Electronic Target Test Results and Information

[Stumpy1]

Hi All,

For those that are interested, here are a few links that have recently been brought to my attention regarding the accuracy and precision of a couple of the currently available electronic targets.

My intent here is to share this information, and not to say that target “A” is good and target “B” is bad. Those types of decisions are and should be up to individual clubs, shooters, and ultimately, the NRA (here in the US).

These tests were conducted in Australia largely by David Stewart and Peter Smith with input and assistance from Dennis Russell, Ross Harvey, Steve Durham, Dudley Ford, Arthur Simpson, Mark Edge, Les Binnie and probably some other folks as well. I do NOT know any of these people, but wish to applaud the effort they put into conducting what looks to me like a thorough and unbiased test of the systems they had available. Well done Gentlemen!!

As many of you know, my Home Club, Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club, has purchased and been using 10 of the Hexta e-Targets. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I have been pretty happy with how these targets have performed in our hands. Again, I am NOT saying that any one target is ‘better’ than any other.

In examining the test results (linked), I had a few observations;

It was interesting to see direct evidence that a SMT target next to a second target picked up a stray shot –even though the targets are a meter apart (much further than we typically see here in the US). That result sure threw the scoring system for a loop…

The other part that I found interesting is how in one system, a ‘hot’ bullet coming in generally yields smaller random errors than one coming in more slowly. Might be worth dragging out the 300 WinMag! Or a 264 WinMag shooting 140’s at some ungodly speed… But, that might be counter-productive to good shooting…

The more relevant question in my mind that is brought up by this nicely done test is ‘how much error is a shooter willing to tolerate?’ That question is followed by ‘how different are the errors between each target in a given bank of targets?’ –if one target is giving a huge advantage (or disadvantage), well, that certainly isn’t a good situation.

I hope you find the test results interesting and useful. I think this sort of testing will certainly give the manufacturers things to think about and things to improve. I personally want all of the vendors to be successful –more choices (within limits…) are more better!

Frank

The testing procedure and results for several tests may be found here;

https://sites.google.com/site/targettests2016/

https://sites.google.com/site/targettests2016/home/lr-smt-and-hexta-2017

https://sites.google.com/site/targettests2016/home/smt-2017

 

[SWRichmond]

So instead of "good pit service" and "bad pit service" we're going to have "good targets" and "bad targets". Lovely.

Thanks for the info, I can see how much work went into the tests.

 

[Dos XX]

I'll take the pit service.

 

[lawman29]

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/smt-2017-f-nats.3935239/page-2

Start at post #32

 

[dmoran]

Great reports, very professionally done..... answered a lot for me.
Thanks for sharing
Donovan

 

[Heman]

This is just yet another week attempt to promote the Hex systems.

So instead of "good pit service" and "bad pit service" we're going to have "good targets" and "bad targets". Lovely.

Thanks for the info, I can see how much work went into the tests.

Nope all SMT targets are good targets, this is just a post by Bruce sorry Frank as an infomercial for Hex Systems to keep them relevant. There is some butt hurt by them since Quantico put in 25 SMT targets.

 

[Stumpy1]

Shawn,

This is information, and only information. I have no financial or other interest in Hex, other than just being a user of them. I didn't buy or recommend that Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol buy the Hex targets.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I buy things I try to do as much research as possible to make an informed purchasing decision. I don't think that ANY of the e-targets are 'bad', just different, and none of them are 'perfect'. In large part purchasing e-targets at this point in time is a Ford versus Chevy sort of thing, and it is also a budget thing. I know that you are heavily invested in the SMT targets, and are satisfied with them, and I think that is great. I don't think that you wish to force everyone to buy what you did, right?

I, for one would like to see more testing, not less, so that potential purchasers can make the best decisions that take into account their needs and budgets. Testing also lets the manufacturers know what they need to focus on to improve the products for ALL of us.

Frank

 

[Stumpy1]

As a follow up, I would be willing to bet that the results of the tests that have come out so far, and experience with several installations are at least part of the driving force behind Silver Mountain working on shielded sensors and additional sensors (as well as the 'target positional' software upgrades). THAT is what testing does best (well, that and keeping an open mind regarding test results).

