OzFclass

For Aus to keep competitive Internationally we will need to find a blend of comps with manual and e-targets, until:
The e-target standards are set by ICFRA, and NRAA, with a description of what certification will look like, pretty sure it will not cost thousands of dollars.

That day will come when the change will have too much momentum, just like our mobile phones have replaced landlines, calculators, paper calendars, the list goes on….

As for the speed shooting…… Will be difficult to win a Queens if all a shooter can do is that. Most good shooters can go slow or fast.

I have personally seen a few of those commenting in this post doing very well at Queens on manual targets go slow or fast. (Fast like in 4min flat on manual targets. That is not slow, and obviously takes proficient markers. )

Things will change, that is the world…… .303 to 7.62 to .308win (TR) to FStd to FOpen to FTR…. There will be something new…. Very few .303 shoots around nowadays, but they are still there….. many TR shooters around…. FClass is getting more popular…….. Target systems will change…..

Would also be fantastic for us if there was a V2 like manual target Bisley type series here in Aus, I will walk, run, cycle, drive or fly to get there:)

agro wrote:I refer you to this section as what would be the required criteria,

6. PERMISSABLE ERROR IN SHOT LOCATION

6.1. Electronic targets shall be capable of locating shots within 1mm of the centre of the actual shot hole on
the target and in any of the operating environmental conditions encountered in Australia. Whilst shots
are gauged at present to tighter tolerances, it is recognised that the practice of pasting existing paper
targets onto frames and environmental factors invariably introduces some wider tolerances, estimated at
least 1mm. Electronic targets should at least match this current capability.

Can this be established on any of the systems being used yet??

Where is this information coming from? I can't find it in the SSR's.
Is this part of a wish list?

Even the NRA (US) doesn't mandate such a high level of precision.
NRA sanctioned hi-power events using ET's (Rule 10.17.1(b) require only 6.35mm (0.25") positional accuracy. ( NRA 'Fullbore Book of Electronic Rules')
The NRA haven't approved any ET's for competition, so presumably their requirements are a fairly high bar. A 1mm accuracy requirement is many orders of magnitude greater than a 6.35mm requirement.

Some air rifle ET's claim accuracy down to 0.25mm, but that is in a controlled environment with rigid targets and much lower velocities with a consistent projectile size. How many FB shooters actually insist on changing the settings in the ET setup to suit their calibre? It's an option in Shotmarker Targets. Why? Does it make a difference?

No system, no matter how good or how much you pay will ever be 100% accurate (including manual marking). Since no ET actually looks at the shot hole, you are relying on sensors and an algorithm to calculate the shot position.

All sorts of environmental factors get in the way of being 100% accurate

So what are you going to accept as a confidence interval? If you accept the statistical norm of 95%, then there is an approx 5% chance that the ET shot error is outside the 1mm parameter.
This is better than it sounds, as a great deal of the shots won't be anywhere near a line and the 1mm accuracy won't matter (unless you can shoot tighter than that). If you can't shoot at the 1mm level then a shot that just clips the line to turn a five into a six is only luck.

The thing that does my head in is: if we can't shoot at the 1mm level, then we are prepared to accept luck as part of winning and losing. WE like the ease and convenience of electronic scoring, but are not prepared to accept 'electronic luck'. WTF

If say 5% of shots are near a line, then at 95% accuracy (5% error), 1 in 400 shots will be (statistically) outside the 1mm criteria for scoring purposes.



Is that good enough?
The big questions are - How are you going to validate it and who is going to pay?

It's no good firing 100 shots, finding ten errors and then condemning the system, because 10 errors is outside the 95% criteria, thats' not how statistics works. You would need a very large data set, thousands of rounds (each) over a large number of targets to get some reliable numbers.

As I said in previously, the market will determine what is acceptable - a (perceived) inaccurate system will lose sales and disappear or the maker will be forced to improve to stay in business.

We are prepared to accept a target that flaps around in the breeze with say 5-10mm of movement but demand 1mm? accuracy - nonsense.

Pete

PeteFox wrote:Where is this information coming from? I can't find it in the SSR's.
Is this part of a wish list?

