Legal Targets...

[omnia1911]

Rather than add to the lists of the official targets that IPSC/USPSA will use to either award or penalize points, I don't see why you can't add "carnival" type targets to a stage, but make it a procedural penalty if the "carnival" target isn't hit. If you don't break the clay pigeon, the balloon, knock over the pop can, whatever, you get a procedural penalty. Is it that much different than a stage requiring the shooter to grab a stuffed animal and deposit into a bucket at the next shooting position? At least "carnival" targets test shooting ability.

[Jim Norman]

Vlad,

8-1/2 x 11 piece of paper.

A couple poppers, a target or two, maybe a wall or three and the Star.

Call it "Vlad's Ode to Practical Presentation" and we'll put it in. We can sketch it out next Friday night.

Jim

[Vince Pinto]

Folks,

My point is that IPSC paper targets (and poppers) represent something.

Hence whether they are presented statically (wholly or partially concealed), or whether they run on "Bianchi-style" rails, or if they are mounted on movers which cause them to bob, swing, drop-turn, pop-out, flip-flop, twist, watusi or whatever, they are indeed realistic, because the mechanism is merely a way to simulate different types of movement of what the target represents.

Plates are intended to simulate other targets such as the upper B zone of a IPSC Metric Target or a car headlight or a spotlight etc.

On the other hand, plates on a ferris wheel represent nothing more than, well, plates on a ferris wheel. Sure, it might be a shooting challenge, but so is plinking at little metal ducks at 200m, but that's called Metallic Silhouette, however it's most certainly an aberration in terms of IPSC shooting.

And putting a stuffed animal in a bucket? What next? Bobbing for apples before you can draw your gun? I'll get the Kewpie dolls and cotton candy ready .....

[shred]

I think the point was the plates on a star can simulate a moving "upper B-zone" or headlights or pack of wolves or whatever. Most of the time IRL they don't sit still when shot at.

[Merlin Orr]

Die Thread Die!

[Jim Norman]

Shred,

Exactly. A moving car, the headlights bouncing over a field, a boat with a spotlight, a person with a flashlight running.

Merlin,

This thread is important and informative. Leave it run.

Vince,

Ever see someone crawl down hill head first? How would you represent that? Or does eveyone over there crawl down hill feet first, back towards the threat?

Placing a duck in a bucket, maybe not proper, maybe yes. How about briefcase in hand or package that needs to be dropped into a night deposit box? Valid? Engage threats without losing the days receipts?

Jim

[rhino]

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

[geezer-lock]

I have not had the pleasure of meeting Vince but it is obvious from his many posts that he is a man of considerable knowledge and a fellow with strongly held opinions. In his defense I would say that he is correct in the FACT that the Texas Star is not a target. His OPINION that it has no place in IPSC is just that, an opinion which is open to debate.

I submit that much of what we are disagreeing about is the definition of “practical”. The competition has evolved as has the equipment AND the targets. Some things have not changed. In order to succeed you must be able to hit the center of the target quickly, repeatedly and over long distances. The 50 yard shot was a commonplace thing in the past but most folks don’t think that it is “practical” today. So it goes.

Be safe, have fun...shoot to win

geezer

[Flexmoney]

I don't see where "new or different" targets are the issues here.

I think Vince mentioned that we are talking about presentations of the current targets that we have, correct?

So, I think we can skip the ducks, crows, bowling pins and pop cans (though I do shoot a match that has most of that stuff and I would go that route in a minute if USPSA became something...else).

So..back to presentation...

I don't know that we need limitations put upon us by the (self-named) "purists". Leave us the freedom to present the legal targets in what we (and our customers) feel is a practical/sporting manner.

If the customers don't like it...they will let us know.

Freedom has a way of working out good like that.

[Jim Norman]

Go Flex!

[omnia1911]

My point is that IPSC paper targets (and poppers) represent something.

Vince

Something? Go ahead Vince. Spit it out. No need to be politically correct here.

And putting a stuffed animal in a bucket? What next? Bobbing for apples before you can draw your gun? I'll get the Kewpie dolls and cotton candy ready .....

Vince

I hate to burst your practical bubble, but things like this are already showing up in matches. I stopped questioning the motive, and just shot the stage.

You're beginning to sound like an IDPA convert Vince.

