180 Traps - Should we be overly concerned with them?

[spanky]

And by 180 traps I mean a target that you can still engage at 181, in other words it's not blocked by vision barriers (wall, no shoot, barrel, etc).

Should I tighten up my stages to remove any possible "trap" or are they okay occasionally? Personally I feel like the term "trap" doesn't even fit here because you aren't TRYING to trap the shooter but you aren't handing them a bottle and a blankie and holding their hand through it.

I hope no one takes this post the wrong way, I'm open to suggestions, etc but I just think we sometimes put too much emphasis on things like this.

Example:

Edited July 1, 2011 by spanky

[bbbean]

And by 180 traps I mean a target that you can still engage at 181, in other words it's not blocked by vision barriers (wall, no shoot, barrel, etc).

Should I tighten up my stages to remove any possible "trap" or are they okay occasionally? Personally I feel like the term "trap" doesn't even fit here because you aren't TRYING to trap the shooter but you aren't handing them a bottle and a blankie and holding their hand through it.

I wouldn't consider that stage a 180 trap. I'm more concerned with stages that offer targets that can ONLY be engaged from right at the 180. I think those should be avoided.

[bofe954]

As a shooter I don't mind them. Especially if the 180 line is easy to determine, like on the stage above (if it is set up so the cross is pointed at the berm).

It bugs me a little when the courses are shaped irregularly, or placed funny relative to the berm, and it is easy to lose track of where the line actually is...

[spanky]

As a shooter I don't mind them. Especially if the 180 line is easy to determine, like on the stage above (if it is set up so the cross is pointed at the berm).

It bugs me a little when the courses are shaped irregularly, or placed funny relative to the berm, and it is easy to lose track of where the line actually is...

The 180 would be directly parallel to the walls.

[latech15]

nope, I think you are fine with the stage you have posted.

[spanky]

And by 180 traps I mean a target that you can still engage at 181, in other words it's not blocked by vision barriers (wall, no shoot, barrel, etc).

Should I tighten up my stages to remove any possible "trap" or are they okay occasionally? Personally I feel like the term "trap" doesn't even fit here because you aren't TRYING to trap the shooter but you aren't handing them a bottle and a blankie and holding their hand through it.

I wouldn't consider that stage a 180 trap. I'm more concerned with stages that offer targets that can ONLY be engaged from right at the 180. I think those should be avoided.

This was at 2011 AL State. Honestly I didn't mind it. I knew it was there and I knew what I had to do in order to get through it. I agree that those types are setups are less than optimal but sometimes you need them to get the desired result in a COF.

Edited July 1, 2011 by spanky

[KyroWebs]

While prone to a 180 violation, I don't see your stage as a "180 trap" It is hard to tell by looking at a diagram and not the actual stage, but my opinion is that it is all on the shooter....not the designer. If you are worried, perhaps staggering the targets a bit and moving them downrange slightly would lessen the chance of a DQ. Another option is to lengthen the shooting area downrange of the horizontal walls and make the shooter cover more ground. This would allow you to spread the targets out more and reduce the risk of shooters running by them too quickly.

[Flexmoney]

I wouldn't run that.

New shooters (and old) do crazy enough stuff without stage designer help.

I'm not saying hold their hand, but to look at safety as belt and suspenders.

[spanky]

Are the uprange most 3 targets the problem or the four immediately after the walls?

[ima45dv8]

When building a stage I often try to put a NoShoot right on the 180 line of targets that might have a tendency to get overrun. It's not a hand-holding effort entirely, but taking away the 180 does help.

An added benefit is on the rare occasion where someone does engage one of those targets from the downrange side of the NS, it removes any of the "But I didn't break the 180!" excuses when it's at 200 degrees or more.

[benos]

For many shooters, some attention would have to be diverted to not breaking the 180 on targets 1 - 3, and a lot of attention would have to be diverted to not breaking the 180 for targets 4 - 7.

[ima45dv8]

Are the uprange most 3 targets the problem or the four immediately after the walls?

The front 3 don't seem like too much of a problem. There's plenty of time/room to engage them before getting to them.

The next 4 behind the wall wouldn't take much of a bobble on the trigger to get past them before engagement.

