Shotmarker Electronic Target

Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#1
Wanted to see if anybody had any first hand experience with this electronic target from Adam MacDonald, the maker of the Auto Trickler? Curious as to the accuracy of this system especially compared to the SM Solo.
 
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#2
I received the Shotmarker a few days ago and got a target frame built over the weekend, now to get some time to test. I will share both the actual and electronic targets once I get some shots down range to compare.

IMG_1866.JPG
 
Likes: Skunkworx
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#7
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#9
If you look online, once you calibrate the system it’s pretty dead nuts accurate.
I have one and can tell you firsthand that it is definitely not dead nuts accurate, pretty common to see shots more than 1/2" off at 1,000 yards. If you look online most everything works just as it is intended to.....lol
 
Apr 7, 2011
121
48
28
Central WI
#10
1/2” at 1k is pretty damn close in my book. When I mentioned “online” I meant the other forums like accurate shooter etc. These targets have pretty favorable reviews in small scale high power matches etc.
 
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#11
1/2” at 1k is pretty damn close in my book. When I mentioned “online” I meant the other forums like accurate shooter etc. These targets have pretty favorable reviews in small scale high power matches etc.
I agree that is pretty close but definitely not "dead nuts".....especially when that 1/2" can ruin a good score. Take a look at the photos comparing the paper and virtual target where the Shotmarker scored 5 shots as 10's when they were really X's. This was 2 strings of 20 shots plus 5 sighters for a total
of 50 shots on target, if 5 were incorrect that is a 10% error factor in my book. I count 27 X's on the paper target but Shotmarker identified only 22.
IMG_2444.PNG
IMG_2445.PNG
IMG_2457.PNG
 
Likes: Skunkworx

adamjmac

New Hide Member
Oct 10, 2018
4
0
1
#12
I agree that is pretty close but definitely not "dead nuts".....especially when that 1/2" can ruin a good score. Take a look at the photos comparing the paper and virtual target where the Shotmarker scored 5 shots as 10's when they were really X's. This was 2 strings of 20 shots plus 5 sighters for a total
of 50 shots on target, if 5 were incorrect that is a 10% error factor in my book. I count 27 X's on the paper target but Shotmarker identified only 22.
This is Adam, I make ShotMarker.

I did an overlay, see attached. It's hard to line up the photo exactly and it's pretty blurry but you can sort of see some of them are off by quite a bit, but most are good.

The system itself is accurate to within a millimeter. The sensors are precise enough to be dead nuts accurate. However your results may vary due to physical variables outside of its control. For example, if the wind is blowing and rocking the target back and forth, it will produce some small amounts of random error. If you shoot on a calm day, your frame is perfectly straight, rigid, and not moving, then your results will be much better.

It's not really practical to test the system by simply shooting and posting photos because you are not really testing the system, you are testing your target frame in the conditions at the time. These results show real world performance in the condition you were in, but without detailed accounting of these variables the results are not applicable to someone else.

Open those saved strings and open the sensor monitor. Look at the star quality of the shots (they should all be 5 stars) and look at the variation in the reported pitch and yaw angles. You can export the CSV and graph the pitch and yaw angles over time. They should be within half a degree or so. If you are getting variation in quality, pitch, or yaw angle, this will point to exactly the cause of the error. There's always a reason for errors and usually it's just the target is rocking back and forth a little bit.
 

Attachments

Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#13
This is Adam, I make ShotMarker.

I did an overlay, see attached. It's hard to line up the photo exactly and it's pretty blurry but you can sort of see some of them are off by quite a bit, but most are good.

The system itself is accurate to within a millimeter. The sensors are precise enough to be dead nuts accurate. However your results may vary due to physical variables outside of its control. For example, if the wind is blowing and rocking the target back and forth, it will produce some small amounts of random error. If you shoot on a calm day, your frame is perfectly straight, rigid, and not moving, then your results will be much better.

