Would it matter???pilkguns wrote:
Anything I missed?
It appears to be a done deal, regardless..
Jerry
Electronic Target at Perry
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, Isabel1130
-
Jerry Keefer
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:34 am
- Location: Maidens, Va.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
+1 on both. The portable setup is particularly appealing, as it could be shared among disciplines. I'd envisage a target trailer system with 5-10 targets per trailer. Bring all to Camp Perry, move individually as needed the rest of the year.pilkguns wrote:There is talk of creating a portable setup with them, that could be used for regionals in other parts of the country.
If I was king, heads would roll and pistol shooting would be done with iron sights, period.
Do they have software available for MLAIC scoring?
-
john bickar
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 am
- Location: Corner of Walk & Don't Walk
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
john bickar wrote:I don't think I'd be able to see red light/green light with my 1" Ultradot. I've never shot bullseye on electronic targets before, but I think the tube would cover both lights.
Anyone who shot on them at Perry this year able to confirm or deny that guess?
You are correct. The NRA says a buzzer, instead of a light is the solution, but if you are deaf, and shooting with a red Dot, tough luck I guess.
I will be watching with interest to see when the first ADA lawsuit is filed. Half the older shooters, I know are deaf, and take their hearing aids out to shoot, for obvious reasons. They need the dot, because their eye sight is not good enough for irons.
No, there is no X or anything in the black.
No, you cannot see the lights with a dot scope.
Yes, I'm sure you can shoot the crap out of them a they will still probably work.
No, I don't want to stand there pounding out shot after shot in the pursuit of "saving time".
No, I don't understand exactly how much money would be saved.
Using a buzzer and non turning targets at a local match is a pain, believe me I know.
Here is my last post from the other site for reference. (wsith some additional thoughts as they take a while to leak out).
While I appreciate all the efforts made to explain how the electronic targets work, what they are capable of etc. That is all well and good. Yes, they can record shots and calculated scores. The main points I made before remain.
The rules do not allow for a registered match without turning targets. Most "competitors" will not have the availability to train on the system or any similar system. The timing and conditions of the match will change significantly and that changes the character of the competition.
I'll bet the action pistol guys would be going nuts if they had to do barricades with lights rather than turning targets. I guess the mover will be way more interesting to set up with electroinics? What's highpower going to do, put a light bulb at every position so the shooters will know when to start, rather than having target rise?
So why can't the NRA get a new system that is consistent with the existing rules? Even if they change the rules, why would the NRA have a national match with operations and conditions that most competitors could not train for?
My point is that the different shooting diciplines may all shoot on similar targets, but some of the intrinsic part of the game is how the targets are presented and the conditions of the match.
Making changes always has other consequences. So how many new shooters do you have that have come to the matches for "production" and "metallic" or is it just the same shooters looking to get a classification in something different?
Making conventional into international and potentially driving away existing shooters would not seem to be the path to increased participation. Creating even more division among the shooters; civilian, military, professional, etc. should not result from any changes. And just saving money should not be the goal lhere.
Remember, increased participation is the direct result of more MATCHES, not more CHANGES in the matches.
Cecil "Talking to the Wind" Rhodes
No, you cannot see the lights with a dot scope.
Yes, I'm sure you can shoot the crap out of them a they will still probably work.
No, I don't want to stand there pounding out shot after shot in the pursuit of "saving time".
No, I don't understand exactly how much money would be saved.
Using a buzzer and non turning targets at a local match is a pain, believe me I know.
Here is my last post from the other site for reference. (wsith some additional thoughts as they take a while to leak out).
While I appreciate all the efforts made to explain how the electronic targets work, what they are capable of etc. That is all well and good. Yes, they can record shots and calculated scores. The main points I made before remain.
The rules do not allow for a registered match without turning targets. Most "competitors" will not have the availability to train on the system or any similar system. The timing and conditions of the match will change significantly and that changes the character of the competition.
I'll bet the action pistol guys would be going nuts if they had to do barricades with lights rather than turning targets. I guess the mover will be way more interesting to set up with electroinics? What's highpower going to do, put a light bulb at every position so the shooters will know when to start, rather than having target rise?
So why can't the NRA get a new system that is consistent with the existing rules? Even if they change the rules, why would the NRA have a national match with operations and conditions that most competitors could not train for?
My point is that the different shooting diciplines may all shoot on similar targets, but some of the intrinsic part of the game is how the targets are presented and the conditions of the match.
