From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Founder on Tue Jul 17, 2012 8:56 pm

I grabbed this off the Discussion Group and thought I would share. I heard the same message from a number of sources while at Camp Perry and think there are some good ideas in here.


From the competitor's meeting Friday, Dennis Willing said they are more expensive to use, I believe the figure was $10K. But it might be academic. We had problems with ranges 3 and 1 during the week due to the poor condition of the turning target system which is approaching 70 years old. Dennis said he anticipates worse problems next year if nothing is done so is in the process of fast tracking a solution which would be replacing the current system- which would be about $400K or the shocker - going to an electronic system which is under consideration. This would be about 150 units on range 4 and they think they could process everyone through those positions in 2 days including teams. This would open up the other ranges to other types of matches during the week, to try and attract other shooters. This would be about $1.5 million and the CMP has expressed an interest to go in 50%. Dennis also indicated this might allow covered firing positions! He said to get the word out he would like feedback from shooters. Would you be more or less likely to attend if there were electronic targets and you could go for 2 days to complete the NRA matches, and shoot other types of matches - pop up targets, glock/SW etc. stock gun matches, team matches (father/son etc.) Make your opinions known to NRA/Dennis or Tom Hughes as they want to do something before the current system fails totally. Don Pane

Founder
Moderator

Posts : 569
Join date : 2011-06-09
Age : 55
Location : Lodi, WI.

http://www.bullseyeforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Rob Kovach on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:26 pm

I like the sound of electronic targets and foolproof instant scoring.

I also think that the EIC matches should be run the old fashioned way for the sake of continuity and history. No covered positions, turning targets etc.

The other thing that electronic targets can bring is TV coverage of Bullseye--There could be split screens showing the shooter and the impacts of the rounds---kinda like how they show the tracks of pitches on baseball games. That kind of coverage might bring advertising and sponsorships and stuff like that?

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2560
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Founder on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:36 pm

I have invited Dennis Willing to visit our forum and see some of the feedback from this post so keep it coming.

Founder
Moderator

Posts : 569
Join date : 2011-06-09
Age : 55
Location : Lodi, WI.

http://www.bullseyeforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Founder on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:38 pm

I heard the same thing about the electronic target and scoring system. I was unable to attend the meeting as I was kidnapped and taken to Crosswinds for pizza! I have mixed feelings on the idea but for the most part support it.

They should keep at least one range "old school" for those that do not want the change. There should be enough spare parts from the other three ranges to keep it going for quite a while.

This format would vary greatly from all the other matches around the country and would be a completely different feel then Camp Perry, how do you prepare to shoot Nationals on a high tech range when every other range is "traditional" will this be a disadvantage and effect the outcome of the matches? Faster paced, more fatiguing?

Changing the atmosphere of the Nationals! What about commercial row? Would some of the vendors be less likely to show up? If the pistol phase is done in two days that means I could only eat winesburg bar-b-que 2 nights!

Less scoring errors and data entry, there were a number of people who's scores were either not entered or incorrectly entered. Would we need officials or referee's?

Covered firing points! That would be nice, why not just move it indoors? Shooting air pistol at the CMP is nice and cool. I prefer the open feeling of shooting at Perry though.

This format of electronic scoring could enable people to watch scoring from home much like the air pistol matches? This could lead to publicity and national coverage?

This is a huge step forward and I applaud Dennis for the pro-active thinking (I shot on range 3 this year, not fun) and keeping the sport alive and growing!

Founder
Moderator

Posts : 569
Join date : 2011-06-09
Age : 55
Location : Lodi, WI.

http://www.bullseyeforum.net

Back to top Go down

Third hand info, I heard different from the folks at the lodging office?

Post by Founder on Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:50 pm

One of the great things about being at Perry is randomly running into people. Walking out of the PX I overheard some talk about concrete block and metal roofs. I asked if they were talking about module replacements. It turns out the woman talking was Garrison Commander Lt. Colonel Herrington (I hope I got the name right). They are building new 'hutments' the same size and layout as the existing huts but with cinder block walls, metal roofs and heating / air-conditioning built in. Money has already been allocated for demolition / construction of 50 hutments after the matches are over. The 'G' modules and all of the huts east of the first latrine will be replaced with hutments. She doesn't expect any problem getting the budget for more in the future since the maintenance costs will be so much lower than the existing wood huts. She also said the plan was for 3 more new barracks buildings along the south side of Sommers Rd, but money has not been allocated.

