180 Traps - Should we be overly concerned with them?

[Jim Norman]

The original design looks fine, the first three targets may present a problem, one that could e cured with three no-shoots, what people are saying are the next four, really aren't It looks like you would engage 1-3, then move to either the right or left extreme to engage the down range targets and steel, engage the opposite two behind the wall as you passed to the other side of the stage to engage the opposite downrange targets and steel and then get the final two of the four behind the wall as you went forward. Now, I will admit that you could have someone get to the middle part and faced with the four targets, take them in a manner that had them break the 180.

I don't see this as a major problem here, even if they did and even if they fired a shot, the wall should keep them from swinging too far and the RO should be there.

It is nearly impossible to design a COF where no target is ever visible from a point where it cannot be engaged safely. Even when we think we have it nailed 100%, there will be a hooter that finds a knothole someplace to try to shoot through.

About all I would do here is move the two targets closest to the wall to the other side of the other two targets. This would give a good angle and keep the shooter from perhaps going past the first two targets two easily.

You could also add four no-shoots so that shooting at the four targets past the no-shoots is a definite break. I think it is overkill.

We play a game with real guns and we combine that with more than a little bit of athleticism. We will always have some level of danger, yes remove what we can, but be careful, we could wind up shooting bullseye with airsoft.

Look at how far from the roots of the game we have already strayed. No more jumping turns to test holster retention, we just take your word for it and DQ you if it fails. No more scaling of walls, no more re-holstering, no more... well you probably get the point.

I am not against safe course design, I am against bottle and blankie course design. I don't like a stage with the first target right on the 180, I don't like a COF that has a narrow path between obstructions where the RO has no choice but to move out of arms reach of the shooter. These are more critical to me than a target that can be over run. We should of course seek to limit exposures that might have someone shatter the 180 (can you say 270 or worse) but a glimpse of a target at 190 should not be a problem, Shooters need to pay attention.

Rambling rant concluded

[West Texas Granny]

If safety is a prime consideration then the first stage is a nogo as shown the targets just on the other side of the walls violate the 180. Another concern I have are the 2 poppers in the upper left as the only position to engage them is the far left side (front) of the side of the wall. I see problems with ricochet as I don't know what is off to the left.

[CHA-LEE]

I hate the term "180 Trap" as its very commonly misused. In this game we must always be aware of the 180 while navigating a stage and the placement of targets down range should not affect that reality. Just because a target is presented in a situation when you could move too far down range and then break the 180 if you point back at it, does not make it a "180 Trap". The only time you should consider a target placement or shooting position a "180 Trap" is where you can not engage the target anywhere in the shooting area unless you are breaking the 180. If that is the case then its simply a poor stage design. Otherwise, its a big boy game and we need to put our big boy pants on and keep our gun pointed down range while engaging targets. Moderating your down range travel to keep from breaking the 180 while engaging targets is a skill we all must hone and master. Only making stages were its impossible to break the 180 by pointing at targets while staying inside the shooting area does not train shooters this skill and it actually hurts them when they go shoot at a different club or match.

[EkuJustice]

Im not a fan of the targets where they must be shot right on the 180. To many other ways to draw it up with a little more room for error. Also not a fan of the stages where you are constantly forced to go in and out of areas and constantly backing up at angles etc. Shooter is responsible for the muzzle but stages need to be designed to help aid in muzzle control.

[spanky]

If safety is a prime consideration then the first stage is a nogo as shown the targets just on the other side of the walls violate the 180. Another concern I have are the 2 poppers in the upper left as the only position to engage them is the far left side (front) of the side of the wall. I see problems with ricochet as I don't know what is off to the left.

They don't violate the 180 as much as they allow opportunity for violation (which just about any stage does at some point or another). There is berm on either side of the stage.

Edited July 5, 2011 by spanky

[juan]

CHA-LEE is 100% correct.

we cant keep watering down our stages. some people still would not be happy if all tgts were directly down range and one shooting box to shoot from.

muzzle awareness is one of our disiplines of our sport. I have shot stages maybe not the fastast way but in a way so I dont accedently over run a tgt.

this is part of our game and we are resonsible for our muzzles.

[juan]

I just wanted to add the range bay design is criticle.

if I have tgts near the 180 I make sure the the bay berms can accept a shot that goes beyond the 180, by setting stages deep in the bay.

common sense is stil in play.

[Dan Hefta]

I don't believe in the concept of 180 traps, I believe that each shooter needs to work out the problem and shoot the COF safely. Sure there are things we as MD's can do to make it a lot easier or eliminate the problem all together but how is that helping shooters deal with the real issue... shoot safely and DON"T break the 180, if you do? You go home, lesson over.

