Long range target cams /vs acoustic target markers

[JDBraddy]

Large objective, high magnification target scopes have made my spotting scope unessisary under 200yds, and it can't compete with long range target cams past 300yds because of mirage etc... I was about to pull the trigger on a Target Vision Longshot LR3, when some better shooters started encouraging me to look into acoustic target marker systems like those from Silver Mountain Targets USA, and Shotmarker. Anybody here have experience with these, or preferably with both? Would apreciate hearing your perspective.

 

[Bob L.]

I have used the Shotmarker (at 600 yds) and Hexta (at 600 and 1000 yds) electronic targets and the Target Vision UHD (at 600 yds).
The Hexta system works well, but is considerably more expensive than the Shotmarker. I believe the Silver Mountain system is more expansive as well.
The Shotmarker is priced reasonably close to the Target Vision and works quite well. It’s software is easier to use than that of the Hexta. I really think the choice comes down to the Shotmarker vs, the Target Vision camera system.
The SM is a true electronic target and will give you score while the TV will only show the bullet holes. I have found using the TV UHD I am able to score the target using the camera and be 95% or more in agreement of some one (or me) looking at the target in the pits. It is very clear when using an IPad Pro as a screen. It is easy to set up and requires no special target frame. You do, however, have to go down range to paste holes. A typical string of 2-5 sighters and20 record shots seems to work out well.
The SM may require a specially made frame as it needs extra stiffness to limit deflection from wind to obtain max accuracy. If you have a little carpentry skill, this not hard to do. If you have transport the frame to the range, it may require a method to fold it or allow for final assembly at the range. The TV requires no special frame, of course.
The SM will require initial calibration so that the acoustic center corresponds to the target center. This is actually an offset and need be done only once.
The SM may require some cable and sensor installation in the field, if they cannot be left in place on the frame due to weather exposure.. The sensors and cables are premade and use RCA plugs and jacks. With practice, the installation can be done in under 10 minutes. There is no need to paste bullet holes with the SM. The target face will require replacement at some point, of course, due to the bullet holes.
Both SM and TV will benefit from the use of a tablet which must be purchased separately. Since it is a camera system, the choice of tablet for the TV is more important.

I hope this helps.

 

[BenPerfected]

Large objective, high magnification target scopes have made my spotting scope unessisary under 200yds, and it can't compete with long range target cams past 300yds because of mirage etc... I was about to pull the trigger on a Target Vision Longshot LR3, when some better shooters started encouraging me to look into acoustic target marker systems like those from Silver Mountain Targets USA, and Shotmarker. Anybody here have experience with these, or preferably with both? Would apreciate hearing your perspective.

What are the attributes & price points on all 3 cameras? Too late for me, I already purchased the Target Vision camera system. I like the TV LR3 system & their case & tripods.
Ben

 

[JDBraddy]

I have used the Shotmarker (at 600 yds) and Hexta (at 600 and 1000 yds) electronic targets and the Target Vision UHD (at 600 yds).
The Hexta system works well, but is considerably more expensive than the Shotmarker. I believe the Silver Mountain system is more expansive as well.
The Shotmarker is priced reasonably close to the Target Vision and works quite well. It’s software is easier to use than that of the Hexta. I really think the choice comes down to the Shotmarker vs, the Target Vision camera system.
The SM is a true electronic target and will give you score while the TV will only show the bullet holes. I have found using the TV UHD I am able to score the target using the camera and be 95% or more in agreement of some one (or me) looking at the target in the pits. It is very clear when using an IPad Pro as a screen. It is easy to set up and requires no special target frame. You do, however, have to go down range to paste holes. A typical string of 2-5 sighters and20 record shots seems to work out well.
The SM may require a specially made frame as it needs extra stiffness to limit deflection from wind to obtain max accuracy. If you have a little carpentry skill, this not hard to do. If you have transport the frame to the range, it may require a method to fold it or allow for final assembly at the range. The TV requires no special frame, of course.
The SM will require initial calibration so that the acoustic center corresponds to the target center. This is actually an offset and need be done only once.
The SM may require some cable and sensor installation in the field, if they cannot be left in place on the frame due to weather exposure.. The sensors and cables are premade and use RCA plugs and jacks. With practice, the installation can be done in under 10 minutes. There is no need to paste bullet holes with the SM. The target face will require replacement at some point, of course, due to the bullet holes.
Both SM and TV will benefit from the use of a tablet which must be purchased separately. Since it is a camera system, the choice of tablet for the TV is more important.

I hope this helps.

This helps immencely, Thanks.

 

[JDBraddy]

What are the attributes & price points on all 3 cameras? Too late for me, I already purchased the Target Vision camera system. I like the TV LR3 system & their case & tripods.
Ben

Thanks Ben,
The other systems discussed aren't camera systems, They are electronic target systems that use multiple acoustic sensors to determine the point at witch a bullet breaks a two dimensional plane at the target distance, the sensors are usually placed on the back of a target frame, and calibrated to align the target center with the overlapping fields of the sensors, Ideally they can detect bullet placement within a few millimeters, and project a string on simulated target screen at the firing line, measure and analyze groups, and score targets electronically. They can also determine velocity at distance, providing information that can be used along with chronograph data from my lab radar to accurately calculate Balistic Coefficient, and shot to shot consistency such as Extreme spread, and Standard Deviation. Some have set up multiple target frames with sensors to score entire matches with ten to thirty shooters without anyone ever having to go down range to past, pull, or score targets. They are amazing systems, but at this point, I think they are probably excess to my needs, I was pretty much looking to suppliment my spotting scope which in central Texas, is often useless for seeing bullet holes past 200yds, because of mirage. I will probably just get the TV LR3 system, though if in the future, I begin to run more matches, I might very well collaborate with our club leaders about getting and setting up such a system to electronically score our matches.

 

[gravelyctry]

I’ve got the shot marker system and a target camera as well.

Biggest reason to pick one over the other for me has to do with what I’m shooting. If I’m shooting rim fire at 100 or 200, the camera system works very well.
The shotmarker system requires supersonic rounds, and so it isn’t compatible with rim fire shooting.

 

[GSS]

Having used 10 ShotMarker systems at our club this season I would wager that any cost vs benefits analysis between Shotmarker and ant Camera system leaves the ShotMarker the clear winner 99.999% of the time.

The ShotMarker is $799 for a single user system.
Even if the shotmarker were double what a camera system costs I believe it would still clearly be the hands down better choice based on features alone.
https://www.autotrickler.com/shotmarker.html