Founder
Moderator

Posts : 569
Join date : 2011-06-09
Age : 55
Location : Lodi, WI.

http://www.bullseyeforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by BE Mike on Wed Jul 18, 2012 10:42 am

Covered firing points, automatic scoring and matches done in two days...count me in.

BE Mike

Posts : 1159
Join date : 2011-07-29
Location : Indiana

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Orionsic on Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:45 am

In regards to the electronic targets, does anyone have a link to the manufactures website?

Thanks.

Orionsic

Posts : 76
Join date : 2011-06-11
Location : Houston, TX

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Carlos Cancio on Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:38 am

From what I have heard they are considering Megalink targets, made in Europe but with a distributor in the US. The electronics are great, the equipment is well build and the software is easy to use. I have experience with Megalinks since we have a range with 30 positions for air, 30 for 25 meters and 30 for 50 meters. However, having been to perry on many occasions and taking into consideration the amount of shooters that are just starting or simply having trouble keeping all shots on target, I wonder how they plan to protect the investment. All the megalink setups that I have seen require a single monitor per shooter, subject to being damaged by improper use or accidental fire and the targets downrange are sensitive even though the electronics are enclosed.

Carlos Cancio

Posts : 19
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 46
Location : Puerto Rico

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Richard Ashmore on Tue Aug 07, 2012 6:04 am

Electronic targets? Great idea-

Richard Ashmore

Posts : 103
Join date : 2012-02-17

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Founder on Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:03 pm

LINK

Here is a link to some info on the future? target system for Camp perry.

Some of you may have an oppertunity to try them out!



More info on the company and products http://siususa.com/index_files/Page1362.htm

Founder
Moderator

Posts : 569
Join date : 2011-06-09
Age : 55
Location : Lodi, WI.

http://www.bullseyeforum.net

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Chris_D on Thu Aug 09, 2012 5:48 am

Hmmm, looking at the specs for accuracy, I am not nearly as impressed as I thought I would be. 1 to 2 MM accuracy is not very good at all. 2mm is more than 1/16" of an inch. Any of us that shoot matches and do scoring often have to use overlays and plugs (even magnifying glasses) to determine the score. Further out from the center the accuracy drops to about 1/4".

The air gun range at Perry was able to score to the tenth of a point which to me implied greater precision in scoring.

While at first I was a fan of electronic targets, I am starting to re-think that opinion based on these specs.

Chris

Chris_D

Posts : 102
Join date : 2011-11-21

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Rob Kovach on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:00 am

I agree. Bad specs.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2560
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Carlos Cancio on Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:56 am

I have experience with Sius target systems, as they were for years the only ones accepted and certified by the International Shooting Federation. (Actually the target systems used in the Olympics are Sius.)

The Sius we had were replaced by Megalinks, like the ones used by the CMP at the Perry airgun range, as the Sius were hard to maintain, the technology was old (thermal printers and monochrome screens) and replacement parts were really expensive. In contrast, Megalinks are easy to use, customer support is fantastic, parts are cheaper and the technology used is modern, as systems are compatible with home computers and out of the box LCD screens.

Carlos Cancio

Posts : 19
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 46
Location : Puerto Rico

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by DRNurse1 on Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:39 pm

Tough call:
Pro: cost for two days is manageable, 8 days (including SAFS).
Con: Tradition: CMP should try to arrange turning targets for Presidents 100 and team matches, NTI and NTT. NRA can use the electronic targets for the National Match format and use the extra days for additional matches. Do not forget Father-Daughter, Mother-Daughter and Mother-Son matches in addition to Father-Son versions.

