Additional Paper Targets

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

As you all know, mini-poppers were primarily created to simulate distance, but they also provide course designers with additional options.

Do you think it would be worthwhile following suit in respect of paper targets by introducing reduced (say 2/3) size Classic and Metric targets? The ones which immediately come to mind are the paper targets used by AirSoft shooters, but I still need to check whether or not the non-scoring border is 5mm wide.

Comments appreciated.

[Skywalker]

My gut feeling?

We don't need them.

Besides the obvious logistic problems related to having someone manufacturing 4/5 different kind of targets (metric, classic, mini-metric, mini-classic, etc.), that I don't wanna even deal with, I am perfectly satisfied with the possibilities of cutting, masking, hard-covering given by the rules to diminish the scoring surface of a target.

Yes, I acknowledge this is done to simulate hard-cover, not to simulate greater distances, but the overall effect is the same: a smaller scoring surface.

The mini poppers were to be included, because you couldn't cut a metallic popper, and the only effective way to hard-cover them to reduce the scoring surface was with metallic barriers (otherwise shoot-throughs would have been a real PITA), that are expensive and not so easy to find as range equipment, but with paper targets we have far more options.

My 2c worth.

[Dead Buff]

I don't see the need either. HC works fine, or just cut of the D-zone on the classic and role on a new non-scoring border. I have often cut of targets vertical right next to the A-zone and placed them only 10m away...they look real small.

The idea of simulating distance (like the CoF: Same size, same speed) with physical size has not worked for me yet - prob due to the mental thing. If its close its close and if its far it is far. Small does not equal far for me...just MHO

I do however like the A4/A3 target for rifle and would like them in HG - easy to make. Maybe that route if you want something smaller???

[shred]

The 2/3 popper does a terrible job of simulating a large-size target at a longer distance. It does a bang-up job of simulating a smaller target at the same distance.

Until somebody figures out the optical-illusion backdrop and how to scale the bullet diameter in flight, that's the way it's going to be.

Want a smaller/harder target? Go for it, just don't try and sell it as a 'distance simulator'. There's a whole lot more to distance than apparent size.

[Zuzu]

Vince,

A while back, I thought the same thing - that a proportionally smaller target would be a distance simulator for distance-challenged ranges. It's really not. It's much easier to shoot a target of any size at close range because you don't have to deal with focal issues as much. That doesn't mean they aren't a good idea however.

Smaller targets are obviously "harder", so I'd sell them on the basis that they would help prevent indoor hose-a-thons.

[spook]

I think we don't need them. Besides, they'll probably end up being used the wrong way (like, at 50 meters or up close)

[asiaeagle]

I only use the mini targets for dry fire at home. I think we do'nt need the mini targets since it looks like a child I must get missing on it and I even can't help stopping aiming on it.

[Flexmoney]

I agree with what has been posted so far.

How about those rubberized targets though Vince? Those steel plate sized targets we talked about before...but made of other materials?

[Flexmoney]

(note)

I don't want to drift this thread away from Vince's question. We talk about the other targets that I mention on another thread.

[38supPat]

Its tough enough to get guys to set up decent distance targets on ranges that CAN handle them, somehow I think sales would be poor....now make a bigger target to be put at longer distance to simulate shooting close up...man you'd sell millions

[blackdragon]

Vince,

I feel they would be missused as Spook said , I know if we had them at our club they WOULD be at 50 yds! Good for open ,not so good for Limited

Ivan

[Jim Norman]

I don't think we need 2/3 or 1/2 or any other reduced target (paper) for pistol. Now, lets insert Rifle here.

We have used and continue to use paper targets that are the same basic pattern as the Standard USPSA target, but are only about 1.4 the size, that is about 1/2 the height and 1/2 the width. These make excellent rifle targets. We will place them on either a full size target, white side forward and count the N/S Hits, or not depending upon the match, we also will paint a target black and place the mini in front of it. In either case it is done for contrast, not for screwing the shooter.

At 100 yards, these are much more challenging than a full size target. I am in full favor of this,

Jim

[LPatterson]

I don't think we need smaller targets, if you want to make the target smaller then put it out at 50 yards. I've only been shooting for 5 years and I've only shot at 50 yards once because that club has 100 yard bays. I think I'll submit something like this for the next Area 1 match since we will have a couple of 100 yard bays to use.

[kevin c]

As shred mentioned, the bullets we shoot don't shrink in proportion with the reduced scale of the target. This may not matter much with a popper, where all the target surface is equivalent and a knock down is a knock down is five points, but an edge hit on a reduced scale target is a miss or a lower scoring zone only hit on the full size target at the equivalent distance, using the same bullet.

I'd say no for that reason. If you want to simulate distance (smaller apparent target area with a full target silhouette), you can always use a partial target (a spray painted hard cover D zone, for instance).

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the feedback. All things considered, I agree that we're better off sticking with full size paper targets and using hard cover to reduce the scoring area.

[Dead Buff]

What about using the A4/3 rifle targets for pistol included in any stage along with the Classic/Metric? How do rules and shooters feel about that?

[Neil Beverley]

What about using the A4/3 rifle targets for pistol included in any stage along with the Classic/Metric? How do rules and shooters feel about that?

Can I chip in here with a bit of information about the targets to which Deadbuff is referring as I'm fairly sure there will be some people who aren't altogether familiar with the target.

The first to say is that the correct names are the A4/A and the A3/B targets. They started out as simply being the A4 and A3 targets but as these are intended to equate to standard paper sizes the specifications were changed to provide for ANSI A and B sizes as well in the 2004 rules.

I have just written the explanation below for another forum and I've pasted it almost as it was to save me some time so a little information is repeated.

They were primarily added for shotgun to provide for a disposable target because of the destructible nature of shotgun cartridges. Tim Andersen the IPSC Rifle Committee Chairman saw them as being a useful option for rifle as well, not least of all because the smaller targets can pose a more difficult challenge without having to resort to metal. It was noted that not all ranges would accept metal targets and these smaller targets also allow more targets per bay.

The A3/B target is based on the IPSC Metric target. Indeed if you look at one superimposed over a Metric target you will see how close it is to a partial Metric target. The A zone is exactly the same but adjusted slightly downwards to centre the A Zone on the new target so that it doesn't create any positioning issues. In reality the corners would very marginally clip into the D zone of a Metric target but so minimally as to not warrant representing that on the target, working on the KISS principle. The A4/A target is, with a little poetic licence on convenient measurements, a 2/3 reprensentation of the A3/B target. This can be used to simulate distance and follows the concept of the mini poppers.

Originally the targets were simply A3 and A4 but this gave a problem in the US and so the A3/B and A4/A targets were created so they can be universally adopted. The A zone size remains exactly the same. The 5mm border remains exactly the same. The paper size changes between A3 and ANSI B result in a changing C zone size but nevertheless an international option for a cheap disposable (even per shooter) target because it can be copied on most quality black and white printer/cpoiers that can print to a tight margin, and only at a few cents each.

Diagrams are available in the 2004 Shotgun and Rifle rules books as appendices B5 and B6.

[Neil Beverley]

I should add, because someone is bound to ask, why aren't the targets included in the Handgun rule book.

The answer is here in this thread. There wasn't support for adding an additional target type without a significant identified need.

It was different for SG & R.

For SG we wanted a cheap disposable target, bearing in mind how quickly we go through targets when shooting slugs or buckshot. Then consider the damage cause by the wads. Add in patching time during a match and it's a useful option to simply replace the target each and every time.

I have already stated the reasons for Rifle in my previous post.

[Dead Buff]

So, what you are saying is that with enough support they are a HG possibility?