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  

Axehandle wrote:IMHO a significant part of the bullseye experience is manual scoring.  Overlays, staple guns, pencils,  misses, skidders, doubles, challenges, general jabbering and all the other interaction that goes on down range are why I get up and drive two hours to stand out in the hot, cold, wet, and windy all day.      

+1

Your hounds are sniffing up the wrong trail... 

I wouldn't be surprised to learn (nor should you) that Sugar Daddy wants it and is apparently paying for it. It's not about us, targets, tradition, or the integrity of our sport. Might the NRA be pimping us to please Sugar Daddy and keep the overall gravy flowing? 

Ask some questions. Find the Sugar Daddy and explain what we want (turning targets) and why. Don't give up on this it isn't done yet.

VHI3
Over and Out

_____________________________________________________________________________

Rob Kovach wrote:


"This really does have the odor of somebody's palm getting greased, but I can't figure it out."

I think at some point in the future we will be shooting on electronic targets.  Just a matter of time. I see the challenge of how to make this happen for 2 distances for local clubs tough but not impossible.  I do not agree that it would make it hard to train for.  Currently it is hard for most people to train on turning targets but we make due.

I would welcome the change I get frustrated by people who are slow at scoring or have a person who wants to question every close shot and make the time between targets longer than it needs to be.  I would like a faster pace and would prefer to shoot off of a buzzer than a turning target.

The last time I shot on electronic targets calibration was an issue but since I was shooting free/air pistol I got sighting shots so I could account for it.  Since that was more than 10yrs ago maybe this has gotten better.

There are so many differences between Perry and the rest of the ranges in the US I have a hard time understanding why this change would be the one that makes it so much harder to train for Perry.

The hardest thing I noticed between training on paper vs a match on electronic targets was now you can see your score as you are shooting and trying to keep your focus on the current shot you are shooting.

When people say Camp Perry is different than everywhere else, I don't understand.  The only difference I can think of is moving the shooter to the short line instead of moving the targets to the short line.  The actual shooting is the same as everywhere else.

Rob Kovach wrote:When people say Camp Perry is different than everywhere else, I don't understand.  The only difference I can think of is moving the shooter to the short line instead of moving the targets to the short line.  The actual shooting is the same as everywhere else.

Perry is different, sure you still shoot at 25 and 50 yards but it has many other things different from most bullseye matches all other matches are shot in one or two days, not over the course of a week, perry use's targets that are full face and new for each phase. no repair centers, staplers or pasters needed. Most ranges no need for geezer karts either.
And all the ranges in the south ive shot, have dedicated 25 and 50 yard targets, no moving of equipment, also  have covered shooting areas with nice level concrete to shoot from, its one thing to score in the sun and rain another to shoot in it while standing in a wallowed out hole, hopefully its dry and not filled with mud. Canton is the only other open range that I have seen, may be more just none I know of. im sure I missed something, others will add.
 oh and its the only place you will ever have a match stopped till a boat gets out of range.  

Aurora Sportsmen's Club in Waterman, IL is one of my favorite venues--no covered firing points, no concrete, just benches, wind and targets.  True dat we don't need to stop for boats, but it's more the same as Camp Perry than it is different.  The targets turn and we shoot em.
Even the ranges with covered points and concrete really are more similar than they are different.

It is not as if we are  a community of Luddites who fear/hate/reject change or modernization. When you look at our sport, it has been about little more than change: after all, when Perry began in 1907 there was no 1911 platform and certainly no red dots. But those technological changes came from the ranks of applied technology which uplifted the sport and not foisted on the shooting community by those with a sinister alterior motive (all the support I have seen for this wholesale overhaul of our sport have been from people in the employ/pocket of the NRA.) All that superimposing a new, critically untested and seriously ill-fitting technology on the shooting community will do will be to piss off/alienate 75% of the current shooters without attracting anywhere near that many new/young shooters to make up the difference, and so, say goodbye to our beloved sport through planned obsolecense by the NRA. The fix is in. Let's flood the NRA board with the kind of feedback they were too scared -- and too dishonest --  to solicit at Perry.

