The Oregon Star.

[open17]

Did you have any issues with newer shooters gain a LOT of penalties?

Scott, I didn't really see that happening. We had 2 NEW (first match) shooters on

our squad. One shot it with no no-shoot penalties. The other one tried to put on a little

speed, and clipped 3 no-shoots. Not sure if they were all on the star, there were other no-shoots in the stage. If the shooter had the skill to shoot the star clean at 8 meters distance and stayed focused, no problem. If they let the thing mess with their head and

went into spray-and-pray mode it got ugly fast! I asked a LOT of shooters for their

opinion on the target, and almost everyone liked it. I'll do a few mods, try it at

another monthly match or two. If it works you WILL see it in the Crazy Croc match in September.

Bill

[TRNinTX]

... In fact, he'll plate over the entire double-rod support arm to make bullets bounce back instead of splattering.

Is that really a good idea?

[open17]

... In fact, he'll plate over the entire double-rod support arm to make bullets bounce back instead of splattering.

Is that really a good idea?

I think Jerry is jerking us around. Weird Geek humor. Or at least I hope so. The idea

of plating to face of the arms is so that the bullets WHEN they splatter, will not impact

the paper. If a flat piece of steel facing the shooter makes the bullets "bounce back"

then we need to re-think a lot of props!

Bill

[George]

The best way to prevent uprange splatter is to use AR 500 plate and keep it pristine, or replace it and NEVER, EVER shoot at pitted steel. Also very important is to strictly follow the guidelines on minimum engagement distances for steel as published in the rulebooks for pistol, rifle & shotgun.

Read Mike Gibsons FAQ on steel for more info:

http://www.mgmtargets.com/faqs/index.php

[Nemo]

Mr. Bill,

With all due respect, I'd suggest you seek professional help, PRONTO!

Seriously now. Although the setup looks like a lot of fun I believe it could bring issues with scoring, especially with edge hits on steel getting not-full diameter holes on paper. How would that be dealt with?

I'm glad you're far far way from Florida!

Edited May 1, 2007 by Nemo

[pskys2]

$1/string?

[Nemo]

Step right up!

[EricW]

Wow. You made people think about shooting a moving target instead of just pulling the trigger until they hear something go "dink!" That's really mean-spirited and contrary to all IPSC principles of stages chock full of arms-length open target arrays

[open17]

Mr. Bill,

With all due respect, I'd suggest you seek professional help, PRONTO!

Seriously now. Although the setup looks like a lot of fun I believe it could bring issues with scoring, especially with edge hits on steel getting not-full diameter holes on paper. How would that be dealt with?

I'm glad you're far far way from Florida!

I believe rules 9.1.5.3 and a bunch of the 9.1.6.x rules pretty much cover the scoring issues. If I get it perfected, it will be in the Crazy Croc match on Labor Day weekend.

8 stages, 400+ rounds. Come on up and give it a whirl

[pskys2]

Mr. Bill,

With all due respect, I'd suggest you seek professional help, PRONTO!

Seriously now. Although the setup looks like a lot of fun I believe it could bring issues with scoring, especially with edge hits on steel getting not-full diameter holes on paper. How would that be dealt with?

I'm glad you're far far way from Florida!

I believe rules 9.1.5.3 and a bunch of the 9.1.6.x rules pretty much cover the scoring issues. If I get it perfected, it will be in the Crazy Croc match on Labor Day weekend.

8 stages, 400+ rounds. Come on up and give it a whirl

Definitely Twisted

[Blue_862]

Looks like fun to me.

[ima45dv8]

Looks like fun to me.

Me, too!

I can't wait to try one.

[Mike McCarter]

Yessss, my pretty ....... !

The Evil Oregon Star is indeed the child of Evil Bill Marrs and The Evil Star (which I've linked to ... somewhere.)

We shot Version 1.0 this weekend, and there were some problems with splatter and Plates striking the too-near cardboard targets. I talked to Bill during the match, or rather he talked to me, and he has some fixes already in mind for Version 2.0.

First is to move the cardboard-target back another foot, second is to remove the angle-iron splatter-shields (so-called by me) with flat plates made of mild steel. In fact, he'll plate over the entire double-rod support armto make bullets bounce back instead of splattering.

I'm sure there will be a Version 3.0, or at least a Version 2.1 in the future. This is a "Work In Progress", and we all know that development of a new system is bound to involve some problems which need to be worked out.

Do any of us besides me remember the problems with using the .38 Super in IPSC? The good news is, there is almost no probability of experiencing "Thirty-Eight Superface" during the development of this target.

