Positive experiences with electronic targets(or why is CMP forcing the issue?)

I did not want to muddy the above thread on Perry vs. Cardinal.

Every poll I found has shooters preferring turning paper targets to electronic by about 70% vs. 30%  Why is CMP so hellbent on going to electronic targets?  Clearly shooters are not asking for it.  It's massively expensive vs paper.  It would force almost everyone to shoot matches and practice on turning paper and then show up at the Nationals and shoot on a different system.  Why?

For those that like them.  Have you had a positive trouble free experience with an existing system that you feel CMP could make workable on a large scale?  Or do you just not want to score?  Other reasons?

After their opening fiasco with them getting blown to hell they may have a different outlook.

How do they do in rain??

I have been wondering why the insistence on going to electronic targets? What is driving this?

I have yet to talk to anyone who wants them.

Ric C.

I have seen several computer problems with E- targets both at Ohio State University and at the CMP air pistol range at Perry.
From what I have herd, the new targets at Talledega are not doing so well. Not to mention the fact that the CMP forgot To come up with rules before shooting an EIC match on them... Then not scoring in accordance with their existing rules... But I shall digress.
E- targets have not be properly tested under typical situations. Could any of you imagine what would happen using electronic targets at the smaller arms firings school????

I have not shot on E targets but what I like about the electronic targets is the feedback it provides to the shooter and to the audience as well as the more accurate and standardized scoring. Watch some free pistol online.  Now I imagine they have some obstacles for scoring when it comes to caliber and bullet size.  I don't know much about the targets they are developing but the stuff they use for international events has to be different.

I just do not get using the electronic targets for the masses.
Can these targets take hits to the box and sensors and keep accurate scores.
You can shoot the legs off a frame and still score the target.
Then replace the frame and all is good for the next round.
Can you do this with the E-targets ?

I am not trying to offend anyones shooting capability but is not the old style wooden targets using paper targets scored by fellow shooters more accurate in the long run than a slightly messed up E-target that gives a scuwed score from a sensor not properly aligned after an errant hit ?

Does one have the ability to challenge an E-target ?
Can we view on paper what the true value of the score is or is the E-target value final ?

I probably have more questions about the use of the E-targets but these are on the top of my list.

My sense is that they are great for the shooters that can always hit the bullseye.
But what if you do not and strike the electronics ?

These are my main concerns in a nut shell concerning E-targets.

Are we catering to the younger shooters that are into electronics where even sitting around during a family dinner they are on their electronic devices conversing with others in or out of the same room ?

Are we too lazy to go out and score anymore cause I want my results NOW and I would trust electronics over another human being even though you can still challenge the score ?

I just cannot wrap my head around this whole E-target thing.

Maybe I am just older, set in my ways and an idiot

Clarence

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. ― Henry Ford


The benefits of Electronic Targets as I see them:
1. Electronic targets are more accurate. That's why Olympic and World Cup competitions require them.
2. Electronic targets speed up the match. A lot.
3. Electronic targets require fewer support staff. The Airgun range at Camp Perry can handle 80 shooters with a couple of people.
4. Electronic targets provide immediate scoring and awards. No waiting days or weeks to get results in the mail.
5. Electronic targets require less expendable material.

The Disadvantages:
1. They are different. The way that a bullseye match is run has not materially changed in decades. 
2. When there is a problem, it can't be fixed with a hammer and a wrench. 
3. They require support staff skilled in computers.
4. The initial cost is higher. 

The Unknown:
1. I have not seen any real data about the on-going maintenance cost. It might be higher or lower. I don't know.
2. I would have some long term support concerns. If a company goes out of business it's a lot harder to keep running than a mechanical system.
3. Are people attracted or repelled by the quaint old-fashioned sport of bullseye and will new shooters be brought in if the changes are made?

The Non-Issues:
I have heard a lot of comments and complaints about electronic targets that may be occur in the beginning, but are easily solved.
1. We know how to protect electronics from weather. I design electronics for the auto industry. We can do this.
2. We know how to protect things from bullets. It is very easy to calculate the inertia and energy of a bullet and design a front face that can withstand repeated impacts. If someone is stupid enough to shoot armor piercing bullets they deserve a very large bill to pay for repairs.
3. We know how to protect electronics from the shock of repeated bullet strikes. Again, this is an an easy calculation and simulation.
4. It is possible to challenge electronic targets. They would not use them at the Olympics if the shooter just had to take the word of a computer.