[raz-0]

Folks,

My point is that IPSC paper targets (and poppers) represent something.

[sNIP]

Plates are intended to simulate other targets such as the upper B zone of a IPSC Metric Target or a car headlight or a spotlight etc.

On the other hand, plates on a ferris wheel represent nothing more than, well, plates on a ferris wheel.

Ok, howabout this. The steel target represents a *ahem* b zone. Consider the b zone bobbing and weaving for all intents and purposes when it travels about the wheel.

skill is a skill. no matter what you substitue.

I still say the presentation is meaningless from a "practical" standpoint unless the stage shoots back at you and tries to kill you. Hitting a haphazardly moving target teaches skills regarding target aquisition and tracking that no ther target or array does in my opinion.

What exactly is not practical about that?

Heck, if it isn't all painted up, like the one in the only video I see hanging around the net, it blends into a course quite nicely. Also, if your judgement comes form that video, it's from it being shot well. Shoot it less than perfectly, and it's a whole different ballgame.

I too would like to know if you ever actually shot one.

[Neil Beverley]

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).

Dead Buff

I understand the point you are trying to make but I have to say again what is the logic of such a target set up, whether a clay or a metal target, set in the middle or in front of a PT. Yes it can be argued that it tests the skill of accuracy but that alone doesn't make it IPSC. All the Olympic shooting disciplines, and add in the Biathlon, test accuracy but in no way at all can they be called IPSC. IPSC isn't about soley testing accuracy. Accuracy exists as a part of the complex IPSC style of shooting.

Instead of the metal scoring in front of the PT I would maintain that the "practical" target presentation should be a Metal PT in front of a scoring target. By varying the sizes of the the PT at the front and the scoring target at the back you can create very tough challenges that will test accuracy just as well.

Indeed by the use of props, windows/screens/charge lines, you can force the competitor to have to take very difficult shots. If the shooting area is big enough then you can set up tough (risky because of the PT) shots that save time or allow a competitor to spend time moving to a better position which gives a clearer shot.

Basically what I'm saying is that I do not think it correct to ever set a scoring target which is completely surrounded by a PT.

[Dead Buff]

OK...now you start to make me understand! Thanx N & V.

So, a cousre setup - no matter what target presentation - should be done in such a way to offer options (we all new that, so lets not go there....) in such a way to test accuracy, speed, power AND skill and allow for earsier shots and the cost of time.

So a upside down target (like I saw in a course on a webpage some of you pointed me at in another thread) is bogus since it becomes easier to score points the closer you get - no challenge....

My clay-in-PT is just a point of aim and not a point to aim around as in a PT-steel in front of target (or IN for the matter of fact due to range construction limitations - lets not go there either...)......no challenge

The light at the end of the tunnel might not be a train after all.....

[Jim Norman]

So a upside down target (like I saw in a course on a webpage some of you pointed me at in another thread) is bogus since it becomes easier to score points the closer you get - no challenge....

Sorry, but I can't let this go.

An inverted target used to simulate a person crawling down a hill or doing an upside-down rappel is a valid presentation, just thanks largely to the efforts of a certain person, no longer a legal presentation. Also, they are actually harder to score on since the scoring xone is not quite centered in the traditional target. Oh, and you can tell which end is up as opposed to the new Stop-Sign (AKA "Classic") target. That target is symetrical in its shape, but not in the scoring zones, so inverting it is wrong.

Another excellent use of inverted targets is during rain matches, they bage much easier.

They certainly are not earier to score on!

Jim Norman

[Flexmoney]

Neil,

I respect your opinion of what is, and isn't, a good target presentation. I can agree or disagree with that opinion.

I don't, however, want your opinion or mine to become law.

I just don't see where it is good for our game (played on fileds which vary far and wide) to have our scope limited.

[Neil Beverley]

Garfield

As promised, a reply to your post. I apologise to all for the length of this reply. But then nobody says you have to read it.

I sort of alluded to regarding myself as a dinosaur. In reality both Vince and I are really modernisers with dinosaur sympathies, but please note Vince and I are not joined at the hip and so while we think very similarly on this we got there by independent means.