E-Target development is going to continue to be an iterative process, much like the development of any technological product. I am glad we didn't stop with 'Brick phones' for wireless telephones, and IBM 8088's for computers, aren't you?

Frank

 

[6MMsteve]

scenario>>> somebody shooting .950 group at 1000 then a glitch occurs. I don't want to be there

 

[Bindi2]

scenario>>> somebody shooting .950 group at 1000 then a glitch occurs. I don't want to be there

The paper target moved

 

[sdean]

Sure am glad they aren't shoving this crap down our throats in benchrest... I just can't see how ANY error is acceptable when holding actual real matches. Wouldn't camera's and digital measuring make more sense? Keep the paper there to fall back on when the technology has a glitch? Although in the big picture of "growing the sport", the closer it gets to a video game the better

Just a matter of time Tom. One day they will be more accurate than hand measuring.

 

[DT]

If there isn't a paper target for evidence, it didn't happen!

 

[BP1]

If there isn't a paper target for evidence, it didn't happen!

I thought it was said if you don’t have pictures or video it didn’t happen

 

[DT]

I thought it was said if you don’t have pictures or video it didn’t happen

Pictures or video can be photoshopped and edited.

 

[Mozella]

Pictures or video can be photoshopped and edited.

HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM!

 

[JohnKielly]

If there isn't a paper target for evidence, it didn't happen!

Yep, those ISSF shooters have been getting gold medals & winning world cup events on heresay.

 

[Erud]

HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH AN UNFOUNDED CLAIM!
View attachment 1030690

A 600fps extreme spread didn’t take even one of those shots out of the x-ring? Or am I missing the joke?

 

[Ringostar]

A 600fps extreme spread didn’t take even one of those shots out of the x-ring? Or am I missing the joke?

Erik, Yes he is joking. He photoshopped the large velocity changes and yet all shots hit center.

 

[Erud]

Ok, good. I’m about as dumb as a bag of bananas, so sometimes comedy eludes me. If that was an actual screen shot, I would be seriously concerned.

Happy new year!

 

[Heman]

Eric, BTW I shot a 207-20X on our SMT target becasue I use a Monard jacket (More attempt at humor)

Well there never as has been an argument that a closed system isn't more accurate, it will be for the reasons stated nobody is arguing that. Closed systems are big, bulky and expensive and in many circumstance won't work for those respective clubs on people. In our case and in many others the SMT is the better solution. The disagreement has been since the original test done by the HEXTA marketing director (Bruce Daniels) without any SMT personnel present that the test was biased and that the setup was bad. People who have the SMT targets who use them personally or at ranges have never had such error issues as reported in the first test done by Bruce. Now I did a quick glance through the test and from how they described it does seem to be better. BUT given the history of the first test where Bruce conducted the test and then claimed not to be associated with the company one has to wonder about those people who are conducting this test. I question the last target where it has less error that there is a shot that is off by 3' to skew the data. To me, someone who has a good bit of skepticism from the original test, I question how something like this just happened to appear on the best data set, where aside from this shot the numbers are better.

This is a business and KTS, HEXTA and SMT are competing, again I just find it ironic a couple months after some more ranges when with SMT than another test that comes to light with someone associated with Reade/Bridgeville ranges pushes a certain view points and thus pushing either actively or passively one product over another. This is why the tests are always HEXTA vs. SMT, why never another target system? I'm guessing because the one brand is financially doing better given the ranges that are deciding to go with it and the other is just trying to stay visible. The SIUS targets that are signed off on by the ISSF have 2mm eror in the center and are 7mm as you go farther out (as mentioned on accurate shooter thread on this topic) and is a closed system. Why not an extensive test of HEXTA vs. SIUS or vs. KTS? Compare apples to apple, i.e closed vs. closed.

Now from the tests yes they are interesting to look at. As a MD for a club who are now up to 12 SMT targets am I concerned, no. Wasn't an issue for the US Marine Corps either when they decided from all the electronic targets to select SMT and put 25 of those targets in at Quanitco this past month or so. Bruce was there personally doing the Hexta setup and demo for the Marine Corps, btw. Looking forward to our upgraded 8 mic systems as we get them, but all in all we are happy with SMT targets.