Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Electronic Target Experience
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 січ 2022
- Has your range converted to electronic targets? If yes, how has the experience been compared to manual scoring? In this video I take a look at a couple of matches that I have shot on these systems and compare the electronic scoring with the bullet holes in paper.
Konrad, thanks for documenting your experience. I'm President of the Alaska Rifle Club and we switched from pits to shot marker systems in 2020 for most matches. It has been a game changer for us. I understand what you're saying and I think in high stakes matches it makes a difference. We put a lot of effort into ensuring that our frames are well calibrated and that the centers are pasted in exactly the right spot. For us the electronic system is a far better experience than we would get with pit service where people showing up at a match are not familiar with how to run targets and we run usually three relays so it's one person operating each target. I ran a long range match match up here at a remote Army base using pits and I'll never do it again because it doesn't run efficiently like the big matches down south. We're going to use shot marker on that range next year. So much of your shooting sequence is derailed waiting for the darn Target to be put back up then the scoring value disc is in the wrong place, repeatedly yelling over the radio Mark Target 15, etc, etc. I'm just so done with that experience. Shot marker has allowed us to run 40 round midrange or 50 rd full distance NMC in the evenings after work, shoot more matches in a season with less effort, and attract older Shooters who might not be physically able to operate pits by themselves anymore. Another thing is the Army has decided that all pits up here need to be enclosed to the point where you can hardly see your target when it's in the air and it's difficult to hear the shots and know if they impacted your target or not. All of this has pushed us towards electronic targets.
I can see how, with poor pit service, the electronic target experience appears better. I just wish the electronics would capture each shot that is fired every single time.
@@konrad1853 Are you shooting bb guns. What caliber are you shooting that it does not pick up the bullet? Or switch to Shotmarker system.
Extremely insightful, Konrad and thank you for the spot on analysis and data to back it up. I did not know you were an engineer, like me - but that explains our affliction with things like this. But seriously, I think the delta needs to be analyzed and understood so that we all know if it is the target center not being pasted correctly, or the calibration of the equipment. Excellent. Thank you for posting
Since 2011 I have organized, was leading and participated (I am quite able with the AR15 service rifle) in about 100 matches on the SIUS electronic target system, including two national championships every year. The outdoor range is located in the Netherlands. We shoot small bore at 50m and 100m and high power (big bore) at 100m and 300m. The target at 300m is 1.3x1.3m. The 10 is 10cm diameter, inner ten 5cm. The rules require us to use iron sights. For years we have deployed backing and control cards to check the electronic scores. We do not do that anymore - we know now when the SIUS electronic targets miss.
The lesson learned is that the SIUS system is accurate (at 300m better than 1mm), but the targets should be well maintained and clean. Our targets use rubber bands. The rubber bands of the 50 and 100m targets are shifted by a motor after each shot just to maintain their integrity. At 300m there is not such a thing, and before every match day we rotate the bands ourselves. With 300-400 shots in the 10-ring the band is worn out (at that place) and we move it about 20 cm. That suffices for the next match (day).
I have also organized precision rifle matches at 300m. These rifles are equipped with a bipod and riflescopes. Our best shooters are able to shoot 30 shots in a group of 3cm (about 1 inch) at 300m. When they are finished we have to rotate the rubber bands - the innerten ring is completely worn out. Currently we organize such matches again on paper targets.
In your experience, will your sight settings need to change from one SIUS system to another? In other words, can you leave the same sight settings on the rifle and shoot an another range (with the same environmental conditions)?
@@konrad1853 Yes, one could go to another range, or shoot on a paper target, the physical and electronic coordinates would be the same within a mm. This is under the condition that the electronic target is calibrated (and no light-bending due to inhomogeneous air-densities, etc). I have calibrated our targets a few times (mostly after software updates) and experienced that without calibration at 300m , the physical coordinates and the electronic ones were never more then a cm off. This is due to the degrees of freedom one has by mounting the physical target. I also found that there was no drift due changes in environmental circumstances during a match. (In the Netherlands huge changes can occur within one hour. Sius does correct for humidity and pressure and temperature change to calculate the speed of sound).
At 50 or 100m the mechanical accuracy of the targets are in the order of a mm, due to a rigid construction.
