electronic targets at geelong

Results, photos of recent events, plan future events, let people know where you'll be competing.

Moderator: Mod

Message
Author
Peter Hulett
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Geelong, Victoria

electronic targets at geelong

#1 Postby Peter Hulett » Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:33 am

Geelong Rifle Club will have its new electronic targets operating at 300 and 500 metres for the handicap shoot on July 21st.
These are the same type of targets that have been installed at Bisley.
This is a great opportunity to come and try out the new technology and to assist us to fine-tune the procedures necessary to make efficient use of them.
See the flyer in the calendar section.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#2 Postby AlanF » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:00 am

Peter,

I'm looking forward to seeing the new technology. Well done for having it ready for "unveiling" on the 21st.

For F-Class shooters, Peter van Meurs, Pro-Cal Trading (our website sponsor) will be there again. He brings his yellow van with a good selection of Benchrest-standard shooting products. His contact details are on the home page of ozfclass.com if anyone wants to ask him to bring something specific.

So come on F-Class shooters, lets show Geelong that we appreciate what they're doing by turning up in decent numbers. Don't worry too much about wringing the last 1/4MOA accuracy out of your gear - this is a "name your own handicap" shoot, and friendly get-to-gether. If you want to get more serious, you can always have a side-bet with someone!

Alan

Ken L
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 6:53 am
Location: Maclean NSW

#3 Postby Ken L » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:43 am

I will be most interested to hear what the resolution is in both in a still air and wind lets say at 20 MPH at the target face and if the accuracy changes with wind speed at the target face. I understand that this can be a problem with acoustic sensors as thay depend on a constant speed of sound for triangulation software and the wind can cause doppler shift giving a variation in position.
The tighter the target the greater the accuracy needs to be and it may be good enough for Tr and FS but not for FO.

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#4 Postby AlanF » Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:33 pm

I expect there would be ways of sheltering the targets from cross-wind. From what I've read, we can't expect electronic targets to be as good as manual for positional accuracy of marking, but its one of those things that you have to accept as a compromise. And remember, everyone will have the same shared target at a particular range, so you won't be able to say one target is more affected by wind, or is less accurate than another.

Now lets focus on some positives. In the future, we will probably see a situation where individual shot positions and progessive scores can be transmitted directly to the Internet as they happen. Electronic targets will be an important part of that. I believe that given time they will be refined to the extent that accuracy and reliability will be acceptable to all, including even the most sceptical of F-Open shooters. But we have to start somewhere, and full credit to Geelong for their pioneering spirit.

Alan

Peter Hulett
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Geelong, Victoria

#5 Postby Peter Hulett » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:50 pm

Wind on the target doesn't affect these electronics as the sensors are just behind the target in a windproof box.

The people at Bisley, who are testing them not selling them, claim 1mm accuracy at 1000 yards. I don't know of any markers who can claim the same.

Still, you have to try before you are sure. When reading about electronics just check to see if the authors are talking about Kongsberg targets or some other home-made variety.

Cheers

Peter Hulett

Guest

#6 Postby Guest » Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:52 pm

Doesn't seem to be much point spending heaps on the best of equipment and then spending more on getting it to shoot accurately only to be told you will have to compromise on the accuracy of target marking. I rather think we would expect much more than that.
Having shot on electronic targets I don't believe there is a serious place for them in our type of competition.
I shot on them once in Brisbane a few years ago and managed to shoot a possible ( according to the printout ) When I looked around all smug and full of self pride, low and behold I was all alone with the machine. How utterly boring!!
You have also lost the right to challenge, and a gauge will determine better than a millimeter of accuracy.
Barry

Guest

#7 Postby Guest » Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:08 pm

Further to the previous post I direct a question to Peter H.
Are the sensors so good that they can determine the difference between calibres and make the necessary adjustments to compensate for these differences so that scores are not distorted. ( by the difference in calibre)?
Because if they cannot then you can add another 1mm to the error in reading the shot placement accurately.
Barry

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#8 Postby AlanF » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:38 pm

Barry,

I find it amazing that you're so concerned about the last mm of marking accuracy when there are many other elements of luck which have a far greater influence on scores e.g. who gets the best of the weather. There is a host of good things about electronic targets that you probably haven't even thought about, while dwelling on a few minor negatives. You once used the expression "negative, negative, negative" about something I said. How about reading your last two posts again!

Alan

Peter Hulett
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Geelong, Victoria

#9 Postby Peter Hulett » Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:06 pm

Pose the question Barrie, get the answer.

