Use of target camera allowed?

  • 495 Views
  • Last Post 15 January 2021
Pentz posted this 11 January 2021

I did a cursory search but came up empty. Does Section 5.12 of the rules preclude the use of a target camera during military matches specifically? Encroaching technology continues to present options. Here in the "Northwet" drizzly days defeat the best of spotting scopes at 200, not to mention 300 yard targets.

.12

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
John Carlson posted this 15 January 2021

Under Military Rules Section 6:

Note: Sighter targets are not required to be the same as the Military Score/Group targets.

Only the record target is required to conform to the rules.

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • MarkinEllensburg
RicinYakima posted this 15 January 2021

After 10 years of competition, when I turned 65, I bought a "good" spotting scope; Fujicon 20X60 with 80MM objective lens, just to try to see in the black. At Raton, NM, I can see .22 holes at 200 yards. In the PNW, Paul Bouyon, I can not see .30 holes at 200 yards on a cloudy/rainy day. A "good" spotting scope is three times as much as the camera, but you have all the possibilities of "electronic" faults and failures. If you camera quits, you are screwed. And no stopping the match to fix it. I think it is a wash.

In my opinion, shooters should have the option to bring their own sighter targets, red, green, what ever.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
MarkinEllensburg posted this 15 January 2021

 I would really like to read what other competitors think. Not owning a good spotting scope, that is to say not better than my rifle scope, I have been at a competitive disadvantage many times. I would surmise that a target camera would lend me an advantage about as much as the lack of owning a really good spotting scope is a disadvantage. In other words I think it would equal out over a season. However neither are on my short list to further my participation.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Lucky1 posted this 14 January 2021

Since I did use one at a couple of matches, I'd like to comment on the reactions. A number if people asked for demos and thought it interesting and were going to research it further. The 2 that stand out were older shooters that said they were about to quit matches because of the problem of not being able to see the 200 yd target no matter the scope or the conditions. If this gives some people a new lease on CBA matches, I'm all for it. As I look up and down the lines, I can see this being a continued problem and if technology would help, so be it.

Attached Files

2kbill posted this 14 January 2021

I am glad to see Ed and John C. on the same page in this discussion.  Region 3 will allow these camera devices until they are prohibited by rule change.  Thank you John A. for calling the board's attention to this subject  - I hope Region 3 shooters chime in.

Region 3

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Bud Hyett posted this 14 January 2021

We've been there. There are no NRA approved colored targets other than black.
The use of the white/red target is for the sighter. The score target is the MR-series as per the rules. "Centered on the target" is "centered on the target" regardless of the color.
In the early usual morning overcast, the issued MR-target does not work as well. Some people turn the sighter Military target around to be able to track hits. 

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

billwnr posted this 14 January 2021

Back when I shot the military competition I had two spotting scopes that would let me see bullet holes in the black on crappy PNW raining mornings.  A 15x45 Nikon and a 20x60 Alpen.  The Alpen made it better to spot doubles and which side of the ring the hole was on.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Pentz posted this 14 January 2021

We've been there. There are no NRA approved colored targets other than black.

Attached Files

ten-mile posted this 14 January 2021

To allow a color for the bull other than black would let me see my bullet holes with a cheap scope. PC bullets, on the other hand, are jacketed bullets.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • 2kbill
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 14 January 2021

John,

I have no objections to your and Ed's judgement call based on the rules. However I think allowing target cameras is going to have large unintended consequences that may or may, not be good, for our competitive programs and deserves more discussion by members and the Board before a lot of cameras are bought. To get that started i will encourage board members and match directors to read and comment on this thread.  If we are going to have protests sooner is better than later.  

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • John Carlson
John Carlson posted this 14 January 2021

During my conversation with Ed Kransky we did discuss the issues being brought up now.  The rule prohibits anything which "facilitates shooting".  We agreed that the intent is to prohibit items that artificially enhance the shooters ability to aim or operate the firearm.  The camera is nothing more than an alternative means of getting the same information we get from a spotting scope.  For those with deteriorating vision it can be a more economical alternative to a high end spotting scope.

It is also worth noting that in our recent discussion about powder coated bullets we determined that there was nothing in the rules that prohibits them, therefore they were are legal. 

Ed, as the Director of Registered Competitions and myself, as Director of Military Competitions found ourselves in agreement on the interpretation of this rule.  It is our position that target cameras are legal until or unless the rule is changed by the BOD.

Holding public office should be viewed as an obligation to serve, not an opportunity to rule.

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 13 January 2021

 

"As long as you can see the bullet hole I don't get any advantage to a screen vs a scope. It's virtually the same info."

Of course, It's when you don't see the holes with even the best scopes is when the camera is a competitive advantage.

