Shot Marker (Review)

[oob]

Great information you've posted here! A few of us at our club have some Shot Marker targets on order and had plans to play around with them as you've described here. Thanks again for sharing this is valuable info for us!

Can you post a picture or give some more detail on your antenna modification? I really like that idea. We put on an F- Class classroom and range clinic every year in Feb/March for new shooters and were just discussing yesterday the need to install a gong or something similar as Lodi did for those not having come ups their first match...... which is often with the new shooters we've been getting into the sport. We don't want to stifle the increase in participation we've been having from our clinics by intimidating new shooters on the possibility of damaging the targets. Your antenna modification to protect the sensor hub behind the berm is a great idea I want to copy.

We will send you pictures from the pits this coming weekend with all the targets up. We actually plan to set everything up the night before with the targets faced and locked down (unless we see a wave of T-storms heading our way) and have them ready to go, just turning everything on.

We used "consumable" cable management clips (they are a few cents a piece) so if they get knocked off its not big deal. The one the photo, the first we went all out and used gorilla tape. Another piece of advice is to leave a little slack for the top connectors so they don't get pulled out easily. We found that was an issue on the large targets.

On your other note - we are going to put a couple more in place on wood frames just large enough for repair centers, both for practice and vetting new shooters past 300yds. As I said the cables are inexpensive, but protecting the sensor hub is the big thing. We also have a good supply of backup bases and sensors themselves, plus a pair of competition frames on standby with the bases mounted and we have the calibration data recorded for each frame, and have moved sensors between frames, punched in the frame calibration data and had the same excellent result.

We have also started on match management app that extracts the CSV file after each string and parses it into the app for Apple and Android. It will be a little while before that is complete.

 

[Jdne5b]

Maybe I'm the last to notice, but new software was posted. It includes the group stats feature. Upgrading the access point was seamless and easy to do from my phone.

 

[memilanuk]

Nice to see they are responsive to what the customers want!

And those are some impressive groups for 300 yds

 

[Jdne5b]

Nice to see they are responsive to what the customers want!

And those are some impressive groups for 300 yds

This new barrel is a hammer.

 

[KenOath]

Maybe I'm the last to notice, but new software was posted. It includes the group stats feature. Upgrading the access point was seamless and easy to do from my phone.

View attachment 1062995

Yes great groups for 300...

Great feature for load development to, really like all the feedback/information given for each group...can’t wait for mine to arrive late next month.....

 

[Jdne5b]

I thought everyone shot in the .1s all day if they did their part?

Just kidding. I was using the shot simulator to play with it. No paper was harmed in this exercise.

 

[KenOath]

Well finally got my Shotmarker, built target frame and got it out at 800m.
I found it to be extremely user friendly in every regard. Literally minutes to to set it up on my iPad and save the Shotmarker shortcut to home screen, calibration was quick and easy, put 5 shots on target, dragged them over to calibrate...done. Took it out to 800m, only fired 46rnds but worked flawlessly with no misses. Cross referenced those 46 shots from target to IPad and just about perfect with a handful out by 1/2 to 1mm at most but all shots recorded the correct score even when right on the line... I’m impressed with this ET and how easy it was to get going considering I’m not tech savvy...
I did also find after Adam recommended this that some run better on Google Chrome for whatever reason mine does..And using the unit at home in simulation mode was handy before taking it out to the range, doesn’t take long to familiarise yourself with how it operates..

 

[skiutah02]

I received my SM about two weeks ago, but too busy to even open it until last week. Super easy to get setup once I settled upon a frame configuration and built it.

Had it calibrated in 3 shots at 100y. Only took 10 total shots because it was 15oF and 35 mph winds and I was freezing my #$$ off.

Warmed to 40oF today and a friend and I each drove 1.5 hours to meet halfway at a 600 yd range to test it out at distance. He wanted to test a new barrel.

I did not recalibrate it and the accuracy seems phenomenal even with the limited number of shots I took to rough it in (3). Here is an example. The software update released yesterday worked great. A great system so far. Here is an image of the last 5-shot test group at 600 yds. His new barrel might be a hammer....Drew

 

[Dos XX]

I received my SM about two weeks ago, but too busy to even open it until last week. Super easy to get setup once I settled upon a frame configuration and built it.

Had it calibrated in 3 shots at 100y. Only took 10 total shots because it was 15oF and 35 mph winds and I was freezing my #$$ off.