With the ageing of bullseye shooters, maybe the NRA is just wanting to make it easier for us, we can shoot and not have to walk the range, scores posted right next to you, no pasting or stapling repair centers, no old coots fussing over shots in or out or not there. Matches are over quicker so we can make it home in time to take a nap before supper. To be honest this sounds kind of appealing after doing a full 2700 in the july heat last weekend.

For those interested, here is what Pilkington had to say, he is the guy who just took over the sales for the targets that were at perry and he was the guy there with them. He posted this on target talk forum;

Site Admin Joined: 20 Feb 2004 Posts: 1012 Location: Monteagle, TN

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 6:59 pm    Post subject: Some random answers to some things I see here. If I missed something, please ask again. First, remember Dennis is the first active competitor to hold his position at NRA in over 30 years. He is working real hard to make the best decisions, with the best interest of the sport at heart. I believe that. Second, yes, I was there demoing the MEGAlinks, and I attended the competitors meeting. I think it was very unfortunate that many of the er folks against electronics left before the end of the meeting. Toward the end, one of the volunteers, who has maintained the turning targets system for a number of years, was telling of the difficulties in keeping it going every year, they are often out there till 8 or 9 oclcock, as volunteers, mind you, trying to get the targetsthat were installed in 1954 back up and turning. I don’t know the big picture of all the costs of new turning targets and scoring labor expenses, versus electronics and instaneous feedback. I don’t have access to that info. That’s information for Dennis to come up with and the number crunchers above him to confirm. And I think we all agree about NRA number crunchers and they have not been kind to competitive shooting overall. But in general it seems that they think, that the electronic targets are the cheaper and best alternative right now. I am very new taking over MEGAlink sales from Martin Edmondson, and my prep time to come to Perry was really less than a week. In that time, we had to make a run to the Coast Guard Academy and borrow the targets. I did not know until I got there, that there was no 50 yard and 25 yard software in the targets. So we were trying to make do with what we had. And it was a time in Norway when its their annual entire country wide vacation time*, so getting the software created was not really possible while we were there, even though the actual process should be simple, just telling it the size of the scoring rings since the math application is the same. But in answer to Isabel’s concern, manufacturing the targets should take 6 -8 weeks, and installing them at Perry a 8-12 days. There is talk of creating a portable setup with them, that could be used for regionals in other parts of the country. Someone mentioned a target failure? I don’t know of any target failures while we there. The Coast Guard targets are three years old and I personally showed a lot of people that the foam backer were shot away prior to our arrival, 4 inches or more in diameter, and the rear rubber sound chamber sheet , was shot away about 2” in diameter. The targets were scoring perfectly despite these non perfect conditions. In a National Championship, I am sure virgin foam and virgin rubber will be installed, just like it is at Benning , Colorado, Anniston or other places were electronic targets are used. The rolls get run through multiple times over the year as practice, but when important events occur, everything goes back to perfect , as new conditions, with unused expendables. There were LOTS of questions about crossfires. How will the system handle them? The same way you do now. None on your target, more on somebody elses. Maybe you can identify them with the computer, since there will be the time sequences that that will be off, but that’s still kind of guessy. lots of statememts about untried systems. Seriously? these targets have been around 30 odd years now, by multiple manufacturers and are in use even for biathlon. Just because you are not familiar with the systems, does not mean that they are new. (the MEGAlinks are in use 27 years now) There were/are challenges. Many we were discussing and analyzing as each day went by, and trying different things the next . There are some things in discussion to these challenges that I think you may like. Some may not. That’s human nature. I did hear a lot comments about keeping the traditions of the turning targets. As for me, in most things, I am a traditionalist, and in this matter I like the look and feel of turning targets, that what I feel comfortable with, what I have shot on back when I did. But I am sure that when the turning systems were first installed , there were those in absolute opposition to them too because flat paper targets on stilts were traditional . But at the same time, there are those same “traditionilsts” who wanted the turning targets, but at the same time did not want to lose the X to aim at with their non traditional scopes or dots. I’m definitely a curmudgeon in this regard, If I was king, heads would roll and pistol shooting would be done with iron sights, period. But I’m not, and the rules are what they are , Pistol shooting traditions were broken to allow those modern sighting methods and the sport goes on, and I suspect that the sport will go on with the breaking of the tradition of paper targets. * Can you imagine the entire United States taking off 4 weeks in the summer?

