TargetTalk

Hi guys 'n gals,

Sorry to post another "which is best?" question but here goes (the answer to such Qs is, IMHO, 'try 'em out and see which works best' but I hope you will see my predicament).

What are the relative pros & cons of the currently available serious diagnostic systems (I am aware of 3: Rika, SCATT, and Noptel)?

I would appreciate it if those "in the know" would say a few words about ease of set up (hardware and software) and ease of data presentation (in the context of ease of interpretation). I am no Luddite, but its always useful to know peoples' experiences with these things.

Cheers me dears.

Mike

General comments first:

I bought a Rika aafter going throught he steps listed below and I like it just fine. All of the trainers do fundamentally the same things (yes, there are 3 and you listed them) with slightly different technologies (bopth hardware and software).

The Noptel is the "Cadillac" (Toyota?) of the three. Scatt and Rika are much cheaper but somewhat less flexible on some activities.

Here's "process" recommendation:

- Try the archives; this is a "classic" discussion we have every 6-8 months here (I know that doesn't seem very helpful)

- Try the Hitchhiker's Guide sections on electronic trainers:

http://www.pilkguns.com/hhg.shtml

- Think about what you want to use the electronic trainer for. Then go to the individual vendors web sites. Findt he equipment that works best for you. Ask any specific questions you might have unresolved in this forum. Then buy what you need.


Steve Swartz

Cheers Steve,

Will do.

By the way - its interesting how we ARE separated by a common language! Cadillacs have absolutely no caché in Europe so my first reaction to your post was "oh-oh - don't get the Noptel" - but I guess you mean it has the highest price tag?

Thanks for taking the time to post even though you could have directed me to the search engine.

Much appreciated.

Mike

Mike

Although all of the named systems are extremely good, as a pistol shooter you will need to carefully consider the weight of the unit attached to the pistol.

A quick look at the Manufacturers' web sites show the Noptel as the heaviest at 96g with Rika and Scatt at 41g and 30g respectively.

This may not be a problem, you might be able to remove weights from the pistol to compensate. On the other hand.................

As an indication, I believe that the heaviest set of Morini balance weights for the 162EI is 80g.

I am also looking into this. the one advatage of the noptel i can see is that no live firing is needed to set up. which does apear to be nessary wit the rika. on the other hand th rika has an optional triger sensor!

If you have broad band Noptel have some nive videos you can down load on their site http://www.noptel.fi/eng/index.html

I am still undecided

SD

streamdreams wrote:I am also looking into this. the one advatage of the noptel i can see is that no live firing is needed to set up.

This really isn't much of an issue with either the Rika or the Scatt, especially if you are only using them on one gun. Calibration on all of the systems is relatively painless.

One issue I found wih my RIKA: I had to change the light I use to illuminate the target from a normal (tungsten) flood lamp to an LED lamp. Apparantly the large amount of near IR emitted by a normal bulb masked the IR LED's used to monitor motion of the muzzle. I have no experience with the other brands.

I found the change in balance due to the detector to be an issue. I remove the weights I normally use and this does help somewhat.

I think the units are way overpriced. I just bought an XM radio with 1 Gb of memory - really elegant technology - for 1/4 the price of a new RIKA. Try to get a used unit, or try to find another shooter to share the cost. After the initial glow of ownership wears off, you may find that the unit sits on the shelf quite a bit.
YMMV
Fred

Yep, being the cadillac would mean it has no punch, the interior of a red light establishment and bad brakes... attributes I somehow fail to connect with the subject at hand... :-)

The usual choice on this side of the pond is between a RIKA or a SCATT due to cost considerations. There are a couple of interface considerations that aren't always mentioned. The RIKA powers its targeting diodes from a power supply at the target holder. The SCATT powers it from a cable attached to the base unit. Wives and family may limit your ability to string an exposed cable down the hall or across the living room.

The SCATT has a native USB interface that works well with the current crop of laptops. The RIKA needs an adapter and is supposed to be finicky about what brand of one to boot. The adapter works well but adds more cable and clutter to the hardware bundle.

I chose the RIKA for its lack of target cable. I have a semi-permanent setup across my office which makes leaving the unit hooked up easier. I made a carrying box for for the hardware and cable for when I want to set up my 10 meter hallway range or take everything to the club. You will use it more if it is easy to get going. Any setup that is inconvenient to use will eventually end up being an expesive piece of closet filler.

Larry

I was pro rika but i cant help but look at Noptel's other products and wonder. Plus the software of the rika used some realy old version of windows just look at the size of the buttons etc in the down load version

????

SD

One aspect often forgotten in this regular healthy debate is the analysis and interpretation of the results. Lots of data is collected but putting it into context and with purpose if sometime lost. We were fortunate to have somebody assist us greatly in our early years of using SCATT (or insert you favourite Electronic Trainer).

Several of us are now using this tool for our own use and to help others. The are precious few articles from competent and credible sources regarding the interpretation of ET’s for Pistol.

PaulT wrote:One aspect often forgotten in this regular healthy debate is the analysis and interpretation of the results.

That Hit the nail on the head ! That's my main problem , ok i can record but what does it mean?

