E-Targets for F-Class

[Bindi2]

Geoff on crossfires the rule just needs to be changed to both shots annulled the target with two shots has an optional shot the crossfirer a miss carry on. The time delay will only mean to some the next shot will be fired one second after the delay no matter what the delay is.
Personally I don't see what the issue is ET v Manual. No one is using the same gear today as 10 or 20 years ago the game has been changed because of this . Changing the gear to get an advantage is OK but the pits and targets have to stay the same. BS. Shooting Bisley style is a big step back in time for the Aussies, this would be a major change to our shooting culture from string fire. The KISS principle is the best way. The major problem is not speed shooting it is the scoring of crossfires even without a delay. Fix the scoring then delays will not be such a hassle to you or me.
Bisley style just needs a time to shoot before the delay occurs then the score put up.

 

[B Nettesheim]

Just imagine if guffey got in on this topic

 

[Nature Boy]

People talk about E Targets and don’t understand them. I make my own E Targets. I’ve been making them for a long time using simple tools like a wrench. I also use a lot of datum. People don’t know why that’s important but I do.

FGuffy - probably

 

[M99]

This is not a realistic or fair comparison. As long as they fall within the specified rules, each individual shooter can choose for themselves what components and rifle setup to use, without affecting the choices of the other participants. Once E-targets have been implemented at a given range, there is no option to continue shooting on paper targets. ALL shooters will be forced to use E-targets, or else not participate. For that reason, the specific manner in which E-targets will be implemented in F-Class matches is worth consideration with input from ANY shooters potentially involved in their use.

The post I was replying to said that E-Targets made things easier to shoot higher scores. My post compared better available components and rifles that do exactly the same thing. We all do have a choice of components and rifles, but no one tries to compete in F-Class with black powder rifles and Mini Balls. Few attempt to compete in it with Factory Ammunition. Maybe we should rule out using hand made ammunition tuned to our rifles or custom bullets since those also make the sport easier.
The world and technology changes with time. E-Targets are simply another technological change. Wearing shooters out pulling targets was never considered part of the way to beat them in score. It was just a necessity until we found a better way to compare shooting skill instead of physical stamina.

 

[243Mendoza]

...For that reason, the specific manner in which E-targets will be implemented in F-Class matches is worth consideration with input from ANY shooters potentially involved in their use.

What inputs in the implementation of Etargets would you like to make?

 

[Ned Ludd]

What inputs in the implementation of Etargets would you like to make?

This is the hotly debated topic for this whole thread, and several others like it. A 7-10 second delay is one idea, which sounds as though it has already been implemented by the NRA. The other consideration would be only showing the last shot fired on the tablet/computer screen. Those two simple things would render the use of E-targets very similar to a match fired on paper targets, without minimizing or removing the benefits people seem to like most about E-targets.

 

[243Mendoza]

This is the hotly debated topic for this whole thread, and several others like it. A 7-10 second delay is one idea, which sounds as though it has already been implemented by the NRA. The other consideration would be only showing the last shot fired on the tablet/computer screen. Those two simple things would render the use of E-targets very similar to a match fired on paper targets, without minimizing or removing the benefits people seem to like most about E-targets.

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[David101]

The post I was replying to said that E-Targets made things easier to shoot higher scores. My post compared better available components and rifles that do exactly the same thing. We all do have a choice of components and rifles, but no one tries to compete in F-Class with black powder rifles and Mini Balls. Few attempt to compete in it with Factory Ammunition. Maybe we should rule out using hand made ammunition tuned to our rifles or custom bullets since those also make the sport easier.
The world and technology changes with time. E-Targets are simply another technological change. Wearing shooters out pulling targets was never considered part of the way to beat them in score. It was just a necessity until we found a better way to compare shooting skill instead of physical stamina.

In Australia this was the case quite a long time ago now. First with the ammo being handed out freely by the Army and then there was ammo sold by the National body.

Still to this day when Shooting Bisley in England you must purchase your ammunition from the match they even take it a step further and only issue you with the exact number of rounds for that range and you hand back any unused. No batching allowed. They also have a specific chamber dimension that will be tested. So there are some matches shot in full boar that are sticking to the traditions as much as possible. Rules such as these are upto the individual match organizers as long as they are published before and or on entering.

