Marking.......

[rox]

On century, a shooter went down to the butts to watch the fall of shot ,the target was in a dreadful state and was incapable of recording shots accurately, they gave up on their shoot, it being a waste of ammo.

Personally i’d lean toward the open system, and it be down to me to make sure my bullet arrives fast enough to be recorded.

I've also seen the discrepancy between the shot holes and what the screen says on the Century targets. I'm using those targets a lot less than I used to (which was about twice a week).

I think it's almost conclusive that a well-maintained 8-sensor closed system will always be more accurate than an equivalent 8-sensor open system. However, a poorly maintained 8-sensor open system will surely out-perform a poorly maintained 8-sensor closed system, never mind a 3-sensor closed system. The unfortunate issue we face is that unlike locations where modern 8-sensor systems are in use (Crabbe, Belmont etc, where clubs take great care to maintain their assets and avoid damage from inaccurate users) we have pay-and-play users who can't be relied-upon to get their first shot in the black, and therefore avoid hitting wires and sensors. I've seen someone empty 2 magazines into a system with corner microphones without registering a single hit.

I think an Open system could work better on Century, since it's not affected by the increased shot density (no rubber to degrade) and there's less chance of exposed equipment damage (shorter distance). It could also allow a return to a more flexible range, since there's much less in the way of heavy targets and infrastructure - the sensors just clip onto standard targets and can run on battery power. Inflexibility is what cripples range capacity. I suggested this earlier in the year, after asking when the membranes were last replaced.

[artiglio]

Perhaps we’ll end up with a good number of “shotmarker” systems on century, they’re cheap and spares similarly inexpensive if shot. If the cost of using them remains as it is then the much greater return on investment will perhaps be channeled into a more rigorous approach to maintenance of the stickledown systems.
But too many people have lost confidence in the accuracy of the targets, they were used for the fclass phoenix this year, which hardly made it a competition worth entering.

Perhaps there needs to be some encouragement for people to establish their fall of shot at distance before going onto the electronic target.

[1066]

If you were to use an open system on Stickledown it would be a major problem for those shooting something like a .308 or any of the other calibres that struggle to maintain Mach 1 at 1,000 yds. Using an open system on Century makes sense where pretty well anything maintains Mach 1 to the target. If a build up of spent bullets or target debris accumulates in the bottom of the target box construction I would have thought a detachable tray system, to facilitate what should be routine maintenance, wouldn't be too much trouble to design.

[rox]

On century, a shooter went down to the butts to watch the fall of shot ,the target was in a dreadful state and was incapable of recording shots accurately, they gave up on their shoot, it being a waste of ammo.

What was 'in a dreadful state' about it, and how did that correspond to it being incapable of recording shots accurately?
The faces seem to get replaced every couple of weeks or so, but that's only so the aiming mark doesn't get too grey and ragged due to the shot-holes. It doesn't affect the sensing, so the visible state of the target face is of no consequence. It's the membrane underneath that's important, and that can't be seen. As far as I'm aware they hadn't been replaced after a year or so of operation, but they were thinking about doing it. Most operators use techniques that don't involve complete replacement, so I'm not sure why they choose the expensive way (and don't do it because it's too expensive).