Poll on Electronic or Turning Targets at Camp Perry

First topic message reminder :

After Perry would like to see the numbers on what people prefer.

Chip

I wish this poll would have been done a little differently because as it stands right now electronic turning targets get 100% of the vote.

The NRA could easily say if the shooters want turning targets it's an additional expense but they won't have to repair all the current ranges/firing points and they eliminate "most" of the event operating costs. 

Dave

Rob Kovach wrote:
It won't be a level playing field when the Army is the only team that can practice on these non-turning electronic targets and the rest of us are practicing on turning paper ones.  Why can't you understand that?

This argument keeps coming up and it is false.  Today it would be easy for 100% of all shooters to train for non-turning electronic targets using an MP3 player and ear buds or some portable speakers.  If you actually have an electronic target you get to see your score and you do not have a put up a new target.

I worry that with the new electric targets they will make new regulations that will eliminate pistols that are perfectly legal to shoot today in 45 and Reeves matches. I said legal, if not actually practical. I have shot this pistol for Reeves matches and enjoy shooting it. Can you imagine them allowing anyone to shoot the e-targets with it?

My baby Reeves pistol

Toz35m wrote:it would be easy for 100% of all shooters to train for non-turning electronic targets using an MP3 player and ear buds or some portable speakers.

How does an MP3 player simulate shooters around you firing before or during the horn or other audio signal?

My paper target has an X on it, non-turning electronic targets do not.

Does your MP3 player have a function that prevents any early or late shots from being scored?  Mine doesn't.

Bullseye has turning targets to indicate when to start firing and when to stop.  This IS the bullseye forum.  The National Matches for bullseye should have the same turning targets as all of the bullseye support matches.

The way to kill bullseye is to change the National Match to a non-turning-target sport.  Bullseye then becomes international or free-pistol and is dead.

Rob Kovach wrote:

Toz35m wrote:it would be easy for 100% of all shooters to train for non-turning electronic targets using an MP3 player and ear buds or some portable speakers.

How does an MP3 player simulate shooters around you firing before or during the horn or other audio signal?

My paper target has an X on it, non-turning electronic targets do not.

Does your MP3 player have a function that prevents any early or late shots from being scored?  Mine doesn't.

Bullseye has turning targets to indicate when to start firing and when to stop.  This IS the bullseye forum.  The National Matches for bullseye should have the same turning targets as all of the bullseye support matches.

The way to kill bullseye is to change the National Match to a non-turning-target sport.  Bullseye then becomes international or free-pistol and is dead.

Not sure about you but when I train for a match I am at the range while other people are shooting so it is great training to focus on ignoring shots before and after. If it is an issue for you an MP3 recording could be made to have an early shot in it so you could get used to it.  Even with turning targets people shoot early. It will not hit the target. An early shot can and will get others to shoot early.  Same result on turning or electronic targets it will not be scored.

Since we are talking about training it does not matter about late/early shots being scored.  I feel like some people are hung up on the idea they need to shoot matches before Perry that are exactly like Perry.  A quality of a good shooter is the ability to adapt to different range conditions and shoot good regardless.

When my dot is in the middle of the target I cannot see the X so not sure why this makes any difference between the two. Centering the dot in the black does not require an X or other scoring rings to be visible. This has been mentioned before by others and seems like people are trying to come up with excuses.

As you are aware a turning target is not the only way to indicate when to start and stop shooting it just happens to be the standard today.

I think it is nice to have the same set up at local range for a match that matches Perry but I do not agree that it is a requirement.

There is not data that suggests electronic targets will kill BE or increase participation.

Absolutely non-turning electronic targets will kill bullseye, because the sport would no longer be bullseye but some other sport that is already identical to ISSF sanctioned sports.

Why are you ISSF shooters trying to make excuses for switching bullseye to be more like ISSF?  THE SPORTS ARE NOT THE SAME!

Look.  I enjoy comparing my performance to the shooters from the era of Gil Hebard, Bill Blankenship, and earlier.  Those shooters shot on TURNING TARGETS that determined when it was time to start shooting and they face away when it's time to stop.  There is heritage to shooting bullseye.

Without turning targets, the sport is NOT bullseye.  It's something else.

Rob, I prefer and voted for turning targets. I hope they stay that way. But, I think a lot of shooters would still play the game even if the targets changed. It's a tough game. I do it for the challenge. I think that's a common sentiment. 

With electronic targets, the dimensions of the targets would be the same. There are plenty of local league matches shot now on stationary targets. Almost all my practices are shot on stationary targets. 

I shoot a lot on electronic targets. With the proper design, crossfires could be identified easily. Early and late shots won't count in matches. The bullet size issue doesn't seem insurmountable. 

As for early and late shots on non turning targets, the shooter owns up to early and late shots. I've done it, and others have as well. Most Bullseye shooters strike me as honest. 

The true match is against ourselves anyway. 

