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  

Brian Zins would like each of us to send him a letter with our opinions about the idea of switching to electronic targets at Camp Perry for him to present to the NRA board of Directors on our behalf.  Please email him at:
brian.zins@gmail.com

If we do not express our opinions to the NRA, this discussion is academic and a waste of time.  Our opinions here on the forum don't count for anything unless we submit them to the NRA.

-Rob

Rob Kovach wrote:Brian Zins would like each of us to send him a letter with our opinions about the idea of switching to electronic targets at Camp Perry for him to present to the NRA board of Directors on our behalf.  Please email him at:
brian.zins@gmail.com

If we do not express our opinions to the NRA, this discussion is academic and a waste of time.  Our opinions here on the forum don't count for anything unless we submit them to the NRA.

-Rob

I just emailed Brian.  Great idea on Brian's part!

Chip

"You want an electronic target, then put it at your range first and let us know how it works, what the cost/benefit is and how many more shooters you get. After we get a couple of hundred ranges update then we can discuss what needs to be done at the National Matches."




Yes, my challenge to show us one commercial range in Europe running the same type of matches as Bullseye (long line and short line) with rimfire through 45 ACP on electronic portable targets has been met with a lot of "shut up" by the people pushing electronic targets at Perry first.  


You cant use the targets they are proposing on any range that isn't set up like Perry with one target line, and shooters moving their boxes up to that line.    All the good conventional ranges are set up with two lines of targets concreted into the ground,


  Since the electronic targets are transportable, but not really mobile, that is a huge problem right there.


To try them, you will have to either reconfigure your entire range like Perry, or move the electronic targets six times for every 2700.  

The other option, is of course to buy two complete sets, set up two ranges side by side, and shoot slow fire on one range, timed and rapid on the other.  


I'm not holding my breath for that to happen at the local level.

Rob Kovach wrote: this discussion is academic and a waste of time.  Our opinions here on the forum don't count for anything unless we submit them to the NRA.

-Rob

We should brainstorm ideas to make the installation more successful when it happens and submit those as a group to the NRA.  It will carry more weight.

I like to look at an issue from all angles and I don't think a single line would be that big of a problem. During the winter we shoot our matches here in Oregon all on the 25 yd line. The problem with reduced targets on the 25 yd line is the bullets are not reduced to match the target. A 45 cal bullet punches a hole like it was a 90 cal. With electronic scoring it would be easy to reduce the bullet size for the slow fire portion and make it like you were really shooting the target at 50 yds. That doesn't address the fact that a lot of pistols shoot good at 25 and the bullets go all over the place at 50 yds but it gets closer. Just my 2 cents worth.

Len   (they don't have to turn....by the time we figure this out they will be holo-graphic )

"We should brainstorm ideas to make the installation more successful when it happens and submit those as a group to the NRA.  It will carry more weight."


They don't want your input.  That was apparent at the competitors meeting.


I know I should resist the temptation to say this, but I could provide no useful input to the NRA, until. I was informed which kind of electronic targets the NRA had decided to purchase, and after they went through some sort of beta test, to expose the problems.


On the personal side, I want to help the NRA convert to electronic targets about as much as I want to provide my congressional representatives with a helpful list of what handguns, I think they should ban, when they start to work on legislation to ban handguns.

Toz,
Your logic is flawed--we don't need to present ways for successfully implementing electronic targets.  Electronic targets aren't the solution to a problem per se, the NRA says the "problem" that electronic targets will "fix" is the cost of new paper targets for each string of fire, and the cost of personnel to paste the targets to the backers.  Also, the cost of personnel to input and process scores and match administration. Finally, the cost to refurbish Camp Perry's existing turning target system.

I think it would be more effective to brainstorm more cost effective solutions to those "problems" perceived by the NRA.

Does anyone think that if we do come up with ways to save the NRA large sums of money by solving those problems that they would put the money they saved back into promoting our sport or increasing the awards?  I don't.

