E targets in longrange benchrest

[LRPV]

I don’t wanna clog up a positive thread with what’s bound to be a lot of opinions from competitors as well as keyboard warriors who have never and never even intend to shoot such a match. I think it’s fine to keep track of records for paper and e targets separately and run whatever you feel like makes sense for you.

I also wanna preface this with I have no ill feelings towards anyone who wants to use this system for whatever reason and I feel like it is a very good idea when it fits your situation. Clay, I’m sorry you’re getting bombarded with all the questions and comments. Congratulations, you were the first one to try it. Lol.

I’ve been tuning with one of these e targets for a couple years and I love it. It tells me every thing I need to know for my process BUT I still keep paper records for review later as I process things better on paper than a screen. Probably has something to do with more experience with paper. I keep my paper and measure group size with calipers. I am far from qualified to measure groups at a national BR event as I would be more at home with a tape measure than calipers. I generally shoot ladder tests more than groups when testing but confirm by shooting groups. With MY PERSONAL shot marker setup, some days my measured groups are smaller than indicated and some days they are larger. I can’t remember exact numbers right now but I can confidently say it’s more than .25” discrepancy back and forth. I’ve never documented or tried to fix it because for what I’m doing it doesn’t matter.

I have never protested my own let alone someone else’s target to be re measured. I have had a few targets where the score was incorrect and I have asked to have that remedied. I have been beat out of first place group at a 600 nationals by .003” and I have won first place group at a 600 nationals by .001”. Both of these were 8 targets aggs for those who don’t know.

I spend a lot of time and money, neither that I have an over abundance of, to play this game. While I do enjoy the camaraderie of the sport, it’s the competitiveness that makes my blood pump. I would like to see the results compared long term/broad scale between actual paper and e target. Match directors need to do what fits their situation and I will support you. That said I want my paper targets measured whether it be 600 or 1k. Using the two systems together would be ideal in my perfect world. I’d love to have my shots counted and see the real time results.

Trust but verify.

I am from the Show Me State FFS.

 

[Mulligan]

Jason, at this time we intend to shoot paper on an electronic backer for our regular season. The shooters drive the program here (as it should be) so I cannot say for certain. Using the electronics for sighters and as a visual for the record rounds ( pulled targets) will give us something more solid to share. We will keep you posted as things progress.

I can say for certain that the shooters really embrace the e-target matches.
CW

 

[shoot4fun]

Great post my good friend!
While I do not own a Shotmarker yet I have done load testing at longer distance using a friend's unit.
It really does make a big difference in aiding "fine tuning".
Here's what I think about the use of E-Targets for our matches.
The Freedom Benchrest target for 600 yards is not expensive enough (about half the cost of IBS) to cause every range to feel forced to buy them. If you have 15 benches aren't you going to need 15 different setups?
That's a mountain high stack of paper in expense column and could wind up driving some clubs out of the game.
Yes, being able to use them for both BR and F-Class matches would lower and somewhat justify the overall outlay of capital for them but most all the ranges I shoot do not have F-Class programs.
The single most beneficial asset of the E-Target, in my mind, would be shot counting verification.
Was it only four for record? Or is #5 actually in there somewhere. After all, groups are getting smaller.
IF Freedom BR 9 (or any other BR Org) wants to employ an ET system there should absolutely be a universal set of rules for its use and certification. To my knowledge there is none.
BTW, last time I sent a target back for another look was because it had been measured too small.

 

[LRPV]

Records are going to be kept for both paper and E targets. With ANYTHING new there’s going to challenges and surprises. I really hope that the surprise is that E targets are every bit as accurate as paper in the end but it’s gonna have to be proven to me. I don’t want to start a Fclass/BR war because I’ve had my ass beat by a couple pretty good Fclass shooters… BUT if I understand correctly the Fclass X ring is the size of our 10 ring. Their groups don’t matter. The level of accuracy when it comes to measuring a target is much finer in BR.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I'll state up front that I have been outspokenly against the use of E-targets in F-Class matches since they were first proposed. Nonetheless, I was faced with two choices after their inception at many of the clubs where I shoot regularly: 1) stay at home and don't participate 2) accept the benefits and/or liabilities inherent in the use of E-targets as a scoring system for F-Class matches and participate. Grudgingly, I chose alternative #2. The reason for having only two choices in F-Class matches is that once an E-Target system has been put in place, one either has to accept it, or stay at home. There is no realistic "intermediate choice" that would allow some F-Class shooters to still use paper targets once the E-target system has been put in place.

