The Head

[TravisT]

I’m talking about the upper A/B zone of the Metric (IPSC) target.

I believe it’s time to get rid of this turkey, or for the USPSA to adapt the Classic target. I’m primarily coming at this from a shooting angle; that all the head is essentially doing is absorbing errant shots. Of course, a target that less resembles a person also has additional advantages. Some argue that this is conforming to the political climate, and should be avoided.

What do you think?

[lynn jones]

hey travis,

we are currently using both, why just use the one what you want too?  what about the regular pepper popper?  have you tought about that?

i don't want to be limited with our target selection.

those turtles are hard enough to shoot,  their like what 80% of the metric?  with hard cover and no shoots added, pure hell.

just my thoughts.

lynn jones

[BamBam]

I'm OK with the target we have.  When I design stages I can think of times that I have left only a head shot, which with its A/B zone is like a mini-target.  Or with non-disappearing targets when the head is all that remains after activation completes.  Or with stages having no-shoots and shoot targets side by side tight to the A-zone, some people elect to shoot for the "heads" thus eliminating the errant miss wide into a no-shoot (not that I agree with this technique).   So it gets some valid competition use beyond the lucky "A" shot.

As for the political correctness angle, sure I'd like to get more media coverage with PC targets.  But I remember the TV show where IPSC was covered using the new shaped targets and the reporter referred to the "A" zone on that modern target as "heart sized".  Can't win with the anti-gunners so why bother trying.  Next thing they'd have us get rid of stages with real looking props.  Hard to explain targets... even those not shaped sort of like people... when they are sitting on a couch and you shoot them after opening a door.  Unless there is a clear gain with switching I can live with what we have.  Just some thoughts.

[EricW]

T^2,

I understand where you're coming from, but I've seen folks make good use of the upper A/B zone when designing stages.  It's a super tool to demand accuracy when setting up stages in short bays.  I'm just not sure how the amoeba target could be used with the same versatility.  But then again, I've never shot at an amoeba target.

I have mixed feelings about the politics of it.  On one hand it might help rid IPSC/USPSA of the tactical whackticals, but on the other hand it seems like perversion of the sport to be more PC.  What's "right" politically?  I've got no clue....

E

[Phil Dunlop]

We've  been shooting the new classic targets since their introduction.

The old targets were more versatile, but I think the new ones are generally more challenging.

As for PC, the Australians have been shooting the classics, and got rid of stage names but have faced a constant attack from the antis and may now be facing a ban on Hi caps at least!

P.D.

[Flexmoney]

Yikes...we'd have to come up with a bunch of new classifiers (and percentages).

[benos]

I'll post one more directionless answer - I like the shooting challenge of the new target's body over the current USPSA target, but I like the head box of the USPSA target for specific challenges.

Realistically, I doubt if removing the heads would actually gain anything, publicity-wise.

be

[Ron Ankeny]

I too like using the upper A/B zone along with hard cover or a no shoot to require guys (and gals) to at least look at their sights. OTOH, Travis is right about the "head" absorbing a lot of errant shots. I don't know...

[Sam]

Avast, maties!  Off with his 'ead!  harrrr....

[Chriss Grube]

Leave the target as is. The anti-gun idiots will find 5 million other things to whine about besides the target. We keep giving up things to be mainstream and it has gotten us exactly nowhere. This sport started as a combat style to test what works and what doesn't. If we keep giving in we'll all be using super soakers. Opps can't do that there might be a drought!

[Steve Anderson]

I hate the turtles, and I hate head shots...all I can do is practice...

SA

[down0]

Boy, this topic reminds me of a line from "Things to do in Denver When Your Dead".......

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

As you all know, we have two authorised paper targets, and match organisers are free to use whichever version suits their requirements.

We have a number of regions which are prohibited by law from using "humanoid" targets. One region used to have a "two-headed" Metric Target (!), and quite a few used to merely cut off the B Zone.

The Classic Target, which is basically a reduced version of the Universal (Rifle) Target, was introduced to provide regions with a "standardised" non-humanoid target, and it's been widely accepted by the IPSC global community.

Apart from it's "PC" uses, the Classic Target is also a form of compensation for accuracy.

Over the years, speed has become far more prominent than accuracy, and the Classic Target goes some way to restoring the balance.

[Ron Ankeny]

Chriss:

Folks who know me know that I am anything but "PC". I just see a whole lot of shots going into the upper zone that deserve to be Mikes. With the up close hose mode trend I think it is worth at least thinking about a change. Maybe I just need to order a case of the "other" targets and mix them up?

[noname]

If rewarding accuracy, and not political correctness, is the goal, why not lower the point value for a B, C, and D hit by 1 point for both major and minor.

If you would rather increase the the risk of a shooter getting a mike for his inaccuracy, then get rid of the head.

Hang the target upside down. Now its no longer a humanoid head, but just another vital organ. Ouch!

[TravisT]

noname- Inverted  

Ron- Right on.

Like I said in my first message, my main concern is from a shooting perspective. The Classic target is quite simply less forgiving, and takes more skill to shoot accurately.

Using the head for difficult shots is an excellent point. I wouldn’t have believed this had I not shot the World Shoot, but partial Classics can be at least as difficult as a head shot - the target shape doesn't match the profile of the sights like the head....making it somewhat counterintuitive, if you will.

