Exclusive use of classic target

[Overhung]

I have tried reading this thread from start to finish and am lost in the argument. The point is moving to a less human shaped target will get more people to pick up the sport, thus increasing the avenues of advertising for vendors, thus getting more people... And, one side attributes the stagnant membership count to scary targets. One person had the courage to compare watching the sport to paint drying.

Isn't this the AWB mentality placed on paper targets. No scary thumb hole stocks, not bayonet lugs, and darn it, no magazines over 10 rnds. And can any one attribute anything other than pre-ban magazines being sold to us at butt-raping prices?

It's not the targets that shun people, it's our collective self-righteous attitudes (show up at a USPSA match with a Ruger) and a mobilized media against us that does. Get more people to shoot before you discuss growing our little pin-prick of a sport. Democrats and community activists needed to pander to some Southerners and had to silence their overarching goal of disarming the populace for our own protection and made clays cool- we're not looking to take away your stuff. And Chevy and Ford are on it.

This isn't the place to have the skirmish over heads. It's out there convincing people to buy equipment to defend themselves against heads, to hit bulls eyes, to break clays, to knock steel over, etc.

[Jim Watson]

What's next, a PC interrogation as to the point of No-Shoot targets?

Why hang a target and not shoot at it?

What do they represent?

Innocent bystanders, oh horrors! You are still talking about gunfights.

[bdpaz]

This entire topic is artificially polarized by the limited, structured nature of an internet forum. It is a complex subject and I think if we were sitting around discussing it we'd find that we'd all be less extreme in our positions than comes across here.

Not everyone opposed to the humanoid target is a PC tree hugger trying to make shooting warm & fuzzy, and not all in favor of keeping it are closed minded folks selfishly limiting the growth of USPSA. For example, I think it is mildly silly to keep the metric target for "realism" when nothing else is realistic - real life isn't structured with unvarying color codes for shoot/no shoot/hard cover along with standard scoring areas and fixed number of hits specified ahead of time. But that isn't a reason to eliminate the target, it is a reason to vary the course of fire (in my opinion - and I don't really expect any changes). On the other hand, I do think JThompson's comment "I think it's a good reminder for everyone that if you screw up, you're not just killing a geometric form, but a real human." is a compelling reason FOR keeping the humanoid shape.

One last touchy feely thought: take pictures or video of yourself at a USPSA match shooting a stage using the turtle target and also shooting a stage using the metric target. Show the metric to some casual acquaintances and co-workers and turtle to others and see if the response is any different depending on the target used.

[JimmyZip]

bdpaz

That was spot on there. I think that we are shooting anything in general is a big hurdle for many folks. They are not likely to pick up this sport anyway. Do you really think folks, that the non-violent crowd cares what we shoot? It could be cream-pie guns ala Bugsy Malone, and they'd still declare it promotes violence.

I like the blockish, art-deco look of the metric targets. I think they are cool. That's it, cool. do you really think the other targets look as good? In a purely aesthetic way, the classic is just a poorly named inferior product whose main reason for existence is hanging in matches during the windy season. (Cuts down on "floppy head" syndrome.)

[Charles Bond]

Bottom line is there are a lot of things being said here but the proponets say that the target change will bring in more sponsors and more media. Well the proof is in the pudding. All someone needs to do is run a big match with the headless target, bring in Sony and Dell and BMW as sponsors and get it all on ESPN and this discussion will be over.

[gino_aki]

I would say change the metric target to one that looks MORE humanoid...after all isn't that sort of the point you guys back there on the mainland went through all that trouble of getting your states to have "shall issue" concealed carry laws passed?

[John Heiter]

I'm 100% in favor of doing away w/ the heads on USPSA targets for the good of the sport. I know we've all experienced the serious issues that having heads on our targets create. If you deny that they're a problem you're deluding yourselves.

Heads flopping around on clam shell/bear trap targets, getting a little damp from the dew first thing in the morning and flopping forward and back by the end of the day. Not working worth a damn when bagged, etc. For the good of the sport I say we do away with heads on targets immediately. Next match I'm going to rotate all my targets 180 degrees and we'll score them one to the body one to the n*ts.

Problem solved.

Just call me Captain PC.

[ima45dv8]

I'm 100% in favor of doing away w/ the heads on USPSA targets for the good of the sport. I know we've all experienced the serious issues that having heads on our targets create. If you deny that they're a problem you're deluding yourselves.

Heads flopping around on clam shell/bear trap targets, getting a little damp from the dew first thing in the morning and flopping forward and back by the end of the day. Not working worth a damn when bagged, etc. For the good of the sport I say we do away with heads on targets immediately. Next match I'm going to rotate all my targets 180 degrees and we'll score them one to the body one to the n*ts.

Problem solved.

Just call me Captain PC.

