Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Area 4 Championship Target presentation


mwc

Recommended Posts

At the Area 4 Championship this year, I noticed that the target sticks on most of the paper targets extended above the target itself similar to the picture in the rulebook Apendix B1, where it states  "Cutting the tops off the stakes provides an improved visual presentation and prevents the stakes from obscuring downrange targets."

 

I was under the impression that this wasn't allowed, but after looking at the rule book, that statement almost seems more like a recommendation than an absolute rule.  I did speak with one of the staff and was told that the sticks extending above the targets was a great help if the targets had to be bagged for the rain.  I hadn't thought of that and it seems like a good idea, since the bags would be held up by the sticks instead top of the cardboard target.

 

For those of you that shot that match, did you have any issues or problems with the targets being presented in this way?  I will admit that it did bother me on the clam shell stage where the sticks from one target obscured the head box of the target next to it.  Other than that, it really didn't bother me that much.  Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, mwc said:

At the Area 4 Championship this year, I noticed that the target sticks on most of the paper targets extended above the target itself similar to the picture in the rulebook Apendix B1, where it states  "Cutting the tops off the stakes provides an improved visual presentation and prevents the stakes from obscuring downrange targets."

 

I was under the impression that this wasn't allowed, but after looking at the rule book, that statement almost seems more like a recommendation than an absolute rule.  I did speak with one of the staff and was told that the sticks extending above the targets was a great help if the targets had to be bagged for the rain.  I hadn't thought of that and it seems like a good idea, since the bags would be held up by the sticks instead top of the cardboard target.

 

For those of you that shot that match, did you have any issues or problems with the targets being presented in this way?  I will admit that it did bother me on the clam shell stage where the sticks from one target obscured the head box of the target next to it.  Other than that, it really didn't bother me that much.  Your thoughts?

There is talk of it in the front sight mag this month. You are correct, it's just a recommendation. But actually it's not even that anymore. Cutting them even with top of head does make scoring while bagged easier and doesn't break the neck so to speak. Plus leaving them longer makes it easier to recut to reuse in the future. BUT, I'm with you on looks and presentation. A club around here just puts 8 foot sticks in the stand and tacks a target on it. Looks like a forest of 1X2's lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mach1soldier said:

. It’s soft cover so not mandatory to trim

 

 

Technically not correct.

9.1.7

Target sticks are neither Hard Cover nor Soft Cover. Shots which have

passed wholly or partially through target sticks and which hit a paper or

metal target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they extend much above the top of the target they look sloppy. At A4 the ones that covered the head boxes on the clamshells was a rookie move and probably shouldn't have been overlooked at a match that big, the rest I really didn't notice. 

 

On a related note, I shot a club match in MI in the pouring rain. They had one target in an array that had the sticks extend 3-4 feet above the top of the target. When bagged, you had to take a long look to find where to aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The long sticks I didn't mind at this match. It was noticeable on the  stage with two clamshells up front but I am positive it was a weather related decision. Having stage one tossed due to RO incompetence was far far more bothersome than any target stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

The long sticks I didn't mind at this match. It was noticeable on the  stage with two clamshells up front but I am positive it was a weather related decision. Having stage one tossed due to RO incompetence was far far more bothersome than any target stick.

Bummed about that one too.  It was one of better stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

The long sticks I didn't mind at this match. It was noticeable on the  stage with two clamshells up front but I am positive it was a weather related decision. Having stage one tossed due to RO incompetence was far far more bothersome than any target stick.

 

Can you elaborate so others may learn what noto do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, teros135 said:

Aren't any hits through walls Mike's?  Walls are impenetrable, so a steel that falls when shot through a wall would be a REF and a reshoot, yes?

yes indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, waktasz said:

They were calling hits on steel through walls as Mikes...or was that at a3? So much bad ROing going around it's hard to keep track

 

In this case I'm very surprised that the first squad it happened to didn't press the issue and get the rm involved. Maybe they did & the rm backed the ro ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used a knot on one of the sticks to index to (elevation) to where I wanted to be aiming when the clamshells activated. 

 

I don't know how I can say this without sounding rude, that's not my intention. There were a few other issues at that match that I felt were larger issues.  

Edited by B_RAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

In this case I'm very surprised that the first squad it happened to didn't press the issue and get the rm involved. Maybe they did & the rm backed the ro ? 

 

There's another whole thread on this but I agree. That's why it's important for everyone to take the RO course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, waktasz said:

 

There's another whole thread on this but I agree. That's why it's important for everyone to take the RO course.

 

I think we (USPSA) are a bunch of complete retards for not having 90%+  of the r.o. course on electronic medium.

 

That is not a snark at you or anyone else, and I am a broken record on the issue, but geez, it is 2018 and we suffer & moan over easy communication things that the rest of the world fixes with a cell phone & an upload to u-tube. 

Edited by IHAVEGAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

I think we (USPSA) are a bunch of complete retards for not having 90%+  of the r.o. course on electronic medium.

 

That is not a snark at you or anyone else, and I am a broken record on the issue, but geez, it is 2018 and we suffer & moan over easy communication things that the rest of the world fixes with a cell phone & an upload to u-tube. 

 

Having taught these classes, there is no substitute for discussions and feedback from your students. 

 

Not only is it important that an RO be able to quote a rule, but they need to understand how and why that rule came to be.

 

Knowing and understanding how and why things are is very important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sarge said:

yes indeed.

Sarge, we had that at the battle for the north shore, stage 7 with the two disappearing targets and multiple steel.  3 RO's, we watched the wooden parts of the port and saw rounds going through the wood, literally through, not skipping off.  Called re-shoots.  Brought Paul Hernandez (RM) over and he concurred.

 

Also learned that blue bullets still leave grease rings on paper after going through a 2x4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

Having taught these classes, there is no substitute for discussions and feedback from your students. 

 

Which is why good training videos often incorporate the best of questions heard over time.

 

7 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

Not only is it important that an RO be able to quote a rule, but they need to understand how and why that rule came to be.

 

Which is why you put it on the video and let everybody hear the same explanation, rather than what the instructor thinks of on that day, or, more commonly discussed, the particular instructors slant on things at that particular point in time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Which is why good training videos often incorporate the best of questions heard over time.

 

 

Which is why you put it on the video and let everybody hear the same explanation, rather than what the instructor thinks of on that day, or, more commonly discussed, the particular instructors slant on things at that particular point in time. 

 

Our mileage may vary.

 

Additionally, there is a live fire exercise where students run each other under supervision. Not really conducive to video tape.

Edited by Gary Stevens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, vluc said:

Also learned that blue bullets still leave grease rings on paper after going through a 2x4.

 

Yet another great selling feature of Blue bullets!  What's not to like!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...