Home Training - Noptel??

[Faisal Yamin]

This is my first post here since the revamp of the forum :)

Question about home training,

I have used a Rika in the past, I used to live in an apartment at that time and had sell it as I was not able to use it as I should have.

But I was just comparing the Scatt, Rika and Noptel. Betwenn the Rika and Scatt I would shoose the Rika for sure.

But I am curious what makes the Noptel 3 times more expensive then the Rika.

Plus do the reflective targets make the noptel more accurate?

[Steve Swartz]

Live fire training with heavy calibers at rifle distances.

This forces the Noptel folks to build some pretty stout stuff to tight tolerances.

Within their own (different) operating ranges the accuracy is not an issue.

Steve

[Ted Bell]

Also, the new Noptel Sport II is much more reasonable in price. I think I paid around $1,500 for it. If you're interested, JP O'Connor would be the one to talk to about what they are currently going for.

Thanks,
Ted

[Faisal Yamin]

Thanks How do I get in touch with JP O'Connor.

regards,

Faisal

[IPshooter]

I thought the difference with the Noptel system is it shows you whether your hold was not good because of:

1. Parallel error - properly aligned sights moving out of the middle of the target.

2. Angular error - misalignment of the sights.

If it does, in fact, do this, it has an advantage over the Rika and Scatt. My understanding is while both of these systems will show what your hold looks like (via the trace), neither of them tell you whether the hold error is the result of simply too much movement vs. not locking the sights together.

Stan

[dflast]

I've recently spoken with J P O'Connor about this very subject, and alas the Noptel Sport II is more like $2000 than $1500 now. The dollar has not fared well against the euro in the past couple of years.

-David

[David Levene]

I thought the difference with the Noptel system is it shows you whether your hold was not good because of:

1. Parallel error - properly aligned sights moving out of the middle of the target.

2. Angular error - misalignment of the sights.

If it does, in fact, do this, it has an advantage over the Rika and Scatt. My understanding is while both of these systems will show what your hold looks like (via the trace), neither of them tell you whether the hold error is the result of simply too much movement vs. not locking the sights together.

Stan, if it does show the the difference between the 2 errors, or the inevitable combination of the 2, then it would indeed be a great advantage. I am just not sure how it can do this unless the gun mounted unit is a LOT more than just a laser source/receiver and trigger break sensor.

[Richard H]

The Rika does provide the tools to assess if there is too much movement. Look at the screen which shows you movement in the x,y axis. I can't see how the Noptel could tell you if your sights are aligned. Angular errors are always much greater than parallel errors. If the RIka shows your hold in one area and at trigger release there is movement and the shot lands a great deal away from where the shot should have been you can infer that there was an angular error. I think what they are saying is that if you analyse the data you can infer those things, which is the same as the Rika or Scatt.

[Faisal Yamin]

I've recently spoken with J P O'Connor about this very subject, and alas the Noptel Sport II is more like $2000 than $1500 now. The dollar has not fared well against the euro in the past couple of years.

-David

Can someone provide me his contact information?

[David Levene]

If the RIka shows your hold in one area and at trigger release there is movement and the shot lands a great deal away from where the shot should have been you can infer that there was an angular error. I think what they are saying is that if you analyse the data you can infer those things, which is the same as the Rika or Scatt.

I am not totally sure that inferring (guessing) that you had angular errors in such circumstances would be particularly useful. Much more useful to just know that there is something wrong with your shot release.

I took Stan's post to mean that, for example, Noptel could differentiate between angular and parallel errors during normal aiming. That would be a clever trick.

A few years ago I had a play with an Israeli system that could differentiate between angular and parallel movements. The problem with that one was that there was no reference to the target, it just dealt with movement. If for example, on 2 consecutive shots, you were steady on 2 points 6" apart it would score them both as 10s. I seem to remember it was based on accelerometers.

[IPshooter]

I took Stan's post to mean that, for example, Noptel could differentiate between angular and parallel errors during normal aiming. That would be a clever trick.

A few years ago I had a play with an Israeli system that could differentiate between angular and parallel movements. The problem with that one was that there was no reference to the target, it just dealt with movement. If for example, on 2 consecutive shots, you were steady on 2 points 6" apart it would score them both as 10s. I seem to remember it was based on accelerometers.

