Random Thoughts on Electronic Targets

[Orpanaut]

1) The basic technology used by Sius Ascor is over thirty years old. Given the huge price drops for other electronic devices (e.g., calculators, personal computers, cell phones) over this time period, why haven't electronic targets also become cheap and widely available?

2) If target systems were made by a dozen companies in China instead of by one company in Switzerland, would they cost about a quarter as much?

3) One of the main reasons the ISSF disciplines have been losing ground to other shooting sports is the lack of immediate gratification upon a good shot. But with electronic scoring and display systems, it should be possible to program them for all sorts of entertaining feedback (or not, depending upon a shooter's preferences). Would kids be drawn to sports like air pistol if the targets beeped and booped like their favorite videogames?

4) Would there be a market for a very basic, affordable electronic target system even if it weren't ISSF-approved?

[pgfaini]

While I liked the feedback at Wolf Creek from Sius Ascor for a perfect X during 10M finals, I don't think Beeps and Boops would do much for the young (or old) shooter's concentration. When I'm down the basement training, or shooting a postal match for 10M, if the phone rings, even though I'm wearing ear muffs, I can count on a drop of 10-20 points out of 60 shots. Much of my concentration at an FP match, or slow stage of an SP match, is aimed at ignoring the sound of the other shooters' shots, so I can mentally isolate myself.
Am I in the minority?
Paul

[David Levene]

Much of my concentration at an FP match, or slow stage of an SP match, is aimed at ignoring the sound of the other shooters' shots, so I can mentally isolate myself.
Am I in the minority?

I wouldn't say that my concentration is aimed at ignoring external events Paul; it's more that when I am concentrating properly on what I am doing then other (expected) things are blocked out.

I expect there to be other shots so I don't notice them. I expect there to be talking on the range so don't notice it. I expect the grip to feel right so don't notice it unless it feels wrong.

[j-team]

Back to the original topic.

1. The worldwide market for electronic targets is tiny compared to other electrical goods. So, why bother making a small number of them when you can make a huge number of the more common and popular items?

2. A dozen comanies in China aren't ISSF approved (or in bed with if you like!).

3. Personally, I doubt that beeping etc would make any difference to the apeal of ISSF shooting to young people.

4. Yes. I believe that there would be a market for a cheap non ISSF approved electronic target system. If it was cheap enough, I'd get one for my home range.

[j-team]

When I'm down the basement training, or shooting a postal match for 10M, if the phone rings, even though I'm wearing ear muffs, I can count on a drop of 10-20 points out of 60 shots.
Paul

If you drop 10-20 point because of one distraction them you need to work on your tactics there.

When distracted, you can't just keep shooting. You have to stop and gather yourself, don't start shooting again until you have regained your prefered state of mind.

[rrpc]

1) The basic technology used by Sius Ascor is over thirty years old. Given the huge price drops for other electronic devices (e.g., calculators, personal computers, cell phones) over this time period, why haven't electronic targets also become cheap and widely available?

Well firstly, they have. Manufacturers like Spieth and Megalink have been instrumental in bringing the price of electronic targets down. Sius Ascor seem to be immune to the price cuts, but perhaps the fact that Megalink won the contract for the new 80 point airgun range in Camp Perry might make them think again.

Secondly, there's a lot more than electronics in electronic targets :). Quite a bit of steel and aluminium goes into their construction and those materials have been rising steadily in cost over the last 30 years and especially over the last 5.

2) If target systems were made by a dozen companies in China instead of by one company in Switzerland, would they cost about a quarter as much?

There are quite a number of manufacturers. The two I mentioned above plus Meyton (quite expensive, but different technology) and Polytronic are two more manufacturers that are making inroads into Sius' domination of the market.

3) One of the main reasons the ISSF disciplines have been losing ground to other shooting sports is the lack of immediate gratification upon a good shot. But with electronic scoring and display systems, it should be possible to program them for all sorts of entertaining feedback (or not, depending upon a shooter's preferences). Would kids be drawn to sports like air pistol if the targets beeped and booped like their favorite videogames?

Not sure I'd like that. It'd just be another distraction to try and filter out.

4) Would there be a market for a very basic, affordable electronic target system even if it weren't ISSF-approved?

There is (see above). Megalink make a personal target for airgun which can be run off a very basic laptop and which costs about $1600 all in.

Most of the other manufacturers are in the process of getting ISSF approval. It takes a lot of time and is done in three phases I think.

[methosb]

I guess they could have a kids mode for kids nights or whatever.

You shoot a 10 and the screen plays a little congrats animation. Like 10 pin bowling...

[David Levene]

At the moment the Sius Ascor electronic targets are the only ones approved for ISSF Competitions (World Cups, Continental Championships, etc). It will be interesting to see whether that changes in the new rules due out later this year (effective 01/01/2009).

[rrpc]

As of about 18 months ago, Megalink had got through phase two of ISSF approval. I thought Spieth had also got through the process as well?

[Welsh-shooter]

Shooting sports must adapt to the entertainment expectations of a new generation. I have two young sons (7 & 8 years old), who have grown up in front of a PC or Wii. I cannot see this generation, spending hours and hours shooting holes in bits of paper as I did in my youth.

Every sport must evolve, and shooting is already a long way behind the times. Electronic targets offer massive potential for a new and more exiciting format - it just needs the crusty dinosaurs in the ISSF to imagine a world outside the 19th century..!

IMHO the real problems for shooting sport are not legislation and the lack of media coverage, but rather:

1 - The current format of events must change.
2 - the cost of equipment is much too high.
3 - lack of marketing to a new generation (needs 1 & 2 to be solved)

[Misny]

I think that legislation and lack of media attention are major factors in lack of participation in the shooting sports, but I digress.