There have been some initial problems, but I am confident they bugs will be worked out very quickly. I haven't heard of any problems that aren't easily fixed.

How many paper targets can you buy for the price of one pistol E-target...2.2 million$
for pistol at perry... ( my projection using Dennis's 6.5 million$ number for all at Perry )
Speeding up a match is not a benefit
Show me the rules in the CMP or NRA rule book.... ( there aren't any )
I have see them fail.. More than a few times
As for maintence cost. There is a link on the first page of the other thread rebuilt every 1000 rounds....

My electronic target perspective comes mostly from rifle and having watched the technology change and evolve over 30+ years to the point that they are now:

International smallbore and air (rifle) is all shot on them.
International pistol is all shot on them
International 300M rifle is shot on them.
Virtually all collegiate rifle shooting (gallery smallbore and air-rifle) is done on them.
I cannot say about the collegiate pistol side, but if they are shooting international style, then I would predict they are.

An Australian shooter I have spoken with at Camp Perry, who shoots them in their club rifle matches indicates that with their targets, they can shoot  3, 80-shot courses in one day, I think 3 relays (good luck with that on puled targets).  They are able to conduct instant, automatic scoring, to include the rapid fire events, and even have visuals on their neighbors targets while shooting 600yds (hipower shooters will dope wind off of their neighbors badly timed shots, or that is the theory). Crossfires are even detected and shown and scored/not scored within the very obtuse rules.

For hipower rifle, it is an absolute time saver as there are no pit changes, just walk up and shoot...scores are done and turned in.  For pistol, I do not know how much time would be saved in walking down, scoring or the need for new centers.  With all of the other experience with their use, tailoring a system

Finally, I would expect that any organization that expends the money that Dennis has referred to in the purchase of electronically scored targets would want to try to make the infrastructure and such needed to be as widely used as possible.

In short, most of this is driven from many sides, with the possible exception being bullseye pistol, and I believe that anyone spending money on new targets of any type, be they turning or electronic scored should consider how extensively they could be used vs. the money spent.

-Ron

I get how they work for air rifle and smallbore, but imagine them getting the crap blown out of them by several hundred SAFS graduates shooting rack grade AR's offhand.  And then the Garand match to shotgun big bullets at them.

Point being I think they are poorly suited to standing up to outdoor use the way they would be used on U.S. style ranges.  How the heck are they going to move the whole system from the rifle berm tops back to where smallbore and pistol could use them?  And what about rattle battle?

Maybe they are just being PC. They might be spending all that money to save a tree. Probably not...

Danehogle wrote:How many paper targets can you buy for the price of one pistol E-target...2.2 million$
for pistol at perry... ( my projection using Dennis's 6.5 million$ number for all at Perry )
Speeding up a match is not a benefit
Show me the rules in the CMP or NRA rule book.... ( there aren't any )
I have see them fail.. More than a few times
As for maintence cost. There is a link on the first page of the other thread rebuilt every 1000 rounds....

The maintenance video posted elsewhere mentions cleaning the interior of the unit frequently of what we refer to as wads. 

My point is suspect 45 SWC bullets would fill the interior faster than 22 or air.  

Just thinking outloud.

Kevin,

The sensors are microphones. I do not know how much they cost, but probably not as much as one would think.

The targets on many/most are rubber, self healing type membranes easily replaced, and meant to be. They take lots of hits....lots.  On the smallbore targets and the international pistol targets, the sensors are housed in or behind a protective box/steel. Instead of breaking a leg on the frame, everyone will get to laugh when you "ring" the box.

I am not saying this is the way and the light, but consider watching a bit of the Norwegians shooting one of their very different rifle matches, and the fact that there is a crowd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnAwRJc7Sw

It might not be what you are interested in, but having seen the spectator side of things at collegiate rifle matches, it would mean that we as competitors are not treated as a money losing proposition by the NRA. I personally will shoot whether the targets are paper or electronic, and as I believe Clarence stated in another post, no matter where the match is held.  I shoot to shoot, and for my personal pleasure. The how, when, and where is not material, but being able to sell it to others is likely to be a very positive change to all of the "paper punching" sports like ours are.

-Ron

Well the numbers that I have herd is around 12,000$ per target

I can't believe that anyone is going to take time off in August to watch dots pop up in a black circle on TV monitors under a hot humid sun.  Precision shooting whether rifle or pistol is never going to be a spectator sport in the US.

