Windmills & Stars & Bubble Yum

[Wakal]

Most of the whining I see in this thread boil down to inferior mechanics.

Lines like "If you mark the plates and start with it in the same position everytime it would be better..." indicate that the poster is dealing with a rip-off of the Texas Star design. Terry Ashton and Mike Gibson both weight-matches their respective plates...no matter which of the five plates goes on which of the five arms, the Star will settle to the same place each time. As Liota said, the SHOOTER is the driving force on the (real) Texas Stars, not the Star itself.

Mechanical Point One: Use quality props. You spend a few bucks less on off-brand garbage, you get junk. It works the same with props as it does with firearms and ammunition...

Lines like "...the Junior shooter..." and the mythical "C and D shooter..." and those "five mikes" indicate that the shooter, not the shooting opportunity, is the driving force.

Mechanical Point Two: Any shooter shooting beyond his ability will make mistakes. I've seen GM's miss paper at two feet. I've seen D-Class shooters make head shots at fifty yards. Blaming the stage for the abject failures of the shooter to perform properly is the height of insanity.

A well-designed "Coney Island" stage, well run, with solid props, is a thing of beauty. Coupled with a mix of stand and shoot, run and gun, and precision engagements makes for a hell of a fine match. Playing the "stand here, pick up gun off table, shoot three targets" or "run here, shoot, run there, shoot" model gets boring fast and fosters limited skill development. Attempting to force others to comply with that model is, IMO, a sign of retarded shooting ability and fear of public failure. There are other sports who play that way; anyone is free to join any of the "dress up" shooting sports and play to that model, but it is not Practical

Each shooter performs according to his or her ability. A good stage, Coney Island or otherwise, should test both basic skills and force the shooter to stretch out of their "comfort zone" and become better...or by performing at that level, raise their own internal bar to a new "comfort zone..."

Just my opinion, of course.

Alex

[Chriss Grube]

The area 8 matches and the tri state all have had some carnival stages. Texas stars, clowns, luggage claims and the matches all went off without a hitch. No more reshoots than any other stages. After all this it is really starting to look like more excuses than problems. We have one match(Topton) where the MD loves standards. I've seen lots of shooters not just the new and D or C class tank them...guess we shouldn't shoot standards either? The strange props make you think....if you want to shoot all static targets and be told where when and how to engage them go shoot IDPA and don't forget to wear your best tactical mall ninja gear. Here is a novel thought quit bitching and just shoot!

[John Heiter]

Actually, I think we should ban any and all stages that feature any sort of shooter to shooter consistency in target placement or behavior. In the real world, are you going to get a chance to see and evaluate all the threats beforehand? If we can make it so the bad guys appear at different times and in different ways for different shooters then that's what we should be going for. Although it's not IPSC, the worst one I've seen is that damn Bianchi Cup mover. I think that thing is even computer controlled to present the same size target moving on a perfectly level plane at the exact same speed for the exact same duration for every shooter. How ridiculous is that? You're never going to see that on the streets. At least make it so that after every shot the target speeds up or something. Damn liberal NRA pansies.

Also, this whole post while impressively tactical was complete bs. Sorry, couldn't resist pulling some legs. The views and opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the views and opinions of this poster blah blah blah

[Bigbadaboom]

We can't improve our abilities untill we learn to blame our abilities for our short comings.

[sturmruger]

A few people have touched on this, but I thought I would reiterate it.

A texas star wouldn't be such a bgi deal if I had one at my local club that I could shoot on a regular basis. With some decent practice time a texas star would be a real breeze to shoot.

[eric nielsen]

I get a kick out of this thread.

I agree with a little something from almost every post. Of course the writing styles are all different. Just seems with most folks if you try to anger them with your logic, they're going to read all the anger and little - if any - of the logic.

[back to your regularly scheduled content]

[ima45dv8]

I get a kick out of this thread.

I agree with a little something from almost every post. Of course the writing styles are all different. Just seems with most folks if you try to anger them with your logic, they're going to read all the anger and little - if any - of the logic.

[back to your regularly scheduled content]

If your stated goal is to anger them, as you said, is it any surprise when they get angry?

