Skywalker Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Apart from the reliability, I suspect yours are more durable, because you can't shoot the doo-doo out of the supports. Vince, Neil, I think I can relate about the durability of the plates with Neil's design. (Flex, sorry for the thread drift, but I do believe this is useful info, please move to another thread if you feel so). What I noticed with previous design was that the plates got "flexed" (sorry, pun not intended) after, say, a year or so of shooting, and were no longer flat; besides, they were getting cratered surface from all the beating. Square plates (20cm side) of less than 1 cm thickness, that have been used for at least 1.5 years of continuous shooting on my range (matches and weekly training) are still perfectly flat on their surface, with no marks of beating at all. I guess this is due to the different way they absorb the impact of the bullets. The only durability issue I have seen is with round plates, where they have a short rectangular base (exactly like the one depicted in the rulebook): they get cracked where the round part meets the rectangular one pretty often. If anyone thinks it might be useful, I'll bring the digital camera with me to the range next time, and post pictures of these plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Luca I think some photo's would be a good idea because I suspect you have adopted a slightly different arrangement on the base plate. Certainly the ones used at the ESC match were different but the heavy square block at the front on those worried me on 2 counts. One being possible ricochets and the other being that the base could take quite a hit and cause enough movement to disturb the shoot plate. As you've stated the plates stay remarkably flat and they have completely outperformed any previously used targets of the same, or even thicker, construction. We used to use a lot of construction steel joists, originally in an "I" beam design. We would cut off one end to leave us with a plate on a base. I've got an example of one which I use in teaching to show the power of a shotgun. The metal has torn on both sides where the strike base meets the base. I might just photograph it and post it somewhere on the forum, it's an interesting artefact. My concern, both for handgun and rifle, is still what effect there will be for a hit on a post. I'm really pleased that you've not experienced ricochet but perhaps your base is slightly different. Perhaps some of you engineers can calculate the result of hits in this area? What I can tell you is that for shotgun we have seen a dramatic reduction in splash-back ricochets. I've eaten more than my fair share of lead coming back up range seeking me out like a guided missile. I can't remember the last time I got hit by splash-back off one of these plates. Vince, I'll send you a target for your evaluation if you are seriously considering them for handgun then we could talk about the design considerations in Bali. As we've got Pepper Poppers, if the plates get universally adopted can we change the name to Beverley's Bashers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 As we've got Pepper Poppers, if the plates get universally adopted can we change the name to Beverley's Bashers? I'd prefer Neil's Knockers, but that name might be rejected by the IPSC Cheeky Sods Committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 As we've got Pepper Poppers, if the plates get universally adopted can we change the name to Beverley's Bashers? I'd prefer Neil's Knockers, but that name might be rejected by the IPSC Cheeky Sods Committee "Neil's Knockers"! Now that's got a nice ring to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Okay, thanks guys. Looks like I made a good decision to continue shooting. Although trying to hit a plate on its edge stronghand-only was just too difficult. Good thing I carried spare mags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Looks like I made a good decision to continue shooting. Although trying to hit a plate on its edge stronghand-only was just too difficult. Sorry, but I must have overlooked your first post. In the case you mentioned (a plate which turns edge-on after being hit), I would most certainly stop, because there's no doubt whatsoever that the plate did not operate correctly. On the other hand, if a popper fails to fall, I would continue shooting, because it's failure to fall may not necessarily be a faulty mechanism - it could be a result of my badly placed shot, low powered ammo, the equinox, whatever - and I would not want to risk trashing a stage if the calibration went against me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tri Burst Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Looks like I made a good decision to continue shooting. Although trying to hit a plate on its edge stronghand-only was just too difficult. Sorry, but I must have overlooked your first post. In the case you mentioned (a plate which turns edge-on after being hit), I would most certainly stop, because there's no doubt whatsoever that the plate did not operate correctly. Sorry But I must disagree. If maybe the plate turned completely to the side but what IF the plate was just turned slightly still presenting part of the face to the shooter, possibly because of a edge hit but clearly a full bullet diameter should the shooter stop??????????? I don't think so. You can always dispute a call but if you stop yourself and the RO and the CRO and the RM says it was NOT a hard enough hit to make the plate fall you will be scored up to the point you stopped yourself and be given mikes and FTEs for the rest of the course. The point being NEVER EVER stop yourself for any reason other than a gun problem. What does it cost you to continue, 10-15 rounds of ammo, 10+/- seconds of your time. The big reason for my option is what if you get in the habit of thinking "Hey that is a REF", and you think, I can stop because of it and the ROs don't see it that way. You will be SOL or out $100. I guess IF the plate was turned so just the edge was available to the shooter then OK but why take that chance. That IS the ROs job NOT the shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 Sorry But I must disagree. No problem. We're not discussing the application of a rule - we're discussing how individual competitors react to given situations. Each to his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 I agree with Tri Burst...as a shooter, I would keep shooting. But, aren't all plates REQUIRED to fall with any hit? Or, has that changed with the green book? (Ipsc and USPSA rules seem to read different on this?