I am guilty of taking this off topic with commentary.  But it seems that very few people have actually successfully shot US centerfire target sports on electronic systems.

KevinB wrote:I can't believe that anyone is going to take time off in August to watch dots pop up in a black circle on TV monitors under a hot humid sun.  Precision shooting whether rifle or pistol is never going to be a spectator sport in the US.

I am guilty of taking this off topic with commentary.  But it seems that very few people have actually successfully shot US centerfire target sports on electronic systems.

Kevin,

you are right. Very few Americans have shot electronic systems, and I believe that this is at the heart of many questions people have about them. I also have no doubt that any application of them for our shooting sports will reveal things that need to be changed or learned. CMP in Alabama has had to work with the manufacturers to adapt things to our uses and the learning curve has been interesting to watch and read about (check out NationalMatch.us on the subject of Taladega update), but peoples opinions there are being changed after initially being disappointed.

As far as spectators and the hot sun, you are probably right, but there are other venues that could be used, and we really need broad positive representation of our sports, and this may be a way to get to it.  By the way, who in their right mind would want to go watch a golf tournament?.....or tennis? (some things defy real explanation  )

As an aside, for any range that already exists and has pits for rifle, or turning targets for pistol, pulling them out to replace them makes little sense. For anyone building a rifle range, the cost of earthwork and frames vs. electronic targets is a different story.  Picking them up and moving them to a different location should urban encroachment occur means a lot too. 

I hope that paper targets never go away, I love them and prefer them over anything else. Paper tells a story of how precise I am, unlike plinking or steel. So, please take this only as perspective to answer why e-targets are being considered, not as something that must be done.  I will always be shooting paper whether rifle or pistol, and paper with turning targets may very well be the most practical way to be shooting Bullseye pistol, but I without a trial of e-targets, that is only a supposition.

-ron

-Ron

There are some good points here in favor of an electronic system but I wonder how shooters will find the transition to an entirely different system compared to what he sees all year?

Or is it so close to what we see now that it will make almost no difference after a few shots?


Ron Habegger

At the USA Shooting National Championships, you get disqualified after two frame hits. That's over the course of 120 shots.

You tell me how many Marksmen and Sharpshooters (and higher!) are going to hit the frame of an electronic target at least twice over the course of 550+ rounds, and then be happy about being sent packing with a DQ.

I've been shooting on electronic targets for almost 20 years, and have fired tens and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of rounds on them. I've also done a lot of maintenance and troubleshooting on them. I'm not buying the advantage for bullseye pistol.

As to speeding up the matches, faster results are definitely good, but why do we want to turn the marathon into the 100-meter dash?

When international rapid fire transitioned from paper to electronic scoring, average relay times dropped from about 45 minutes to about 20 minutes.

If I am forced to shoot a 2700 in 3 hours, I'm going to be carrying my shoulder home in a paper bag, and I'm (still) usually one of the younger shooters on the line.

John,

for all I have stated that sounds pro electronic target, I recognize your experience, and further temper my points to say that while it does seem to make a lot of sense for the rifle sports, it probably has very limited benefits for bullseye pistol.

I will also agree with you and say that if the frames cannot take the hits that they are likely to receive in the course of the match, resulting in dq's, then they are, or should be a no-go. That, and a 3 hour 2700 doesn't sound fun either.

-ron

john bickar wrote:At the USA Shooting National Championships, you get disqualified after two frame hits. That's over the course of 120 shots.

You tell me how many Marksmen and Sharpshooters (and higher!) are going to hit the frame of an electronic target at least twice over the course of 550+ rounds, and then be happy about being sent packing with a DQ.

The 2ndyear the electronic system is used requirements for housing etc will be reduced drastically  'cause  those DQ'd will not be back.

RON

So we don't want shooters to return.??? At a time we want and need to grow shooting sports.

The electronic targets will in all likely hood be 6 feet square to accommodate high power.  Chances are there won't be many dqs.

Wobbley wrote:The electronic targets will in all likely hood be 6 feet square to accommodate high power.  Chances are there won't be many dqs.

Wouldn't that mean every shooter would have to have 6' of clearance? Or space, whatever. I feel spoiled when I have 4' to set up in.

Len

I like shooting on electronic targets for air pistol, but air pistol doesn't need turning targets.