Legal Targets...

[Dead Buff]

Another stupid Q by the DB:

After some searching and reading I have yet to find the complete answer.

What targets are allowed in IPSC and are legal? Are only the targets allowed as per rules and may they be modified?

Example: To make our last 2-gun a bit more interessting, I cut hole in the middle of PT's into which a standard orange clay target fit for a rifle stage - targets where then placed at 30m and 50m. Clays are legal and PT's as well - is the combo legal?

I gathered that the texas star is legal - it's consistant and has standard size plates. May other combos and weird-and-wacky targets be used?

[Vince Pinto]

What targets are allowed in IPSC and are legal? Are only the targets allowed as per rules and may they be modified?

Chapter 4 of the rulebook identifies which targets are authorised and how they may be legally modified.

I gathered that the texas star is legal - it's consistant and has standard size plates.

The so-called "Texas Star" is not a target - it is merely a contraption which holds (presumably) authorised targets, notably circular plates of an approved size. Personally though, I would never use one, as a TS looks more like something which belongs at a carnival, and I can't imagine what it's otherwise supposed to depict (barrage of objections expected to follow shortly).

Frangible targets are not approved for Handgun (see Section 4.4), but I'll let Neil Beverley or Tim Anderson respond in respect of clays presented in the middle of a PT for a Rifle match.

[Jim Norman]

The Texas Star offers a shooting challenge involving hitting plates that are moving. It may not ever be that you are faced with 5 targets moving in a circular sometimes reversing motion, but tha ability to hit moving targets is a valid skill and a valid challenge. Sort of like the Skulking Sniper target.

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Vince,

We gotta get you over this "purity" thing. We aren't training for real life. We are shooting competitions.

[Vince Pinto]

We gotta get you over this "purity" thing.  We aren't training for real life.  We are shooting competitions.  

<rampant sarcasm>

Maybe you're right. Perhaps we should quit having so few authorised targets and allow course designers the ability to introduce their own targets and to decide the values that are attributable to them? This would truly realise our dream of unimpeded creativity and FLEXability in course design. And we'd have fewer rules to boot!

For example, some really tough shooting challenges for a handgun match would be "mini-clays" at 50 metres (value 30 points?) to depict land mines, bowling pins (value 20 points?) to depict Molotov cocktails, used Coke cans (5 points) to depict hand grenades, and so on. This way we get the best of both worlds - a semblance of tribute to those nasty "Principles of IPSC" but with a far greater variety of shooting challenges.

Then again, perhaps we should abandon our principles and origins altogether and just use bullseye targets? What could be fairer than awarding a dead centre hit 10 points and an edge hit 1 point?

</rampant sarcasm>

Now, where are my pills?

[Flexmoney]

Now, where are my pills?

Likely in the same place you found those "turtle targets"

<rampant sarcasm>

Insert my tirade here.

</rampant sarcasm>

[Barrettone]

Damn Flex...I was thinking the EXACT SAME THING as I read Vinces post. I just didn't want to stir the pot...Damn thats funny!!!! Vince, we're all gonna need pills soon.

Jeff

Beware the Turtle!!!!

[shred]

Since it's dump-on-Vince night..

I'd submit that a couple Texas Stars would be an excellent way to convince a recalcitrant Minister of Sport the fun, non-threatening nature of IPSC...

"see, we need large calibers to knock the plates off or it won't spin.."

"..and high capacity magazines because it takes so darn many shots to do it.."

[Skywalker]

"see, we need large calibers to knock the plates off or it won't spin.."

"..and high capacity magazines because it takes so darn many shots to do it.."

Darn, I always thought that the best way to engage a Texas Star (but fast bobbers as well) was with hand grenades...

Now I need to re-think my gear and match set-up...

[Neil Beverley]

Vince has already pointed out that the rule book lists the approved targets. For SG & R this includes clays. You can even have penalty clays if you can persuade the course reviewer that they are justified.

The crux of the question from Dead Buff relates to target presentation.

IPSC shooting is a particular flavour. It is not Skeet or any other form of clay shooting. It is not Bianchi. It is not Steel Challenge. It is not a skittle shoot. It is not IDPA. It is unashamedly IPSC.

There are many contraptions that can add fun to shooting. There are many ways to test a shooter's ability. But does a Texas Star belong at a Skeet match? Or at a Bianchi match? Or at an IDPA match? And if not, why not? Would it not still be fun to shoot?

