SMT @ 2017 F-Nats?

[Mozella]

....... snip.....

The question I really want an answer to is, if the targets are hung in existing carrier, calibrated as close to the same as possible doesn't that put everyone on a level playing field, no matter what targets are used? ........ snip...........

If, as the report seems to say, a wind jiggling an electronic target frame back and forth in a conventional carrier will cause a significant error with the SMT system, then the "fairness" question is a legitimate one.

I suppose it would be like hiring inexperienced Boy Scouts to pull targets at an important match. As we all know, beginners have a difficult time telling if a bullet hits their target or the one next to them. If someone starts to pull your target half a second before the bullet arrives, you will get a high hit you don't deserve.

Is the answer, "Well, all the Boy Scouts are inexperienced so it's fair for everyone"? Or is the answer, "We need to get better target pullers"?

If the SMT targets can be made much more accurate (read fair) when rigidly mounted and if they're marginal when mounted on a shaky frame, I would say they MUST be properly mounted at anything higher on the food chain than a casual local match.

 

[243Mendoza]

If, as the report seems to say, a wind jiggling an electronic target frame back and forth in a conventional carrier will cause a significant error with the SMT system, then the "fairness" question is a legitimate one. ...

What was the reported error for a target frame rocking in wind?

 

[243Mendoza]

...

I was looking at the Suis targets today, the s310 which is signed off by ISSF and is used (maybe a different model) in the olympics. If I understand the website correctly the error in the center of the target is less than 2 mm, which is great. Further down, the accuracy on the outer rings is less than 7mm. Seems like a lot considering 7mm or less is what most are shooting now. How much more accurate are these over the SMT? Can this be derived from that OZ report? I saw the green and red shifts, but couldn't make sense of the measured difference.

2mm to 7mm! Some people on this board would howl in outrage that they have been cheated from a championship

 

[Bindi2]

Problems with the pit equipement is not an ET problem. The ET just showed where the problem is when the signs are interpreted correctly.

 

[Mozella]

What was the reported error for a target frame rocking in wind?

Read the report. There's quite a bit about unsteady target carriers.

 

[Bindi2]

The question also is with rocking target frames and paper targets how many vertical line shots were wrong.

 

[FatBoy]

Read the report. There's quite a bit about unsteady target carriers.

I read it. Twice. I can't figure out what the error is, just that it benefited the shooter. If you can clear up the average error measurement please do. Being serious here, not smart ass.

That said, targets move in the wind. how many times has one dropped an inch or two when the wind comes strait up the range? We should do everything we can to mitigate differences, but there comes a point where we are going to hit diminishing returns. Life isnt fair, and neither is shooting sports. Believe me when I say I have heard my share of whining after 10 years of running LR matches, and that was before e targets. It's one of the things that t burned me out and pushed me off the range for 5-6 years.

Seems most of the new crop of long range shooters have said to hell with this and just shoot steel. They may be Ninjas, but at $250-$450 a match these Ninja matches sell out in like 11 minutes. With very few (maybe one) exception I dont see this for our sport. (the commonality I see is a fat prize table, which will likely present it own issues down the road) Never east of the Mississippi. Seems then only places that draw any kind of big attendance for us are the areas people retire to and where they have 30k plus in prizes. How much longer are we going to be a viable sport?

 

[lawman29]

Okay, I would encourage those who are interested in the testing done "down under" to go back to the web site and look at the other tests/documents on the web site. The SMT test was done in 2017, prior to that they did a test in 2016 on Konsberg Targets at Townsville.

I can't figure out what the error is, just that it benefited the shooter.

In most cases this appears to be true, but not all. In addition, if targets are canted toward or away from a shooter they do not influence the same, the "target bias" will move the recorded shot, either away from center or towards the center... Also, "target bias" if not the same for each target, will move one shot closer to the center, than a shot on another target...

There is also a Q and A document on the web site, part as follows:

SUITABILITY


Q/ Are electronic targets good enough for really critical applications. Such as, for example fine rifle testing, ammunition testing and ladder tests etc ?

Targets in very good condition are certainly good enough for this. But why do you specifically mention test shooting ?

Well, surely this places greater demands on the target when the exact position of each shot is critical rather than simply being used for score.

No ! With the present scoring system, the accuracy of an electronic target for high level competition is even more critical.