Scott, thanks for the write up. If the transition moves forward I know you will do everything you can to make it smooth.

I lived and worked in Europe for 6 years and yes during the "holiday (vacation) weeks" I always said everyone just seems move over one country.

I just posted this in updated response to some more questions on Target Talk

Isabel,
My lateness into the Perry scheme was more due to my transition into the MeGAlink sales line, than any slackness on the NRA’s part.

We left the system up and running through those downpours at Perry last week, and those were temporary installs, with wires running across the ground. They are very weatherproof. I have no concerns there.

The shot data is stored four places simulateonusly . At the target, at the control box below the target (servicing every 20 targets), at your monitor display on the firing point, and at the central ranking system computer. It is not likely to get lost.

MeGAlink targets are installed at 2000 ranges worldwide. About half outdoors from what I understand. They are installed at Lake Placid in use by the US biathlon team. That’s some pretty tough weather too. The guys from the Puerto Rico team were telling us at lunch last week at the picnic table by the AMU van , that one of their 25 meter targets, (same as what we were demoing), got hit by a direct lightning strike . Only the circuit card had to be replaced . Honestly, that’s pretty amazing to me. For the record , MEGAlink does recommend that in the event of lightning, that the cables be removed, so that it doesn’t travel through the whole system. Just like any other computer or electronic item that you own recommends. I would suspect for the Perry application, that when the range is called for lightning. the control boxes for every 20 targets would be disconnected as a precaution.

MEGAlink started out 27 years ago making targets for the 300 meter world, so any of the Bullseye pistol calibers are nothing compared to high powered rifles at 1000 yards.

I really think all considered, there are no real worries for the system overall. And I am sure most all of this applies to the other vendors of electronic targets trying to get the bid.

As I understand it, Dennis is going to Europe next month to visit the various factories and see these target in use at major ranges. Honestly, everything you are noting for procurement , is in the works, it just not to that stage yet, maybe by late fall or early winter these various calculation will be done, before any determination is made.

Anything I missed?

Crossfires were mentioned before.  I think the current NRA conventional rules cover this.  You shoot someone else's target, you get a zero.  I get 11 hits on my target, I can accept the low 10 or refire for a max score of the high 10.

If you are a competitor monitoring your target screen in between shots, and someone shoots your target, I assume the existing protocol of calling a range officer over to view the target and confirm that you did not fire that round (compare number of hits recorded to number of rounds remaining in magazine for example).  This would satisfy the "any shot which can be identified " (rule 14.10 - Excessive hits).

The SIUS system has the sensor for picking up the sound of a shot but I doubt this would be reliable when you have 80+ people shooting a .45 simultaneously during rapid fire.

If they ever do move smallbore back to Perry (which they should), it will be interesting to see if the NRA will change the rules on crossfires absent any method to determine where a crossfire came from.

bdutton wrote:
The SIUS system has the sensor for picking up the sound of a shot but I doubt this would be reliable when you have 80+ people shooting a .45 simultaneously during rapid fire.

I made some phone calls last week about this issue to friends familiar with the systems at Benning, and the OTC.  Originally SIUS did have this function but it apparently was pretty buggy and subsequent  versions do not have this.

While I appreciate all the effort made to explain how the electronic targets work, what they are capable of etc. that is all well and good.  Yes, they can record shots and calculated scores.  The main points remains.