In the time since their inception, I have purchased my own ShotMarker and adjusted to the use of E-targets in F-Class matches as best I can. I won't go so far as to say I'm "happy" about shooting on E-Targets, but I have come to accept that this is how things are in F-Class and will remain that way moving forward. I view it largely as a psychological hurdle. Once a person that views their use like I do accepts that they will be shooting on E-targets most of the time, things become easier in that one simply has to assume the statistics of any positive/negative effect the E-target might have on scores (or group size) will even out over the long run. I'm not claiming this is effect is fact, merely stating that in my mind I have become far less concerned over time with potential for an aberrant score due to the use of E-targets. E-target accuracy/precision is what it is. One would expect that over time, almost everyone that shoots regularly on E-target systems will likely be experiencing both the benefits and detriments of these sytems. In the case of most F-Class shooters, that will be without ever knowing which direction things actually went.

It is difficult to state with certainty whether the use of E-targets would have a more detrimental effect when used in a BR match versus an F-Class match. The relative size of the scoring rings doesn't really matter. F-Class shooters can lose points by having a shot called "just out" on ALL of the scoring rings, not just those in the center. Points are points and they all count, not just those located inside the 10-ring. Nonetheless, I can easily imagine the potential effect of any uncertainty in E-Target shot localization would be perceived as being even worse for a discipline such as BR, where group size is everything.

If the BR community decides to move forward using E-targets, then its members will be faced with the same "two choice" dilemna I had to face several years ago in F-Class; that is, they will simply have to accept the inherent benefits and/or liabilities of such scoring systems, or else stay at home. Although I understand that the notion of using both E-targets and a paper target backup might appeal to those BR shooters unsure whether the use of E-targets is a good idea, that practice would also undermine many of the perceived benefits of E-targets and is probably not sustainable over the long haul. If the widespread use of E-targets is ever instituted in BR matches, the participants are eventually going to have to accept the electronic results at face value, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, every shooter that isn't happy with their results is going to want to challenge them against the paper target, thereby negating one of the biggest advantages the E-targets bring to the game. In fact, getting away from the use of paper targets is one of the primary reasons touted for switching to E-targets.

As I stated above, I have no dog in this fight. I personally have accepted the use of E-targets in F-Class and moved beyond worrying about their accuracy/precision. Nonetheless, I would tell anyone in another shooting discipline that is considering the implementation of E-targets to think very carefully. Once they are in common use, there will be no going back.

 

[Mulligan]

As I said on the match report thread yesterday, I had several calls yesterday from other clubs. By and large, these were folks looking into hosting BR matches at clubs that have never hosted a BR match before.
New places to shoot long range benchrest because e-targets actually make it possible and affordable.
At our range, we use the personal systems our club members already have. Our local club has purchased one system, the rest are shooter owned. So it can be, inexpensive to try out.
The very thought that etargets will expand shooting opportunities for all of us is super exciting for me, and many of the folks I have had the pleasure of talking to in the last few weeks.

CW

 

[JFrank]

If I took my 15 year old grandson to a match that employed E-targets, he would not give it a second thought nor question the results. He would however have a great time and be thankful to have the opportunity to shoot long range.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I'll state up front that I have been outspokenly against the use of E-targets in F-Class matches since they were first proposed. Nonetheless, I was faced with two choices after their inception at many of the clubs where I shoot regularly: 1) stay at home and don't participate 2) accept the benefits and/or liabilities inherent in the use of E-targets as a scoring system for F-Class matches and participate. Grudgingly, I chose alternative #2. The reason for having only two choices in F-Class matches is that once an E-Target system has been put in place, one either has to accept it, or stay at home. There is no realistic "intermediate choice" that would allow some F-Class shooters to still use paper targets once the E-target system has been put in place.

