Armory Sponsor
Posted: 8/2/2026 2:41:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Trollslayer][Edited]
|
Originally Posted By dryflash3: I like the pics of real targets. The electronic apps with the fancy colors, I don't trust them. There are so many places, maybe most places, all over the world, that only use electronic scoring for events, even the Olympics. The accuracy key is to go thru the calibration procedure for your target. I did that with my ShotMarker. The shot locations reported electronically were as accurate as I could measure the real holes in the paper target. How do you find the center of a ragged-edged hole whose center is actually missing and how much uncertainty is in that measurement? On a paper target down in the pits, the scorer places the shot marker and scores the value, was that shot a super-close 9 or was it a 10? Where is the actual edge of the bullet? I know I was very surprised the first time I used scoring gauges - both plug type and non-plugged. I keep most of my paper targets after the testing and file them in a loose leaf binder. What do you guys do? |
|
If we don't run e-targets, we are back in the pits, and pit duty is a mixed bag. That people can make mistakes scoring in the pits is only one of the issues with paper targets. Shot Marker and Silver Mountain are not the equal of paper in terms of accuracy, and they are also not the equal of the more expensive set-ups. A club or individual would have to spend factors more than a Shot Marker to do any better. Part of my best memories were the antics and humor in the pits. Also, watching some record breaking shots hit the paper, or pulling the target for some young talent as they leg out. But, once the clubs adopted electronic targets, the matches moved faster and nobody really wants to pull pit duty any more. I just go with the flow and don't groan if I have to pull in the pits. As far as the accuracy of ShotMarker or Silver Mountain, they are far from perfect. Like many things in life, there is a trade-off between several Pros and Cons to pit duty versus e-targets, and accuracy of e-targets is only one parameter in those discussions. The use of these less capable MEMS Microphone based systems is still controversial at some of the more important matches. These are certainly not the equal of some of the other types, but those other types are far more expensive and take more resources to set up as well. Almost any club and anyone can afford a personal ShotMarker, but few can afford the institutional level systems to do any better. I just feel lucky to be shooting for fun and recognize that there is a real risk that politics can take it all away. I am grateful for every day at the range, so I don't care if the e-target robs me of a point now and then. For my personal shooting, it has been a vast improvement. YMMV |
|
Expensive Kongsberg electronic targets the CMP uses at Camp Perry for outdoor highpower are set for 30-caliber bullets, recognizing the variances in individual station calibration. The Suis-Ascor targets used by the USAMU and the Kongsberg indoor LED electro-optical systems at the CMP Anderson Center at Camp Perry are imperfect -- but good enough for world-cup precision competition. Shotmarker has improved my personal training regimen by magnitudes. |
|
I think they are as accurate as you can measure paper. There is some level of error in everything. Anyway, mine has given me the ability to walk or ride less, and hang less paper. Thats led to more meaningful shooting. Meaningful shooting has driven me to get to be a better shooter. Suddenly those half minute steel targets arent quite as small as they used to be. I still miss them, but I miss them alot less often. |
Global Warming Hoax Skeptic before it was cool
Joined:
Jun 2007
Posts:
72950
EE: 100% (1)
WA, USA
|
100 yard groups is a bit overkill for a ShotMarker but, hey!, I have one and it's fun to play with it. At extended ranges, it is much faster and easier than paper. This image shows an Excel plot of the shot locations reported by Shot Marker overlaid on the actual paper target. If you've ever used Excel's graphics, you know there is some error in this comparison just due to the vagaries of Excel. The four different colors are to differentiate between four different test loads - 6mm, 308 and two different 223 loads. The target holder has NOT been calibrated thru ShotMarker's calibration, so the reported locations may be a little bit off. There appears to be a sizeable offset (~0.1" calibration error) in the horizontal direction and a smaller one (~0.02") in the vertical direction. The paper is, well,... the paper.  When I next use this target holder, I will do a proper calibration exercise. If anyone is interested, I can post that paper vs electronics exercise, too. |
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: Maybe not perfect, but good enough. We don't worry about calibrating the POI with target center. If it says I'm 1/2 MOA left/right at 600yds, I put 1/2 MOA in the scope and let it fly. The "X" is where the screen says it is. I didn't see any errors large enough to cost points, even though the target is not calibrated via ShotMarker. In terms of group size, I think this shows it would be within about 0.1" (0.1 MOA) of the actual. |
|
Yeah, in our experience group "size" seems correct with ShotMarker at distance. On a side note about calibration, the F-class targets we purposely "moved" the X-ring at least 2 MOA to the right since at the 300yd event the accuracy of some shooters were tearing out the X-ring after 20 rounds. At least groups of shooters had clear X-ring to focus on throughout the string of fire. |
|