SD

Fred Mannis wrote:One issue I found wih my RIKA: I had to change the light I use to illuminate the target from a normal (tungsten) flood lamp to an LED lamp. Apparantly the large amount of near IR emitted by a normal bulb masked the IR LED's used to monitor motion of the muzzle. I have no experience with the other brands.

I found the change in balance due to the detector to be an issue. I remove the weights I normally use and this does help somewhat.

I think the units are way overpriced. I just bought an XM radio with 1 Gb of memory - really elegant technology - for 1/4 the price of a new RIKA. Try to get a used unit, or try to find another shooter to share the cost. After the initial glow of ownership wears off, you may find that the unit sits on the shelf quite a bit.
YMMV
Fred

It's called economy of scale, how many XM units do you think they will sell as opposed to how many Rika (or Scatt) units.

Posting to an aging topic...

Our training group coach brought a SCAT to the range last night and it didn't have any cable from the target to the main unit. Same as the RIKA. Noptel uses the reflective targets - also no cable to target.

The SCAT seemed harder to align than the RIKA. RIKA takes seconds with no mechanical step, SCAT and Noptel both require mechanical alignment and without someone to look at the screen would be hard work.

The SCAT includes the all important "length of trace" which RIKA and Noptel lack. Otherwise from a stats and interpretation perspective, I thought the RIKA and SCAT were pretty similar - RIKA looks nicer.

I'm fortunate the club has all three, so I intend to try them all over time.

CROB wrote:Our training group coach brought a SCAT to the range last night and it didn't have any cable from the target to the main unit.

Did it have a light grey metal control box? It sounds like one of the very old units (7-8 years or more) with a separate power supply for the target unit.

If so then it was far less accurate than the later units with the target unit powered from the control unit. Also, it only sampled at 125Hz whereas the later ones changed to 200Hz

Not sure I understand what you mean about the Rika needing a cable "from the target to the main box?"

Also, the "all important length of trace?" What is that, and why is it important? The Rika is callibrated in milliseconds before/after shot (color coded) . . . the "distance" is apparent on the display . . . and the time/distance is given by the distance between the dots . . . or?

Steve Swartz

First congratulations to David Levene going over 1000 post on TT. Well done!

Scatt has been in development for many years. There are at least 5 main versions out there that I know of, and each one of those has several subversions making it quite complicated to know what is what.

So... Yes the older versions were sometimes (ok, often) difficult to calibrate. Sometimes requiring two people to do it. One to aim and hold the rifle still and a second to adjust the screws. THAT IS OVER! I don't want to hear that Scatt is difficult to calibrate again! The new Scatt USB needs one calibration shot (like the Rika) and it automatically centers the grouping on the target. You can and still do need to make fine adjustments to get the group centered on the target.

Next, the software is also in continuous development. The latest version is from earlier this year. Not sure how old the latest Rika ware is, but it has not changed. It even has sound for biofeedback if you want.

The USB connection eliminates the "black box." Everything is done in the computer or in the USB system. It really is an elegant system. It is available at a reasonable price.

Yes, there is a dearth of analysis information out there. Before you say why don't you write up a comprehensive how to and post it free on the internet, allow me to say no. Coaches who attend the Advanced Coach course in the USA, either rifle or pistol get that information. They pay for the course, they are interested in improving their coaching abilities, so they get it.

And BTW, those of you who call yourself coaches who are not coaches in the NRA/USA Shooting/CMP Coach Education Program are missing out.
For our friends in England and the rest of Europe where coach education is mandatory, it is not here in the USA. As we know, anyone can call themself a coach and there is little that can be done about it. We rely on the character of the individuals who are truly interested in helping teach others about this great sport, to know that they need training to get them started in their coaching career on the right track.

So all you pistol guys in th USA, I hope you will consider getting involved in the coach education program and learn how to teach it to a young person. The future of the short gun in the USA doesn't look too bright if we don't get some young, new blood into pistol shooting.

So on Monday I sugggest that you contact Bob Foth at USA Shooting, 719-866-4881, to schedule a pistol coach course in your part of the country. He has funds to subsidize the course to make it even more affordable than it already is. We need you to become involved now before the sport goes the way of the Dodo bird or running target in the USA.

Best Wishes for Good Shooting,

Marcus Raab
National Coach Trainer
NRA

Marcus,
You make some excellent points. But let me suggest that the 'dearth of analysis information' is not simply the lack of attendance at the Advanced Coaching course. I would lay it on the doorstep of the equipment manufacturers. The manual I received with my $1000 RIKA pales in comparison with the manuals I receive for other sophisticated electronic equipment (computers, audio/video equipment).

Fred

Here is another system: the SAM wireless trainer:
http://www.knestel.de/index.php?id=47

slavochk wrote:Here is another system: the SAM wireless trainer:
http://www.knestel.de/index.php?id=47

I don't know if the latest versions of the SAM have changed but the earlier ones were not dependant on where you were aiming. They just assumed that the centre of your hold was in the correct place. The sensing was not optical but used accelerometers (I think that is the correct term) to sense gun movement and report back to the controller.

I was never too happy with the concept that your consistency of shot-to-shot aiming shouldn't enter the equation, but never worked with it enough to justify that unease.