Scatt USB vs Rika USB
Moderators: pilkguns, Marcus, m1963, David Levene, Spencer
Scatt USB vs Rika USB
Could someone tell me how they compare. What features are different, etc.
-
John Marchant
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:35 pm
- Location: Bedfordshire, England
- Contact:
The SCATT and RIKA systems are similar in they way that they collect the infra red sensor information.
The SCATT requires a data cable run out to the target area frame. The RIKA requires a power source to the target area frame.
The RIKA can only be used at 10 metres, whereas the SCATT will operate down to about 5 metres, which makes it more suitable for training possibly at home or when it is not practical to use range space.
The RIKA infra-red sender at the target frame has to be positioned level in all planes for it to work properly, whereas the SCATT seems to be more tolerant to minor misalignment.
The RIKA probably takes longer to calibrate, but that could be due to the alignment issues as detailed above.
The SCATT has a larger user following, who have spent an immense amount of time interpreting and discussing the results. There are plenty of examples on the web and You Tube.
Both systems can be live fired through at 10 metres with air rifle/pistol.
The SCATT software allows you to print off scale targets for use at distance other than 10 metres.
The RIKA data contains information amount the angle of cant that has been introduced by the shooter. This can be quite helpful, if you think that you shoot with or without cant.
Both create similar graphs tabulating the shot results, although possibly the SCATT has further in-depth data.
The RIKA system may be slightly cheaper to buy.
These are just some of the differences.
The SCATT requires a data cable run out to the target area frame. The RIKA requires a power source to the target area frame.
The RIKA can only be used at 10 metres, whereas the SCATT will operate down to about 5 metres, which makes it more suitable for training possibly at home or when it is not practical to use range space.
The RIKA infra-red sender at the target frame has to be positioned level in all planes for it to work properly, whereas the SCATT seems to be more tolerant to minor misalignment.
The RIKA probably takes longer to calibrate, but that could be due to the alignment issues as detailed above.
The SCATT has a larger user following, who have spent an immense amount of time interpreting and discussing the results. There are plenty of examples on the web and You Tube.
Both systems can be live fired through at 10 metres with air rifle/pistol.
The SCATT software allows you to print off scale targets for use at distance other than 10 metres.
The RIKA data contains information amount the angle of cant that has been introduced by the shooter. This can be quite helpful, if you think that you shoot with or without cant.
Both create similar graphs tabulating the shot results, although possibly the SCATT has further in-depth data.
The RIKA system may be slightly cheaper to buy.
These are just some of the differences.
Hi John,
I concur with everything that you say except:
I find that both systems need to be accurately aligned to function properly but because the IR signal from RIKA is a bit stronger than SCATT it is a bit less susceptible to external factors. This however is a minor factor. Both will do the job, but SCATT scores at the margins in most respects.
To summarise, if I was looking for an electronic trainer i would buy a new SCATT if I had to but only a secondhand RIKA. I feel that would more accurately reflect their relative value.
Rutty
I concur with everything that you say except:
RIKA can be used at shorter distances but unlike SCATT you have to enter the distance at which you intend to "shoot" whereas SCATT measures it for automatically.The RIKA can only be used at 10 metres, whereas the SCATT will operate down to about 5 metres, which makes it more suitable for training possibly at home or when it is not practical to use range space.
I find that both systems need to be accurately aligned to function properly but because the IR signal from RIKA is a bit stronger than SCATT it is a bit less susceptible to external factors. This however is a minor factor. Both will do the job, but SCATT scores at the margins in most respects.
To summarise, if I was looking for an electronic trainer i would buy a new SCATT if I had to but only a secondhand RIKA. I feel that would more accurately reflect their relative value.
Rutty