DRNurse1

Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-02-13
Age : 57
Location : Pennsylvania

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by paulb1946 on Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:39 pm

Electronic targets sound great but how adaptive to the environment are they; after all we do compete in Conventional “Outdoor” Pistol. The rain, wind, mud, heat, etc. are all part of the game we chose and add to the challenge. A controlled environment atmosphere sounds appealing, especially after this year’s mud bath, but I believe they call that competition “Indoor” Pistol. Covered firing points would probably attract new shooters and definitely decrease the chances of matches being canceled due to weather interruption as in the past few years. However, I believe the CMP matches, aside from the SAFS/EIC,  should be fired subject to prevailing weather conditions; after all they are referred to as “Service” matches. At one time or another, we have all complained of the “dumbing-down” of America and I think this could be just another step in that direction if we are not mindful of this when implementing improvements.

A two-day National Match schedule seems to be a little ambitious to me, I would much rather see a three-day schedule with an optional preceding day of “Practice Matches” / Revolver matches. Most shooters have a strong and weak caliber, or gun, and it would be more reasonable to provide each competitor the opportunity to compete in his/her strong phase without the stress or fatigue of a packed schedule. Teams, as usual, would have sufficient time and opportunity to organize and compete at the conclusion of the individual competition. State Championship, Regional and ‘2700’ Tournament Matches are fired on a two day schedule because of the dictates of the calendar week not because that is the most conducive to optimal competition.


True, electronics are said to reduce the time currently consumed by competitors walking down-range to score and change targets but what happens when the electronics have a “glich” and we have to wait for some IT person to correct it? I do not see a problem with the current scoring procedure; you review the score your score-keeper assigned and argue your case on the spot if you disagree. Ever try arguing with a computer or automated customer service operator?

One of the most encouraging comments is that which mentioned housing, additional and improved lodging is sure to promote addition attendance! Lodging in the Port Clinton area is expensive and cost prohibitive for many competitors and their families, not to mention the inconvenience of daily travel. I would like to see the issue of an improved dining facility addressed.

Just my 2 cents and I am glad to hear the National Matches are alive and well for the foreseeable future.

paulb1946

Posts : 16
Join date : 2013-05-31
Location : Northeast Michigan

Back to top Go down

Electronic Targets

Post by Chicago1952 on Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:00 am

Chris_D wrote:Hmmm, looking at the specs for accuracy, I am not nearly as impressed as I thought I would be.  1 to 2 MM accuracy is not very good at all. 2mm is more than 1/16" of an inch.  Any of us that shoot matches and do scoring often have to use overlays and plugs (even magnifying glasses) to determine the score.  Further out from the center the accuracy drops to about 1/4".  

The air gun range at Perry was able to score to the tenth of a point which to me implied greater precision in scoring.  

While at first I was a fan of electronic targets, I am starting to re-think that opinion based on these specs.

Chris
I would agree that the specs for Megalink aren't impressive, but there are better systems.  Megalink when it was introduced was a good system, but they are old school technology compared to systems being offered by other companies.  Meyton (http://www.meyton.info/en/home/index.html) is a great system that has been in use in Europe almost as long as Megalink was founded in 1991.  The Meyton System has an accuracy of 1/10 of a mm.  The system accuracy uses LED or laser lights instead of the microphones that Megalink uses, which are affected by elevation pressures.  The other advantages of these LED or Laser systems over Megalink is that they don't need or use consumables such as a rubber or paper rolls, which are needed for the microphones to pickup the bullet strikes on the target to calculate the hits on the target.  These consumables start to add to the cost of the Megalink System.  The other advantage of the LED or Laser systems is that there are no moving parts such as motors which are needed again to move the rubber or paper systems in the Megalink Systems.  The Meyton targets as very extensive targets available in it's system and it is not in the system the targets can be designed on site, whereas the Megalink Targets programs are pretty much fixed.  The Megalink System was capable of producing errors for example if a rubber or paper roll got stuck or ran out on a target and you have to gain experience with the system to recognize when this is happening.  The shooters and range officers just have to be educated about these possible errors.  When these errors happen the shooter is given a chance to reshoot those shots.  The LED or laser systems are more robust as it doesn't have any rubber or paper to jam.