It's not really practical to test the system by simply shooting and posting photos because you are not really testing the system, you are testing your target frame in the conditions at the time. These results show real world performance in the condition you were in, but without detailed accounting of these variables the results are not applicable to someone else.

Open those saved strings and open the sensor monitor. Look at the star quality of the shots (they should all be 5 stars) and look at the variation in the reported pitch and yaw angles. You can export the CSV and graph the pitch and yaw angles over time. They should be within half a degree or so. If you are getting variation in quality, pitch, or yaw angle, this will point to exactly the cause of the error. There's always a reason for errors and usually it's just the target is rocking back and forth a little bit.
Adam,

This is Brian and I have emailed back and forth with you right after receiving my Shotmarker. My target frame is only 4' x 4' made from half lapped 2 x 4's and have stable base that does not move nor deflect in winds under 20 mph. These strings along with the others that I had emailed you previously show every shot with 5 stars for accuracy at the target, I believe the previous backup I emailed you showed 4 stars on only one shot.

The two screenshots I posted were shot first thing in the morning with the wind flags barely moving, hard to shoot in better conditions. The target frame is very solid and not rocking back and forth in a target carrier but mounted with very stable legs spanning 4 feet. You made it very clear in our last email trail that the wind causes error with ALL open sensor electronic targets, regardless of how well the frame is constructed.

I had posted this thread to get feedback from others using your system not trying to bash any system nor manufacturer. It is not fair to advertise this or any electronic target as being accurate to the millimeter when tested in a lab environment, we all shoot in the real world and thus we and the electronic target are subject to mother nature and more specifically the wind.

I am not an engineer and know very little about how they work but I am a pretty good carpenter and can guarantee that my target frame is not moving nor flexing in the strings I have posted. At this point I use your e-target system as a tool to help my wind reading skills, with load development and do enjoy the ease of the setup and use.
 

adamjmac

New Hide Member
Oct 10, 2018
4
0
1
#14
I don't have an explanation for these errors, but I'm fairly confident that they are physical. This is likely a case of the wind distorting the shockwave in the air, something which will always be there regardless of the frame construction.

The wind effect is interesting. When the wind blows to the right, in general the shot will be reported slightly to the right. It's not random, it's proportional to the wind speed, which means from the shooter's perspective, the wind seems to be ~1% stronger than it really is. You make corrections accordingly and get the score you deserve. It's like having a bullet with a slightly lower BC, or a scope that adjusts 0.24 moa per click instead of 0.25, or wind flags that are slightly heavier, or scoring rings that are slightly smaller. It's invisible when you are shooting, the same for everyone, and completely irrelevant from a competition perspective, because you read the wind based on feedback. But when you go to the target and measure the bullet holes, you will see a difference. There is no valid claim for a higher score because the e-target display is what you were adjusting based on.

The random errors are the problem, and only if they are large relative to the grouping performance of the rifle. Generally the random errors that remain are just minor noise, and could go one way or the other. Yes you will gain or lose a point here and there, but you could statistically compensate by just choosing a larger bullet diameter for scoring.

I'm not trying to argue or defend my product or criticize your testing. Everything you've said is perfectly fine and your practical test is well done. I'm just trying to bridge the gap between lab test and real world accuracy expectations and help e-targets become more accepted.
 
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#15
So the rationalization is that during a match every shooter has to deal with the same amount of wind and or wind effect on the target, I understand and could agree with that. But to say/advertise that the accuracy is within a millimeter as a general statement is a bit misleading. I have purchased both your Shotmarker and Auto Trickler so I appreciate your work but do believe that there is still a bit more room for improvement in way of accuracy. I do hope that you continue to improve that with software updates as we all get more time and data to explore.
 

CoryT

Gunny Sergeant
Mar 5, 2004
1,168
21
38
61
Paulden, AZ
www.gunsite.com
#16
While I'm not using the system to shoot for scores on a ringed target, I AM using shot position and group size and location to make adjustments to the ballistic calculators being used, so precision and accuracy are important. I have two frames setup, 1 2'x'2 and 1 2mx2m. They are Al rectangle tubing and precision laser measured. I had no problems during testing or in class with the target, shots were plotted within +/- 5mm of actual when I calibrated the targets.

