TargetTalk

Considering a scatt, but I have a few questions:

1. I saw in the forums here that sometimes fluorescent lights cause problems. Does this include the newer CFC (compact flourescents)...I use these to light my range.

2. Is there a feature whereby you tell the system if you are using a non-standard distance? I would use it in a space that might be, say 23 feet long and then use a scaled target.

3. Can it be used with live fire air pistols and rifles?

4. Does it have an audio feature, i.e. telling you when the POI is within a certain ring?

5. How adjustable/configurable are the target types? Suppose there is a target type not in the system, can I manually describe it?

6. Are revolvers too noisy in double action?

Lastly, what are the sources for one, and how has the customer service been?

Thanks

Some answer to a few of your questions:

2. When you are doing a calibration the system measure the distance between the sending unit and target. Note that the distance is measured from the sending unit and not your foot placement.

3. Sure, as long as you are confident that you do not hit the scatt unit ;-). It is actually recommended to use a real target to see the score and analyze the shooting process by looking at scatt trace. There may be some difference between the two.

4. Not really. There is an experimental function on point of aim but I think that there is none for point of impact. I think that the system is built for you to analyze the shot immediatly after you have fired. This is not an electronic target but an electronic trainer.

bjsulla wrote:Some answer to a few of your questions:


4. This is not an electronic target but an electronic trainer.

So I have heard this before but I don't really understand. I surely understand that the scatt captures traces of the movement before and after the shot for analysis, but why would POI prediction not be reliable?

I think I once read it postulated here that each gun has a randomness to it that can't be predicted, but for a top level 10m match gun the pellet is virtually in the same hole so this seem a very insignificant factor.

To me the other factor is the calibration, but this would seem to affect both the normal training usage as well as the POI calculation. Perhaps someone can clarify the setup since I have not ever seen or used one.

My understandiing is that there is a transmitter that I think is at the target and the receiver is attached to the gun. To calibrate it there is a process of firing a shot(s) at the target. Is there then some adjustment that you do to align the computer generated target POI with the actual POI? Is the problem that this is not a very precise adjustment? It would seem that once it is calibrated precisely, calculating POI for shots would not be rocket science...

Inquiring minds want to know...
Thanks - Jim

I think he means to say its the theoretical poi. Obviously the software can't account for wind, load discrepancy, recoil, etc.

I think the system does score you though?

Also, how does the calibration process work when you are dryfiring on scaled-down targets?

The difference between poi predicted and poi actual consists of the total error (not just gun error) between the predicted location of the axis of the boreline (adjusted by the software for dwell time, flight path, cant, etc.) and the actual location of the axis of the boreline (adjusted by reality for wind, gravity, meat of the human hand, etc.)

Just because a ransom rest can put all the pellets into "roughly" the same hole does not mean your human hand can put all the pellets into "roughly" the same hole.

There are many factors that affect the actual location of the hole in the paper- that can't be predicted accurately by the computer- but can only be "apporximated" by the software and instrumentation.

I know I'm oversimplifying- "But you should have seen what went int he other end!*"


Steve

*Joke about the pile of manure; in this case, the "hay" was the detailed technical explanation I got from the German engineers several years ago when I asked the same question about the Rika; the manure, (my description aobve) may be greatly reduced in volume but can only approximate the quality of their explanation!

Thanks Steve - But I still don't get the point. About the only factors that should impact the POI prediction varying from reality are external factors (perhaps weight/size of pellets in a specific gun, perhaps wind (but not an issue for 10m indoor simulation) and in general these are much lower order factors than the mechanics of the shot. It seems the barrel is pointing where the barrel is pointing, and that fat hands, or poor trigger work or bad grips all affect where the barrel is pointing and thus should predict where the shot would fall (ignoring external factors). While at the 580+ skill level this might make a difference in a couple of points, one would think that for those aspiring to that level the prediction would be PDC (pretty darn close). I suppose in taking into account all the other disciplines supported by the trainers that the errors might be much bigger than 10m and thus a general statement that it is not suitable for scoring. While I can accept the premise that they are not really suitable for general match scoring, I would think that the scores for 10m training purposes should be accurate enough to assess a mid level shooter's scores and more importantly their progress improvement.

Are we saying that is not true and that 10m scatt scores would not be representative of a normally scored target on average?
Jim

Jim,

When it comes down to it, scores are beside the point of e-trainers like Scatt & Rika. They are in essence no more than dry-fire instrumentation, documenting quality of hold in fine detail through time and trigger release. How many seconds into your hold are you steadiest? Is your trigger finger truly an independant actor? Do you really follow through? Scatt has the answers, color-coded. But it has no way to track in equal precision what happens to the projectile after the firing pin has fallen - it can only make an educated guess at where the hole should appear.

As a practical matter in my own experience, Scatt scores are in fact representative of live-fire shooting but Scatt and paper targets can never quite be made identical.

It is instructive to shoot AP/AR live through the Scatt target frame if you have the opportunity to set up at ten meters: this will give you the opportunity to match the "shot parameter" options to your particular gun - just tweak away on the stored "target" until you get the best match with the paper one. The "f-coefficient" particularly needs tuning if you're a pistol shooter - the default value suits a rifle-length barrel. Make a note of what you come up with, by the way - Scatt doesn't store your settings when it's shut down.

