Chuck D Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 I like the classic target because it's an "accuracy" based target. You need to use the sights on it a great deal more than the metric target. I use the classic from time to time at my local IPSC club and if you asked the people who claim to dislike the target,the vast majority state that "it's too hard to hit". They use the PC argument as an excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamBam Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 The accuracy idea is important, and maybe changing the point values on our traditional target would be the key to downplay the speed over accuracy game. The line between speed and accuracy could be settled in the "C" zone. If the "B" were still 4 points and the "C" was made 3 points for major think how much more important accuracy would become... and it would even make the more difficult head shots more rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2alpha Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 If we want an accuracy target the NRA D1 is perfect and would get rid of the head also. But the hosers would hate it. One of the biggest problems with IPSC/USPSA is that so many comprimises have been made trying to please all groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Shred, Don't you know that BE Forum rules prohibit tweaking me until I've fully recovered from the New Year celebrations? The way I feel, I think we're looking at around March 20 No, the regions who requested Classic Targets be used at the WS are prohibited by law from shooting at humanoid targets or, as Carlos explained, doing what is perceived to be civilian "tactical" training. Even being seen shooting "illegally" overseas would have serious ramifications for them at home. Of course the choice of targets has always been the Match Director's call but I get a warm 'n' fuzzy feeling when an MD agrees to such a request because he's helping the regions who need it, but hurting nobody. Since WS targets are always announced a few months ahead of the match, all competitors have a chance to practice on them beforehand. Moreover, being a WS, the courses of fire should be as challenging as possible, and the smaller Classic Targets fit the bill nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 Thank you for the replies. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Metric is a lot of fun to shoot! I just hope everybody gives the Classic an honest chance, without feeling like they’re grabbing their ankles politically. Because it’s just a shooting challenge, not a submission. I think we can all agree that the Metric gets its share of the spotlight in the States Pat summed up my experience perfectly: "I can't see going back, once you are used to the classic, the old target looks like the size of a barn door....way too easy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 lol..practice on them exclusively and just wait for the nationals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 TT, you're not really saying you didn't get a box of classics to practice for the WS? I swear, at 50y the classic is only 10% the size of the IPSC target at the same distance! --D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmittyFL Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Hey guys n gals, great forum I just found out about it so I'm the new guy here. Just use both. Have some classifiers with the classic and continue using the metric. The metric offers much more flexibility in setting different and challenging stages. While the classic is just something different to look at. At action rifle matches and the like we use everything from cowboy steel to paper plates to IPSC targets and bowling pins. It's always enjoyable to shoot at something different. I just don't want to totally get rid of metric targets. I agree its not going to help the sport politically, and I think the old adage applies.....give an inch and they will take a mile. Just my two sense........... cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 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! Chriss, Too late!!! I shoot all stages with 4-cell Maglite while screaming bloody murder at the targets. The "tactical books" are from waaaaaay long ago when the only shooting school I knew existed was Ayoob's. (I lived a sheltered life, I know.) Now, I should *really* rile people up and sell my copy of "Handgun Stopping Power." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 3, 2003 Author Share Posted January 3, 2003 D- With the way I shot, I’d hate to admit I practiced on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 The metric offers much more flexibility in setting different and challenging stages. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 yeah, how so???? --D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 Head shot from here, body shot from over there? Moving targets have to to expose less (partial head) at rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 5, 2003 Share Posted January 5, 2003 I've seen many a shooter try and squeeze two in the 'A" zone even when it's almost completely covered by no shoots in several configurations than attempt to put two in the upper A/B zone of a Metric target. Unless the shooter is almost right on top of the target most will avoid the head box....making the head box nothing more than eye candy for the nostalgic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFD Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 I want nothing to do with the classic due to the reasons behind it's existence. Of course I'm from SC and we've always been an unruly bunch. If I used classics, I'd almost feel like my props would have to be