Isabell, it is *sometimes* difficult on the Net, true. Here however, it was deliberately over-easy.
As to the electronic targets now, with such an immense volume (300 firing points) as you assess, a careful shopping for the cheapest offer really makes much sense. You will need a locally available service technician anyhow, with this size, so it does not make too much of a difference where the producer is nominally situated.
Given that the technology now is fully mature, and that all of the available acoustics-based electronic targets are roughly of equal quality (it's really not rocket science), I would be inclined to recommend a manufacturer who has also been mentioned in this forum several times: namely, Ariosoren.
In past exchange and inquiries, they have been much more diligent and speedy than other firms that I corresponded with. You could probably save 1-2 millions, compared to the others.
Alexander
Electronic Targets at Perry?
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, Isabel1130
-
Isabel1130
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:19 pm
- Location: Wyoming
Alexander, have you ever been to Camp Perry? The same ranges are used for pistol, small bore, and high power. There is no permanent cover over either the firing points or the targets. Camp Perry is owned and operated by the Ohio National Guard. When the National Matches are not in session, the Ohio Guard uses the ranges for soldier training. It is a very small post.
I was told by a high power shooter that the pits have been redone recently at Perry. They forgot the leave room to get the large rifle targets through the equipment. They have to be thrown up out of the pit. Opps.
There are no berms, or baffling and you shoot north into Lake Erie.
In this case, even if the price could be reduced by half, which I doubt, because Camp Perry is owned by the Ohio National Guard, they would most likely be forced to follow Federal contracting rules for any new construction which would preclude any kind of open bidding by the European manufacturers. Any permanent structures would be owned and maintained by Ohio, and the US Federal government. In order for the NRA to maintain ownership of the target systems, they would most likely have to be totally transportable (and not meet the government definition of real property) These issues most likely, would double or triple the final price. The next question the Ohio National Guard would ask is; how does this system benefit our soldier training? The NRA would have to respond that it does not. End of discussion.
In an ideal world, if the cost could be reduced to to 2.5 million, it would make no difference, the maintenance contract alone would double the lifetime cost.
The current system at Camp Perry works. It is old technology and can be maintained by relatively unskilled labor. I have been looking for some numbers on what GB spent on just the pistol and rifle shooting facilities at the Royal Artillery Barracks. Does anyone have those numbers?
I am sorry if a lot of people would prefer cheerleading boosterism to the realities of a difficult expensive logistical analysis but at some point these issues would have to be addressed. I have worked in contracting for years. You would not believe what a nightmare even simple changes are to any real property that is government owned.
I was told by a high power shooter that the pits have been redone recently at Perry. They forgot the leave room to get the large rifle targets through the equipment. They have to be thrown up out of the pit. Opps.
There are no berms, or baffling and you shoot north into Lake Erie.
In this case, even if the price could be reduced by half, which I doubt, because Camp Perry is owned by the Ohio National Guard, they would most likely be forced to follow Federal contracting rules for any new construction which would preclude any kind of open bidding by the European manufacturers. Any permanent structures would be owned and maintained by Ohio, and the US Federal government. In order for the NRA to maintain ownership of the target systems, they would most likely have to be totally transportable (and not meet the government definition of real property) These issues most likely, would double or triple the final price. The next question the Ohio National Guard would ask is; how does this system benefit our soldier training? The NRA would have to respond that it does not. End of discussion.
In an ideal world, if the cost could be reduced to to 2.5 million, it would make no difference, the maintenance contract alone would double the lifetime cost.
The current system at Camp Perry works. It is old technology and can be maintained by relatively unskilled labor. I have been looking for some numbers on what GB spent on just the pistol and rifle shooting facilities at the Royal Artillery Barracks. Does anyone have those numbers?
I am sorry if a lot of people would prefer cheerleading boosterism to the realities of a difficult expensive logistical analysis but at some point these issues would have to be addressed. I have worked in contracting for years. You would not believe what a nightmare even simple changes are to any real property that is government owned.
I understand you might prefer a Chinese purchase (like your Olympic uniforms), but so far there is no Chinese exporter of electronic targets yet... but that might soon come, if you wait a bit.Marcus wrote:Ariosoren??
I doubt we (the US) would ever consider purchasing electronic targets (or anything) from Iran.
No.Isabel1130 wrote:Alexander, have you ever been to Camp Perry?
It was _you_ who speculated about acquiring electronic targets for Camp Perry, and who made a rough cost estimate to realize such a project (or dream). Hence my input and suggestion of a potential supplier.
I did however not suggest such a change to electronic targets myself; I understand that this would be akin to Swiss or Scandinavian military standards, and thus maybe a bit too high-brow for the intended double use. Furtheron, these countries produce and manufacture such electronic targets at home, and export them; such is not the case in the USA.
