I was wondering if any one uses the scat for live firing training or just dry firing. The reason for this is that when I have used the scatt for live firing the position that it plots for the shots dose not match the live score even with lots of calibration.
Is this due to the scatt system registering the score as soon as the trigger clicks and not allowing for the slight movement after the click.
When I dry fire the scores and the system seem to very close to my normal live fire score. I know you should take the scores from the scatt to be the same as your live fire scores and look at the trace and all the other information you get.
So the question is should the scat system be used mostly for dry fire training?
Scatt for live-firing
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
Peter, you will probably be able to get a lot closer on shot placement by adjusting the f co-efficient. Somewhere in the high 20s is common but I have seen some who need to go into the 60s.
Are you going to be at The BPC on the 11th/12th. We could have a chat then. We have used Scatt for live firing extensively with the GB Squad. It works great when mounted on a Sius Ascor.
Are you going to be at The BPC on the 11th/12th. We could have a chat then. We have used Scatt for live firing extensively with the GB Squad. It works great when mounted on a Sius Ascor.
I've been dealing with the same issue with my new Scatt, and as David suggests, playing with the f-coefficient has got me lot closer to matching my Scatt traces to their corresponding paper targets. My AP likes a lowish value, 7 or thereabouts. I believe that beyond establishing target distance, the calibration routine only works to center the virtual target on the real one.
Can anyone out there in TT-land explain clearly what the f-coefficient does? As near as I can tell it instructs the software how much to throw the shot in the direction the trace was moving (& considers the trace speed too) when it hears the action click.
- a different David
Can anyone out there in TT-land explain clearly what the f-coefficient does? As near as I can tell it instructs the software how much to throw the shot in the direction the trace was moving (& considers the trace speed too) when it hears the action click.
- a different David
I have found a Unofficial Scatt Manual that dose explain the scat better that the manufactures manual
link to Unofficial Scatt Manual http://www.gunsnot.com/pdfs/scatt%20man ... -18-03.pdf
link to Unofficial Scatt Manual http://www.gunsnot.com/pdfs/scatt%20man ... -18-03.pdf
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
If you look at page 9 of Scott Shaffers excellent work (see the link given by PSF32 above) you will see a good explanation of f-coefficient.dflast wrote:Can anyone out there in TT-land explain clearly what the f-coefficient does? As near as I can tell it instructs the software how much to throw the shot in the direction the trace was moving (& considers the trace speed too) when it hears the action click.
The thing that you need to remember about the f-coefficient is that it only attempts to address factors that come into play once the projectile has left the barrel. Whilst it is very useful if you are trying to simulate a match, if you are purely trying to evaluate your technique I would always recommend setting it to zero. You have no control over the atmospheric conditions or the curvature of the earth so why let them affect the data.
-
Steve Swartz
. . . also note that with both the Scatt and Rika systems, the system is more precise than your pellet . . . the computer will show you where your shot would have landed, had there been a "group size" of exactly zero . . .
What this means is that any individual shot could be "off call" by the amount of your real-world hole-in-target error.
This can drive you nuts, if you expect the Scatt/Rika to exactly match the hole in paper. It won't- it can't. It assumes your equipment has zero error.
Steve
What this means is that any individual shot could be "off call" by the amount of your real-world hole-in-target error.
This can drive you nuts, if you expect the Scatt/Rika to exactly match the hole in paper. It won't- it can't. It assumes your equipment has zero error.
Steve
Shot Dispersion
The Scatt (and presumably Rika) can account for a random shot dispersion or scatter (hence the name). But as you have noted the system defaults to a perfect pellet/bullet and perfect gun.
I have been able to get is about +/- 0.2 scoring rings, on average, shot on a Suis-Ascor.
Remember, Scatt and Rika are NOT electronic scoring targets! They are electronic training devices.
Marcus
I have been able to get is about +/- 0.2 scoring rings, on average, shot on a Suis-Ascor.
Remember, Scatt and Rika are NOT electronic scoring targets! They are electronic training devices.
