There were a number of times I wanted to.
SMT @ 2017 F-Nats?
- Thread starter spclark
- Start date
I don't see bias but the acoustic center being positioned slightly right of center. Take another look at the 3 shots at 2:00 and 2:30 just outside the 10 ring (actually 1 is clearly a 10 on the paper) Add in the 2 other shots inside those and a clear X is now a 10. Clearly the acoustic center is shifted slightly so the shooter received no advantage.
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
The thing that *everyone* is not getting, is that the paper target does not matter. It's only there to show you that the pattern and spacing on the paper, matches the pattern and spacing on the display. There is no relationship between the rings on the target and the display, other than the target face gives you somewhere to hold. In the case of the target displayed, the system center (or target face that was pasted up) is off a little bit, but the only place that matters is that the shooter would take a click or two to be centered up on the system.
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
Yep, just like if someone crossfires onto your target and the puller pulls it. The 7 second delay was implemented correctly this year and worked great I thought. I actually wouldn't mind if it were a bit longer - say 10 seconds which would be a little more realistic. 7 second target service is awesome, but I've never experienced it outside of the SMT system.
exactly. we have seen pit bosses intentionally offset the virtual X ring down into the 9 ring on 600 yard matches so the F Class guys still had an aiming point half way through the day. They destroy the #9 at 6 o'clock and the aiming point stays true all day.
personally, I like seeing the target reflect the tablet exactly but it's not necessary. I want to see some form of consistent calibration through all the targets at the beginning of match weekend, and beyond that it's academic. if everyone is calibrated the same then it's a level playing field. I won't get bent over seeing the shift on paper because I'm not going to the pits and looking at it and the plasters are obscuring all the scoring rings.
That doesn't solve Wi-Fi issues, but I suspect that kind of thing will be easier to deal with than shooters preceptions.
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
I'm looking at the holes in relationship to one another, not the rings on the paper. If you consider that shots in the "9" line on the left are plotted a little right of there on the score sheet, then you should also see the shots on the right side plotted proportionally equally right of the position of the holes relative to the rings. That simply is not the case.
I can see quite easily that the accoustic center was off a little both horizontally and vertically.
I'm thinking that the system, when showing shots overlapped, would correspond with holes significantly closer together than the ones in the lower left.
I realize that the game is what the game is, and electronic targets are the wave of the future. I'd just like to have a lot more confidence in the precision.
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
And you are taking into consideration that the display is zoomed out, so that the plotted shots are something like a magnitude larger in aspect compared to what is on paper?
Keith Glasscock
Gold $$ Contributor
To the best of my ability.
Consider the 5 shots just outside and touching the right edge of the 10 ring on the plot. the 4 that are in almost a vertical line show up nicely with an approximately correct offset when compared to the farthest left impacts on the target. Where is that 5th shot? I'm guessing it's the one that is quite a bit farther to the left almost to the X ring.
Long story short, the target presented gives me reason to question the precision of whatever target it was fired on. I think it can only be resolved by a well designed experiment conducted during a match or several matches.
You are on the right track. Read this SMT test report, if you haven't:
https://sites.google.com/site/targettests2016/home/smt-2017
Jay Christopherson
Not An Admin
wow, that's the first time I've read that report. very interesting data they collected.
Thank you for posting that! An illuminating read, as professional an approach to analyzing what the SMT system is capable of as I’ve seen so far.
lawman29
Gold $$ Contributor
I'll give it a try.... "IT DOES NOT MATTER TO A PAPER TARGET OR CLOSED eTARGET THAT IT MOVES BACK AND FORTH IN A WIND OR IS NOT QUITE VERTICAL. SILVER MOUNTAIN TARGETS HOWEVER DEPEND ON THE ARRIVAL OF A SHOCKWAVE OVER A PLANE SURFACE OF ACCURATELY KNOW ORIENTATION, PREFERABLY PERPENDICULAR TO THE LINE OF FIRE...The whole concept of a perfect SMT set-up is totally different from paper or closed eTargets and it requires a very different mindset...the misconception seems more prevalent among SMT target users that the calibration process can make the target perfectly accurate."