I helped run matches for 13 years at the Junior Olympics at the range at the OTC and by the second year we started using the Megalink Systems.  The systems made running the matches easier and faster.   There was no need for people to score the targets, which eliminated the scoring errors and got the scores out to the competitors faster.  The system did speed up the matches, which allowed the event to run more competitors in a day then if we had been using paper targets.  The only disadvantage when this was done is that it wore out the range personnel.  The electronic targets of all stripes can offer something that paper cannot and that is the capability of broadcasting the match of each individual shooter over the internet or television, which every shooter should be embracing.  The ability to do this gives the sport more exposure to a much wider audience.  For example, during one of the first NCAA Championships that was broadcasted over the internet they had I believe over 200,000 viewers watching the event.  The viewers were not only able to watch the shooters on the firing line, but the hits and scores for each individual shooter.  During the 3P junior air rifle national matches when the electronic targets were used the relatives and friends at home could watch each shot and score of every competitor at the event.

Europe has been using electronic target system at indoor and outdoor ranges for decades and the US is just starting to catchup.  Although I favor the Meyton System there are other electronic target systems out there like the SIUS ASCOR System, which are probably the most expensive system on the market with the exception of their new Hybrid System, which uses a combination of acoustic and LED or Lasers.

Chicago1952

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-11-14

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Rob Kovach on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:47 am

Everything you say doesn't change the fact that adding these targets only to the nationals doesn't help anything.

We have to grow bullseye from the club level up. If NO clubs have the system that the national match has, the uniqueness of the national match will drive a wedge into the sport. Those who like the match the old way wont go. People who like the new way won't go to paper target matches back home instead training on laser systems hooked to their computer in their own home.

There is no good reason to spend the initial investment for an electronic target system at 1 match unless the same equipment is affordable for ALL clubs across the nation.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2560
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by DeweyHales on Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:01 am

I'm a college shooting coach.  Collegiate shooting is currently transitioning from paper to electronic targets.  Most schools use electronic targets.  But, we still have matches with paper. 

When I was in college, the only electronic matches I shot were in Atlanta at Wolf Creek (home of the 1996 Olympics).  These were exciting because they were different.  The shooters were all going through something new together.  We didn't see it as a negative to shoot on paper or electronic targets.  We just liked to shoot no matter what. 

Coaches score the paper targets in matches.  It is extremely laborious.  From that standpoint, I understand the desire to move to electronic targets. 

Slowly, electronic target technology has made its way to most colleges.  All things considered, it seems to be a good thing. 

My one concern would be the type of electronic target used.  Shots that go into the middle of a group may not touch paper.  It would be tough to score these correctly if using microphones. 

I don't know that electronic targets would grow the sport.  But, I do know that matches would be much easier to run. 

Folks that shoot bullseye aren't likely to use a laser training system instead of shooting.  We like to hear "bang" too much for that.  People will still shoot paper matches regardless.

To say that ALL clubs would need electronic targets is to say that all clubs now need turning targets.  For years, half of my matches were on non-turning targets.  Many shooters have done well only shooting turning targets for big matches.  It would seem the same for electronic targets.   

I would love to see highpower move to electronic scoring.  Matches would be much easier.  You'd never have to work the pits.  You'd have that much more time to socialize while waiting for your relay.

DeweyHales

Posts : 582
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : North Carolina

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Chicago1952 on Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:55 pm

Rob Kovach wrote:Everything you say doesn't change the fact that adding these targets only to the nationals doesn't help anything.

We have to grow bullseye from the club level up.  If NO clubs have the system that the national match has, the uniqueness of the national match will drive a wedge into the sport.  Those who like the match the old way wont go.  People who like the new way won't go to paper target matches back home instead training on laser systems hooked to their computer in their own home.

