Discussion in 'Hunter (HFT) & Field Target (FT)' started by blacklab, Feb 16, 2014.
Twice the length from the middle Do I win a ban or something?
I reckon that coming down out of the trees was a bad move.
Let's ban everything since then.
it was only a daft post on "teh internets" and a bit out of context, still can't see any advantage from this device really.
Had some time with the Rowan DSW this weekend at the Castle GP. First off lets get the controversy out of the way... there's always going to be a debate where the grey tide mark of technology should sit with the black and white rules... and there's plenty of opinion on all bits on bobs strapped to the rifle and their use in sport. But having had a play with the thing, I really think that's missing the point. Lets go worse case scenario and say it's banned everywhere, well, I think even then this is a valuable bit of kit if it reaches it's seeming potential.
Firstly the big thing about shooters is that they aren't very objective and scientific. They're generally swayed by feeling and impression over cold hard data, and this is where I think the device would score... as an objective training aid.
The device itself is small. Smaller than I thought from the pics i'd seen. Probably due to them being aimed at making the screen look big. From memory it's about as big as cutting a credit card in half. It works by reading a magnetic strip around your sidewheel, so it means you have to do the work in setting up the ranges. This is where one of it's strengths comes into play. It can record and datalog your ranging attempts. I played with it on the plinking range, and with the Sightron on Costello's rig I was getting really tight repeat ranges all within 3" at 20 yds, time after time. At 55 I was probably around a yard, but every now and then I got 1-2-3-4 yds out. By using a different part of the board to focus on which had a cobweb on it, I was getting pretty much on the yard on all attempts... but this is something you don't have to think and try and remember after you left the range, the device will tell you if you are more consistent ranging on some part of your target than on another by recording the data. I may suggest a feature that could be useful would be to add a bookmark function, so you can say "bookmark 1 plate", "bookmark 2 string" etc and see how those sessions compare. It will provide you with the cold hard facts that ranging on say the plate may not be as consistent as on the string, or whatever. It will also tell you if that changes with light (assuming you have a fixed target to play with in different lights), or colour, or even temperature. With the temperature it's possible to dial in another set of ranges as well. So you can scientifically address your ranging and work out what's best for you with proper data. Might lend more help to the conversations of "I think she shifts at 8 degrees" etc.
I ranged a target at an unknown distance, dialled what it said, sent the shot and it was bang on the level. Repeated it twice and it never wandered. So if anything it could just let you get those in between ranges right. The beauty of it is you don't need to work on fixed ranges. Once you've done them you can point it at something unknown, fire the shot, and if it's not right, correct it at that range, giving the machine more data to work with.
But the ranging is just a small part. Yep it's got an inclineometer in it, and a cant meter, all of which can show you the effect of that angle on your shot. So something else you can learn from. It's also got a wobble meter which there's the potential to log against your shot... so you can see if shifting position is better, adding weight here or there is better, if you're steady, or just lucky or whatever. Even if the thing is banned, you could still have this on the rifle to record your performance without the display, compared to how you do in practice. Logging all sorts of data blind to you in competition still is pretty valuable.
With that data you could do like the GPS and performance loggers in various sports, compare and contrast against other users. It might even be possible for the device to measure recoil of springers. Apparently it's possible to GPS track around the course. How well that would work in woodland I don't know. But it may help someone.
I think it's a really interesting bit of kit, has potential for other shooting sports as well, and perhaps the competition aspect is a red herring... think of it as a matchbox sized training aid and I think that's probably a better path. I can see those who perhaps don't have time to set up a scatt or don't have a range at home being able to just switch this on and do some practice indoors at very short ranges, just seeing if things seem to be better or not.
Definitely very interesting and something to keep an eye on. I wouldn't let the competition aspect muddy the water.
Oh and it has a setting for 50ft adapters...
yet more gimmicks to knock tin plates over at 55yds, the number of appendages sprouting off rifles at the moment is comical, all this cost and still the biggest cause of misses is wind, and that comes down to the shooter, for now!
If people want to sit in the dark ages with there open sights and fusty old pellets thats up to them. im all for technology and its good someone like rowen are taking time to move with the times.... now were s my credit card heheheh:lev
You should have saved the money you spent on those mega bullets I sold you Wagger that you don't use and bought a gadget that does the same as your side wheel, makes perfect sense. o
John Costello came down the club today to show myself and 2 friends the DSW, very impressive piece of kit and a lot smaller than I had imagined. Ranged a 54 yard target to 53.9 !!!!!