Pete,

A few years ago, before someone dicked around with the NRAA website, the following page led to a large amount of material that is relevant to this discussion
https://www.results.nraa.com.au/nraa-electronic-target-policy-documents/
If you go into that page and click on the links you'll get 404 errors. I have tried several times to get these documents restored but it hasn't happened, no explanation given.

The following 3 documents used to be available through the now orphaned links.

NRAA-Policy-Electronic-Targets.pdf
ElectronicTarget-Essentials.pdf
E-Targets-General-Requirements-Discussion.pdf

If people want to see them I'm sure Bob Pedersen, the former VRA Rules Director who authored them, would be able to provide us with copies.

Thank you Alan
I wasn't aware of those documents but I'll ask Bob for a copy
Having said that, if we are looking to operate within the rules, then these documents are obviously not part of the rules.
I suspect for the reasons given in my previous post.
Pete

PeteFox wrote:Thank you Alan
I wasn't aware of those documents but I'll ask Bob for a copy
Having said that, if we are looking to operate within the rules, then these documents are obviously not part of the rules.
I suspect for the reasons given in my previous post.
Pete

On the other hand, the abandonment of these policies could be one of the reasons why Australia is now finding itself out on a limb in terms of international take-up of ETs, particularly for major competitions. Other countries appear to have a more cautious approach.

Redhawk wrote:Would also be fantastic for us if there was a V2 like manual target Bisley type series here in Aus, I will walk, run, cycle, drive or fly to get there:)

Jump in my car, I will be going for sure.

Might be interesting to run a poll on having a bisley comp on manuals or second choice ets with a delay?
Just to check level of interest

If bisley style is too much to handle you could do string fire with a 10 second delay for shot result then a further 30 second delay before shooting to simulate Bisley??
Bisley is a great way to shoot and get longer barrel life.

Bisley is shot in other countries
Possibly some don’t know what bisley is so I’ll try to explain
2 or 3 shooters on one target-one shoots and the next scores - rinse and repeat.
You have to keep a close eye on change in conditions from when you last shot.
I have used a system where you record flag position for each shot and this works well.
Not common in Australia but it it an enjoyable competition!

AlanF wrote:
The following 3 documents used to be available through the now orphaned links.

NRAA-Policy-Electronic-Targets.pdf
ElectronicTarget-Essentials.pdf
E-Targets-General-Requirements-Discussion.pdf

If people want to see them I'm sure Bob Pedersen, the former VRA Rules Director who authored them, would be able to provide us with copies.

Alan
I now have a tranche of information supplied by Bob.

A brief read through reveals that the "1mm" specification could not have been anything other than aspirational. The earliest document specifying 1mm dates back to February 2013 and actually states that the 1mm specification "is desirable" a step back from "shall be".

Permissible Error in Shot Location
6.1. It is desirable that Electronic targets be capable of locating shots within 1mm of the centre of the actual shot hole on the target and in
any of the environmental conditions encountered in Australia. Buyers should clearly establish with the supplier what accuracy a target is capable of when considering a purchase.

an extract from the document published on the NRAA website 2013




At the time I don't think that any electronic target system would have been capable of that level of accuracy.
I have never shot on Hexta targets, but widespread opinion seems to be that they are the 'gold standard'.

Hexta themselves publish accuracy data. The image below is from their website at https://www.hexsystems.com.au/productde ... y-results/



The mm value under the '95% of shots within +/- ' column, shows the real world figures of the gold standard system, making the 1mm figure ludicrous given that we are 8 years on from the aspirational goal. Enough said

I think we should move forward. Accept electronic targets as the present, not the future, and manual targets as wishful thinking.
The improvement needs to be made in how we manage what we've got so that as far as possible we eliminate doubt in the result.

Pete

PeteFox wrote:

AlanF wrote:
The following 3 documents used to be available through the now orphaned links.

NRAA-Policy-Electronic-Targets.pdf
ElectronicTarget-Essentials.pdf
E-Targets-General-Requirements-Discussion.pdf

If people want to see them I'm sure Bob Pedersen, the former VRA Rules Director who authored them, would be able to provide us with copies.

Alan
I now have a tranche of information supplied by Bob.

A brief read through reveals that the "1mm" specification could not have been anything other than aspirational. The earliest document specifying 1mm dates back to February 2013 and actually states that the 1mm specification "is desirable" a step back from "shall be".