[sperman]

The added no-shoots also help ensure that the stage is the same for everybody. One RO's determination of what is legal may be different than another RO's.

I'll add that I HATE seeing orange paint on the ground and being told if you engage a target forward of here, you've broken the 180 (but I've seen it at both Section and Area matches.)

[EkuJustice]

Its not so much the stages should be watered down as they should have a little safety margin built in ie not requiring shots directly on the 180 that are avaliable no where else. If the shooter wants to shoot it to their advatage and go for a 180 shot then more power to them but allow it to be shot without getting right on the line elsewhere as well. The stage shouldnt be designed where the shooter is going through the whole stage paranoid about breaking the 180 every which way they go. There are ways to make a stage fun and challenging without trapping the shooter.

[22 shooter]

You can do a lot with a few barrels. I try (not always possible) to place barrels to where you can't see the target after you pass it. It forces you to slow down and not over run the targets

[Leftylivesmatter]

Spanky,

I help with set up at my local club every month and design a few stages myself. We seem to have this same discussion every month. It seems to always end with one of us saying, "well you can't fix stupid". What we mean by that is we can't make every stage idiot proof.

I agree that your first draft would be a bit of a 180 issue for new and even for the better shooters trying to go fast past the first walls while engaging 4-7. I like the revised version a lot more. IMHO.

[Chris iliff]

Stages look good. I'd like to shoot them. I guess I don't believe in 180 traps. Big boy pants come to mind. You can manipulate a field course all day and someone will come along and say it should be different. I've seen it a thousand times. Basically we are dealing with a bunch of ALPHA mentalities, everyone is going to have a view.

Set your stage, look for shoot throughs, shoot away!

[Seth]

Its funny..... as a shooter, I don't care where you put the targets. On the line or not, I know the rule and do my best not to break it.

As a match director and stage "implementer", I worry about a bunch of other stuff that makes the comments like "I don't believe in 180 traps" seem so silly. I believe that I worry about where each and every round, shot by each and every competitor goes. I worry that they ALL are captured by the berm as we intend. I worry that I don't put the ROs, the shooters and the spectators in positions that are dangerous. I try and envision EVERY screw up a shooter can make and control the variables that I can.

No... I can't fix stupid, but I can do my best to contain it. I don't care if you break the 180 and get DQ'd. I care if you aim a gun at my friends or break a shot that isn't in a safe direction.

[bluenite]

I know shooters that would like at the first pic they are dedicated IDPA and dislike USPSA giving the reason that USPSA dose not require enough use of cover. To them the 4 targets behind the first 2 walls are good, you come up to the wall and pie around it. With there method this is not a 180 trap but good use of cover. I dislike putting limits on both freestyle and stage design. But safety should be a concern for both, the 4 targets are far enough down range that a minor breach of the 180 will not put any one in danger and if the front wall is moved back it would decrease the maximum 180 breach possible making it more safe should the shooter screw up.

I see no issues with the first pic, requiring the shooter to pay attention and think about what they are doing while handling their gun should not meet with disapproval.

It would be bad to have a risky situation on every stage, but just as bad to never have a stage with one.

Leonard

[Schutzenmeister]

Personally, I don't see this (the design shown in the OP) as a "trap" ... but I believe it violates 2.1.4.

2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations other than immediately downrange, [....] Targets must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible” basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

1 - The targets are not immediately downrange.

2 - The targets are clearly visible at and well beyond the 180.

3 - Pointing the gun at the target (much less shooting at it) past the 180 is defined as unsafe.

Hence, I maintain this would be an illegal target presentation. Yes, I know the vast majority of folks disagree with me on this point, but can anyone present a coherent argument as to why my analysis above is wrong? There are numerous methods to rectify this WITHOUT the need to hold the shooter's hand and/or design things "box-to-box." Why put the shooter (or the RO, for that matter) in this situation?

[spanky]

Not disagreeing but trying to be clear. You are saying that any stage with targets that you could see past the 180 is illegal?

Edited July 10, 2011 by spanky

[Schutzenmeister]

Not disagreeing but trying to be clear. You are saying that any stage with targets that you could see past the 180 is illegal?

No ... It is not an illegal stage, but rather an illegal target presentation ... as I read the rule. (2.1.4 deals with target locations ... i.e., presentation to the shooter. It is a small piece of stage design.) It is something that has long been, and continues to be ignored in a large number of USPSA matches.

There are several remedies to the presentation of these targets while still maintaining a "freestyle" stage design. The key is to make them "unavailable" by use of props or presentation before the shooter would break the 180. (And, technically, not to have them visible at all from that point and downrange on the CoF.) And no, painting an orange line on the ground is NOT the solution!

