Electronic targets/ no hit

[sdean]

I wish someone would explain how on one shot the system cannot recognize where a shot went and then the very next shot in the same area it does?

 

[memilanuk]

I wish someone would explain how on one shot the system cannot recognize where a shot went and then the very next shot in the same area it does?

Hell, I'd like to know that sometimes with paid pullers... X, 10, X, X, Miss, Challenge, Still A Miss, same hold... X

 

[Bindi2]

With sound chambers not in good condition the sound wave is moved around by other noise eg the wind blowing into or across a larger hole or many scattered holes. The triangulation from the sensors is upset to the point of incorrect positioning of shots or hit misses being recorded. The tension of the rubber membrane also causes issues.

 

[GeoffR]

I wish someone would explain how on one shot the system cannot recognize where a shot went and then the very next shot in the same area it does?

This had me scratching my head for quite a long time also.

After a while I discovered two primary causes of this behaviour. It is rare, but happens.

We (me and those helping me) discovered that it occurred at (but not always) long distances, when the environmental conditions (density altitude) were not very good, and when the target was in a poor state in that there were lots of holes in the rear face (especially). We noticed that even though we could see bullets passing through gaping holes (through which at times we could see the stop butt) the measured errors would be high. But still scoring as X's, V's, 5's - so no shooter complaints at that stage. What shooter challenges an X? But the target is starting to operate in marginal conditions meaning that sensor sensitivity thresholds are starting to be approached. Eventually you can get to the stage where even centre shots can start to become intermittent due to one or more sensors JUST becoming a bit too far away to reliably trigger on the projectile energy available. Due to the conditions. And with shots in the "same area" as other shots. Eventually, if not addressed, the target will fail completely. Another shooter with a different type/calibre of bullet can then get down and have no problems. Physics!

The other reason - and it's an insidious problem to encounter - was bullets disintegrating down range. Mainly but not entirely with F-open shooters who can sometime push their loads to the limits. Some bullets vapourise and others don't. Invariably, those that don't blow up are good shots getting high scores. Then suddenly a miss in amongst them. Shooter doesn't believe it when they get such a miss - even when told by spectators behind them that there was a puff of smoke about 100 yards down range. You see, the shooter doesn't see it so is immediately resistant to the idea. I have seen it. And it happens more often than you might think. And every time the target gets blamed [initially] and we target vendors have no evidence to analyse what happened. "Shot failed to reach target" is the message I present (as I know the shot was fired).

It is possible that it is not just or necessarily due to a hot charge resulting in a higher than optimal forward velocity. We are also of the view that a tight twist resulting in a high rotational velocity plays a significant - and possibly more dominant - role in this. High rotational velocity combined with high forward velocity is I think a strong contender for this behaviour.

I didn't click to this until I saw someone missing in the middle of what was otherwise a high scoring string under coaching and I couldn't figure it out. Especially, I couldn't figure out why the shooter (and coach) was not complaining. Well, it was because the coach was seeing it through his spotting scope and so didn't bother me with it.

More broadly, the reasons behind misses are many and varied. All the targets have to operate within realistic environmental parameters that are highly variable and physically continually degrading - even though shooters don't see this. I could go on and on about this but I think I've said enough for now!

Geoff.

 

[GeoffR]

With sound chambers not in good condition the sound wave is moved around by other noise eg the wind blowing into or across a larger hole or many scattered holes. The triangulation from the sensors is upset to the point of incorrect positioning of shots or hit misses being recorded. The tension of the rubber membrane also causes issues.

You got it Bindi! Well, a lot of it...

You mention "triangulation". Ozscore, Hexta, and Kongsberg targets don't triangulate.

Regardless, you are correct that sound entering the chamber through holes can upset things. For one, wind can result in a whistle that has enough 40Khz (or even 56Khz) component to trigger a sensor. It might not trigger all sensors but yesterday I was informed about a target (not one of mine) that was being used in a strong wind that was producing shot plots even though no shots were being fired at the time. My observations have shown that often only one or maybe two sensors might be falsely triggered. While the shooter might not be aware of this at the time, the target system has to spend time (computer cycles) responding to these false events and eventually reset the target. It can happen (and does - although completely randomly) that a genuine bullet passes through the target at this particular time (I call it the "dead" time - others might call it something else). But because the target wasn't able to process the shot properly it might pop up as a miss. Or it could actually provide sensor outputs that are mathematically nonsensical ("unable to resolve shot position" or in my case also sometimes "invalid TDOA" - which means invalid time differences of arrival of sound at the sensors that don't make mathematical sense).

Of course the target system gets blamed for all this.

There is more to this than I think you guys want to hear but I can discuss it if there is interest.

Geoff.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Now that we all know what that message means, we need to be talking to the NRA about fixing the rules.