Rob,

If my logic is flawed then the NRA will not listen to a single word we say about this topic.  I know some people think this way.  I know the will ignore some of the reasons that have been talked about because they are flawed.  I think there are some valid points that should be made to the NRA.  There are things people keep bringing up that are not even issues but they do not have all of the information so they bring it up.  People have questions and concerns.  At the end of the day the final solution will not make everyone happy.  Will it increase, decrease, or not impact participation.  Nobody know this for sure.

The NRA does think electronic targets are a solution to a problem of an old system.  Nobody else thinks it is a good solution.  A better argument to have over this is how to fix the current system and ensure it has a long life and is better than the current system to reduce maint costs.  We would have hoped the NRA has run the numbers and looked at more than one solution.  I have no data one way or the other.  Nobody here seems to have seen the numbers but has been guessing at the costs either way.

Like it or not the NRA is not far from being like any other part of our government and they are going to act that way.  I do not see the NRA getting involved in promoting BE.  The burden lies on us. 

Schaumannk,

These target systems are used for high power rifle in Europe so if they can take a .308 round a .45 is no problem.

Bottom line for me... the black of the target is still the same and we still have the same amount of time to shot.

Toz35m wrote:A better argument to have over this is how to fix the current system and ensure it has a long life and is better than the current system to reduce maint costs.

This is exactly what I meant.  I thought you were advocating something else.

In my letter I talk about pasters and repair centers, iOS controlled commands and target turning control with the app on the app store as well as an apple approved dongle so ALL clubs who choose to use it can use the same stuff.  also iOS score input--each competitor enters the scores in an iPod/iPad so it uploads to NRA after each string.  All of these things fix ALL of the "problems" for much less expense that changing bullseye to international.


I believe my ideas are a "big picture" solution that can be used everywhere.  It would also create savings for administrative costs for ALL matches nationwide.  With this app, all administration of bullseye could be automated.

"These target systems are used for high power rifle in Europe so if they can take a .308 round a .45 is no problem."




You are correct, but rifle is a different sport, and I bet the rifle targets don't have to be moved during a match or the rules modified to accommodate their use.


There is a principle in Engineering which explains that problems are almost always interconnected,   What this means is you can have a solution or a work around for every single problem, and when you do them all at the same time, it doesn't work.


The targets that are taking the 308 hits for the rifle matches are not the same ones they are using for ISSF sport pistol.  


The other thing that causes problems is scale up.   You can put ten computers on a network, and have the network function perfectly.   When you try and put 150 computers on a network, it totally changes the parameters of the hardware and software required to manage the network.


All I ask, and I repeat myself, is a commercial example of a hundred or more of an electronic target system, all working together, and functioning at a cost, not approaching the moon landing.   Why is that so hard to find?

Also, 
I am sure that electronic targets would work fine, if we wanted to turn Bullseye into ISSF.  Indoors, ranges of no more than ten firing points, covered firing line, etc.  


The question always is: how many work a rounds do you want to implement, and how many changes do you want to make to the rules to plug bullseye into an existing electronic system?
And at what point will it not be bullseye anymore?

I cant find the post, but I am pretty sure I remember Dennis Willing saying that the electronic targets were going to cost no more than 250k, and that at that price point, he said it was well worth doing, because it wasn't that much more than redoing the old mechanical system at Perry. 


Now the system demonstrated at Perry was a Megalink, and the estimated cost for each one is 6k.  When I multiply that by the 150 targets that they claim they are going to buy for Perry, I come up with 900 thousand dollars which is more than triple the cost of what was first proposed and weighed against rebuilding the mechanical system.