The rules do not allow for a registered match without turning targets.  Most "competitors" will not have the availability to train on the system or any similar system.  The timing and conditions of the match will change significantly and that changes the character of the competition.  

So why can't the NRA get a new system that is consistent with the existing rules?  Even if they change the rules, why would the NRA have a national match with operations and conditions that most competitors could not train for?  

I'll bet the action pistol guys would be going nuts if they had to do barricades with lights rather than turning targets.  I guess the mover will be way more interesting to set up with electroinics? What's highpower going to do, put a light bulb at every position so the shooters will know when to start, rather than having target rise? 

My point is that the different shooting diciplines may all shoot on similar targets, but some of the intrinsic part of the game is how the targets are presented and the conditions of the match.  

Making changes always has other consequences. So how many new shooters do you have that have come to the matches for "production" and "metallic" or is it just the same shooters looking to get a classification in something different?  

Making conventional into international and potentially driving away existing shooters would not seem to be the path to increased participation.  Just saving money should not be the goal lhere.  

Remember, increased participation is the direct result of more MATCHES, not more CHANGES in the matches.  

Cecil "Talking to the Wind" Rhodes

Cecil Rhodes wrote:... the different shooting disciplines may all shoot on similar targets, but some of the intrinsic part of the game is how the targets are presented and the conditions of the match.

Making conventional into international and potentially driving away existing shooters would not seem to be the path to increased participation.  Just saving money should not be the goal here.  

Remember, increased participation is the direct result of more MATCHES, not more CHANGES in the matches.  

AMEN!

Brian Zins is submitting feedback about these e-targets to the NRA on behalf of shooters that contact him.  I favor that because that way Brian can keep a tabulation on how many comments he submitted.  If we all submit them independently, the NRA could say "we only received "X" comments from competitors".  Email me at kovach_robert@hotmail.com and I will forward them to Brian.

Or you can submit your feedback directly to the NRA--I would address your email to Dennis Willing, and the NRA President and Board of directors.
via email:
pistol@nrahq.org

Via snail mail:
NRA Secretary Mr. Land
National Rifle Association
11250 Waple Mill Rd.
Fairfax, VA 22030

Cecil speaketh truly.





As usual.

Firstly let me state I am not in favor of Perry moving to eTargets.

If I have to I can train on or matches can be held on paper targets that remain faced and use a buzzer. eTargets easily determined cross fires I have 11 hits - who has 9. Accept lowest or re-fire same as now. Or maybe I will be able to catch it as it happens and have the round deleted by a line judge.

If the biggest issue for everyone is turning verses not turning if they address that then what?

For me the loss of "the walk" to the target scoring and talking to my fellow shooters and thus significantly reducing match time is potentially the only things that will be impacted by using eTargets .

So now it gets down to match time and camaraderie. While we can't duplicate timing in non-eTarget matches, I can simulate match timing by not changing out my targets in training.

Bottom line for me is the lost camaraderie (1st) and hurried pace (2nd).

Dave

Not necessarily germane to Camp Perry, but if you try to shoot a one-day 2700 on electronic targets, you're going to be carrying your shoulder and elbow home in a paper bag.

This sport has a rhythm to it. "It's not a race, it's a marathon."

john bickar wrote:Not necessarily germane to Camp Perry, but if you try to shoot a one-day 2700 on electronic targets, you're going to be carrying your shoulder and elbow home in a paper bag.

This sport has a rhythm to it. "It's not a race, it's a marathon."

??? All of our current local matches except for State and Regional are one day 2700's

I don't think their plan for Perry, is to do the complete 2700 match in one day, I think they are going to reduce the # of firing points (which also reduces the investment) and put more relays through. I believe they will still spread the 2700 over 3 days. Eliminate the walk and scoring which will reduce match time so the pace WILL be faster.

dronning wrote:

john bickar wrote:Not necessarily germane to Camp Perry, but if you try to shoot a one-day 2700 on electronic targets, you're going to be carrying your shoulder and elbow home in a paper bag.

