Peter
Can this system tell the difference between a 5.56 and a 7.62?
Tom
electronic targets at geelong
Moderator: Mod
-
Peter Hulett
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
- Location: Geelong, Victoria
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
-
Guest
-
Peter Hulett
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
- Location: Geelong, Victoria
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
Good questions Adam.
About ricochets I am not sure. My best guess is that the shooter would be credited with a score . I can't see any way around that.
The "crossfire" situation is one of those procedural things that we need constructive advice about. I don't believe that the scorer/observer is eliminated by the use of the electronics. Certainly the marker is not needed but somebody needs to be watching the shoot in case there is a problem. "I haven't fired" should still work. There is an overide function if you are using the competition software otherwise the shoots proceeds as it does now under the direction of the Range Officer. In fact the whole business of competition software is still in limbo as it cannot handle the "V" bull. Maybe this is a good reson for TR to move to sixes rather than the V. We are not using the competition software. Let's take small steps.
I have done some research and the NRA of Great Britain has the accuracy of these targets at .65mm at 1000 yards. This is more accurate than paper targets as they are not subject to expansion and contraction, not to mention warping and wrinkles.
Still early days, the company has sold over 8000 electronic targets across the world but I think only 500 or 600 have been long range targets. They are very happy to work with us to overcome any problems that we may find.
There are also targets being installed in WA that were sent at the same time as ours. Don't know how they are going, maybe another lister does.
About ricochets I am not sure. My best guess is that the shooter would be credited with a score . I can't see any way around that.
The "crossfire" situation is one of those procedural things that we need constructive advice about. I don't believe that the scorer/observer is eliminated by the use of the electronics. Certainly the marker is not needed but somebody needs to be watching the shoot in case there is a problem. "I haven't fired" should still work. There is an overide function if you are using the competition software otherwise the shoots proceeds as it does now under the direction of the Range Officer. In fact the whole business of competition software is still in limbo as it cannot handle the "V" bull. Maybe this is a good reson for TR to move to sixes rather than the V. We are not using the competition software. Let's take small steps.
I have done some research and the NRA of Great Britain has the accuracy of these targets at .65mm at 1000 yards. This is more accurate than paper targets as they are not subject to expansion and contraction, not to mention warping and wrinkles.
Still early days, the company has sold over 8000 electronic targets across the world but I think only 500 or 600 have been long range targets. They are very happy to work with us to overcome any problems that we may find.
There are also targets being installed in WA that were sent at the same time as ours. Don't know how they are going, maybe another lister does.
-
Peter Hulett
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
- Location: Geelong, Victoria
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
Alan,
No image is sent from the target. The sensors can resolve a the centre of a shot to within at least 0.65mm. This is then transmitted to the shooters computer via radio modem and the software takes over. We asked for software that treated the centre of impact as the centre of a 7.62mm circle and the score is then determined. This seemed OK to us as under SSRs nothing else is needed for TR and FS shooting. In the future we may request software that includes the FO target and calibrates to 8mm diameter but you need to crawl before you can walk.
I don't really know what the discussion on calibre is all about. The system can resolve to .65mm. If you wish to shoot a calibre smaller than that then find another sport.
No image is sent from the target. The sensors can resolve a the centre of a shot to within at least 0.65mm. This is then transmitted to the shooters computer via radio modem and the software takes over. We asked for software that treated the centre of impact as the centre of a 7.62mm circle and the score is then determined. This seemed OK to us as under SSRs nothing else is needed for TR and FS shooting. In the future we may request software that includes the FO target and calibrates to 8mm diameter but you need to crawl before you can walk.
I don't really know what the discussion on calibre is all about. The system can resolve to .65mm. If you wish to shoot a calibre smaller than that then find another sport.
-
Guest
Raven,
As usual you South Aussies get things around the wrong way. In case you don't realize we are talking about electronic targets and the compromise I refered to was that of accuracy in Marking.
Peter,
I don't go out of my way to be difficult, usually the difficulty comes about by the inability of people to answer my questions satisfactorily.
Re Adams question on crossfires. That old ADI target with it's "old technology " had the ability that it did not sense a crossfire, and if such occured it did not register, something which appears to be missing from this later technology. And as you well know to retain the attention of a scorer or observer for a string of shots is going to be nearly impossible.
Hate to continue this discussion about calibres as it appears to be a bit sensitive but I have to know.
If the sensors resolve to the centre of impact, then this point indicates the score value?? Our 300 yd target has a centre diameter of 70 mm so would you not have to calibrate your target to 70mm + one projectile diameter =77.83mm or in the case of FO at 300 + 44mm plus largest projectile ( 8mm ) = 52mm diameter??
Barry
As usual you South Aussies get things around the wrong way. In case you don't realize we are talking about electronic targets and the compromise I refered to was that of accuracy in Marking.
Peter,
I don't go out of my way to be difficult, usually the difficulty comes about by the inability of people to answer my questions satisfactorily.
Re Adams question on crossfires. That old ADI target with it's "old technology " had the ability that it did not sense a crossfire, and if such occured it did not register, something which appears to be missing from this later technology. And as you well know to retain the attention of a scorer or observer for a string of shots is going to be nearly impossible.
Hate to continue this discussion about calibres as it appears to be a bit sensitive but I have to know.
If the sensors resolve to the centre of impact, then this point indicates the score value?? Our 300 yd target has a centre diameter of 70 mm so would you not have to calibrate your target to 70mm + one projectile diameter =77.83mm or in the case of FO at 300 + 44mm plus largest projectile ( 8mm ) = 52mm diameter??
