E targets in longrange benchrest

[Northridge]

Not at the matches I was apart of clay, still account for a missed or zero point. Or a guy runs out of ammunition attempting to get system to record either way that competitor was bumped… ghosted even though you say it’s recorded is still not accounted for in real time the competitor still is forced to “eat” the
Accountability or loss, again if clubs are ok with that as a solution great but others that opt for a different approach great but the same point applies in regard to physical backer or paper and Records. The systems are not the same and can not be treated equal but different. A supportive tool for those who choose as much not not a stand alone to support physical “Data” people are pleased your plowing forward clay but This is a supportive tool not to replace the “foundations” paper target as our Raw Data simply put

Shawn Williams

 

[ttfreestyle]

In response to recording the shots that come naturally we want to account for those shots and really very , very few truly get lost even shooting small at both yardages.. my experience to this point at least in regard to the e Target approach has been every match I’ve shot with them they have “ghosted” shots every single match costing people there entire trip . Not because they only sent 17 shots 19 shots but simply did not see a shot or multiple shots come in, not always when the wind is up either… in my time we have DQ’d very few . So I get the ideal of a better way or addition way to record shots but in practice the technology isn’t there yet in regard to technological error. Maybe in time but not to this point.

Shawn Williams

Shawn I’m sure you know we tried E targets in long range Benchrest under GBA down here in Tennessee for a entire season. My results are the same as yours. At every match of the season Some capable shooter got a DQ due to dropped(ghosted) shots, the winds were never bad enough to push us off the entire paper once we were centered. During the Tn 1000 state we had 5 shooters( 3 of which drove several hours and were National level winning shooters) over the course of the match lose a shot when we know they shot the appropriate amount. The shots that were recorded of theirs were in a 5 inch group or smaller in the center according to the ipads. There is no way to go down range to verify shots with many holes in the same target. This doesn’t even address whether the targets measure exact enough for Br, it addresses shooters getting aDQ for no reason except electronic error. In my opinion e targets (at least the ones we used) have no place in serious Benchrest. I did not maintain the targets, the range manager did so I can’t speak to how well they were or were not set up. I only know they dropped shots every weekend we shot a match, it wasn’t the same target either. Now if you want to have a club level shoot where it’s just for kicks and it drops a shot and it’s understood beforehand they get to shoot a extra shot or something like that then go for it. That will keep more people shooting which is always good. This is just my experience over the course of a season of using E targets as match director. E targets are just virtual shooting, I have seen them purposely set up where the Bullets impact one or two Moa off center to save the center from being shot out but on the iPad at the bench it shows your Hitting dead center. Others may have better experience using them.

 

[LRPV]

As discussed in the beginning of this, Freedom is already setup to keep records separate for E-target and paper matches so that’s a moot point. We’ve established that there are E-target benefits that will allow clubs to shoot matches that otherwise would not be able to, for various reasons. There are inherent errors built into any target system but hopefully they are limited as time goes. I’ve seen suspect target frames that move a little, I’ve seen wrinkled up targets stapled up. I’ve seen/heard of questionable target handling. It’s all a process.

I feel compelled to say that no one is trying to take away our paper targets and replace them with only E-targets. I started this thread to get more information from people who have actually used E-targets and hopefully get a constructive conversation going about them. Just so we’re clear, at this point in time, I want MY record rounds on paper to be scored and measured by humans. I see a lot of possible benefits that could come from E-target use when/if it gets sorted out and the only way that is going to happen is by people putting them to use and experimenting.

Without stepping out on the edge we might all be still be shooting a 30-06 and no one would’ve ever even heard of the greatest cartridge in the world, 6 Dasher….

Carry on. Anyone have constructive criticism to improve the accuracy and consistency of the electronic target?

 

[lawman29]

Not at the matches I was apart of clay, still account for a missed or zero point. Or a guy runs out of ammunition attempting to get system to record either way that competitor was bumped…

Shawn,
It's important for all of us when posting our experiences to provide details on the circumstances. Are you talking about the Regional F class matches shot in September at Deep Creek? If so I was there also. The 'victim' your describing is Chris Ford. Chris is an accomplished F class competitor, runs matches in Nebraska and someone I consider a mentor. I believe he shot at least over 40 rounds trying to get 20 for record... I also had a problem with a target going down and ended up finishing on an adjoining target. What the group needs to know is that the competition is being conducted on a traditional pit system, with the sensors located on those target frames and then hoisted up in the air... We're obviously not following "best practices" and I'm shooting at an angle to finish mine. Strength of signal, connectivity, etc all play a role. All of us providing experiences need to include details to provide proper context - this is essential to understanding the results.
Tim

