JCN critiques cardboard targets

[LittleLebowski]

Alpha Sierra is still active as Alpha Sierra (I searched).

He’s read only, but he’s still here reading.

[Tom Givens]

Yes, I agree.

But the initial posting was that this target was “far superior” to an IPSC target so I wanted to know why.

See below, the initial post:



That suggests they are more anatomical than the IPSC/IDPA. Which I disagree with.




Yes, so basically an IPSC target A zone or my personal favorite, the QIT-97 (FAM) target.

Do you agree that this Shoot Steel high B zone is far superior anatomically to an IPSC A-zone? Or disagree?

You have fixated on the B circle. As I have said, that is a good place to hit people, with lots of major plumbing there. That is NOT the only reason I find this target superior.

First, neither the IDPA nor USPSA targets have a neck. How many patients do you see with a square head and no neck? The presence of a defined neck and a much more humanoid head enhances the value of the new target. The ears are a guide to shot placement for the most effective head shot.

Second, the C zone corresponds very well to an area bounded by collarbone to diaphragm, between the nipples. The secondary zone on the IDPA/USPSA targets is considerably larger, leading to sloppier shooting.

All of these points together lead to my statement that this is a better target, not the B circle alone.

[JCN]

You have fixated on the B circle. As I have said, that is a good place to hit people, with lots of major plumbing there. That is NOT the only reason I find this target superior.

First, neither the IDPA nor USPSA targets have a neck. How many patients do you see with a square head and no neck? The presence of a defined neck and a much more humanoid head enhances the value of the new target. The ears are a guide to shot placement for the most effective head shot.

Second, the C zone corresponds very well to an area bounded by collarbone to diaphragm, between the nipples. The secondary zone on the IDPA/USPSA targets is considerably larger, leading to sloppier shooting.

All of these points together lead to my statement that this is a better target, not the B circle alone.

Thank you for clarifying.
But then wouldn’t the Birchwood Casey 3D target be super duper superior to the shoot steel target?

Would you see those targets as being a negative because there aren’t scoring rings?

Would the anatomy be sufficiently helpful in training that you could spray paint stencil a 4” center circle
Or use a 3” paster circle on the sternum?

$2 for a cardboard upper torso.
$3 for a cardboard whole torso.

[luckyman]

This is what you call a “lightly moderated” forum?
We don’t see eye to eye and that’s okay.

But you have created a place where you only want what you personally want and believe in.

I told you that I don’t plan on making targets when cheap and correct ones exist.

How did you get from LL’s post you quoted to that?

Come on man, you have to know you’re coming across as an asshole, right? You are posting either to communicate, to troll, or to hear the sound of your own voice. Assuming you are not aiming for either of the latter two, your communication would be more effective if you changed your tone / stopped being so much of an asshole. I’d really like to see that because I think you have things of value to communicate. If you are going to do something why not do it well? Communication as well as shooting.

[TC215]

Thank you for clarifying.
But then wouldn’t the Birchwood Casey 3D target be super duper superior to the shoot steel target?

Would you see those targets as being a negative because there aren’t scoring rings?

Would the anatomy be sufficiently helpful in training that you could spray paint stencil a 4” center circle
Or use a 3” paster circle on the sternum?

$2 for a cardboard upper torso.
$3 for a cardboard whole torso.

I can guarantee you the guys in the best .mil units and LE teams that routinely shoot people don’t sit around and beat to death discussions on scoring rings and where to put 3” paster circles on targets.

[JCN]

How did you get from LL’s post you quoted to that?

Come on man, you have to know you’re coming across as an asshole, right? You are posting either to communicate, to troll, or to hear the sound of your own voice. Assuming you are not aiming for either of the latter two, your communication would be more effective if you changed your tone / stopped being so much of an asshole. I’d really like to see that because I think you have things of value to communicate. If you are going to do something why not do it well? Communication as well as shooting.

LL split this discussion off the target discussion thread and gave it the catchy title it now bears.

About being an asshole and communication, good point and duly noted.

[LittleLebowski]

LL split this discussion off the target discussion thread and gave it the catchy title it now bears.