-David

1. Trainers aren't designed to accurately predict actual shot placement (as mentioned a couple of times now); that is a secondary design feature;

2. Yes they are already PDC- Typical Rika/Scatt predicted poi will be within a pellet radius or less of actual poi (which is fine for training);

3. Over a sufficiently large number of trials, with properly calibrated equipment, yes, the difference between actual and predicted shot placement will be unbiased and therefore the "score" reported in the aggregate will be "suitably comparable" to what an actual score would be

However

The precise and accurate tracking of where the muzzle was pointed plus the accurate recording of the sound of the "hammer falling" alone will *not* be able to account for the internal *and* external (your definitions, not mine nor the manufacturers) imprecisions of the shooting system and the shooting process. And those imprecisions are significant enough so that 1/4 or so of pellet diameter is considered very, very good for these systems. Especially since improving the accuracy/precision of the systemprediction of POI is not even a primary design factor in the first place . . .

Excellent - I think we are saying the same things. The trainers are not designed or intended for highly accurate scoring, but they "can be" sufficiently accurate to provide a representative score for training purposes. While the great benefit of the trainer is the analysis of the shot process, the scores should not deviate a great deal from live shots for all but the highest levels of performance. Thus recording training scores is not an exercise in futility...

Thanks - Jim

Jim:

Well, O.K. however

"Thus recording training scores is not an exercise in futility..."

Does not necessarily follow from everything else you said. I understand this is not easy to see and somewhat counterintuitive.

One of the more reliable "truisms" in shooting is that paying attention to, recording, analyzing, and generally monitoring and responding to "scores" is not a good thing (and, in fact, following your score during a match is a Really Bad Thing).

It's like the difference between "Cost Accounting" and "Managerial Accounting." Cost Accounting tells you what happened; managerial Accounting tells you why and how to maike better decisions in the future. Tracking scores is cost accounting (yeah ok keeping score after the fact). Focusing on behaviors is what results in chaning the behaviors that will result in better scores.

But dude - if ya don't keep track of scores - what are you measuring??? Score is the ONLY measure. Agreed that focusing on scores and just shooting a lot does not improve scores, but I think ya have to record them to see if your other process improvements are working. While managerial accounting helps focus actions, cost accounting proves if you improved or degraded the process... :)

All in good fun...
Jim

jimsoars wrote:Score is the ONLY measure.

Score is the only measure in matches. It doesn't matter how happy you are with the way you shot, if you didn't get the highest score then you didn't win the match.

That score however is the result of your performance in the separate elements of delivering a good shot. That is where electronic trainers give extremely useful feedback.

The score on Scatt/Rika/etc systems is largely meaningless. Of far more use are the numerous other measurements they will give you; trace length, trace speed, amount of movement on trigger release, etc, etc, etc. Work on your technique to improve those factors, prove your technique by improved readings on the electronic trainer and carry your new technique into matches.

Better performance in the separate elements will result in higher scores.

Jim:

David explained it better i think . . .

You have to consider the entire shooting system- and that includes YOU as the greatest source of error.

I know it sounds stupid; and it's a darned good thing very few people "get it." Otherwise we would all be shooting 600 and where's the fun in that?

It is actually both a subtle and profound point.

- Focus on scores to direct your training
- Focus on behaviors to direct your training

Consider the statement:

"I would rather execute all of the proper techniques perfectly, and shoot a nine, than to "luck into" a ten as a result of many errors cancelling each other out."

Agree or disagree?

They have actually been found, in the real world, to be very different things indeed . . .

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:Consider the statement:

"I would rather execute all of the proper techniques perfectly, and shoot a nine, than to "luck into" a ten as a result of many errors cancelling each other out."

Agree or disagree?

Training or match?

Training - Agree (To hell with the score, I want perfect shot execution)
Match - Disagree (Points are more important than performance, but great if you can have both)

Steve - I do get it. I think you make my point - I AM the greatest source of error. If you knew me personnaly you'd say that is an understatement... :) And so it goes that the inherent inacuracy of the target is trivial, and thus would not impact my scores in any meaningful way.

Responding to your agree/disagree statement, I disagree. It is based on a flawed premise that the shot can be perfect and not a 10. To me, to be "perfect" the sights must line up with each other perfectly, with a perfect trigger operation that does not disturb that alignment AND is within the area of hold that provides a 10.

I totally agree that focusing on scores to improve performance is not a winning strategy. I also think that many aspects of trainer usage should specifically exclude scoring. However I would say that shooting a match for score on the trainer can be valuable to see what parameters of the shot process may degrade over time and the final result of that scoring should be reasonably consistent with live fire scores.

PS - I'm saving my shekels to some day get a trainer to help me improve.
Respectfully - Jim

Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:Jim:

David explained it better i think . . .

You have to consider the entire shooting system- and that includes YOU as the greatest source of error.

I know it sounds stupid; and it's a darned good thing very few people "get it." Otherwise we would all be shooting 600 and where's the fun in that?

It is actually both a subtle and profound point.

- Focus on scores to direct your training
- Focus on behaviors to direct your training

Consider the statement:

"I would rather execute all of the proper techniques perfectly, and shoot a nine, than to "luck into" a ten as a result of many errors cancelling each other out."

Agree or disagree?

They have actually been found, in the real world, to be very different things indeed . . .

Jim:

You're assuming the sights are properly adjusted.

This is actually a bigger deal than one might think.

A lot of folks believe in adjusting the sights to compensate for technique errors (especially during a match, in order to not leave points on the table- again, the counterproductive "scores" focus).

So I execute all behaviors perfectly, and shoot a nine.

That only has to happen 2 or 3 times . . . and then the rest of the perfectly executed shots are tens.

Or

You F it up and shoot a ten . . . great . . . so you F up every shot hoping for the coincidence to happen again . . . it'll be a long time before you see another ten.

The hole in the paper is a SIDE EFFECT.

Your training effort should focus on MAIN EFFECTS.

The scores will take care of themselves.

Great, just great to read all this usefull stuff. Im a new member and Im very glad I found this forum.