 

[NZ_Fclass]

Small items to mention.
E-targets are not going away - they will only get better. I have just purchased my own Shotmarker, and look forward to it's arrival ( hurry up Adam, summer's going away fast)

It could be argued that using the Swiss targets, saved shooting from extinction at the Olympics. Without the ability for TV and spectators to follow the match, it would have gone in the early 2000's. Yes, they have gradually lost events, pushed by those countries that dislike any gun ownership, toward air powered matches, but shooting is still hanging in.

NZ now has at least one range that has no target pit, with fixed targets, printed on waterproof media - the electronics installed on the day.

 

[DHuffman]

Small items to mention.
E-targets are not going away - they will only get better. I have just purchased my own Shotmarker, and look forward to it's arrival ( hurry up Adam, summer's going away fast)

It could be argued that using the Swiss targets, saved shooting from extinction at the Olympics. Without the ability for TV and spectators to follow the match, it would have gone in the early 2000's. Yes, they have gradually lost events, pushed by those countries that dislike any gun ownership, toward air powered matches, but shooting is still hanging in.

NZ now has at least one range that has no target pit, with fixed targets, printed on waterproof media - the electronics installed on the day.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they don't have a place.

Edit to add... Just arguing the place....

I'm not saying it's happening here but there's a difference between being able to use them if you wish and people wishing to convert everyone to them because that's how they want the game played going forward.

 

[tom]

I look forward to what Clay gets figured out. Heck, even if you need to set up indoors at 25 yards. Step one would be to see if it is in fact possible to have it correlate to paper for POI at any quadrant and agree on group size. Once it's proven they can do that, then on to making that happen in the real world.

Tom

 

[sdean]

I look forward to what Clay gets figured out. Heck, even if you need to set up indoors at 25 yards. Step one would be to see if it is in fact possible to have it correlate to paper for POI at any quadrant and agree on group size. Once it's proven they can do that, then on to making that happen in the real world.

Tom

I would love to see indoor results. But with an open mic target system I would think comparing indoors to in the wild is apples to oranges.
The NRA required .250 accuracy and I have never heard of a target maker submit independent data to prove compliance.

I have been wrong once or twice.

 

[Dave Way]

I would love to see indoor results. But with an open target system I would think comparing indoors to in the wild is apples to oranges.
The NRA required .250 accuracy and I have never heard of a target maker submit independent data to prove compliance.

I have been wrong once or twice.

.250” can be the difference between 1st and maybe 5th on a relay in LR Bench-rest. In SR Bench-rest it could be the difference between 1st and last place. I’m sure most of us know that.

This is a great discussion. Hopefully it leads to more and more accurate simplified systems down the road. It’s good that people can hear from others with first hand experience. @LRPV thank you for starting this conversation.

Dave.

 

[sdean]

.250” can be the difference between 1st and maybe 5th on a relay in LR Bench-rest. In SR Bench-rest it could be the difference between 1st and last place. I’m sure most of us know that.

This is a great discussion. Hopefully it leads to more and more accurate simplified systems down the road. It’s good that people can hear from others with first hand experience. @LRPV thank you for starting this conversation.

Dave.

Shotmarker isn't new. Plenty discussion years ago on here by real knowledgeable people on difference of open and closed systems. But with most things in the gun world you need to test for yourself.

 

[Mulligan]

Just a casual observation from the match yesterday (10 Feb, 2024) at Western Colorado.

The match was longer.
I have not nailed down the "why" yet, but the match was at least an hour longer than normal.
I suspect it was because we had a day of tricky winds and the shooters were trying hard to dial in the X ring. I looked at some of the target records in the "system" and good golly, some of the sighter targets had 15-20 shots on them for one record target.

At one point, I was questioning the shot placement on the target during sighters so I went to the clay targets on the berm behind the targets. I dialed in and went to record, it was spot on. With the really tough winds, it made for a humbling day for myself and a few others.

CW

 

[Mulligan]

One of the shooters at our range built a really sturdy small frame for testing accuracy of their rifles and it will likely work perfectly to test accuracy of the system. As soon as the weather decides to cooperate, we will do accuracy testing with that frame at 50 or 100 yards. I will use my short range BR rifles or rail to test with.