IPSC started out as a combat shooting discipline and has evolved into the highly competitive sport it is today. When I started shooting “Practical Shotgun” (mid 80s) in the UK it also involved another organisation which worked alongside the UKPSA, “The Combat Shotgun Society”. Probably closer to IDPA thinking than IPSC. I include this information to add some background to my origins in the sport. I started shooting IPSC Practical Pistol at the same time.

IPSC is a complex shooting discipline. Some shooting disciplines are relatively simple in concept, usually very repetitive, nearly always focusing on accuracy as the be all and end all.

At the Columbia Conference it was agreed to form a sport based on the (a) concept of combat shooting. Actually it went slightly further because the resultant sport was to be based on the defensive use of firearms. Defensive combat as opposed to offensive.

Then comes a dilemma. Combat shooting doesn’t have too many rules, you don’t know what is going to happen, or when, you don’t know how many targets, you don’t know how many shots. However, a sport does need guidelines and rules. A sport needs some added interest.

I’ve met and had to deal with some very original IPSC dinosaur types. The types who believed in original IPSC in its purist form. A good match to them was likely to be (say) 60 rounds and 12 stages. Where (to them) good stages may consist of just 1 or 2 targets and only 2 - 6 rounds to complete. They scoffed at 32 round stages. Who in their right mind would choose to go up against 20+ targets? Who would survive it?

If faced with a 4 inch shooting area (clay) in the middle of a bystander who would really take the shot in real life? But in reality this is a highly improbable target presentation that would never be presented in real life so no justification. It’s not “practical” it’s a gimmick presentation.

Nevertheless, as a sport, and a bl**dy good one at that, compromises were made. To “formalise” combat shooting it was necessary to create a scoring system, to create safety rules to create equipment and stage rules, to create guidelines.

Inevitably interpretations from one person to the next, from one Region to another, crept in, but overall the reference point was always to be back to what might happen in real life combat shooting.

Of course this brings a number of dilemmas, not least of all the political considerations, but also largely IPSC has become a victim of its own success. The sport has become hugely popular. It has also become driven by a huge competition background. I would say that compared to a great many sports IPSC shooting has a greater competition drive than many/most others, even if only at club level. This in turn leads to a bigger rule book to tackle the expansion of the sport. In the early days nearly everyone knew what the sport was about and most conformed. “The spirit of the game” was an expression I heard over and over.

So there we are, back in the 70s, the sport, with clear concepts, is launched. It was popular. Shooters wanted to try it. Shooters liked it. But some shooters weren’t happy. They’d gone to the party but didn’t want the host’s music. They wanted to play their own music but in the host’s home. Like going to a tennis match because they liked to knock a ball backwards and forwards over a net about but expected to play squash. So does the tennis/squash match start to use a shuttlecock with a high net? And what next? Does the original game of tennis evolve in to a baseball match? Where does it stop?

Col. Jeff Cooper is often regarded as the founder of IPSC. I remember him quitting the sport he launched in Columbia some time back in the 90s because the sport, his sport, was no longer the sport that was launched in ’76. So we get invited to the host’s party, change the host’s music and then kick out the host from his own home?

Guys, I’ve heard it said, aimed at the rules committee members, “Don’t mess with our sport”. Excuse me! This sport really belongs to the “dinosaurs” who created it. We should all be mindful of that. I have difficulty in agreeing with the folk that want to play baseball at the tennis match that I’m messing with their sport.

I grew up in IPSC the hard way. I frequently had to submit Cs of F to “dinosaurs”. They beat me up good and proper and reminded me, as a young whippersnapper, just what the sport was truly meant to be about. One of these guys is still a close friend. He is fondly known as a dinosaur. Bob Chittleborough was at the original Columbia Conference and he’s forgotten more than most of us know. He’s still battling for the good of the sport.

When I submitted matches for review I always had to justify each and every stage and each and every target presentation. If they didn’t properly conform to the principles and concepts they weren’t accepted.

IPSC shooting is a special flavour of shooting. Raspberry isn’t strawberry. If you want raspberry, fine, go get it, but don’t buy in to strawberry and want it to be raspberry.

I started out by saying Vince and I are both modernisers. We are. We believe in the evolvement of the sport. We’re realists too and we accept that the sport has changed, has needed to change. The sport is becoming (has become) a thoroughbred. But it still needs an identity and it’s a fine line we tread.

