Electronic Targets At Perry

First topic message reminder :

I shot them. Very poor sales pitch. target was not to scale for Bullseye
did not like you can not see your hits at the short line.
What do you all think of them  

Ah, the time-honored budget ax as a tool to force adoption of an unpopular idea next budget cycle!

Posted in another thread a few reasons why I don't quite trust the NRA on competitions stuff any more. Isn't NRA membership up?  Separation of ILA's operations from membership dues should mean that election battles have little effect on the overall budget, shouldn't it? Or maybe Citizen United opened the door for NRA to use all it's money on a few publications and lobbying? Still haven't read that decision, was just happy that no Soviet-style legislature or Congress could silence the "wrong" organized voices. I do like being free to have a big group speak out against Bloomberg and George Soros and their habitual liars and front organizations.

Sorry guys but I like the electronic target idea.  Gradually as technology becomes more prevelent prices and will drop and quality will increase making it affordable to  local clubs.

It WILL attract younger shooters who can't walk, talk, have sex or fart without an electronic device in their hands.

Beside most of my fellow geezers will soon be shooting from wheel chairs and unable to walk down and check their neighbors scores anyway.

I know some of suckers will be shooting past 80 with Tommy Copper elbow wraps and walkers and canes etc.....What will you do when you can't see?

Best regards,

Paul

as cheap as the NRA is I don't know how the subject ever came up, hell the crappy perry target system has needed overhauling for decades and they never would pony up the funds, to think they would triple what it costs to do that and go electronic was just someone's foolish thinking.

knightimac wrote:Sorry guys but I like the electronic target idea.  Gradually as technology becomes more prevelent prices and will drop and quality will increase making it affordable to  local clubs.

It WILL attract younger shooters who can't walk, talk, have sex or fart without an electronic device in their hands.

Beside most of my fellow geezers will soon be shooting from wheel chairs and unable to walk down and check their neighbors scores anyway.

I know some of suckers will be shooting past 80 with Tommy Copper elbow wraps and walkers and canes etc.....What will you do when you can't see?

Best regards,

Paul

Paul,
If electronic targets ARE an important part of the future of bullseye, it has to start from the club level on up--not starting at the National Championship, while all of the other ranges still have turning paper targets.

If shooters gravitate to the ranges that have the electronic targets, then the change will be organic and sustainable.  If the change is forced, it will divide the sport due to the differences.

To implement this correctly you create the rules that cover which electronic targets are approved, and where to order them from, and specify all of the differences in the course of fire that the equipment dictates.  Shooters can elect to participate in electronic target matches or avoid them.  Since there is only ONE National Championship, there isn't a way for shooters to go to a different National Championship--you would lose shooters for that match if there is a switch for only that match.

To your point about attracting new, younger shooters:  what ideas are there?  same one we have said before:
-Better NRA promotion of our sport--the "find NRA near you" website is garbage and they have been promising to fix it for years.  How can shooters participate in something that they cannot find?!
-Match director support--a step-by-step guide for new match directors to host matches will create more matches and more opportunities for new shooters to get involved.  NRA match administration software or web apps should be made available to match directors to use if they wish.  NRA should also connect match directors with plaques or awards manufacturers so it's easier for match directors to give awards.
Shooters can promote our sport on social media--this forum, facebook groups, etc can help more people know about our sport--and again, the more people who know, the more new shooters could join us.

Pistol shooters these days usually exclude children these days.  Since young shooters aren't able to purchase pistols in most states under the law, many people make the mistake of thinking those shooters aren't allowed to shoot pistols either--the same way kids can't buy smokes and aren't allowed to smoke.

In order to counter that misconception we need--that's right--more promotion of our sport where kids and their parents would see it.  Email or Facebook campaigns to NRA members in their 30s or low 40s.

Since there has been this lapse in development for junior shooters, we are seeing new pistol shooters discovering our sport in their late 20s or later.  Many of these shooters are picking up our sport after buying their first pistol from a gun shop.  After NRA fixes the match finding site, perhaps manufacturers would be willing to include a card that will direct the new gun owners to the redesigned NRA competition locator website.

I created a facebook group called "Wisconsin Bullseye Shooters" for promoting our sport in our area and promoting matches in nearby states.  If I was thinking better I would have named it "Bullseye Shooters of Wisconsin"--that way when Facebook users search for "bullseye shooters of ----" all of those similar groups will appear in the search--and I hope that those groups will grow.