The bottom line is that in my experience, the difference between the physical and digital calibration of electronic targets is never more than a few clicks or a MoA, and corrected during the probe shots by the shooter. (Yet, frequently my first probe shot is an X, or Mouche as it is called here, 5cm at 300m). I have stopped checking Sius. Compared to the SIUS target systems I know, the sensor systems I see on your video seems rather basic. On the other hand one pays for the quality. 😀
Beyond 300m I never have shot electronic targets (ISSF does not go beyond 300m). I used to go to army facilities where we used paper targets at 500m. I will not go into details but beyond 300m, I expect some engineering challenges if one deploys acoustic sensors. To get an impression google on Sius and Zwitserland. Sius has been certified by the ISSF, even for the world championships.
Furthermore, I also have few indoor calibration experiences with Meyton and Kongsberg electronic targets, both small bore and big bore. The first one works with LEDs the latter one with acoustics. These are also reliable if they are maintained well.
Good video.
Most of what was displayed is the error between the calibrated center and the physical paper we use to aim at. Us as shooters can make the adjustments and dont notice.
The targets being plumb, no warping in the uprights, and the targets being stable and not wobbling in the wind take out the majority of the errors.
For club matches they are great and make thing flow more smoothly. It has also attracted a lot of people to the sport who dont want or cannot pull targets due to physical disabilities.
I do think that regional/state/national matches should be on pulled targets. With that being said, we have all had terrible pit service more than once that can cost one a match. Take the good with the bad is what I do.
I think most of the error in the examples you provided are due to not pasting the paper target centered over the calibrated center , ie not lining up the Xs. Or the calibration is slightly off or the target is flexing in the wind.
We use a golf tee and poke through the center of the X on the new target face. Then you can guide the paper onto the calibrated target`s center X. Perfect alignment.
I have not compared etarget scores to paper targets in a while, but I'm going to next time I'm out. I also use the shotmarker system
For “missing shots” at our range, the competitor is given the choice of the score of the majority of best score, so you would have gotten the 10, not a 9, or a refire. We also have alignment lines on the targets so replacement centers are placed more consistent. And, at this range (Tri cities Shooting Facility) we have high winds and secure our frames with 4 ratchet straps which helps decrease target shimmy.
I wholly agree with you Konrad, particularly when it comes to EIC and National Trophy Matches. I have no problem with using electronic targets in their present state for Games matches or local matches, but the technology is just not sufficiently reliable enough for the real deal matches. Thank you for another great video.
@@TheBoru2011 I'm extremely confused why they wouldn't just go with SIUS. If it's good enough for ISSF world championships and the Olympics, surely it should be good enough for NRA high power?
@@thatsquidwardfeel5567 An open microphone system will cost an order of magnitude less than an enclosed chamber system. Additionally, given their weight and size, they're typically semi-permanent installations. With our ShotMarker system, we use the same system at four different distances.
The type of match shouldn't matter. Do we expect a worse scoring experience with human pit pullers at a local match than at Camp Perry?
Thanks for a detailed analysis.
FWIW, The working theory is most errors are due to sensors not being squared, calibration, and centers placed square. Perhaps as we get more experience, this can be confined or denied.
Spot on regarding the missing shots. Definitely a hardware/software issue. I’ve shot matches where even/odd firing points take turns… it’s reduced significantly, but still happens.
The technical details shouldn't matter to the person pulling the trigger. We just need to give them the best experience so they feel like their shots are scored according to their level of marksmanship execution.
@@konrad1853 Then listen to Hebes 405. I have a shotmarker and if you dont take the care to calibrate, center, level frame and so on, you will never get accurate results. I take the time to square up everything, build a solid frame and my shots on perfect on every single one.
We (here in Australia) use the same silver mountain targets and 99% of the time errors like this mean it's a frame size in the firmware and concentric placement of the centre is critical. Also the nature of a target to get buffeted by wind and sway slightly can have a calibre or more difference vertically. Just food for thought
FWIW, The working theory is most errors are due to sensors not being squared, calibration, and centers placed square. Perhaps as we get more experience, this can be confined or denied.
Spot on regarding the missing shots. Definitely a hardware/software issue. I’ve shot matches where even/odd firing points take turns… it’s reduced significantly, but still happens.
I've extensively used ShotMarker targets, so these comments reference them.
Frames that are not square and microphones that are not perpendicular to the frame are issues. Moving frames (rocking carriers, etc) are a bigger issue. We clamp our carriers in place.
Missing shots is a matter of physics and timing of the supersonic shock waves hitting the sensors in the corners. You can get missing shots in slow fire, about 1 in 2000 is our match experience when running six firing points. In rapid fire, it's probably about 1 in 200. This can be mitigated by having fewer shooters firing at the same time.
