Can upper panel targets be on their side or upside down?

[Skydiver]

[This question is sort of inspired by the other thread about target presentation.]

Let's say I cut the upper panels off from the IPSC target and put a replacement non-scoring border as per 4.2.4.2. Additionally to comply with 4.2.2 where non-scoring borders must not be visible beyond the distance of 33 feet, I'll use a leather working or scrap booking perforation wheel.

Can I place that target overlaying the upper panel of an IPSC noshoot, but have the scoring target upside down. That is, the A becomes the mouth rather than the eyes?

To make things even more confusing, can I place it overlay the upper panel of a scoring IPSC target, but have the A zone on the left (or right) side?

In both cases, the WSB will indicate that the upper panels are separate targets.

Updated question with pictures.

Edited June 21, 2010 by Skydiver

[CHA-LEE]

I don't think that changing the location of the scoring zones on the targets is legal. There is a reason why every single locational measurement for the targets scoring zones is defined in Appendix B2 and B3 of the USPSA Rule book. This is done to build consistency of targets used across all USPSA matches. How would you like it if every club could change the scoring zone location of every target? How user friendly would that be for new shooters coming and going from each match? Lastly, how does changing the location of the scoring zone of on the target make it any "Better" than before. All it would do is cause unneeded confusion thus more pain in the ass for the match officials and more importantly make the shooters bitter thinking they have been "Tricked" because the scoring zone has been changed.

Once again, we have rules for a reason. We need to follow them.

[George Jones]

Approved paper targets are displayed in App B2 and B3. Altering the target in the ways you mention would result in an illegal target.

Further, you would be relocating the scoring zones. If the shooters are far enough away to be unable to see the scoring zones lines, they would not know where to engage the target.

Unique.... innovative.... but not legal.

If you want to present different target orientations, you can do that legally by using multiple targets and tilting them to your hearts content.

[Schutzenmeister]

While I really can't (off the top of my head) quote a specific rule that says NO! ... Why would you want to? Do you have a death wish?

As I said to someone else 7 or 8 years ago when he came up with a crazy, but technically legal CoF:

Just because the book dosen't say you CAN'T do it is NOT a good reason to go and DO IT!

[FranDoc]

Since it would be impossible to visually discern that these are two separate targets, I don't believe that you can declare them to be separate.

See 4.1.5: "Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use of tape, paint, or any other means is prohibited". [emphasis added]

You can certainly cut off the upper A/B zone and use the lower portion as a separate target.

If you cut off the upper A/B, you will have a square with no way to determine (once the perfs are no longer visible) which way is "up". Therefore, I suspect that a ~6" square "head only" target would not be considered legal. If you want to force a head shot, cover the lower portion of the target with hard cover or a no-shoot, then you can arrange the (metric) target at whatever angle you like.

See what the rules gurus (Gary, Troy, George, et al) say.

[kevin c]

Gee, I don't know many bad guys out there with torticollis.

You could get the same effect more easily by just hard covering the body of a metric target and then rotating it any way you want. Nothing to cut, no nonscoring border to recreate. Put it behind a NS if you want.

The scoring perfs are not supposed to be visible beyond a certain distance. If you rotate the head by itself, it won't give you the visual orientation clues of the body attacted to it, or that a, ah, "live target" would give you, the WSB not withstanding.

As described in the original post, these are, as Cha-Lee points out, most going be be "gotcha!" targets.

eta: See what happens when you take a break before completing a post? People come in and post the most reasonable things!

Edited June 21, 2010 by kevin c

[mhs]

Approved paper targets are displayed in App B2 and B3. Altering the target in the ways you mention would result in an illegal target.

Further, you would be relocating the scoring zones. If the shooters are far enough away to be unable to see the scoring zones lines, they would not know where to engage the target.

Unique.... innovative.... but not legal.

If you want to present different target orientations, you can do that legally by using multiple targets and tilting them to your hearts content.