Guys, I'm not against any contraption. I'm not against any target presentation. Hell, I've tried many flavours of these over my years of shooting. However, at the end of the day, when I shoot an IPSC match I expect a certain flavour, IPSC flavour.

Do I think the Texas Star belongs in IPSC? No! Irrespective of how much fun it is or how challenging it. To get to the original question: Do I think that a scoring clay set in the middle of a penalty target is OK in IPSC. Nope! I cannot think of a single justification for such an arrangement in IPSC.

Set up another match, not an IPSC match, include the TEXAS Star, include a clay/penalty target combo, include upside down targets. In fact include as many variants as possible and time permitting I'll be there. I'd love to be there. It would be a great fun shooting match. It just wouldn't be an IPSC match.

I think this is basically what Vince is saying as well. IPSC has already drifted from it's original concepts. The drift has to stop somewhere or IPSC shooting ceases to exist. It becomes something else. Personally I want to try to preserve IPSC in some sort of recognizable form for the next generation of shooters because it offers something unique.

Perhaps there's scope for another shooting association which focuses on testing shooting skills in as many fun ways as possible. The Anything Goes Association. This deserves its own platform but let's not hijack IPSC to provide that platform. Please remember that it's a slippery slope and always harder going back.

Sh*t, I feel old sometimes. But I can also think of older dinosaurs than me. And besides, it doesn't make me a bad person!!!!

[Dead Buff]

Thanx Vince and Flex

You cleared most of my Q's. I know frangibles are not for handgun, thats why they were used for rifle....I'll wait for Neil/Tim to get back....

The reason I like frangibles is that you can bring them closer than steel and still be safe. Steel must be 50m min, but our ranges are limited to ±60m max - so I put clays at 30-50m to act as steel.

Please do not become to flexible on the targets - its difficult enough as is - I just want to know in what config you may use the approved targets - like the carnival TS, my clay-in-middle PT's, etc....

Luv this place

[Dead Buff]

Thanx Neil - posted at the same time.....

I feel the same way - mostly - but used the clays-in-PT to:

A: test accuracy - Part of DVC (the rest of that stage had the other 2 elements in it...)

B: employ safe "steel" in a match where range size is limited

I think both are in line with the original thinking of IPSC.

I do not wish to discuss the TS - that has been done many times around here - but the merrits on different target presentation within the scope of the rule books.....

[Garfield]

Hi Gentlemen,

I find this a very interesting discussion, and if permitted I would like to take it a little bit more in the direction of "what is IPSC".

Neil, Vince, you both have written that things like Texas Stars do not belong in IPSC and that you want to preserve "what is left of IPSC".

Now I get a little bit confused. Let me explain what I personally have always understood IPSC to be / have been:

As I have always understood, IPSC stems from shooting in a "practical" way. Practical as in real-life (defensive) scenarios. Hence the shape of the targets (with the "head") for instance. And rewarding a COM hit with the most points. And penalty targets depicting hostages and so on.

Then, because IPSC was moving away more and more from these "real life" scenarios, IDPA was founded. In the meantime, IPSC was promoted more and more as a game, having nothing to do with real-life defensive scenarios and such. Hence the more abstract targets, a discouraging of "tactical/army" clothing and so on. In fact, I think that is the only way IPSC is able to survive in countries such as mine. IDPA would never be allowed here in NL, however much people would like it maybe. Around here, IPSC spokesmen make all effort they can to depict IPSC as just "a speedy shooting game".

Now, IF the above, thus my understanding of what IPSC is, then why should a Texas Star or other "fun" things not belong in IPSC ?

On the other hand, having written this, this also reminds me of a discussion held a while ago about allowing smaller calibers into IPSC. Vince suggested this for discussion purposes, and if I remember well, most people were against it. However, given that IPSC is just "a game", why not allow smaller calibers ?

I do not want to raise the caliber discussion here again, but I get the feeling that there are some contradictions in these discussions.

This is not written to annoy anyone, I just get the feeling that I do not understand everything correctly. So my bottomline question is: What is IPSC in it's essence ?

Should we just follow the Rulebook and go with Accuracy, Speed and Power ?

If so, then I see nothing against a wide range of "fun" targets, and also allowing .22lr calibers into IPSC. We would just have to come up with a scoring policy to award someone shooting PF 160 more points for the same hits as someone shooting a .22lr. But we already have experience with major/minor scoring, so that system could be easily expanded.

