Poll on Electronic or Turning Targets at Camp Perry

After Perry would like to see the numbers on what people prefer.

Chip

So if they make the electronic targets turn everyone is happy?

I wouldn't mind if they changed us over to electronic turning targets.

I voted for turning targets.  While there may well be examples of using this technology in an outside environment, I haven't had the time or inclination to research it yet.  Indoors, I can see it working well, just not sold on its abilities outdoors as yet.  Varying light conditions from bright sunlight to dark overcast, rain-sometimes downpours, lightning, being slammed with 230 hardball, availability of the technology chosen to be available in 10-20 years (we all know how fast that changes), and the ability to put up and take down repeatedly without connections going bad.

As I mentioned, it may be a well proven system, I just haven't seen or explored it enough.  What we have going is falling apart, I don't think anyone is arguing that point  But, if this is for the National Matches, it behooves us to make sure whatever we replace it with will last as well. 

JMHO

Al

To the argument that the current system is falling apart--I could completely refurbish every worn component on the existing system for all 4 ranges for less money than it would cost to set up 1 range with the new non-turning electronic targets.

The NRA is not blameless in the current state of the equipment.  They have been leaving the system to disrepair on the grounds that they will be replacing it soon.  Allowing the old stuff to decay before you even have a proper plan in place for replacement is negligent.

im sure I heard  the ones the cmp will have at the new complex  will be turning targets,

Sorry but it's the purchasing manager in me, unless we have the whole picture you won't know which is more financially beneficial.

I'd like to know what all the costs are of running the event.  Current verses Proposed.

Some questions I have are:
How much does it cost for all the volunteers. 
Cost of recruiting - Follow up question do they see an issue getting volunteers in the future.  We do at our club.
Lost income on housing occupied by volunteers that could be rented out to the shooters.
Meals
Any transportation related to the volunteers (such as making vehicle(s) available)
Insurance for the event and do they need extra insurance for the volunteers
Would their insurance drop if no one was going forward of the firing line?
Consumables, targets, corrugated backers, rubber bands, etc...
What about "paid" workers costs.  Who are they how many and what do they do.

Ongoing target maintenance - actual costs no speculation.

I do know this, having retired from 35 years from a large corporation.  Smaller privately held companies could always get it done for less and they usually had a better solution.  I've seen several clubs that put a turning target range together for not much money.  It's all the other cost I'd like to know about.

"I've seen several clubs that put a turning target range together for not much money.  It's all the other cost I'd like to know about."  droning.

Quite a few yrs ago I was approached by one of my wife's customers and he, knowing I shot pistol at Perry, asked what had been done about replacing the target turning system. He told me the co he worked for had been engaged by NRA/DCM to design a new system. He had done the work and related he had given them a proposal for a simple easy to assemble and economical air driven system. Apparently it was dropped.
Ron Habegger

To me the simple question of whether to have electronic targets or not is overshadowed now by the process that is being taken by the NRA on how to go about their implementation.  The article that Dennis Willing published is misleading at the least and some feel has outright lies in it. 

Am I for electronic targets.  My simple yes/no answer is Yes.  When the issue gets complicated by the process that Dennis and/or the NRA is taking, my answer turns to No.

Camp Perry is always a different animal than other matches. The top shooters will be able to hammer them into the center and won't complain as long as the playing field is level. Electronic targets will reduce problems with faulty or mishandled timers, target pasting will be eliminated and the cost of target material will be reduced. The matches will run smoother, quicker (no scoring & fewer challenges) and no lugging around all that stuff to and from the target trailers. The only downside I can see is not being able to take home that one special target that was shot at Perry.

A lot of the "top" shooters ARE the ones with concerns and did express those concerns at the meeting and continue to do so. Brian Zins is coordinating the comments and sending to the NRA. There will not be a level playing field, since the same type of field would not be available for all competitors throughout the rest of the year. If you want to make it illegal for any shooters to use electronic targets except at Perry, how do you think that would be enforced to make a level playing field as you described.

Electronic targets have consumables. It is highly likely that shots in the white will not be repaired until the entire relay is complete. 

If there is a problem with a target, the shooter will have to move along with all their gear. Situations like this will be more frequent than they've been. Does the moving shooter feel like they had an even chance with a non-moving shooter?  Probably not. 

Rolling this out at the biggest match of the year doesn't sound like a good idea.

CR10X wrote:A lot of the "top" shooters ARE the ones with concerns and did express those concerns at the meeting and continue to do so.  Brian Zins is coordinating the comments and sending to the NRA. There will not be a level playing field, since the same type of field would not be available for all competitors throughout the rest of the year.  If you want to make it illegal for any shooters to use electronic targets except at Perry, how do you think that would be enforced to make a level playing field as you described.

Where does the idea of making it illegal to use electronic targets anywhere else, but at Camp Perry come from? My point is that other matches are different than Camp Perry. AFAIK, there is no place other than Camp Perry, where one shoots on new full face targets with backers. Hauls them around, moves equipment from the long line to the short line, stands on uneven turf, etc. I understand the resistance to change, traditions, etc., but I think that Dennis is on the right road.