None of these ideas involve electronic targets or a change to our sport.  These ideas wouldn't only help bullseye but all shooting sports.  It takes NRA leadership to execute.  The key is the NRA website.

Let's keep working on the NRA to get that work done.

Personally I think the idea of using eTargets to increase the amount of participation is the lowest bang for the dollar spent AND a solution without really understanding the dynamics of why people currently enter the sport.  If the NRA is serious about improving the future of the sport they need to understand what/where the market is and then develop a strategy to take it where it can go.  You can't get there from here with preconceived solutions.

First and foremost the NRA needs to understand when and why people get involved in our sport TODAY and we all agree without much support from the NRA.  They need to develop a strategy forward without alienating the current participant base OR stop the flow from where new participants are coming from today.

The NRA needs to spend some money on a thorough, professional survey of all the current bullseye shooters.  Ask the right questions and please no leading questions that will give you the results you want.  < This is too common! 

I'd recommend getting a panel of shooters (both new and seasoned shooters) & marketers together to develop this survey.

Is the reason there is such a high % of 55+ year old shooters in the sport because we'd rather shoot bullseye than play golf and as we get closer to retirement we take up the sport?  Good question what's the answer.

Another question I'd be interested in is what percentage are in this sport to compete verses participate?  How does that change your strategy for Perry?  Maybe it doesn't.

I can think of maybe 50 questions that need to be asked before you develop a strategy.

The results of the survey may show using eTarget as a solution for increasing participation may very well be completely wrong!  Maybe not but right now it's a crap shoot.

- Dave

As far as eTargets I love the technology (I have a SIUS at home), but I'd miss the fellowship that happens when scoring.  Which, NRA you would know, if you had surveyed me, fellowship is one of the reasons I enjoy both participating AND competing in bullseye.

I like your approach Dave

I am still pretty new to BE, just completed my 2nd year of participation, but it seems to me the electronic targets are kinda getting the cart before the horse.  Based on the article by Dennis it appears the bigger problem is the lack of new people entering the sport. Why would one want to put out the money for an expensive new system when your own metrics appear to say that no one will be shooting on them in 15yrs? Again, I know I don't know what I don't know because I am fairly new  but; Wouldn't that money be better spent establishing the brand/ rebranding if needed and helping local clubs promote the sport and re expose it, if you will, to the shooting public. I learned of the sport totally by accident.

Another thought based on my limited experience; I have taken to heart the advice of shooting in every match I can find.  For me (other than my home club)that means long drives of 2-4 hours (depending on location) one way.  The matches that move quicker are more enjoyable because I don't get home so late so I can do other things.  At some matches there seems to be a lack of concern for the guys that are coming in from a distance and want to be able to head for home by 2-3 and not 4-5.  I have noticed that the quicker matches seem to be better attended by a younger crowd.  I think some changes have to be made a local levels too.

"Paul,
If electronic targets ARE an important part of the future of bullseye, it has to start from the club level on up--not starting at the National Championship, while all of the other ranges still have turning paper targets.

If shooters gravitate to the ranges that have the electronic targets, then the change will be organic and sustainable. If the change is forced, it will divide the sport due to the differences."

I disagree with your statement Rob.  I'm fairly certain that turning targets and automatic pistols were the norm at Perry long before they were the norm at most local clubs.  Did those changes do in bullseye shooting and ruin the sport? The national match is the show case event where the best of best compete to decide our national champions. We should have the latest and greatest technology to the lead the way into the future.  The technology will become cheaper and more refined as time moves forward and the items become more prevelent.  Then local clubs will follow suit as the units become more affordable.

Did anyone think to ask the NRA or CMP to provide funding/financing to help upgrade our ranges?  Maybe all ranges/clubs who want to across the US affiliated with those organizations can band together to upgrade in general not just E-targets.

The younger generation loves techie stuff....no denying that.

By the way, the social stuff will still take place at matches just not during scoring.  On match weekends, I spend more time with my shooting buddies than my family.  They become part of my family if you will.  Scoring targets differently won't stop us from ribbing one another or kidding around.  The social thing will still happen but it will be different that's all.

The technology also makes bullseye shooting more of a spectator sport.  I know I can watch International Shooting and enjoy it more now.  Is there something wrong with make our sport more spectator friendly?  Right now bullseye has spectators viewing on the same level as the competitors.  Just waiting for results.  Lets give the spectators the ability to see the targets/results during the match.  Maybe even have a shoot-off between the top shooters like International.

