I think Bindi2 that a more realistic analogy would be were NRA allowed every range to go to their local print shop, buy locally, and define their own targets.
That's the case with E-Targets.
Electronic targets/ no hit
- Thread starter fastarget
- Start date
I think Bindi2 that a more realistic analogy would be were NRA allowed every range to go to their local print shop, buy locally, and define their own targets.
That's the case with E-Targets.
I don't believe they are as difficult as Bindi makes out. We have been using ETs for a long time too and I just can't see the issues as Bindi describes. And I do not accept one bit that technology can't solve any perceived problem with cross fires and delays given a logical approach. You have proved that ten years ago it seems!
IMO an ET handling crossfires makes the sport that little bit fairer although I do agree that would be a change to the sport (as is having no delay) but I feel a positive one.
Interestingly in my area of NZ I haven't seen the crossfire rate go up. We do have the target numbers at the bottom of the target though, so even with high power scopes (small FoV) you can typically see your target number.
Last edited:
Through the miracle of software.
The maintenance has been the big problem here which we have solved. The crossfire issue has been solved for the F class shooters by having Numbers directly above the target on the target and below in front of the target. That's right all three with on the target being the real prize for F/C. Ranges without this or with numbers to the side etc have a far higher crossfire issue.
Technology has solved the problem just that there is older models/different makes out there that don't have that capability. I don't think there are to many clubs/ranges that can afford to buy a new model every year to be up with the latest. Our system is over 10yrs old and we are just about up to speed with what it takes to operate it at its best day in day out. What we have learnt along the way is the users manual which is different to the operators manual which came with the system. The electronic operating bits are the set and go easy bits, the sound chamber is where the game is won and lost.
I got this information from an etarget guru!
Assuming everything was working correctly, it could have been interference from the shockwave of a simultaneous shot somewhere else on the range. When you have lots of targets and fast shooting, the shock cones from two shots can sweep across the sensors at the same time and interfere with each other, causing a shot to be missed. It generally is rare at long range, but if people were shooting quickly it will happen once in a while.
So true. E targets will encourage younger shooters necessary to grow and sustain the sport. Will be way of the future!!!
Yea....and then we will have virtual E-guns and compete from our playroom. We will load virtual rounds in our virtual loading room. We will be able to choose from a virtual library of bullets/brass powders or design our own. It will be like the 'Madden' NFL game...... OH THE HUMANITY!!!!
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
Have you ever seen modern pentathlon
.Is this your ‘Virtual’ opinion or real?..
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
The technology to do it already exists and has for some time. That's a whole other reason why introducing anything "electronic" could be a slippery slope. I have no idea how likely such a scenario might be, but things like that have a habit of taking place over time via very small incremental changes. The next thing you know, the whole shebang might be electronic/virtual. That's why I draw the line at putting holes in paper. You can think I'm a dinosaur, anti-technology (after all, I DID found the Luddites
), or whatever else you might want to believe. But putting holes in paper with real bullets is real shooting, and I'm just going to stick with that.It sure seems like some here expect that if they go under the hood of their truck and pull 4 random plug wires off, that the truck would continue to run normally.
-It has been clearly stated that several of the targets had multiple sensors out.
-It has been clearly stated that upon startup each individual target does a diagnostic that would indicate non-functional sensors.
It seems clear to me that the range in question has a maintenance problem -perhaps lack of knowledge, lack of skill, or just plain lack of help to do the job. I have no way of knowing from here.
A comment was made about nobody reading the manual -I think this is probably accurate, but who the heck has that kind of time, when there is a shortage of help to even get the BASIC work of setting up and running a match done?
It also seems that a diagnostic that can be run manually, or back at the firing line, or off the server would be a good thing. That said, if you found out on the morning of the match that you had sensors out, what could you do about it while people are squadding? 'Well, guys, we only have two functional targets, so we are going to have 17 relays today' Not very practical, I think.
This situation is really no different than ranges with paper targets -how many of you have gone down to the pits only to find that the target you are supposed to be scoring is mostly a blown out mess of cardboard? Can you do a great job of scoring with a target like that? Does one spotter blowout make a gigantic hole that takes a miracle to patch? How many times are the pit boxes missing pasters, spotters, or staplers? How many times is the carrier not lubed, and it takes the Hulk to pull it? ALL of those issues have to be corrected BEFORE match day. Often several days before match day.
Folks, complaining about the situation isn't going to help. From my time in the Army, my superiors often said, 'don't come to me with complaints, come with solutions'. I think that approach is almost always the correct one.
I hope that some of you reading this thread will consider volunteering to help your own home range and match directors, whether they have e-targets or manual targets. I am absolutely positive that they would welcome your help. That help would allow them to read the manual, plan better maintenance programs, and get more of the 'nice to have' stuff done on the range. I think the end result would be smoother running matches with fewer problems, more people with knowledge of the system, happier shooters, a more relaxed match director (ever notice how grumpy they get sometimes...) and much less bellyaching on the forums.
Respectfully submitted,
Frank
Frank, Great Points & Well stated..