DeweyHales wrote:Electronic targets have consumables. It is highly likely that shots in the white will not be repaired until the entire relay is complete. 

If there is a problem with a target, the shooter will have to move along with all their gear. Situations like this will be more frequent than they've been. Does the moving shooter feel like they had an even chance with a non-moving shooter?  Probably not. 

Rolling this out at the biggest match of the year doesn't sound like a good idea.

True that there are consumables with electronic targets, but nothing near what is now used (not even considering the labor intensive target repair). Having shot on electronic targets at air pistol matches, I really can't see where the good is outweighed by the bad. The system certainly won't be perfect, but it has got to be better than the broken down equipment that is there now.

You are the one that said "as long as the playing field is level".  That field exists all year, not just at Perry.  A lot of us do our very best to train for Perry. So if all competitors can't access and train on electronic targets all year, how can the playing field be level?  So to make the level field you mentioned, just make it so no shooters can use those targets except at Perry.  That was your basis of comment that I was addressing.  I'm looking for fairness to all competitors, not just the lucky few with access.  

If anyone really wants to, they can find someway to turn targets.  Asheville and many others even do it manually, and the operation and timing are great.  How can we get to that level today with the current cost and technical limits of the electronic targets.

Yes, some of us do shoot in the wind and rain and heat and cold, without practice periods or warmup shots.  Some of us shoot 11 shots and score the points down.   Some of us train with open sights for those torrential downpour days that would drown out the dot sight.  

But having the national title being decided using a process and technology beyond most shooters reach is an entirely different matter.

Rob Kovach wrote:To the argument that the current system is falling apart--I could completely refurbish every worn component on the existing system for all 4 ranges for less money than it would cost to set up 1 range with the new non-turning electronic targets.

The NRA is not blameless in the current state of the equipment.  They have been leaving the system to disrepair on the grounds that they will be replacing it soon.  Allowing the old stuff to decay before you even have a proper plan in place for replacement is negligent.

Rob
I have fabricated several systems in the past... I agree 110% with you.. This whole proposal is a ruse..
Jerry

BE Mike wrote:it has got to be better than the broken down equipment that is there now.

Wrong.  The equipment that is there has been neglected and can be refurbished to better than new for almost nothing.  I'll bring my staplers and repair centers, some of us will bring pasters, and you won't need a truck or target crews.

CR10X wrote:You are the one that said "as long as the playing field is level".  That field exists all year, not just at Perry.  A lot of us do our very best to train for Perry. So if all competitors can't access and train on electronic targets all year, how can the playing field be level?  So to make the level field you mentioned, just make it so no shooters can use those targets except at Perry.  That was your basis of comment that I was addressing.  I'm looking for fairness to all competitors, not just the lucky few with access.  

If anyone really wants to, they can find someway to turn targets.  Asheville and many others even do it manually, and the operation and timing are great.  How can we get to that level today with the current cost and technical limits of the electronic targets.

Yes, some of us do shoot in the wind and rain and heat and cold, without practice periods or warmup shots.  Some of us shoot 11 shots and score the points down.   Some of us train with open sights for those torrential downpour days that would drown out the dot sight.  

But having the national title being decided using a process and technology beyond most shooters reach is an entirely different matter.

This should be the final word on this.  It is EXACTLY why this should not be rolled out at Camp Perry.

This is all about nothing imo, by the time the NRA decides to do anything, the electronic targets used at perry for demos will be obsolete. Better ones will be available or they might just rebuild the current setup but  Look at their track record, in 2004 the last time was at perry the ranges broke down again as they had many times before yet 10 years later they are still just patched up and in use, electronic target talk started before perry last year but now two national matches are done and still they didn't even have a true prototype, just grabbed some old ones that were in use on a military base and dragged them in to get feedback. I would not hold my breath as to anything happening for years to come. Its in their nature to talk more than act.

Just got done talking with a good friend, who is very deep in the Bullseye Game mix.
He brought up some points that make a lot of sense.
One of main excuses offered, is to speed up matches.. He agrees that most shooters do not go there to be hurried thru the process. Walking to score and viewing a shot pattern is very important for those that pay attention to such indicators. Free pistol is only 60 shots of .22, yet the competitors frequently comment, that it is tougher than a 2700 because they are not moving.
Now for a thought.  Make the 50 yd. system stationary.. Building a new turning system at 25 would be more cost effective material wise, and would eliminate moving gear to the 25 yard line, plus an additional 3 min prep period. The excuse that the current system is 50 yrs old.. That alone is a compliment for its durability. Will the new system last 50 years?? Very, very doubtful..Many of the elite shooters look at the X.. the brain attempts to guide the dot into the area looked at.. (X).. The electronic system,  is an 8 ring diameter blob..  Good luck for visualizing an imaginary X  .   I am completely and totally opposed to the electronics.. There is no way to sugar coat it. Removing the turning target aspect will destroy the game as it is now.. The turn is a huge part of training and mastering the RF stage..
Jerry

Rob Kovach wrote:

BE Mike wrote:it has got to be better than the broken down equipment that is there now.