I replace paper targets after each session in practice. The shotmarker has consistently been a good representation of the paper target in my experience and any issues are probably related to not hanging the paper target in exactly the right position, or typical variance in the paper targets themselves. I've pulled targets since the late 80s. It's an hour to the closest 600 yard ranges and I have no desire to take up a whole day for a match and that is if you run two relays and score in the pits. There have been some issues with lost shots in rapid fire stages. We are still trying to hunt down those issues, but by and large e-targets are the cat's ass IMO. More than the precision of the system, is the fragility of the cabling and connectors. We have more issues with shitty cables and them getting damaged than anything else. |
|
Originally Posted By dryflash3: You already know I feel. Technology is great for some things, other times it's unneeded. A guy shooting groups is one of those times. I keep a lot of my targets also. I prefer it because I dont have to walk to hang paper to shoot group after group after group. At a 100 yards, sure hanging paper is fine. Ive did it that way for a long time, and still do from time to time when I have to only shoot 3-5 groups. I use BallisticX to mark those targets up. But if I need to shoot 20? Shotmarker is the easy button. When you get into longer ranges thats where the electronic systems shine. I can set mine up at 600 or a 1000 and just keep shooting. And saving targets with a Shotmarker cant be easier. Just do a screen shot and let your device upload that picture to your Google account and you have it forever. BallisticX does the same thing. Once in my Google Photos, I can take 15 second per target to add a tag to it, so if I want to see all 308 targets, I can find them all easily. |
|
Just for clarity, I would add some things. This thread was prompted by dryflash3's post in another thread but it is not intended to say he is wrong. I also prefer paper targets. I previously shot groups at 100 and 200 yards because that was as far as I could reliably and easily read the target (see the holes in the mirage). I would never buy a ShotMarker if all I was doing was 100 yard shooting. It is massive overkill for that. I'm using it there just for the "fun". This 100 yard target and related efforts were not hard but took a lot of time - way more than just hanging paper on the existing target frames. It is the longer distances, 300 yards and beyond, where it comes into its own. You cannot readily see your shots at those distances but ShotMarker will get you zeroed in no time flat and give nearly instant feedback on the wind conditions. At 600 yards and beyond I could never get good feedback on shot placement without someone in the pits or driving out there every few shots. You can practice solo on mid-week trips (my typical modus operandi). All kinds of options open up when you don't need anyone in the pits. I will repeat the calibration on a 600 and 1,000 yard target. I just want to know how accurate the system is. Accurately measuring the hole locations on a paper target is not simple. Using Excel for the overlay graphic is not perfect, either. |
|
A paper target is a physical, nonvolatile record of hits. I keep mine until I scan them (and probably quite a while afterward too, because I don’t get around to getting rid of them until…later). If I have a decent spotting scope and I don’t have a lot of pressure from nearby shooters, I can make use of where I see the hits to adapt and adjust. I recently got a new spotting scope just for this. I don’t see these systems as providing ME (personal preference and all that) something superior to calm, patient use of old fashioned equipment. For me, anyway. |
Global Warming Hoax Skeptic before it was cool
Joined:
Jun 2007
Posts:
72955
EE: 100% (1)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: Just for clarity, I would add some things. This thread was prompted by dryflash3's post in another thread but it is not intended to say he is wrong. I also prefer paper targets. I previously shot groups at 100 and 200 yards because that was as far as I could reliably and easily read the target (see the holes in the mirage). I would never buy a ShotMarker if all I was doing was 100 yard shooting. It is massive overkill for that. I'm using it there just for the "fun". This 100 yard target and related efforts were not hard but took a lot of time - way more than just hanging paper on the existing target frames. It is the longer distances, 300 yards and beyond, where it comes into its own. You cannot readily see your shots at those distances but ShotMarker will get you zeroed in no time flat and give nearly instant feedback on the wind conditions. At 600 yards and beyond I could never get good feedback on shot placement without someone in the pits or driving out there every few shots. You can practice solo on mid-week trips (my typical modus operandi). All kinds of options open up when you don't need anyone in the pits. I will repeat the calibration on a 600 and 1,000 yard target. I just want to know how accurate the system is. Accurately measuring the hole locations on a paper target is not simple. Using Excel for the overlay graphic is not perfect, either. I'm sure I wasn't clear, I wasn't talking about range equipment and scoring systems. I don't know what a Shot maker is, so no way am I putting it down. I don't shoot long range. Myself I print targets with 9 aiming squares and post 4 sheets of these. Then I look thru a spotting scope to track what is happening. So no walking back and forth checking targets. |
Selling agent for Algores carbon credit scam.