Warmed to 40oF today and a friend and I each drove 1.5 hours to meet halfway at a 600 yd range to test it out at distance. He wanted to test a new barrel.

I did not recalibrate it and the accuracy seems phenomenal even with the limited number of shots I took to rough it in (3). Here is an example. The software update released yesterday worked great. A great system so far. Here is an image of the last 5-shot test group at 600 yds. His new barrel might be a hammer....Drew

View attachment 1079995

Drew, what does your frame look like?

 

[ballisticdaddy]

Once the system has been calibrated once you do not need to recalibrate unless you switch the target frame, it appears that shot #4 is way closer to the rest of the group on the virtual target when compared to the paper target.

 

[oob]

After a full season, with the weather allowing for one more full range session this Saturday, December 22nd, we are now well past 50K shots on our 15 Targets on our range. There have been teething challenges, adapting the system for competition, but with Adams hands on help and rapid response to questions we made things run very smoothly and frankly far better than we expected. ShotMarker has been outstanding for all slow prone shooting at all firing points on the range, for practice and completion for an entire season - one that has extended far past the usual here in Maine (probably in part due to the system). The latest software release (Today) is outstanding and we've had the opportunity to see and shoot on the NEXTGEN Access Point, Sensor Hub and Sensors last month, with upgrades that either eliminate or make some other the previous challenges manageable (even in Rapid Fire). WiFi at the line in the soon to be released version of the Access Point allows for more and faster concurrent connections, at least 200, but probably beyond 240, if not a full subnet. It will definitely support more users/devices than we could ever fit on our line. A few minor external and internal changes to the Sensor and a battery upgrade are not as dramatic, but they are an elegant and an improvement. The new sensors, in testing, were remarkably good in Rapid Fire tests - our impression is that all shots are being captured (and properly recorded) by the new sensors while the modification to the sensors retain the same accuracy. They performed perfectly in Rapid Fire Tests (-27F and 20-35 mph gusts and occasional light freezing rain). While "ghosts" from adjacent targets (shockwaves are sometimes detected - hard to beat the physics of acoustics, you can only manage them as efficiently as possible) they where easy to see/identify and discard, but we saw no dropped shots (and the ghosts were far outside the black - it is an elegant a solution) and while we expected an improvement it exceeded our expectations. We are looking forward to significant stress testing early in the Spring. This was a test of the first "prototype". but we are sure when we swap out our existing sensors for the new production units they will be even better. On a final note as some have noted, ShotMarker does very well, at a very wide range of temperatures, conditions, wind and even freezing rain and snow squalls. We did finally get wind from a direction that is extremely rare at 25 mph gusting over 35 mph or more, and as solid as our target frames are, we are going to do some additional modification to eliminate any possibility of vertical shot location errors caused by frame movement (not due to the system but the "big sales we shoot at"). It seems when it really blows on the tail of a Nor'easter you have to "crank them down" even more than we though. We are also going to make a couple of modifications to our targets for better cable management - necessary when running a very active range.

 

[oob]

Also a good bit of our range is in the ShotMarker home page video and Adam was a big help in fire forming a good bit of brass for me.

 

[dmoran]

Once the system has been calibrated once you do not need to re-calibrate unless you switch the target frame, it appears that shot #4 is way closer to the rest of the group on the virtual target when compared to the paper target.

It appears to me that both pictures are not the same size, with the virtual target picture being smaller in scale. Meaning, the cropped & edited in virtual target image is a smaller scaled target image, there for all the shots/group appear to be be closer to each other and a smaller group in size.
Which simply is just the consequences of editing two separate sized target images that have not been scaled, into one image.
Or so is how I see it....

 

[oob]

It appears to me that both pictures are not the same size, with the virtual target picture being smaller in scale. Meaning, the cropped & edited in virtual target image is a smaller scaled target image, there for all the shots/group appear to be be closer to each other and a smaller group in size.
Which simply is just the consequences of editing two separate sized target images that have not been scaled, into one image.
Or so is how I see it....

