Electronic Targets At Perry

I shot them. Very poor sales pitch. target was not to scale for Bullseye
did not like you can not see your hits at the short line.
What do you all think of them  

They're a different sport than Bull's-eye, to me. 
I would have thought they would have had comment cards to get shooters feedback, before committing to changing the whole Perry experience.
Ranges all over the USA try to emulate the Perry shooting process, but very few will be able to duplicate the Mega-Links.
Most folks prefer the way it is now, over electronic targets.
My $.02.

45 MIKE wrote:I shot them. Very poor sales pitch. target was not to scale for Bullseye
did not like you can not see your hits at the short line.
What do you all think of them  

I voiced my objection on the Target Talk Forum..yesterday, and prior to that, when this issue first surfaced.  I know that several of the very best competitors went to the NRA and personally voiced a protest, while at Perry.
I am waiting for more feed back from a few friends in high places.  But I intend to write, call and complain..
Jerry

The new CMP mega center will have a bullseye electronic target system, knowing them im sure it will be the best available, scheduled to open spring of 2015 I cant wait to see it and shoot on it in person. I doubt the stuff they had at perry will be what is used, id say if the cmp has good success with there setup perry will follow there lead if they decide for sure to go in that direction.

It was still shooting at targets, but umm...it's not bullseye.  They aren't BETTER than what we have now, nor are they a savings.  I would like to see estimated return on investment data.

If targets cost too much, then let's do pasters and repair centers.

If paying scorekeeping staff costs too much, then create an iPad/iPhone app and have competitors pick up iPads at the tower and keep score on those.  Each shooter is then a FREE volunteer who enters in the data.  WAY cheaper than switching to those E-targets...

Well stated Cecil.  Thanks for that input.

Dum quastion:

How will the electric target know if it is a CF 32 calibre or CF 45 calibre so the the 45 advantage will be had.

I think over all that removing some "human-ness" from the game is not a good idea.  Plus they should show us some beta test results.

Jack H wrote:Dum quastion:

How will the electric target know if it is a CF 32 calibre or CF 45 calibre so the the 45 advantage will be had.

According to a nice man from Puerto Rico who has experience shooting on this system, it won't know.   The calibers will have to be entered into the program manually.

One of the many bugs, that has not been worked out yet.

Calibres entered manually will work out well.  ha ha

The NRA is pushing the Camp Perry electronic target idea very, very hard - way more forcefully than a proposed equipment modernization deserves... jamming it down our throats actually.

The NRA is a very cagey organization. Look for a reason they're so aggressive about a target system we clearly don't want. 

Hint: Follow the money. It's not about targets.

This really does have the odor of somebody's palm getting greased, but I can't figure it out.

Corregidor wrote:The NRA is pushing the Camp Perry electronic target idea very, very hard - way more forcefully than a proposed equipment modernization deserves... jamming it down our throats actually.

The NRA is a very cagey organization. Look for a reason they're so aggressive about a target system we clearly don't want. 

Hint: Follow the money. It's not about targets.

Aggressive????? they need a new system but all they have done is talk for years, now they barrow a few targets to show but I bet if they decided today to use them they would be obsolete by the time they got around to installing them. IMO, they need to just build a new system like has worked for 60 years using state of the art mechanics and continue on. The nra is a money machine, the electronic targets might save some cash on the front end but can you imagine using any electronic that's even half the age of the current system? IMO they would be upgrading and swapping electronics out every 5 years or so. Wake up NRA!!

A lot of international matches use electronic targets and they have also been used successfully at the Olympics for a number of years. If you watch ISSF competitions, most of them seem to be using electronic targets from Sius. These systems works great and have several advantages from what I understand: 1) more accurate, 2) real-time score computation, 3) spectator friendly; shots and scores can be displayed real-time on a big screen, 4) quicker matches; no time "wasted" scoring, 5) no need for spotting scopes.

The key disadvantage is the cost. People without access to a "world-class" facility must train with paper targets, or spend $1-2k to get their own system. Training on a different system isn't so bad or uncommon. Many use audible signals instead of turning targets today...

All international (ISSF) shooting is done with iron sights and not having scoring rings on the target makes no difference. With the focus on the front sight, rings and Xs disappear anyway. This is not the case for bullseye, where most shooters use red dots and can sometimes see target markings and aim at them. There's also the issue with the red/green light using optics, which is a non-issue for ISSF which starts with pistol pointed down, not at the target.

So, these electronic targets have been used very successfully for years on the international circuit and can have a number of advantages. My question then is this: what are the problems with using them for NRA bullseye and what changes would be required to make them work? Let's assume paper is going away and we must use these electronic targets. What would make them nicer?

I was told a single MegaLink lane cost $6,000. More to make it bull's-eye-ready, even more to make it wireless.
For 150 of those systems, we could redo the existing installation many times over, for the next 60 years.

Desben,
These targets don't turn, they are expensive, and there aren't ranges around the country with the resources to equip their ranges with the electronic targets.