Given that some inherent error will be present in vibration, flex, wind, etc., I can see an argument made that the actual paper target should be the final score for a match, but for every other purpose I can conceive this is so much better than a spotting scope or downrange camera system that it's really amazing.

Gunsite does not pay for things like this, Walt and I go out of pocket to do this to improve the class. I'll be buying additional targets as funds permit, I think it's well worth the investment.
 

adamjmac

New Hide Member
Oct 10, 2018
4
0
1
#17
I agree. The system is within a couple millimeters EXCEPT for the wind and other physical effects which can produce error depending on the scenario.

I put a lot of engineering into making sure everything within my control is as perfect as possible, so there is no question that I cannot be one-upped by a competitor, and there's not much sense in comparing one e-target to another except in lab conditions. But e-targets do have inherent environmental constraints which do matter to the end user.

It's kind of like comparing fuel efficiency of cars. They do standardized testing so that you can compare. But everyone understands that real world is always less, and depends on how you drive. There are additional constraints at play that are highly situational.

If you do shoot in an ideal environment, like for load development or benchrest at short range on a calm day with a small, rigid target, then you can take advantage of the precise sensors and see amazing results.

Whether the wind errors and other factors are acceptable for long range competition is a separate discussion. I believe very strongly yes.
 
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#18
@CoryT I agree that the technology is awesome especially with the instant feedback when the last shot and conditions are fresh in the shooters mind.

@adamjmac So the advertised accuracy of e-targets is comparable to the exaggerated EPA for automobiles? I notice both you and SM like to word the stated accuracy in way of standard deviation as opposed to an actual given measurement.
 

adamjmac

New Hide Member
Oct 10, 2018
4
0
1
#19
It's not exaggerated. It's entirely achievable, and I see photos all the time from customers that match the reported shot positions nearly perfectly.

SD is the way to measure normally distributed error independent of sample size.
 

V-Ref

Sergeant
Jul 28, 2008
319
59
28
Eagle River, Alaska
#20
@ballisticdaddy

Describe your technique to ensure your target face/shooter azimuth is coincident.

If on a temporary installation, describe your technique you use to ensure your target frame sensors are plumb and level for each and every shooting session.

What is your technique to determine your physical target face is plumb and level to the virtual electronic target face?

What are your actual horizontal, vertical, and diagonal sensor mount spacing dimensions to the mm?

Describe how you evaluated and determined all 4 of your sensor mounts in the same plane (ie as in viewing your frame from the side or above). What was your criteria?
 

FatBoy

Chris Hayes, Nashville TN
Jul 29, 2001
843
262
63
45
Nashville, Tennessee
#21
You guys way overthink this shit. I have shot probably over 1000 shots on three different brands of open face targets just this season to include the Shot Marker and they are all accurate. As accurate as paper? No, but really, really fucking close as long as the target isn't shaking in the wind. Like less than a bullet diameter if that. The rest of that shit is just background noise.


Set it up right. measure out your sensors positions and ensure they're square. Enter the data, calibrate it and make sure its mounted so it doesn't shake in the wind. Enjoy not going to the pits and roasting your ass off, or being able to practice with instant downrange feedback .
 
Likes: Prophet78
Feb 14, 2017
406
15
18
#22
@V-Ref I shoot at a club where the target pits and firing have been in place and the shots on target are shown well within the acceptable angle.

It is a designated target frame, not temporary, the system that we are speaking of comes with 3d printed bases that magnetically attach to each sensor.

The coroplast backing has alignment lines in both axis, an outline of an F-class LR center as well as the target rings to aid in centering the paper target

The dimensions between the sensors are 1155mm from center to center and clearly marked on the target frame as recommended by Adam.

Upon completion the entire frame was laid on a level surface and used a Hilti PR rotating level to confirm each sensor was on the same plane.
 
Top Bottom