and you thought a Texas star was bad?

[short_round]

you haven't had the pleasure of shooting the windmill?

Actually I did. On your stage from the 2003 Bay Bridge if I remember correctly.

I've been wanting use it being activated by opening a door.

Bring it on! If you build it I will shoot at it.

[Neil Beverley]

I was starting to think that I was a grumpy old bastard who alone hated what I often refer to as "Coney Island" targets, but you've restored my faith that there are others out there in IPSC-land who know the difference between a good COF and a Ferris Wheel with Frisbees.

You are a grumpy old bastard . But you are absolutely correct (as are the others in agreement), target setups like this have no place in IPSC shooting.

Fun shoots - fine. Carnivals - fine. But not IPSC.

[Flexmoney]

I was starting to think that I was a grumpy old bastard who alone hated what I often refer to as "Coney Island" targets, but you've restored my faith that there are others out there in IPSC-land who know the difference between a good COF and a Ferris Wheel with Frisbees.

You are a grumpy old bastard . But you are absolutely correct (as are the others in agreement), target setups like this have no place in IPSC shooting.

Fun shoots - fine. Carnivals - fine. But not IPSC.

Why not?!?

[Vince Pinto]

Why not?!?

No relevance to IPSC. What is a Texas Star or Texas Windmill supposed to replicate (the bobber is fine)?

[Neil Beverley]

Why not?!?

No relevance to IPSC. What is a Texas Star or Texas Windmill supposed to replicate (the bobber is fine)?

Ditto!

[short_round]

What is a [snip] Texas Windmill supposed to replicate [snip]?

Being attacked by a ceiling fan?

[rhino]

The arguments against them, other than the one about luck being more important than skill sometimes, are ... weak (at best).

I don't see a problem with them as long as everyone sees the same challenge.

Flex is right ... why not?

In fact, for those of us who prefer to look at IPSC through "old school eyes," a very challenging moving target is a good thing because "real targets" tend to move. A lot. And fast.

[JFD]

I may not like the looks of the windmill, but I agree with Rhino that the challenge is the same for everyone, so big deal if I don't personally like the looks of it. I would guess the speed the thing is turning would determine if it's a "carnival" mover or not.

The Texas star, IMHO, is one of the most awesome shooting challenges there is. The shooter creates his/her own "luck" with the first plate shot, and someone who isn't calling their shots, or whose "inner calm" is off is going to get eaten alive. Folks who think it doesn't belong in the sport must have not shot the star yet.

I believe that while the Texas star doesn't represent anything I can think of right now (neither does a plate rack), it most certainly tests a shooters ability to use their sights and call their shots. Poppers and regular plates don't come close to providing the same challenge as a star. Seems to me that in real life, things that need to be shot tend to move erratically, just like the star. More realistic than bobbers and swingers where there's a rythmn to their movement.

If the star was powered, like the windmill, then my opinion of it would change.

[Jake Di Vita]

My problem is when a C class shoot gets 8 A's and a world class GM gets 2 mikes....

I think the challenge in that case is definetely more luck than skill.

[TheOtherErik]

My problem is when a C class shoot gets 8 A's and a world class GM gets 2 mikes....

The C class shooter will take one shot per target appearance, were as GM will take 2 shots and not have to wait for another complete revolution. The speed on those things are adjustable. If you have it spinning at mach 2 of course its going to be luck. They should be set so an A or M can get two shots off per pass.

If it gets to the point were GMs are getting mikes on the windmill, then its definantly going to fast.

[Flexmoney]

But not IPSC.

Why not???

No relevance to IPSC.

Ditto.

Well...that clears things up. lol

What is a Texas Star or Texas Windmill supposed to replicate ?

Who says they are supposed to replicate anything?!?!

Reading through Chapter 1 on COURSE DESIGN, there is no mention of replicating anything. There is mention of the criteria, responsibilities, and restrictions governing course design(ers).

These include:

• 1.1.1 Safety
  
• 1.1.2 Quality
  
• 1.1.3 Balance
  
• 1.1.4 Diversity
  
• 1.1.5 Freestyle
  
• 1.1.6 Difficulty
  
• 1.1.7 Challenge
  

The phrase that jumps out to me in those paragraphs is, ...primarily to test a competitor's shooting skills, not their physical abilities.

Testing shooter's skill (with a basis in practical gun handling). That is my idea of what IPSC is.

[rhino]

When he's right ... he so right!

[Neil Beverley]

The Principles af IPSC shooting still exist and are available on the IPSC website.

Sadly these have been and are being eroded. Even I would have to agree that some have been eroded by necessity.

I believe that the windmill, IMO, is an unecessary erosion of the Principles. It contravenes the Principles without being a necessity.

[Vince Pinto]

Testing shooter's skill (with a basis in practical gun handling).  That is my idea of what IPSC is.

Fair enough. It's about the shooting challenge.

In that case, can I take it that you would fully support bullseye targets becoming authorised IPSC targets? As you know, they clearly present a shooting challenge and, in fact, they actually provide even greater rewards for accuracy.

And, hey, you can even hang them upside down without a problem ......