Or reloading. I would have been in big trouble if I needed to reshoot a shot at the last match. I might as well get into the habit of having too many rounds. If I get unlucky enough to run up against a target that needs some love, I'll probably need them.

 

[GeoffR]

Now that we all know what that message means, we need to be talking to the NRA about fixing the rules.

Or reloading. I would have been in big trouble if I needed to reshoot a shot at the last match. I might as well get into the habit of having too many rounds. If I get unlucky enough to run up against a target that needs some love, I'll probably need them.

Please don't mistake the term "Unable to resolve shot position" as meaning the same as something like "Shot resolution outside limits" or words to that effect. The latter means that calculated error of the shot is outside whatever arbitrary limits the target manufacturer has set. I don't do this myself for various reasons. But I do display the value in terms of MOA on the shooter display along with the average and SD of the errors in the current string. Most shooters ignore all this - they either don't understand it, want to understand it, or are simply not interested.

My "arbitrary error limit" BTW is an average of 1/10th of 1/4 MOA (.025 MOA). Others might have a different view on this.

I think your NRA and any other regulatory authority could do well to discuss ET's with those of us who might know a little bit about them. Especially those intending to sell these targets into the USA. At this time, that excludes me but I think I might have some constructive views to offer if anyone is interested.

It is not helpful to allow unrealistic expectations to prevail due to an inability or lack of desire to consult with both users of the technology (shooters essentially) and those who produce that technology. A similar situation exists here in Australia and I imagine New Zealand as well.

Geoff.

 

[Ned Ludd]

Now that we all know what that message means, we need to be talking to the NRA about fixing the rules.

Or reloading. I would have been in big trouble if I needed to reshoot a shot at the last match. I might as well get into the habit of having too many rounds. If I get unlucky enough to run up against a target that needs some love, I'll probably need them.

^^^This. In the past, I have rarely loaded more than the exact number of foulers/sighters plus rounds for record. If taking an extra shot (or two) for record is something that might happen on occasion, best to get in the habit of loading up at minimum two or three extra rounds above/beyond sighters/foulers, just in case.

 

[Keith Glasscock]

I, for one, am not a fan of some of the E-targets on the market.

Now we sit here and discuss one of the better targets on the market, and one of its quirks.

How do I know it is one of the better ones? Because the manufacturer has been calling for a qualification program for e-targets for some time. It would be stupid to bluff about absolute precision of a system. The result of failure would be catastrophic.

In light of all the revelations in this thread, I'm now calling upon all highpower shooters to join me in asking the NRA for rules, procedures, and standards for qualifying E-targets for use in matches. While I have heard the siren's song of a one-and-done qualification standard, I see this thread as an opportunity/requirement to mandate proper setup and maintenance of e-targets used in competition as well.

Who would like to see the e-target manufacturers all put their targets up side-by-side and have to pass a predetermined requirement (not one set as a result of the testing) for accuracy/precision while dealing with a "gauntlet" of problems? What about a requirement that the software meet a few standards, like error reporting/fault display, delay availability, single-shot display availability, etc.? I'm talking about a no-spin, real world test conducted scientifically by a third-party without a dog in this fight.

I think the e-targets have come far enough past the novelty stage that standards need to be applied before more clubs buy targets and learn the hard way about the pitfalls.

 

[Rick Ratzlaff]

I think your NRA and any other regulatory authority could do well to discuss ET's with those of us who might know a little bit about them. Especially those intending to sell these targets into the USA.

In light of all the revelations in this thread, I'm now calling upon all highpower shooters to join me in asking the NRA for rules, procedures, and standards for qualifying E-targets for use in matches. While I have heard the siren's song of a one-and-done qualification standard, I see this thread as an opportunity/requirement to mandate proper setup and maintenance of e-targets used in competition as well.

Thanks Keith. When the NRA came out with their .25" rule, it only made sense to establish a qualifying process. Paper targets (as I understand it, are copy written) and a printer must be qualified to print and sell paper targets. So why would there NOT be a qualification process for E-Targets. I believe all these emotional forums with all the E-Target physicists would have been eliminated if there was an objective process Certifying E-Targets.

In this situation (physics) I think it nigh unto impossible for any NRA rules committee to develop the Certification process without consultation from the Stake Holders or vendors.

 

[Mulligan]

I, for one, am not a fan of some of the E-targets on the market.

Now we sit here and discuss one of the better targets on the market, and one of its quirks.

How do I know it is one of the better ones? Because the manufacturer has been calling for a qualification program for e-targets for some time. It would be stupid to bluff about absolute precision of a system. The result of failure would be catastrophic.

In light of all the revelations in this thread, I'm now calling upon all highpower shooters to join me in asking the NRA for rules, procedures, and standards for qualifying E-targets for use in matches. While I have heard the siren's song of a one-and-done qualification standard, I see this thread as an opportunity/requirement to mandate proper setup and maintenance of e-targets used in competition as well.