Maybe this upgrade is actually the NRA and CMP trying to make up for years of neglect, investment and lack of attention in one big leap. I understand that the rank and file shooters may not have been consulted as much as they should have.  They may not be invested in this change.

CHANGE is the biggest 4 letter word in the English language.

There has to be a way to give input to help manage this change.

Where are the electronic targets in action pistol, or three gun. We keep being told that we need electronic targets to somehow save the sport. But the sports that they reference as "growing" don't use them. 

The problem is not whether the targets are electronic or not, but whether people know enough about the game to make an informed decision to start shooting it. You can't fix people problems with Technology. 

The people who are afraid to shoot small targets at 25 and 50 yards will still be afraid after those targets are electronic. The people who want to put Bullseye down as elitist, still will. 

In the 50's, 60's and 70's, the American Rifleman carried articles about the nationals, about getting started in Bullseye and High Power, about the guns and the loads and the personalities. Those stories are gone. What you see instead is the sell of action games like the Bianchi Cup (which draws less people than High Power and I think Bullseye), or 3 gun, or cowboy action.

knightimac (Paul) wrote:I disagree with your statement Rob.  I'm fairly certain that turning targets and automatic pistols were the norm at Perry long before they were the norm at most local clubs.  Did those changes do in bullseye shooting and ruin the sport? The national match is the show case event where the best of best compete to decide our national champions. We should have the latest and greatest technology to the lead the way into the future.  The technology will become cheaper and more refined as time moves forward and the items become more prevelent.  Then local clubs will follow suit as the units become more affordable.

Did anyone think to ask the NRA or CMP to provide funding/financing to help upgrade our ranges?  Maybe all ranges/clubs who want to across the US affiliated with those organizations can band together to upgrade in general not just E-targets.

Most of the things you wrote here are not based in reality--and that's just not my opinion.  Where do you get your facts that auto pistols and turning targets were first shot in competition at the national match?
The only thing that is correct is that the National Match is the showcase of our sport.  The problem is shooting on these non-turning electronic targets is different from our sport.  The course of fire is inherently different because the targets face the competitors and there are logistical issues with changing the targets from long line configuration to short line configuration.  The audio signal or lights that start and stop the string are different than firing on a target when it appears and stopping when it disappears.

Match directors learn how to address the logistics of a match by administering them at their home club.  How are the match officials going to prepare for an electronic target match at camp perry if that's the only place these targets are used in our sport?

The courses of fire and administration of matches between the targets we have now and these non-turning electronic targets ARE DIFFERENT.  We need to gain the experience of figuring out how to make sure the differences can be addressed BEFORE we "showcase" all the SNAFUs and growing pains occur.  If there are problems adapting the differences to this sport, it's never good for a sport to "showcase" how poorly something works.

Oh, and asking the NRA or the CMP to fund upgrades at your home club is like asking the beggar on the street corner to buy you lunch.

NRA is worrying about affording just enough repairs to patch the existing 1950s target system for the 2015 match.

Based on the clubs in Wisconsin, getting clubs to pool their money to SHARE RESOURCES to upgrade their facilities is never going to happen.  All the clubs will figure the other one is getting a bigger slice of the pie.

If electronic targets are the wave of the future of pistol shooting, why aren't we seeing international or air pistol participation increasing by leaps and bounds?  I couldn't tell you where the next international match is.  Heck if I knew where they were I would go shoot one.  Electronic targets don't seem to be helping me participate--it goes back to what's more important, an electronic toy or getting participants.  Shooters can't participate in a match they don't know about.

You want to make bullseye a spectator sport?  There's nothing stopping NBC sports from putting remote cameras on Zins', Shue's, Henderson's, and the other top shooters and another batch of cameras on their targets.  If there was money in showing this sport on TV they wouldn't need electronic targets to make it happen.

I'm really sorry to come down on you like this Paul, and I would love to give you a solution that could bring these electronic targets to our sport so those who would enjoy them could, but the economics to make this happen just aren't there to make this happen on a broad scale anytime soon.  It's for that reason that I say we need the NRA to specify rules for eTargets and tell the clubs what equipment to buy.  Once the clubs work out all the SNAFUs on a smaller scale, then we can move to make eTargets a permanent part of this sport and the national match.