[Neil Beverley]

A .22 calibre handgun can test accuracy, and even speed. But ....

There are certain elements that define IPSC shooting. I'm not saying for a minute that The Windmill may not be fun to shoot but it shouldn't feature in IPSC.

Skiing round a course of slalom poles is still skiing but it's not classed as downhill.

[Flexmoney]

Testing shooter's skill (with a basis in practical gun handling).  That is my idea of what IPSC is.

Fair enough. It's about the shooting challenge.

In that case, can I take it that you would fully support bullseye targets becoming authorised IPSC targets? As you know, they clearly present a shooting challenge and, in fact, they actually provide even greater rewards for accuracy.

And, hey, you can even hang them upside down without a problem ......

I don't know Vince...what's a bullseye target???

Hanging them upside-down sounds like a positive.

As long as the scoring area gives a good representation of points divided by time...I am open to various targets being allowed.

A .22 calibre handgun can test accuracy, and even speed. But ....

I am getting ready to walk out the door with my .22 right now...going to a Steel Challenge match.

The .22 falls short of the concepts of DVC...which are contained in the bullet points I posted above (I try to post those every so often to get people to read up on the guidelines in the rule book).

I'm not saying for a minute that The Windmill may not be fun to shoot but it shouldn't feature in IPSC.

Again, just curious as to why you have that opinion?

I see it as a moving target...a shooting challenge.

[Neil Beverley]

I see it as a moving target...a shooting challenge.

Flex

Skeet and Trap have moving targets and are definitely a shooting challenge.

It still doesn't make them IPSC.

My interpretation of the IPSC Principles is that the Windmill isn't appropriate for IPSC.

[Vince Pinto]

I see it as a moving target...a shooting challenge.

OK.

[j1b]

I don't like the windmills, Texas Star type target scenarios.

I hate getting into a situation where luck plays a larger factor than normal in a shooting test. Luck is always a factor - we shouldn't discount that - but it should be a huge factor.

I've shot Texas Stars well, and I've shot them bad. I've known all times that's its primarily luck of the draw. I've won and lost as a result - and hate the feeling either way because you don't really know if you've really won or lost.

Now, the argument would be that back in the day shooting a 1.8 second bill drill and getting all A's was luck. People learned how to do it and by virtue of that it became a skill. I'm willing to concede that possibility exists with these type scenarios.

Right now though I see them as huge "luck" factors. At the local level this may be "ok" (and only "ok") but when time, money and effort have been put into a major match I wish those types of targets would stay in the garage.

JB

[BigDave]

I really don't mind shooting either, but now that I'm reading this, I think one could make an argument that a Texas Star does not present the same shooting challenge to all competitors.

Unlike swingers, which start moving at one rate and progressively slow down, the movement of the Star is dependendent on what order the plates are shot in and the position of the Star itself when the targets are hit. No?

[ErikW]

Everybody has the same opportunity to shoot the star in the order and speed that produces the least movement. However, the lesser skilled shooters can't shoot at the required speed and more movement results, making it even more difficult for them.

Area 2 had a star with only two opposing plates, set up horizontally. I think T.G.O. took the most shots at them.

[Flexmoney]

My interpretation of the IPSC Principles is that the Windmill isn't appropriate for IPSC.

Neil,

I am a bit perplexed. Usually you have a well reasoned, thought out response to questions.

I've asked a number of times what isn't "IPSC" about these targets. Your response has been...ttheir not IPSC because their not IPSC.

Sorry to keep pushing, but you are one of the guys writing the rules.

JB,

I would agree that skill, not luck, should be the factor. I don't have a star to practice on (i don't know that I have ever set up a DT in practice for that matter), I have shot about 6 stars, in four Major matches.

I don't see them as luck. They, like other things, are just a way to disract a person from the shooting.

[Flexmoney]

I really don't mind shooting either, but now that I'm reading this, I think one could make an argument that a Texas Star does not present the same shooting challenge to all competitors.

Unlike swingers, which start moving at one rate and progressively slow down, the movement of the Star is dependendent on what order the plates are shot in and the position of the Star itself when the targets are hit. No?

Dave,

I can control the speed at which many activating poppers fall by hitting them high...low...hammering them down.

I am less worried about a Texas Star behaving the same way for each shooter than I am about the speed at which a drop-turner falls.

[BigDave]

I've asked a number of times what isn't "IPSC" about these targets. Your response has been...ttheir not IPSC because their not IPSC.

I think where some might be getting hung up is in our very name, International Practical Shooting Confederation.

Is shooting 4 paper targets that rotate practical? Is shooting a Texas Star that produces its own variables depending on how it is shot practical?

The shooter and their equipment should be the variable, not the targets.

[Flexmoney]

I think those type of targets are about as practical as we can get.

Explain to me how a static (stationary) traget is more practical than a moving target?

And, the Texas Star producing it's own variables....nah. It is governed by the same laws of physics as all other things. It's just that it has a movement that isn't as easily predicted. (I'll bet Rhino could produce a mathmatic model that explained the Stars movement...but, I'd rather see him practicing. )