Shooting and Reloading, one hobby feeds the other.
Shooting and Reloading, one hobby feeds the other.
|
Originally Posted By dryflash3: My comment was about what I think are apps that scan the holes and give a colored pic of the target. That might be the OnTarget software ($11 total). I was using Excel to avoid that but it might be easier to do it with that. It could also be done with drafting software such as AutoCAD. If you have to pay for AutoCAD just for this, it gets expensive fast ($175/mo). But there are so many other ways to do it. |
|
The paper does not "lie". I did some more work on that target trying to better understand the ShotMarker error. I manually placed a circle over every hole in the paper target as well as I could (yellow circles). I plotted the circles' centers (cross hairs). These are overlaid on an image of the paper target. Also overlaid are the ShotMarker data for the shot locations (see the Legend). The differences between the actual holes and the Shotmarker data are apparent. Yes, the plot is very "busy". There are 24 shots on the paper. Mean value of offset in X direction: 0.12"; SD = 0.053"; n = 24 Mean value of offset in Y direction: 0.00"; SD = 0.056"; n = 24  The upcoming long range testing will be interesting. It's also entertaining to shoot long range. It is, hmm,... challenging. Will the errors scale up on a larger target? Are the errors a fixed amount no matter the target size? Does calibrating a target reduce the errors? I need to read up on the callibration procedure. |
Global Warming Hoax Skeptic before it was cool
Joined:
Jun 2007
Posts:
72958
EE: 100% (1)
WA, USA
Global Warming Hoax Skeptic before it was cool
Joined:
Jun 2007
Posts:
72961
EE: 100% (1)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: I knew you'd like it.  It's got circles and arrows and a paragraph about each one.  Great song and movie, goes way back. 1969 |
Selling agent for Algores carbon credit scam.
Shooting and Reloading, one hobby feeds the other.
Shooting and Reloading, one hobby feeds the other.
|
The most difficult part of getting to an error estimate was converting the paper target to something I could process electronically. You have to have the camera centered over the target and in a plane parallel to the paper. Commercial places have a special camera stand to achieve that. I got pretty close, but you can see a residual error if you look at the dead center - the photo's center and the plot origin do not intersect. Placing the circles over the holes is a judgement call, especially for overlapping holes. My error estimates has an error. :-) Nonetheless, it is close and shows what level of accuracy ShotMarker has achieved even though I have not had a chance to calibrate my system. It's not yet good enough for a benchrest match but it is good enough for load development testing. |
|
Yes, I believe them. PS: But wait, Am I understanding this correctly? All this testing was done before you even attempted to calibrate the system? I'm not an expert on the system, but if that is true, whats the point to all this? You've basically wasted your time. What I mean is the whole point to calibrating the system is to align the bullet holes on paper with what is seen on the app. So calibrate it first and THEN see how far off it is. Anything prior to that is really just a guess and, for lack of better words, not even a proper examination/ test of it. Or am I not understanding what you've done? |
|
I had an opportunity to go to the range and I took it, uncalibrated electronic target and all. I do have the paper target, which is all I usually get. I don't know if you can understand doing that. There is almost no information available about what the calibration process does. If you, or anyone else, has information about exactly what the calibration routine does, please let me know. From what little information is available, it seems like a translation of the electronic zero to match the zero on the paper target. There is also discussion above that implies that. Heck, I can do that, too, and did exactly that. Some have deliberately used that simple translation as a means of protecting the real center of the target. Once I had the offset, the second step was to measure how accurately the corrected data matched the actual holes. It was not perfect. Any residual difference between the locations of the actual holes and the adjusted data would be a measure of the system error. Going through this exercise taught me a lot about ShotMarker and the limits of it accuracy (which is darned good). Its chronographing of shots at the target has also proven to be quite good. It's much better than many people said. That also took a bit of testing and analysis to confirm. I've only used ShotMarker a few times, so I'm still learning things about the ShotMarker. I have several unanswered questions which I will address on my next range trip - soon. Thanks for the feedback. |
