Chuck Anderson Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Does anyone know enough about making targets to speak to what the effect of removing the neckline(between B and C) would be? I'm thinking on the minus would be some expense at retooling the dies to cut the targets. I'm thinking as a plus the targets might be more rigid and less likely to have the heads droop? Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Does anyone know enough about making targets to speak to what the effect of removing the neckline(between B and C) would be? I'm thinking on the minus would be some expense at retooling the dies to cut the targets. I'm thinking as a plus the targets might be more rigid and less likely to have the heads droop? Dunno. Chuck, if the dies that make targets look anything like the dies I have seen that make pizza boxes it would be a very minimal change to remove that line, basically take one replaceable blade out of the die. it would sure help with floppy heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old506 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I would hate to see the head go for PC reasons (I think that's dumb) but for practical reasons maybe. I don't know if you would need a head on it. I am kicking around the idea of making all hits on target an "A", just like steel. It should make them easier to score? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Sierpina Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I'd like to see the half size targets able to be used on indoor matches. A limit of 25 yards is very reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 OK, back on target here (pun)... What sizes for a reduced target? 50%...60%...75% ? (50% would still give an A-zone about the size of an index card ~ 3 x 5.5 inches) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Since there are three "vendors" making these already, are you proposing pick one, or make a new one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Sierpina Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 OK, back on target here (pun)... What sizes for a reduced target? 50%...60%...75% ? (50% would still give an A-zone about the size of an index card ~ 3 x 5.5 inches) 50% they are already being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Does anyone know enough about making targets to speak to what the effect of removing the neckline(between B and C) would be? I'm thinking on the minus would be some expense at retooling the dies to cut the targets. I'm thinking as a plus the targets might be more rigid and less likely to have the heads droop? Dunno. I don' think you necessarily have to remove the perf at the neckline. You could just change the B to a C. For that matter, you don't have to do anything to the target. Just score B and C in the same column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Does anyone know enough about making targets to speak to what the effect of removing the neckline(between B and C) would be? I'm thinking on the minus would be some expense at retooling the dies to cut the targets. I'm thinking as a plus the targets might be more rigid and less likely to have the heads droop? Dunno. I don' think you necessarily have to remove the perf at the neckline. You could just change the B to a C. For that matter, you don't have to do anything to the target. Just score B and C in the same column. I figured you wouldn't have to but I thought if we didn't have a B and it wasn't difficult and it made for a better, sturdier target it might be another reason to make the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
de03x7 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I would be for using a reduced target. We are stuck shooting on a 50' indoor range from Nov-Mar so these would give us options to work with other than painted hard cover and no shoots. We have a match tomorrow and I am still trying to decide if I want to leave the house with temps of more than -30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjb45 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 (edited) Check out C&M Targets. They have been supplying 1/2 size USPSA targets for over 10 years. They are a small business supporting our sport. Edited December 8, 2012 by pjb45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leas327 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 50%, but set a limit for the max distance they can be used. Kind of like there is a minimum distance for steel. But in this case it would be for rewarding hits on an A-zone instead of safety. At some point it would be an advantage to just get hits on brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunchies95 Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 50%, but set a limit for the max distance they can be used. Kind of like there is a minimum distance for steel. But in this case it would be for rewarding hits on an A-zone instead of safety. At some point it would be an advantage to just get hits on brown. I'd call that a good tatical decision that needs to be made by the shooter. We are already about balancing speed vs accuracy, so why should a smaller target be any different? Those who want to spend the time aiming for the A zone should be rewarded for the extra points over their competitors. Whether it is worth the time investment is up to the shooter. I can already create that same scenario with the regular targets. Plus, if a MD puts those targets too far out for his shooters, they will let him know it. Vocally first then with their wallets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawboy Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 50%, but set a limit for the max distance they can be used. Kind of like there is a minimum distance for steel. But in this case it would be for rewarding hits on an A-zone instead of safety. At some point it would be an advantage to just get hits on brown. I'd call that a good tatical decision that needs to be made by the shooter. We are already about balancing speed vs accuracy, so why should a smaller target be any different? Those who want to spend the time aiming for the A zone should be rewarded for the extra points over their competitors. Whether it is worth the time investment is up to the shooter. I can already create that same scenario with the regular targets. Plus, if a MD puts those targets too far out for his shooters, they will let him know it. Vocally first then with their wallets. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerrickJ Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I'm in favor of a reduced target size. I think it causes a shooter to slow down and break the rhythm/mediocrity of close targets. Also giving clubs with smaller pits more versatility is a good thing. I do agree with MarkCO that they need to be reduced classic targets. I personally would like to see more classic targets used at all levels of matches. Making the shooter think with different presentations is what makes this sport so interesting, good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 So Kyle and or Chuck...do you have anything to report on this or do we have to wait until the BOD meeting minutes are posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 Discussed,not voted upon. Your respective Area Directors are wanting to hear from the membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Thanks, I told Chris what I thought already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Pledger Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Flex-Obviously you know how I feel about them as I really took a liking to them after shooting the IPSC Canada Ontario Provincial match. The one issue that IPSC has is that you cannot mix and match the size of the targets. In other words, if you use one mini target, all the targets have to be the same size. Latest Rule Book, indicates you can USE both IPSC and Mini Targets in the same CoF. This rule has been effective since Jan 01-2012. 4.2.1 There are two sizes of paper targets approved for use in IPSC Handgun matches (see Appendix . The IPSC Mini Target is intended to simulate full size IPSC Targets placed at greater distances. The two sizes may be included together in the same course of fire provided that all Mini Targets are placed at least 2 metres further rearwards of the most distant full size Target in that course of fire (i.e. if the most distant full size Target is 15m downrange, the nearest Mini Target must be at least 17m downrange). Cheers ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Pledger Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 OK, back on target here (pun)... What sizes for a reduced target? 50%...60%...75% ? (50% would still give an A-zone about the size of an index card ~ 3 x 5.5 inches) Flex, IPSC went through this same scernario, these is a big difference, if you decide to reduce, 1: Do you reduce on Linear Measurements or 2: Reduce on Area. This is what I worked it out to be based on the above. The attached drawing shows a comparison between the Original Classic Target, a 2/3's based on Linear Dimensions and 2/3's based on area. Drawings are done to Scale and prepared by an engineering company I do work with and I have the original *.dwg files for those whom wish to check. With the 2/3's target based on linear dimensions you end up with 44.47% of the area of the OCT. With the 2/3's target based on total area, the linear dimensions 81.4% of the OCT dimensions. So what is a 2/3's target then ? compare.pdf Cheers .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norther Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I like the idea of reduced targets, and see no problem with mixing sizes and types in a stage. I strongly think there should be no distance limitations, just as there aren't on full-size targets. See Rule 1.1.6. Small targets would help with our short indoor range we use in the winter. The big bullet holes might be an issue, but I think it doable anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boxer1 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I have only shot these in one USPSA match and they were set up extremely close and there was a lot of them. You could shoot and move but it was easier to drop a miss so made it kind of interesting. This was just a monthly club match for fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Discussed,not voted upon. Your respective Area Directors are wanting to hear from the membership. And here I am just finding out about this for the first time in mid January 2013. Membership can't respond to what they don't know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Anyone look at the1/4 size Metrics that are available? We use them for rifle as well as for our .22 action matches. They are 1/2 height and 1/2 width. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglifter Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I think they'd be fun, so long as they proportion down correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now