TargetTalk

How many of you tried the Electronic Target System at Perry?
What are your thoughts?
Dennis Willing says they will purchase 150 for next years Championship.

I am surprised they didn't have comment cards for shooters to give feedback.
Megalink was very helpful, doing all he could to answer questions.
Some shooters really blasted the frame, and it kept going, and the final product is to be bullet proof to 45 ball more than the sample.
The two provided came from the Coast Guard Acadamy.
Do you think it will help or hurt the sport?
International seems to have progressed to the system very well.

We had this discussion last year when it was only in the maybe stage.

Trooperjake wrote:How many of you tried the Electronic Target System at Perry?
What are your thoughts?
Dennis Willing says they will purchase 150 for next years Championship.

I am surprised they didn't have comment cards for shooters to give feedback.
Megalink was very helpful, doing all he could to answer questions.
Some shooters really blasted the frame, and it kept going, and the final product is to be bullet proof to 45 ball more than the sample.
The two provided came from the Coast Guard Acadamy.
Do you think it will help or hurt the sport?
International seems to have progressed to the system very well.

We had this discussion last year when it was only in the maybe stage.

A bunch of people I talked to, who tried the targets, had sufficient concerns, that they said, if they were indeed in operation for next years matches, they would be sitting out Perry for a couple of years.

As far as international doing this already. The big matches are the only ones with electronic targets. The local matches don't have them. But there are virtually no local matches anymore, so I guess that is ok.

International is in worse shape than bullseye, as far as participation. So I don't think the change has done much for them.

Personally, for me, as an older woman electronic targets could confer a big advantage.

However, it will destroy Canton as a prep match. Because conditions will be too different.

If you want a list of issues, transmitted to me by shooters who did try them, please pm me. I have nothing against electronic targets, if and when they are also available to all the local and regional matches, (and a few of the rules are modified to accommodate the differences) but I don't believe front loading the concept at Perry is the correct way to force a change.

Tradition has a value, especially to people who gravitate to Bullseye.

What happens if you drive away all the regular competitors with too much change, and fail to attract new ones to replace them?

What ever the result, if this innovation fails to attract people to Camp Perry, the blame will fall on the shooters, a bunch of old fuddy duddy Luddites, rather than the gee wiz front office boys who pushed it.

I could not agree more with Kate.
The trend of "Todays Politics" is to jam it down everyone's throat, whether it's right or wrong, like it or not..
Jerry

To ask two additional questions, to the ones posed by Marty.

How many of you non supported shooters are going to be willing to pony up a two hundred dollar entry fee prior to April 1st of 2015 without knowing what the targets will be like at Perry?

Then, assuming you decide to wait, because the NRA doesn't know if they can get the system installed, tested, and up and running for 2015, how many of you will be willing to pay 350, after June 1, when you do find out what kind of targets they are going to have?

That's another thing..Why a $150. penalty for signing up after Jun 1st.???
In the computer age..how difficult can it be to register and squad less than 700 shooters..??
Jerry

Jerry Keefer wrote:That's another thing..Why a $150. penalty for signing up after Jun 1st.???
In the computer age..how difficult can it be to register and squad less than 700 shooters..??
Jerry

There is no reason for it, unless you calculate that the NRA, and the competition shooting staff, see the National matches as something which is done to benefit the NRA, and should be organized for their convenience rather than that of the customers, which in this case, would be the shooters.


In my opinion, they really threw the baby out instead of the bath water, with that decision.

But as you stated Jerry, all their decisions seem to be going this way.

My Thoughts:

I did have a discussion with Dennis and I tried the demo targets at Camp Perry this year. He said they wanted feedback. The tone and discussion at the competitors meeting did not seem to indicate wanting feedback as much as "this is what we are going to do to you".

My observations to date:

The new targets will do as advertized, some of the time. I actually had a failure on mine due to a split backer rubber sheet. The white will show hits and will have to be patched. Yes, you know your score immediately. There are no rings to help center the dot in the black and no "shooting out the center" to create a white spot on the short line. The targets do not turn, they have lights, which can't be seen in your dot sight when centered on the target. They don't know how the targets will handle cross fires at this time. Yes, the new targets might save money in the short term, but the existing equipment could probably be replaced or repaired at a price less than quoted. I sure that operational expenses could be reduced with the new targets, but then again I don't know all the details.

My conclusions to date:

Implementing these targets at Camp Pery for the National Pistol matches will probably result in a decrease in participation or at the very least a disturbing split in the competitors. (Those that have access to electronic, non turning targets with lights, and those that do not.) Why would the average shooter (marksman, sharpshooter, expert, master or even HM want to compete against someone in their class AT THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP with access to that set up when they do not?