|
Sir: I'll keep this as brief as possible. And yes, What calibration does and why it's important isn't explained well. Firstly: If you are using Shotmarker simply for group sizing, there is no real need to calibrate the system. What I mean is if all you are worried about is the relationship between one bullet to another, where they land on the paper target doesn't matter. You use the paper as an aiming point and other wise the system notes the bullets travels and plots them as a group. Hell, you could just have an empty frame (no paper target or backer), aim thru it at a twig/dirt clod/ clay bird/ tin can in the impact berm and the shot marker would record that group. But once you get concerned about where the bullet is in relation to say the "X" on the target, or if your last bullet was in the 9 or 8 ring, then calibration is needed. AI sums it up nicely: "...Calibrating the ShotMarker electronic target system is important because it ensures that the digital readout of shot placement matches the physical position of the bullet impact on the target. Without calibration, the system’s recorded coordinates may be offset from the actual hit point, which can lead to inaccurate scoring, load development data, or wind call analysis...." Your post #15 is perfect as an example: -It shows EXACTLY what AI explains- the digital shot placement doesn't match the physical one. -Why? You didn't calibrate it. -In fact, you could've used that very target you shot to calibrate it- "that is to say- adjust the system so the digital placement DOES match the physical one." (Maybe not 24 shots but say 10, because it is busy). -If you calibrated it properly there would be no error. (The digital and physical would match). (And also the basis for my comment of this being a waste of your time). -now of course like any device the more carefully and precisely you set this up, the more precise result you'll get. Garbage in, garbage out. PS FWIW: For long range stuff I dont even care about the paper target. It's an aiming point, nothing more. So I make notes on the screen, screen shot the shotmarker info, and then make a note in my log book - see DTG of screen shot for info. My not taking is easily halved and the pictures tell the story so I don't. |
|
Just my 2% after using my personal shotmarker and in competition, here's what I feel are sources of error (assuming a calibrated system): (No particular order) -Wind. The system is acoustic, the sensors use sound to triangulate the bullet. Heavy wind will displace the "impact." -Wind. If the frame isn't stout enough or the wind etc is too much and the frame flexes, the sensor distances change- meaning poor shot placement. -Misplacing of replacement paper targets. You set up the system by finding the center point of the sensors and that is where you should place your "X." But let say you're switching from a 200yd center to 300yd and the 300yd center is glued off center a few inches, then (as you are using the X as your aiming point) your group will be off. -Going trans or subsonic. At long range if your bullets go subsonic- the system fails to read them. Its acoustic. -Either getting bullet strikes on the frame and the sensors are picking that up. That will mess up results. |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E: Just my 2% after using my personal shotmarker and in competition, here's what I feel are sources of error (assuming a calibrated system): Our club's experience with both ShotMarker and SOLO/Silver Mountain system is pretty similar with potential error cause. We hadn't considered wind "noise" affecting sensor accuracy though. |
|
I would guess that wind raises the noise floor and makes it harder to detect shots, although it would have to be one heck of a wind to completely obscure the supersonic "snap" of a bullet. On the day I shot this target, all I was after was group sizes for the four different types of ammo. The idea of an error analysis came later. It was after I had evaluated the ShotMarker data and had extracted the group sizes that I started to think about errors in the Shot Marker data. That started with a cursory evaluation of group size on the paper target vs the electronic data and an overlay of the data and the paper - they did not match. That triggered a deeper dive. They don't match exactly and likely never will. Still, they're looking to be good enough for my purposes but I will keep watching the data. Now that I have the spreadsheets set up, it should be a lot quicker. |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E: -Misplacing of replacement paper targets. You set up the system by finding the center point of the sensors and that is where you should place your "X." But let say you're switching from a 200yd center to 300yd and the 300yd center is glued off center a few inches, then (as you are using the X as your aiming point) your group will be off. I included "crosshairs" on my target frame so the paper can be replaced pretty accurately. The target faces, all sizes, have similar marks for alignment. My targets get stapled not glued. In a match, especially a big match, having a misaligned repair center sound like a problem, especially if it's a few inches off. I think I would instruct the crew to do it again and glue another repair that's better aligned. Still, every stage starts with two sighters. What do you do under those "inches off" circumstances? |
