target before a wind switch. If it isn't coaching, why am I not allowed to have an assistant sit directly beside my rifle and plot my shots while I shoot, displaying those to me continuously? The answer is likely that the practice would eliminate the risks and tradeoffs of plotting shots.

To your final question, paraphrased - Why even buy electronic targets?

Until the target systems and associated match processes mature a bit, I believe we need to work hard to prevent undesirable outcomes. I'll post a picture of what ETs look like on the wilds of the US separately.

When scoring on ETs the scorer must watch the screen and the shooter all the time. Doing this you will see the difference in the time of recorded shots even when they are very close. If not the rules say highest score and optional sighter. The seven second rule destroys all this and more.
Speed shooting is not a fad it can be done on pulled targets with a good puller. The pitfalls are related to the type of ET used and how good or bad the maintenance is.
The fast shooters that I know have an amazing memory of where to aim for their next shot they don't need the info on the screen. I have charts that show how far in clicks from any where to centre including wind strength elevation changes. This is slowly being committed to memory.
I agree that target is a mess. That is a total lack of maintenance. A new centre for each shooter at least but a better backing would fix the problem
There are many problems with using ETs for the new users. Few are rule related most are maintenance problems that people have to learn.
Undesirable outcomes still occur on manual targets. Installing ETs have shown the inaccuracies of some manual systems.
You buy ETs because you will run out of pullers, you want to spend more time shooting, you can put more matches through in a day, no body gets hurt pulling targets and the old guys stay shooting longer. With instance reporting you can see what caused that funny shot, the grouping shows if there is a problem developing with your load or barrel.
ETs are just another step in the evolution of shooting.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I find this iroinic in that this is the same argument we got against F Class when we started shooting it back in 2001/2002. The same push back we got when Larry set out working with us to set up a proposed rule set to "legitimize" F class.

Glad your ranks are growing, curious how many shooter you have for a normal approved match and where you shoot. Are you using paper or e-targets?

Back in the day, participation by F-Class shooters didn't force Conventional shooters to change anything, even though the F-Class shooters initially fired on the same targets until the scoring rings were later reduced in size. Currently, all shooters will be forced to use e-targets, or else choose not participate, because any given range that converts to e-targets will do so for all their firing lanes, and no one in their right mind is going to hold a match using mixed e-targets and paper targets. That's an importance difference.

Regardless, it may be inevitable that e-targets will eventually replace paper targets. However, I really don't appreciate comments such as in the post above where it was stated "...you are all going to get drug in to the next century even if your are kicking and screaming." I can decide for myself what I will or won't do, without idiotic statements like this. My observation is simply, be very careful what you wish for, because you may well get it. If it doesn't turn out to be what you thought it would, you will only have yourself to blame. If e-targets are the inevitable future in our shooting sport, the time to think carefully about how their use will evolve with the sport so as to develop appropriate rules and guidelines is NOW, not later. I'm done.

 

[Medic505]

but you are all going to get drug in to the next century even if your are kicking and screaming.

No I won't. Skeet looks like a fun game to me.

 

[jkl]

Skeet,
I shot competitive clay's for longer than I want to admit. Sponsored by major shot shell manufacture. Shotgun shooters have been going through a similar battle. Skeet and Trap shooters hated sporting clay shooters. Ruin the game and now Sporting Clay's out grew trap and skeet. I was one of the first to cross over to the dark side and it was a game that won my heart. I have shot ZZ birds, Stick birds, sporting clay's, skeet, trap, five stand and any other way you can toss a target.

Long range is far less costly and contains some of the greatest people. People that will spend hours working with a you as a competitor. Helping you to load better ammo, shoot better and lend you anything they own or they can borrow to increase your score. Then be damn happy to shake your hand and laugh with you over lunch when you beat your mentor.

If you were to leave due to the advent of E targets how are you going to pass everything you have learned on the future generation of shooters?

My youngest is not that young now and showed very little interest in shooting until the last few years. I have enjoyed going back to the skeet field and starting him down the path and showing him what his dad hasn't forgotten about breaking the target.

John

 

[Catfur]

I am not against e-targets. I am against e-targets that fail to meet adequate quality standards. Technology is not there now, maybe it will be in few years.

Certification Standards:

1. Max .25 inches in a summary Standard Deviation, at all courses of fire, for all calibres, under any environmental and setup conditions experienced, repeatable in match scenarios.
   
   
2. If a target fails to report a shot in the scoring area, the target is disqualified.
   
   
3. Any falsely reported shot disqualifies the target.
   
   
4. On the firing line, “calibre used” entry is not useful data. i.e. The radius difference between .308 and .223 is 1.079 mm. No target scoring system can measure to that precision.

We support the NRA’s effort to maintain high scoring standards, in keeping with a healthy competitive spirit in competitions.

Not just no, but H--- NO!

1. Max .01" StDev. This means 95+% of shots within +or- .02" of where they land, a standard that people in the pit can meet.

I submit rule #1025 concerning E targets:

"No E targets are to be used in any match that can report national records."

How do i get this on the agenda?

All in favor say "Aye".

AYE!!!

curious how many people who vote Aye have ever ran a match....

Indeed. Paper is easy.