The implementation of these targets will also probably increase the running of "outlaw" matches (using NRA rules but not submitting scores or funds). Why give the NRA money when we're running a match that the competitor knows will not be the same as what they will see at Perry? (Yes, "some" clubs have electronic targets, but not one within hundreds of mile of me and I don't see my club shelling out funds for electronic targets in place of getting equipment for juniors, etc. even if I do have a full bullseye line once a month.)

The implementation of these targets and the proposed match changes will keep other competitors away for other reasons. I don't want to shoot 30 shots in 30 minutes without a break. (I timed the slow fire matches and each slow fire stage took 15 to 17 minutes to shoot and score.) Yes, timed and rapid fire stages will be faster, but are you sure you want to stand there pounding out 5 round strings as fast as you can? I don't see it saving enough time to compress the matches to 2 days. At least not for me. If you want to shoot some other matches, they why don't you go where they are shot and shoot them there? This is National Conventional Pistol Championship, not a carnival side show with other attractions.

Changing firing order and/or timing, automatic scoring, multiple shooting contests, compressed schedules, and other changes that make the championship more different than what I as a match director can offer my shooters is not the direction I would like this sport to take.

Apparently, the feedback provided at the meeting fell on deaf ears and with little notice that the information was inconsistent with their plans.

So, please remember that sometimes people leave the sport they were supporting AND sometimes the sport leaves the people that were supporting it.

Cecil Rhodes

Dennis did say that the early and late fee process should be changed. There is really no cost differenttial to the NRA until after the material (acorecards, etc.) are printed.

Cecil

CR10X wrote:Dennis did say that the early and late fee process should be changed. There is really no cost differenttial to the NRA until after the material (acorecards, etc.) are printed.

Cecil

I also noticed that for the third year in a row there was no national match sticker in the packet.

I refuse to go to the NRA store, and buy the darn thing.


In the packet was a costly spiral bound version of the schedule, which is available for free on line.

Score cards were also not perforated this year, and were a PITA to tear off.
I had to take all the staples out in order not to tear them in half.

To CR10X and Isabel.

I had a Sticker in my packet. It was not very impressive.

Dennis Willing told me the NRA targets will use a buzzer, rather than lights, which will make practicing before Perry the same if you make a tape.

Personally I feel the NRA has to move into the future, I just hope they make the correct decisions.
The CMP is going to buy the same units for the new Talladega Bullseye range.
I am willing to bet the AMU will also decide to buy them.

The same units will be used for smallbore, and many ranges in the USA have similar units. The price is dropping drastically on them, making it possible for many local clubs to purchase them. I understand the NRA is not locked into the units shown at Perry, there are other units being considered.

For old farts like me it will be great not having to walk back and forth during the scoring and target change. It's tough on the old knees and hips in the tall grass.
I remember the old days, when your meals were included in the entry fee, there were many more shooters, and did seem to be more fun. Movies were shown in the theater each night, etc, etc.

"I had a Sticker in my packet. It was not very impressive. "

I had a few in mine, but none of them were the National Matches 2014 sticker.


Trooper Jake, I think your confidence in the NRA bureaucrats to make things better are completely misplaced.


Everything changes, but those that are bottom up, rather than top down tend to be more successful.

I live 1400 miles from Talladega, and the same distance from the AMU.

I have never shot a range with these targets, and don't expect to see one at a club near me ever.

Bullseye is such a small part of the pistol shooting genre, I think you over estimate by a factor of a hundred the incentive for any general shooting club to invest thousands of dollars into such specialized equipment to hold one bullseye match a year.

The only real practice for the National matches is other matches, and a buzzer with paper targets that are always faced, at a regional match will not be close to the real thing. Impossible to prove an early shot or a late hit, if the targets don't either turn or become inactive.

This is why you must currently have turning targets to have a registered match.

Don't know if you missed it, but these electronic turning targets demoed at Perry, have to be moved by hand from the fifty to the 25 yard line.
So count on another half a million for a rail system to move the targets on, unless you want to wait an hour and a half between shooting the short line and the long line, or what they will probably do, is force the shooters to shoot all slow fire on one range at the fifty, and then pack up and move completely to another firing point on another range to finish the match at the short line.

As one shooter who tried them, said to me, "it looks like they have it about twenty percent worked out, and saved the other 80 percent of the technical issues for the tooth fairy."

Isabel
You are assuming a lot when you say my confidence is misplaced.
I did not say the NRA will get it right. I only stated the NRA is moving forward with it, come he'll or high water.

I was told the units the NRA will be buying will have Bluetooth, eliminating wires.

The NRA is not telling us what they are deciding, there are a ton of concerns to be worked out, and many of these decisions may well be very bad ones.
The technology is not new, it's over 20 years old.