Making changes always has other consequences. So how many new shooters do you have that have come to the matches for "production" and "metallic" or is it just the same shooters looking to get a classification in something different?
Making conventional into international and potentially driving away existing shooters would not seem to be the path to increased participation. Creating even more division among the shooters; civilian, military, professional, etc. should not result from any changes. And just saving money should not be the goal lhere.
Remember, increased participation is the direct result of more MATCHES, not more CHANGES in the matches.
Cecil "Talking to the Wind" Rhodes
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
One other point;
The units would be used for the smallbore matches as well.
I shoot 60% of my matches with MP3 player commands and a buzzer.
I am old and have lost half my hearing, but am able to hear the buzzer, as long as no one shoots an early shot. That is a problem with the buzzer. I have shot matches where a shooter continues to fire early, then everyone starts shooting. In that case all the line is shooting before the official time.
Not a big deal in these matches.
With eTargets this would be a problem. Would it be a range alibi? Would the entire line loose a shot?
I do not shoot international, so what do they do Incase of this occurrence.
One positive thing would be the big monitors set up behind the line so you can watch the shooting real time. I was at the NCAA championship at Ft. Benning and Columbus College last year, and really enjoyed watching the top shooters as the match progressed.
The units would be used for the smallbore matches as well.
I shoot 60% of my matches with MP3 player commands and a buzzer.
I am old and have lost half my hearing, but am able to hear the buzzer, as long as no one shoots an early shot. That is a problem with the buzzer. I have shot matches where a shooter continues to fire early, then everyone starts shooting. In that case all the line is shooting before the official time.
Not a big deal in these matches.
With eTargets this would be a problem. Would it be a range alibi? Would the entire line loose a shot?
I do not shoot international, so what do they do Incase of this occurrence.
One positive thing would be the big monitors set up behind the line so you can watch the shooting real time. I was at the NCAA championship at Ft. Benning and Columbus College last year, and really enjoyed watching the top shooters as the match progressed.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
"I do not shoot international, so what do they do Incase of this occurrence"
They have lights, which they can see, because they do not use red dots, and they start with their arm at a 45 degree angle.
Unless the electronic target is active, any shot before or after the time period, is scored as a miss.
For a good primer on electronic target operation, watch this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LJsf3NU6qIU
They have lights, which they can see, because they do not use red dots, and they start with their arm at a 45 degree angle.
Unless the electronic target is active, any shot before or after the time period, is scored as a miss.
For a good primer on electronic target operation, watch this video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LJsf3NU6qIU
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
"would be the big monitors set up behind the line so you can watch the shooting real time. I was at the NCAA championship at Ft. Benning and Columbus College last year, and really enjoyed watching the top shooters as the match progressed"
TrooperJake, I admire your enthusiasm for the positive aspects of electronic targets. I like to watch shooting too, but very few people do.
Please remember that the system and the big monitors at Benning were financed by the taxpayers.
The NRA has mostly justified their decision to go to electronic targets on the basis of what they believe to be life cycle cost savings.
If this is true, there will be no big screen monitors, for spectators, and there will be no tractor rigs pulling trailers of portable electronic targets around the country to regionals. It simply will be too costly.
To top it off, it will be almost impossible to enjoy watching shooting on an electronic target with a pair of binoculars or a sporting scope, so what little spectator appeal there is now at Perry will go away.
TrooperJake, I admire your enthusiasm for the positive aspects of electronic targets. I like to watch shooting too, but very few people do.
Please remember that the system and the big monitors at Benning were financed by the taxpayers.
The NRA has mostly justified their decision to go to electronic targets on the basis of what they believe to be life cycle cost savings.
If this is true, there will be no big screen monitors, for spectators, and there will be no tractor rigs pulling trailers of portable electronic targets around the country to regionals. It simply will be too costly.
To top it off, it will be almost impossible to enjoy watching shooting on an electronic target with a pair of binoculars or a sporting scope, so what little spectator appeal there is now at Perry will go away.
-
john bickar
- Posts: 618
- Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 3:58 am
- Location: Corner of Walk & Don't Walk
-
ghillieman
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Mineola, TX
An old shooter once told me, it doesnt matter how the game is played the best shooters will come out on top anyways.
Bring on the new targets, or dont, doesnt matter. Either way as long as we ALL shoot the same set up during the Nationals it wont matter.
We have saying in the Marines, Semper Gumby, it means always flexible.
Bring on the new targets, or dont, doesnt matter. Either way as long as we ALL shoot the same set up during the Nationals it wont matter.