How is this different from cutting off heads and using them with intact targets in a Mozambique presentation? Since they are seperate targets, rotating the head doesn't violate any rules I can find.

[mactiger]

Since it would be impossible to visually discern that these are two separate targets, I don't believe that you can declare them to be separate.

See 4.1.5: "Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use of tape, paint, or any other means is prohibited". [emphasis added]

You can certainly cut off the upper A/B zone and use the lower portion as a separate target.

If you cut off the upper A/B, you will have a square with no way to determine (once the perfs are no longer visible) which way is "up". Therefore, I suspect that a ~6" square "head only" target would not be considered legal. If you want to force a head shot, cover the lower portion of the target with hard cover or a no-shoot, then you can arrange the (metric) target at whatever angle you like.

See what the rules gurus (Gary, Troy, George, et al) say.

We call BS on that one.

Troy

ETA: BS on the original idea, not on FranDoc's comments. I wasn't being clear, again.

Edited June 23, 2010 by mactiger

[diehli]

[This question is sort of inspired by the other thread about target presentation.]

Let's say I cut the upper panels off from the IPSC target and put a replacement non-scoring border as per 4.2.4.2. Additionally to comply with 4.2.2 where non-scoring borders must not be visible beyond the distance of 33 feet, I'll use a leather working or scrap booking perforation wheel.

Can I place that target overlaying the upper panel of an IPSC noshoot, but have the scoring target upside down. That is, the A becomes the mouth rather than the eyes?

To make things even more confusing, can I place it overlay the upper panel of a scoring IPSC target, but have the A zone on the left (or right) side?

In both cases, the WSB will indicate that the upper panels are separate targets.

Updated question with pictures.

Relevant rules:

4.1.5: Declaring a single, intact target to represent two or more targets by use of tape, paint or any other means is prohibited.

4.2.4.2: When the scoring area of a paper target is to be partially hidden, course designers must simulate hard cover in one of the following ways: ... [.2] By physically cutting targets to remove the portion deemed to be hidden by hard cover. Such targets must be fitted with a replacement non-scoring border, which must extend the full width of the cut scoring area (see Rule 4.2.2).

4.2.2: Paper targets must have scoring lines and non-scoring borders clearly marked on the face of the target, however, scoring lines and non-scoring borders should not be visible beyond a distance of 33 feet. The scoring zones reward power in USPSA matches.

4.2.5 Hard Cover (and overlapping no-shoots) must not completely hide the highest scoring zone on a partially hidden paper target. The minimum requirements are specified in Appendix B.

[Relevant text from] Appendix B: At least 25% of the lower A-zone, or the entire upper A-zone, must remain visible around hardcover or overlapping no-shoots.

4.1.5 is inapplicable because the target would not be intact.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

Edited June 22, 2010 by diehli

[mactiger]

4.1.5 is inapplicable because the target would not be intact.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

You're kidding, right? Take two targets, make them look like one target, and then call them two targets?

I'd think that's pulling a fast one.

Troy

[George Jones]

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

I think part of the problem with your description is that it requires you to define "what the target is" in the WSB. In other words, the "missing" parts of the targets are not really hidden behind hardcover, you just say they are. I suggest that this approach is not consistent with the allowances provided in the rules you mentioned. If they were actually behind real/visible hardcover, the shooter could easily determine the orientation of the target and its A-zone. That is a fundamental bit of information the shooter needs to determine where to aim. See Rule 2.1.8.4 for supporting rationale.

Take those two partial "targets" and separate them by a few feet. One of those will not be a fan favorite if the shooters can't tell which way is up.

As with some other (unique) ideas, what initially looks to be new is not always new. Sometimes, something quite similar has been tried before and determined to be impractical or not even fun.

[Nik Habicht]

While what you describe might be technically legal -- and I'm speaking about turning heads sideways and upside down -- I'd also refer you to 2.1.8.4:

2.1.8.4 Static “Classic” paper targets must not be presented at an angle greater than approximately 45 degrees from the vertical.