Who would like to see the e-target manufacturers all put their targets up side-by-side and have to pass a predetermined requirement (not one set as a result of the testing) for accuracy/precision while dealing with a "gauntlet" of problems? What about a requirement that the software meet a few standards, like error reporting/fault display, delay availability, single-shot display availability, etc.? I'm talking about a no-spin, real world test conducted scientifically by a third-party without a dog in this fight.

I think the e-targets have come far enough past the novelty stage that standards need to be applied before more clubs buy targets and learn the hard way about the pitfalls.

This spot on!
CW

 

[Bindi2]

I,

Who would like to see the e-target manufacturers all put their targets up side-by-side and have to pass a predetermined requirement (not one set as a result of the testing) for accuracy/precision while dealing with a "gauntlet" of problems? What about a requirement that the software meet a few standards, like error reporting/fault display, delay availability, single-shot display availability, etc.? I'm talking about a no-spin, real world test conducted scientifically by a third-party without a dog in this fight.

I think the e-targets have come far enough past the novelty stage that standards need to be applied before more clubs buy targets and learn the hard way about the pitfalls.

How far would you get with this if you substituted cars for ETs. Not far is my guess. Though there are more than a few cars out there that I think should not be the market place keeps them there because of price not their features or lack of.

 

[okshooter]

Bindi2,

In mr. Glasscock's suggestion, I don't see that any target system would be taken off the market for failure to participate in or to pass the suggested test. They just wouldn't be allowed for registered NRA competition. It's no different then paper targets. Anyone can make a black target with white circles on it with numbers and letters to signify the scoring rings. They just can't be used for registered NRA matches unless they are approved by the NRA. This happens all the time in most industries.

 

[Bindi2]

Do cars get compared side by side by the government to see if they are suitable for the people to use or the importer to import. Not every body wants the same sort of car.
As a shooter all I want is a system that records my shot within a set parameter which they do. How the internals arrive at that is of no concern I don't need to know. What is a concern is the maintenance or in reality the lack of, cost of, and speed of before or during a competition. The monitor in my opinion is better than a tablet etc because there is less buttons to push causing other issues and they are simple to learn and easy to see on the mound. And they don't go flat. There is a sound chamber modification being done here which lowers the rebuild cost from $1700 taking 2 1/2 hrs to $40/$50 and 5 minutes. The KISS system is far better than all the bells and whistles in my opinion as I just want a indicator showing me my last shot with all the others there until somebody presses the clear button for the next shooter, the zoom button is my main function button. I don't even use the X & Y recording as some do. I have my own charts for winding.
I have my own SMT with all the bells and whistles which I use for training , load development but for a competition I only need to know were the last shot went in relation to the previous ones.
As a repairer and M D I know a little about ETs and am still learning. The sound chamber is the critical piece nothing else is as important this is were the data is collected there are no bells and whistles they are else were. Bad collection bad results. If a target is giving a 1mm error at 1000yds in the shooters favour in a new chamber in the centre ring and a 7mm error in the shooters favour on the extremities of the target is that a bad target. NO its not because I know the further you go out to the side the greater the error. That error is less than a 30 cal bullet hole. Even if It was against the shooter the score recorded is unlikely to change the placings on the top leader board.
You can buy/use any make of ETs with sound chambers they work for score shooters. Just have in place parameters for when repairs have to be done before or during a competition by a shot count/type of match. Don't put in a delay and don't penalize or benefit a shooter with crossfires. Most of all ENJOY the experience and keep the old blokes shooting.

 

[Jennb]

At Nats last year if your target failed to score a range officer would verify no crossfires then tell you to continue and reshoot that shot. Ghost shots as they are called. That to me is the most fair thing to do

 

[Keith Glasscock]

Do cars get compared side by side by the government to see if they are suitable for the people to use or the importer to import. Not every body wants the same sort of car.
As a shooter all I want is a system that records my shot within a set parameter which they do. How the internals arrive at that is of no concern I don't need to know. What is a concern is the maintenance or in reality the lack of, cost of, and speed of before or during a competition. The monitor in my opinion is better than a tablet etc because there is less buttons to push causing other issues and they are simple to learn and easy to see on the mound. And they don't go flat. There is a sound chamber modification being done here which lowers the rebuild cost from $1700 taking 2 1/2 hrs to $40/$50 and 5 minutes. The KISS system is far better than all the bells and whistles in my opinion as I just want a indicator showing me my last shot with all the others there until somebody presses the clear button for the next shooter, the zoom button is my main function button. I don't even use the X & Y recording as some do. I have my own charts for winding.
I have my own SMT with all the bells and whistles which I use for training , load development but for a competition I only need to know were the last shot went in relation to the previous ones.
As a repairer and M D I know a little about ETs and am still learning. The sound chamber is the critical piece nothing else is as important this is were the data is collected there are no bells and whistles they are else were. Bad collection bad results. If a target is giving a 1mm error at 1000yds in the shooters favour in a new chamber in the centre ring and a 7mm error in the shooters favour on the extremities of the target is that a bad target. NO its not because I know the further you go out to the side the greater the error. That error is less than a 30 cal bullet hole. Even if It was against the shooter the score recorded is unlikely to change the placings on the top leader board.
You can buy/use any make of ETs with sound chambers they work for score shooters. Just have in place parameters for when repairs have to be done before or during a competition by a shot count/type of match. Don't put in a delay and don't penalize or benefit a shooter with crossfires. Most of all ENJOY the experience and keep the old blokes shooting.