[Skydiver]

I'm 100% in favor of doing away w/ the heads on USPSA targets for the good of the sport. I know we've all experienced the serious issues that having heads on our targets create. If you deny that they're a problem you're deluding yourselves.

Heads flopping around on clam shell/bear trap targets, getting a little damp from the dew first thing in the morning and flopping forward and back by the end of the day. Not working worth a damn when bagged, etc. For the good of the sport I say we do away with heads on targets immediately. Next match I'm going to rotate all my targets 180 degrees and we'll score them one to the body one to the n*ts.

Problem solved.

Just call me Captain PC.

LOL! Actually, one of the stages in our upcoming section matches has two metric targets overlaying each other. One is right side up, and the other rotated 180 degrees, with just the "upper A zone" sticking out. When the stage was setup and test shot to workout the bugs, there were quite a number of FTE's. I'll let you guess which target got the FTE's. :-)

[nashvillebill]

What does the dangling A/B zone represent?

[Team Amish 1]

If it's really about expanding the membership base, just be open about your hobby, be professional and extend invitations to the unititated whenever you see fit.

Trying to appease big sponsors by making targets more abstract? Come on.

USPSA is never going to be as big or money making as the NBA. Thank God.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Team Amish 1

[ima45dv8]

What does the dangling A/B zone represent?

Low-hanging fruit(?).

Those are easy points, especially when others are passing them by. It's like picking free money up off the sidewalk.

[Sean Gaines]

have you guys seen the polish Plate rack, looks a little disturbing....

http://wethearmed.com/index.php?topic=6703.0

[Charles Bond]

have you guys seen the polish Plate rack, looks a little disturbing....

http://wethearmed.com/index.php?topic=6703.0

For those evil MDs on the forum, please go ahead and post where you can get one of these.

[Vlad]

have you guys seen the polish Plate rack, looks a little disturbing....

http://wethearmed.co...hp?topic=6703.0

For those evil MDs on the forum, please go ahead and post where you can get one of these.

http://www.nslwelding.com/content/?page=Polish%20Plate%20rack

[Steven Cline]

What does the dangling A/B zone represent?

pffffffttt LOLOLOLOL!!!

[JThompson]

I'm 100% in favor of doing away w/ the heads on USPSA targets for the good of the sport. I know we've all experienced the serious issues that having heads on our targets create. If you deny that they're a problem you're deluding yourselves.

Heads flopping around on clam shell/bear trap targets, getting a little damp from the dew first thing in the morning and flopping forward and back by the end of the day. Not working worth a damn when bagged, etc. For the good of the sport I say we do away with heads on targets immediately. Next match I'm going to rotate all my targets 180 degrees and we'll score them one to the body one to the n*ts.

Problem solved.

Just call me Captain PC.

Now that was funny right there! Why with one stroke you do away with those nasty heads and at the same time, triple the number of ladies shooting the sport!

Edited June 14, 2010 by JThompson

[Mbauer67]

If the targets were supposed to look like people, they would have names and faces. But the targets we shoot at are profiles. The best thing about the small head shaped portion at the top of the target is best for creating challenging shots with out have to hand cut, tape, modify targets.

[JThompson]

If the targets were supposed to look like people, they would have names and faces. But the targets we shoot at are profiles. The best thing about the small head shaped portion at the top of the target is best for creating challenging shots with out have to hand cut, tape, modify targets.

That's a good point... ever try and do 25% of a frigg'n turtle target? Ya have to know geometry to pull it off and then what if some DRL shooting Open arbs it?

JT

[KGentry]

There are good attributes to both targets as I am sure we all know. If we are interested in expanding our sport then we need media coverage plain and simple. Media (TV Shows) will shy away from anything that appears to be a humanoid style target in any form. Knowing this if we were using the classic target it would be easier to get main stream media to cover our events in larger numbers - Example - Top Shot on History Channel.

This type of media coverage gets the attention of larger companies and increases the chances of sponsorships to more members of USPSA and shooting in general. I can speak as a sponsor when I tell you that media coverage of an event will increase the prize table and or money they will contribute to the event thus making our sport more attractive to a larger pool of people.

Subtract the politically correct element of the discussion and what you are left with is one target that hinders an expansion of our sport to the media and thus limiting ourselves in prizes and money for all shooters.

Just my view as a sponsor.

[Vlad]

Subtract the politically correct element of the discussion and what you are left with is one target that hinders an expansion of our sport to the media and thus limiting ourselves in prizes and money for all shooters.

I'm sorry but I think what limits us is the guns aspect. Where is extensive media coverage for Steel, Pro-am, Sporting Clays, Bullseye, Cowboy, etc, etc. Shooting at panes of glass while on a zipline, or explosive targets with rifles may look cool on TV, but try putting that in a match. 