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: Our club's experience with both ShotMarker and SOLO/Silver Mountain system is pretty similar with potential error cause. We hadn't considered wind "noise" affecting sensor accuracy though. Originally Posted By smoothy8500: Originally Posted By TGH456E: Just my 2% after using my personal shotmarker and in competition, here's what I feel are sources of error (assuming a calibrated system): Our club's experience with both ShotMarker and SOLO/Silver Mountain system is pretty similar with potential error cause. We hadn't considered wind "noise" affecting sensor accuracy though. From Adam Mc Donald himself on another forum: "Short answer is yes - wind causes error with open sensor e-targets. Half an inch is not surprising on a windy day. The long answer is that e-target accuracy is a complicated subject. There are small errors, large errors, random errors, offsets, stretch, skew, rotation... there’s a lot that goes into making them perfect. The bottom line is what matters from a practical perspective is error that affects how the system is used. Just for example 0.25 inches of error matters a lot more at 100 yards then it does at 1000 yards. If you measure error in terms of moa then you get a completely different perspective of which errors are significant. Wind causes error when the wind is strong enough that this error would be obscured. It’s not relevant in a practical sense because all it does it move the bullet a little further in the direction of the wind. You can and should completely ignore it, and you can’t really test to verify everything else is working perfectly on a windy day. The wind can flex the target frame more than you would think. Your frame is pretty solid at 4x4 but most ranges have 6x6 frames mounted in carriers and instability causes ELEVATION errors which are way more problematic. It’s a matter of perspective. I’m not saying error means nothing, I’m just trying to make the point that when you are shooting on an e-target you are shooting on a virtual target and not all errors are created equal. This is a difficult subject to debate, especially in forums, because there is not a lot of fundamental technical knowledge out there about e-targets yet but there are still no shortage of opinions. I just ask that you keep an open mind about it for now. Your frame is excellent and once you have shot on the system in a variety of conditions you will develop some confidence. Measuring bullet holes and comparing to paper leads you down a rabbit hole of understanding how e-targets work, and we can go there if you want, but it will take time. Doubling up your coreplast won’t help. The problem is the air 3 feet in front of the target is moving." Adam |
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter: When using OnTarget and other apps, I just scan my targets. That guarantees the image is all on the same plane. Once the image is in a file, it's usually pretty easy to get the hits marked pretty closely. DOH!!! I could have used my scanner. LOL! |
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: I included "crosshairs" on my target frame so the paper can be replaced pretty accurately. The target faces, all sizes, have similar marks for alignment. My targets get stapled not glued. In a match, especially a big match, having a misaligned repair center sound like a problem, especially if it's a few inches off. I think I would instruct the crew to do it again and glue another repair that's better aligned. Still, every stage starts with two sighters. What do you do under those "inches off" circumstances? BTW: Most SR matches have sighters, but EIC matches dont and when you're chasing points......... ;) So here's what I do or seen others do: -Well Duh, dont do that. :) Yes, simply make every effort to put that X in the same spot. -In matches, especially multi day matches, keep/use the same frames at the same firing points. -have 3 frames set up prior to the match with the 3 targets used in SR already set up- so you simply switch out the frame for each stage. So among other things you avoid a "hurried-well, the target I just glued on is off" problem. On MY SM, if I want to Shift the X location, say because the center is blown out and I've moved it, you can go in and shift it. I dont have