If you're shooting on a a single target, it can handle full auto firing rates. I've never had a lost shot in a practice session, and that's with one or two others on the line at the same time.
Sounds like we're on the same page Konrad. Given the choice, I prefer manual targets. But either way, I'll keep shooting, and I do my best to keep a positive mental attitude when firing on e-tgts, and 'game the game' and zig when the targets zag.
I try to rationalize it by saying to myself "well I could get a pit goober that can't find the 10th hole on a clean"
Doesn't bring me much comfort, but gotta stay positive.
See you at the range.
Excellent. Thank you for posting
I agree. Nobody wants a point they didn't earn, but they don't want to be cheated out of any either.
Points are just part of the scoring experience. Are electronic targets proving an experience comparable to manual targets?
Konrad, on these economic open microphone systems, the zero is subject to variance between targets and even on the same target frame between refacings, because it's hard to paste the bullseye in the exact same position relative to the sensors every time. But as long as you're given the opportunity to fire sighters on a target before going live, the scores should be accurate, as long as the target frame is solid.
The fact shot values are slightly different on paper than the computer is **irrelevant**, because you sighted in on the center point between sensors; you did not sight in on the center of the paper target. What we should be confirming on paper is the **shape of the group**: as long as the relative positions of shots to each other are the same on paper and in computer, the target is working well, and you are being fairly scored.
The use of electronic targets requires a mental shift--unlike the manual targets, your past zeroes are not dependable. This means that these targets are not suitable for match formats such as EIC where sighters are not allowed. Such matches must either use manual targets or adjust the rules to accommodate electronic targets.
Now the missing shot--that's a real problem.
If I spend most of a season getting zeros I expect those zeros to be valid at just about every range I go to. This was the case year-in and year-out with manual targets. If zeros become greatly range-dependent, the target systems have failed the competitor.
I don't aim at an electronic system. I aim, and execute shots, based on a black circle that is downrange. It's the interpretation of where the shots go that can be frustrating.
Thanks for the video Konrad
Manual scoring is the pits… pun intended.
I bought a Shot Marker last fall as a training aid and received it just before Christmas. I have yet to use it.
I have shot a few matches on EvTargets. During these matches I did notice a pretty substantial offset (about 2 inches) between the paper and electronic targets. This was probably the product of poor calibration. In an EIC match this could be a big deal for a shooter at all ranges. Personally I accept the drawbacks of an electronic target for the convenience they offer. On the other hand I am not an accomplished marksman and it would take more than a few points to put me in the running to win a match. In regards to accuracy hands down there’s no question a manually scored target is probably better.
On my personal frame I will be adding a few screw eyes or golf tees on the border. I would then be able to run a string and make an “X” to ensure alignment with the calibrated zero.
I understand from reading the manual of my target system, the accuracy of the electronic target is adversely effected by wind and how firmly the target is in the frame.
I like how these systems work on spent paper for practice purposes but why doesn’t some design something that’s analog with real time picture feed back. Something like the Caldwell but with a better camera? Doesn’t seem to be that difficult. Then what you see is what you get.
I'm a detail-oriented person, and appreciate being CORRECT and consistent. That said, other than a first shot on an EIC match or other match where the first shot is for record, this SHOULD NOT be as much of a problem as emphasized here. Please take no offense, and I very much appreciate the effort you took to make these observations and record them for analysis. And the missed shot is absolutely a problem. If that is not corrected, then electronic scoring needs to be suspended until it is. Is there any data on how often that happens?
But back to the scoring "shift," you are adjusting your sights to what is being SCORED by the system, not by where you somehow might otherwise see where the bullet went (which you should not be able to do when shooting.) So once your rifle is "zeroed" to the scoring system, in reality, the bullseye could be anywhere within the limits of your sights. Of course, we will get it as close as we can, and this small fraction of an inch, even smaller fraction of an MOA, should be a non-issue, again, after your first shot. Being two scoring rings away should be very clearly unacceptable and that range needs to somehow correct that issue.
If you're the guy who is so good, your first EIC shot should have been an X, and it gets scored a 10, you got robbed, but you'll make that accurate sight adjustment based on your call and the score, and it will be a non-issue for the rest of the match. If you pull one to the side, you still deserve what the electronic system scores you as, not where the bullet actually falls on the paper, assuming we have a consistent system with a consistent "error."
I find far more errors in human scoring, but that's because I'm usually at matches with new people still learning how to do it. I will take these electronic targets any day, and twice on Sundays, including EIC matches.