There is no good reason to spend the initial investment for an electronic target system at 1 match unless the same equipment is affordable for ALL clubs across the nation.
There are clubs already adding the electronic targets to their ranges.  There are junior clubs that have already added the Hybrid System to their ranges and high power ranges are already adding the systems to their ranges.  As one of the comment's have mentioned below on this forum has already mentioned it is nice not to have a pit crew and just to read the results off a monitor.  This alone can make designing any future range simpler.  Clubs are finding other advantages to have the electronic systems in that it actually has helped attract more competitors or shooters to their competitions.  This has helped the clubs grow as you must think of these competitors as customers and not just shooters.   One side advantage of these systems is that it has cut down the amount of trash accumulating at the range.  Our range is still using paper targets and there are to many shooters in the club that leave their paper targets all over the range.  They just are plain to lazy to pickup after themselves. 

Changes is happening and the change will happen as fast the cost is driven down as competition among the competing companies producing the products increases.  You can see the changes at the collegiate levels were teams are shooting on some paper targets during some of their competition, but more and more of them are changing over to electronic targets.  People used to say the same thing against the automobile and computers when they were first introduced.  You can study the history of every new technology introduction and you will see the same arguments against using them, but eventually people see the advantage of using them and more people demand the product and this should help drive the cost down.  The hand writing is on the wall and overtime the change is going to happen.

Chicago1952

Posts : 7
Join date : 2013-11-14

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by DavidR on Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:45 pm

All this dialog will go nowhere fast, the fact is even if they decide to go electronic, i bet the system is almost outdated before it ever gets installed and running.IMO It will be the obamacare of the NRA. The reality of all this is, the people in charge should re-do the conventional system now then take their time to research the electronic aspect down the road or its going to be another year of F-UP's at the nationals next year. just my 2 cents

DavidR
Admin

Posts : 2906
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 62
Location : NRA:Expert, Georgia

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Rob Kovach on Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:24 pm

Chicago,
Bullseye and Rifle matches just aren't the same.

Dewey, you say only the big matches are on turning targets.  I agree.  Don't change the biggest match to non-turning electronic targets until the "big matches" also have access to the SAME equipment.  Without that there is no effective way to prepare for the National Match.

Such a change cannot occur by only changing THE premier match of the sport, and HOPING the consequences are minor.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2560
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by SteveT on Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:27 pm

I don't buy the argument that Perry shouldn't change until all clubs have electronic targets. I bet there was a time when few ranges had turning targets.

The National Matches should set the highest standards for how a match is conducted.

SteveT

Posts : 197
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Illinois

https://sites.google.com/site/sdturner/shooting

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Rob Kovach on Fri Nov 15, 2013 2:34 pm

SteveT:  Read my post a little closer and don't misquote me.

Rob Kovach wrote:Don't change the biggest match to non-turning electronic targets until the "big matches" also have access to the SAME equipment. Without that there is no effective way to prepare for the National Match.
Rob Kovach wrote:We have to grow bullseye from the club level up. If NO clubs have the system that the national match has, the uniqueness of the national match will drive a wedge into the sport.
Rob Kovach wrote:There is no good reason to spend the initial investment for an electronic target system at 1 match unless the same equipment is affordable for ALL clubs across the nation.
Steve T wrote:The National Matches should set the highest standards for how a match is conducted.
Sure it is.  But they don't play the Superbowl in a hockey rink.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2560
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by SteveT on Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:30 pm

I wasn't quoting anyone. Several people have posted variations of the same position recently in this and other threads. I suppose "have" was the wrong word to use, but my point is that the National Matches ARE different than any other match and the highest level of competition in our sport should be a leader in match conduct and equipment, not a follower.

SteveT

Posts : 197
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Illinois

https://sites.google.com/site/sdturner/shooting

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Rob Kovach on Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:33 pm

...and I will continue to contest that the National Matches cannot be so different that the course of fire would be unrecognisable from the rest of the sport.

The debate really isn't whether to have electronic targets at the National Pistol match.  It's whether we have NON-TURNING electronic targets at the National Pistol match with an unspecified electronic signal that indicates when official time to fire begins and stops.

The National Matches should set the highest standards for how a match is conducted.  For Conventional Pistol, an electronic sensor in the target doesn't add anything to that standard--so don't waste the money.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2560
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: From the Competitors Meeting at Camp Perry 2012

Post by Sponsored content Today at 5:50 am


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum