TargetTalk

I forgot to add in my post above a comment about the scope problem. The targets that we are talking about are acoustic targets. They "hear" the bullet as it passes through a semi-sealed sound chamber. On the front of the target is steel plate that holds everything together. Behind that is a "mask" this is a white or buff colored sheet of corrugated plastic with a hole the size of the black area of the target cut in the center. Behind that are black rubber sheets, one fixed to the target's frame and one that moves. The moving black band is needed to maintain a relatively sealed sound chamber. Not as critical in pistol, but definitely a problem in smallbore rifle, occurs when the shot groupings are close to the center of the target. A hole will ultimately be cut in the rubber by the bullets. This will compromise the sound chamber and erroneous shot values will be the result. To solve this the moving rubber strip (band) is indexed downward a small amount each shot or perhaps a little further after a small number of shots. For example, it can be set to move 5mm after every 3 shots or 2 mm after each shot. You can visualize that the center of the visible black spot (target) if we were to mark it at the start of the match would not remain the center. Again this is not a problem with metallic sights but without fixed scoring rings what does one aim at with a scope??

Just to be complete, behind the black rubber is the sound chamber of about 5cm (or 2 inches) deep and it is sealed on the back side with another fixed rubber sheet and a corrugated back (full, without a cut hole).

Isabel1130 wrote:I don't object to an electronic system in theory but feel that the scope and setting of Camp Perry will make it impractical. Does anyone know of an electronic system that is durable enough to use with large calibers like a 45?
Also when you talk about a moving rail to adjust the firing line from 50 down to 25 yards, remember Camp Perry is not a fixed pistol range. It has to be put up and taken down every year for one weeks shooting. I fear that the maintenance and breakage would soon triple or quadruple the initial estimated cost of the system. I don't think electronic systems are designed for matches like Camp Perry, and it would end up like the DIA (Denver International Airport) computerized automated Baggage System, an expensive albatross that would be a total waste because it never worked correctly.

Even master class shooters occasionally have early or late shots that will hit the target frame. I don't think limiting your electronic range shooters to the higher classifications is going to save you much wear and tear.

They build electronic targets that will handle 45 and have been using the target systems in Europe for years. Meyton, just one of the manufactures, has been building electronic targets that will handle these rounds for at least 10 years. The electronic target systems now days aren't as fragile as you would think. They are built pretty tough. They are built tough enough to handle rifle rounds. You just need to place a face on the target tough enough to handle the rounds you are going to shot, which is a minor engineering task.

The maintenance on an electronic target system that use the new LED's or Lasers is very minimal as there are no moving parts in the target. The two major parts in the target are LED lights and a circuit board, which are easy to replace.

The target frames are very light and so you could mount the frames on caster wells or carry them to where ever you want them. They will have to provide power to these target boxes, which shouldn't be the difficult to figure out. If it rains they could put yawning over the targets to protect the electronics or they could do what they do at Fort Benning or at any of the Olympic venues build a cover over the target lines. Fort Benning has been using these electronic targets for a very long time.

The big advantage of electronic targets is the results are reported instantly, which means the matches can be shot in much in less time. The matches can be conducted with less personnel as you don't need people to score the targets and you don't need people to change targets. They can reduce the time you need to stay for the match or add more relays. The other advantage is the results can be more accurate. Since the systems are recording the times and values for each shot things such as crossfires can be figured out or if you want a backer can be placed behind the target.

Whether you agree with them or not electronic targets are the wave of the future. It is just a matter of time when they will be cheap enough to be used on home or club ranges. The arguments against the new target systems are the same arguments that one of my old bosses used to tell me when we were using desktop computers in our engineering jobs. I told him well we all could have gotten to work on horses. It may not have been very fast but we could have still gotten us to work. There are already club ranges that are buying the new SISUS electronic targets.

Alex

Ignorant egotistical morons like you should stay and post in your own country. More than likely you post on here because in your two-bit wasteland of a country you'll be sent to Siberia or a cell. So, you come on here and spout. Since more than likely your not even allowed to own a firearm without facing criminal prosecution, it seems likely you dont know what your writing about. Pompous Windbag.

Call the Chinese, they could probably build better targets for less than a thousand dollars (US) per point...

Actually you got to give them a design then they'll knock them off for you, but only of you have a market for a million of the damn things.

Isabel1130 wrote: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 think your making to many assumptions about how government works, which is not unusual as many people are so busy with their personal lives. First of all work or materials purchased by the government is supposed to be put out for bids and the lowest bidder wins. The only time this dosen't take place is when the product is so unique that the product is only one able to meet government specs. Anybody can respond to the bids foreign and domestic. How do I know this I was a facility maintenance officer in the Navy in charge of a Seabee construction company and dealt with civilian contractors all the time and at the time and I doubt the law has been changed the law forbid the military from building structures especially in the US. As explained to me some law makers thought it was unfair many years ago to civilian contractors for the military to be building their own structures, so all building structures have to bid out to civilian contractors. I would agree that the paperwork is a nightmare even for simple changes. The only reason they are a nightmare is the congress in the infinite wisdom to protect the taxpayer is to create a bureaucracy to watch that things are done right. What they don't realize is that the paper work bureaucracy ends up costing more then what they are saving.