That rule exists so that competitors can know by looking at the target shape where they need to aim to hit the A-zone. Allowing classics to be turned upside down plays havoc with that ability.

Having decided that, why would we want to attempt the same thing with heads? Do you want a shooting challenge or a memory challenge?

[mhs]

4.1.5 is inapplicable because the target would not be intact.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

You're kidding, right? Take two targets, make them look like one target, and then call them two targets?

I'd think that's pulling a fast one.

Troy

From the other thread:

This type of course is not legal, because it violates 1.1.5 by requiring hits to a specific part of a target.

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an “as and when visible” basis.

As previously suggested, you can cut the heads off or use classic targets, and plates, if you desire a "mozambique" type presentation.

Troy

Isn't the part I've quoted above (I put it in bold) taking two targets, making them look like one target, and then calling them two targets?

[diehli]

4.1.5 is inapplicable because the target would not be intact.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

You're kidding, right? Take two targets, make them look like one target, and then call them two targets?

I'd think that's pulling a fast one.

Troy

I'd think that's an interesting shooting challenge.

You could obtain the same shooting challenge by using two full targets and placing them such that the upper A/B of the 1st is covered by the upper A/B of the 2nd, either at 90° or 180° and painting or covering the rest of the 2nd target (and also placing its shoulder behind the shoulder of the 1st, if doing 90 degrees). The rules do not require that you obscure part of a target with particular hardcover (actual hardcover, paint, or cutting off part of the target). Yes, something's preferred per 4.1.4.1, but that doesn't speak to legality since the other means are perfectly legal. That it necessitates a competitor be more mindful during a walkthrough does not make it illegal per the cited rules.

But, see below for 2.1.8.4.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

I think part of the problem with your description is that it requires you to define "what the target is" in the WSB. In other words, the "missing" parts of the targets are not really hidden behind hardcover, you just say they are. I suggest that this approach is not consistent with the allowances provided in the rules you mentioned. If they were actually behind real/visible hardcover, the shooter could easily determine the orientation of the target and its A-zone. That is a fundamental bit of information the shooter needs to determine where to aim. See Rule 2.1.8.4 for supporting rationale.

Take those two partial "targets" and separate them by a few feet. One of those will not be a fan favorite if the shooters can't tell which way is up.

As with some other (unique) ideas, what initially looks to be new is not always new. Sometimes, something quite similar has been tried before and determined to be impractical or not even fun.

See above.

Also, that you "suggest this approach is not consistent with the allowances provided in the rules mentioned" does not speak against what the rules say: the rules say what they say. The language does not disallow the shooting challenge as described, 2.1.8.4 notwithstanding.

Regarding fun, I've shot stages with vision barriers that were exceedingly difficult mentally, requiring one determine precisely where their body would need to be to minimize the number of shooting locations to effectively engage all the targets. That's something done during the walkthrough. They were fun. Same goes for this type of shooting challenge, on both counts. One man's cup of tea is another's cup of urine.

For 2.1.8.4, see below.

While what you describe might be technically legal -- and I'm speaking about turning heads sideways and upside down -- I'd also refer you to 2.1.8.4:

2.1.8.4 Static “Classic” paper targets must not be presented at an angle greater than approximately 45 degrees from the vertical.

That rule exists so that competitors can know by looking at the target shape where they need to aim to hit the A-zone. Allowing metrics to be turned upside down plays havoc with that ability.

Having decided that, why would we want to attempt the same thing with heads? Do you want a shooting challenge or a memory challenge?

Note the change/pseudo-political commentary.

Whatever the intent behind the rule, 2.1.8.4 is what would disallow the target presentations suggested by the OP. There's no specific exemption for Level I matches for that particular rule—like there are with the other rules that Level Is are exempted from—so it's one that a USPSA match "must" follow. So, based on 2.1.8.4, I'd reverse my position WRT legality, if the bodies are placed upright.

