Queen’s on manual targets

[AlanF]

So the shooters were scoring for each other on cards, by reading them off a monitor?

[saum2]

So the shooters were scoring for each other on cards, by reading them off a monitor?

Alan, Belmont have dual monitors now, one for each shooter on the mound, one shooting and one preparing to shoot, so none of handing monitors over shooters which was at times unsafe in the years before and keeps scorers and shooters Covid safe apart most of the time.
So to answer your question, yes both shooters had a monitor each, scoring for each other. It's easy after you establish who is the odd number shot and who is the even number on the target. Scorers had just the single scorers monitor, plus the blackboards. I liked the Bisley style of shooting, challenging especially at 1000yds.

[RDavies]

So the shooters were scoring for each other on cards, by reading them off a monitor?

Alan, Belmont have dual monitors now, one for each shooter on the mound, one shooting and one preparing to shoot, so none of handing monitors over shooters which was at times unsafe in the years before and keeps scorers and shooters Covid safe apart most of the time.
So to answer your question, yes both shooters had a monitor each, scoring for each other. It's easy after you establish who is the odd number shot and who is the even number on the target. Scorers had just the single scorers monitor, plus the blackboards. I liked the Bisley style of shooting, challenging especially at 1000yds.

I did the Mace cup a few times when it was run on proper targets, but how did they slow it down on ETs?
Did they use delays to simulate pairs shooting or was it just fire your shot while your partner reloads?

[saum2]

Rod, It was standard Bisley except for the time limit to get your shot away. eg, U shoot, your partner calls the score, you agree with score, partner writes down the score on your scorecard, then partner makes their adjustments and shoots, you call the score, etc,etc Nobody timed us and it was certainly not machine gunning. I think it worked well. If i was to guess the timing, it probably was about 40 seconds before you got your shot away after scoring etc. Geoff

[AlanF]

Would be easy to check the timing afterwards in the Hexta data....

[jasmay]

There is a mammoth amount that needs healthy debate in these areas to establish a solid path forward for the sport.

I’m not sure if that will ever happen, which is a worry.

One of the biggest items is ET delay timing, which never goes well, but ultimately, this would be an element that solves several problems.

1) Slowing down begins to help international competitors develop wind reading.

2) New shooters generally don’t have bulk cash to throw at high end rigs designed to speed shoot.

3) Most international shoots are bisley style, again, slowing down will help shooters with this style.

This topic alone starts some pretty feverish debate, and I really don’t care for it, but ultimately this and many other elements within this topic are key to the future of our sport. Will we ever be able to have considered discourse on these items without it degrading?

[jsa54]

This is going back over older ground but the paper targets we see are only part of the complete system. The two most populous ranges in NSW face huge costs to bring their target frames back to a condition where they could be used constantly in a manual mode, particularly when trying to manage the heavier long range faces. There has been an absolute lack of investment in their maintenance and repair for decades and a good number of frames are no longer serviceable apart from being able to hold a static target face such as an ET.

At my local range, we also faced increasingly difficulty in getting people who were willing or able to do manual marking. Our increasingly ageing membership struggled physically with the heavy targets and despite increasing our payments to the local youth, it was becoming very difficult to convince them to give up their Saturday afternoons or to pay attention when they did actually mark targets, which in itself caused many an irritation up on the mound.

So it became an issue somewhat of finances and practicalities; spend a lot of money on the frames and pay a lot more to markers but then face the strong criticism from shooters that their fees were way too high. Since the introducing our particular ETs, they have paid themselves off in a number of ways. And many members value to ability to do a post-shoot review of their results on the web. ETs have also allowed us to reduce the number of cancelled shoots due to poor weather such as extreme heat in the pits.

Within my particular club, which is heavily F Class focussed, we carry out regular maintenance, accuracy tests and follow-on calibrations on all our ETs and as a result we are very confident in their high level of accuracy. I don't necessarily share the same degree of confidence in other ET systems I have encountered.

So getting back to the issue of full manual marking for Queens, it may be that this would only be possible on a very small number of ranges across the country and that there would be an increasing cost impost over time to keep the system in working order.

[RDavies]

This is going back over older ground but the paper targets we see are only part of the complete system. The two most populous ranges in NSW face huge costs to bring their target frames back to a condition where they could be used constantly in a manual mode, particularly when trying to manage the heavier long range faces. There has been an absolute lack of investment in their maintenance and repair for decades and a good number of frames are no longer serviceable apart from being able to hold a static target face such as an ET.

At my local range, we also faced increasingly difficulty in getting people who were willing or able to do manual marking. Our increasingly ageing membership struggled physically with the heavy targets and despite increasing our payments to the local youth, it was becoming very difficult to convince them to give up their Saturday afternoons or to pay attention when they did actually mark targets, which in itself caused many an irritation up on the mound.