Alexander
Last edited by Alexander on Fri Aug 03, 2012 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Isabel, thank you for giving us the benefit of your contracting experience. Your points about the range belonging to the Ohio National Guard and the difficulty of dealing with federal rules are very pertinent.
I wonder, though: How did the air pistol range get built at Camp Perry? It had to have cost quite a bit of money, the building is clearly "real property" on the base, and I don't see a direct benefit to military training.
Also, if you're going to analyze the cost, how much would it cost to replace the current mechanical target system with something comparable? And how much money would be saved by shortening the pistol phase of the National Matches from six days to four?
I don't mind the status quo at Camp Perry. In fact, when I brought up this subject, I thought there would be a stronger sentiment for preserving the Perry experience as we've come to know it. But it's clear that the current target system is becoming difficult to maintain so I thought we should look at all the options for replacement.
I wonder, though: How did the air pistol range get built at Camp Perry? It had to have cost quite a bit of money, the building is clearly "real property" on the base, and I don't see a direct benefit to military training.
Also, if you're going to analyze the cost, how much would it cost to replace the current mechanical target system with something comparable? And how much money would be saved by shortening the pistol phase of the National Matches from six days to four?
I don't mind the status quo at Camp Perry. In fact, when I brought up this subject, I thought there would be a stronger sentiment for preserving the Perry experience as we've come to know it. But it's clear that the current target system is becoming difficult to maintain so I thought we should look at all the options for replacement.
lol
I've run into knuckleheads like Alexander more times than i care to remember. They always think their opinion is the only one that counts. And they are the smartest person in the room. They also always spout some psuedo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo that means nothing but shows their ignorance. Next he'll be quoting Freud, LOL. He must be a lawyer or some bottom feeding local politician. OOOOps!!! thats the same thing. Once again as far as target equipment, our shooting heritage in bullseye has always been turning targets. Lets leave it that way.
tenx9
I believe the problem is the fact that the system used at Perry is very old 40-50 years (at least some of the main parts). It is starting to fail and there are no replacement parts.
Having been on the "inside" for a fair amount of time, though as of last month no longer, if they can figure out a way to do it I think you will like the electronic scoring targets. They are fantastic as far as producing all the scoring instantly so no going down range to score and change targets, but there will need to be some accomodation in the rules and in training of the shooter for crossfires and other irregularities.
The idea would be to also use them for smallbore, but that introduces a different problem as there are no scoring rings to provide a reference for aiming with a scope. It only is a black spot on a white background. Works fine with iron sights but a scope is a bit tricky.
Marcus
I believe the problem is the fact that the system used at Perry is very old 40-50 years (at least some of the main parts). It is starting to fail and there are no replacement parts.
Having been on the "inside" for a fair amount of time, though as of last month no longer, if they can figure out a way to do it I think you will like the electronic scoring targets. They are fantastic as far as producing all the scoring instantly so no going down range to score and change targets, but there will need to be some accomodation in the rules and in training of the shooter for crossfires and other irregularities.
The idea would be to also use them for smallbore, but that introduces a different problem as there are no scoring rings to provide a reference for aiming with a scope. It only is a black spot on a white background. Works fine with iron sights but a scope is a bit tricky.
Marcus
Electronic targets are very nice. I think the biggest issue will be getting these guys use to shooting on lights instead of turning targets. I can see a lot of complaining, people tend to not like change.
Crossfire on pistol shooting is pretty easy, you shoot in 5 shot strings so if you have six on your target, you throw up your hand and one of your neighbours is going to have 4.
Crossfire on pistol shooting is pretty easy, you shoot in 5 shot strings so if you have six on your target, you throw up your hand and one of your neighbours is going to have 4.
Of course, Richard, but what I was trying to say was that NRA pistol rules will need to be ammended to cover the various situations with the shooter needing to learn how that applies for them.
For example, on a crossfire, how far do they want to go to determine which shot is the crossfire? Just the high five (ten)?
BTW the crossfire detectors are not really reliable and add complexity and cost to the system and not all target manufacturers offer them.
For example, on a crossfire, how far do they want to go to determine which shot is the crossfire? Just the high five (ten)?
BTW the crossfire detectors are not really reliable and add complexity and cost to the system and not all target manufacturers offer them.
Guys
I believe you. I think the electronic targets are terrific for indoor shooting, however, I dont want to pay (directly, if its your club or indirectly, through increased match fees) for these elaborate systems. At the club level. the price would be ridiculous and some knucklehead like Alexander would end up shooting it by accident or on purpose. But, for Perry the weather has to be the deciding factor. I was at Perry in 1990 when the .45 phase was canceled because of weather, possibly the only national championship that was an 1800. Any historians out there? I know I'm the lucky one, LOL!