As to the use of creative props, different challenges, 'carnival stages', and so on, I don't care as long as everyone at the match has to shoot the same stages as I do. I think that can be accomplished even with Texas Stars and other moving targets if they are properly managed by the RO staff as Liota stated so well.

What I do sometimes object to are shooting positions that favor small/short/Gumby-type people and penalize tall and/or well-insulated shooters.

[Ron Ankeny]

Lines like "...the Junior shooter..." and the mythical "C and D shooter..." and those "five mikes" indicate that the shooter, not the shooting opportunity, is the driving force.

I don't recall seeing you at the match in question so allow me to explain. The problem was with the prop and the lesser skilled shooters didn't have a chance in the morning, but they could open a can of whoop ass by the afternoon.

The prop was a plate rack that traveled along a series of cables. The rack was activated by a popper. The popper went down and the rack traveled along the cables from right to left. The plates were held on with some super duper rare Earth magnets. Behind the rack was an assortment of poppers and no-shoots. If you chose to shoot the rack prior to the poppers, you stood a really good chance of hitting a popper if you shot between the plates. Likewise, you also stood a good chance of hitting a no-shoot. Half way through the length of travel, the rack disappeared behind hard cover, then reappeared prior to reversing directions. After a couple of exposures, the plate rack stopped behind the hardcover. I chose to shoot the plates at the instant the rack changed directions. Cleaning that rack in three seconds proved to be all but impossible for a lot of shooters so they had to shoot them on the move and hope if they missed there wasn't a noshoot in the back ground. The lucky shooters would miss a plate and nail a popper. By the time the breeze came up in the afternoon, the prop was traveling at about half speed and when it came to rest most of the plates were exposed because the rack was no longer coming to the same resting place. The PM shooters simply shot the rack last, shooting the plates at rest. Tell me again the determining factor was the shooter and not the shooting opportunity.

Anyone want to hear me whine about the match that featured swinging targets painted like Zebras with alternating inch and a half wide hardcover and shoot areas covering the entire surface?

[XRe]

By the time the breeze came up in the afternoon, the prop was traveling at about half speed and when it came to rest most of the plates were exposed because the rack was no longer coming to the same resting place. The PM shooters simply shot the rack last, shooting the plates at rest. Tell me again the determining factor was the shooter and not the shooting opportunity.

The stage and prop in question should have been thrown out of the match. Also, the stage designer was a sadistic b*****d...

Anyone want to hear me whine about the match that featured swinging targets painted like Zebras with alternating inch and a half wide hardcover and shoot areas covering the entire surface?

This is also ridiculous... even on a static target... if you want to do it w/ hardcover in front of the target, that's one thing, but painted on the target??? sheesh...

[Wakal]

Ron, speaking as MD, this is unacceptable:

By the time the breeze came up in the afternoon, the prop was traveling at about half speed

...why didn't you arb the stage? I had the movers at the Texas State 3-Gun arb'ed two years in a row (by the same guy ) due to what he perceived as a ONE SECOND difference over the mover's 30-second run (later proved to be incorrect due to the stage builder's attention to detail). If the problem with your single example was as big as you state (and I have nothing but respect for you and your opinion), then failing to file a formal protest was negligence on the all of the competitor's part.

You are using one example of a flawed stage to cast an ill light (by extention) on all "Coney Island" stages; that sort of logic misapplication is not on Plato's approved list of arguments

I hold to my previous points: our game is intended to improve the skills of all interested shooters. Some shooters are more interested in their own personal status quo, while some are in the game to improve. The match staff's job is to provide equal shooting opportunities for all shooters under specific controlled condition; the shooter's job is to do their best (or what they perceive at the time to be their best)

A

[Flexmoney]

It sure sounds like it is incumbent on the match staff to ensure that the fancy equipment gets plenty of attention to detail.

It doesn't take much to take the "new" idea and screw it up enough to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

(Hey John, our NRA mover has a little hitch in it's gait. There is a bump in the track that makes the target jump...right in the middle of when you want to be shooting it. The "new" guys always mention it. We are polite, and refrain from pointing and laughing.)