Regarding intent, I'd argue that the intent is so that you know that the A-zone will always be in the upper part of the target, not from the shape, but from the orientation of the available cardboard.

Would a target at 11 yards (so that the perfs aren't visible) that presents only a rectangle of cardboard (with the visible cardboard having borders at the B/C perf, the bottom of the D-zone, and from the bottom corners of the D-zone vertically, and with the excluded areas covered by a wood panel wall that is, and is designated as, hardcover) such that the head and target shape—and, thereby, on your theory, orientation—aren't discernible, be illegal?

How about an 11-yard target that appears to give you the entire A-zone, with the rest obscured by a hardcover wall, but only leaves 25% of the A-zone available? Assume the same target presentation, but the A-zone-sized visible area is vertical and the target is actually placed at an angle behind it, still giving 25% of the A-zone. Result?

What if the hardcover at the top mimics the bottom of the target (so the cut out in which the target is placed and shot through is symmetrical) so if a target were inadvertently stapled/taped upside down, you couldn't tell while shooting (and the REF would be discovered while taping)?

If you think any of those are illegal, cite the rule.

If the bodies are placed 45° one direction and the heads 45° the other, such that the A-zone of each is in the uppermost portion of the target, the rules at issue are given effect and it would be legal per them. Even if what you believe is the intent is the intent, cutting off part of the body of the target along with the head (perhaps as little as 1/8") and setting them up at alternate 45° angles would give effect to 2.1.8.4.

[mactiger]

4.1.5 is inapplicable because the target would not be intact.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

You're kidding, right? Take two targets, make them look like one target, and then call them two targets?

I'd think that's pulling a fast one.

Troy

From the other thread:

This type of course is not legal, because it violates 1.1.5 by requiring hits to a specific part of a target.

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an “as and when visible” basis.

As previously suggested, you can cut the heads off or use classic targets, and plates, if you desire a "mozambique" type presentation.

Troy

Isn't the part I've quoted above (I put it in bold) taking two targets, making them look like one target, and then calling them two targets?

No, it's using two actual targets, a paper one, and a steel one. It's not even close to what you suggest, and is legal, and would be obvious to the competitor.

Troy

[diehli]

From the other thread:

This type of course is not legal, because it violates 1.1.5 by requiring hits to a specific part of a target.

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an “as and when visible” basis.

As previously suggested, you can cut the heads off or use classic targets, and plates, if you desire a "mozambique" type presentation.

Troy

Isn't the part I've quoted above (I put it in bold) taking two targets, making them look like one target, and then calling them two targets?

I think that Troy was somewhat imprecise with his language. I think what he means is cutting the head off of a metric target and putting a plate in its place (or, alternatively, using a classic target and placing a plate "on top of the target" [don't want to upset any non-U.S. pols that bristle at the idea of shooting at humanoid targets]).

I'd suggest that if you can mimic the target presentation with two targets and it's doable with one, it's legal. For a Mozambique-type setup, cutting the head off of a target and placing that head a head's distance away (you'd have to place the "head" target behind the "body" target and paint the "body" target's head and the visible portions of the "head" target's body so that they're hard cover) should be legal. Getting the head any closer to the body should be illegal.

[mhs]

4.1.5 is inapplicable because the target would not be intact.

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

You're kidding, right? Take two targets, make them look like one target, and then call them two targets?

I'd think that's pulling a fast one.

Troy

From the other thread:

This type of course is not legal, because it violates 1.1.5 by requiring hits to a specific part of a target.

1.1.5 Freestyle – USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted

to solve the challenge presented in a freestyle manner, and to shoot

targets on an “as and when visible” basis.

As previously suggested, you can cut the heads off or use classic targets, and plates, if you desire a "mozambique" type presentation.

Troy

Isn't the part I've quoted above (I put it in bold) taking two targets, making them look like one target, and then calling them two targets?

No, it's using two actual targets, a paper one, and a steel one. It's not even close to what you suggest, and is legal, and would be obvious to the competitor.

Troy

I must not have understood the other thread. I thought it was refering to cutting the head off one target, and cutting the body off another, leaving non-scoring borders on both, and combining them into an array of two targets that looks just like one slightly-taller-than-normal target. Would the presentation I've just described be legal?

[mactiger]

Ways to simulate the "mozambique", in more precise language:

1) Use a metric target, cut the head off, and replace it with a plate. Legal.

2) Use a classic target, and place a plate above it to simulate the head. Legal.

3) Cut the head off a metric target, separate it from the body by "x" distance, replace any non-scoring borders. Score it as best two hits on T-X and best one hit on T-Y. Legal. (Alternatively, just use a full target and a head cut off another one--no difference.) If you don't separate the two, it will appear as one target, and IMO would not be legal, because the competitor can't tell which target is which.

4) Place a target on top of another, so that it looks like one target, and call it two, even though it might technically be two, not legal IMO, because it still looks like one target.

Which was my objection to the OP's idea. Plus, turning the head upside down or sideways, while it's probably not against the rules, is just messing with the competitor's head, and they'll most likely express themselves to you about it.

Troy

[George Jones]

If you describe your target presentation as "one target with the upper A/B hidden behind hardcover (and removed to simulate this) and the second target with the body of the target hidden behind hardcover (removed to simulate) with the remaining upper A/B of the 2nd target placed in the approximate position of the upper A/B of the 1st target, but rotated 90 or 180 degrees", I don't see how it would run afoul of the rules (if you abide by 4.2.2, 4.2.5, and Appendix B ). As long as you're not trying to pull a fast one, make it clear in the WSB and, of course, in the points tally (duh), by the rules as written, it's perfectly legal.

I think part of the problem with your description is that it requires you to define "what the target is" in the WSB. In other words, the "missing" parts of the targets are not really hidden behind hardcover, you just say they are. I suggest that this approach is not consistent with the allowances provided in the rules you mentioned. If they were actually behind real/visible hardcover, the shooter could easily determine the orientation of the target and its A-zone. That is a fundamental bit of information the shooter needs to determine where to aim. See Rule 2.1.8.4 for supporting rationale.

Take those two partial "targets" and separate them by a few feet. One of those will not be a fan favorite if the shooters can't tell which way is up.

As with some other (unique) ideas, what initially looks to be new is not always new. Sometimes, something quite similar has been tried before and determined to be impractical or not even fun.

See above.

Also, that you "suggest this approach is not consistent with the allowances provided in the rules mentioned" does not speak against what the rules say: the rules say what they say. The language does not disallow the shooting challenge as described, 2.1.8.4 notwithstanding.

Regarding fun, I've shot stages with vision barriers that were exceedingly difficult mentally, requiring one determine precisely where their body would need to be to minimize the number of shooting locations to effectively engage all the targets. That's something done during the walkthrough. They were fun. Same goes for this type of shooting challenge, on both counts. One man's cup of tea is another's cup of urine.

For 2.1.8.4, see below.

I'll try to be clearer....

Shooters need to know the orientation of the target so that they know where the scoring zones are located.

Perhaps you are not aware of the reason behind 2.1.8.4 - to prohibit angling Classic targets beyond 45 degrees. Why? Because the A-zone is not symmetrical nor is is centered on the target. The restriction allows the shooter to "visualize" where the A-zone is located and not have to resort to memory from the walkthrough.

We allow Metric targets to be inverted because the basic outline of that target does allow the shooters to know where the A-zone is located. If you remove the outline of the target and the remaining part (the upper A/B zone) is not in it's normal vertical position (as the original post mentioned), you are effectively preventing the shooters from knowing the orientation of their target. Sorry, no cigar.