just as sterile; a bunch of cubes stacked here and there, representing nothing. It would still be a shooting challenge and very PC, but the anti's would still hate us and I would have willingly given up the very last memory of what IPSC used to be about. No thanks, it just looks/feels wrong. Screw around with the metric zones and point values if you must, even shrink it, but stop there. Besides that, the IDPA'ers would laugh at me... I'm happy we still have a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 It’s unfortunate that the Classic target has the PC stigma attached to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Chiavacci Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Adam (BamBam) is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Yeah really unfortunate, as it is in fact a minor variation of an ancient target, the coffin target (Universal?). JFD and all opposed to the Classic on PC grounds, ask an old-timer about IPSC/USPSA target history and get an education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TravisT Posted January 9, 2003 Author Share Posted January 9, 2003 Exactly! I guess that’s why I’ve never perceived it as some castrated, PC alternative. It’s a shooting challenge, nothing more and nothing less. Not to mention, in practicality terms, a lot of D hits on the Metric wouldn’t even register as flesh wounds. The PC issue is a handy excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 When we use the Classic at our club matches or for the A.H.Postal Match a certain "group" of shooters AWLAYS complain. When you ask them why they hate the target, 98% respond with " A zone too small and the target is too hard to hit". 2% of these people actually claim the target is P.C. I never bought the P.C. argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 When I started shooting IPSC clubs in my area were using the "Florida 8" target. With a round "A" zone ,the target looked a great deal like the IDPA target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtm Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 WOW and I thought the thread on what clothes to wear to a 3 gun match was esoteric! A couple of thoughts on the head. 1. Most people avoid the head because they never train to shoot there. Everybody seem to be obssesed with the body. (I guess this goes along with never hit a man with glasses in the face) I always will try for the head if the A has alot of "white" near it. ( not errant shots by the way). 2. To think that that little 6x6 piece of cardboard offends the hoplophobes more than that belt full of 26 round magazines that you are carriing is just plain delusional!3. In fear of sounding "wactical" ,( not that I care one little bit!), in a real fight if one "happens to screw up" and puts a errant shot into the A zone of his opponents head, believe me it DOES score!!! why not in a match? If you say "that wasn't the intended target" so it shouldn't count now places us into the relm of rapid fire TARGET shooting, putting to lie the "P" in both USPA and IPSC. And people wonder why I don't want to see 3 gun put under the auspises of eather of the P entities. KURT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 OK, lets see if we can straighten this out. We have the Anti-PC purists on one side, the too hard to shoot on another side and on the third side (its all part of advanced mathematics called "Topology", trust me) are the increase competition/old targets are too easy. First, if you want to have a "relevant" target, don't stick with the existing one we use. Do you know many people that wide? The Classic is actually a closer representation of people size. Next, when in doubt, go to the original source. Jeff Cooper, pg 111, "Cooper on Hnadguns: 1974": "Targets may be balloons, or steel plates, or even bullseyes in some cases." pg 114 "Combat shooting competition can utilize randonly-shaped targets......as long as all competitors get a try at the same string of targets." I live in a University town. Some people cringe when they find out what I do. Are they put out by the magazines? The hollowpoints? Holster work? No. Its the targets. We won't please Sarah Brady without giving up everything. But there are a whole bunch of people who wouldn't care about what we do until they see the target. I'm not against emphasizing accuracy by making the targets smaller. Just don't crowd the A zone with no-shoots like you would on the bigger ones. So, do we need new targets? I don't know. Should we go with the Classic? What advantages does it offer, and what perceived shortcoming of the old target does it address? Maybe we need another new one, thought up from scratch. We don't need wailing about giving up the last vestiges of IPSC. How many out there have shot on every target ever designed since Jeff Cooper started this? Thought so. Latecomers are not allowed to talk about how it was done in the "good old days." Bring out the rational arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Pat, Quite a few shooters are as wide as the targets we use now. Just kidding, but I agree with you observations. I think that the one thing that we should emphasize is shooting "skill." Shooting 16 wide open targets at 3-5 yards requires little skill. It may be fun on occasion, but I think that the targets we use don't matter one bit, as long as they are the same for everyone, what matters is how they are arranged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck D Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 "Latecomers are not allowed to talk about how it was done in the good old days". Damn gutsy statement that elicits immediate respect from me. Chuck DiSalvo A-06676 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now