[Ron Ankeny]

Alex:

The match staff's job is to provide equal shooting opportunities for all shooters under specific controlled condition; the shooter's job is to do their best (or what they perceive at the time to be their best)

I absolutely agree. I would add the shooting opportunites should not only be equal, they should be meaningful, and they should test a variety of skills.

PS:

I didn't have to say anything about the stage because a lot of shooters raised a whole bunch of stink. It got real ugly behind the scenes.

Edited March 2, 2006 by Ron Ankeny

[boo radley]

Alex:

The match staff's job is to provide equal shooting opportunities for all shooters under specific controlled condition; the shooter's job is to do their best (or what they perceive at the time to be their best)

I absolutely agree. I would add the shooting opportunites should not only be equal, they should be meaningful, and they should test a variety of skills.

What do you mean by "meaningful?"

[Ron Ankeny]

What do you mean by "meaningful?"

I hoped someone would ask.

[Liota]

A few people have touched on this, but I thought I would reiterate it.

A texas star wouldn't be such a bgi deal if I had one at my local club that I could shoot on a regular basis. With some decent practice time a texas star would be a real breeze to shoot.

Do you want to know the irony of ironies?

The very club to which the Texas Star designer belongs. The very club which owns two Texas Stars. That club doesn't use the prop in matches all that often, maybe twice a year. It's not necessarily a breeze to shoot. Whatever you decide, however consciously, with your first shot determines how the Star will react. It is all up to the competitor.

L

[konkapot]

To stick with the "bubblegun" tone of this, but get off the Texas Start/Windmil path....

An area match recently had as the (paraphrased) starting position "Standing in box, facing downrange, pizza box in one hand and baby (doll) in the other." At start signal, you engaged four fairly dirty targets. No reloads, no distance shots, no strong/weak hand....just you, a pizza box, and baby doll.

The test for this stage was more about "where do I hide the baby doll after I drop the pizza box."

I t-h-i-n-k it's this type of thing that causes some of this "bubble gum" frustration........up my way, we call stages with emphasis on putting a baby doll between your knees "Cat in the Hat Stages." A swinger/turner/windmill/star does not, in and of itself, make a stage Cat in the Hat.......

Mr. Ankeny.....looked at logically.......makes an absolutely excellent point. Your more experienced shooters will make almost any stage hard.......to have a brand new shooter empty a magazine to clean a Texas star is not a formula to bring him back. I'm not...and I don't think anyone is.......advocating a "dumbing down" of our sport.....just some prudence and good judgment.

FY42385

[Liota]

Konkapot,

I think you're ignoring the Fun Factor. A lot of new shooters find the Texas Star a fun target array to shoot. It's different from anything they've ever seen before. The best way to encounter the Texas Star is in a non-threatening environment. We put them in our little fundraisers for Crimestoppers. Non-Shooters and Shooters alike enjoy them.

For the record, the first time I shot a Texas Star, it took me 3+ magazines to clear it. Friends were loading magazines for me while I shot. The first time I shot one clean 5-for-5 I asked Linda Ashton if it was broken.

Liota

Liota

[BigDave]

I enjoy shooting the star, especially with a shotgun. I think it is an excellent shooting challenge. I think the star was made with the spirit of our sport in mind. Fantastic idea. But, I believe firmly that the prop isn't adequately addressed by our rules.

Even though the target(s) move along the same arc, those target(s) can and do, randomly, from shooter to shooter, change (1) direction (in the arc) and (2) speed.

in·con·sis·tent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nkn-sstnt)

adj.

Displaying or marked by a lack of consistency, especially:

Not regular or predictable; erratic: inconsistent behavior

Same goes for the windmill, IMO. If you consider COF's to be tools to measure shooting ability, doesn't that measurement need to be consistent to be (1) fair and (2, and most important) valid.

BTW - wasn't the moving target at Bianchi designed by John Bianchi, not the NRA. Say what you will about it from a practical standpoint, but it is a consistent presentation for every shooter. 10 fps, 60 ft presentation every single time.