How can the scoring system matter ? There are huge blank areas between scoring lines where it does not matter where the shot is, but with rifle testing every shot position is critical and need to be measured.

Yes. So you throw away the information carried by all of those shots for ranking shooters in order and only concentrate critically on one small area of the target. The winner in a calm weather Queens shoot is determined solely by one ring. The dividing line on the outside of a centre. If an error crosses that dividing line then scores change.

But some scores rise and some fall, surely they average out.

Yes, averaging can occur, but this is only true if a very large number of crossings occur. Remember there is only one ring making the decisions and the measurements on shots elsewhere is being thrown away.

I would like to thank our friends "down under" for providing access to their testing. They have provided great information for Match Directors/Shooting Ranges on important details for making their Kronberg or SMT targets the best they can be. I will leave you with a taste of "down under" humor;

"...Shot eight was seen by the butts crew to miss over the top of the target. If shot six just missed the test sheet over the top as seems likely, the smallest possible value of error for this shot is 450 mm. That a magpie was recorded as a bull is of little comfort..."

 

[Heman]

What you have to realize in the testing done by HEXTA's marketing director on the SMT targets, was done so the SMT target would produce large error. When you set up the SMT target it is very important that the sensors are pointing perpendicular to the target but on the same plane. If they are 90 degrees to the target face great, if they are 80 degrees to the target face that is ok. But they need to be in the same plane. For this to happen one side of the sensors would have to be moved forward this isn't the case, therefore you have to different acoustical planes and this is where the errors will start. If you have your 4 sensors pointing off in different directions the accuracy goes to hell real quick. When I got the first target I quickly set it up on a frame not all sensors were pointing the same direction and it worked like hell. Mounted them properly and everything worked very nicely. I still need to change my personal frame here out the house up some to improve this. The setup is what was not done correctly in the test that is an anti-SMT test.

The calibration on the SMT just says where the center of the target is for the SMT system in relation to the paper target. Multiple calibration shots don't make the target anymore accurate. The accuracy comes from the setup above AND also having accurate measurements on the sensor spacing. I did a test where I took the sensor spacing and multiplied it x2, the scoring rings got larger, 10s now were scored as X's, etc. I made the sensor spacing 1/2 of what it should be and the rings got tighter. 10's on paper were now 9's. This shows that set-up is crucial. If you don't have your sensor spacing measured properly the scaling of the acoustical targets will be off. The other thing that people often forget to do or not mess with is the temperature calibration. Again if you don't do this properly it throws stuff off.

As far as accuracy the 2mm vs. 7mm and how 7mm is WAY to large is interesting because when you reface and have to use the two part centers the rings NEVER match up and you are talking a difference greater than 7mm. F-class shooters may not experience this as much as your repair centers are single sheets but still look at the outer rings they don't match up real well. Also it is possible and a rather famous NRA Champion would do this in soaking your target face with glue and then stretching it to make it larger. The e-target rings are always the same size.

As far as the shooters being offset yes the shooter "Should" be pointing straight into the sensors. Why the sensors should be perpendicular to the target so the shooter can line up on the sensors, etc. If one is off and the other is off it starts to add up errors. That is the shooters responsibility to make sure they are lined up properly on the target. HOWEVER, we have ran the targets for 2 years now at Atterbury and had multiple national records set (both sling and F-class) while using these targets. The accuracy is not an issue. Not all the shooters are always lined up properly and sometimes they will line up on 5 and say shoot on 6 just so they can get done sooner, and they don't report bad scores or anything. When we have a clean face up on the frames I'll go down and look at it and the shot print matches what was plotted. Acoustical center was off slightly to the paper center but the shot group matched what was plotted. We have had some windy days at Atterbury and I've never experienced nor have any of our F-Class shooters (WE HAVE SOME VERY GOOD ONES THERE) experienced that X ring moving from the X ring to the 10 ring, etc. When I read stuff like that I see it as a poor mans excuse for why they made a bad shot. Same as well I shot bad because I got bad pit service. At 1000yds there is a lot of little wind events that can happen to a bullet that you don't see. One of the complaints I here is well the targets go down for a little bit and that throws us off our rhythm because we are shooting in a certain condition and when we have to wait the condition changes. When I here this I basically think ok your just chasing the spotter and if/when the target goes down it is no different than when there are boats in the impact area (Camp Perry) or people jumping the gates (Camp Atterbury) just happens, deal with it.