Since the fact is electronic targets are not going to happen due to budget cuts, Those against electronic targets got the win, for now. Imo the test will come soon when the new CMP complex opens, and bullseye will be shot on electronic targets there, and you may just see the national matches move to Alabama in the future.

Hi Rob, I take no offense to what you have written.  Good dialogue is healthy.  

By the way, I did not write that Perry is where the 1st turning targets and autos were used.  I wrote it was the norm there before it became the standard locally.  It's the military teams and few visonary shooters who popularized the auto while the average local guy was still shooting revolvers. Some local clubs are still shooting non-turning targets informally with lots of revolvers and blowing whistles or voice commands to commence firing and stop firing because they have no PA system. 

I think E-targets at the National Match are a way to generate more interest, make our national match an even classier act and possibly get free press on TV. 

Camp Perry isn't run like local match.  It never will be.  To expect local matches to be run exactly like Perry is not realistic either.  Hundreds of people standing shoulder to shoulder shooting pistols awesome.  Did you ever see the string put on hold at your local club because of a boat on Lake Erie?  How about the mud and muck?  Geezer carts at your local club?  Hellish wind at your local matches?

You bring up goodpoints. I respect your opinions. But your opinions are not the only ones.

Kids shooting air pistol on E-targets.

I see potential in that approach.

And Airpistol is different than Bullseye, or rapidfire or even standard pistol. There may be potential in e-targets, but I seriously doubt that potential will be high participation. People can't do what they don't know about and don't understand. 

As I wrote above, the American Rifleman used to do alot of stories on Bullseye. Not only do they not do them now, from the response of Dennis Willing on another forum, they won't do them. The NRA will not even advertise Bullseye or Highpower in its own magazine. They won't develop the website to allow easy searches for matches, and just try finding a list of 2600 and 2650 shooters online. How can you draw more participation when the national organization ignores the sport?

What we need are good articles in Shooting Sports and the Rifleman, we need better stories on NRA TV. We need the lists of 2600 and 2650 shooters available online. Heck to find distinguished revolver shooters requires searches and then looking through pdf's and it is the same with PPC. But I searched for more than 2 hours the other night and the only lists that I could find of 2600 and 2650 shooters were on private websites and far out of date. 


Mike

The NRA keeps a lists, Clubs as they call it off 2600 and above shooters, how to find it other in the books that are displayed at perry I don't know but the lists exist.

David, 

They keep the list. But you cannot find it on their website. The only copies of the 2600 list that I can find in the wild date from long ago. Same with the 2650 list. If you want to promote the sport, promote these shooters who have excelled rather than keeping a list that is inaccessible.

eTargets or not, Marketing will be how we increase the number in our sport.  Just making people aware of Bullseye would be a big help.

When I asked around about target shooting back in 1986 NO ONE mentioned Conventional Pistol as an option.  I bought a Buckmark slapped on an Aimpoint 5000 and just started going to the indoor range near my work.  During the year I shot there not one person talked to me about Bullseye.  Had I know about or been introduced to bullseye back then I would have jumped in with both feet and I'd have been competing for the last 28 years!  Instead I'm in my 2nd year.

That needs to be fixed.

- Dave

many things on many levels need fixing, in Georgia our own sport shooting association never has anything about bullseye in its publications but you can see what kids shot with a bb gun or every other gun sport. Its almost like bullseye is invisible or not worthy of their recognition.

knightimac wrote:Kids shooting air pistol on E-targets.

I see potential in that approach.

Kids shooting air pistol on eTargets already exists.  Bullseye doesn't need to change for air pistol shooters to grow their ranks if eTargets are what will drive participation.

Not one local club will install eTargets for BE unless they are used for the National Matches.  They would have no reason to and would bring up a bunch of similar reasons why it would make it different than Perry.

Changes at the top level drive changes at the lower level.

I am sure you will find a large social aspect around the shooting matches Denny was talking about in Europe and they do not stop and BS while they score between strings.

During the transition in free-pistol, international, and air pistol from paper to eTargets, the course of fire was the same whether shot on eTargets or paper.

Since those disciplines transitioned to eTargets over 20 years ago, do we have any statistics that show those disciplines have grown since then?