Now when can we have Statcast call balls and strikes in baseball, instead of the umpire?
The folks who paste the faces, and run the targets, could have done a better job. Just a guess, but it looks like a simple offset would have corrected most if not all of the ones you are pointing out, with the exception of the lost rapid shot. Rapids are always difficult just due to the timing of all those shots going down range within milliseconds of each other.
We settled on ShotMarker at one club, and someone donated SilverMountain to the other. Both have their flaws. I wonder if the issue of the close calls would be solved by real time inspection of the sighters by someone in the pits who can adjust the calibration before a record string? This would at least solve the bias on the fresh face, but I know there will still be some residual errors. Could clean faces being pasted on become some sort of hybrid solution? I'm not sure but maybe we need to try.
Adding people to inspect targets in the pits means having to find one more volunteer to help run a match. Not always possible when trying to impact as few competitors as necessary.
Bisley in the UK has several different types of electronic systems {Shotmarker, Intarso and Kongsberg} and we have the same issues here which is a shame.
For competitions, we all still score manually. Need to check your zero, get it done manually. Never on the electronics.
That's too bad as the electronic target systems have so much potential to make the sport better for those who are considering getting into it.
@@konrad1853 especially for practicing by yourself when working on your shooting skills while shooting , mostly, alone. And for older shooters, who are a bit slower in there actions. Which can cause frustration in your fellow shooters during a match from slower, Manual, Target scoring in the pits
Tough call. Let’s hope electronic gets better. Perhaps as high res remote control cameras get better they could just be used and the scorer can just sit behind and you both can see the monitor. No spotting scopes needed at that point either.
Manual scoring is also really prone to errors and the dreaded “double shot”
And also it may necessarily make the game more stricter as holes in paper are usually larger than bullet diameter (Break out your USPSA cards!)
Another solution is to adopt the Olympic way and score to Tenths of a point at least then the punishment for a bad call on a line is minuscule and get rid of the need for X tie breakers.
Manual scoring isn't perfect, but I believe there's a better chance at getting all of your points with an experienced highpower shooter in the pits scoring the target. We are trading scoring integrity for the convenience of not going to the pits. There are a lot of shooter willing to make this trade.
When I fired at the CMP OKC Games the targets they were using were reporting scores with a tenth place but of course on the card it was scored with the actual whole number. I think your idea of using the Olympic style scoring may be good for a shift to electronic targets but would be difficult for ranges with manual scoring.
What was the response from the ones running the electronic targets? Did they offer any explanation?
Just subbed, though I've seen a few of your videos for a while. I just have one question, how do you cut out those blinders for your glasses. I like it and would like to do the same.
I cut out the general shape based on the position of the glasses in relation to my eye and how I wear my hat. I also cut them so they fit in my glasses case.
Konrad, have there been improvements made to system to increase your confidence level at this date?
I think we are stuck with the good and bad of these systems. As long as the target is calibrated properly, that goes a long way to providing a good experience. Unfortunately, I still go to matches where shots go missing during a rapid-fire string. But most competitors seem to accept this for the convenience of not having to pull targets. It is what it is.
@@konrad1853 since I left the game I have yet had the opportunity to shoot with the electric targets. With all the issues CMP had with Kongsberg targets early on, I told myself “never”, but it seems to inevitable now that electronic targets are the future, and the future is here. Well wishes my friend.
2022 my club is installing a system. I will watch out
Thanks
I have my own personal Shotmarker and the club I shoot matches at uses Shotmarkers as well. In my experience, Shotmarkers need recalibration on a regular basis, and care must be used when putting on new target faces. Otherwise ShotMarker will start putting shots somewhere other than where they actually are.
Konrad - how can I connect with you?
The paper target is a document (c)
What is that thing you use on your ghost ring when you shot iron sights
called? Can anyone give a link where I can buy it?
I'm not sure what you mean regarding a ghost ring for iron sights.
@@konrad1853 I ment that some shooters whom I saw shooting Service rifle use some sort of device that they put into their diopter. Some sort of bolt with a hole in it :) What is that? I thought you were also using it. Thanks.
Many service rifles with iron sights used a threaded insert in the rear sight. Different inserts would have different sized aperture openings. By changing out inserts, you could find the aperture size that worked best for your particular vision. The goal was to get as much of the front sight in focus as possible without having an overall image that was too dark.
@@konrad1853 Where do Iget them? Could you possibly give me a link? Thank you.
White Oak Armament may have some.
Could not agree with you more. Not a big fan of electronic targets.