 

[David101]

The post I was replying to said that E-Targets made things easier to shoot higher scores. My post compared better available components and rifles that do exactly the same thing. We all do have a choice of components and rifles, but no one tries to compete in F-Class with black powder rifles and Mini Balls. Few attempt to compete in it with Factory Ammunition. Maybe we should rule out using hand made ammunition tuned to our rifles or custom bullets since those also make the sport easier.
The world and technology changes with time. E-Targets are simply another technological change. Wearing shooters out pulling targets was never considered part of the way to beat them in score. It was just a necessity until we found a better way to compare shooting skill instead of physical stamina.

You really think we should of on an international level moved to Automated retracted and raised targets a long time ago. Well before we ever got to E targets. I guess the pool of shooters was greater that the jobs could be done by the younger guys and the older guys given a break. Now we are lucky to find guys under 60 even in the clubs.

 

[KenOath]

You really think we should of on an international level moved to Automated retracted and raised targets a long time ago. Well before we ever got to E targets. I guess the pool of shooters was greater that the jobs could be done by the younger guys and the older guys given a break. Now we are lucky to find guys under 60 even in the clubs.

60 is 8-10 years under the age average where I shoot...

 

[Keith Glasscock]

@GeoffR

I really like the ideas you have presented. I would welcome them, especially the variable delay based on impact location. I know I'm faster pulling a target when the score isn't changing often and the shots are close together.

 

[MattPeetz]

Someone must like to mess with Bindi2 and crossfire on their target to get them rialed up lol. Crossfires are easy to deal with. There’s already a rule about it. You may not like it but its there.

 

[6BRinNZ]

@GeoffR

I really like the ideas you have presented. I would welcome them, especially the variable delay based on impact location. I know I'm faster pulling a target when the score isn't changing often and the shots are close together.

@geoff - yes very good ideas.

 

[Monte F]

x/v=7 seconds
10/5=8 seconds
9/4=9 seconds
8/3=10 seconds
7/2=11 seconds
6/1=12 seconds
5/0=13 seconds

 

[Doug Beach]

x/v=7 seconds
10/5=8 seconds
9/4=9 seconds
8/3=10 seconds
7/2=11 seconds
6/1=12 seconds
5/0=13 seconds

Within .2” of last shot: 30 seconds, while I fix the target, and roam around looking for a new spindle.

 

[Bindi2]

Someone must like to mess with Bindi2 and crossfire on their target to get them rialed up lol. Crossfires are easy to deal with. There’s already a rule about it. You may not like it but its there.

I know there is a rule for crossfires it is unjust. I have seen people awarded the highest score when it wasn't theirs. This put the person concerned up the leader board pushing people out of their rightful placings at the winners. Yes I do get upset about this issue when it can be resolved easily but people cant see the injustice because that is how we have always done it on manual targets. People want to make rules to stop fast shooters with delays or changing the style of shooting to pairs/Bisley but don't want to fix a real issue. You are right I don't like because it cheats people out of what is rightfully theirs.

 

[GeoffR]

For my own edification and interest (mainly academic I suppose) I will see what I can do. As we don't (yet) have delays applying in Australia and for reasons explained elsewhere I doubt that you will see my system in the US any time soon. Maybe, if enough interest is shown, my view might change. But this is unlikely while everyone is being conditioned and fixated to expect these sorts of features (and others) for $1000 or less per firing point. Because that simply is not possible. But the days of $6k+ per firing point are long gone also. Should I bother working out what can be done? (I digress).

I don't see any great drama in exploring various options with this. I don't see any money in it either! But one never really knows...

The example above shows the weighting based on the scoring rings. I can think of two more criteria - simple distance (mm or inches) or MOA from centre. MOA will automatically take care of the decision making as the system already knows what distance is being shot.

Should only the weighting only apply or would it be more interesting to include some base randomisation also? Either or both are possible as options without much effort.

Automatic cross fire detection and management (under computer control) would apply in any delay scenario.

The "show last shot only" feature would also remain. Currently show all shots is the default but this could be changed.

Furthermore, because each shooter is known to the system, profiles can be maintained for their favourite options/configurations. A specific "competition mode" could negate some of these. For example, when in competition mode when out of time, shots get ignored. When in "club" or training mode such things are not enforced.