Still, the shooter is responsible for their own muzzle.

[spanky]

I was trying to make easy setup, I could double stack each respective set of targets behind the walls and just one one NS on either side, I suppose.

[MarkCO]

Targets 4-7 would be a bit dicey IMHO. Yes, you should think about the 180s and try to not place targets close to the 180, especially where a slight mis-cue results in a DQ.

If you angled one of the walls and brought the shooter in perpendicular, you could create the same effect on one side and just bag the other side.

I worry more about RO traps, this one is not too bad. But consider a new shooter, slowly shooting on the move at the two on the left, an RO, to see the gun goes off the downrange,right, shoulder to see the gun which would otherwise be blocked by the wall. Shooter moves 2 or 3 steps down and remembers swinging around to the other side. RO would be between the shooter and the uprange target on the right...

Breaking the 180 is a DQ, however, in a proper course on a normal bay, no-one should have a gun pointed at them ON the 180. There is a margin of error there that is needed. The RO can be inside that 180, and often is if they are doing their job.

[Joe4d]

And by 180 traps I mean a target that you can still engage at 181, in other words it's not blocked by vision barriers (wall, no shoot, barrel, etc).

Should I tighten up my stages to remove any possible "trap" or are they okay occasionally? Personally I feel like the term "trap" doesn't even fit here because you aren't TRYING to trap the shooter but you aren't handing them a bottle and a blankie and holding their hand through it.

I wouldn't consider that stage a 180 trap. I'm more concerned with stages that offer targets that can ONLY be engaged from right at the 180. I think those should be avoided.

I concur, The first three can easily be engaged at nowhere near the 180, that isnt a trap, but I do see two targets that look like they can only be engaged at about 179, right on other side of wall, that really isnt cool. Legal but there are too many other ways to build a stage.

[spanky]

Thanks folks. I'm going to try to tweak it a bit.

[spanky]

C'est bon? Keep in mind the quad no-shoots are there to prevent shoot throughs.

[vluc]

I never take stage designs as absolutes. Looks okay on paper, but once you set it up and see a potential problem, just tweak it by moving the target, adding a no-shoot or a barrel. The staff setting up have to use common sense and awareness and not just go off of a diagram, no matter how well done in 3D it may be.

Like stage diagrams for major matches. If I planned off of those, I'd be in for a surprise when I go to shoot the match!

[JimmyZip]

Change the far center four targets into six poppers. No shoot throughs, easier to reset. More paper means more tape. Lay them out in a V, three left, three right.

Edited July 2, 2011 by JimmyZip

[Nik Habicht]

Spanky,

notice how on the first drawing the first three are angled and the next four aren't? The first three are fine. The next four might benefit from being a few feet farther toward the back berm, and angled slightly, if that's not possible, then possibly shifting one of the walls toward the back berm, to create an offset situation could help....

When using angled targets, I often like no-shoots to do two things: Serve as a "approaching the 180" warning and up the risk/reward of shooting these quickly on the move, as at some point the target presentation shrinks to a narrow sliver....

[spanky]

I just added the no-shoots to the first three targets for argument sake. based on the opinion of the setup crew we mighn't use them but from what i gather in the past year and a half or so i've been drawing stages, they will stay.

[spanky]

Change the far center four targets into six poppers. No shoot throughs, easier to reset. More paper means more tape. Lay them out in a V, three left, three right.

trying to keep steel to a minimum because of the heat, otherwise i'd have just put the PPR back there. Edited July 2, 2011 by spanky

[vluc]

No-shoots are nice. Good distractions.

[Seth]

I try to avoid allowing shooters to put themselves into situations where they make bad decisions. While I do feel strongly that a target at 179* is perfectly fine, I also feel that I can easily remove the temptation to engage that same target at 185* with creative wall/ no shoot placement.... at least at a club level.

[Nik Habicht]

I try to avoid allowing shooters to put themselves into situations where they make bad decisions. While I do feel strongly that a target at 179* is perfectly fine, I also feel that I can easily remove the temptation to engage that same target at 185* with creative wall/ no shoot placement.... at least at a club level.

+1!