Back to the original post. I think that if cheap electronic targets, even if not ISSF approved would be a boon to the shooting sports. I would think that the price would have to come down to around $500 per point to make it affordable for individuals and clubs. For non-registered matches, I could see there not having to be a need for the black paper role. Maybe a self sealing bullseye, or some such thing. It would be great not to have to buy any more paper targets...save the trees (tongue firmly in cheek)!

[plinker]

I think part of the problem is that smallbore shooting is a participation sport - as a spectator sport it is about as exciting as watching paint dry.

The reason (not the only reason) that media attention ignores the competitions is that they are boring. The competitiors don't look like they are doing much, and until the targets are scored, nobody knows what the standings are.

One idea is to have an electronic representation of the targets being fired on that the spectators can view - like a bowling alley display, but with live action shots being recorded. I don't think it's necessary for the shooters to have electronic feedback - just the potential spectators/audience. It would make us a little more spectator-friendly without distracting the competitors too much.

As far as the current state of smallbore shooting, I think it is less of a problem of not having electronic gizmos and more of a problem of having fewer ranges which can accommodate position shooters. Most local ranges I've seen will allow bench rest shooting on their rimfire ranges, and nothing else.

[Welsh-shooter]

As someone who works for one of the UK's leading academic computer science research centres, I know that producing innovative (and entertaining) display of shooting results to spectators would be a trivial matter, given only slight changes to the format of shooting events.

IMHO the real missed opportunity of electronic targets is the ability to network them globally - what other sport can offer the potential of competition in real-time with an almost unlimited number of formats to a global market at the press of a button? Most of us have shot in postal competitions both nationally and internationally, but electronic targets could bring a whole new dimension to this.

With a bit of imagination and financial backing, boring old target shooting could turn itself into the first "internet" sport.

Suggestions on a post-card please...

[rrpc]

I think the main problem with cost is the small market. There are still not that many ranges equipped with electronics and it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

Having said that, it's not *that* huge an investment. Look at the cost of paper targets, especially the larger 25m pistol and 50m rifle ones. Because these costs are incurred on an ongoing basis and in small chunks, it doesn't look too bad, but if you add together the cost of targets for a medium sized club, then you're into pretty big money over a period of years.

[Guest]

That is an excellent idea, Welsh-shooter. I don't mind having a live match with some friends across the pond every other Saturday. With a webcam and a microphone, I think it also makes a good tool for distance coaching. Does RIKA or Scatt provide SDKs for their systems?

On the other hand, I wouldn't call this concept the 'first' Internet sport. There may be other examples, but indoor rowers have been training and racing over the Internet for years.

[Welsh-shooter]

I agree that the current cost of electronic targets is a major barrier. I see little excuse for the outrageous prices charged for what is relatively cheap technology. For that matter, you could aim this criticism at most shooting equipment.

I think there is a real opportunity to develop a much cheaper target system that would be accessible to a much wider market - even the existing manufacturers should understand basic economics, that a much lower cost for their equipment would create many more sales and reduce their costs.

If only we had a manufacturer of this kit in the far-east?

[Welsh-shooter]

Indoor rowing is a simulation of the real thing - shooting could offer the full event on real ranges, as an internet sport. I cannot think of another example of this (darts or archery?) - you could even imagine it possible (but not desirable) to hold the Olympics without the competitors having to be on the same continent, let alone the same range...?

[jacques b gros]

quote from Welsh shooter:

IMHO the real missed opportunity of electronic targets is the ability to network them globally - what other sport can offer the potential of competition in real-time with an almost unlimited number of formats to a global market at the press of a button? Most of us have shot in postal competitions both nationally and internationally, but electronic targets could bring a whole new dimension to this.endquote

Here in Brasil we started using the internet for national competiition, albeit without the electroinic targets except for 3 ranges.

A regional competition is held in some city, with all the olimpic modalities, and in so called "virtual" locations, for the time being, air pistol and rifle, plus open sighted unmodified spring rifles competiitions are shot at the same time.

Results are sent to the national federation via internet (at least one federation officer per location, working with password), are ranked and posted in the internet. A large TV displays these results on almost real time.

These competitions are valid for the national ranking and for team selection. The top 5 shooters are required to shoot at least 4 times a year at the main location.

Reduced travel costs and brought a lot of people into the sport.

[Orpanaut]

Thanks for the information on alternatives to the Sius products. I didn't even know that these companies existed.

I guess they could have a kids mode for kids nights or whatever.

You shoot a 10 and the screen plays a little congrats animation. Like 10 pin bowling...

That's what I had in mind. Take the instant gratification that makes video games so addictive and use it to get youngsters interested in the shooting sports.

There are all sorts of possibilities:

- Graphs to track a shooter's progress

- Automatic scaling of the scoring rings to adapt the difficulty to the shooter's performance

- Unlocking awards (such as the ability to customize the animation) at different levels of achievement

And with a simple interface between electronic targets and electronic earmuffs, little Johnny can enjoy Nintendo-style shooting without distracting the shooter next to him who's training for the World Cup.

[Richard H]

There are a few companies that make electronic scoring systems Megalink, Meyton, Spieth, Harring, and Poly-tronic, plus Suis. How many many manufactures do you guys think there should be for electronic target systems, they are never going to be dirt cheap, the cost of design, tooling and manufacture has to be spread across a very small amount of serial production, believe me no matter how much we all like shooting it is a very small market and getting smaller all the time. For the most part they could be consider semi-custom units.


As for the Chinese, they aren't going to manufacture items that are made in the 100"s they make things that are manufactured in the millions.