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
Marcus, crossfires are not a problem with electronic targets, each firing point has a microphone and records the fact that a shot has been fired. If no shot hits the target, a zero is scored. The shooter that receives the shot, does get penalized, because his microphone does not record a shot, so the impact is ignored.
As to shooting with lights instead of turning targets, I see no problem with that. The electronic targets would be able to be used for bullseye, international pistol and smallbore rifle.
Its all in the programing.
Changing the rules for each type of match is not a problem.
Local clubs can still run matches the old fashioned way.
I know of at least 10 clubs that run matches with no turning targets, just a whistle. It is not that far away from using lights.
As to rifle scope matches, a white 10 ring dot can be added to the target.
I think not as many targets will be needed as some say 300.
With the time saved, an extra relay can be added. High power runs up to 7 relays, to get everyone in the match.
As to shooting with lights instead of turning targets, I see no problem with that. The electronic targets would be able to be used for bullseye, international pistol and smallbore rifle.
Its all in the programing.
Changing the rules for each type of match is not a problem.
Local clubs can still run matches the old fashioned way.
I know of at least 10 clubs that run matches with no turning targets, just a whistle. It is not that far away from using lights.
As to rifle scope matches, a white 10 ring dot can be added to the target.
I think not as many targets will be needed as some say 300.
With the time saved, an extra relay can be added. High power runs up to 7 relays, to get everyone in the match.
Trooper,
Crossfire detectors were designed for bigbore rifle where the possibility of a cross shot is quite real. They look for the infrared signature of the muzzle blast, not sound. The detector microphones for smallbore are not as reliable because they must be placed quite close to the muzzle and have screens that block the sound from an adjacent firing point. This may interfere with the lifting of the pistol if set too close. And how will they be mounted and moved to shoot either 25 or 50 yards?
Trust me, I know how they work. I used them in Atlanta before that Olympic range was closed. After only a few years more than a few no longer worked due to bad connections, damage, etc. Again, not all target manufacturerers sell them.
There are a bunch of technical issues that do need to be resolved.
Crossfire detectors were designed for bigbore rifle where the possibility of a cross shot is quite real. They look for the infrared signature of the muzzle blast, not sound. The detector microphones for smallbore are not as reliable because they must be placed quite close to the muzzle and have screens that block the sound from an adjacent firing point. This may interfere with the lifting of the pistol if set too close. And how will they be mounted and moved to shoot either 25 or 50 yards?
Trust me, I know how they work. I used them in Atlanta before that Olympic range was closed. After only a few years more than a few no longer worked due to bad connections, damage, etc. Again, not all target manufacturerers sell them.
There are a bunch of technical issues that do need to be resolved.
Tenx9, your ignorance is more than excusable because you post from the confines of a country that has not yet been much exposed to current technology. So, you'd better listen and learn from those that have. Indeed, electronic targets are MOSTLY used on club level these days, exactly because of financial constraints.
That does not necessarily comprise Iran, who are a fairly new kid on the manufacturers' block, so that many buyers might as of now still tend to prefer a more established competitor. I only mentioned them because their prices are very competitive, their business attitude is excellent, and because it is due to this very forum that I became aware of them.
As to sportive shooting, a comparison of the (excellent) Iranian results in these 2012 Olympic Games with the US results should teach you some due (and needed) humility.
And Marcus has ably corrected Trooperjake's misconception; additional micros at shooters' stand level are definitely NOT the rule anywhere, and certainly not for the usual applications (10, 25, 50 metres), but are fairly uncommon.
Alexander
That does not necessarily comprise Iran, who are a fairly new kid on the manufacturers' block, so that many buyers might as of now still tend to prefer a more established competitor. I only mentioned them because their prices are very competitive, their business attitude is excellent, and because it is due to this very forum that I became aware of them.
As to sportive shooting, a comparison of the (excellent) Iranian results in these 2012 Olympic Games with the US results should teach you some due (and needed) humility.
And Marcus has ably corrected Trooperjake's misconception; additional micros at shooters' stand level are definitely NOT the rule anywhere, and certainly not for the usual applications (10, 25, 50 metres), but are fairly uncommon.
Alexander
-
Trooperjake
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:22 pm
- Location: Cookeville, TN
-
Marc Orvin
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:23 am
- Location: Colorado
I talked to both SIUS and MegaLink folks about 10 lanes of 10m targets this year. Both were in the $50,000 range for the 10 lanes. The bigger target frames for 25 and 50 yards would be more money, but not substantially, as the electronics are all the same.
