The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Maggot wrote:Mind you, god knows how many markers you would have if you banned I pods, phones etc

This is another thing that could be done to improve the marking immediately, and again at little cost.

Markers need to watch the sand to do the job properly - Not watching the sand is why 1. it takes so long to pull the target down (because some wait until they 'hear' a shot, then look at the target to see if they can see a hole). 2. the targets are pulled down when no one has shot on them (as some will hear a shot on the target next door and think it's theirs). And 3. why some find the holes hard to find (when I used to mark, I could tell by where the bullet hit the sand which part of the target to look at before even pulling it down).

I work in an office where mobiles are not allowed for data protection reasons; so have little sympathy for people who can't bear to go 4 hours without checking their phones.

targetman wrote:ELECTRONIC TARGETS.......END OF......

Having recently used the electronic scoring/marking system recently at Glen Tilt, this would solve the whole issue, but at a massive cost initially. I'm not sure how much the Kongsberg WiFi system costs per unit (i.e. per lane), but it's a superb system to work with.

Banning/Jamming mobile 'phones would be probably result in a step change in the standard of marking however it might mean the loss of some markers as well. Personally I am a fan of electronics and when they work well they are a pleasure to use, downside is when they go wrong.

I know electronic targets are being looked at for Butt 19, for use on casual bookings...but I think part of the problem is that whatever solution is found, it would need to be consistent across the whole of Century for use in big comps like the Queens...A hundred systems would be very expensive...

Are there any examples around the world where these systems have been tried, tested and successful on a large scale...?

targetman wrote:ELECTRONIC TARGETS.......END OF......

:shakeshout: Correct! :shakeshout:

Mezzer

The full-bore electronic target system will be dirt cheap, if we ever get it going :-)

I don't read my own signature!

Dougan wrote:I know electronic targets are being looked at for Butt 19, for use on casual bookings...but I think part of the problem is that whatever solution is found, it would need to be consistent across the whole of Century for use in big comps like the Queens...A hundred systems would be very expensive...

Are there any examples around the world where these systems have been tried, tested and successful on a large scale...?

Switzerland. Pretty much every range bar some small 25m pistol ranges uses some form of electronic targets and frankly they are fantastic, not as good as the one shown above, but still very good.

The other major consideration with electronic targets/scoring is that of time saved - things can progress so much more quickly.

There are problems, no doubt, with electronic targets but there are equally many problems with manual targets, hence this thread.

If anyone who shoots at the Boar Hill Range of the Dorking & District Rifle Club would care to comment on the change from manual to electronic a few years ago it would be enlightening for those who have not experienced them.....

Dougan wrote:

Maggot wrote:Mind you, god knows how many markers you would have if you banned I pods, phones etc

This is another thing that could be done to improve the marking immediately, and again at little cost.

Markers need to watch the sand to do the job properly - Not watching the sand is why 1. it takes so long to pull the target down (because some wait until they 'hear' a shot, then look at the target to see if they can see a hole). 2. the targets are pulled down when no one has shot on them (as some will hear a shot on the target next door and think it's theirs). And 3. why some find the holes hard to find (when I used to mark, I could tell by where the bullet hit the sand which part of the target to look at before even pulling it down).

I work in an office where mobiles are not allowed for data protection reasons; so have little sympathy for people who can't bear to go 4 hours without checking their phones.

Sand John, a fair one and much less tough on the neck. Not always doable, from memory you cannot see a lot of fall of shot into the sand at stick.

At longer ranges, a bullet can miss the fram entirely and still appear where it should for a bull at 300, but watching the sand is a really stress free method of keeping on the ball...or the bullet, particularly if the firer asks where it went!!

As regading phones. I would argue that while under the payment of the NRA you are employed by the NRA.

You are employed to watch a target (unless stood down) and because of the potentially dangerous environment, be on the ball. You cannot argue the phones are a safety asset, there are enough radios about, so ban the things in the butts. If the markers dont like it, then they did not want to do it in the first place.