Training for electronic targets seems like it would be simple. Use a target with a black circle of appropriate size. Having no rings or an X just takes away the distraction of a score. We train for groups and performances not scores. The score is a byproduct of a performance. 

Perry is the only place I've ever shot new faces every ten shots. It is the only uncovered line many of us use. It's tough if not impossible for someone to convince me that Perry is like anywhere else and certainly not like everywhere else. 

Stationary targets would be a big change, but I'll still play the game because it would still be the best pistol game either way.

Early and late shots on electronic targets are scored a zero by the equipment it will also give the exact time early or late the shot occurred.

Cross fires of the same caliber will be handled same as today.  Accept it or reshoot.  The math require to differentiate bullet size for a cross fire from a different caliber gun is not difficult.  It might be a little more difficult if the cross fire is a different caliber from 4 firing positions over, but it is difficult on paper too.

What ever they do like it or not I will continue to support and participate in this sport.

Dave

ps I don't want eTargets even is they turn because I enjoy the scoring part of the sport - BUT I won't stay home because of eTargets.  Heck the reduced match time might be used to have a beverage with my shooting buddies.

I can shoot at stationary targets in my back yard.

Football players don't play all season on football fields to play the superbowl in a soccer stadium with a rugby ball.

Rob Kovach wrote:I can shoot at stationary targets in my back yard.

Football players don't play all season on football fields to play the superbowl in a soccer stadium with a rugby ball.

Even if they did, the conditions are even, and the best team would still win.

WRONG.  The team with the better running offense would win.  Neither kicker could kick the rugby ball well, and neither quarterback could throw the ball well.  It wouldn't be fair to the team with the better quarterback.

And before anybody says "but I shoot under covered firing points--camp perry doesn't have covered firing points".  When you play football in a dome stadium or an open one that game is still the same.  The tradition is based on uncovered firing points.

Rob,

Let's have your theoretical football team play my theoretical football team. It's clearly the best way to solve the electronic target issue. 

Never underestimate the heart of a champion.

DeweyHales wrote:Rob,
Never underestimate the heart of a champion.

Great quote DeweyHales.  It reminds me of the Lanny Bassham story when after training in the desert heat he not only won but shot a record score while snow was falling so bad he could barely see the target at the World Championships in Switzerland.  

Convincing yourself that you are at a disadvantage because you can't train on eTargets will lead to shooting the worst score you have shot in years when you get a chance to shoot on eTargets.

I don't want eTargets at Perry, even if they turn,  but I won't psych myself out over it.  I'll find a way to train that matches the condition the best I can. 

Dave

The quote above is from Rudy T, former coach of the NBA's Houston Rockets. Winners find a way to prepare for and win in any condition. 

As Cecil likes to say, matches don't find the best shooters. They find the best competitors.

I have seen a lot of changes since I've been involved with the sport of bullseye. Mostly bullseye shooters kick and scream when the changes are introduced or proposed. Usually, the changes don't have a huge impact and the shooters settle into the new paradigm. Of course, there have been no complaints from competitors at Perry, when shooters moved into huts from tents or when the huts have been rebuilt or replaced and air conditioning installed.  Some people, not necessarily here, have derided Dennis Willing in his proposal of electronic targets. He has done a lot over many years to promote the sport. He has put a lot of his own treasure and sweat into the game. He doesn't go into things without giving them a lot of thought and getting opinions. I am confident that he will make the right decisions in this matter to the benefit of the sport.

I think that wild speculation of "changing the sport to international" is ridiculous. Cool heads will prevail and reasonable solutions will come from calm discussions, even though the viewpoints are quite divergent.

I appreciate the comments and discussion. However, my concern is that the article by Dennis is inaccurate compared to the numbers here, the overall comments to date, AND it appears that this is not be presented as a proposal for discussion. Please review the comments from those at the competitors meeting.

As an example of the benefit of changes driving bullseye participation, how many NEW shooters do we have at the matches just because of metallic and production classes? I have none.

Just because its new or even a good idea, does not guarantee it will be the best solution for a given purpose.

Rob Kovach wrote:Why are you ISSF shooters trying to make excuses for switching bullseye to be more like ISSF?  THE SPORTS ARE NOT THE SAME!

You are correct they are not the same.  Even though ISSF standard pistol is VERY close to the same as BE. Slow fire, 20s strings, 10s strings.

I could care less which target I shoot on.  You see a photo of my free pistol and you make an assumption that is not based on fact.  I am not making any excuses for switching.  I have not in any post intended to make an argument that BE would be better with electronic targets.  I agree 100% it will be different.  I just do not think it will be so drastically different the way some people want to make it out to be.  It will not end the sport and if you think that way then that shows part of why BE seems to be slowly going away.  Some change comes up and with the high resistance to change a lot of people push back and bring up every excuse they can come up with.  I do not agree that most of these excuses/arguments hold up.  Not having an X to see on the target is reaching big time as a bogus excuse.