There is a pretty good discussion of this subject in SSUSA this month. Of course this is the NRA point of view and that is that the Etargets are a necessity and will eventually happen or the sport will die. Some of the statements about participation levels in Norway compared to the US seem incredible. All of the commentary about the performance of the targets and their reliability makes them seem a no brainer. I find it hard to believe that a system designed and built back in the 30s-50s could be so tough or expensive to build or repair. How about doing some fund raisers and just get it done. The tradition could be part of the attraction.
Seems to me that conventional pistol is never going to be a sport to watch on TV because American media is solidly in the guns are bad camp. If it could ever be any different you would be seeing those high tech targets in use during the Olympic coverage of shooting sports. Lets face it that coverage is darned near non existent. I wonder if there is even any coverage of it in a shooting oriented country like Switzerland. I will ask my daughter the next time I chat with her. She lives in Switzerland.
 Seems to me that if we want younger shooters getting involved we are going to have to sponsor them in some way and devote some of our time to it. Link up with the Boy Scouts and 4H clubs. Get it out there for them to try.

Rob Kovach wrote:...
Since those disciplines transitioned to eTargets over 20 years ago, do we have any statistics that show those disciplines have grown since then?

Rob we will never know, even "if" the participation numbers went down how would we know if they wouldn't have gone down even further without eTargets.

I think banking on eTargets to increase participation or making statements that it will have NO impact on participation is nothing but conjecture at this point.

There are many ways to increase participation.

Thank you NRA for getting this discussion going, even if that wasn't your intent!

- Dave

ps.

NRA, do you want to fix the current turning system but can't get the budget money approved because it's not an "owned" asset and management sees it as tossing money down a rat hole.  Add a another $5 to our local NRA match fees as a "Fix Perry" surcharge and account for the money so the competitors know it actually went to fix the turning targets at Perry.

You want us to embrace eTargets,  buy 20 or so portable units and bring them to matches all over the country and actually run matches at existing clubs.  Subsidize local ownership if a club wants to go that way.

All:

Having been working with bullseye matches for over 14 years, and shooting longer than that, I have come to a few conclusions that I believe in.  You may or may not have the same opinion, and that's OK. 

One of those opinions, strongly held, is that we will not be growing the bullseye sport during the short term with youth shooting or e-targets to any great extent.    Heck, if young shooters liked bullseye, we'd have lots more pistol shooters at the NCAA and Olympic type tryouts.  And you can barely find one or two USAS type matches in our part of the world.   And they have more e-type target ranges to shoot on. Now, don't get me wrong, I wholly support youth shooting financially and otherwise, but it's because I hope we get some of those shooters back in 20 or 30 years, just like the guys from the military teams.  

Bullseye will live or die by its marketing to the shooter that likes what bullseye offers.  A precision oriented, personally challenging shooting sport, that is generally available and extremely safe.  Sadly, only a small percentage of all shooters will become enamored with a sport that is very easy to shoot, but extremely hard to master.  E-targets, multiple pistol types, alternative positions etc. will probably not generate as substantial amount of sustainable and repeatable participation.  

I know as I've watched literally hundreds of people come and "try out" bullseye" at the matches.  The return and retention rate is about 5 to 10%.

The best we can do is expose as many people as possible to the potential of this sport by having as many matches as possible, without changing the level or nature of the contest too much.  Let's face it, Conventional Pistol (Bullseye) is basically just one level below Free, standard, sport and centerfire ISSU matches.  And in general, we have hundreds of conventional matches versus USAS / ISSU pistol matches.  That is because we have the local clubs, match directors and matches supporting this sport and providing the opportunity.  

Sometimes, people shoot while in the military and come back years later, sometimes they remember what it was like to compete as a junior and come back 20 or 30 years later when the kids are out of the house.  But mostly, based on my observations, a person will shoot bullseye because it calls to them in some way that none of the other shooting sports do.  Remember, bullseye shooting, 1 hand at 50 yards and 25 yards is a hard scale to judge your ability against.  It takes a certain type of personality to really love that type of sport. 

That's why I have the position I do on e-targets and how to generate participation in conventional pistol shooting.  Make it easy, safe and accessible to participate in a local match that is as similar as possible to the national match if the shooter wants to embark on that long journey to being a champion.

Cecil

I have written several replies in the last couple days, only to delete them as being to blunt, abrasive, or sarcastic.  
Cecil says it exactly, only more articulate and politely than I..
On Face Book, it has been stated by those in the loop, that funding has been withdrawn by the NRA for e-targets at Perry..Perhaps they read  my post..  So,  I will calm down, at least for  now..
Jerry