We have saying in the Marines, Semper Gumby, it means always flexible.
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
Isabel;
Excellent video.
If this is true, there will be no big screen monitors, for spectators, and there will be no tractor rigs pulling trailers of portable electronic targets around the country to regionals. It simply will be too costly.
To top it off, it will be almost impossible to enjoy watching shooting on an electronic target with a pair of binoculars or a sporting scope, so what little spectator appeal there is now at Perry will go away.
How do you know this, for a fact.
You are stating facts that do not yet exist.
I know you want this to go away.
I for one, am not as enthusiastic as you picture me.
I see the negative elements, and the positive. I agree with many of the negative ideas posted. Personally I think it would be an advantage for the elite shooters.
One thing I do know, it is inevitable that electronic targets will be used in bullseye matches. The CMP and the NRA seem to have made up their minds.
Excellent video.
If this is true, there will be no big screen monitors, for spectators, and there will be no tractor rigs pulling trailers of portable electronic targets around the country to regionals. It simply will be too costly.
To top it off, it will be almost impossible to enjoy watching shooting on an electronic target with a pair of binoculars or a sporting scope, so what little spectator appeal there is now at Perry will go away.
How do you know this, for a fact.
You are stating facts that do not yet exist.
I know you want this to go away.
I for one, am not as enthusiastic as you picture me.
I see the negative elements, and the positive. I agree with many of the negative ideas posted. Personally I think it would be an advantage for the elite shooters.
One thing I do know, it is inevitable that electronic targets will be used in bullseye matches. The CMP and the NRA seem to have made up their minds.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
"How do you know this, for a fact. "
I don't, but I based my reasoning on the NRA's stated goal of saving money as their motive for going to an electronic target system at Perry.
I have made my living predicting costs, cost overruns, and writing modifications to poorly written procurement contracts which could not be fulfilled, as originally written. My business speciality is cost estimating and pricing contracts, and purchases.
My husband is a supervisory civil engineer who is in charge of all construction, and maintenance on a large US Joint operations base. His real world experience in getting stuff built, and installed, especially on government property, is even greater than mine.
I have bought literally millions of dollars of military hardware, and services. some specialized, and some of it, off the shelf technology.
I have also worked on classified weapons procurement programs at Ft Sill Oklahoma.
What I do know is that the NRA is not the US government. Therefore, if they purchase an electronic target system because they believe it to be cost saving, it should be understood,that it will not be done the way the target systems are done for the Olympics where money is not a concern, and audience viewing/ TV is a concern.
In addition, the NRA to my knowledge does not currently have or maintain a fleet of tractor trailers for moving electronic targets around the country.
If that is the plan, all this moving equipment is going to have to be purchased, or rented, in addition to the cost and maintenance of the electronic targets themselves.
None of it, is cheap, or free.
It....all.....adds.....up
You are also wrong,that I want the electronic target idea to go away. What I want is for the procurement to be done in a professional manner, so it really is cost effective, and better than what we have now at Perry.
This will only happen if technologically savvy people with procurement expertise are allowed to examine the cost estimates, the specifications, and the roll out plan.
So far, we have heard from no one who seems to have the kind of engineering or procurement experience to execute this plan, and is actually involved in project.
If this project turns into a disaster, it will hurt me, as much as anyone else who wants to see conventional pistol endure. That is my only interest, pecuniary or otherwise.
I don't, but I based my reasoning on the NRA's stated goal of saving money as their motive for going to an electronic target system at Perry.
I have made my living predicting costs, cost overruns, and writing modifications to poorly written procurement contracts which could not be fulfilled, as originally written. My business speciality is cost estimating and pricing contracts, and purchases.
My husband is a supervisory civil engineer who is in charge of all construction, and maintenance on a large US Joint operations base. His real world experience in getting stuff built, and installed, especially on government property, is even greater than mine.
I have bought literally millions of dollars of military hardware, and services. some specialized, and some of it, off the shelf technology.
I have also worked on classified weapons procurement programs at Ft Sill Oklahoma.
What I do know is that the NRA is not the US government. Therefore, if they purchase an electronic target system because they believe it to be cost saving, it should be understood,that it will not be done the way the target systems are done for the Olympics where money is not a concern, and audience viewing/ TV is a concern.
In addition, the NRA to my knowledge does not currently have or maintain a fleet of tractor trailers for moving electronic targets around the country.
If that is the plan, all this moving equipment is going to have to be purchased, or rented, in addition to the cost and maintenance of the electronic targets themselves.