The Texas Star is almost universally accepted as a legitimate target, at least in the lower levels (I and II) of competition. Rumor has it that it has been included in at least one Level III competitive venue.

I have no investment in the promotion of this target design, except that I have shot the stage presented April 28 at Dundee, Oregon, and I saw no insurmountable problems with it.

The folks who use the word "bubblegum" in relation to this target are wearing blinders. I understand that the phrase originated with Ron Avery, but I have no idea why it was used or why it applies to this target.

This target adds a new dimension to IPSC/USPSA competition, in that it requires the competitor to engage small, moving targets agains a confusing background. I challenge those who would demean it to provide a reason why it should be denigrated as "bubblegum", which I assume implies a meaningless, inapplicable challenge.

Since when has IPSC competitiion rejected a shooting challenge as being too difficult? As far as I can see (lacking a clarification of the "bubblegum" canard), the only reason to reject is is that the target array is too confusing.

Does anyone have a better reason to reject it? After all, the last time IPSC competition rejected a target was the "Hanging Ninja" issue, which applied correctly to the "Classic" target, but included not exception to the non-assymetric "Metric" target.

You think that was well considered?

...

Neither do I.

Jerry, you forgot to mention that when you opened the door it was already moving. Fun to shoot if the first 5 shots went "ding" then the paper was easy to figure out.

[dajarrel]

I like the TX stars. I like to shoot them when they start moving when activated by a prop. But I do detest having a plate or popper in front of a no-shoot target.

But I put them there anyway

dj

[ken hebert]

I thought somewhere in the rule book it says that scoring targets can't be more than 90 deg from vertical. What I mean to say is that they can't be tilted over farther than on their side. Which would make one half of the paper part of this thing technically illegal.

I'd still like to shoot it, though.

[ima45dv8]

I believe that only applies to paper scoring targets. No mention of it in the steel target section(s).

"2.1.8.4 Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle

greater than 90 degrees from the vertical."

(emphasis added)

[Overkill]

No way in heck I'd put that thing on a stage......if I planned to actually be at the match....too many loaded guns around.

[trevoro]

Having shot this at the last Dundee mathc, I can tell you that it was a lot of fun! I didn't hear any negative comment, except that it made heads spin. That part of it was great. There was sup much happening visually, that it was a challenge to keep track of what you were there to do.

I went up to it looking to shoot the paper first. That was a mistake. I ended up shooting off two pieces of steel while engaging the paper. This left me unsure of which paper I had two hits in. It was a fun challenge that I would love to shoot again. We had two new shooters on the squad, and they liked it too.

[3gunnah]

Sweet....

When can I get one shipped up to Maine?

+1 to that

[Overkill]

I believe that only applies to paper scoring targets. No mention of it in the steel target section(s).

"2.1.8.4 Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle

greater than 90 degrees from the vertical."

(emphasis added)

So you just add "Targets may not be engaged when greater than 90 degrees from vertical" to the stage description.

[ima45dv8]

I believe that only applies to paper scoring targets. No mention of it in the steel target section(s).

"2.1.8.4 Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle

greater than 90 degrees from the vertical."

(emphasis added)

So you just add "Targets may not be engaged when greater than 90 degrees from vertical" to the stage description.

I would hate to be the RO who has to make a call on whether a spinning target was past or before 90 degrees when it was shot.

[JaredB]

I believe that only applies to paper scoring targets. No mention of it in the steel target section(s).

"2.1.8.4 Static paper targets must not be presented at an angle

greater than 90 degrees from the vertical."

(emphasis added)

So you just add "Targets may not be engaged when greater than 90 degrees from vertical" to the stage description.

I would hate to be the RO who has to make a call on whether a spinning target was past or before 90 degrees when it was shot.

I think the key word here is STATIC. The paper targets are MOVING therefore they can be engaged while greater than 90 degrees from vertical.

[ima45dv8]

I think the key word here is STATIC. The paper targets are MOVING therefore they can be engaged while greater than 90 degrees from vertical.

No argument from me, sir. I already listed 2.1.8.4 a few posts back. I was just responding to OK's idea of having 'spinning' targets AND conditions in the WSB stating they couldn't be engaged when more than 90 from vertical. That would make it very difficult for the ROs, to say the least.

[Coolduckboy]

that thing is actually pretty easy if you concentrate on the Steel first then the thing is very simple.

[Glockster35]

I like it a lot and think it would be very challenging for me!