If it becomes a free for all with no definition then IPSC becomes a blur. If we allow any configuration of targets, any contraption, any equipment, then no matter how much they challenge the shooter, no matter how much fun they offer, no matter how clever they are, then we are no longer shooting IPSC. No longer playing tennis or even tennis/squash and we would be heading for baseball.

I’m as passionate as anyone about this sport and I go back a fair way. Flex has recently posted above asking that I (we) don’t limit the scope. I don’t want to limit IPSC shooting. I don’t want to write any more bl**dy rules. Truly I don’t. So don’t make me. I implore everyone to respect the ideals of IPSC shooting, and I’m not for a minute accusing anyone of not respecting it. Let us not forget what the sport is about and use that to steer the sport. Not a circus, not a pantomime – IPSC.

Anyone for tennis?

For any of you that bothered to read this thus far I thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts. I mean no offence in anything I have said to man or beast. It’s been interesting trying to reflect my thoughts (my passion) in the text above.

[Dead Buff]

Thanx. IMHO that is IPSC.

[Jim Norman]

Neil,

I think that in general we agree. I hear the "Practical" presentaion being applied inconsistantly by some. If people want to argue practical, then we need to say as you do that a long course would involve 4 targets, 4-12 shoots and you darn well better be under cover and not standing in an open doorway. It would probably cause a lot of people to leave. We all like to shoot, a lot, fast.

But then if we allow for 32 plus round assault courses, we need to allow for non standard target presentatino, not non standard targets. An inverted target is a realistic presentation, a clay representing the terrorists head behind a NS is realistic, whether or not you'd take the shot is another story.

Windmills and drop turners probably are not really "Practical", but they do serve to sharpen the skill sets. If we all had 100's of thousands of dollars we could set up reactive ranges that had programable targets. Since very few of us have that luxury, we use windmills, Texas Stars, Drop-turners and the like to simulate or approximate those types of presentation that we can obtain no other economical way.

Jim

[Garfield]

Neil,

Thanks for your thorough answer, I appreciate your effort very much.

You have made me understand things much better .

[omnia1911]

Those making arguements that IPSC is loosing its "practical" roots are making the arguement for IDPA. Your arguements are 10 years too late.

IDPA, though it needs some tweaking of its rules, is a viable concept with a dedicated following, and has done a much better job than IPSC in controling its allowable equipment.

The evolution of mag capacity, scopes, comps, holster and mag pouch position, to gain a competative advantage has forever changed IPSC; the dinosaurs became extinct.

Production division has allowed us to take a "back to the future" approach to IPSC, but as you who are making the rules know, the desire to win is constantly challenging the guidelines of that division. That is the nature of competition.

As much as some would like to micromanage us with their "is it practical?" philosophy, practical/tactical becomes irrelevant to a competitor when you keep score.

[Vlad]

Moderators, this post may be considered marginally on topic. If any of you have a problem with it, I understand. However some things have been said in this thread which need an answer from some people outside the "old guard"

Guys, I’ve heard it said, aimed at the rules committee members, “Don’t mess with our sport”. Excuse me! This sport really belongs to the “dinosaurs” who created it. We should all be mindful of that. I have difficulty in agreeing with the folk that want to play baseball at the tennis match that I’m messing with their sport.

You know, I have a real problem with that. I just reread the USPSA bylaws and I have a real hard time finding any mention of the sport belonging to anyone. So I went and read the IPSC constitution and I found no mention of it either. In fact, I noticed that to be IPSC affiliated the applicant body needs to be "democratically constituted" (5.3 of the IPSC constitution). That tells me that this not supposed to some form of tribal organization with the elders making up the rules as they go along. I'm sorry the the good Col. has decided to retire from the sport, but that was his right. If 90% of the tenis players in the world decided that tenis is played on the a trampoline and the ball is a ripe pumpkin, then so it is, regardless of the old time players think. That is what a democracy means, and it sucks when minority means you.

Let us not forget what the sport is about and use that to steer the sport. Not a circus, not a pantomime – IPSC.

How can anyone take that position and yet not cringe at the Open division? IPSC has grown into a sport that allows weapons that have NO PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS, weapons which in fact would get you killed while you fiddle with your dot, weapons which are so modified and so built as to serve no other purpose, but we have rules about the angles of the targets. The power factor keeps on being droped with major power factors now almost at the level of hot 9mm defence loads. Yet we have an argument about the most unpredictable target out there and people complain that it is not practical.