my SM in front of me right now, so I forget the proper name, but you can go in and "Shift" (Maybe "offset"??) the "X" by changing the x-y location of the X in the system. |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E: From Adam Mc Donald himself on another forum: "Short answer is yes - wind causes error with open sensor e-targets. Half an inch is not surprising on a windy day. The long answer is that e-target accuracy is a complicated subject. There are small errors, large errors, random errors, offsets, stretch, skew, rotation... there’s a lot that goes into making them perfect. The bottom line is what matters from a practical perspective is error that affects how the system is used. Just for example 0.25 inches of error matters a lot more at 100 yards then it does at 1000 yards. If you measure error in terms of moa then you get a completely different perspective of which errors are significant. Wind causes error when the wind is strong enough that this error would be obscured. It’s not relevant in a practical sense because all it does it move the bullet a little further in the direction of the wind. You can and should completely ignore it, and you can’t really test to verify everything else is working perfectly on a windy day. The wind can flex the target frame more than you would think. Your frame is pretty solid at 4x4 but most ranges have 6x6 frames mounted in carriers and instability causes ELEVATION errors which are way more problematic. It’s a matter of perspective. I’m not saying error means nothing, I’m just trying to make the point that when you are shooting on an e-target you are shooting on a virtual target and not all errors are created equal. This is a difficult subject to debate, especially in forums, because there is not a lot of fundamental technical knowledge out there about e-targets yet but there are still no shortage of opinions. I just ask that you keep an open mind about it for now. Your frame is excellent and once you have shot on the system in a variety of conditions you will develop some confidence. Measuring bullet holes and comparing to paper leads you down a rabbit hole of understanding how e-targets work, and we can go there if you want, but it will take time. Doubling up your coreplast won’t help. The problem is the air 3 feet in front of the target is moving." Adam Thank you. I have to think that over a bit. He alludes to things without ever stating the facts. Any chance there's more on this topic at that Forum? I'll understand it better in a few days after I get to test it at longer range. |
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: Thank you. I have to think that over a bit. He alludes to things without ever stating the facts. Any chance there's more on this topic at that Forum? I'll understand it better in a few days after I get to test it at longer range. Firstly: BTW, I hope you dont take my comments as condescending or something. This is a technical forum where, hopefully, you/me/we can gain some knowledge. I try to be clear about what I say or post and maybe that comes off as, well, being a dick. I'm not, I am just trying share info in a productive way. That said: -I got that qoute from this thread here: https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/a-test-of-shotmarker-accuracy-for-long-range-br.4117851/ See #15 where "Ballisticdaddy" quotes Adam. And in refinding the above I found this: https://sabisley.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Etargets-Bryan-Litz-article.pdf It's from 2016 but VERY pertinent to this discussion. You really should read both, in the first the main OP does the same thing you're doing and the second gives some math- specific numbers- to these questions . I assume you know who they are: McDonald - my first quote- is the Founder/Owner of Shotmarker. Litz- A legend in the technical side of shooting. |
|
Those are great references, thanks. I haven't been to that forum in a very long time. I've only skimmed through them but will do more in-depth reading tonight. One minor comment touched on here and discussed there, too. I purposefully stapled my paper targets to the cardboard backer. Moisture in the glue softens the targets and allows them to stretch very easily. Moisture also causes the paper to expand, as does humidity, just like wood. Even if it is not stretched, a wet target will still expand, as much as an inch across a 24" repair center (4%, paper type dependent). I did not want to deal with any of that, so I stapled it in place using the centerline markings to align it with the geometric center of my frame. I also measured several of the ring diameters (or radii for the large rings). The dimensions of my (dry) target were within my ability to make the measurements using a hand-held, 6" caliper (i.e., 7 ring OD was 5.75"). I purposefully left all the math on my computer, not in my posts.
