TargetTalk

Does anyone know the cost of a single Kongsberg PC electronic target? It looks like you could just hook one up to a laptop and you would be set for training. I hate it when companies play coy about prices, I much prefer to not bother sellers when something is way out of my price range. I remember a violin I was interested in once. I called, they called back, turned out it was a "bargain" at $600,000 !!!! (I didn't buy it)

Sorry about the venting,

Dwight

Dwight:

No one else has answered . . . at least I for one never heard of the target system you are referring to. Do you have a web page with links?

There are a lot of "electronic target systems" and they are not to be confused with "electronic trainers" which are very different animals (both in terms of cost and capability).

Here in Norway where they're produced/engineered they cost about 9500-10000 Norwegain krone. It equals about US$1700-1800 with todays exhange rate. I don't know how closely that is to the actual USD sales price, but it may give you an idea.

The other Norwegian Electronic Target company Megalink also make a PC Target and the price is essentially the same, and I generally like the Megalink targets better, so you should have a look a those too before you make your choice.

http://megalink.no/defaultEN.htm

The Mega Link targets look very nice. To their credit they post clear prices! I may need to buy one of those. The CMP has installed 80 Mega Link targets in their new air gun hall at Camp Perry, Ohio.

Dwight

Sius-Ascor has a similar soulution called "SiusLane". I don´t know about pricing though, but I expect it´s a few USD more then Megalink..

Steve Swartz wrote:Dwight:

There are a lot of "electronic target systems" and they are not to be confused with "electronic trainers" which are very different animals (both in terms of cost and capability).

Sorry for my ignorance, but what really is the difference except S/W? It seems the trainers are cheaper than the scoring units.
Jim

jimsoars wrote:Sorry for my ignorance, but what really is the difference except S/W? It seems the trainers are cheaper than the scoring units.

Trainers are determining where the gun is pointing, usually using opto-electronics, and providing feedback of what has been happening throught the scoring process. This would not involve the firing of a bullet/pellet although that could be achieved on some systems.

Electronic targets actually determine where a bullet/pellet has hit.

I see. So for the trainers like RIKA and Scatt, when used with live fire, are they as accurate as the dedicated scoring units?

I'm guessing that the dedicated scoring units are more expensive due to the sensors and S/W as well as being designed to have multiple units and collect scores from each one.
Jim

jimsoars wrote:I see. So for the trainers like RIKA and Scatt, when used with live fire, are they as accurate as the dedicated scoring units?

Electronic trainers totally ignore where the bullet/pellet goes. They only work on where the gun is pointing.

When used in conjunction with live fire it is not uncommon (in reality quite common) for the calculated theoritical score/hole to be different from the actual one.

Electronic trainers and electronic scoring targets are totally different animals. The first looks at where the gun is pointing over a set time and calculates where it thinks the shot would hit (based on pre-set parameters), the second measures where a shot has actually hit.

When I first received my Rika trainer, I went through a 6-month study of how to improve the accuracy (calibration ) of actual-predicted shot placement.

After a pretty thorough analysis- which included bench testing- and in conjunction with the engineers (and other experts) I came to a pretty surprising conclusion:

The shots were landing *exactly* where the computer thought they should . . . . if the gun were 100% precise.

In other woprds, the best electronic trainer cannoct account for the pseudo-random shot dispersion ("group size") of the gun itself.

So the 1/3 pellet diameter or so "inaccuracy of the trainer" was actually "inaccuracy of your match pistol!"

I concluded that in dignosing technique issues nad making training effort decisions, the COMPUTER had better information than HOLES IN PAPER.

Go figure . . .