This sport has a rhythm to it. "It's not a race, it's a marathon."

???  All of our current local matches except for State and Regional are one day 2700's

I don't think their plan for Perry, is to do the complete 2700 match in one day, I think they are going to reduce the # of firing points (which also reduces the investment) and put more relays through.  I believe they will still spread the 2700 over 3 days.  Eliminate the walk and scoring which will reduce match time so the pace WILL be faster.

I think what he means is with electronic targets everything will go faster, very little time in between shots, which will fatigue your arm more.

DavidR wrote:

dronning wrote:

john bickar wrote:Not necessarily germane to Camp Perry, but if you try to shoot a one-day 2700 on electronic targets, you're going to be carrying your shoulder and elbow home in a paper bag.

This sport has a rhythm to it. "It's not a race, it's a marathon."

???  All of our current local matches except for State and Regional are one day 2700's

I don't think their plan for Perry, is to do the complete 2700 match in one day, I think they are going to reduce the # of firing points (which also reduces the investment) and put more relays through.  I believe they will still spread the 2700 over 3 days.  Eliminate the walk and scoring which will reduce match time so the pace WILL be faster.

I think what he means is with electronic targets everything will go faster, very little time in between shots, which will fatigue your arm more.

I doubt that the NRA would do all three guns in the same day.  With only 150 targets, and I assume some of them used on the practice range, they will probably only deploy 70 on two ranges. 140 targets total. 

With over 600 shooters it would require at least 4 relays... probably 5.  I calculate for each 900, you would need 30 minutes for competitors to setup, 10 minutes for each slowfire, 3 minutes for each Tf and RF (time allowed for reloading, alibis, etc... and the short line move of 10 minutes. Plus time between each "target" change. Thats a total of 100+ minutes to shoot a 900. That would require almost 9 hours for 600 people to fire on 140 targets broken down into 5 relays...   They would need to keep it to a max of 4 relays.  That would be 7 hours.  If they start at 8am that would finish at 5pm and then they have to have team matches.

No way that 150 targets would be enough.

Ideally, they will need at least 200+ targets and keep it down to 3 relays.

Kudos to you bdutton for doing some of the math.

I get the distinct impression that the NRA has left the math, and the money calculations on this whole scheme until five minutes after never.

CR10X wrote:
Even if they change the rules, why would the NRA have a national match with operations and conditions that most competitors could not train for?  

How many people train using the same conditions as the National Matches?  No cover. Moving benches.  Only shooting a 900 each day.  

Part of shooting is going to different ranges and adapting to the different conditions. Of the 5 ranges I have shot BE on they are all different.  About the only thing in common is the shooting bench does not move and the targets turn.

"How many people train using the same conditions as the National Matches?  No cover. Moving benches.  Only shooting a 900 each day"


Those of us in the west try and shoot the match at the Whittington center for exactly those reasons. 








Well the military will train on the electronic targets And the people who live close to Camp Perry will. 


But the rest of us will not be able to, without investing thousands of dollars in the same system.


That was Cecil's point, wasn't it?

Thanks.  It's generally the shooters option about how far to go simulate the match conditions.   But on the other hand, the match conditions are not really that out of reach for any of us to duplicate.......for now.  

I do train without cover, sometimes in the wind and sometimes rain, for 900's and 2700's.  Sometimes I shoot the short line until I can't lift the pistol and the brass is piled high.  (Sometimes I couldn't lift it anyway, but that's another story).

As I have said before, its generally not the best shooter that wins, but the best competitor.  The one who still competes with a visible miss, when the heat swelters, the rains pour and the winds blow.  The one that remains calm during the alibi and pounds out 5 more 10's and doesn't get fazed when there is a crossfire 5 on his target. The one who can say, yea... I've seen this before, no big deal.  

But it's kinda hard to overcome what you ain't done and the other guy has done just because of location.  I'm not saying its impossible, the great ones do it all the time.  

On the other hand though, how much further away from obtainable would you like the conditions to be for you?