|
|
My biggest beef is calibration. If you shoot at different clubs I've seen 200 yd being off 2-3" either from cal or how poorly a repair center is replaced. Generally they keep you on same target if multi day so once you have a zero for that shotmarker....but it messes up keeping score book zeros recorded. Not having pit changes is nice. For F class our club shoots off center cal to not blow out center of target boards. |
| Cardboard backers kinda suck. They suck up moisture on a humid day, and lack rigidity. This is bad for the targets we leave on the range permanently for obvious reasons. I avoided that by using coreboard, and I mark my backers for 8.5x11 printer paper so once calibrated, its dead simple to replace the target accurately, thus maintaining the calibration of the target. Want a fresh target? Grab a new one, some painters tape, line up the marks, and tape it down. We are also using the +1 MOA setup on scopes so we dont shoot the centers out of our targets. Just add 1 minute to your elevation and add the offset into the Shotmarker software and even though youre shooting 1 MOA high, the software centers your group on the screen. |
|
Originally Posted By Kaldor: Cardboard backers kinda suck. They suck up moisture on a humid day, and lack rigidity. This is bad for the targets we leave on the range permanently for obvious reasons. Agreed, however, excessive humidity or mist/drizzle just isn't a frequent issue here. Sometimes, the issue is too little humidity (<10%) and very often it's high temperatures (100+). Those affect the shooter more than the paper. This target holder was made "quick and dirty" just to test this out at 100 yards. I had cardboard but did not have Coroplast. It has worked well so far. The range's targets use Coroplast. |
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: Agreed, however, excessive humidity or mist/drizzle just isn't a frequent issue here. Sometimes, the issue is too little humidity (<10%) and very often it's high temperatures (100+). Those affect the shooter more than the paper. This target holder was made "quick and dirty" just to test this out at 100 yards. I had cardboard but did not have Coroplast. It has worked well so far. The range's targets use Coroplast. Originally Posted By Trollslayer: Originally Posted By Kaldor: Cardboard backers kinda suck. They suck up moisture on a humid day, and lack rigidity. This is bad for the targets we leave on the range permanently for obvious reasons. Agreed, however, excessive humidity or mist/drizzle just isn't a frequent issue here. Sometimes, the issue is too little humidity (<10%) and very often it's high temperatures (100+). Those affect the shooter more than the paper. This target holder was made "quick and dirty" just to test this out at 100 yards. I had cardboard but did not have Coroplast. It has worked well so far. The range's targets use Coroplast. Yes, cardboard here, in Colorado, is fine. I did make the grain of the cardboard vertical for ventilation, but it was overkill. It's just not humid enough here. Not saying Kaldor is wrong, but as you point out regional weather is different. |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E: Yes, cardboard here, in Colorado, is fine. I did make the grain of the cardboard vertical for ventilation, but it was overkill. It's just not humid enough here. Not saying Kaldor is wrong, but as you point out regional weather is different. The dry mountain air is nice out in Colorado. Here in Wisco, its stupidly humid. |
|
Up at the range, it is currently 83 deg, humidity is at 34%, with 8 mph winds. The high tomorrow is expected to be a sunny 99 deg. That's typical as it pertains to target construction for this area. A wildfire started just this afternoon up in the mountains. I was hoping to do some more testing but now I will have to wait and see. |
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: Maybe not perfect, but good enough. We don't worry about calibrating the POI with target center. If it says I'm 1/2 MOA left/right at 600yds, I put 1/2 MOA in the scope and let it fly. The "X" is where the screen says it is. There is truth here! |
|
Originally Posted By billyhill: There is truth here! Yep, I agree. I wanted to use it for a different purpose - one whose focus is precision not score. So, I thought I would check it out how precise and accurate the device is. Using it at 100 yards is also different (for me). |
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer: focus is precision not score. I can see where the ShotMarker system is not "precise" enough for what you are doing. However, ShotMarker is not the system being used for Intl Shooting Sports Federation/Olympics. The systems they use are way more precise...and way more expensive. Even the CMP is using a more expensive Kongsberg system from Norway instead of ShotMarker. ShotMarker is more of the lower cost "Harbor Freight calipers" of E-targets and marketed as such. It's fine for what it is intended. But as you have shown, "the HF calipers are just a hair off...." 