None of it, is cheap, or free.
It....all.....adds.....up
You are also wrong,that I want the electronic target idea to go away. What I want is for the procurement to be done in a professional manner, so it really is cost effective, and better than what we have now at Perry.
This will only happen if technologically savvy people with procurement expertise are allowed to examine the cost estimates, the specifications, and the roll out plan.
So far, we have heard from no one who seems to have the kind of engineering or procurement experience to execute this plan, and is actually involved in project.
If this project turns into a disaster, it will hurt me, as much as anyone else who wants to see conventional pistol endure. That is my only interest, pecuniary or otherwise.
It may matter a lot if only some of the shooters can train on the new system and some cannot. Remember, when we are taking about the nationals, we are generally talking about a few points or X's separating the winner from first loser and all the rest. All may shoot on the same at the Nationals, but what about the rest of the year.An old shooter once told me, it doesnt matter how the game is played the best shooters will come out on top anyways.
Bring on the new targets, or dont, doesnt matter. Either way as long as we ALL shoot the same set up during the Nationals it wont matter.
We have saying in the Marines, Semper Gumby, it means always flexible.
Being flexible is one thing, being bent over is another.
-
Jerry Keefer
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:34 am
- Location: Maidens, Va.
I do not see shooters starting Timed and Rapid, in the raised pistol position as we do now.. How ridiculous is that ? Every Master/HM should clean those targets.. This system WILL bring changes to the game as we know it now.
Just look at the CMP proposals..Things are getting out of control..
I am not impressed with the allegations that registrations, scoring, records keeping is a huge financial burden.. What did they do prior to the computer age..??
Dollars generated, figured at the $200 minimum for 660 competitors is $132,000. But I am sure the intake was more, with the after date penalties. Now there's another issue. Penalties.. When I ran matches, we took enters until the line was full.. and glad to get them.
Many of the awards are sponsor donations.
The Comp Committee is saying it costs $700. + to put one shooter thru the course of fire... WHAT...???
I have run quite a few Regional, State and local championships in PPC with approx. 100 participants, and always managed to give back to the shooters.
Some one said "Follow the Money." Something is wrong and it is not with the targets..
Jerry
Just look at the CMP proposals..Things are getting out of control..
I am not impressed with the allegations that registrations, scoring, records keeping is a huge financial burden.. What did they do prior to the computer age..??
Dollars generated, figured at the $200 minimum for 660 competitors is $132,000. But I am sure the intake was more, with the after date penalties. Now there's another issue. Penalties.. When I ran matches, we took enters until the line was full.. and glad to get them.
Many of the awards are sponsor donations.
The Comp Committee is saying it costs $700. + to put one shooter thru the course of fire... WHAT...???
I have run quite a few Regional, State and local championships in PPC with approx. 100 participants, and always managed to give back to the shooters.
Some one said "Follow the Money." Something is wrong and it is not with the targets..
Jerry
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
The Comp Committee is saying it costs $700. + to put one shooter thru the course of fire... WHAT...???
I have run quite a few Regional, State and local championships in PPC with approx. 100 participants, and always managed to give back to the shooters.
Some one said "Follow the Money." Something is wrong and it is not with the targets..
Jerry
Canton manages to make money off of their match, with an entry fee half of what it is at Perry. Maybe the NRA should ask them how they do it?
I suspect the answer is that the NRA has become a top heavy bureaucracy, much like the federal government.
I have run quite a few Regional, State and local championships in PPC with approx. 100 participants, and always managed to give back to the shooters.
Some one said "Follow the Money." Something is wrong and it is not with the targets..
Jerry
Canton manages to make money off of their match, with an entry fee half of what it is at Perry. Maybe the NRA should ask them how they do it?
I suspect the answer is that the NRA has become a top heavy bureaucracy, much like the federal government.
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
The decision for the CMP and NRA to go electronic is not a quick rash decision.
We had this discussion exactly one year ago, after Camp Perry.
A lot of the concerns shooters had last year have been discussed and addressed. Scott gave us many answers to these concerns.
The NRA is in it's third year, looking into options for Camp Perry.
They may make some very bad decisions, in the end.
But they are doing something about a very antiquated system.
They are our governing body, and are the decision makers. Someone always gets hurt by new technologies. I more than most know this for an actual fact.
My life was destroyed by the introduction of computers. It took me years, but I adapted and overcomed the new way of life.
World wide, converting to eTargets has not destroyed the sport, but made it stronger. Scores are higher than ever.
