ET FYI

[Matt P]

See attached.
http://www.readerange.org/annual/2017/Testreportaccuracy12Jul2017.pdf
Regards
Matt P

 

[Stralyanshooter]

Very interesting results.

 

[daniel.chisholm]

See attached (a response from the SMT USA dealer)

Edit to add: here also via googledrive, if attachment not available

 

[watercam]

Not making me want to give up paper targets and human eyes...

 

[Keith Glasscock]

So, what I get from this is that it is possible to intentionally or unintentionally set up a target in a way that increases scores.

Gives a lot of confidence in outcomes doesn't it?

 

[Ned Ludd]

No system is perfect. I've certainly had my fair share of "issues" with scoring on paper targets and the associated caveats that come along with their use. However, I still trust holes in paper a lot more than any electronic system. Like anything else, you'd certainly expect that the available e-target systems will improve with use over time in problem areas. However, other than eliminating pit service and perhaps allowing greater numbers of competitors to shoot at venues with limited numbers of firing points, the e-target systems seem an attempt to fix something that was never broken to begin with. Further, they actually affect how matches are shot. I don't, and probably never will, see the purpose.

 

[watercam]

No system is perfect. I've certainly had my fair share of "issues" with scoring on paper targets and the associated caveats that come along with their use. However, I still trust holes in paper a lot more than any electronic system. Like anything else, you'd certainly expect that the available e-target systems will improve with use over time in problem areas. However, other than eliminating pit service and perhaps allowing greater numbers of competitors to shoot at venues with limited numbers of firing points, the e-target systems seem an attempt to fix something that was never broken to begin with. Further, they actually affect how matches are shot. I don't, and probably never will, see the purpose.

Does give ranges an opportunity to spend all those millions of extra $$$ they have lounging about...

 

[Bindi2]

After having shot on a SMT I went and bought my own. At setup and calibration at 300m the target was out 1mm, thinking that this would multi ply as I went back so I went to 600yds and recalibrated to 1.5mm then did the same at 900yds. I then went back to 300m and shot again. This proved to me the system must be calibrated at the longest range it will be used at.
Having just rebuilt 4 sound chamber targets on my local range to as new specs I know which system has less maintenance and which one has less variation in accuracy. The SMT is a mile in front. The only downside I see is the sonic requirement for it to work consistently, I don't know how well it will read small calibres as yet. The system is consistent. I found that what ever error in measurement it gave each shot had the same error using my simple measuring tools. Having shot major competitions on poorly maintained sound chamber targets and seen top shooters destroyed because of this I can say that wont happen on a SMT.

 

[Mudeat]

After having shot on a SMT I went and bought my own. At setup and calibration at 300m the target was out 1mm, thinking that this would multi ply as I went back so I went to 600yds and recalibrated to 1.5mm then did the same at 900yds. I then went back to 300m and shot again. This proved to me the system must be calibrated at the longest range it will be used at.
Having just rebuilt 4 sound chamber targets on my local range to as new specs I know which system has less maintenance and which one has less variation in accuracy. The SMT is a mile in front. The only downside I see is the sonic requirement for it to work consistently, I don't know how well it will read small calibres as yet. The system is consistent. I found that what ever error in measurement it gave each shot had the same error using my simple measuring tools. Having shot major competitions on poorly maintained sound chamber targets and seen top shooters destroyed because of this I can say that wont happen on a SMT.

It would be helpful if you could post some actual accuracy measurement data, as the authors of the paper did, instead of just anecdotal information.

 

[JohnKielly]

I don't, and probably never will, see the purpose.

While that might be correct Stateside (though I read about puller issues regularly), it's different in most other parts of the world which use paid pullers, not competitors.

 

[Ned Ludd]

I'm perfectly happy to let folks in other parts of the world decide for themselves whether they want to institute any new system, particularly one that changes how the game is actually played. Consistent with your observation about paid pullers, e-targets have also been used for some time in other parts of the world. However, I live and shoot in the U.S.A., where competitors generally pull their own targets and e-targets are not yet an "established" part of F-Class shooting. It may be inevitable that their use also becomes widespread here, but until such time, I will continue to publicly question the reasons for going down that road. Given the considerations that go hand in hand with the use of e-targets, and also because we have gotten along quite well for many years in their absence, I think there are very good reasons to ask those questions now, before such a commitment is made at a larger percentage of ranges across the country.

 

[Zilla]

I'm perfectly happy to let folks in other parts of the world decide for themselves whether they want to institute any new system, particularly one that changes how the game is actually played. Consistent with your observation about paid pullers, e-targets have also been used for some time in other parts of the world. However, I live and shoot in the U.S.A., where competitors generally pull their own targets and e-targets are not yet an "established" part of F-Class shooting. It may be inevitable that their use also becomes widespread here, but until such time, I will continue to publicly question the reasons for going down that road. Given the considerations that go hand in hand with the use of e-targets, and also because we have gotten along quite well for many years in their absence, I think there are very good reasons to ask those questions now, before such a commitment is made at a larger percentage of ranges across the country.

^^This

 

[Bindi2]

It would be helpful if you could post some actual accuracy measurement data, as the authors of the paper did, instead of just anecdotal information.

I did quote measurements for 300m and 600yds. I didn't quote 900yds my mistake. I brought it back to 1.5mm. Something I didn't mention is my target is 1210mm square so the small size may have an effect on accuracy.
Going down the ET path allows older shooters not to pull targets and keep on shooting longer . Finding pullers is difficult in some places. Also allows shooters to shoot in their own time not somebodies elses time, ie the slow puller. Also saves time on pit change overs. More time shooting. The biggest problem is scorers lack of concentration on their job. The game has been involving since the first match shot and will continue to do so.