About being an asshole and communication, good point and duly noted.

Suggest a new title, then. So far, I think it’s perfectly apt, but it’s your show.

[JCN]

I can guarantee you the guys in the best .mil units and LE teams that routinely shoot people don’t sit around and beat to death discussions on scoring rings and where to put 3” paster circles on targets.

I never said they did and never said they should.

It seems like targets for defensive handgun courses should have two purposes:

1. Marksmanship (for which scoring rings might help quantify ability / achievement).
2. Tactical training (for which scoring rings might actually hinder ability and achievement).

A B8 target, IPSC target, FAST target, etc... are all marksmanship training. A number of trainers use those drills.
Like you said, for actual shooting people maybe you want a target that looks like a person?

If one target is supposed to cover both niches, then maybe it has to do both.

I could envision a curriculum where people trained marksmanship first and then had a second phase where they applied that to targets like the Birchwood Casey 3D that didn't have scoring references. Force on Force would be the ultimate culmination of a course like that.

Midway USA for about $2.50 a target:
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1022495612

Full long torso for ~$3.50 a target:
https://www.amazon.com/Birchwood-Cas...52&sr=8-1&th=1

I have one of the Rubber Dummy targets and it adds a level of realism and pressure that cardboard doesn't have.
It might also be useful in some of these classes to impress upon people that defense is a serious thing with serious repercussions.

[WobblyPossum]

@John Hearne, your post was great and is exactly the kind of info that keeps me coming back to this forum year after year.

@JCN, while the Birchwood Casey targets are obviously more anatomically correct than the Shoot Steel, I’m not sure how much or a difference they’d make for training purposes from a diminishing returns perspective. There are always some bits to pick because nothing is perfect. For example, you could argue that the Birchwood Casey target isn’t good because it has not threat indicators like a gun or knife. It’s a naked human head and torso so you’re training to shoot at naked dudes that aren’t an articulable deadly force threat. Obviously that’s kind of silly but I hope it gets my point across. From a defensive standpoint, @rob_s brought up a good point in that you need to do what you need to do in order to get a good understanding of the anatomy/physiology of a person so you can understand what structures and locations you need to target.

[NoTacTravis]

I've been following this thread with a bit of interest as it represents (to me) a bit of "where the rubber meets the road", IMO. So I have a kind of "does it matter?" question...

If we're considering shooting an anatomical target as a real threat then landing hits quickly also ends up being important. An exaggerated example being that if it takes me 3 seconds to shoot the bad guy dead through the center of one of his eyes at 7 yards then I'm probably already stabbed a few times. But if I've at least shot him three times somewhere in the torso as I moved off line I might be more likely to survive the encounter?


Which almost brings us back to the FAST drill all over again as the sporting drill intended to mimic this blend of necessary speed with adequate accuracy. Except that the groups have to be tighter and tighter to hit the correct anatomical zones if I'm following correctly.


So my question for the instructors who use these in courses and see enrolled students shooting on them is that out of say 100 students moving through a class, how many are able to manage the 5 second FAST coin drill on demand (to use the arbitrary class time standard of that drill)?

Wouldn't using the anatomical target (3D or otherwise) represent kind of an advanced skill to work on after you can comfortably handle a 5 second FAST? Do we have a bunch of intermediate and beginner students trying so hard to shoot the aorta when they should just be spending all their time getting multiple center of mass hits? Or is the target more to show them how successful that FAST drill would have been on real person?

Best I can do is a BJJ analogy of teaching white belts to do flying triangles before they can hit a regular triangle while rolling with some regularity.

Am I way off with my thinking here? Are a high percentage of the students using these anatomical targets in classes ending up pulling off these anatomical 3D shots in the required timeframe at the end of the class or in their practice in the ensuing months?

I'm envisioning 4 or 5 guys out of 100 being able to pull this off and 50 or 60 tactical handgun snipers landing CNS shots in slow fire that never break a 6 second FAST in their shooting career. I'm assuming I'm way off here though so I'm lining out my thinking to be set straight.

Thanks for any replies. Hope I worded that right.