Electronics could be used without moving the targets if they were set at 25 yards and the reduced target used for the slow fire stages. As has been stated, the targets would not turn, but the shooter waits for the green light to appear and must finish before the red light returns.
Cross fire detectors are a pain in the butt. As was stated by Marcus, they were used in Atlanta for quite a while. It would take the computer operator up to 5 minutes to determine who cross fired on who. Wasn't always 100% reliable. I know, cuz I was the computer operator for all the USAS Nationals at Wolf Creek at 50 meters. There were cross fire detectors at Ft Benning for the first few years. Only used on the 300 meter firing points. Same problem. You get a cross fire indication, then have to do the math to figure out where it came from.
Biggest problem I see is the target destruction from poor shooting skills. It's bad enough at Ft Benning that we assess penalties up to and including disqualification for frame hits. Doesn't take a whole lot of that kind of abuse to destroy a target frame.
As far as portability, I have watched SIUS ship in all the targets for a World Cup and set them up in a couple days. They are all packed into shipping crates and freighted back to Switzerland when the match is over. Megalink are just as portable.
Big advantage to electronic targets is the speed at which scores are tallied. When hooked up to a central ranking computer, the final results are available within seconds of the last shot being fired. Disadvantage is the crossfire issue. If shooters are not honest, it can take an extended period of time to adjudicate the issue. If backers are used, they must be changed after every 5 or ten shots or they become useless. The central ranking computer operator must produce a shot plot of the firing points to overlay on the backer to determine which shots are cross shots. Very time consuming. But then it is pretty time consuming with the current paper target system as well when folks won't admit to their lack of attention to their own target.
Also, another factor is weather. Paper targets in the wind and rain can be a disaster. Electronic targets in a lightning storm can get expensive. I've seen lightning cause thousands of dollars in damage to targets at Ft Benning. Makes paper look pretty cheap. Also, electronic targets are not impervious to rain. We had a real frog strangler at Ft Benning for the Olympic selection matches this spring. Ended up losing 20 targets right in the center of the 50 meter range. We were not able to get them up and running in a reasonable time and ended up having to have a shortened third day in which only the top 10 contenders for Olympic slots were able to compete in a half course. As hard as it was raining, a paper match would have been impossible. At least we could hold part of the match with the SIUS targets.
Your mileage may vary.
Marc Orvin
Electronics could be used without moving the targets if they were set at 25 yards and the reduced target used for the slow fire stages. As has been stated, the targets would not turn, but the shooter waits for the green light to appear and must finish before the red light returns.
Cross fire detectors are a pain in the butt. As was stated by Marcus, they were used in Atlanta for quite a while. It would take the computer operator up to 5 minutes to determine who cross fired on who. Wasn't always 100% reliable. I know, cuz I was the computer operator for all the USAS Nationals at Wolf Creek at 50 meters. There were cross fire detectors at Ft Benning for the first few years. Only used on the 300 meter firing points. Same problem. You get a cross fire indication, then have to do the math to figure out where it came from.
Biggest problem I see is the target destruction from poor shooting skills. It's bad enough at Ft Benning that we assess penalties up to and including disqualification for frame hits. Doesn't take a whole lot of that kind of abuse to destroy a target frame.
As far as portability, I have watched SIUS ship in all the targets for a World Cup and set them up in a couple days. They are all packed into shipping crates and freighted back to Switzerland when the match is over. Megalink are just as portable.
Big advantage to electronic targets is the speed at which scores are tallied. When hooked up to a central ranking computer, the final results are available within seconds of the last shot being fired. Disadvantage is the crossfire issue. If shooters are not honest, it can take an extended period of time to adjudicate the issue. If backers are used, they must be changed after every 5 or ten shots or they become useless. The central ranking computer operator must produce a shot plot of the firing points to overlay on the backer to determine which shots are cross shots. Very time consuming. But then it is pretty time consuming with the current paper target system as well when folks won't admit to their lack of attention to their own target.
Also, another factor is weather. Paper targets in the wind and rain can be a disaster. Electronic targets in a lightning storm can get expensive. I've seen lightning cause thousands of dollars in damage to targets at Ft Benning. Makes paper look pretty cheap. Also, electronic targets are not impervious to rain. We had a real frog strangler at Ft Benning for the Olympic selection matches this spring. Ended up losing 20 targets right in the center of the 50 meter range. We were not able to get them up and running in a reasonable time and ended up having to have a shortened third day in which only the top 10 contenders for Olympic slots were able to compete in a half course. As hard as it was raining, a paper match would have been impossible. At least we could hold part of the match with the SIUS targets.
Your mileage may vary.
Marc Orvin
-
Freepistol
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Berwick, PA