How does this even make sense anymore?   We sure as heck are not going to be able to pay for this with a modest increase in the entry fee, so where is the money coming from?

http://www.megalink.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=4%3A25m-targets&id=48%3A4k560&Itemid=19&lang=en


To try and prove my point, here are the specs for the 50meter 25 meter pistol target currently manufactured by Megalink.   It will handle 22 , lead 32 , lead 38, and jacketed 9mm Nato.   Read the specs very carefully, and figure out, how much more it is probably going to cost to get 150 of these to stand up to 45 hardball.    It will not be an off the shelf product by the time they finish modifying it, and the cost will be way up.

All that I have heard so far is what the NRA plans are for upgrading the equipment at Perry.  Does anyone know where the CMP stands on this issue.  I have not heard one word from them.  Also, does not the turning equipment, benches, towers and associated equipment at Perry belong to the CMP?  Years ago the DCM was responsible for all that and the NRA had some kind of agreement to use it.  When the DCM converted to the CMP did the equipment go with them also?  If the CMP and NRA have another tiff with each other does this mean there will be two separate ranges at Perry, one electronic and when turning?

CMP is installing eTargets at their new range in Talladega.

"Talladega Marksmanship Park, a project of the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). The $20 million state of the art shooting range will open in the Spring of 2015."

The video clearly states pistol range has 50 firing points and will use electronic targets.


http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/06/talladega_marksmanship_park_co_1.html

- Dave

Dave

   I went to the site you posted here and I find no mention of electronic targets for pistols. There is a remark about testing the new targets. I get the feeling this is more for the rifle targets. From my experience going to a pistol range that is open to everyone would not exactly be a target friendly environment. I find that most of the clowns that show up set a target 20' away and can't keep their shots on paper.

Len

I watched the youtube video that was at the bottom of the page and the guy narrating it said the 50 yd pistol range will have electronic targets at both 50 and 25 yrds at the Talladega Marksmanship Park.

Sorry, I went back and watched the video again. And turned the volume up. Yes, He does say electronic targets on the 25 and 50. oops.

I cant wait to try it, hope it opens on time

Schaumannk wrote:http://www.megalink.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=4%3A25m-targets&id=48%3A4k560&Itemid=19&lang=en


To try and prove my point, here are the specs for the 50meter 25 meter pistol target currently manufactured by Megalink.   It will handle 22 , lead 32 , lead 38, and jacketed 9mm Nato.   Read the specs very carefully, and figure out, how much more it is probably going to cost to get 150 of these to stand up to 45 hardball.    It will not be an off the shelf product by the time they finish modifying it, and the cost will be way up.

It would not be difficult for Megalink to take the same frame design and scale it to a 50yd pistol target to harden it up.  They have done this many times I am sure.  They likely started with a 10m and 50m target an then built a rifle target from this but scaled it up and added more steel to protect it.  This would not be a work around it would be specific product for BE.  They could even just change the current 50m target to add more protection so they do not end up with another product line item.

I think the 6k per target could be a rumor.  It would be great if we could get some transparency on the numbers.

Regarding number of systems networked all you have to do it look at ranges that are set up to run major ISSF events.  They can have 80 points networked like in Atlanta for the 10m range when it was being used.  Benning has a lot of 50m and 10m points.  Not sure what is the biggest range is with electronic targets but I know scaling from 10 to 80 is feasible so going up to 150 should not be out of the question.

The Megalink install would be a complete product.

Toz35m wrote:

Schaumannk wrote:http://www.megalink.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=4%3A25m-targets&id=48%3A4k560&Itemid=19&lang=en


To try and prove my point, here are the specs for the 50meter 25 meter pistol target currently manufactured by Megalink.   It will handle 22 , lead 32 , lead 38, and jacketed 9mm Nato.   Read the specs very carefully, and figure out, how much more it is probably going to cost to get 150 of these to stand up to 45 hardball.    It will not be an off the shelf product by the time they finish modifying it, and the cost will be way up.