When we first started using ShotMarker we noticed that there did appear to be differences that where more than they should be, even after careful calibrating at a per the directions on some displays. When viewed on a high resolution displays scaled up to the size (as close as they could be matched) and measuring (using the actual coordinates from the data file) the paper using the x,y coordinate offsets of the shots from the calibrated physical center of the target they where on average within 1/10 of an inch or better). If we expanded the display of the group on a high resolution screen to the match the paper target (both the calibration target and an actual competition target) there was little to no discernible difference. The image can appear different depending on the viewing device and its display resolution. A good example was a five year old iPad Mini vs. an 6th generation iPad Pro with a very high resolution Retina display. The actual measurements in the data file and the higher resolution display where spot on, while the iPad mini and a number of lower resolution devices appear to have a greater variation, but the data and the score was correct and match the paper target if its aligned to the center of the target properly. If they are going to be used for competition, do it with the highest resolution display you can and check the shot values on the alignment target against the data file, you will find the accuracy claims are well within the specifications. Once the true center of the target frame is calibrated you can be very confident scoring relative to that are extremely precise and accurate. Extra care in placing target faces on the frames is very important. We use a push pin in the center of the X of the target face and square them up from there to added witness marks for the horizontal and vertical edges of the printed targets on the backers. As a note "most" printed targets expand and contract based on heat and humidity changes during the day, a difference that would take place with or without ShotMarker. Calibrate them correctly and carefully and the data (and recorded score) will be very precise.

 

[Tony B]

We can debate the accuracy issue forever but one issue about Shotmarker that I consider indisputable is customer service. Adam is the most responsive and helpful company rep I have ever dealt with. He returns calls, texts, and emails personally and quickly. He even quickly answers after business hours questions.

 

[oob]

We can debate the accuracy issue forever but one issue about Shotmarker that I consider indisputable is customer service. Adam is the most responsive and helpful company rep I have ever dealt with. He returns calls, texts, and emails personally and quickly. He even quickly answers after business hours questions.

Agree 1000%. Only a few vendors, especially in the technology or shooting industries, come close.

 

[Nature Boy]

a load development option. what a great idea

 

[skiutah02]

Drew, what does your frame look like?

Russ,

A local range welds a "base" for their pistol target holders and they use a hard plastic board mounted on two 2x2x1s for the target backer. I know them pretty well and they gave me a large (about 4' x 3') piece of the plastic backer that they cut up to make the smaller target frames. If I recall correctly, they indicated that the plastic is the inner foundation of tri-fold truck bed covers.

I used the large piece to construct a "large," light, "portable" long-range target that could fit into my Prius and that models their target set up just jumbo sized.
I've had it for 4-years and it takes alot of abuse. You can see it in action when I was testing my homemade remote camera here

http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/daughters-challenge-shoot-penny-at-600-yds.3856262/

Adam's instructions clearly indicate that a solid material should NOT be used, but I was lazy and wanted to see if this material was light enough to use unadapted. I attempted to isolate the sensors from the potential vibration by using a piece of rubber (cut from an antifatigue mat in my workshop) and a piece of softwood between the plastic and the sensor foot. If I was lucky this would work, but if it didn't I would just cut a hole in the middle of the entire target and it should work.

So far of the 100 or so shots it has only flagged two (one I'm guessing because the frame was moving back and forth about 1ft in the 35 mph tailwinds during the 20 shot string) and the other because the shot passed through the wooden "legs" of the frame. In both cases the shot was registered but with a warning. In the first case the shot was annotated with something about a difference in yaw angle? from previous shot and the other a reference to the top right sensor being triggered before the others and that that is an indication of the bullet hitting something solid. Inspection of the target showed this to be true (several had but only one was highlighted). I both cases, the shot could be accepted as "real" and seamlessly incorporated into the scoring string. I'm certainly not at the point of rendering a verdict as to whether this frame setup will be perfect, but it is impressive so far and will work perfectly for my needs (once the temps return to something humane for laying on the ground for 30 min and being outdoors for hours on end)

Here is a picture of the setup in current form. The metal base I can hammer into the ground (even frozen) and then place the target into it.

I (sadly) sold the Prius late summer (248K miles) but this system also fits into the Chevy Volt....


Hope this helps,

Drew

 

[Toejoe12]

If we expanded the display of the group on a high resolution screen to the match the paper target (both the calibration target and an actual competition target) there was little to no discernible difference. The image can appear different depending on the viewing device and its display resolution. A good example was a five year old iPad Mini vs. an 6th generation iPad Pro with a very high resolution Retina display. The actual measurements in the data file and the higher resolution display where spot on, while the iPad mini and a number of lower resolution devices appear to have a greater variation,

oob, really good post. Thanks for sharing. We have found the same to be true.
Tony B I agree 100%, Adam has been great to work with. We've sent him complete files from a couple of "test" matches we ran with 25 shooters and he reviewed the data and helped us pin point an issue.......we were getting an echo effect on several targets. Didn't effect any scores but the sensors were firing twice and we wanted to understand why. It was the layout of our pit and target carriers. They are cemented and bolted into a 3 foot trench that was "bouncing" the sound. Once we determined the issue with Adam's help simply laying a few of our old targets across absorbed the sound rather than reflect an echo......simple fix that was not associated with the shotmarker at all.