In the time since their inception, I have purchased my own ShotMarker and adjusted to the use of E-targets in F-Class matches as best I can. I won't go so far as to say I'm "happy" about shooting on E-Targets, but I have come to accept that this is how things are in F-Class and will remain that way moving forward. I view it largely as a psychological hurdle. Once a person that views their use like I do accepts that they will be shooting on E-targets most of the time, things become easier in that one simply has to assume the statistics of any positive/negative effect the E-target might have on scores (or group size) will even out over the long run. I'm not claiming this is effect is fact, merely stating that in my mind I have become far less concerned over time with potential for an aberrant score due to the use of E-targets. E-target accuracy/precision is what it is. One would expect that over time, almost everyone that shoots regularly on E-target systems will likely be experiencing both the benefits and detriments of these sytems. In the case of most F-Class shooters, that will be without ever knowing which direction things actually went.

It is difficult to state with certainty whether the use of E-targets would have a more detrimental effect when used in a BR match versus an F-Class match. The relative size of the scoring rings doesn't really matter. F-Class shooters can lose points by having a shot called "just out" on ALL of the scoring rings, not just those in the center. Points are points and they all count, not just those located inside the 10-ring. Nonetheless, I can easily imagine the potential effect of any uncertainty in E-Target shot localization would be perceived as being even worse for a discipline such as BR, where group size is everything.

If the BR community decides to move forward using E-targets, then its members will be faced with the same "two choice" dilemna I had to face several years ago in F-Class; that is, they will simply have to accept the inherent benefits and/or liabilities of such scoring systems, or else stay at home. Although I understand that the notion of using both E-targets and a paper target backup might appeal to those BR shooters unsure whether the use of E-targets is a good idea, that practice would also undermine many of the perceived benefits of E-targets and is probably not sustainable over the long haul. If the widespread use of E-targets is ever instituted in BR matches, the participants are eventually going to have to accept the electronic results at face value, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, every shooter that isn't happy with their results is going to want to challenge them against the paper target, thereby negating one of the biggest advantages the E-targets bring to the game. In fact, getting away from the use of paper targets is one of the primary reasons touted for switching to E-targets.

As I stated above, I have no dog in this fight. I personally have accepted the use of E-targets in F-Class and moved beyond worrying about their accuracy/precision. Nonetheless, I would tell anyone in another shooting discipline that is considering the implementation of E-targets to think very carefully. Once they are in common use, there will be no going back.

Before anyone makes an assertion that "everyone" this or "nobody" that...

When the last "local" club in the Pacific Northwest switched over to E-Targets, I chose #1 and decided to move to PRS. As a matter of fact, I haven't shot an F-class match in well over a year, and have no plans to change that any time soon. As a regular visitor to the top 3 of Nationals and SWN and a successful wind coach, that was a hard decision, but not one I regret. Even though I use it to make content, I hadn't even turned my personal E-Target on since September 2023, until yesterday when I made a video about how to download data off of it.

This is not about me, nor F-class. Benchrest competitors should drive their own bus. They just need to be aware that it is possible that top competitors and lower level competitors alike might find other uses for their time and resources. In a game that depends on participation to stay relevant/alive, that could be a real problem.

 

[tom]

I guess since I've visited Missouri, I need to be shown as well Jason. Benchrest should be the perfect test of how precise they are, and where improvement is needed. Our targets are measured and scored indoors, with lights, with tools. I would almost trust them for counting shots, as even humans tend to not be that reliable. And pits aren't available on all ranges for that method of shot verification.

Tom

 

[Jeff Porter]

A hybrid system won’t work. Use paper or the etarget.

 

[ngb1787]

Records are going to be kept for both paper and E targets. With ANYTHING new there’s going to challenges and surprises. I really hope that the surprise is that E targets are every bit as accurate as paper in the end but it’s gonna have to be proven to me. I don’t want to start a Fclass/BR war because I’ve had my ass beat by a couple pretty good Fclass shooters… BUT if I understand correctly the Fclass X ring is the size of our 10 ring. Their groups don’t matter. The level of accuracy when it comes to measuring a target is much finer in BR.