!. The target you shot on in Brisbane was the old ADI prototype which was trying to do too much with old technology. We are 20 years further on

2. Your question about different calibres doesn't make sense. The sensors pick up the difference in time between the sound reaching one sensor and another to determine the distance and direction from the centre that the impact is. The size of the bang makes no difference unless you have two shooters squadded on the same target at the same time. That would clearly be silly. If somebody puts a shot on the wrong target they get a zero. Scorers can as always watch for that.
How come nobody was watching your shoot in Brisbane? Seems like a breach of SSRs to me if it was a prize meeting.

3. Guage at less than 1mm? I don't think so. For a start most ranges I have marked at don't have a guage available and even when I have been a Butts Officer and brought my own guage I have great difficulty in measuring less than 1mm, especially if the target has a few holes in it. With this system the last shooter on the target has the same measure of accuracy as the first. This is an improvement.


Finally, there are lots of "gunnas" in rifle shooting. They are "gunna do this" and "gunna do that". Why is it that we seem to always attack those who "do". Fair enough to criticise after the event but why is it that so many shooters criticise before the testing is done. We have done something new, why is this so scarey to people? Try and then you can make constructive criticism.

Guest

#10 Postby Guest » Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:31 pm

Peter,
Re 2 It does make sense Peter, I never mentioned the " size " of the bang. If as you say, the sensors determine the distance from the centre of the target to the point of impact, and that piont is the centre of the projectile, then projectile diameter does matter as we measure to the inside edge of the projectile.
My Brisbane episode was not a prize meeting and it was back in the good old days when you did not require a " keeper "--no breech of SSR's at that time.
Alan, get off it, it was a legit question. Once the hole is in the target the elements of luck you talk about have been expended. The "element of luck" you now have to contend with is the marker, and I am sure you have challenged many a shot and maybe won some when there was only a millimeter or so in it. What you reckon? Of course accurate marking is important and like I said initally, what's the point of spending thousands of dollars if it is not?
Alan, I dont see any negative statements in what I said. I simply stated the facts as I see them. Target shooting is ALL about accuracy and I don't accept any compromise, andI guess neither do you.
Barry

Tom Lowndes
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 10:58 pm

Electronic Tgts

#11 Postby Tom Lowndes » Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:08 pm

Guys

I was invloved with the ADI Electronic Tgts when they were first let loose to the public.
I was,and probably still am the only person qualified in the Defence Force to set up,operate,and fault find the then system.
Perhaps you may like to call me at home and find out a few things about Electronic Tgts that you may not be aware of.

Tom

AlanF
Posts: 7495
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Maffra, Vic

#12 Postby AlanF » Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:35 pm

Well rather than talk about it, I intend to go to Geelong and see for myself what the current technology is, and give them a hand with testing if they need it. I hope others are thinking the same way.

Alan

RAVEN
Posts: 1978
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia (CTV)

#13 Postby RAVEN » Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:01 am

Target shooting is ALL about accuracy and I don't accept any compromise


Hi Barry
is this the same compromise that's not acceptable to FS shooters in Vic shooting on the Champ Target.
:P
RB

Peter Hulett
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Geelong, Victoria

#14 Postby Peter Hulett » Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:39 am

Barrie,

We don't measure to the outside of the projectile we measure to a guage. For example, .223s have to be guaged to a 7.62 size. I will accept your point about no compromise when I get a new target every time I fire a shot. Once you have patches on a target and the the line is in any way obscured then you have introduced a compromise. I say again, this system is fairer as all shooters get the same conditions regardless of the condition of the target.

Peter Hulett
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Geelong, Victoria

#15 Postby Peter Hulett » Sun Jul 15, 2007 3:32 pm

Barry,
Further to my post above consider the following

the marker was too slow
the marker was too fast (don't laugh, this was a formal protest placed at an international event I was officiating at)
the shot went down the peg so the marker missed it.
spotter disagrees with value shown
patches came off the target and so they are not sure which hole is mine
marker is not in the target gallery yet so you can't start
you are required for marking
message 1
must have a lunch break so the markers can be rested even though conditions are changing
cease fire we need to get a marker into/out of the butts
wrong sized spotter is being used

This is but a small list of things that I have experienced, there are others but they don't spring to mind immediately. Feel free to add your own.

The manual marking process is the weak link in the accuracy of our sport. It is also a reason why we cannot progress as a sport. When you think about it it takes so many workers to support a shooter that it is not cost-effective. Each shooter requires 1 marker, 1 scorer, 1 check-scorer to support them. No other sport is that labour intensive. Not to mention the infrastructure behind markers galleries and target frames etc.

By using electronic targets I may have lost the ability to challenge but hopefully the accuracy of marking has improved and there are fewer delays and upsets. If it doesn't achieve this then it is not worth the expense.

I believe that over the years I have lost more points through bad marking than I have won by successful challenges.

Nevertheless, the electronic targets are still to be proven and I reserve my judgement.

Is your opinion flexible Barry or are you determined to be opposed?

[/list]


Return to “Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests