Alternative Popper Design

[BritinUSA]

With all the talk about hits in the calibration zone of poppers, I was wondering if this design would work better. Instead of a rectangular piece of steel in front of the popper to cover all but the C-Zone, how about removing the plate area below the circle.

Four steel rods welded together into a rectangle with four holes drilled through at the top to hold four bolts that are welded to the back of the plate area. This reduces the weight of the popper considerably, and essentially removes the area of the popper that does not count for calibration test.

This image is from the back view of the classic and metric poppers. I think the cost would be lower as it requires much less steel and as mentioned, it will weigh a lot less as well. The regular mechanism at the bottom of the popper remains the same.

Any thoughts ?

[Alan Meek]

So if I hit one of the steel rods and it goes down is it REF?

[NMBOpen]

The change in weight distribution makes them more top heavy, which could be more of a problem in wind (rearward falling) and possibly less reliable as activators, but worth an experiment. Not sure how to prop for forward falling - check in with Keith Pickett in your area, he builds some of this stuff.

[BritinUSA]

So if I hit one of the steel rods and it goes down is it REF?

No. The rods are all part of the popper, so if you hit it anywhere and it goes down then it counts, same as it does now.

[Nik Habicht]

I see them breaking more often/needing to stock parts for repair.....

I wonder if the rods will bend with continued use....

From a major power factor standpoint, I don't like that a low hit is a miss. Major loads will often take steel down with a low hit, often slower than a center hit, which can be useful when deciding how to time/engage an array consisting of activating popper, static targets and movers....

My club's sitting on 18 like new condition USP -- would we need to replace those? If so when? We've been using them for at least three years --- they probably have twenty years left at this rate....

[Steve J]

I believe that ceases to be a popper and becomes a plate. Plates more problematic where the rules are concerned as, and I paraphase, they must only be set so as to fall when hit. There is no provision in the rules for calibrating plates... if I'm not mistaken.

[ChuckS]

Thanks for sharing that design. Some thoughts: I have seen the L-bracket break off of plates many times. I would think the rods would be less robust. It is sort of hard to beat a steel plate for strength. And the rod design can still have balance and hinge issues. Also, I have seen older poppers get bent over backwards. I am guessing that the rods would bend sooner. Other than being lighter and perhaps cheaper, I am not sure what problem they fix. From what I have seen, forward falling poppers seem to be the most reliable. Not perfect, but more reliable than backward falling poppers.

Later,

Chuck

[SA Friday]

The change in weight distribution makes them more top heavy, which could be more of a problem in wind (rearward falling) and possibly less reliable as activators, but worth an experiment. Not sure how to prop for forward falling - check in with Keith Pickett in your area, he builds some of this stuff.

Brit and I shoot Keith's poppers at least every other weekend. They are used at no less than three of the clubs here on the front range. The mechanism is the most solid forward falling popper I've seen to date. They do have their querks, but better than anything else I've seen so far.

[Seth]

I don't care for it. Why should I be penalized for you shooting minor? If my major load can take down a full size popper with a low hit, then that's an advantage of shooting major.

What condition were the poppers at nationals in? Were they old or were they brand new? Where the stands beat to death? Were they the right size?

edited for coherent thought.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Seth

[larry cazes]

Sorry. It just seems like a solution without a problem. I prefer forward falling designs, myself.

[Chills1994]

Seth wrote:

Why should I be penalized for you shooting minor?

A-ha...You SIR! Have hinted at the crux of the situation.... why are poppers being used to test power factor in the first place?

@BritinUSA... I sent you a PM.

[Seth]

Appendix C1 has it pretty well spelled out, if you ask me....

[Chuck Anderson]

Seth wrote:

Why should I be penalized for you shooting minor?

A-ha...You SIR! Have hinted at the crux of the situation.... why are poppers being used to test power factor in the first place?

@BritinUSA... I sent you a PM.

Not a matter of testing power factor. Poppers hit with Major loads tend to go over faster. Just like Major scores higher points on C and D hits. Shooting Major gives you more of the popper to shoot at. A low hit with a major load will generally knock over a popper calibrated to minor. However a Minor load will not knock it down. Both will knock the popper down with a shot properly delivered to the calibration zone. However Major gives you a bit more wiggle room. USPSA/IPSC have a long history of rewarding power. (It's the V in DVC)

As far as this specific design, I have two concerns. First is that it is essentially a plate. It looks like it might be an interesting plate design, but it's not a popper by definition. Second, I've seen Poppers that over time, and it doesn't take much for some, bend and cup. I can't imagine a steel bar that would withstand the forces and not bend very quickly.

[Jadeslade]

The expense of changing would bankrupt a lot of clubs. I bought a classic popper which a friend and I share for practice, MGM, it was expensive approx 300, but like Nik said they last for twenty years-so hard to justify replacing all of them. I do know from taking care of mine that preventive maintenance-like 10W30 and paint keep them from rusting. I like forward poppers too. I like regular poppers as well. All poppers get mashed into the ground eventually and have to be releveled. Ours get used for shotgun, too-not sure how that would do with your design.

[Chills1994]

@ Chuck... I'll have to send you a PM, so as not to drift this thread.

FWIW, I like this design better:

I guess the best way for me to put it is that with that hunk of channel iron in the way, that design discriminates equally against all calibers and power factors with respect to less than ideal shot placement.