The same units will have to be used for smallbore as well.
The Megalink rep told me it can be setup with turning targets, but Dennis already said buzzers will be used.
I am not defending his decisions, just finding it interesting in watching it unfold.
I spent the week watching shooters trying the targets, and most of those I talked to, liked it.
Scott Plinkington, our host, is going to be the USA rep for Megalink.
No matter the final decision, it's a sure thing that it will be split 50/50 on liking or hating it.
Half the matches I shoot have no turning targets and half do.

Forgot to mention,

"Don't know if you missed it, but these electronic turning targets demoed at Perry, have to be moved by hand from the fifty to the 25 yard line.
So count on another half a million for a rail system to move the targets on, unless you want to wait an hour and a half between shooting the short line and the long line, or what they will probably do, is force the shooters to shoot all slow fire on one range at the fifty, and then pack up and move completely to another firing point on another range to finish the match at the short line."

The plan, I was told, is for one 150 point line, with Bluetooth, each shooter will carry his monitor forward to his 25 yard bench. But your idea of 2 ranges may well be considered, right or wrong.

One big thing to be worked out is changing the size of the aiming black from 50 to 25 yards, and how it will be done.

Trooperjake wrote:Isabel
You are assuming a lot when you say my confidence is misplaced.
I did not say the NRA will get it right. I only stated the NRA is moving forward with it, come he'll or high water.

I was told the units the NRA will be buying will have Bluetooth, eliminating wires.

The NRA is not telling us what they are deciding, there are a ton of concerns to be worked out, and many of these decisions may well be very bad ones.
The technology is not new, it's over 20 years old.

The same units will have to be used for smallbore as well.
The Megalink rep told me it can be setup with turning targets, but Dennis already said buzzers will be used.
I am not defending his decisions, just finding it interesting in watching it unfold.
I spent the week watching shooters trying the targets, and most of those I talked to, liked it.
Scott Plinkington, our host, is going to be the USA rep for Megalink.
No matter the final decision, it's a sure thing that it will be split 50/50 on liking or hating it.
Half the matches I shoot have no turning targets and half do.

I like Scott a lot, but he has a financial interest in the NRA buying his system. Hardly an unbiased perspective.

I don't find it interesting at all, watching it play out, because I have skin in the game.
If you do find it so, I suspect that your interest in Conventional Pistol is purely academic.

I have a saying..." There are competitors and there are participants." The true competitors work all year training and investing in the sport.. The participants are there to party and barbecue..
No competitor I have talked to is in favor of this target system.. I happen to know, that one of the VERY top of the list competitors, and a party of his peers made a very vocal protest about this impending change to the NRA office..
Jerry

The new mega CMP complex in al.
scheduled to open spring of 2015 is said to have electronic targets, they will be the best im sure and probably what perry will use too. hopefully it opens on time and we can shoot on them.

First let me say this was my first trip to Perry and I had a great time, wind and all! I've long watched and listened to the competition and results. I feel that, as a newer BE shooter, the culture and environment should not be upended in 1 fail swoop.
I was able to meet and make friends with several shooters and refs on the trips to and from changing the target. You can't really do that in the 3 minute prep time.
My other concern is, what happens if something fails. The infrastructure that is currently in place will have been scratched and will not be there as a backup.
Why not use them in the preliminary matches, sort of as a "probationary" term, see how they work, get feedback on what needs to be worked on and proceeded from there?
At least that would allow for some warmup time without compromising the entire match.
Personally, I like it as it is, but I am an analog man in a digital world.
Rob

I am personally against the electronic targets.

But I am also not vehemently opposed to them.

This will not have any impact on local matches. You do not need to use an electronic system in local matches. Turning targets will still be accepted.

Several issues will need to be addressed such as the crossfires and how to challenge a shot (or shots). Electronic systems are very accurate but can also fail.

Will a sighter period be allowed (like in ISSF/International) matches? This can be important since the calibration of the center between one machine to the next can be different.

The top shooters frequently shoot on electronic targets AMU practices on them all the time. The USA shooting national championships are held using electronic targets.

Because of the exposure to the elements, I wonder if the megalink display units (lcd screens) can hold up to the abuse.

I hope to shoot next year at Perry. I wouldn't mind trying out the new system.

"I hope to shoot next year at Perry. I wouldn't mind trying out the new system."



If I were a betting woman, I would lay odds, that 2015 is not nearly enough time to develop, purchase or install a system like this. 2018 at the earliest would be my guess.

Isabel1130 wrote:"I hope to shoot next year at Perry. I wouldn't mind trying out the new system."



If I were a betting woman, I would lay odds, that 2015 is not nearly enough time to develop, purchase or install a system like this. 2018 at the earliest would be my guess.

Good point.

At least, they should have something setup on the practice range.