George
... and so hypothetically, if a shooter has a pffffffft squib round or a possible bullet blow up, and on retry under this rule, just so happens to put the next round over the top of the target frame thereby not being detected, the miss doesn’t count.
Mulligan
Silver $$ Contributor
True enough.
CW
All the more reason for the scorer to be paying attention.
I would think after a miss the scorer or a match official would be watching the trace in his spotting scope.
In some cases,,,
Poorly written rules get gamed by gamers looking to outsmart the rules so the rulebooks get worse and worse.
Good point, I could see how that could be the case.
I could If I am scoring from the 600 yard line even in an E target match. I am watching mirage thru my spotting and comparing to the other wind indicators on the range preparing to shoot. I do this even if I have already shot and am scoring. Helps me learn range/s winds.
I also often watch bullet traces from my shooter while doing this.
Helps me do a better job of scoring for the shooter and keeps me awake
Most of us that have scoped traces for very long will see if the trace went over, under, left or right of the target. Commonly used if one ends up a revolution off on their sights / scope .
Last edited:
I don’t have a cogent alternative suggestion. Bullet traces are only sometimes visible, and even then, rarely as definitive as you’d need, to base a -10 on.
You can’t very well impose on (or trust) another shooter to put a test shot down range, and requiring a second person to use a competitor’s gun is legally problematic for both people. No one’s in the pits to go watch.
Moreover, the original premise that an E-Target always fails or always works is suspect, I do think. This “flickering” possibility seems to be accepted in practice, according to the posts, which means this -10 rule may have a second issue, that of just being ignored. That itself could be made an issue with certain folks.
You could ratify by Rule the seeming existing practice, that the doubt of all shots that don’t go though anyone’s targets, gets resolved in the shooter’s favor and chalked up as electronic target aberrations. With this, isolated squib loads, blow ups, flat out misses from bad aim, hang fire misses, trigger/bolt malfunctions and premature trigger pulls would simply get disregarded for score, but of course still be subject to existing match safety prerogatives of the director. Most of these events are rarely consecutive, rarely acknowledged, and sometimes not even realized. (This would create havoc when a record score gets submitted with an extra shot, though.)
Cross fires on the otherhand are different because they are registered on someone’s targets. (Tracking them is a good reason for a 0 second delay.).
Paper targets reliably reported a miss. There was no new hole and a scorekeeper who was positive of a shot. This is reliable enough to overcome a doubtful shooter. Etargets for technical reasons are capable of failing to register a shot, with no back up means of verification, although they apparently never attribute a shot when none was taken. (The rings bear hundreds of holes). Not being able to prove a miss wouldn’t be as big a deal if etargets were known to unfailingly register every single shot, but they apparently aren’t there yet. They also don’t automatically shut themselves down when running at less than 100%, I understand.
You can’t very well impose on (or trust) another shooter to put a test shot down range, and requiring a second person to use a competitor’s gun is legally problematic for both people. No one’s in the pits to go watch.
Moreover, the original premise that an E-Target always fails or always works is suspect, I do think. This “flickering” possibility seems to be accepted in practice, according to the posts, which means this -10 rule may have a second issue, that of just being ignored. That itself could be made an issue with certain folks.
You could ratify by Rule the seeming existing practice, that the doubt of all shots that don’t go though anyone’s targets, gets resolved in the shooter’s favor and chalked up as electronic target aberrations. With this, isolated squib loads, blow ups, flat out misses from bad aim, hang fire misses, trigger/bolt malfunctions and premature trigger pulls would simply get disregarded for score, but of course still be subject to existing match safety prerogatives of the director. Most of these events are rarely consecutive, rarely acknowledged, and sometimes not even realized. (This would create havoc when a record score gets submitted with an extra shot, though.)
Cross fires on the otherhand are different because they are registered on someone’s targets. (Tracking them is a good reason for a 0 second delay.).
Paper targets reliably reported a miss. There was no new hole and a scorekeeper who was positive of a shot. This is reliable enough to overcome a doubtful shooter. Etargets for technical reasons are capable of failing to register a shot, with no back up means of verification, although they apparently never attribute a shot when none was taken. (The rings bear hundreds of holes). Not being able to prove a miss wouldn’t be as big a deal if etargets were known to unfailingly register every single shot, but they apparently aren’t there yet. They also don’t automatically shut themselves down when running at less than 100%, I understand.
coldboreshot
Silver $$ Contributor
Unless you are shooting an indoor Olympic match, etargets are not ready for prime time yet...Period!
There are some who may consider this ignorant but ask yourself, who is ignorant here, the one who believes the system is currently flawed or the one who believes the system is perfectly fine. I guess it depends on if you are the buyer or the seller. Every electronic target match I have shot so far has had some sort of problem. I'm not sold yet. Time, Travel and Expense are dollars leaving my pocket.
There are some who may consider this ignorant but ask yourself, who is ignorant here, the one who believes the system is currently flawed or the one who believes the system is perfectly fine. I guess it depends on if you are the buyer or the seller. Every electronic target match I have shot so far has had some sort of problem. I'm not sold yet. Time, Travel and Expense are dollars leaving my pocket.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.