My thoughts at this time are to use graph paper........ maybe printed on the back of regular short range target paper? Any thoughts on this?

There are several things to test.
Accuracy of count-how many rounds on target?
Accuracy of location on target- once calibrated, does the system plot the recorded shots correctly?
Accuracy of shots relative to each other- is the group size and shape representative to the paper target?

Some of these questions may be obvious to a few of you.......however, to do a good job of actual testing, I need to know the question and have it spelled out clearly. Writing it up correctly for me is the hard part.

One important point, how should I qualify or measure the "true measurement". All across the country and may the world, in both short range and long range benchrest, a human that knows how to use a scoring device is the "standard". Tom has been using a scoring program on his computer or phone or something? Is there a scoring program that is well accepted as accurate? I use a Neil Jones attachment on a good set of calipers and do well with it, but that is where my comfort level. Like many of you, I have seen folks bugger that up too! How should these targets be scored for comparison? I have the "On Target TDS" program on my computer and a good scanner, but I have never "qualified" it. Thoughts?

If you have questions or concerns, please post here or reach out to me.

CW

Edit to add photo

 

[tvaught]

One of the shooters at our range built a really sturdy small frame for testing accuracy of their rifles and it will likely work perfectly to test accuracy of the system. As soon as the weather decides to cooperate, we will do accuracy testing with that frame at 50 or 100 yards. I will use my short range BR rifles or rail to test with.



My thoughts at this time are to use graph paper........ maybe printed on the back of regular short range target paper? Any thoughts on this?

There are several things to test.
Accuracy of count-how many rounds on target?
Accuracy of location on target- once calibrated, does the system plot the recorded shots correctly?
Accuracy of shots relative to each other- is the group size and shape representative to the paper target?

Some of these questions may be obvious to a few of you.......however, to do a good job of actual testing, I need to know the question and have it spelled out clearly. Writing it up correctly for me is the hard part.

One important point, how should I qualify or measure the "true measurement". All across the country and may the world, in both short range and long range benchrest, a human that knows how to use a scoring device is the "standard". Tom has been using a scoring program on his computer or phone or something? Is there a scoring program that is well accepted as accurate? I use a Neil Jones attachment on a good set of calipers and do well with it, but that is where my comfort level. Like many of you, I have seen folks bugger that up too! How should these targets be scored for comparison? I have the "On Target TDS" program on my computer and a good scanner, but I have never "qualified" it. Thoughts?

If you have questions or concerns, please post here or reach out to me.

CW

Edit to add photo

View attachment 1522935

I'd put good money up that this size and design of frame, shot at short range (100-200 yds) with a high velocity centerfire rifle in mild conditions (less than 5-6 mph winds) is going to yield excellent results.

Best you can. For your testing. Ensure the target frame is fixed, firm, stable and square (in both horizontal, vertical, and skew-no twist) to the azimuth of fire.

Depending on your target backer material, my opinion would be the one potential improvement to this frame, that your testing may reveal, would be not to directly attach the target backer to the mic brackets, so as to mitigate bullet impact vibrations being transmitted directly to the brackets the sensor mics are mounted on.

 

[tvaught]

Dan Chisolm with the Silver Mountain Solo, and Adam MacDonald with ShotMarker put eTargets at a price point and within reach of individual shooters. It provided target feedback without a trip to the target, and naturally, it's application to LR and Precision oriented shooters was immediately recognized.

However much as gen 1 innovations such as chronographs, powder dispensers, laser range finders, etc changed things, is the rest of the shooting systems progressed, to where gen 2, gen 3, and iterative innovation of these respective systems were needed and demanded. And continue to evolve and progress.

That is where I believe your testing, especially for BR type precision goals, and even more so, with the atmospheric effects associated with Long Range, will lead you with the current 4 sensor open mic acoustic etarget systems.

For the precision shooting community, at its release...The RCBS Chargemaster was a true innovation, and remains as an excellent tool today.

But.

The shooters, the disciplines, the rifles, the barrels, the bullets, the scopes...they can all shoot better than the OG RCBS Chargemaster now. Sometimes

We need better eTargets. To get there, we need to demand our respective sanctioning bodies (NRA, IBS, NBRSA, etc) develop real Standards (ones that contain quality, certainty, consistency, and validity elements as part of the Standard, as well as the commonly and easily focused on dimension portion of the Standard) as part of from which requirements can be looked at through a product development, and then ultimately through venture capital perspective and finally an engineering lens, so as to jumpstart and foster the development of gen2 etarget systems.