Anyone who thinks that IPSC image of "practical" shooting needs to be upheld needs to talk to those people who do not shoot IPSC and view those who do as silly gamers. That image of "practical" is long gone. At best IPSC can argue that it stresses practical skills but stationary targets and rules that limit penalties when hitting bystanders would not really help that argument much.

I know I am a new one in this game, but so far I have met two types of senior IPSC shooters. I have been fortunate to first meet a the type that freelly share their knowledge and who welcome new shooters. And then I (electronically) met those who tell new shooters to shut up, those who think that the sport belongs to them or others like them, those who think that they know best for the rest of the shooters and damn their opinions, those who have never shot a match in the largest region but still think they know what the folks there want. Tell me which of those two groups are closer to the spirit of the sport?

I may not always agree the Col Cooper, but one has to admire his grace. When the current patriarchs allowed the game to change outside his parameters he didn't force his opinions upon them.

I am a conservative and I do not like change for the sake of change. But that doesn't mean that anything which is not as it was 30 years ago is somehow evil. IPSC needs to evolve or it will be extinct.

Vlad

[Vince Pinto]

I know I am a new one in this game, but so far I have met two types of senior IPSC shooters. I have been fortunate to first meet a the type that freelly share their knowledge and who welcome new shooters. And then I (electronically) met those who tell new shooters to shut up, those who think that the sport belongs to them or others like them, those who think that they know best for the rest of the shooters and damn their opinions, <snip>

I truly regret that you've had to (even electronically) meet and endure the second group of people, but I suspect I know the (electronic) place where you met them.

As much as I'd like to give them a piece of my mind, that is not a place I would ever again revisit. My advice is to ignore such curmudgeons who, thankfully, are in the minority. Their attitude is utterly disgraceful, it has no place in IPSC and I urge you to unsubscribe from that forum as soon as you can, before they poison your mind with their evil mind tricks and relentless whining.

This is precisely why guys like Neil and I spend so much time here on the BE Forums, soliciting opinions on all matters to do with IPSC, notably rules, but in respect of other general matters too, from a really nice group of people. You see, Neil and I have no obligation whatsover to seek input here, because neither of us have Constituents here, but we share a common view that we should "cast our opinion gathering net" as far and wide as possible.

Hopefully the input we gather here (and elsewhere), will enable us to continue tweaking and refining our rulebooks to deal with the plethora of issues raised here (and in other forums) by contributors, not to mention those topics which we ourselves initiate for feedback. Basically it's a never-ending process, but we're up to the task.

<glue> .... those who have never shot a match in the largest region but still think they know what the folks there want.

Ha! If I didn't know better, I'd think you were referring to guys like Neil and I, but I know that's not who you mean. Ha! I almost dropped my espresso!

As you know, the IPSC Rules Committees which spent every day for 2 years (generating 7,000 emails in the process), and which spent 4 full days in face-to-face meetings in Orlando, Florida in producing the January 2004 Edition rulebooks, obtained considerable input from the American delegates thereon, who collectively amounted to 35% of the combined committees.

Sure, we really would've loved to have spent more time actually shooting matches in the US, and chatting with competitors, rather than being glued to computer monitors 7 days a week and/or being stuck in a cheap hotel room with coke and pizza, in order to garner even broader input (and undoubtedly having a boatload of fun in the process), but we had no doubt whatsoever that our American colleagues Mike, John, Troy, Bruce and Arnie were, and remain, emminently qualified to represent the views of Americans.

Anyway, at the end of the day, every second we spent away from our families, friends and businesses over that 2 year period was worth it, because I can sense your quiet appreciation, and that's all we've ever needed to drive us onwards and upwards.

Thank you, Vlad.

[Jim Norman]

Flex, I am sorry, but he asks for it and I have been trying real hard not to comment directly or even indirectly, but this is just wrong treatment of a shooter.

Jim

[admin edit: try harder ]

Edited July 29, 2004 by Flexmoney

[shred]

Ok, I think this thread's gone on plenty long enough.. nobody is convincing anybody else.

But.. It seemed like a good place to post this

Who says a STI isn't practical?