OK... here's the original paper target:
There are 65 holes there from three stages (20 shots each + 5 sighters).
Then I ran that through my OnTarget group calculator to mark the shots in red:
I managed to snag e-target screenshots for two out of the three stages.
Using photoshop, I superimposed the two e-targets over the paper target. I scaled them so the target rings matched up. I made the e-targets semi-transparent so we can see the paper target and bullet holes underneath. I don't think I got the camera squared up exactly when I shot the photo of the paper target. So, there's a tiny bit of skewing. But, pretty close. So, the target rings are lined up, but the e-target "impacts" and the bullet holes... not so much. Like, NONE of them line up / match. Hmmmm....
Then I shifted the superimposed e-targets a bit, and VOILA! The bullet holes and e-target impacts line up pretty nicely! But, the rings are off!
When you mount the paper target on the frame (which has the four electronic sensors mounted on the corners), they stress that you must get it centered properly. We did. I'm quite certain of that. So, this would seem to confirm my friend's comment about "zero shift."
Here are the two images side-by-side:
Now.... IF the shooter makes an ACCURATE correction with the two "sighter" shots before shooting for score, the system's "zero shift" shouldn't matter, right? Of course, that's assuming the shooter's fundamentals are spot on.
Anyway... some interesting stuff, courtesy of the resident nerd here!