|July 29, 1999, 03:06 AM||#1|
Join Date: November 19, 1998
I've seen many variations on ("practical) targets and find every one unsatisfying for some reason(s).
Old NRA B-27 silhouette:
Too big & fat*. On the 5-point "qualification" scheme, you get points for hits that would miss a truly world-average size male. Center scoring rings are centered @ 7 inches lower than the place we should be shooting at. The plus: IMO, realistic-sized X and 10-rings, and the remainder of the rings are close enough together to both measure accuracy and appropriately reward varying degrees of accuracy.
Nice round A-zone. A little too big. Needs a "V" ring about 4 inches diameter in the center. Might need to be shifted 2 inches higher, but I'm not sure. Otherwise, pretty good. See head zone comments below.
Good size. A-zone too tall (goes too far down). Could also use a "V" ring. Maybe even have a 4-inch square A zone, the current A zone becomes B, then C and D remain where they are. I've never fully understood the A-C-D torso scheme--a plot to maximize the minor caliber penalty?
Almost small enough. Scoring rings perfectly placed. Max scoring zone way too big.
Center scoring ring perfectly placed. I'd make it 6 inches to further reward accurate shot placement. See head zone notes below.
Nice training aid to understand the underlying physiology.
Old FBI felon-in-a-suit-drawing-gun:
Right size. Central scoring ring too big. Very PC, as the target is obviously a Caucasian male.
Front Sight Firearms (etc.) proprietary:
Perfect size--outlines ribcase based on population average. Head zone rewards shots placed in the best spot to hit, a nice element (I've forgotten--do the IPSC targets have A and B zones in the head?). Lacks central scoring ring(s), even to reward the "hand-sized" groups Front Sight teaches you to attain before upping your shooting speed.
Head zone comments:
Because of news and firsthand action reports I have read of peripheral hits in the head being ineffective, I firmly believe that a head zone without a smaller max-point rectangle (or oval?) is a disservice to shooters who want to train for self-defense.
So, fellow TFL opinion-holders, what would the ideal target be? Is it made, and if so, where is it?
My ideal would be IPSC sized, with B-27 scoring rings centered over the cardiac complex, and an outer perimeter the same as the Front Sight target. Body hits below the diaphragm would be minimal points. The head would be the Front Sight configuration. I like 10-point scoring but could be persuaded to the 5-point system.
The training target would have a rectangular top, with paper left, right, and 2 inches or so above the head. That lets hosers see their misses and know just how badly they shot (no denials of "that's TWO hits, not one!)
*I decided this when as a newspaper delivery specialist, I was reading news stories about Tony Anselmo and other escaped, violent felons who were 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighed 145 pounds.
[This message has been edited by Cheapo (edited July 29, 1999).]
|August 3, 1999, 07:34 PM||#2|
Join Date: November 19, 1998
I forgot to mention that the headless NRA Bianchi Cup or D-1 target is almost small enough, and has a good (for me) scoring ring scheme.
But, the rings are too low on the target. This one could be close to ideal if it had a head with a 10-ring and the central scoring rings were concentric with the upper radius of "R2-D2."
BTW, I also noticed the other day that the IPSC and IDPA targets have no neck. Are we training for opponents who are scrunched over, or do we consider them troglodytes? Just a thought.