Buying a 53 foot trailer for storage and transportation is not a great expense.
The CMP already has a couple, and the NRA has numerous trailers.
For many reasons we continue to loose shooters to our sport. Bullseye in many areas is hanging on by a thread. Govt regs are continuing to hurt us.
In NY you can no longer buy a Pardini, Walther, Hammerli or other high end pistols.
We had this discussion exactly one year ago, after Camp Perry.
A lot of the concerns shooters had last year have been discussed and addressed. Scott gave us many answers to these concerns.
The NRA is in it's third year, looking into options for Camp Perry.
They may make some very bad decisions, in the end.
But they are doing something about a very antiquated system.
They are our governing body, and are the decision makers. Someone always gets hurt by new technologies. I more than most know this for an actual fact.
My life was destroyed by the introduction of computers. It took me years, but I adapted and overcomed the new way of life.
World wide, converting to eTargets has not destroyed the sport, but made it stronger. Scores are higher than ever.
Buying a 53 foot trailer for storage and transportation is not a great expense.
The CMP already has a couple, and the NRA has numerous trailers.
For many reasons we continue to loose shooters to our sport. Bullseye in many areas is hanging on by a thread. Govt regs are continuing to hurt us.
In NY you can no longer buy a Pardini, Walther, Hammerli or other high end pistols.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
"Buying a 53 foot trailer for storage and transportation is not a great expense.
The CMP already has a couple, and the NRA has numerous trailers. "
That is not the only issue, it is the diesel fuel that it would take to move them around the country, and try and set them up on ranges where the benches are fixed, and the targets mechanisms concreted into the ground.
I can think of no ranges other than Raton, and Perry that would be suitable for setting up mobile trailers with targets on them, (assuming the match could afford to pay the transportation expenses required to borrow the targets from Perry)
Neither Perry or Raton would work because there are no berms to protect the trailers.
Each electronic target is going to have to be moved multiple times during a 2700, or the range must have the ability to move the benches up to the target.
The two ranges that can move the benches, or maintain two sets, are Perry, and the Whittington center.
You cannot shoot at targets mounted on trailers unprotected by berms.
It is these sorts of details, that people who do not do procurement or engineering for a living, don't think of.
This is why I am worried about the acquisition process, and that worry is shared by people who run existing matches, and maintain the existing conventional pistol ranges.
The CMP already has a couple, and the NRA has numerous trailers. "
That is not the only issue, it is the diesel fuel that it would take to move them around the country, and try and set them up on ranges where the benches are fixed, and the targets mechanisms concreted into the ground.
I can think of no ranges other than Raton, and Perry that would be suitable for setting up mobile trailers with targets on them, (assuming the match could afford to pay the transportation expenses required to borrow the targets from Perry)
Neither Perry or Raton would work because there are no berms to protect the trailers.
Each electronic target is going to have to be moved multiple times during a 2700, or the range must have the ability to move the benches up to the target.
The two ranges that can move the benches, or maintain two sets, are Perry, and the Whittington center.
You cannot shoot at targets mounted on trailers unprotected by berms.
It is these sorts of details, that people who do not do procurement or engineering for a living, don't think of.
This is why I am worried about the acquisition process, and that worry is shared by people who run existing matches, and maintain the existing conventional pistol ranges.
Last edited by Isabel1130 on Sat Jul 19, 2014 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I respect you have been in this sport longer than I have and have run many matches but I completely disagree with you that it will make it harder to train for the national matches.CR10X wrote:
It may matter a lot if only some of the shooters can train on the new system and some cannot. Remember, when we are taking about the nationals, we are generally talking about a few points or X's separating the winner from first loser and all the rest. All may shoot on the same at the Nationals, but what about the rest of the year.
Many people train for a match that has turning targets WITHOUT turning targets. They use an MP3 recording that has a buzzer in it.
When turning targets were introduced how many people could train on them? It took a while but ranges started to install them and today some people have access to them to train on them every time they go the range.
The same thing will happen after electronic targets are in use. Slowly ranges will add them.
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
Chris wrote:[quote="
The same thing will happen after electronic targets are in use. Slowly ranges will add them.
This did not happen in the US after USA shooting went to electronic targets. Why would bullseye be different? Both occupy a very small market share in the overall target shooting market.
This is why the entire USA shooting team trains in Colorado Springs at the Olympic training center (or at Benning).
There will not be enough demand for electronic targets at the smaller venues to justify either the cost, or the maintenance.