Therefore, "It is impractical and almost impossible to achieve perfectly flat, perpendicular, and rigid frames on these old manned marking pit style machines. The best way, and perhaps the only way to obtain a perfect set-up would be to discard the classical Target Gallery and use no marking pit. Instead, low set thick posts could hold the target. Any new range installation should seriously consider this and do away with protective pits."
"This report represents a wealth of information but is limited in scope because of the facilities available to us and the sheer time and cost of testing involved. We consider that before SMTs are used for high level competition the State bodies need to undertake more testing with different cartridges at the very long ranges where Velocity falls off markedly."
Targets not 'square' to the shooter induce error (horizontal and vertical plane). The SMT software allowed them to enter the vertical plane measurement (shooting downhill at target); if this info was not entered error increased. Depending on whether the target was tipped towards the shooter or away, errors would move toward the center or away (this would also happen with targets moving in the wind). Regarding a test done at 600 yards with perfect setup, but target moving in wind they stated the following - page 25, "While in these examples not many errors result in lost points, a shooter chasing fine control will be falsely adjusting elevation from the indicated shot positions. This will lead to confusion and a Coach would be tearing his hair out. Circles represent the X ring."
Velocity at the target is important, the slower the bullet the greater the error. The farther from the center of the target the greater the error. They recommended more testing at 1k.
If I understand the report correctly, as long as the bullets are well supersonic the biggest issue that was seen was a slight shift of scoring benefiting the shooter. Assuming all the targets were calibrated about the same, this still gives everyone a level playing field however I can see a case for challenging national records broken on e targets.
My take away? Make sure your bullets are 1300+ fps at 1k. Calibrate targets off 30 shots at match distance if possible. Not sure how feasible that is for the match staff unless they use a warm up day for calibration of targets and leave them up.
They put a lot of time and money into this report and it looked extremely well done to me. I wonder if they tested the other targets and if so, what was the accuracy take away way with each of the other brands? I'm curious about any statistical significance over a lot of shots, as the SMTs were tested. i.e. what kind of real world score difference should we reasonably expect, if any?
My take away? Make sure your bullets are 1300+ fps at 1k. Calibrate targets off 30 shots at match distance if possible. Not sure how feasible that is for the match staff unless they use a warm up day for calibration of targets and leave them up.
They put a lot of time and money into this report and it looked extremely well done to me. I wonder if they tested the other targets and if so, what was the accuracy take away way with each of the other brands? I'm curious about any statistical significance over a lot of shots, as the SMTs were tested. i.e. what kind of real world score difference should we reasonably expect, if any?
lawman29
Gold $$ Contributor
No: "...the misconception seems more prevalent among SMT target users that the calibration process can make the target perfectly accurate"
It's the setup.
1 point does matter. Of the last five Berger Southwest Nationals for F-Open, two were ties decided by x count and in two others a one point difference between match winner and 2nd. I've lost two matches on x count...Billings 600 yard match on paper targets and the 2017 Wyoming State Long Range Championship on SMT's (No complaints but the setup is very important as discussed in the paper).
I can't see a match director out there with a theodolite setting up targets. It's just not feasible. Also, we seem to have this discussion about the SMT targets as if it's a vacume. I know other tout their accuracy over the SMT but I have yet to see a study like the OZ study to prove it out side by side. Am I missing something?
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? If the answer is yes, then there is no problem with fairness to competitors, just a question of accuracy as far as records go. If the answer is no, is there definitive proof that another target has enough of an accuracy advantage to make a real world difference?
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.
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? If the answer is yes, then there is no problem with fairness to competitors, just a question of accuracy as far as records go. If the answer is no, is there definitive proof that another target has enough of an accuracy advantage to make a real world difference?
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.
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.