Flexmoney Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 We have approved paper targets. I heard the question recently..."why not approved steel"? Discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cheely Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I would be for an approved design except for that steel is costly and most clubs would not have the "approved" design. Replacing with approved poppers would be extremely costly... And what about the company that has an intellectual right to their superior popper design? Are they going to make all sorts of money, or will USPSA come up with thier own proprietary design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
open17 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Rule 4.3, Appendix C2 and C3. Seems to pretty well cover the subject. Even uses the phrase "approved metal targets". I think that the red book specified plate thickness of poppers as 3/8"? Can't find a thickness spec in the green book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Cheely Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I think we're referring to the design of the popper stands and the mechanism that makes them fall, not the size and shape of the target itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AikiDale Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 We have approved paper targets. I heard the question recently..."why not approved steel"?Discussion? We do have approved steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 You know, I brought this up not too long ago... I think this is a great time to talk about standards for targets. I'm not sure how to do it without starting a religious holy war, but I definitely prefer certain mechanisms over others. Should we have steel manufacturers submit targets for certification to USPSA? We could have them shipped to Sedro or a neighboring club for evaluation. Maybe a pass/fail test with constructive feedback? There will be some unintended consequences. We could put clubs in a situation where homemade props become illegal for major matches, which could limit a lot of possibilities. On the upshot, there's a lot of clubs, including mine who need to replace a substantial portion of their steel inventory due to wear and tear. Maybe this is the incentive they need. The other thing that this will bring up is counterfeit props. I know that one particular manufacturer is having issues with clubs buying one prop, then copying them right down to the color scheme. The clubs then have prop issues and the manufacturer gets blamed, even though it's not their prop. Just random thoughts off the top of my head....I hope the discussion can remain civil this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I think it would be difficult to "approve" actual targets as opposed to publishing a set of "approved" design criteria for known target arrays. Take the Pepper Popper. Its built by most major target companies in one fashion or another, but also by guys who work in fab shops, by guys who have some equipment at home, etc. It would be very hard to determine which ones are "approved" and which are not. And you would have issues with the 10 poppers that Joe Blow built copying the design from Company X, when you approve Company X's popper and Joe Blow's are not. I think (and this is just my opinion) that it would be easier to publish a set of approved criteria. More detailed than what currently exists, but still broad enough to allow home and local built targets and to allow experimentation and creativity. Set some general specifications that stop things like the issues had at Nationals by specifing bumpers and whatnot. Also, I would think you would need a Level I exception to the all steel must be of an approved design criteria, but it would be reasonable for that criteria to apply to all matches above Level II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carinab Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 How about going the other direction? Since steel must fall to score, how about we include steel failure to fall as range equipment failure if the hit is within the "scoring" circle? Outside the circle, it's calibration time. And speaking of calibration, I heard another suggestion that sounded do-able. How about a steel gage? It could be a spring loaded device that you place up against the steel, activate, and it delivers X pounds of pressure. Use it at set up and through out the match at regular intervals (between squads, every 3rd shooter, whatever) on a piece of particularly pesky steel. The manufacturers could also provide a guide about the "optimal" configuration for certain designs. "The bolt should be so far out with the popper sitting at X angle, blah blah blah." Okay, so a user's manual for steel sounds dopey but when you have a new/different design, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Heiter Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I'm hoping this thread is just Flex's attempt at stirring the pot and not a real suggestion but ...we have steel dimensions for targets and we have an approved calibration method. That's all we need. Matt and others are right. Steel targets aren't like cardboard targets. Most clubs get a set of them and keep them for ten years or more because they don't