180 Traps - Should we be overly concerned with them?

[atbarr]

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

Neither should the stages be designed just for the GM shooters. In Level II or III, what percentage are they?

[Nik Habicht]

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.

I'll disagree. A good stage is foremost safe, able to be shot equitably by competitors in all classes, and hopefully challenging to all....

Why would one want to limit design thinking to only considering GMs? Considering all the other classes doesn't have to result in "dumbing the design down."

[atbarr]

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.

I'll disagree. A good stage is foremost safe, able to be shot equitably by competitors in all classes, and hopefully challenging to all....

Why would one want to limit design thinking to only considering GMs? Considering all the other classes doesn't have to result in "dumbing the design down."

[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.

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!

No disrespect taken. I have tried to put a little of the practical back in practical pistol and the 180 while engaging multiple targets is part of it.

[Flexmoney]

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.

Agreed. + 110%

Anytime the safety envelope gets pushed...even if it is "safe"...we risk putting ourselves in a bad light.

We had what I will call an "issue" at a recent local match (nobody hurt). It put the whole program in jeopardy of getting tossed out. While it might be easy to point fingers...the fact is, a whole bunch of little things piled up to allow this bigger "issue" to happen. In our case, I think stage design was a factor.

[bluenite]

I'll disagree. A good stage is foremost safe, able to be shot equitably by competitors in all classes, and hopefully challenging to all....

Why would one want to limit design thinking to only considering GMs? Considering all the other classes doesn't have to result in "dumbing the design down."

I did not say anything about limiting design thinking to only considering GMs.

Just that, that is as far as a designer needs to take it, most including myself do take it further. I think the first img is ok as far as design goes. Could it be made safer for first time shooters “yes” a few walls and barrels and your good to go.

If that design was left as is then it might be a good idea to point out the 180 issues in the setup notes box on the WSB to insure a club using the design is aware of them.

I’m saying that it is the club setup and staff that needs to look at the design and make the changes for their range and shooters, I think 1.1.1 helps point out my view.

One could make the argument that any stage that has uprange travel by the shooter is a 180 trap, should we make it a rule that any uprange travel by the shooter is a DQ?

I say no, is a stage requireing it approate for a first time shooter again I say no.

Dose that make it a flawed stage design, again I say no. I am saying that using that stage is a club decision.

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

That was ment as a starting point for safety concerns, how far it goes after that is up to the designer and then the club staff.

[Karambit]

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

I see a problem with the first wall, left side.

Using the target stand feet as a reference point the target

nearest to the wall should be moved further downrange.

It appears to butt against the wall.

Everything else looks good to go imho.

[Graham Smith]

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....

I'm new at course design and often wondered why there were so many no-shoots on some courses and not others. It sometimes comes down to philosophy. At my club, I (we) want to stick something out there that just screams "watch the 180". Of course there comes a point where if someone overruns a target that much and still turns to shoot back at it, they deserve a DQ for being dumb.

[spanky]

Embarrassingly, I accidentally ran this stage this past weekend as the drawing in post 1 instead of the redraw. We had 56 shooters and no 180 dq on that stage.

I'll throw the redesign in for a future match.

[remoandiris]

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.

Unless the stage designer/setup is a GM, how does one design/setup a stage with GMs in mind? Just wondering.

[spanky]

Here is a video of most of the stage. I walked up too late to get the whole thing on video.

[bluenite]

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.

Unless the stage designer/setup is a GM, how does one design/setup a stage with GMs in mind? Just wondering.

I think Spanky’s stage here demonstrates this, and the video helps to point it out, the shooter in the video did not need to go to the forward wall, where as a lesser shooter might.

As far as safety, IMO an original stage design dose not need “need dose not mean can’t” go past the point of being safe for the best shooters, when a club uses a stage they should address the design and adapt it to match the shooting skills of the shooters they typically get.

Although my memory of a few sentences that I remember reading almost 20 years ago is flawed it was what it was, below are the actual words from the book “and yes I know times have changed”.

Club program manual 1993: course designer p.3:

Elements of a good stage…At this point in the design process we have some ideas. Before we begin to turn them into stages, we’d better examine the elements which make up a good stage in order to blend them with our idea.

SAFE… Safety is built in from start to finish.

Challenging but fair… The shooting problems are at a level which challenges A class shooters. The design dose this while avoiding complex instructions needing a week to memorize.

Efficient… It can be set up and run with the resources on hand. It doesn’t require ROs to have the wisdom of Solomon or Superman’s super vision to administer it fairly. It doesn’t require a cast of thousands, a budget of millions, or weeks to run everyone through.

Leonard

[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.

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!

No disrespect taken. I have tried to put a little of the practical back in practical pistol and the 180 while engaging multiple targets is part of it.

BTW, has anybody taken a look at the Tennessee Sectional? It's full of 180 traps

[JThompson]

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.

I agree with Kyle... if you are going to run something tight, just block the target as it approaches 180 the target is not shootable... save a lot of people from going hope and keep the ROs short from wadding up.

JT