[XRe]

Even though the target(s) move along the same arc, those target(s) can and do, randomly, from shooter to shooter, change (1) direction (in the arc) and (2) speed.

Hang on, now - it's not "random", either: Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. It moves very predictably, based on simple particle dynamics (or, I should say, it should if it's built properly). The only thing that is "random" is how the shooter influences the prop. The prop then moves very predictably based upon that influence. That's not random It's different from shooter to shooter - true - but the challenge presented is equal for any shooter, and depends entirely upon how they engage it.

I think it's somewhat arguable whether a star is "fair" for a brand new shooter... especially at longer range

I agree that it can be an error prone prop - and you must take steps to insure that it's set the same way, every time (ours is weighted slightly on one arm, so it always ends up on the bottom, and naturally settles the same each time). I definitely agree that if the plates knock another off the star, or somehow jam the mechanism, it should be considered range equipment failure....

Same goes for the windmill, IMO.

Agree, but... Assuming the prop is built right, how would a windmill vary from shooter to shooter?? I suppose a *real* hard wind might influence it, but we already know that wind is a valid reason for a reshoot, right?

10 fps, 60 ft presentation every single time.

I think you could use the Bianchi mover as an example of how these sorts of props operate.

[BigDave]

Hang on, now - it's not "random", either: Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. It moves very predictably, based on simple particle dynamics (or, I should say, it should if it's built properly). The only thing that is "random" is how the shooter influences the prop. The prop then moves very predictably based upon that influence. That's not random It's different from shooter to shooter - true - but the challenge presented is equal for any shooter, and depends entirely upon how they engage it.

Okay, a poor choice in words on my part, perhaps. The specific movement of the targets on that prop is different for every single shooter and that is the point I'm trying to make. The only random influence a shooter should have on a COF is their position relative to the target(s). The target itself, regardless of influence, should not have the ability to change direction or speed as this prop does.

I'm staying clear of the officiating side of this one.

[Ron Ankeny]

If you consider COF's to be tools to measure shooting ability, doesn't that measurement need to be consistent to be (1) fair and (2, and most important) valid.

One would think so.

[Viggen]

Ever see a swinging magnetic plate rack that disappears behind hardcover, then reappears briefly, thereby making the multiple exposure requirements? Tell the junior shooter the five mikes and five FTEs had nothing to do with the prop.

So are you suggesting that we only use props that Junior shooters can hit?? I've seen Junior shooters get 5 mikes and a FTE on a stage with no moving targets.

I have shot with some Juniors, local kids, who crush those types of targets and anything else that is thrown at them. There are Juniors and there are Juniors.

[XRe]

The only random influence a shooter should have on a COF is their position relative to the target(s).

Just trying to understand where you're coming from - you don't like any activated targets, period???

The target itself, regardless of influence, should not have the ability to change direction or speed as this prop does.

So - basically, only something similar to a Bianchi mover works for you? Every other moving target I can think of changes speed and/or direction....

[geezer-lock]

I no longer have much fear of the star but I am not thrilled that I get to shoot one as my first stage at Double Tap. And that is after beginning with “both hands in YET TO BE DETERMINED SUBSTANCE with Palms Flat on bottom of Sink…”

I have the luxury of being able to practice on a Terry Ashton star but I have shot at several poor imitations of Terry’s design that required numerous re-shoots. Even the real deal must be clean and lubricated to get consistent results.

New shooters usually can take the star if they get a little coaching. And if we want to encourage the new guys to come back we ought to be helping out with those sorts of basics.

David C

[BigDave]

Just trying to understand where you're coming from - you don't like any activated targets, period???

Oh no, I think activated targets are fine! Drop-turners: same movement every time. Swingers: same movement every time (and slows/degrades at the same rate for every shooter). Clamshells/Beartraps: same movement every time.

Certainly, the Bianchi mover works for me. I LOVE shooting that event (it is my "best" event of the four.) Each exposure is for 6 seconds, at each distance. 10 fps every time. Same challenge for each shooter.

Here's something to consider - do we have any classifiers that use activated targets? (I don't know. I can't think of any and I don't have time to look.) Why not?