wear out. Replacing 30 poppers at $200 each is a burden most clubs can not or will not be willing to take on for the marginal benefit of having their poppers fall the same way as some club across the country. Besides, even poppers of the same design fall differently due to wear and tear changes, terrain differences, etc. I'm not saying I wouldn't like it if it happened but I'd like it if every club would standardize their playing surfaces too because locals who know the range always have an advantage when it comes to shoe selection, etc. From what I read of the latest Nats, I bet some shooters might be in favor of indoor climate controlled chrono areas at every match too or should we just dome every range? It's the old addage, you can get pretty close pretty cheap but perfect is gonna cost you big. As far as standardization goes, I'd be happier if we could just leave the non-standard elements out of our classification book but that's another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Lots of good comments but standardization for local clubs would be cost prohibitive. We already have rules for size but maybe there should be a minimum for thickness or steel type. If a club can only afford boilerplate is it fair to say that all steel targets must be 3/8" T-1 or greater to be legal? In the Nationals comments there was discussion about forward falling poppers being used but what is a legal forward falling popper? Is it a popper with a special latch or is it a regular popper turned so it falls forward? All I can add to this discussion is more questions and no answers. So how about someone helping me with some answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I have suggested several times that a calibration device other than a pistol is needed. It would always hit the steel in exactly the center of the circle, It would always deliver exactly the same energy to the steel, it could be used as Carina suggests between every squad or even every third shooter. It would allow for calibration before the allowed start times. Remember, many ranges have a first shot fired time as late as 11:00 on Sunday. If you need to calibrate before the match, it can mean an even later start! I thought about a hammer on a rigid pendulum that had an elevation adjustment so it could work for both USP and PP's and maybe even a small leveling bubble like on a camera tri-pod so that the device was always swung clean. All that is needed is for some engineering type here to determine the proper weight of the hammer and the correct length of the pendulum and it can be built. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 A calibration device would be cool, but the problem with non-bullet calibration devices is they well, aren't bullets. Some people noticed at Nationals that minor .40's did a worse job knocking down the PP's than minor 9's did, and that has to be related to the impact forces and differences in impulses. A weight smacking a plate will be different yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Jim, Go back in the IPSC archive and you should be able to find the original ballistic pendulum used to measure power factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogdoc Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 This is just my opinion FWIW, but it seems like the target itself is only half the equation. You can standardize steel all you want, but many times it is up to the ground it is on to determine how reliable it is. You can't standardize the range surface. Myself, as well as all of you, have shot at clubs with grass, mud, sand, rocks, eroded hard surfaces, etc, and all of these can determine how reliable a Popper will fall. I've shot multiple day matches where the weather changed and the surface changed, and Poppers became unreliable, and stages were tossed when the day before they worked flawlessly. Even when the weather doesn't change, a heavy Popper pounding the same spot on the ground time after time can make the stand settle into the ground. Unless you require all steel to set on cement pads, and all steel is the same, you will always have problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 I'm hoping this thread is just Flex's attempt at stirring the pot... No...just opening the discussion up...seems like a valid and timely topic. ...and not a real suggestion... You might notice I didn't suggest a thing...yet. but ...we have steel dimensions for targets and we have an approved calibration method. That's all we need. Here is the rub. The "approved calibration" method is likely what is faulty. When shooters do their part..get good hits on the poppers with legal ammo...and the steel doesn't go down...then something is wrong. The rule book says we have a calibration method. Really though, what we get there is a gamble at best. (in more ways than one). Matt and others are right. Steel targets aren't like cardboard targets. Most clubs get a set of them and keep them for ten years or more because they don't wear out. Replacing 30 poppers at $200 each is a burden most clubs can not or will not be willing to take on for the marginal benefit of having their poppers fall the same way as some club across the country. Agreed. Besides, even poppers of the same design fall differently due to wear and tear changes, terrain differences, etc. I'm not saying I wouldn't like it if it happened but I'd like it if every club would standardize their playing surfaces too because locals who know the range always have an advantage when it comes to shoe selection, etc. More good points. From what I read of the latest Nats, I bet some shooters might be in favor of indoor climate controlled chrono areas at every match too or should we just dome every range? The method which is used to store the ammo (out of the shooters control) might need addressed. When the ammo off the guys belt make pf, but the stuff that has been left out in the cold truck at the hotel all night doesn't... It's the old addage, you can get pretty close pretty cheap but perfect is gonna cost you big. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 but ...we have steel dimensions for targets and we have an approved calibration method. That's all we need. Here is the rub. The "approved calibration" method is likely what is faulty. Ding ding ding!!! Another thing missing is that there are no guidelines or requirements about the mechanisms used for operation of the targets - some mechanisms are obviously more reliable than others... Some are completely reliable, hit to hit, and others aren't (ie, the latch moves slightly with each hit, and therefore the 2nd hit - say, the calibration - hits a target that falls more easily than the first hit...). Being that this is so critical to a shooter's score, I'd say we ought to take it 100% seriously. When shooters do their part..get good hits on the poppers with legal ammo...and the steel doesn't go down...then something is wrong. And its damn painful to watch... The rule book says we have a calibration method. Really though, what we get there is a gamble at best. (in more ways than one). Some of us even place money on it... The method which is used to store the ammo (out of the shooters control) might need addressed. When the ammo off the guys belt make pf, but the stuff that has been left out in the cold truck at the hotel all night doesn't... What about the opposite case? Some of us have powders that seem to react in a reverse temperature sensitive manner. If you leave it out in the sun... I think the end result is that the ammo needs to be stored in some median condition - shaded, room temperature (when not exposed on the range) or air temperature (when on the range), etc... Or, we always pull from the competitor's belt the day they are to chrono (so its never stored in conditions that radically differ from the conditions when they chrono). If we're going to measure power via the chrono, all steel should fall when hit squarely in the "calibration" zone regardless. If a shooter continually has a problem, he needs more ammo drawn and needs to be rechronoed. Otherwise, solid hits on steel that don't drop the popper should be range equipment malfunction... If we're going to measure PF w/ steel, what do we need the chrono for?? (of course, then we're measuring energy, and not momentum, so... that's why the minor .40s didn't drop steel as well, BTW...). I will state that my 174 PF loads didn't seem to have any problem taking steel over authoritatively (except for one very marginal edge hit on the bottom part of one popper)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted October 17, 2006 Author Share Posted October 17, 2006 so... that's why the minor .40s didn't drop steel as well, BTW... I need to address this before it gets assumed to be true. I see that you and shred are of the same opinion on this and I know you shot together... But, I shoot minor 40 all the time. I know it works on steel. Maybe you saw an instance when it didn't work and made some assumptions? Maybe we need a new thread on this? (or just add to an old one?) I know I didn't have any problems with steel at the Nationals (shooting minor 40) and I know tons of 9mm shooters that did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Adam brought up a great point about the range surface. Well...how about manufacturers come up with a device that is less sensitive to surface variations? Can a FFP be configured via spring pressure to release the triggering mechanism more reliably? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Well...how about manufacturers come up with a device that is less sensitive to surface variations? Can a FFP be configured via spring pressure to release the triggering mechanism more reliably? Sure, but at what cost? Steel is getting any cheaper and what kind of R & D would need to go forward to pull that off? Really, short of this nationals and these poppers, is this that big of a problem? Would we even have this discussion if they were "normal" backward falling poppers? But, then again, I could be wrong. Here's another opinion...Poppers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 On inconsistent activation of poppers at the Open/Production Nats: I know Jim Norman was vocal about it at the match --- on numerous occasions, including 3 consecutive stages, he had to shoot groups in the center of the scoring circle, because the first hit wouldn't take the popper down. He was shooting a 135 pf 180 gr. .40 load, IIRC. I got bit only once, on BDH's stage, the final popper which activated a clamshell, didn't fall to a center hit. Other than that I had no