Albert: We haven’t had this problem. We suggest simply scanning your target, then saving it as an image file, then opening it with On Target. We’ve been using the programs for years with XP and Windows 7 and it hasn’t crashed ever.

Editor: We’ve been using the program for years. It’s never crashed or locked up, so I don’t know what “bugs” you mean. Calipers are indeed fast, but if you’re measuring outside edge to outside edge, people need to remember that the bullet hole they see on paper is probably going to be smaller than nominal bullet diameter. The On-Target program measures center-to-center so it doesn’t have this issue. In terms of speed, the program instantly calculates actual vertical, actual horizontal, group size in MOA, and distance to center, and it places that info right on the picture of the target. When you’re measuring multiple groups that can be a time saver.

600 yard targets are too large to scan, so this leads using a camera, and again I find that the program doesn’t come up with a measurement close to what was recorded.

I would agree that most shooters “wallet groups” are incorectly measured, and I will also say I have seen people with pictures scored off of this program that are obivously, not the size that they are measured.

High dollar calipers are not needed, I use a cheap set of calibers purchaed from Haror freight, with a Sinclair measuring devise attached. I can usualy measure target withen a couple of thousands from what they was measured with from the match scorer.

I am sure this program could be a good tool but from what I have seen, it is not spot on. It is as you have put it Operator error can and will happen. I dont see where it would replace reading with a set of calipers.

EDITOR: Not quite sure why you are having issues. If there are clean round holes, we generally can get repeatable measurements with less than .010 (ten-thousandths) variance from one try to the next. Suggest: 1. You start with a very, very precise index baseline, measured with calipers; 2. When you pull the image or scan into the program, you can use the zoom function to increase the perceived size of the image you’re working on. Bigger holes are easier to work with. Then carefully center the circle around each hole. Also make sure you are entering the correct target distance! If you read the article, another fellow measured his target and it came within .006″ of the official scored size. Here’s what Forum Member Steve W. says: “I used the extreme spread measurement of a group on one of my 600-yard match targets… as it was officially scored at the match. By clicking the +—+ icon, then clicked the cursor in the centers of the two extreme spread holes, I then entered that value in the reference window. After that it was simple because the bullet placement cursor’s circle was the same size as the black outline of the actual bullet holes on the picture of the target. OnTarget’s measurement came up within .006″ of the official 2.772 inch measurement of the group. That’s pretty darned close; well inside the human judgment of aligning the tips of a micrometer on the bullet holes.”

EDITOR: We use this program all the time and find it very useful. There are a few things you have to keep in mind. 1) If you’re working from a photograph of a target (as opposed to a flat-bed scan), the angle of the camera and the type of lens can cause distortions in the photo to be measured. 2) You need to start with a very accurate reference measurement, such as a sticker that is measured very exactly. Your group measurement can only be as accurate as the baseline reference. 3) You need some practice to get the circles perfectly centered up around the bullet holes — this takes some refinement when groups are really, really small. I will acknowledge that something like a Neil Jones tool may be more precise with one-holer groups. However, with groups of 0.3 MOA or larger, or pretty much anything you’ll get past 200 yards, we have found the program very accurate. We often use it to re-measure “wallet groups” that are sent in by readers. I normally find that readers “under-size” their groups because they typically subtract the full nominal bullet diameter (such as .308 for 30BR) from an outer edge to outer edge measurement. This is invalid more often than not because the holes in the paper are normally SMALLER than the nominal bullet diameter. This software measures center to center, so it does NOT have this issue of getting “undersize” groups when the actual bullet holes are smaller than the stated caliber.

With practice I have found the program very repeatable, and I would trust its accuracy over 95% of the group measurements we see on the web by “regular” people as opposed to experienced official target measurers using special tools. The program also has the ability to measure extremely large spreads — something that is difficult to do with something like the Neil Jones tool.

But I want to re-interate that, if you start with an inaccurate baseline index measurement your end result will be off. Likewise, if the camera was not exactly perpendicular to the bullet holes, you can get perspective errors which can throw off the end result.

For most guys who do not have access to a special tool or caliber-specific plugs, I think this program will probably give them BETTER results than the methods they are using now (assuming they start with a correct index measurement).

EDITOR: Here’s a tip — if you crop the target image area to just where the group has been formed you can often reduce the file size to 400kb or less with no resolution reduction. If you need a larger view of the target, you can still reduce the image size to, say, 1400×1400 pixels and that’s still adequate resolution on a computer monitor and the file size will probably be under 1 megabyte.

Scott