Unless NRA wants to benevolently supply these targets to every club that has a bullseye pistol league, there is NO way to "make them work" because it would mean we are spending all year practicing and competing for the superbowl, but when we get to Camp Perry they say we are playing with a nerf football instead of a pigskin.

jwax is correct also.

A lot of olympic athletes train on paper targets with audible signals and compete on electronic targets with lights. Winners probably don't. But also, a lot of NRA bullseye shooters train with audible signals and compete with turning targets. Training conditions don't have to be exactly the same as match conditions. But ideally, yes.

There are a few things you could do to bring the training experience closer to match. Instead of turning targets, you could use signal lights with paper target. This would be cheap and easy to setup. As for the lack of markings in the black, use a all-black paper target and use an overlay for scoring.

I'm not saying that a million-dollar solution nobody wants to a simple problem that can be solved cheaper, implemented without consultation, is a good thing. But instead of simply dismissing the idea, let's try to be creative and find solutions, if only for fun.

desben wrote:A lot of olympic athletes train on paper targets with audible signals and compete on electronic targets with lights. Winners probably don't. But also, a lot of NRA bullseye shooters train with audible signals and compete with turning targets. Training conditions don't have to be exactly the same as match conditions. But ideally, yes.

There are a few things you could do to bring the training experience closer to match. Instead of turning targets, you could use signal lights with paper target. This would be cheap and easy to setup. As for the lack of markings in the black, use a all-black paper target and use an overlay for scoring.

I'm not saying that a million-dollar solution nobody wants to a simple problem that can be solved cheaper, implemented without consultation, is a good thing. But instead of simply dismissing the idea, let's try to be creative and find solutions, if only for fun.

Your talking sports that just shoot 22 and air pellets,on stationary targets. bullseye shoots the 22 only for one part, the other 180 shots are with a 32 and up but mostly 45's are used for both CF and 45 matches, the electronic targets ive seen, AMU and CMP in Anniston, cant take a off target hit from these calibers and will need extensive protection added, plenty of other issues need dealing with too. My hope is the CMP has their act together as they usually do much better than the NRA, the new Alabama mega complex is set to open spring of 2015 it will have a mega bullseye range complete with electronic targets, so im sure they already have a system capable picked out. If it works I would hope the NRA follows suit with what they use.

desben wrote: let's try to be creative and find solutions, if only for fun.

O.K.... you list your self as a tyro...
Some of us have been in this game for many decades.. Myself, since the mid 1960s. Most have invested heavily in the sport, myself, both as a competitor and as a gunsmith. The late Col. Alan Bacon, once said to me " I take this game, very seriously." Most of the top competitors do take it very seriously. Training goes on year round. Many have invested in turning systems to duplicate the timed and rapid stages. There  is significant skill involved in timed and rapid training as well as long line.. I am totally opposed to this change.. If people want to shoot international, have at it.. Leave bullseye as it is.  I have built several turning systems for local ranges.. It's not rocket science.. Fix, repair or rebuild the present system. Or, as one friend recently suggested.. "We need to change "those" who represent us."   
Jerry

 Jerry, very well put, im not worried about the sport changing as a whole, I doubt any local ranges will ever go electronic but I do hate the idea of perry doing so if it changes the basic style of the game.

I shoot on mega link targets regularly. The ones we use score by sound as the projectile passes through. So, via triangulation, the projectile can be gauged as well as its location. 

With the facility being built in Anniston, what is to say that Perry will always be the venue for the national matches?  Most gun things are moving south. The Nationals may not be too far behind. 

Perry is already so different than any other match or facility it is tough for me to say how different is too different. 

Schaumannk wrote:

Jack H wrote:Dum quastion:

How will the electric target know if it is a CF 32 calibre or CF 45 calibre so the the 45 advantage will be had.

According to a nice man from Puerto Rico who has experience shooting on this system, it won't know.   The calibers will have to be entered into the program manually.

One of the many bugs, that has not been worked out yet.

IMHO a significant part of the bullseye experience is manual scoring.  Overlays, staple guns, pencils,  misses, skidders, doubles, challenges, general jabbering and all the other interaction that goes on down range are why I get up and drive two hours to stand out in the hot, cold, wet, and windy all day.      

If NRA forces these electronic targets that are designed for international/Olympic style competition, on our sport and our sport essentially becomes international/Olympic pistol competition, then why would we even need NRA to be our sanctioning body?  ISSF already is the sanctioning body for those matches.

Maybe NRA isn't interested in us anymore and this is the way to shove us off so we can be some other sanctioning body's problem.

So if I could get my local club to buy into electronic targets (NEVER) who's going to pay for the new short line benches or do I buy two of these wonder targets for each firing point?  Can they be left out in the weather?  How many 45 hard ball hits not in the center before they are junk?  How many shooters will stand in the rain to shoot a local match?  I have never seen a range with two covered firing lines.
If it cost  2-3 dollars for each shooters dollar at Perry how does the NRA hand out the larger cash prizes at the Bianchie (spelling) Cup?