So it became an issue somewhat of finances and practicalities; spend a lot of money on the frames and pay a lot more to markers but then face the strong criticism from shooters that their fees were way too high. Since the introducing our particular ETs, they have paid themselves off in a number of ways. And many members value to ability to do a post-shoot review of their results on the web. ETs have also allowed us to reduce the number of cancelled shoots due to poor weather such as extreme heat in the pits.

Within my particular club, which is heavily F Class focussed, we carry out regular maintenance, accuracy tests and follow-on calibrations on all our ETs and as a result we are very confident in their high level of accuracy. I don't necessarily share the same degree of confidence in other ET systems I have encountered.

So getting back to the issue of full manual marking for Queens, it may be that this would only be possible on a very small number of ranges across the country and that there would be an increasing cost impost over time to keep the system in working order.

There is something very wrong with the way the association is being managed if after 120 years of running proper targets they are now no longer able to afford to replace the frames a few at a time as required on their main range. Surely replacing half a dozen a year until they catch up on previously neglected frames should not be too much of a burden on the state premier range these days? Is anyone accountable for letting things get this bad all of a sudden? If ETs hadn't come along does this mean you would just give up shooting? Once the frame is deteriorated enough that it wont hold an ET, then is that it, retire the whole target? I know Queens are no longer getting the same numbers as they used to but surely they will need to be replaced at some stage anyway.

As for costs, why is it that once Queens go to ETs, why have entry fees only ever gone up, not down?
I know there were target pullers available when Sydney first went to ETs but they were told their services were not required, so lack of target pullers was no excuse.

For club shoots, you bet, it is nothing serious, so use ETs to play on so people don't need to go and mark, I agree 100%, even though every single club I know of (though yes they may be some outliers) bumped up their fees when switching to ETs.

[AlanF]

At Rosedale we're finding that manual targets are much cheaper to maintain than acoustic chamber type ETs, both in terms of time and materials. Here's our experience with purchase costs. In 2016 at Rosedale we completely replaced the manual target lifting gear of 5 emplacements, cost approximately $2000 each plus some of our own labour. At the same time we bought 2 Hexta 8 foot ETs with all accessories, cost approx $10,000 each, which were mounted on two of the above-mentioned emplacements. So it can't be said that upgrading manuals is unaffordable. In fact if you do the sums on high quality ETs, I challenge anyone to produce an objective cost benefit analysis that shows they are commercially superior to manuals, including manual marking costs. I believe our club would not have invested in high quality ETs (we believe Hextas are the best) if not for the State Govt grants we've been able to obtain. Some of us in the club are trying to retain regular manual target use in our calendar, but this is being steadily whittled away, and the standard of manual marking as you would expect is deteriorating. A general symptom of that is that the VRA is currently making an urgent appeal to members from all over the state for markers for the Queens. Sorry Rod, but I think the situation is becoming irretrievable. Time to emigrate to the US (will they let you in)?

[jsa54]

I forgot about the various State Govts' grants when ETs were purchased, including our Hextas; that does indeed somewhat distort the financial comparisons. Good point.

[AlanF]

I forgot about the various State Govts' grants when ETs were purchased, including our Hextas; that does indeed somewhat distort the financial comparisons. Good point.

Our manual upgrades were done with the same grant that bought 2 Hextas. We justified them on the grounds that the old ones were unsafe and physically taxing on less able bodied members. We now have 3 Hextas plus 3 manuals, all in good condition. Most members, particularly new ones, prefer the ETs, and aren't all that enthusiastic about marking, so the future of the manuals is not looking rosy. The only ones who want the manuals are those who don't like machine-gunning, a few who want to practice Bisley style, and of course our target maintenance crew.

[Martin]

So a reasonable 2 day shoot format (based on the FClass W/C format) would be :
Day1 -> 2+15 at 800,900,1000Y
Day2 -> 2+20 at 1000Y x 2
all using bisley pairs format.
0r 1 Day -> 2+15 at 800,900 & 2+20 at 1000y?

[AlanF]

So a reasonable 2 day shoot format (based on the FClass W/C format) would be :
Day1 -> 2+15 at 800,900,1000Y
Day2 -> 2+20 at 1000Y x 2
all using bisley pairs format.
0r 1 Day -> 2+15 at 800,900 & 2+20 at 1000y?

I believe the most common FCWC course of fire has been your first Day 1 followed by your alternative Day 1, for a total of 95 counting shots (including metric range equivalents).

[RDavies]

So a reasonable 2 day shoot format (based on the FClass W/C format) would be :
Day1 -> 2+15 at 800,900,1000Y
Day2 -> 2+20 at 1000Y x 2
all using bisley pairs format.
0r 1 Day -> 2+15 at 800,900 & 2+20 at 1000y?

The 2 day version of the program you listed would be great if they would run something like that in Australia, though as Alan said, if need be option 2 would be a good sampler.
Oh and before each squad shoots their first target for the day, the targets are pulled down for 1 minute blow off period