Vince-

<..and the Classic Target goes some way to restoring the balance.>

Well said. As you know we have two choices here, but there’s only one match in the entire country using the Classic: Frank’s Florida Open. I was a little disappointed when the USPSA didn’t use the Classic target at the Race Gun Nationals (just weeks before the World Shoot). I believe this left my team at a disadvantage going in. Of course, those crusty dogmatic types would have thrown a fit, had we used the Classic.

Thanks for the responses all,

Travis

[Vince Pinto]

Ah yes, the crusty dogmatic types. We still have a few of them around.

These are the guys who think the Classic Target will be the end of IPSC as we know and love it, but the same thing was once said about:

1) Scopes

2) Compensators

3) Race gun holsters

4) Multiple divisions

In fact, one Regional Director stood up at the 1999 General Assembly in Cebu and declared the introduction of Production Division would definitely mean the end of IPSC in that region.

The funny thing is that, 3 years later, match results from that region show Open Division declining and Production growing. Go figure.

Happy New Year to all.

[DogmaDog]

One of the clubs I shoot at (Gonzales, LA), seems to have a box of those Octagon things lying aroung.  They have had a stage using them at the last couple matches I've been to, but they seem to be looking forward to being rid of them.  

I kinda like them for their novelty value...just shooting something else is a new challenge, but I like the metric targets, too.

Like many sports, IPSC is rooted in combat (see also archery, fencing, wrestling, throwing javelins, discus, hammer, boxing).  Perhaps it is destined to continue to be "sporterized" and diverge from its roots, but I think that would be a shame.  

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[38supPat]

We've been shooting the classic targets almost exclusively since they were introduced.

Accuracywise they are much less forgiving, and you can simulate a B zone shot by lowering the target and adding hard cover....makes a tougher shot than a standard b zone.

I can't see going back, once you are used to the classis, the old target look like the size of a barn door....way too easy.

I'd like to see the race gun Nationals use them as well, makes a far greater challenge...then again, practice on classics here...then go to the Nationals and shoot HUGE targets....maybe we can leave it alone

[Carlos]

Vince about summed it up for IPSC (as usual) though I might add that the prohibition of humanoid targets  in some regions stems not from what we in the US understand as PC but rather it stems from certain countries bans on civilian military training.  In addition to non humanoid targets, the laws are interpreted so that IPSC in some countries will not use actual doors, hallways or windows as that might  be construed as civilian tactical training.

While I am weary of those who might be called "whacktical tactical", I'd like the freedom in USPSA to retain some semblance of realistic defensive scenarios in our sport in order to retain the cross-over IDPA shooters and primarily new production shooters/CCW holders who might otherwise consider our sport merely another form of competition (IPSC can and should maintain some measure of practicality).

On the other hand, Travis is right in that national level competitions immediately preceeding the next world shoot MUST have both targets and stages the resemble those which our team will likely encounter overseas. I am all for "making book" on other regions so as to better compete internationaly (conversely, Vince - feel free to spy on us all you like - I'll even loan you a gun to shoot locally).  Other regions use the classic target exclusively; our team should at least be practiced in their use before heading into the world shoot.  

Good points so far, and a good discussion.

[shred]

<font face=arial size=1>

<hr noshade size=1>Quote: from Vince Pinto on 3:44 am on Dec. 31, 2002

In fact, one Regional Director stood up at the 1999 General Assembly in Cebu and declared the introduction of Production Division would

definitely

mean the end of IPSC in that region.

The funny thing is that, 3 years later, match results from that region show Open Division declining and Production growing. Go figure.

<hr noshade size=1>

</font>

[Tweaking Vince a bit .. ]

These the same RD's that claim that using "Metric" targets at a World Shoot will definately mean the end of IPSC in that region??

[Tweak mode off]

Anyway. I like the classic-turtle target for it's accuracy improvements, but it's got it's own set of problems-- not enough cardboard to hang it from sticks, too easy to hang upside down inadvertently, harder to set at an angle and difficulty finding the scoring lines after much patching.

These are real issues at the local level, where for economic and manpower reasons, we're running 40 shooters on the same set of targets, set-up is a few guys a couple hours before the match and RO's move with the squads.

Are local matches like this a US thing? Was any testing done with the turtle at matches like these?

I also like heads-- because they're easy to use as 'accuracy' targets in a local match, without going through a lot of fuss, and you can set stages where you can take a head-shot from here or run over there and see the full body. It's harder to do that with the turtles, especially when you don't have tons of props and people to set them up.

[Chriss Grube]

Ron,

I don't know about out where you're at but we don't see the head catching too many strays. The guy that gets lucky on that aspect will crash and burn elsewhere so I just don't see the big concern. If you're really worried about a certain zone catching strays do away with the D zone.

Hey EricW what's with the whacky tactical books you're selling in the classifieds? Always wondered what the W was for! Don't be showing up at matches with a flashlight!

[skeeter]

i like the classic target. but then i like the metric target so we have started to use both it give you a lot more choices when setting up stages. can you use both on the same stage? i just got a great ideal.

[2alpha]

Starting from the original premise, I don't see the head absorbing near as many errant shots as the c and d zone.

Nothing short of melting down our guns will please the anti's.  I don't see the head causing any problems and in my opinion we shouldn't change things without a very good reason.  We've been thru enough target designs in the past.

[Singlestack]

I've only been a USPSA member for 2yrs 9mo. I understand why some members don't want to change, but I could care less which target we shoot. Heck, I'd go if we shot at paper plates.

I do not think the headless target would change anyones mind about how they felt about the sport.