steel issues, when I did my part. I was running a 135.7 power factor 147 gr. 9mm load..... On proper popper set-up for a multi-day match: Poppers operate more consistently, ip they're placed on top of a piece of plywood, slightly larger than the poppers base and then spiked through the plywood into the ground. That doesn't allow the impact to be spread over a relatively small surface area in the grass, dirt, mud, or sand..... On Chronograph ammo storage at multi-day matches: This could be as simple as a rule requiring the match to outline what their procedures will be. That way shooters could conceivably simulate those temperature conditions at home, while chronoing their loads. We seem to specifically spell out everything else having to do with chronograph procedures...... In no way am I advocating having the match jump through multiple extra hoops ---- I'd just like to know what the procedure will be, so I can duplicate the test conditions..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 I need to address this before it gets assumed to be true. I see that you and shred are of the same opinion on this and I know you shot together... But, I shoot minor 40 all the time. I know it works on steel. I'm not trying to assert that minor .40 is in some way less effective... Its rather documentable, though, that it *does* carry less energy than a 9mm load w/ a similar PF. Depending upon the failure mode of the steel in question, that could have some effect... Maybe you saw an instance when it didn't work and made some assumptions? Maybe we need a new thread on this? (or just add to an old one?) I know I didn't have any problems with steel at the Nationals (shooting minor 40) and I know tons of 9mm shooters that did. Most of the calibrations I saw were due to what amounted to edge hits or hits lower than the calibration circle, in the end, so its hard to say, actually. I observed one shooter put two rounds in the calibration circle of a popper that still didn't drop, and he claimed to be shooting .40. His calibration test failed (popper dropped). I have no idea what his load characteristics were (bullet weight and velocity). A lot of talk went on at the match that minor .40 seemed to be having greater issues - obviously, this would depend a lot on the loads being used, etc. Interestingly, on the 9mm end, the folks that I queried about their bullet weight when they had popper problems were mostly shooting 115s, which should have the highest energy of the loads being used (assuming roughly the same PF). Questionable hits seemed to suffer more with that bullet weight, though, for some reason. Obviously, that's not scientific or anything Flex, it would be interesting to know your load data - weight and velocity? How close were you to 125PF?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 By far the best FFP design I've ever seen was made by a local boy here in Central TX-- it's a beefy gravity hook with a cam surface on it. Shoot it a little, the hook drops out. Hit it and drive the plate back any and the cam actively pushes the hook out. The plate stands vertical, but the axle is about 3 inches behind the plate, so as soon as it gets released, nothing is going to stop it falling. I talked to him the other day and he wants to get back into shooting, so we may yet get more of 'em. I was tweaking on Jim who apparently had an inordinate amount of poppers not fall to his .40. Also what we need is to get the RM's a rest and a TC in 9mm with a scope for calibration shots. There were way too many reshoots and favoritism accusations because they didn't hit the plate in the right place at calibration time. Robbie even said that Amidon had more no-shoots on stage 16 than anybody else.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 On at least three stages I had multiple good, in the circle hits on steel at the Nats. Took the third hit to knock the steel down. .40 cal, 134PF. The set-up of the steel was the problem as much or more than the design. There needed to be a 16" x 48" piece of 3/4" plywood under each pooper and a tire bumper for the steel to hit on when it fell. THe way the steel was set allowed the poppers to drive the basesinto the ground. By sometime on day two, many poppers had a hatchwork of sticks under them and a chunck of 4 x 4 inside the frame for the popper to land on. On the subject of popper releases. A working system exists. use a vertical, gravity assisted hook behind the plate. a hit knocks the popper back, the hook falls out of the catch and the plate falls. Nothing is exposed to the front. A simple bolt will adjust the length of the hook so that hte pooper has enough forward angle to work reliably. Another method is to use a standard popper reversed and in place of the adjusting bolt, use a compression spring. Hit the popper and the spring does the rest. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 (edited) these ffpp work great: these are max davidson's design at gunsteel.com Edited October 17, 2006 by lynn jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman33_99 Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Those do look like a simple and realiable design, but I don't see any adjustment bolt, I wonder if there are any problems on un-even ground. 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