That's what we all should be demanding at this point. Better e-targets.

Just one humble opinion.

 

[Spankey]

The TN state match at dead zero that caused all the fuss was just a bad/hostile match all together. No one knew the rules placed by GBA for using the shot marker system . A lot of shooters there was following ibs rules and wouldn't take a extra shot . The caliber specific weren't changed for the shooters shooting a different than .308 caliber . And the targets weren't centered to the speakers measured center . If those two things had been done I believe shot markers wouldn't be such a fuss owning two of them since 2018. After all f class using them without any fuss.

 

[ttfreestyle]

The TN state match at dead zero that caused all the fuss was just a bad/hostile match all together. No one knew the rules placed by GBA for using the shot marker system . A lot of shooters there was following ibs rules and wouldn't take a extra shot . The caliber specific weren't changed for the shooters shooting a different than .308 caliber . And the targets weren't centered to the speakers measured center . If those two things had been done I believe shot markers wouldn't be such a fuss owning two of them since 2018. After all f class using them without any fuss.

There was no extra shot rule implemented at that time as we expected the targets to read better and not drop so many shots but we did give that option to shooters after we saw what was happening that day. Unfortunately I agree the range didn’t have the targets calibrated and ready for a Benchrest match. There were other circumstances in play that unless you were there you probably don’t know about or understand. I was at the mercy of the range rules and not allowed down range so we got what we were given. It was a rough weekend for everyone involved. They do drop shots in f class as I understand but they do take that extra shot to make up for it. A lot of people worked hard to make a go of Benchrest there but it wasn’t to be. Maybe someday. Good luck whatever yall shoot.

 

[Spankey]

Shot markers a good tool . There is rules in GBA to stop all the fuss about shot markers if followed . I'll ask Jason Walker also how many times has he been dqued for having four on a target when if a shot marker had been running and shown two went through the same hole he wouldn't have been cause people are falable too. Also Troy where have you been competing at hadn't ran into you at any shoots in years . Hope we get to shoot against you someday again.

 

[ttfreestyle]

Shot markers a good tool . There is rules in GBA to stop all the fuss about shot markers if followed . I'll ask Jason Walker also how many times has he been dqued for having four on a target when if a shot marker had been running and shown two went through the same hole he wouldn't have been cause people are falable too. Also Troy where have you been competing at hadn't ran into you at any shoots in years . Hope we get to shoot against you someday again.

Mitch I have been busy building a house and getting ready to retire. I am spending as much time as I can with the kids and grandkids when I’m not working nowadays. Making memories!

 

[LRPV]

Shot markers a good tool . There is rules in GBA to stop all the fuss about shot markers if followed . I'll ask Jason Walker also how many times has he been dqued for having four on a target when if a shot marker had been running and shown two went through the same hole he wouldn't have been cause people are falable too. Also Troy where have you been competing at hadn't ran into you at any shoots in years . Hope we get to shoot against you someday again.

Thanks for asking “Mitch”.
Luckily I’ve never DQ’d in an IBS match. I was DQ’d in 600yd Rendezvous 1 because I shot a record round during sighters and didn’t know it till I was done shooting. Only shot 4. DQ’d in 1k at Rendezvous 2 with only 4 shots visible in the middle of the target. Judges did their due diligence trying to find a double but couldn’t. I shot 5. Both years I would’ve been near the top of the page had I not DQ’d, so it really sucks. I’m completely in favor of using SM for counting shots and even as a sighter system instead of steel but I think there is plenty of room for improvements as well as more experience before I’m willing to accept them as a 100% replacement for record paper.

Maybe we’ll get there some day.

 

[Spankey]

Thanks for asking “Mitch”.
Luckily I’ve never DQ’d in an IBS match. I was DQ’d in 600yd Rendezvous 1 because I shot a record round during sighters and didn’t know it till I was done shooting. Only shot 4. DQ’d in 1k at Rendezvous 2 with only 4 shots visible in the middle of the target. Judges did their due diligence trying to find a double but couldn’t. I shot 5. Both years I would’ve been near the top of the page had I not DQ’d, so it really sucks. I’m completely in favor of using SM for counting shots and even as a sighter system instead of steel but I think there is plenty of room for improvements as well as more experience before I’m willing to accept them as a 100% replacement for record paper.

Maybe we’ll get there some day.

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