Dave & Derek at Rowan should be proud of this little gadget in my humble opinion.:lev
Saw one at my club Far coley 2 weeks ago, very impressed
I don't think that is true Rob, there's something to be said for being comfortable on the gun but have you met Brian Samson
I don't think this is for me. But I see no reason why people shouldn't use them if that is what they fancy doing.
The beauty of FT is the fact that we can play around with our kit, we aren't restricted like many target sports are.
Also we should be encouraged that a company is willing to invest in a controversial bit of kit for FT, shows we are here to stay
Seems like a very technical solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but I'd say if someone wants to spend £450 on one, then knock yourself out
I don't follow.
Yep comfort is important to a certain extent but you can't record comfort to a specific degree. Like pain or discomfort. Or without kit you can't record wobble objectively.
Start sticking recording equipment into the training process and it reveals all sorts of things that apparently shooters don't do.
It was a jokey quip at you saying that shooters aren't objective etc,
I think they very much are, perhaps some can't verbalise it but I very much disagree with your opening statement. Bri is one of the most technical people I know in the game, he knows the theory and practice but I also believe that many others shoot well without knowing all the theory because they've put the practice in and do things automatically and there's nowt wrong with that either.
I can see that the DSW would be useful but still not seeing the massive advantage unless it's super accurate on the wheel movement beyond 45yds and the human hand and eye has a lot of difficult on those final 4 to 5 mill on the wheel between 50 and 55yds. I know John said it could measure 2 microns but the human hand isn't that accurate.
I don't think it should be banned either but I'm interested to see how it develops.
I think Brian is probably the exception to the rule. he seems to actually work with some data...
But how many times have we heard about lock time being better on x gun, or how much power a gun is running because of the way it hits a target or the time it takes to get there. How much wind a stripper takes or how much recoil it reduces. Shooters that don't cant or ******. Scopes that rangefind better than others. Etc... How is all this actually measured?
It's probably a good example that you are saying shooters are objective that reinforces my point... How have you measured this exactly? From my experience of coaching many think they are but it's only when you get something to actually record the data do you see the difference between their perception and reality.
Now, I love a bit of data and a good chart but I could point you at at least 5 AA shooters that stand nothing like all the data in the books suggest, yet they seem to hit the targets in spite of that and with any equipment they pick up. Is that some kind of new repeatable luck?
Do you think the data would make any difference to them? My argument rests on they are objective because they don't know the data or care about it, their facts are what is the gun doing and what is the wind doing. Your facts while technical correct have no influence and seemingly aren't required, yet they just carry on winning regardless. They can still be objective, they're not influenced, I'd argue that it's actually automatic and reinforced via repetition. Another example could be driving a car, when was the last time you had to think about the actual mechanics of driving from one place to another?
One of the problems shooters have is a hard time seperating result from the process.
There are those shooters however who do that. I can think of two shooters this weekend. One dropped less than 6 and said he wasn't shooting well mind. Another dropped many more and said he was shooting well. That's because they are objective enough to seperate the process they can control from the result they can't.
That's not a common trend. The more common trend is that a score is a reflection on their shooting even though it's affected by variables outside of that shooters control.
It's only with data can you actually determine the bit you have control over is better.
You will tend to find the better shots that are consistent have the better approaches. But that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. And knowing or trying to work out where that improvement can be made is better off starting with data than trial and error, guess work, or luck.
Tell me, how do you know the scope you are using is the best for you for rangefinding? Did you get the idea from someone else? Did you try all the scopes and blind test your consistency and accuracy? Did you keep the one you had some good results with? How does it compare with other scopes?
When you look at how people learn, very few naturally work in a logical manner to determine the best result. Most are just happy to take the shortcuts that get them close or that fit the bill. If they get the results they expect or want generally they are happy. Doesn't mean though that they are performing at their optimum.
I'd also say that a lot of AAs don't stand the ideal way you would in 10m but that's because they tend to use rigs compromised by other positions which throw you out of the ideal.
I agree with Rob.Anything that helps you to analyse your shooting is good.You can shoot hundreds if not thousands of pellets at 10m,but shoot for an hour using a Scatt and as long as you can understand the data it will be worth months of practise.
Yes there's shooters that are overly naturally talented but for the mere mortals amongst us if its within the rules why not?
I had a quick play on Sunday with it.would I buy one?Yes probably,will it improve me?No,my range and clicks are on my side wheel already,but its new and it adds to the enjoyment.