However, I don't know if the CMP has to go through the normal bureaucratic paper work nightmare when they are making changes to the range facilities. I don't think they did when they built their airgun range. The only reason I say this is that when they make a change to facilities at Camp Perry they seemed to get accomplished much faster then they would under a typical government run organization. If this is true then the cost for them building a facility wouldn't be any different then a normal business.

Camp Perry does have a small portion of the range were it does have covered range. I watched them shoot smallbore from it when I was at of the CMP Directors meeting.

The CMP had no problem in building their airgun range at Camp Perry equipped with 80 electronic targets and is used by the NRA as well. The electronic targets are very light weight and can be easily carried to any point you wish. You just need a place to connect power to each of the boxes which is not any great engineering problem.

The cost of the electronic are on the high side right now as with any new technology, but the cost are coming down and the cost has come down enough were there are some clubs buying the electronic targets. One of the reasons they more expensive in this country is that our dollar has been cheapened so much by the Fed that everything is expensive.

Since the targets are computer generated any type of target can be programmed into the systems. The target systems are built to handle any of the standard common pistol and rifle rounds. Meyton and SISUS have been building these targets for over ten years and are in use by clubs all over Europe. Action Target in Utah has been selling the Norwegian Kongsberg System for high powered caliber guns for use at the ranges they build and it does handle a 50 bmg.

Randy, I am a contracting officer. My husband is a civil engineer. I not only know how the government works, I have seen in real time the mistakes and screw ups that add millions in additional costs. Five years down the road, the math may change, but right now you arent going to come close to funding an outdoor electronic target system through a 50 or even a hundred dollar increase in entry fees.

Isabel1130 wrote:Randy, I am a contracting officer. My husband is a civil engineer. I not only know how the government works, I have seen in real time the mistakes and screw ups that add millions in additional costs. Five years down the road, the math may change, but right now you arent going to come close to funding an outdoor electronic target system through a 50 or even a hundred dollar increase in entry fees.

Your right I have seen the same things, but I assuming that the CMP has a large role in what target facilities are built and used at Perry. If that is so then what I am saying is that the CMP should be able to get things down quicker and cheaper as they aren't a government organization. They officially separated themselves from the government decades ago and as such they should be able to get things done more efficiently then any normal government organization. I think the new electronic airgun facility demonstrates that. If that would have been left up to the government to build it would have cost five times as much and would have taken years to build.

If you think the current fees are paying for the up keep on the existing facilities and ranges then your sadly mistaken. If they actually charged you the fees for the actual up keep and maintenance of the existing facilities people would be upset as well.

If your talking about the government buying and installing these targets then there isn't much you or I can say about it. If the Army thinks its a good idea regardless what you or I think then there going to do it. The military has been buying and using the most expensive shooting video games for years.

Having fired thousands of rounds both at Camp Perry and on electronic targets (exclusive of each other), I'd like to think that I'm qualified to chime in and say that I think that electronic targets at Camp Perry for pistol is a Very Bad Idea™.

There is a certain rhythm to a bullseye pistol match, which includes walking downrange to score and be scored. This is part and parcel of the sport.

Beyond that, the other 99% of the sport is conducted at local clubs, which never will install electronic targets.

Shooting on electronic targets is a different game; it's nonsensical to make the yearly championship of the sport fundamentally different from the base.

http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/elec ... events.asp

Seems like the NRA is testing the waters....

Having just shot the World Muzzle-Loading Championships on Meyton targets, I'd vote to go electronic if feasible. The scoring is immediate - and so are the statistics.

john bickar wrote:Having fired thousands of rounds both at Camp Perry and on electronic targets (exclusive of each other), I'd like to think that I'm qualified to chime in and say that I think that electronic targets at Camp Perry for pistol is a Very Bad Idea™.

There is a certain rhythm to a bullseye pistol match, which includes walking downrange to score and be scored. This is part and parcel of the sport.

Beyond that, the other 99% of the sport is conducted at local clubs, which never will install electronic targets.

Shooting on electronic targets is a different game; it's nonsensical to make the yearly championship of the sport fundamentally different from the base.

I agree that eliminating the walks downrange to score and repair targets would change the rhythm and character of a bullseye match. Generally I enjoy having a little exercise between strings and some time for reflection.

I wonder, though, if local clubs really will "never" use electronic targets. The price differential between paper and electronic targets should decrease over time and the ability to consume less valuable range time to hold a match might sway at least a few clubs to make the switch in the next 10-20 years.

How about lease/rent ?
Don't any of the companies like SIUS and Meyton offer a sport service that would allow organizers to rent the set up (inlcuding install support and maintenance) for a 1 or 2 week period ?
Is the set up for the World Cups owned by the ISSF and travels around the world like the F1 circus or is supply on rent/lease base? Or is Ft. Benning already full electronic ?