Lastly, regarding debating the accuracy. In our opinion there is no longer a debate! When you take the points oob made and compare to the human error element with wrinkled pasted targets and non-linier warped cardboard (what we shot on at Raton this year in the Nationals after the first day of LR was rained out after the first match). The shotmarker target accuracy is as good or inside the above described. The debate is now reduced to those that have bought, spent time understanding and helping Adam improve with upgrades......and those that have not, with little to no experience and knowledge of the system. They can continue to fuss and complain out of ignorance but for me and the guys I shoot with, we have seen and experienced the evolution of electronic targets and have moved on. It's actually a much better shooting time and experience!! The camaraderie that will be missed in the pits is a myth! There is 10 times over more camaraderie behind the line for those not shooting or scoring. We've actually had to move back a bit further behind the line as to not disturb the shooters with all our laughter and BS stories

 

[oob]

oob, really good post. Thanks for sharing. We have found the same to be true.
Tony B I agree 100%, Adam has been great to work with. We've sent him complete files from a couple of "test" matches we ran with 25 shooters and he reviewed the data and helped us pin point an issue.......we were getting an echo effect on several targets. Didn't effect any scores but the sensors were firing twice and we wanted to understand why. It was the layout of our pit and target carriers. They are cemented and bolted into a 3 foot trench that was "bouncing" the sound. Once we determined the issue with Adam's help simply laying a few of our old targets across absorbed the sound rather than reflect an echo......simple fix that was not associated with the shotmarker at all.

Lastly, regarding debating the accuracy. In our opinion there is no longer a debate! When you take the points oob made and compare to the human error element with wrinkled pasted targets and non-linier warped cardboard (what we shot on at Raton this year in the Nationals after the first day of LR was rained out after the first match). The shotmarker target accuracy is as good or inside the above described. The debate is now reduced to those that have bought, spent time understanding and helping Adam improve with upgrades......and those that have not, with little to no experience and knowledge of the system. They can continue to fuss and complain out of ignorance but for me and the guys I shoot with, we have seen and experienced the evolution of electronic targets and have moved on. It's actually a much better shooting time and experience!! The camaraderie that will be missed in the pits is a myth! There is 10 times over more camaraderie behind the line for those not shooting or scoring. We've actually had to move back a bit further behind the line as to not disturb the shooters with all our laughter and BS stories

Thanks. We've seen the same things and Adam's focus on support and constant improvement is extraordinary. As part of my work over the last few decades I have installed and operated e-targets for different shooting disciplines as far back as the 1995 World Cup at Wolf's Creek in Atlanta, several Olympics and more World Cups. I never thought we would see this level of quality or accuracy at a price point an individual could use for practice or a small club for competition. Another plus is if we do get a loose connection after shooting starts (very rare and usually setup error) or a shooter is "not comfortable with the results from a target" we can move them quickly to a backup (hospital) and swap out a hub, sensors or cable during target face changes and maintain the rhythm of the match or practice. Best of all any impact has usually been a single target and a 3-5 min. fix. We have a couple of extra Access Points and USB battery packs so any major issues of that sort are also easily managed and it keeps the shooters happy. It has attracted a lot of new shooters this past season and brought back a good number of shooters who didn't want to spend the whole day at a three relay match. We have almost always been ready to start at 9AM and Final Results and Awards are done by 1PM. A lot of times we setup the night before except for turning on the hubs and raising the targets. Over the winter we will be replacing the cardboard backers with 4mm coroplast (with the political season over we've found some great prices on "cut to fit" backers) so we won't have to worry about a light shower overnight and any distortion of the backers. Next season we'll just leave the target faces off until the targets are ready to go up for the match. In several multi-day matches with no rain in sight we just pulled them into the pits and powered down (checking the charges of course), but we ran one 4 day match without a recharge and only had one cable that had to be replaced. We have also seen the same with more conversations with larger groups of shooters, and have had to get them, the rest relay (those who would be pulling targets) further away from the line to not disturb the shooters or scorers! I don't think we have a shooter who would go back to manual voluntarily. Interestingly, it was a combination of younger and newer shooters and our older and best shooters who were the quickest to embrace the ShotMarker system.