I have only heard of one reason why electronic targets could be a challenge for some shooters and that is how do people who are hard of hearing get the signal to shot at the same time as others.  Lights would be hidden and buzzers hard to hear.  This is an example of a real valid reason that needs a solution.

All of the others are just excuses and are solved by software (early/late/cross fires), hardware (protect from weather and 45's) or changes to they way people train.

It would have been fun to see this discussion when Dots were introduced.  I bet some people come up with the excuse it would end the sport.

Toz35m wrote:

Rob Kovach wrote:Why are you ISSF shooters trying to make excuses for switching bullseye to be more like ISSF?  THE SPORTS ARE NOT THE SAME!

You are correct they are not the same.  Even though ISSF standard pistol is VERY close to the same as BE. Slow fire, 20s strings, 10s strings.

I could care less which target I shoot on.  You see a photo of my free pistol and you make an assumption that is not based on fact.  I am not making any excuses for switching.  I have not in any post intended to make an argument that BE would be better with electronic targets.  I agree 100% it will be different.  I just do not think it will be so drastically different the way some people want to make it out to be.  It will not end the sport and if you think that way then that shows part of why BE seems to be slowly going away.  Some change comes up and with the high resistance to change a lot of people push back and bring up every excuse they can come up with.  I do not agree that most of these excuses/arguments hold up.  Not having an X to see on the target is reaching big time as a bogus excuse.

I have only heard of one reason why electronic targets could be a challenge for some shooters and that is how do people who are hard of hearing get the signal to shot at the same time as others.  Lights would be hidden and buzzers hard to hear.  This is an example of a real valid reason that needs a solution.

All of the others are just excuses and are solved by software (early/late/cross fires), hardware (protect from weather and 45's) or changes to they way people train.

It would have been fun to see this discussion when Dots were introduced.  I bet some people come up with the excuse it would end the sport.

Very good points. For those who want to compare their abilities to the old masters (I've never been one to hold a candle to them), one would have to stay in un-air-conditioned huts, not use a geezer cart or brass catcher or use a red dot. You might want to use a revolver, at least in the centerfire match. There is a good chance that they didn't wear hearing protection or eye protection. The sport has evolved. If we want it to continue, we need to be open to new ideas. Every venue is a little different. I never liked going to a match and hearing a competitor complain that it was called too fast or too slow or that the targets turned too slowly or the benches were too tall, too short...you get the drift.

"It would have been fun to see this discussion when Dots were introduced.  I bet some people come up with the excuse it would end the sport."


What other people may have argued, is hardly germane to the issues we face today.


Before the introduction of red dots, scopes were sometimes used.  Conventional Pistol has always been an "any sight"match.  


Which means the rules were never changed to accommodate their use.
If the red dots had not been a good fit for bullseye, you would not see them on the line.    


The early red dots were extremely heavy, and added a lot of weight to the gun.    For many of us, they were no advantage at all.




Be that as it may, it is human nature to resist change. 


Ill thought out changes most often end badly. 


Some change is good, but the NRA has no business spending a million dollars or more on an electronic target system at Perry without a detailed analysis of the costs, and issues that have been raised by acquisition professionals and engineers on this board, and in other forums.

"Every venue is a little different. I never liked going to a match and hearing a competitor complain that it was called too fast or too slow or that the targets turned too slowly or the benches were too tall, too short...you get the drift."


I think competitors have both a right and a duty to call attention to matches that don't follow the rules.


There is a standard time the targets are supposed to take to turn in a Bullseye match.  It is one second from edged to faced.  


Playing fast and loose with that, is as bad as shorting people a couple of seconds in Rapid Fire.  


Perhaps your opinion is 8 seconds, 10 seconds, what's the diff?


I went to a match a while back, where when the targets were edged, you couldn't see the numbers.    The locals were not concerned, they were used to it, but that venue should not be allowed to hold a registered match.  It was extremely disconcerting to those of us who had never shot there before.

You missed my point. My point wasn't that the hosts of the match weren't following the rules. It was that too many times some bullseye shooters, instead of appreciating the effort in putting on matches, whine instead. I've also heard bullseye shooters complain because the rules were strictly enforced.

"You missed my point. My point wasn't that the hosts of the match weren't following the rules. It was that too many times some bullseye shooters, instead of appreciating the effort in putting on matches, whine instead. I've also heard bullseye shooters complain because the rules were strictly enforced."


Who cares?


It has nothing to do with the electronic target issues.  


There is always going to be whining.   Some of it has merit.  That was my point.

I would hate to spend all that money to go to Camp Perry to find out I hate electronic targets.  Probably won't get a chance to shoot them anywhere else.  I don't like how "acceptance" of this idea seems to be engineered.  I know politics aren't allowed on this forum, but I'm sick of my "consent" and "beliefs" being engineered for me, by those who seem to have a monopoly to do so.  Like another poster said, even if I was for electronic targets, I'm not now.