I think that that is not the way you want IPSC to go. Fine by me, but then there must be something more that makes up the essence of IPSC. What is that ?

[Neil Beverley]

Dead Buff

You could place a Coke can at 50 metres to test accuracy but it is not IPSC. You can still meet "B: employ safe "steel" in a match where range size is limited" as suggested below.

I still can’t think of any (IPSC) justification for setting a scoring clay in the middle of a penalty target. Without a practical justification I would reject such an arrangement as a course reviewer.

Instead why not set the clay on the shoulder of an IPSC Metric penalty target. It still tests accuracy. The penalty target still creates a problem and it is a more realistic challenge. It is probable that some competitors would aim slightly off centre with this configuration to give a little more leeway on the penalty target, even if sub consciously erring on the cautious side. An extra dimension and the shooter chooses.

If the same clay is set in the centre of a penalty target there is no choice other than to aim at the centre.

For SG, on a buckshot stage, a clay on the shoulder of a Metric target, or close by, or close to a metal penalty target on a birdshot stage, creates additional problems considering pattern spread and distance.

Garfield,

You ask a valid question which deserves an answer to explain my views on this. I'll post a reply later as I have a couple of meetings this morning.

[Dead Buff]

Neil

Not to stir, but what is the acctual difference between a clay-in-PT setup and a normal steel plate in front of a PT (say 1m between at 50m)? This setup is used in nearly every shoot and looks the same from a distance. Clay in PT to hold clay since bullets do penetrate them and be safe at 30m as per rules (min 50m for steel).

[Vince Pinto]

Then, because IPSC was moving away more and more from these "real life" scenarios, IDPA was founded.

While I cannot, in any way, claim to speak for IDPA, it seems to me that their primary thrust was, and remains, "duty pistols only" (i.e. no raceguns, which is similar to IPSC Production Division). There are other notable variances, such as "taking cover while reloading" and "the retention of discarded magazines", to name a few, however I dispute the claim that IPSC has given up "scenarios" (although some target presentations make me wonder!).

IPSC was, from the very outset (including in the minutes of the Columbia Conference of 1976 chaired by Colonel Jeff Cooper), described as a sport (i.e. we have rules and we keep score), but it was a sport based on the practical use of firearms. What we've essentially done over the years is adapted our sport to recognise and embrace the significant developments and innovations in modern firearm technology which have occurred.

Hence, for example, rather than have a single division as we did originally, we've now gone to five divisions, and each division reflects and seperates the type of equipment which may be used. While I personally do not agree that a 3 kilogram racegun with a scope and "go faster" stripes in still "practical" in the original sense, I accept that there are indeed people (some of them professionals), who use such firearms on a daily "practical" basis outside of competition. So be it.

On the other hand, we've also had to deal with "sensitivities" and/or laws in many countries, so items such as the Classic Targets were introduced, however we continue to use Penalty Targets, albeit also based upon the Classic Targets, where applicable, but the Metric Target remains authorised.

Now if we want to say "IPSC is about shooting challenges" to justify shooting at plates on ferris wheels, fine, but then how do we justify the continued use of Penalty Targets? In my mind, we either adhere to our origins, or we actually do give up scenarios altogether and become organised plinkers.

In other words, I consider scenarios/practical targets/penalty targets versus unrealistic target presentations/carnival targets to be mutually exclusive.

[rhino]

Sometimes irony makes life worth living.

[rhino]

Arvid the Cat asks some excellent questions ...

If I had it my way, we'd definitely return to the martial roots of IPSC. I do not see a conflict with the "Texas Star" because it tests the ability of the shooter to hit an erratically moving target. That's a good defensive skill to have.

[Dead Buff]

I fully agree - keep it with standard targets, but again, what are the limits (within the not so common common-sence) as to how they may be presented? ex: Clay-in-PT versus steel in front of PT, etc

[Jim Norman]

Vince said:

Now if we want to say "IPSC is about shooting challenges" to justify shooting at plates on ferris wheels, fine, but then how do we justify the continued use of Penalty Targets? In my mind, we either adhere to our origins, or we actually do give up scenarios altogether and become organised plinkers.