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 But, aren't all plates REQUIRED to fall with any hit? Or, has that changed with the green book? (Ipsc and USPSA rules seem to read different on this?) Sure they're supposed to fall, but doo-doo happens. The USPSA rulebook is not different in that regard - it's just the actions after the event which differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Just my 2c worth. In the case of a plate turning sideways upon hitting it, I'd have left it standing and finished the COF normally. Better earn a plate miss than what in the old days was called DNF. Of course, if the RO doesn't think there is ground for a reshoot in this case, we'll have a bit of a discussion about it, but with plenty of time after the COF has finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Of course, if the RO doesn't think there is ground for a reshoot in this case, we'll have a bit of a discussion about it <snip> Poor RO. Give me his name so that I can warn him about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Vince I really have to warn you: my wife and all those who know me keep telling me I'm a most silent guy, that speaks no more that 100/200 words per day (but surely writes a lot... ). Could it be that IPSC (rules) discussions bring out the Mr. Hide in me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcoliver Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Waitaminute, I'd like to get this right since designers back here looove to use plates but prop them up in less than ideal stands. How much twist are we talking about (as per the rules)? Assuming you're engaging a plate from an extreme angle and it turns a teeny bit so that from that position you're looking at it at it's edge. However, in another position it may still be "engageable" (although, sadly, you've past that position already). Or can I start asking for a re-shoot once that plate gets twisted in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 mcoliver, I guess according to the actual formulation of the rule, there is no such definition of angle of twist above which it can be considered REF: the whole decision if the plate has been adequately hit is left to the RO. My guess is that if the hit is marginal at the point the plate turns a "teeny bit", the RO might deem you didn't adequately hit it, and the fact that the plate is edgeways from your position, but fully visible from a past one, is only a consequence of your planning of the COF: you took the risk to engage the plate from that position, but you also had the choice of a safer shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 That's another good advantage of my separating plates design. Twist, any twist, is nigh on impossible. Vince should receive the sample target hopefully tomorrow and I'm looking forward to his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Neil's Knockers rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Assuming you're engaging a plate from an extreme angle <snip> While this may or may not help your appeal, the fact that you could shoot the plate from an extreme angle indicates to me poor course construction and/or a lack of thorough stage debugging. All targets should be set on a "if you can see it, you can shoot it" basis, and a great course design would give you the option of shooting the plate from two or more positions, however each position should present the plate "square on" (i.e. no extreme angles). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jspruance Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 I am curious as to why there are so many issues with steel plates turning sideways and not falling. Appendix C, page 87 of the green book under the construction note specifically says to affix a small block of wood directly in front of the plate to help prevent it from turning sideways when shot. Every place I have seen this done has eliminated the turning plate issue. Am I on the train of thought here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 JFS, You're right on the ball but, sadly, that's not true of all course construction crews. Going the extra mile during the construction phase, by presenting targets which are as foolproof as possible, will eliminate a ton of grief when the match begins. It's amazing what a difference a 50c piece of wood or a couple of extra bolts can make to a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jspruance Posted October 27, 2004 Share Posted October 27, 2004 Vince, it has been my experience that wood doesn't work very well. The first errant low shot generally takes care of it for the day. However a small metal piece welded at the same point is good for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Of course you're absolutely right. When we use wooden blocks, we need to keep quite a few spares around. This is probably why designs like Neil's Knockers © are the solution - information and images are available in this thread. 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