It would not be difficult for Megalink to take the same frame design and scale it to a 50yd pistol target to harden it up.  They have done this many times I am sure.  They likely started with a 10m and 50m target an then built a rifle target from this but scaled it up and added more steel to protect it.  This would not be a work around it would be specific product for BE.  They could even just change the current 50m target to add more protection so they do not end up with another product line item.

I think the 6k per target could be a rumor.  It would be great if we could get some transparency on the numbers.

Regarding number of systems networked all you have to do it look at ranges that are set up to run major ISSF events.  They can have 80 points networked like in Atlanta for the 10m range when it was being used.  Benning has a lot of 50m and 10m points.  Not sure what is the biggest range is with electronic targets but I know scaling from 10 to 80 is feasible so going up to 150 should not be out of the question.

The Megalink install would be a complete product.

Yes, it would be, but at what cost and available in what time frame?   That was my original point.

The price by the way came from the Megalink distributor, and web sites that sell the system. 

Possibly you know more about the Atlanta Olympics than I do, but if they had 80 electronic firing points all working together outdoors I would be surprised to hear it. I'm not talking about cheesy little Sius air pistol things which have been around for a long time.   

But again,  at what cost?  

I was told at the London Olympics that free pistol was shot outdoors on paper targets, and only the finals were shot on the electronic targets in the stadium.  This could be bad info, but I have never seen any video of the prelims, so I don't know for sure.  

Also you are talking about a billion dollar budget for staging the Olympics.   I hope that the NRA has a sharper pencil than that.  

Maybe the CMP is paying for everything.  Who knows?  

I will shoot on electronic targets, happily at Camp Perry, when they are there, they work, and I can afford the gas, and the entry fees to go.  

What I am not signing up for is to be a lab rat, when and if the NRA rolls them out two weeks before the National matches with no testing, and no back up plan.

Somehow everyone is just assuming that this is plug and play, and I have quite a few doubts about those claims, based on serval years of buying some fairly high tech stuff for the military.

Dipnet wrote:
Bullseye (and many other shooting competitions) are precision shooting sports where the ultimate goal of placing as many shots as possible in the center of the target. Why then would we migrate to targets that have no center to aim at? The system seems counterintuitive to the goals of the sport.

Not sure what you are referring to, all shooting sports that use eTargets are precision and some much, much, MUCH more precise than we shoot.  The aiming black will be the correct size for the match.  Example the 50M smallbore rifle target has a 112.4mm (4.425 inch) aiming black and a 10.4MM 10 ring (0.409 inches) our 50 yard has an 8" aiming black and a whopping large 10 ring at 3.36 inches that's almost 9 times bigger than the 50M smallbore 10 ring.



- Dave

The Bianchi Cup has BIG Major Sponsors like MidwayUSA, Action Target, Colt, FNH, Blade Tech, etc.  Camp Perry has very little in comparison.

If the comments in the editorial section of the latest Shooting USA by Dennis Willing are accurate, it seems electronic targets at Perry are a foregone conclusion. 


http://www.nxtbook.com/fx/mags/lastissue.php?mp=/nxtbooks/nra/shootingsportsusa 

Dockokol wrote:If the comments in the editorial section of the latest Shooting USA by Dennis Willing are accurate, it seems electronic targets at Perry are a foregone conclusion. 


http://www.nxtbook.com/fx/mags/lastissue.php?mp=/nxtbooks/nra/shootingsportsusa 

I will shoot on whatever they have.  That is a foregone conclusion. Already made that decision. 

However, the acquisition process seems both chaotic and overly optimistic.  

Switching to electronic targets at Perry before there have been enough test matches on them to determine what rules changes will be necessary, or how the equipment will hold up under conditions at Perry, seems quite risky.

Here's a link directly to Denny's comments:
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nra/ssusa_201408/#/4

It seems Denny wasn't made aware of the opposition that most of us asserted after trying these targets.  Make sure you send your letter of opposition to Brian Zins so we are sure our opinion is heard.

email them to: brian.zins@gmail.com