Your example of multiple shooting locations does not apply to this discussion. Neither can you "define" a target in the WSB as would be required in the original post. It's either a legal target or it's not. And it is not.

As to your cup of urine.... Enjoy. I'll stick with the tea!

As to the "mozambique-type" of set up, I agree that it can be done with two separate targets as long as the taget orientations are obvious.

[Skydiver]

Okay, I'm confused... Rule 2.1.8.4 refers to the "classic" targets (Appendix B3) - the so called turtle or amoeba targets.

In my original post, I was talking about the "metric" or "IPSC" targets (Appendix B2) - the targets we normally see here in the US. As far as I know it's legal for these targets to be turned beyond 45 degrees from vertical as static targets. (It was one of the questions on my RO exam and I correctly answered that it was legal.)

What rule makes it illegal to have the heads be up side down or on their side or illegal?

Or is it overlaying the head only target over another target that makes it illegal? If so what rule makes it illegal?

Sort on tangent, if it's a head only target, then it can't be upside down?

Note T1-T2 and T10-T11 in the stage below. (As far as I know the stage has been approved for an upcoming Level II match.) When the stage was setup and shot to work out the bugs a few months ago, only the A/B were visible for T2 and T11. It'll probably be setup the same way next month for the real deal.

http://northwestsection.org/nwc10/files/HELPING%20THE%20SHERIFF%20revised%20Bay%205.pdf

[George Jones]

Sort on tangent, if it's a head only target, then it can't be upside down?

Note T1-T2 and T10-T11 in the stage below. (As far as I know the stage has been approved for an upcoming Level II match.) When the stage was setup and shot to work out the bugs a few months ago, only the A/B were visible for T2 and T11. It'll probably be setup the same way next month for the real deal.

http://northwestsection.org/nwc10/files/HELPING%20THE%20SHERIFF%20revised%20Bay%205.pdf

I have no problem with those. The target orientation is obvious to the shooters. Of course, I would never put those arrays together without at least a 1/2" harcover between them to prevent a single bullet from scoring on both targets - scoring nightmare alert!

But if you cut the head off and it's the only remaining part of the target and you turn it any which way, the shooter would have to guess where that little bitty A-zone is located. Same problem as you have with a Classic when it's sideways or upside down (and the reason 2.1.8.4 exists).

[Skydiver]

Plus, turning the head upside down or sideways, while it's probably not against the rules, is just messing with the competitor's head, and they'll most likely express themselves to you about it.

LOL! Great response Troy!

One of the local shooters actually jokingly PM'd me to expect flat tires.

Thank you everybody for getting my head set straight on the matter. :-)

[Skydiver]

Sort on tangent, if it's a head only target, then it can't be upside down?

Note T1-T2 and T10-T11 in the stage below. (As far as I know the stage has been approved for an upcoming Level II match.) When the stage was setup and shot to work out the bugs a few months ago, only the A/B were visible for T2 and T11. It'll probably be setup the same way next month for the real deal.

http://northwestsect...d%20Bay%205.pdf

I have no problem with those. The target orientation is obvious to the shooters. Of course, I would never put those arrays together without at least a 1/2" harcover between them to prevent a single bullet from scoring on both targets - scoring nightmare alert!

Good suggestion! I'll mention it to the MD and/or RM.

[diehli]

WRT 2.1.8.4, oops. Glossed over "Classic" (and, besides, it would have been backwards in my mind anyway unless I really thought on it; that whole Metric/Classic thing's bassackwards).

Not done yet, just no time tonight. I'll get back to y'all mañana. I ain't done being a DRL.

[Nik Habicht]

Cullen,

shooters deserve to be able to look at any paper target and have some clue as to where the A-zone is. As RM I might allow an entire stage of heads turned 90 degrees, if they all faced the same way -- so shooters could figure out during their walk-through what the orientation is. But that's a pretty big might.....

Just because it might be technically legal, doesn't make it a good idea....