[glefos]

In your post you snipped only a portion of the rule. You only posted the portion of the rule that supports your view. It reads much different in its entirety.

2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations

other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must

protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or

spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the

competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being

forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets

must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible”

basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

Why don't the rules just state "targets must not be visible from beyond the 180"? Are those that support the "not visible from beyond the 180" stage design philosophy, advocates of adding this to the rulebook?

[Schutzenmeister]

In your post you snipped only a portion of the rule. You only posted the portion of the rule that supports your view. It reads much different in its entirety.

2.1.4 Target Locations – When a course is constructed to include target locations

other than immediately downrange, organizers and officials must

protect or restrict surrounding areas to which competitors, officials or

spectators have access. Each competitor must be allowed to solve the

competitive problem in his own way and must not be hindered by being

forced to act in any manner which might cause unsafe action. Targets

must be arranged so that shooting at them on an “as and when visible”

basis will not cause competitors to breach safe angles of fire.

Why don't the rules just state "targets must not be visible from beyond the 180"? Are those that support the "not visible from beyond the 180" stage design philosophy, advocates of adding this to the rulebook?

Actually, I only cut the portions that were not relevant to the point I was trying to make. If you wish to read the cut portions critically, they actually SUPPORT my position. The final sentence in the the rule is the catch all sentenence. It states that you must place targets such that a shooter, who sees a target and engages it will not be placed in the position of that round going somewhere it shouldn't go (due to poor target placement) when the shooter fired at the target on an "as and when visible" basis.

The example in this instance is a target placed such that engaging it on an " as and when visible" basis would send a round uprange from the shooter's position. That would be a 180 violation. Another equally undesireable situation would be a target placed high on the sticks and with a low shooting position that would have the round going over the top of the berm. You wouldn't intentionally set up a target array like that, would you?

BOTH targets positions are equally banned by the last sentence in 2.1.4. Either one results in a round going in an unsafe direction when the shooter fires at the target on an "as and when visible" basis. Why should it be any different for setting a target up visible past the 180? It isn't. The last sentence of the rule prohibits both (and other) presentations without the need to seperately specify "targets must not be visible from beyond the 180." Hence, there is no need to seperately specify it in the rule.

[Ray_Z]

As far as I'm concerned,the 180 can be part of any stage design. I choose to warn the shooter in the COF when I have a 180 trap in one of our club matches if I design it. If I were designing for a level II or III I would not.

The 180 Trap.DOC

[Coach]

+1 on the Big Boy Pants comment.

Any stage calling for lateral movement is a potential problem. The shooter has more responsibility than the stage designer, but with that said the stage designer still has a significant responsibility. On but not beyond it is the rule. Geography as far as target placement can help a shooter avoid breaking it, but ultimately it is where the shooter puts his muzzle.

[Schutzenmeister]

As far as I'm concerned,the 180 can be part of any stage design. I choose to warn the shooter in the COF when I have a 180 trap in one of our club matches if I design it. If I were designing for a level II or III I would not.

Ray

No disrespect impiled or intended. However, if I were your RM reviewing the stage you posted, I would disapprove it as designed. It's not a question of "as far as you're concerned," but rather it's a question of the rules.

It's been stated by many that our safety rules take a "belt and suspenders" approach in order to ensure a high degree of safety in what we do. To allow targets to be presented that allow, invite, and at times even beg the shooter to engage them from an unsafe position is to remove the suspenders. The only thing then left is the "belt" between the shooter's ears and we hope that his intrepretation of just where the 180 is or is not agrees with the RO's. It dosen't always work out that way!

[BayouSlide]

I'm kinda late to this party but I believe that stage designers should be careful with stage designs that press the 180 for Level 1 matches where there are a higher number of new competitors. Ease 'em into the deep end of the pool, but don't toss 'em in over their heads. Even experienced shooters can occasionally have problems...at least that's what I've heard through the grapevine .

Curtis

Edited: 'cause I hate tipos typos!

Edited July 11, 2011 by BayouSlide

[bluenite]

I simply don’t believe that the stage design is the place for most of the changes people seem to want.

A good stage design is done with GM’s in mind.

I say design what is in your mind and then fix any thing not legal and if it can be shot safely by a GM then it is good enough.

Only a classifier is set in stone.

The club level is where most changes should happen, the RO’s and RM know their bays and the type of shooter they get and should make changes based on that.

They are not forced to use any stage, however if throwing in a few barrels or changing a few target locations makes it fit their needs then great.

A stage design should not be dumbed down to a one size fits all.

It should be adapted to fit the clubs use by the club