 

I don't think I missed your point. The idea that the choice is between a target camera and a high priced scope is usually false.  On a good day a $100 spotting scope will see bullet holes well enough.  Under many conditions heavy mirage, haze, etc.  Getting a better scope helps little, if at all, I have tried it with a $2,500 Zeiss and you see the same haze or mirage as through any reasonably quality scope. A target camera would solve that problem thus the competitive advantage, even against the best scope.

John

Attached Files

Lucky1 posted this 13 January 2021

John, you actually missed the point on cost. It is way cheaper to get a target camera than a really good spotting scope and would make it easier for someone new to get involved. I couldn't justify the price of a couple of CMP M1s on a piece of glass. I don't use mine at Dakota Benchrest because of the berm situation and the risk to the camera. So they don't work everywhere. As long as you can see the bullet hole I don't get any advantage to a screen vs a scope. It's virtually the same info. For 6.5s on a black target it does help though.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Pentz posted this 13 January 2021

I will argue against it (at least for our non-military matches) because it adds to the cost of competing and will not make it any easier to recruit new members, thus bad for the CBA.

A new shooter would be better served with a $400 target scope setup than a crummy scope of the same price, particularly at 200 and 300 yards.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
John Alexander posted this 13 January 2021

If this question comes to the CBA board for a decision, and it will sooner or later, I will argue against it (at least for our non-military matches) because it adds to the cost of competing and will not make it any easier to recruit new members, thus bad for the CBA.

But if the Board OKs target cameras, I will buy one the next day and then celebrate because it will be an advantage to me personally even if my competition has them.

Being able to see the last bullet hole and be able to go back to the sighter for more information will be an advantage on those days when the usual 30 caliber holes can't be seen, even with the best spotting scope.  If this weren't true military shooters with their iron sights and 6X scopes wouldn't bother to bring a spotting scope which they all do.

However, because I have compete in CBA matches with a 222 or 223, some days I can't see the holes at 200 sometimes when my competitors with 30 caliber holes can.  Allowing target cameras will eliminate that disadvantage of shooting small calibers and help me win matches against the 30 caliber shooters.

I suspect that when this decision comes to the Board, that the board will leave this decision for military rifle to the Director of Military Rifle since military rifle has its own set of rules.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Doughty posted this 13 January 2021

Equipment race?  You mean like the difference between a $200 spotting scope and a $1200 spotting scope?

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • 2kbill
Lucky1 posted this 13 January 2021

The last sentence makes no sense because it changed bullet to but. Argh!

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Lucky1 posted this 13 January 2021

I finally got on this forum! This Scott Ingle since it's a new handle to everyone. So here goes... I bought a Targetvision a few years ago and have used it a several CBA matches, including the last Nationals. Yes, I asked and no one objected that it was against the rules and even demo-ed it to alot of the other competitors who were interested.
The reason I bought this came down to a simple choice. I couldn't see 6.5mm holes at the 200 on a black military target on a good day let alone a cloudy, windy and crappy one. My 150 buck Bushnell wasn't going to do it. There are alot of times looking for 30 cal doubles that was tough too. And 223 holes - forget about it. The solution came down to a choice of a really expensive spotting scope or a Targetvision etc. Since it was a about $1000 or more cheaper, and could go to 500 yards easily, technology was the clear choice. So does it give anyone a big advantage in the competitions? Other than seeing the smaller holes, not really. It does probably cut my eyestrain down since I'm not straining to see something with a cheapo scope. But that's about it. Yes, you can mark the last bullet but I still do that on paper anyway because it is hard to clear that stuff out. For my evidence that it is no advantage, I submit my scores from Nationals and regional. Still middle of the pack and slowly getting better but certainly no breakthrough due to this. I also know that as I get older and the eyes get worse this may help me extend my competitive life. Last observation. I have had failures to get this to work due to battery failure, blocked signal etc. So I always take a scope for that reason. Yes there is the risk it'll catch a but too but then again the spotting scope can take a dive too. Scott Ingle in SD where 25mph is a light breeze. Because tomorrow it'll be 50!

Attached Files

Bud Hyett posted this 13 January 2021

Using the white and red Wyoming Schuetzen Society 200 yard targets for military sighters works. There is no callout for what a sighter target must be. I bring these to use for sighters. Even replacement centers on a military target helps.

The holes show better contrast when looking through a spotting scope. The red centers show bullets more easily seen than the black. Military targets black centers are sometimes extremely hard to spot when you have  several shots on top of each other on cloudy days.

Farm boy from Illinois, living in the magical Pacific Northwest

Attached Files

John Alexander posted this 13 January 2021

It seems to me that if cameras are allowed it will lead to an equipment race. It also seems to me that knowing where the last shot landed "provides an advantage in aiming" the next shot.

Maybe we should have a little more debate on this issue before too many shooters make the investment in such cameras.

Maybe target camera make more sense for military rifle and not so much for our traditional BR game the scope reduces the need for a spotting scope.

John

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
Show More Posts
Close