E targets in longrange benchrest

[Spankey]

Can't speak to anywhere but deep creek, but we've been told to not fire our scorekeeper as very close. Records committee usually comes back smaller by about 7 thou...I think the paper dries honestly.

Tom

Thanks for answering. Sometime I'd like to talk to you if you have time .

 

[tom]

Thanks for answering. Sometime I'd like to talk to you if you have time .

That's cool, I will message you my number.

I was busy when I posted, and should also say that in fairness, if a guy shoots big shit like Glenn, then that target probably doesn't get scrutinized like one that may go in for record submission also. However we do have pretty decent equipment that is pretty easy to be accurate with.

Tom

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Got one more question the 600 yds and 1000 yds records . How much difference was the official measurement than the actual scoring shed measurement?

I have sent in 3 for official measurement. First you get 3 people to measure it at the range then you send it in. So record targets are measured by 4 different people. Between all 4 numbers we see less than .010", really closer to .005".

 

[quest450]

Alex is right, just last week I got back my four targets that were submitted for official measurement and the difference over four target agg was 0.009"
At the range it was measured 1.598" and official measurement was 1.607"

 

[rwj]

I have sent in 3 for official measurement. First you get 3 people to measure it at the range then you send it in. So record targets are measured by 4 different people. Between all 4 numbers we see less than .010", really closer to .005".

Alex is right, just last week I got back my four targets that were submitted for official measurement and the difference over four target agg was 0.009"
At the range it was measured 1.598" and official measurement was 1.607"

That’s amazingly consistent for measuring holes torn in paper!

 

[Spankey]

.005 to .007 difference reading between two machinist in our union shop would get a part thrown in the dumpster .Now I know reading tourn bullet holes in paper substrate is challenging more than steel substrate . However I asked the question to show variance that's acceptable. Seams we want to hold technology to a tighter standard than our human friends . This complaining about a electronic device built by Alan who we all love his auto trickles accuracy is costing us gun ranges and I can prove it with emails . As any range without pits starts sales of yearly memberships to working class people and holds a match of some sort every weekend . The weekend yearly memberships will not tolerate range going cold every fifteen minutes for however long it takes to pull and replace targets. A range has to decide which member they are willing to loose and keep the doors open from a financial standpoint. In the case of the emails the range choose weekend shooter who's not on accurate shooter giving negative feedback of their range system .

 

[DHuffman]

The weekend yearly memberships will not tolerate range going cold every fifteen minutes for however long it takes to pull and replace targets. A range has to decide which member they are willing to loose and keep the doors open from a financial standpoint. In the case of the emails the range choose weekend shooter who's not on accurate shooter giving negative feedback of their range system .

This may very well be but is not what was being discussed in this thread.

To add, this shouldn't be a consideration in determining whether e-targets or paper are more accurate for measuring BR groups because it has nothing to do with accurately measuring BR groups.

It is a very good argument for "you must give up your standards to please the masses". Again not what we're discussing.

 

[Spankey]

This may very well be but is not what was being discussed in this thread.

To add, this shouldn't be a consideration in determining the most accurate means of measuring BR groups because it has nothing to do with accurately measuring BR groups.

It is a good argument for you must give up your standards to please the masses. Again not what we're discussing.

Lidar is the most accurate way of measuring no ones using it either or talking about it . Sometimes you have to compromise. Wither it's cost of lidar / Lazer measuring equipment or a range to shoot at .

 

[DHuffman]

Lidar is the most accurate way of measuring no ones using it either or talking about it . Sometimes you have to compromise. Wither it's cost of lidar / Lazer measuring equipment or a range to shoot at .

Obviously poor choice of words on my part, regardless you are missing the point.

 

[Spankey]

Obviously it was a poor choice of words on my part. Regardless, you are missing the point.

It is probably my writing skills so this will be my last post on precision measuring equipment. I promise. Here's what I know.
1. Lidar/Lazer is the most precise measuring tool to date of 2024 presicion measuring world.
2. People reading dial calipers per this post have a error tolerance of .005-.010 according to the post when the question was asked.
3. Shotmarker system has a 1 mm accuracy tolerance according to it's manual.
So, I leave you with this question. What if you used lidar and discovered that the inaccuracies of people with dial calipers was actually 1 mm, just because you simply changed to the more accurate measurement tool? Would we be on here debating about ranges not wanting to use the most accurate measuring tool to date?
A little machinist humor that I've heard since 1990 to humble machinist.
A United States drill bit manufacturing advertised they had made the smallest usable drill bit ever produced. They sent it all across the world to be tested. When it got back to the company, they found that it had been bored through the center. Accuracy of measurement is constantly changing through technology.

 

[sdean]

It is probably my writing skills so this will be my last post on precision measuring equipment. I promise. Here's what I know.
1. Lidar/Lazer is the most precise measuring tool to date of 2024 presicion measuring world.
2. People reading dial calipers per this post have a error tolerance of .005-.010 according to the post when the question was asked.
3. Shotmarker system has a 1 mm accuracy tolerance according to it's manual.
So, I leave you with this question. What if you used lidar and discovered that the inaccuracies of people with dial calipers was actually 1 mm, just because you simply changed to the more accurate measurement tool? Would we be on here debating about ranges not wanting to use the most accurate measuring tool to date?
A little machinist humor that I've heard since 1990 to humble machinist.
A United States drill bit manufacturing advertised they had made the smallest usable drill bit ever produced. They sent it all across the world to be tested. When it got back to the company, they found that it had been bored through the center. Accuracy of measurement is constantly changing through technology.

Or that Adam's 1mm was actually 2mm. A lot of it's.

 

[DHuffman]

It is probably my writing skills so this will be my last post on precision measuring equipment. I promise. Here's what I know.
1. Lidar/Lazer is the most precise measuring tool to date of 2024 presicion measuring world.
2. People reading dial calipers per this post have a error tolerance of .005-.010 according to the post when the question was asked.
3. Shotmarker system has a 1 mm accuracy tolerance according to it's manual.
So, I leave you with this question. What if you used lidar and discovered that the inaccuracies of people with dial calipers was actually 1 mm, just because you simply changed to the more accurate measurement tool? Would we be on here debating about ranges not wanting to use the most accurate measuring tool to date?
A little machinist humor that I've heard since 1990 to humble machinist.
A United States drill bit manufacturing advertised they had made the smallest usable drill bit ever produced. They sent it all across the world to be tested. When it got back to the company, they found that it had been bored through the center. Accuracy of measurement is constantly changing through technology.

Duly noted