David,

The info about the Noptel was given to me some years ago (2001?), and I don't recall the source. Maybe a Noptel rep can answer the question of what it can do?

But, if it could tell us: a) how much movement is there in my shoulder joint (for a pistol shooter) vs. b) how well am I locking the front and rear sights together, that would be great. If nothing else, it would further break down the shot process into a couple of elements to work on.

A lot of people assume because they strengthen their wrist and forearm that they've licked the problem of locking the sights together. For those that are satisfied, here's a test. Sit down in a chair with your unloaded pistol. Let your arm hang down and point it to the floor. (This takes shoulder joint movement out of the equation.) Take a hard look at the relationship of your sights, both with and without dry firing. Do you see any movement of the sights at all? Look really, really closely. If you see the even the slightest wiggle of the sights, you do not have the "locked sights" issue licked.

Stan

[David Levene]

The info about the Noptel was given to me some years ago (2001?), and I don't recall the source. Maybe a Noptel rep can answer the question of what it can do?

But, if it could tell us: a) how much movement is there in my shoulder joint (for a pistol shooter) vs. b) how well am I locking the front and rear sights together, that would be great.

Oh, you got me all excited for a while there Stan ;^)

There is of course yet another source of movement for pistol shooters (and standing rifle shooters), body sway.

I am sure that the technology is out there somewhere to answer all of our questions without being too obtrusive but, can we afford it?

[Richard H]

If the RIka shows your hold in one area and at trigger release there is movement and the shot lands a great deal away from where the shot should have been you can infer that there was an angular error. I think what they are saying is that if you analyse the data you can infer those things, which is the same as the Rika or Scatt.

I am not totally sure that inferring (guessing) that you had angular errors in such circumstances would be particularly useful. Much more useful to just know that there is something wrong with your shot release.

I took Stan's post to mean that, for example, Noptel could differentiate between angular and parallel errors during normal aiming. That would be a clever trick.

A few years ago I had a play with an Israeli system that could differentiate between angular and parallel movements. The problem with that one was that there was no reference to the target, it just dealt with movement. If for example, on 2 consecutive shots, you were steady on 2 points 6" apart it would score them both as 10s. I seem to remember it was based on accelerometers.

Yes I guess I should have prefaced my statement by saying this is based on someone who has a reasonable amount of skill and would not normally distrub the pistol during shot release to have the shot land inches away from where it was to land. ( I forgot that the biggest sport on this board is arguement).

An inference is a guess based upon some form of evidence it's not just a guess (using inference in the mathematical sense of the word, as all these machines are based upon mathematical models and statisitics). What you describe sounds like a machine that makes inferences based upon data (evidence) from accelerometers. All these machines require one to interpret the data, they aren't magic, they won't tell you what exactly you are doing wrong. They will just indicate that there is a problem and it will be your job to look through the data to see if you can inpret it (which will require inferences) to find out likely sources of error.

[Richard H]

The big question is why would you want equipment to tell you that there is movement. Guess what there is movement there is no one that has "perfect sight alignment " or "no movement" you don't need equipment to tell you that. The person with the least amount of movement is not necessarily going to shoot the highest score. The big thing is to learn to accept the movement and subconciously have a clean trigger break while the sight are aligned. Yes through training you can reduce the amount of movement but as long as you are living there is going to be movement, you breath, you blink, your heart beats, you digest, muscles crontract, they all create movement.

How could a device tell you how your sight are aligned unless it is part of your sights? With any trainer you can drastically misalign the sight and still get it to hit a ten. ( the machines make asumptions that you are actually aiming at them correctly)

[David Levene]

Yes through training you can reduce the amount of movement but as long as you are living there is going to be movement, you breath, you blink, your heart beats, you digest, muscles crontract, they all create movement.

I totally agree. Ideally an electronic trainer should tell you exactly what is happenning and, by doing so, point you in the right direction to allow you to train to reduce the most detrimental errors.

How could a device tell you how your sight are aligned unless it is part of your sights? With any trainer you can drastically misalign the sight and still get it to hit a ten. ( the machines make asumptions that you are actually aiming at them correctly)

Once again I agree, at least as far as the currently available trainers are concerned. I refuse to believe however that the technology is not available to accurately plot the relationship between the target, foresight and rearsight without having anything mounted on the gun. If you can accurately determine the position of the 3 with a high enough sampling rate then you can calculate exactly what movement is occurring. Current systems take no account of sight relationship, Laser positioning/measurement springs to mind but I have no doubt that even more accurate technologies are around. As I previously asked however, can we afford it?