You either shoot it in the "calibration zone" or you don't.

For now, just ignore the counter balance that makes it reset on its own. That target is meant to be shot with rifles say like at 200 or 300 yards so you don't have to walk out there and reset it all the time.

[Steve J]

The expense of changing would bankrupt a lot of clubs. I bought a classic popper which a friend and I share for practice, MGM, it was expensive approx 300, but like Nik said they last for twenty years-so hard to justify replacing all of them. I do know from taking care of mine that preventive maintenance-like 10W30 and paint keep them from rusting. I like forward poppers too. I like regular poppers as well. All poppers get mashed into the ground eventually and have to be releveled. Ours get used for shotgun, too-not sure how that would do with your design.

Yep. This is a tempest in a tea kettle. What is approved steel is clearly spelled out in the rules. That's not going to change. You simply can not change the surface area of a Pepper, classic, or US popper and call it a popper, and it certainly would no longer be a legal USPSA target if you did.

[Chills1994]

IIRC, the carboard USPSA targets say "official" on them.

I am just wondering....No, I haven't browsed through the rule book just yet....but is it spelled out anywhere what constitutes an official pepper popper. I mean more than just the shape and dimensions. I mean weight of the steel, type of construction, type of pin/roller mechanism.

Maybe if it was a little further spelled out and there were official licensed pepper popper manufacturers that would cut down on some of the problems with poppers.

Of course, on the downside though, not every Joe Six pack with an oxyacetylene torch and a stick welder is going to be able to make "official" pepper poppers, cheaply, for his home club.

[Jadeslade]

@ Chuck... I'll have to send you a PM, so as not to drift this thread.

FWIW, I like this design better:

I guess the best way for me to put it is that with that hunk of channel iron in the way, that design discriminates equally against all calibers and power factors with respect to less than ideal shot placement.

You either shoot it in the "calibration zone" or you don't.

For now, just ignore the counter balance that makes it reset on its own. That target is meant to be shot with rifles say like at 200 or 300 yards so you don't have to walk out there and reset it all the time.

I really like these targets. They look heavy?

[jasmap]

@ Chuck... I'll have to send you a PM, so as not to drift this thread.

FWIW, I like this design better:

I guess the best way for me to put it is that with that hunk of channel iron in the way, that design discriminates equally against all calibers and power factors with respect to less than ideal shot placement.

You either shoot it in the "calibration zone" or you don't.

For now, just ignore the counter balance that makes it reset on its own. That target is meant to be shot with rifles say like at 200 or 300 yards so you don't have to walk out there and reset it all the time.

I really like these targets. They look heavy?

I like these also. I don't think it is cost effective for some clubs but I do see these as a very solid solution to a problem that I see as existing.

[Nik Habicht]

@ Chuck... I'll have to send you a PM, so as not to drift this thread.

FWIW, I like this design better:

I guess the best way for me to put it is that with that hunk of channel iron in the way, that design discriminates equally against all calibers and power factors with respect to less than ideal shot placement.

You either shoot it in the "calibration zone" or you don't.

Different target presentation (more target) the taller you are. Not the same challenge for a five foot shooter as for a 6'6 shooter......

[Singlestack]

I do not understand why you would want to remove the lower half of the popper? That removes the advantage of shooting major. Solution in search of a problem IMO.

[Chills1994]

In my opinion, if there really is a perceived problem, it is with how the rules are written. Ergo...the solution is a new set of rules as far as poppers go.

As far as shooter presentation goes because of different height shooters...I guess I could pull out a calculator and some scratch paper and do the trig on how much lower a taller shooter could hit a popper like that. What's the min distance for steel...23 feet??

And just for the record...I am not suggesting that clubs take all their existing poppers to the scrap yards, and then blow $5,000 or more on a whole new set of poppers.

Again, it would be much cheaper to change or update the "software" versus swapping out the "hardware."

[George Jones]

Pepper Poppers do not test Power Factor.

They recognize power by rewarding lower hits, edge hits, etc. (see Rules 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2)

Paper targets reward Major PF - higher value on B/C/D scoring zones.

[SA Friday]

@ Chuck... I'll have to send you a PM, so as not to drift this thread.

FWIW, I like this design better:

I guess the best way for me to put it is that with that hunk of channel iron in the way, that design discriminates equally against all calibers and power factors with respect to less than ideal shot placement.

You either shoot it in the "calibration zone" or you don't.

Different target presentation (more target) the taller you are. Not the same challenge for a five foot shooter as for a 6'6 shooter......

As do ports...

[Nik Habicht]

@ Chuck... I'll have to send you a PM, so as not to drift this thread.

FWIW, I like this design better:

I guess the best way for me to put it is that with that hunk of channel iron in the way, that design discriminates equally against all calibers and power factors with respect to less than ideal shot placement.

You either shoot it in the "calibration zone" or you don't.

Different target presentation (more target) the taller you are. Not the same challenge for a five foot shooter as for a 6'6 shooter......

As do ports...

Nope --- looking through a port everyone sees the same amount of target.....

A couple of us locally can often shoot some targets from different angles than others can --- by the advantage afforded us by height. So designing a target with hard cover that will only expose the calibration zone is bound to fail, because we're not all one height.....