I'm thinking that you have a poor analogy there. Of course your government and mine regulate a great many features of cars. The indicators (turn signals), brakes, crash-worthiness, tire loading, fuel economy, mirrors, backup cameras, and many other things are standards that are placed upon new cars. If a car does not meet those standards, they cannot legally be driven in the country.

I keep seeing your endless demand that we not have a delay in our systems.

I have to ask, what is the problem with us Americans having a delay on our target systems? It won't affect you in Australia. The ICFRA rules are separate and independent of the US NRA rules.

If Australia wants to run matches differently from the US (you already do - what's this free sighter after a cross-fire thing?) you are more than welcome to do so. If I come to play in your backyard, I'll abide by your rules, and ask the same courtesy from you.

Thank you for your input and consideration.

 

[GeoffR]

I'm thinking that you have a poor analogy there. Of course your government and mine regulate a great many features of cars. The indicators (turn signals), brakes, crash-worthiness, tire loading, fuel economy, mirrors, backup cameras, and many other things are standards that are placed upon new cars. If a car does not meet those standards, they cannot legally be driven in the country.

I keep seeing your endless demand that we not have a delay in our systems.

I have to ask, what is the problem with us Americans having a delay on our target systems? It won't affect you in Australia. The ICFRA rules are separate and independent of the US NRA rules.

If Australia wants to run matches differently from the US (you already do - what's this free sighter after a cross-fire thing?) you are more than welcome to do so. If I come to play in your backyard, I'll abide by your rules, and ask the same courtesy from you.

Thank you for your input and consideration.

Hi Keith,

I will shy away from any discussion about the pros and cons of shot/result time delays!

As for the "optional sighter", it is not to do with a crossfire. With a crossfire, someone cops a miss and that's it. Which is why some shooters don't own up to it. John Keilly might be able to provide more comment on this. No-one - as far as I know anywhere - is offered an optional sighter as a result of a crossfire miss. The shooter who received the crossfire (two spotters) has the option to take the higher scoring "spotter" - which may be his own shot, or the one someone else stuck there. Maybe this is where the confusion comes from in the use of the word "option".

The "optional sighter" is offered to shooters generally when shooting has been interrupted for a period of time. I think 3 minutes. Such interruptions can be due to people encroaching on the range or any other situation resulting in a ceasefire. So the optional sighter is basically a shooter taking a shot with the ability to discard it if he/she doesn't like it, or keep it if they do. That's about it.

Geoff.

 

[Bindi2]

The optional sighter maybe called for by the shooter if the time taken to resolve the issue takes more than 3 minutes.
You may decide in the USA to have a delay as somebody who has be using ETs longer than you have by many years the recommendation is don't do it. The call to have a delay here failed because of the problems it creates. You think you can deal with it ok go ahead we have already been down the path and dumped it.
Crossfires are a bigger issue with ETs because the target does not move therefore a means of fairly dealing with the issue needs to be put in place ,we have not addressed this issue fairly for the shooter at this point in time. You are behind us in learning and dealing with ETs, what is offered is results of that learning so you don't have to make the same mistakes in catching up even though you are the enemy at the world cup. If you want to learn the hard way OK I will leave now.

 

[GeoffR]

Ten or more years ago I thought to myself that dealing with crossfires simply had to be dealt with by the ET system I was contemplating building. So I did - and so for ten years I have provided automatic crossfire detection. The main difference between how it deals with crossfires as opposed to other ET's and manual targets is that no-one gets to attain a [higher] score for a shot they didn't fire. And the cross firer can't hide.

But I guess I was wrong. If managing crossfires was such a big deal in an ET why am I the only one doing it?

Geoff.

 

[Bindi2]

Because of choice and not knowing what the issues were going to be GeoffR also the management level/rule makers haven't caught up the playing field is starting to move quickly. Which is why some sort of passing of knowledge is useful for new players. ETs from any maker open or enclosed are better than manuals. We all will have different uses and requirements for them from a small club to a large national range. Hang in there the more practical users out there helping others make a better choice to start with can only improve the standard uptake.