[jhogema]

Once again I agree, at least as far as the currently available trainers are concerned. I refuse to believe however that the technology is not available to accurately plot the relationship between the target, foresight and rearsight without having anything mounted on the gun. If you can accurately determine the position of the 3 with a high enough sampling rate then you can calculate exactly what movement is occurring.

To make things even more complicated, I think you'll need to measure a 4th element: the eye.
Some scientific work has been done to measure not only the aiming point on the target (as Noptel, Rika etc. do), but also the rifle movement, using accelerometers on the barrel and butt. Using such tools, you can distinguish (to some extent) between rifle motion due to body stabilisation, volitional aiming, and tremor. (I have some references if you're interested).

Still, if you don't know where the eye was, how can you tell is sight aliginment was OK or not?

Regarding the currently available trainers: Rika also measures cant angle of the rifle. I don't know how they do it, dut Rika does and the others don't. So if you have too much variation in the rifle cant angle (which will be reflected in your shot pattern), only Rika will be able to tell you this.


Regards
Jeroen Hogema

[Albert B]

Hallo Jeroen,
Nice to read you are doing the researge.
Can you provide me with the references about eye/body movement you write about - in the same manner as the documents about the Bodymovement and Canting of the rifle you have sent me?

Have a look at the site :
www.schutterssupport.nl

Toghether with a clubmember we are in the process of setting up this site for Dutch SB and Air rifle shooters.

Groetjes,
Albert B (The Netherlands)

[Guest]

Noptel, Scatt, and Rika all are capable of detecting angular (rotation about an axis) error. They are not capable of detecting translation (straight line movement along an axis) error. Most movements made by the shooting athlete, wheter rifle or pistol, result in both rotational and translation error. Sight alignment change will result in a large rotational error and often have a small translation component. Body sway will have a large translation component and result in a small (yet easily detectable) angular error. Hope this clears up the question.

[JPOC]

The post above from "Guest" regarding rotational and translational movement was from me. I changed computers and wasn't logged in. Sorry!

[Patrick Haynes]

Regarding the currently available trainers: Rika also measures cant angle of the rifle. I don't know how they do it, dut Rika does and the others don't. So if you have too much variation in the rifle cant angle (which will be reflected in your shot pattern), only Rika will be able to tell you this.


Regards
Jeroen Hogema

Here's my understanding: The Rika's emitter is placed on the pistol and you identify the location to the Rika (sides or bottom.) The Rika sensors on the receiver must plot this in relation to the emitter.

Few more comments: hold and aim are two mutually exclusive entities. I have seen holds the size of a pellet. Trigger was smooth. Unfortunately, the shot was off. Why? The athlete aimed off-centre. Next shot was in a different area. Consistency of aim was really bad. I switched her to a sub-six hold, out of centre-of-mass, and her point of aim became much more consistent. Her hold remained the same and her scores went up.

The electronic trainers don't tell you if your sights are misaligned, but they can tell you that your consistency is off. Different points of aim, means poor ability to reproduce point of aim. This could infer sight misalignment issues, but if the hold is small, I'd rule that out.

If area of hold and its pattern (square versus wide rectangle versus tall rectangle) is very erratic and aim point changes, maybe it could be angular or parallel errors, but it is hard to say.

Remember, the Rika is just another tool. Watch the shooter while you're taking data. Record comments by shot number and compare the data. Ask the shooter what they saw. The Rika is an interpretative tool and only fills in some of the gaps.

As a sidenote, I've been using the Rika in my coaching for the last two years and have accumulated data, over multiple assessments, on about 20 or so athletes.

You learn from the Rika when you start reviewing alot of data, and stack it up against what your eyes have seen. Compare one trace from today versus 4 months ago and you'll be surprised at the changes (good or bad) of a developmental athlete. Really interesting stuff.

And a public thank you, to Richard H., who regularly comes out to our Juniors' Camps, and runs two Rikas while I'm in either the range or a classroom. Thanks, Richard!

Patrick