Seems interesting that especially in benchrest records would be kept for etargets. Should they put an asterisk after the etarget record and in parentheses put (not accurately measured)?

 

[tom]

A hybrid system won’t work. Use paper or the etarget.

I don't understand them well enough apparently, can you explain why please?

Tom

 

[Jeff Porter]

I don't understand them well enough apparently, can you explain why please?

Tom

E targets are designed to locate the center of the shot based on triangulation of the sound made by the bullet as it passes through the targets microphone trap. The most affordable and most used systems (Shot Marker and Silver Mountain) are open microphone which means that the array of 8 or more microphones around the target are influenced by environmental factors to some small degree. All shot positions calculations are made based upon the measured distance to the microphone bases. Any flex in your target frame can shift the position the system reports as the actual orientation of the array is slightly altered. Very high winds can also influence the sound signature. For score matches like sling and F class the target moves and flexes during shots, and pit pullers don't always get the repair placed exactly in the center or don't understand what a tangential hole is for a scoring ring so it is a trade off of one level of imprecision for another. BUT - you have to pick one and use it. It my experience, as Ned indicated the e target giveth, the e-target taketh away in equal measure with the larger scoring rings we use. but since i no longer look at the actual holes and say woulda coulda shoulda, what is on the display is what I shot and I adjust to that to make the next shot better.

The more pricey closed systems like KTS and another from Australia that I am blanking on the name right now (Hexta ) are more precise than open targets because the microphone trap is inside a box with membranes ( rubber sheets). But.... they are like an order of magnitude more expensive per target. Way heavier and more maintenance required for these systems too. There are studies where people have tried to correlate the actual holes in paper with the e-target displays and they all show some degree of disagreement between the systems. In sling and F-class - that amount of variation has been an acceptable trade off for faster matches and no pit changes. The guys who win on paper targets win on e targets, mid pack guys are mid pack on both. For Benchrest, I am not sure y'all are up to that yet.

 

[Jeff Porter]

https://www.readerange.org/annual/2017/Testreportaccuracy12Jul2017.pdf

This link will give you some real world numbers on paper versus open microphone versus closed microphone systems.

Edit to add - This is done by Hexta to sell their targets using an older model SMT target with fewer microphones than even the current solo targets use. Shotmarker is the same type of technology -( Adam worked at SMT) My intuition says that the errors shown would be less with the current open microphine systems but still not = 0.

 

[One Shot One Thrill]

Most shooters can't wrap their mind around in comparison from the paper hung on the target and location on the e-target. Honestly this matters absolutely not. The hung target is only a hold point the actual target is not visible, is does not move shift or change as long as the microphones do not move. That said for years I I've shot on my e-targets in all conditions checking loads/ groups for benchrest competition and witnessed a maximum variance of 3/16". I'm only referring to my system.
I have also run matches with pit service and witnessed two friends ride together to the match but not on the way home due to an 8 that the shooter didn't shoot but the score keeper saw on BB the target. 600 or 1k is a long way and a lot of things can happen once the projectile leaves the muzzle and way too many shooters think way to highly of their skills.
This is entertainment.
In the end whatever brings the majority of shooters out that's what matters.

 

[Dave Way]

https://www.readerange.org/annual/2017/Testreportaccuracy12Jul2017.pdf

This link will give you some real world numbers on paper versus open microphone versus closed microphone systems.

Edit to add - This is done by Hexta to sell their targets using an older model SMT target with fewer microphones than even the current solo targets use. Shotmarker is the same type of technology -( Adam worked at SMT) My intuition says that the errors shown would be less with the current open microphine systems but still not = 0.

The errors with paper targets themselves ARE ZERO though. As far as measurement goes, sure there can still be induced error, but it’s not caused by the target and can be re-measured multiple times by multiple people. Why would the discipline with the most accurate long range rifles in the world want to take a step backwards?

Instead of adopting a system that has a known built in error why not add the electronic version as a verification tool. The only time we need this tool when we have a crossfire or a double that goes through an existing hole.