[fritzthemoose]

In the most recent issue of Front Sight, I read with interest that Phil Strader is advocating using targets without "heads" in order to make USPSA appear to be more sport than defensive or militia type shooting, especially to outsiders or newcomers to the sport.

What do you guys think ? Would anyone leave the sport if there was a switch to the classic target or a change to the current target to eliminate the upper scoring zone ?

I gotta say that I agree with Mr. Strader on this point. I don't think that a switch to the classic target would hurt the sport or attendance. The rules already don't allow competators to dress in military type clothing, and I can only assume that this is because they do not want to portray the game as anything less than sport.

Furthermore, are we making this sport less attractive to the parents of junior shooters who may not want there children shooting at a target with a head. I have heard the argument that the target doesn't look like any person anyone has ever seen. However, it is a humanoid shape, and if I had a dollar for every time I heard someone at a match refer to the upper scoring zone as a head, I wouldn't be going to work tonight.

Opinions ?

It depends what your aim is. Moving IPSC towards being a sport or not. We only have classic targets in my part of the world and for me it makes no difference. But it does make a difference in the perception IPSC has.

If you have people in camouflage running through the woods with skis shooting on small black circles on human style targets you call it winter warefare training. If you have people in bright coloured spandex cloth runnign through the woods with skis shooting on small black circles in front of a white square you call it biathlon.

[sslav]

Subtract the politically correct element of the discussion and what you are left with is one target that hinders an expansion of our sport to the media and thus limiting ourselves in prizes and money for all shooters.

You seem to be stating that as a fact. I would say that at best it is a theory that requires validation.

1. Has any representative of USPSA been told by any TV executive that they would televise our events if we would only use the classic target instead of the metric target?

2. Have other similar events not using humanoid targets (Steel Challenge, ProAm, GSSF) gotten TV time?

3. IPSC has done away with the metric target. When are we going to start seeing IPSC matches on TV?

[vluc]

I would like to know of additional sponsors that would like to see that target taken away to get us media coverage and money.

It lets me know who I will not support.

I thought the sport was for the shooters, not TV time and money for prizes.

[38supPat]

Since the "Metric" target is no longer permitted in IPSC matches and, therefore can only be used in USPSA matches, we should change the name to something less ridiculous and more descriptive.

A bit of history. When the Classic was first introduced, I stated it was the first step towards elimination of the more realistically shaped target. A prominent member of the IPSC president' council said I was off base. I believe he was being honest with me, and that there was no specific conspiracy - but certain courses of events have a way of unfolding in a predictable manner.

Since then:

• Behind the scenes pressure was brought to bear on a World Shoot host club that planned on using a mix (a region reportedly argued "we'll get in trouble back home if our own government finds out we shot those target while out of country")
  
• The targets were re-ordered in the rulebook so the metric target appeared second
  
• The metric target was left out of some region's rulebook printings
  
• IPSC made a decision to request removal of the best stage diagrams ever done (Cebu, 1999, Philippines - see them at http://www.uspsa.org/mr/members/match_index.php?year=1999&match=World_Shoot_XII_-_Cebu ) since one nation expressed concern their competitors would get in trouble if their home government saw an accurate depiction of the nature of the competition they were attending. The merits of this request can be debated, but the fact that it was made, and honored, is part of IPSC history
  
• The metric target was allowed, but the illustration not printed in the rulebook
  
• The metric target was removed as an authorized target
  

I also predicted that the next step after removal of the Metric target would be to tone down stages, starting with "descenarioization", followed by removal of props that suggest the use of a defensive sidearm in an interpersonal encounter.

This path, if we embark upon it, leads in only one direction.

You'll also note the founding principles of the sport have been removed from the IPSC rule book.

1. Practical competition is open to all reputable persons without regard to

occupation. It may specifically not be limited to public servants.

2. Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical shooting

and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate

these elements equally.

3. Firearm types are not separated within their respective divisions, all compete

together without handicap. This does not apply to the power of the firearms

as power is an element to be recognized and rewarded.

4. Practical shooting competition is a test of expertise in the use of practical

firearms and equipment.

5. Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the

general size and shape of such objects as the firearm used may reasonably

be called upon to hit in their primary intended use.

6. The challenge presented in practical competition must be done with the

utmost safety in mind. Courses of Fire should follow a practical rationale

and simulate hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be

used.

7. Practical competition is diverse, never permitting unrealistic specialization

of either technique or equipment. Problems are constantly changed. The

exception is Classifier Stages which are used to measure practical shooting

skill.

8. Practical competition is free-style. In essence, the competitive problem is

posed in general and the participant is permitted the freedom to solve it in

the manner he considers best within the limitations of the competitive situation

as provided.

The World body may have lost their principles, lets not let USPSA lose theirs!