Permissible Error in Shot Location
6.1. It is desirable that Electronic targets be capable of locating shots within 1mm of the centre of the actual shot hole on the target and in
any of the environmental conditions encountered in Australia. Buyers should clearly establish with the supplier what accuracy a target is capable of when considering a purchase.

an extract from the document published on the NRAA website 2013




At the time I don't think that any electronic target system would have been capable of that level of accuracy.
I have never shot on Hexta targets, but widespread opinion seems to be that they are the 'gold standard'.

Hexta themselves publish accuracy data. The image below is from their website at https://www.hexsystems.com.au/productde ... y-results/

hexta errors.jpg

The mm value under the '95% of shots within +/- ' column, shows the real world figures of the gold standard system, making the 1mm figure ludicrous given that we are 8 years on from the aspirational goal. Enough said

I think we should move forward. Accept electronic targets as the present, not the future, and manual targets as wishful thinking.
The improvement needs to be made in how we manage what we've got so that as far as possible we eliminate doubt in the resu

Pete

I doubt anyone would complain about the targets being accurate to within a few mm as they advertise and I have seen this sort of accuracy many times. The issues are when they targets are not so new and have a huge amount of shots through the centre, such as towards the end of a Queens, or even at some clubs where maintenance is not kept up how it should be. So while many ETs being used in big comps will be more than accurate enough, there have been a few times at Queens and club shoots where I have seen some targets which were definitely not working as well as some others. It is these targets where every F class guns is shooting noticeably worse than the targets next to them that are the issue.

I’ve seen shooters at clubs shoots wearing out barrels trying to get them to shoot, when moving over to the next target solved it. Understandably not all clubs can afford to maintain them 100% and being realistic a lot of recreational, club level shooters would never tell the difference, but how about at National level competition?

Tim N wrote:Might be interesting to run a poll on having a bisley comp on manuals or second choice ets with a delay?
Just to check level of interest

If bisley style is too much to handle you could do string fire with a 10 second delay for shot result then a further 30 second delay before shooting to simulate Bisley??
Bisley is a great way to shoot and get longer barrel life.

Bisley is shot in other countries
Possibly some don’t know what bisley is so I’ll try to explain
2 or 3 shooters on one target-one shoots and the next scores - rinse and repeat.
You have to keep a close eye on change in conditions from when you last shot.
I have used a system where you record flag position for each shot and this works well.
Not common in Australia but it it an enjoyable competition!

A bit more on this.
In Australia, we call pairs firing, or firing in 3s, Bisley style. In Bisley, and nearly all other countries, it is just called F class.
Australia and U.S are the only countries which string fire as we do. All other countries use pairs firing or firing or firing in 3s, so it is not some exotic concept. Some who have tried it here didn’t really like it, but many who have tried it loved it. It would be good to see a few more pairs or threes firing comps in Australia, even if it is just for the last day or last range (such as the Mace Cup in Belmont).

PeteFox wrote:...I think we should move forward. Accept electronic targets as the present, not the future, and manual targets as wishful thinking...

Of course electronic targets are the present, but so are manual targets, not only overseas but at many ranges around Australia.We have Hextas at Rosedale, probably the best ETs available, but we also have well maintained and frequently used manuals which for certain situations are the better option. For the next few years we need to provide appropriate practice opportunities for our international teams, and currently that means Bisley style on manual targets. Hopefully there are other similarly equipped ranges around Australia who aren't throwing in the towel on manuals just yet.

[quote="RDavies" It would be good to see a few more pairs or threes firing comps in Australia, even if it is just for the last day or last range (such as the Mace Cup in Belmont).[/quote]
The Mace Medal has been a Bisley comp for the last few years at the NRAA queens Belmont.
I know Mark F has been doing a great job to make changes at these events.

saum2 wrote:...The Mace Medal has been a Bisley comp for the last few years at the NRAA queens Belmont...

I presume that is run on manuals Geoff?

AlanF wrote:

saum2 wrote:...The Mace Medal has been a Bisley comp for the last few years at the NRAA queens Belmont...

I presume that is run on manuals Geoff?

No Alan, all on electronic Hextas which means the scorers have to be on the ball, which they were.