 

[GeoffR]

I know there is a rule for crossfires it is unjust. I have seen people awarded the highest score when it wasn't theirs. This put the person concerned up the leader board pushing people out of their rightful placings at the winners. Yes I do get upset about this issue when it can be resolved easily but people cant see the injustice because that is how we have always done it on manual targets. People want to make rules to stop fast shooters with delays or changing the style of shooting to pairs/Bisley but don't want to fix a real issue. You are right I don't like because it cheats people out of what is rightfully theirs.

Which is one reason why I deviated from these rules. I took it upon myself to record a miss for the person who cross fired (although I do tell them why they copped a miss while not indicating where they actually put it) and no-one gets the "free kick" or a possibly higher score that they really are not entitled to. Nor do they get a score for a shot they haven't fired because a spotter suddenly appears on their target!

So far no-one has complained about this.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I know there is a rule for crossfires it is unjust. I have seen people awarded the highest score when it wasn't theirs. This put the person concerned up the leader board pushing people out of their rightful placings at the winners. Yes I do get upset about this issue when it can be resolved easily but people cant see the injustice because that is how we have always done it on manual targets. People want to make rules to stop fast shooters with delays or changing the style of shooting to pairs/Bisley but don't want to fix a real issue. You are right I don't like because it cheats people out of what is rightfully theirs.

Unjust? Really? What is with you? If someone cross-fired, they made the mistake and do not deserve any points for that shot. The person that crossfired will usually not earn a place with the winners, anyhow.

Generally, the person on whose target the crossfire actually occurred might receive at most a point or two extra, and often, will earn no extra points at all. If one point is enough to change the outcome of the match, so be it. The person whose target was crossfired on incurred all the inconvenience and disruption associated with a crossfire. You can't say with any knowledge whatsoever that the interruption in the flow of the match might not have actually caused them to drop MORE points than they would have otherwise. Receiving the higher of the two scores is recompense for the inconvenience. No one else is being "cheated" out of anything as long as the rules are followed explicitly. The easiest way to prevent this from ever happening is for people not to crossfire on someone else's target.

 

[GeoffR]

Unjust? Really? What is with you? If someone cross-fired, they made the mistake and do not deserve any points for that shot. The person that crossfired will usually not earn a place with the winners, anyhow.

Generally, the person on whose target the crossfire actually occurred might receive at most a point or two extra, and often, will earn no extra points at all. If one point is enough to change the outcome of the match, so be it. The person whose target was crossfired on incurred all the inconvenience and disruption associated with a crossfire. You can't say with any knowledge whatsoever that the interruption in the flow of the match might not have actually caused them to drop MORE points than they would have otherwise. Receiving the higher of the two scores is recompense for the inconvenience. No one else is being "cheated" out of anything as long as the rules are followed explicitly. The easiest way to prevent this from ever happening is for people not to crossfire on someone else's target.

Hi Ned,

Yes I agree. People should not cross fire. But they do.

Today I spoke to one of Australia's top shooters (and arguably one of the world's top shooters) about this. Only yesterday he was at a practice shoot somewhere when another shooter - one of the best F-class shooters in Australia - cross fired onto his target.

At a practice shoot this doesn't mean much. Results in some ribbing! But he did make the point that when it occurs in a high stakes competition, while no-one [generally] "disputes" any cross fire, it does interrupt the flow and is undesirable.

Cross firing happens a lot and it needs to be accommodated, or more accurately resolved, with minimal fuss in a competition environment. Without dispute or argument.

With the shot throttling delay in action, manual resolution of cross fires will become more difficult. Since the ET system does, or should, know all about what's going on within the current shooting environment - specifically in regards to timing relationships between discharges and target impacts - detection and management becomes possible within the computer environment. This means having knowledge of a shot being fired, from where, at what time, at what target, and ultimately on which target eventually ended up and the impact time at that target. The alternative is to simply rely on human timing perceptions.

if you have gone to the trouble to implement electronic targets (by definition computer systems) does it not make sense to utilise what all this can give you without necessarily detracting from the "manual target" experience? Of course, if you want to shoot on manual targets then none of this will apply at all. Only the time it takes to lower, score, and raise targets, and of course the indication of the last shot position. And is this all you want for your money?

Geoff.