Simple, the insertion of a No-Shoot into a course of fire requires you to acquire and select your target. It is a challenge and it is practical! The Texas-Star presents moving targets. Would you agree that an IPSC target that slides across the shooters field of view and then disappears is allowable? Would you agree that a Bear-trap presentation where the shoot appears and then is blocked by a NS is acceptable? Drop-outs? Out & Backs? Drop-Turners? Bobblers? Flippers where the target rises up and continues over and disappears? If all these are acceptable "Shooting Challenges" why not the Texas-Star. Now if you want to be totally practical, very little that we do is, and even IDPA falls way short in that manner. Lets face it, we allow you to stand still in the middle of an open doorway and blaze away at targets, We allow you to stop out in the open and stand and shoot at targets.

As to the insertion of No-Shoots into a COF, I would have us stop using targets of a different color to designate them, I would use a scarf or an "X" or some other designation. Also upon the stage being shot, I would add pasters tot he No-Shoots as the stage is scored so that the targets all appear similar so that you really have to differentiate between Shoots & No-Shoots.

As to use of frangibles in Rifle and Shotgun stages. I agree with Neil that placing the clay over the shoulder of the NS I a more realistic presentation, in fact MGM makes such a target in steel that could be used for pistol.

As to practical presentation, Vince, we all know that you espouse practical when it suits your purpose, but not when it doesn't.

Jim Norman

[Dead Buff]

As to the insertion of No-Shoots into a COF, I would have us stop using targets of a different color to designate them, I would use a scarf or an "X" or some other designation. Also upon the stage being shot, I would add pasters tot he No-Shoots as the stage is scored so that the targets all appear similar so that you really have to differentiate between Shoots & No-Shoots.

Thats what we do around here due to financial constraints - only the open guys (read limited field of view, etc) complain.

[Vince Pinto]

As to practical presentation, Vince, we all know that you espouse practical when it suits your purpose, but not when it doesn't.

And we all know that regardless of what the issue might be (in this case opinions on targets), your issue is invariably me. Ho-hum.

[Jim Norman]

but then how do we justify the continued use of Penalty Targets?

In other words' date=' I consider scenarios/practical targets/penalty targets [b']versus[/b] unrealistic target presentations/carnival targets to be mutually exclusive.

Vince, you did say this didn't you?

I don't have an issue with you, but I do have an issue with some of your positions. When you make a statement about justifing the use of No-Shoots, it make some of us wonder what you are thinking.

If you would accept a PM, I would provide you with several practical presentations of targets that the new rules disallow, but you don't want to hear it.

Jim

[raz-0]

There are two sides to practical. Practical stages, and practical shooting.

The very fact that we have a 180 and targets don't try to kill you pretty much means the stages aren't all that practical.

However, fromt eh shooting side of thigns there are plenty of practical skills to sharpen.

No shoots practice the skill of target discrimination. Hard cover areas on targets do the same. PRactice hitting what you ened to shoot and not hitting what you shouldn't shoot.

Turners practice hitting a target with limited presentation in a short ammount of time.

Swingers let you practice hitting a moving target with multiple shots.

The texas star allows you to practice hitting a small target that moves erraticly with a single shot. At least of all the targets I have seen, it is the only target type out there that allows you to practice hitting a target with less than predictable movement.

that sounds like a pretty practical skill to me, I dunno, in IPSC do they give you a crappy little stuffed animal prize if you clear the star fastest?

[Vlad]

While I personally do not agree that a 3 kilogram racegun with a scope and "go faster" stripes in still "practical" in the original sense, I accept that there are indeed people (some of them professionals), who use such firearms on a daily "practical" basis outside of competition. So be it.

Please name one group of folks that use weapons for a living that use handguns with red dots. You think those are practical but inverted targets are not. I know .... We should be able to find some folks that actually do this for a living and ask them. Some of the folks that shoot at my club are currently getting their fannies shot at in a dry and sandy place. Maybe we can ask them when (God willing) they come back. If you want to be practical you can't just decide what sounds good to you, you just have to ask the folks that do it for a living.

That being said, if you want to shoot at targets that don't shoot back, don't move, and don't look like a human and call it practical then by all means that sounds like fun in its own right. But it doesn't mean it is practical. Heck, neither is the Texas Star but it does test (and train) a skill we otherwise would not be practicing. No other target that I have shot or seen (in my limited experience) has been as unpredictable. And I may not know that much about what is "practical" where you live but I am pretty sure that any armed confrontation will be anything but predictable.

I have a hard time hitting a Texas Star, but I still like it. I'm curious though, have you ever shot one? I honestly don't know how popular they are outside the US.

Vlad

Edited to add: Hey Jim, we need to drag ours out next month. I don't think we shot a stage with a star in the last few months. Whats up with that?