Marcus
Shot Dispersion
The Scatt (and presumably Rika) can account for a random shot dispersion or scatter (hence the name). But as you have noted the system defaults to a perfect pellet/bullet and perfect gun.
I have been able to get is about +/- 0.2 scoring rings, on average, shot on a Suis-Ascor.
Remember, Scatt and Rika are NOT electronic scoring targets! They are electronic training devices.
Marcus
I have been able to get is about +/- 0.2 scoring rings, on average, shot on a Suis-Ascor.
Remember, Scatt and Rika are NOT electronic scoring targets! They are electronic training devices.
Marcus
When shooting in club, I shot sighting shots with pellets to calibrate Scatt and dry fire the rest of the session. Some other shooters who doesn't have their AP equiped with compensators prefer to shot with pellets all the time. The recoil gives them more sensations.
When it comes to comparing scatt and live results, there is a very slight difference and nobody is concerned with.
When using the scatt, you should be more concerned with stability issue.
There is direct coleration between stability and score you obtain.
- Ned
When it comes to comparing scatt and live results, there is a very slight difference and nobody is concerned with.
When using the scatt, you should be more concerned with stability issue.
There is direct coleration between stability and score you obtain.
- Ned
Thanks psf32 for the link, much more informative than the "official" documentation available in English.
Absolutely, Scatt & Rika & Noptel are training systems and not electronic targets: the whole point is what the traces reveal and not virtual hole placement and score. Even so, it's comforting to have the recorded "targets" correspond well to paper, and who can be a precision shooter and not be obsessed with detail? If Scatt provides some tools to tune the virtual to the actual, how can we not fiddle with them whether we understand them well or not?
In the spirit of obsession then, I must beg to differ with David Levene about Scatt's "f-coefficient." A non-trivial component of its effect is indeed shooter-controlled: playing with the "f" value on recorded traces, one sees a clear positive correlation, in proportion to "f", between hole offset from the aimpoint at the moment of release, and the direction and speed of the trace at the moment of release. This is surely as it should be, as lateral movement of the barrel in live fire must impart a corresponding lateral momentum to the projectile as it travels from breech to muzzle.
-David
Absolutely, Scatt & Rika & Noptel are training systems and not electronic targets: the whole point is what the traces reveal and not virtual hole placement and score. Even so, it's comforting to have the recorded "targets" correspond well to paper, and who can be a precision shooter and not be obsessed with detail? If Scatt provides some tools to tune the virtual to the actual, how can we not fiddle with them whether we understand them well or not?
In the spirit of obsession then, I must beg to differ with David Levene about Scatt's "f-coefficient." A non-trivial component of its effect is indeed shooter-controlled: playing with the "f" value on recorded traces, one sees a clear positive correlation, in proportion to "f", between hole offset from the aimpoint at the moment of release, and the direction and speed of the trace at the moment of release. This is surely as it should be, as lateral movement of the barrel in live fire must impart a corresponding lateral momentum to the projectile as it travels from breech to muzzle.
-David
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I am not sure that Scatt themselves have ever claimed that the lateral movement of the barrel at the time of shot release was a separately calculated component of the f-coefficient. I had a conversation with their Sales Manager several years ago that indicated it was just included in the "actual shot hole" v "theoretical shot hole" comparison of their database. The movement was therefore treated as a constant which, of course, it isn't.dflast wrote: In the spirit of obsession then, I must beg to differ with David Levene about Scatt's "f-coefficient." A non-trivial component of its effect is indeed shooter-controlled: playing with the "f" value on recorded traces, one sees a clear positive correlation, in proportion to "f", between hole offset from the aimpoint at the moment of release, and the direction and speed of the trace at the moment of release. This is surely as it should be, as lateral movement of the barrel in live fire must impart a corresponding lateral momentum to the projectile as it travels from breech to muzzle.
Even if it is, if we are using Scatt as a technique training tool should we even be bothered where the shot hits the target. In relation to your point, shouldn't we be much more interested in reducing the aiming point speed.
It doesn't really matter what the shot value is, if you train to reduce the aiming point speed, trace length and "snatch factor" (the un-named column) then you will not go far wrong.