Barry
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Barry,
Can I suggest the best way to find out is to go to Anakie East on Saturday, and have a look at it. I'm not trying to stifle discussion here, but I hope we can get to have a look at it from both the target and the display terminal ends, and get a better feel for it. Once we do that I'm hoping that any minor concerns will become just that, minor concerns that can be worked through.
Alan
Can I suggest the best way to find out is to go to Anakie East on Saturday, and have a look at it. I'm not trying to stifle discussion here, but I hope we can get to have a look at it from both the target and the display terminal ends, and get a better feel for it. Once we do that I'm hoping that any minor concerns will become just that, minor concerns that can be worked through.
Alan
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Peter,
In practice, paper targets can be much worse than 1mm accuracy. I personally would be happy with 5mm accuracy if it was the same for everybody. It would be a completely random error with no human bias, and the laws of chance would ensure fairness in the long run. Over the course of a Queens shoot, the best shooter would win whether it be 1mm or 5mm accuracy.
Alan
In practice, paper targets can be much worse than 1mm accuracy. I personally would be happy with 5mm accuracy if it was the same for everybody. It would be a completely random error with no human bias, and the laws of chance would ensure fairness in the long run. Over the course of a Queens shoot, the best shooter would win whether it be 1mm or 5mm accuracy.
Alan
-
RobH
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:22 pm
- Location: Wagga Wagga
Congratulations Peter on having the courage to implement some modern techknowledgy. Electronic scoring is used at world champianships olympic games and comonwealth games. I watched it being used in smallbore at the comonwealth games. It could detect cross fires and who had fired them and the accuracy was accepted as being superior to human scoring. Barry stop knit picking . We have to accept modern techknowledgy if our sport is to progress.
Rob Halloran
Rob Halloran
-
Peter Hulett
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:44 pm
- Location: Geelong, Victoria
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
-
pjifl
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:15 pm
- Location: Innisfail, Far North QLD.
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 463 times
Alan wrote,
>>
In practice, paper targets can be much worse than 1mm accuracy. I personally would be happy with 5mm accuracy if it was the same for everybody. It would be a completely random error with no human bias, and the laws of chance would ensure fairness in the long run. Over the course of a Queens shoot, the best shooter would win whether it be 1mm or 5mm accuracy.
>>
5mm ! I think that's far too open a statement.
Firstly, let me say that I am not at all negative here. I just want an independent and comprehensive assessment of likely error.
On the 5 mm error - here are some comments.
1/ An acceptable error will be linked to range (target size). 5 mm at 300y is just not on. At 1000y maybe.
2/ Any marker worth his salt can do far better than 5 mm. If he obliterates the line or edge with patches he should be shown how to mark properly. And centres should be changed often enough that 1 mm is possible.
3/ Paper expansion and contraction certainly can introduce large errors. BUT they are absolute errors in the duration of a shoot. The same sight centre is seen by all shooters.
4/ What sort of errors does the system have? Everything has a precision - thats normal. But I expect any errors to be both random and systematic. Like, for example, the seen target rings and virtual target rings will not exactly coincide. Presumably there is some way to fine tune this. If the virtual 10 was displaced from the position of the seen 10 that's a serious flaw. For example, a paper centre displaced from the centre on a traditional target has no detrimental effect on shots within its span. Not so with the eTarget.
Maybe I an a suspicious character <G> but I dont trust advertizing literature. Actual measurements need to be made on paper and the eTarget and a serious comparison made under typical conditions of use.
A shoot on them will be interesting but more needs to be done to fully evaluate them.
Peter Smith.
>>
In practice, paper targets can be much worse than 1mm accuracy. I personally would be happy with 5mm accuracy if it was the same for everybody. It would be a completely random error with no human bias, and the laws of chance would ensure fairness in the long run. Over the course of a Queens shoot, the best shooter would win whether it be 1mm or 5mm accuracy.
>>
5mm ! I think that's far too open a statement.
Firstly, let me say that I am not at all negative here. I just want an independent and comprehensive assessment of likely error.
On the 5 mm error - here are some comments.
1/ An acceptable error will be linked to range (target size). 5 mm at 300y is just not on. At 1000y maybe.
2/ Any marker worth his salt can do far better than 5 mm. If he obliterates the line or edge with patches he should be shown how to mark properly. And centres should be changed often enough that 1 mm is possible.
3/ Paper expansion and contraction certainly can introduce large errors. BUT they are absolute errors in the duration of a shoot. The same sight centre is seen by all shooters.
4/ What sort of errors does the system have? Everything has a precision - thats normal. But I expect any errors to be both random and systematic. Like, for example, the seen target rings and virtual target rings will not exactly coincide. Presumably there is some way to fine tune this. If the virtual 10 was displaced from the position of the seen 10 that's a serious flaw. For example, a paper centre displaced from the centre on a traditional target has no detrimental effect on shots within its span. Not so with the eTarget.
Maybe I an a suspicious character <G> but I dont trust advertizing literature. Actual measurements need to be made on paper and the eTarget and a serious comparison made under typical conditions of use.
A shoot on them will be interesting but more needs to be done to fully evaluate them.
Peter Smith.
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Peter,
As you say, errors could be systematic. Fortunately, that sort of error is usually able to be recognised and addressed. So I agree there will need to be some thorough testing and refinement of calibration etc. But that's okay - I don't know of anyone who is pushing for their adoption Australia-wide ASAP. This is going to be a very interesting exercise, and well worth giving it our best shot if you'll excuse the pun...
Alan
As you say, errors could be systematic. Fortunately, that sort of error is usually able to be recognised and addressed. So I agree there will need to be some thorough testing and refinement of calibration etc. But that's okay - I don't know of anyone who is pushing for their adoption Australia-wide ASAP. This is going to be a very interesting exercise, and well worth giving it our best shot if you'll excuse the pun...
Alan
Menu
Newest members