Wrong.  The equipment that is there has been neglected and can be refurbished to better than new for almost nothing.  I'll bring my staplers and repair centers, some of us will bring pasters, and you won't need a truck or target crews.

Do you really want to have the national championship decided by trying to plug shots on repair centers? The electronic target systems are much more accurate.

CR10X wrote:You are the one that said "as long as the playing field is level".  That field exists all year, not just at Perry.  A lot of us do our very best to train for Perry. So if all competitors can't access and train on electronic targets all year, how can the playing field be level?  So to make the level field you mentioned, just make it so no shooters can use those targets except at Perry.  That was your basis of comment that I was addressing.  I'm looking for fairness to all competitors, not just the lucky few with access.  

If anyone really wants to, they can find someway to turn targets.  Asheville and many others even do it manually, and the operation and timing are great.  How can we get to that level today with the current cost and technical limits of the electronic targets.

Yes, some of us do shoot in the wind and rain and heat and cold, without practice periods or warmup shots.  Some of us shoot 11 shots and score the points down.   Some of us train with open sights for those torrential downpour days that would drown out the dot sight.  

But having the national title being decided using a process and technology beyond most shooters reach is an entirely different matter.

Level playing field to me means that everyone shooting at a match is able to shoot under similar conditions. I appreciate your shooting in adverse wx conditions to be ready for Perry, but I don't see what any of this has to do with electronic targets. I see that many of you would like the status quo and I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Rob Kovach wrote:

This should be the final word on this.  It is EXACTLY why this should not be rolled out at Camp Perry.

I suppose that I thought that a forum was supposed to be an exchange of ideas. I think that civil disagreements can be beneficial to getting the pulse of the majority opinion, but minority opinions can have value as well. I don't see this as a right or wrong thing. I do see that changes must come in one way or another. People either adapt to change or take their toys and go home. Actually as participation in the sport has been sharply declining over the past few years, I'm surprise that the NRA is willing to make an investment like is proposed. I'm assuming that all bullseye shooters are aware that the entry fees for the national matches don't nearly cover the costs of running them.

Look Mike, don't get all bent out of shape.  I exchanged my idea and you didn't like it.  We don't really need this to become a circular argument.

Cut the straw-man arguments about repair centers and pasters and stick with reality.  Challenges have been successful in ALL the other matches that use repair centers. Why would Camp Perry be any different.  You were the one arguing that we NEED to make a change because of the financials of conducting the match.  The only reason you are opposed to repair centers is because you want Nintendo targets.

There certainly is a right and wrong for this issue and the vote count at the top of the page covers it.

You are wrong about "sharply declining" participation and you are even more wrong if you think replacing bullseye targets with international non-turning electronic ones will help grow this sport.  Sure it's not growing but it's not "sharply declining" and the current participation rate doesn't have anything to do with the current target system at Camp Perry.

It won't be a level playing field when the Army is the only team that can practice on these non-turning electronic targets and the rest of us are practicing on turning paper ones.  Why can't you understand that?

Wouldn't you rather see the NRA make this size investment in promoting bullseye instead of wasting it on stupid non-turning electronic targets?

Rob Kovach wrote:Look Mike, don't get all bent out of shape.  I exchanged my idea and you didn't like it.  We don't really need this to become a circular argument.

Cut the straw-man arguments about repair centers and pasters and stick with reality.  Challenges have been successful in ALL the other matches that use repair centers. Why would Camp Perry be any different.  You were the one arguing that we NEED to make a change because of the financials of conducting the match.  The only reason you are opposed to repair centers is because you want Nintendo targets.

There certainly is a right and wrong for this issue and the vote count at the top of the page covers it.

You are wrong about "sharply declining" participation and you are even more wrong if you think replacing bullseye targets with international non-turning electronic ones will help grow this sport.  Sure it's not growing but it's not "sharply declining" and the current participation rate doesn't have anything to do with the current target system at Camp Perry.

It won't be a level playing field when the Army is the only team that can practice on these non-turning electronic targets and the rest of us are practicing on turning paper ones.  Why can't you understand that?

Wouldn't you rather see the NRA make this size investment in promoting bullseye instead of wasting it on stupid non-turning electronic targets?

Actually, I'm quite calm about the issue. You are the one that brought up the idea of repair centers and pasters. I don't think that is a move in the right direction. Have you ever shot a match on electronic targets? The military teams have always had advantages. That's why there are classes and categories. That hasn't kept a few good civilians and police officers from yanking the rug out from under them! No, I don't think that spending money to promote bullseye is money better spent.

International Mike wrote:Have you ever shot a match on electronic targets?

Yes. I've shot air pistol at the CMP center at Camp Perry--but it's NOT BULLSEYE.

You say that this move to non-turning electronic targets is what's needed to keep bullseye alive?

The certain way to kill bullseye is to change it to international and having only locals shooting bullseye and having the national match be international.

However, it would be really good for the growth of international pistol.