|
|
Originally Posted By smoothy8500: I can see where the ShotMarker system is not "precise" enough for what you are doing. However, ShotMarker is not the system being used for Intl Shooting Sports Federation/Olympics. The systems they use are way more precise...and way more expensive. Even the CMP is using a more expensive Kongsberg system from Norway instead of ShotMarker. ShotMarker is more of the lower cost "Harbor Freight calipers" of E-targets and marketed as such. It's fine for what it is intended. But as you have shown, "the HF calipers are just a hair off...." Actually, my finding is that it IS accurate enough. Although not perfect, it is good enough for load development testing. When doing load development testing, if group size measurements are off by about 0.1 MOA, does that really matter? If you shot 5 more or fired them on a different day, the groups are going to change by more than that just as a consequence of random variability. In a ladder test, when groups differ by 0.25 MOA or more, I pay attention. When groups go above 1 MOA absolute, I pay attention. Reacting to a difference of 0.1 MOA between two groups based upon 3 or 5 shots in each is not wise. |
|
I've enjoyed this thread and related effort. It helped me plan out the longer range testing effort. For example, I can shoot on the Shot Marker but I have to be able to recover the paper targets to evaluate the accuracy. I have to do that at least once. After I've done that evaluation, I can just use Shot Marker. It is just a hobby and this stuff is fun to work on. I could skip the whole thing. You know, "ignorance is bliss"; "good enough for government work", etc. |
|
We have done tons of that work at BRRC during the down-select process that landed us on SM, and we even had Adam at the club a few years ago to go over things. The MR and XTC targets have dedicated SM mounts in the corners, and we have a system for mounting the paper that "minimizes" the calibration process at 200 and 300. The 600 and 1000 targets are always a challenge due to their construction and size, but they aren't bad either. Some of our picky members will always complain that the SM has errors, and they wouldn't be wrong, however I noticed none of them want to go back to pulling targets anymore either. The errors have been observed many times, and the system evolved as a result. Adam has done a good job with those cheap MEMS microphones and driven the errors down to a minimum with what is affordable. It would take a big cost step to jump to any significant improvement. When I need to truly zero a rifle for a trip, I enter the calibration offset based on actual holes, but that is only because young colony rodents are very small targets. I had my suspicions that you were BRRC, but let that alone till you mentioned the fire. Touch base if you want a dump on the SM issues. |
|
Yup, I have a long history with the base and many fond memories of XTC matches there. I was part of the folks who were doing the same trade-off at the club there, when somebody told us to stop. That stop was because some donor went and just bought the Silver Mountain stuff, so that was that. We built frames and rolled. I was one of the guinea pigs for the first XTC match running those, and like anything else it was a learning curve. I know I lost a couple of points in offhand because I could see the holes. Some of the folks in the pits didn't attend the sessions where we coached folks how to handle the targets, and there was nothing to say. In a EIC match, you don't have a choice. I won the match so I just had to go with the flow. I think I shot a 488 but it would have been at least a 490. I haven't been doing much work at SMGC since C-19. Now that Harry moved away and I am retired, I am there less often unless they call for help. To this day, I still recommend ShotMarker to folks who are interested. Nothing better has come along. |
|
I did some shooting yesterday at 600 yards. It was an absolutely beautiful day up in the mountains. The winds were breezy (~10 mph +/- 10 mph), a blustery day. I never try to compensate for the wind, nor do I wait it out. You'll see that in the image below (600 yard F-class target). In no case was there any significant error in the Shot Marker data, relative to my requirements.  The scattered shots were deliberate. The lower right string of 5 shots show the effect of the wind - all five were fired with the same point of aim, same ammo and same scope settings. It is 6.75" wide X 2.25" high. It is a benchmark showing my shooting and the day's wind and mirage conditions. Between the setting up, tearing down, the shooting and a similar amount of work for chronograph testing over on the pistol line, this is all starting to seem like WORK. At the end of the day, as I was driving away from the 600 yard line, I looked back and saw an array of steel plates and thought how much fun it would have been to have been shooting those, instead. |
|
I changed the graphic used above. The yellow dots are the Shot Marker data after calibration. The yellow dots are 0.2 MOA in diameter. The red diamonds are the actual holes in the paper. I would say Shot Marker did pretty darned well. I bet my error measuring the hole locations on a LARGE piece of paper was as large as Shot Marker's error, maybe more. I need a better way to measure these. Next time, I will do the test at 1,000 yards. |
Armory Sponsor