And now the part I will really get flamed for, if a competitor doesn’t want to, or isn’t physically able to pull target duty, the time may have come for them to quit the sport. Maybe they bring a friend or pay someone to pull target duty. No I don’t want to see competitor numbers drop but I’m not willing to let them force us to accept lesser forms of measurement for the most precise form of long range accuracy shooting in the world.

Okay, I said it. Pile on all you want.

Dave.

 

[Evan]

The errors with paper targets themselves ARE ZERO though. As far as measurement goes, sure there can still be induced error, but it’s not caused by the target and can be re-measured multiple times by multiple people. Why would the discipline with the most accurate long range rifles in the world want to take a step backwards?

Instead of adopting a system that has a known built in error why not add the electronic version as a verification tool. The only time we need this tool when we have a crossfire or a double that goes through an existing hole.

And now the part I will really get flamed for, if a competitor doesn’t want to, or isn’t physically able to pull target duty, the time may have come for them to quit the sport. Maybe they bring a friend or pay someone to pull target duty. No I don’t want to see competitor numbers drop but I’m not willing to let them force us to accept lesser forms of measurement for the most precise form of long range accuracy shooting in the world.

Okay, I said it. Pile on all you want.

Dave.

I appreciate where you’re coming from. I’d like to see a system uncertainty assessment from Adam for the Shotmarkers because physical observation is only a tiny component of measuring the system output. That’s a big ask of Adam and if he’s not familiar enough or trained in that area, it’s not trivial to perform. What I want to know is where is the error floor, assuming all inputs to the system are perfect.

I suspect that a proper effort at minimizing error resulting from inputs would require careful design of targets and shaping how wind can blow around the targets. I don’t think that simply building a target backer with the shotmarker on it and putting that on existing frames designed for pit service is rigid enough. I’d bet that steel posts set in cement with a fixed target frame that the shotmarker attaches to would reduce error significantly. Then build large baffles around the targets to keep wind from blowing across the target would yield further improvement.

 

[Ned Ludd]

The errors with paper targets themselves ARE ZERO though. As far as measurement goes, sure there can still be induced error, but it’s not caused by the target and can be re-measured multiple times by multiple people. Why would the discipline with the most accurate long range rifles in the world want to take a step backwards?

Instead of adopting a system that has a known built in error why not add the electronic version as a verification tool. The only time we need this tool when we have a crossfire or a double that goes through an existing hole.

And now the part I will really get flamed for, if a competitor doesn’t want to, or isn’t physically able to pull target duty, the time may have come for them to quit the sport. Maybe they bring a friend or pay someone to pull target duty. No I don’t want to see competitor numbers drop but I’m not willing to let them force us to accept lesser forms of measurement for the most precise form of long range accuracy shooting in the world.

Okay, I said it. Pile on all you want.

Dave.

I am not in any way in disagreement with you, Dave. But what I have noticed with F-Class shooters in my area is that they really, really, REALLY like getting home an hour or two earlier in the day than when we pulled targets, without the physical effort of having to pull targets. In other words, I have not yet personally observed a single case where a competitor needed E-targets because they were physically unable to pull targets. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, just that the frequency is relatively low.

The real question boils down to what are folks willing to give up with respect to their shooting discipline in order to use E-targets so they can go home from matches earlier with perhaps a little less physical effort? That may perhaps be a slight over-simplification, but it's not too far from the mark. Anyone considering the use of E-targets has to weigh what they will get for what they might have to give up after making the switch. In other words, can they live with whatever they might have to give up after making the switch? Or is it a deal-breaker?

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

No dog in this fight but will say that rimfire BR might be a good place to look to compare electronic vs manual scoring as they've been using electronic scoring at many big matches for several years now. I know there are some discrepancies found between the two with some frequency and it's not exactly apples to apples as I'm sure there are differences in the hardware/software being used. I just think that some conversation between the two might be helpful to either or both sides is all.

 

[Acyr]

I have owned and used electronic targets for the last 8 years. First Silver Mountain, now Shot Marker. 95% of the time at 600 or 1000 yards. While I find them absolutely great for practice or local club matches, I know from the countless thousands of rounds I've fired on my well-maintained target they are not accurate enough for benchrest. I am also not convinced they should be used for National level championships.