JCN critiques cardboard targets

[YVK]

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

I would have to find out how they specifically superimpose on mediastinal structures. I presume it is somewhere in this thread, but I've no time right now.

[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.

I agree with you. And to that end, I don’t see the significant advantage of the ShootSteel over a standard IPSC.

The strength of a USPSA / IPSC target isn’t in the target itself, but in the large database of standards available for classifiers on those targets. It’s pretty clear what kind of draw and index you need for each level of achievement and any particular distance.

That’s why I was surprised that just a little anatomy addition like neck and ears added so much to training supposedly.

And that’s my inner asshole’s curiosity that makes me probe that.

From what I see, most students can’t call their shots and don’t have the trigger skill to have smaller / faster targets matter. It’s like that famous Rob Leatham video “why aiming is useless.”

I’d say that’s also why more anatomy on targets for these classes seem like it would be useless for the normal student but if instructors are wanting that feature, I want to know why.

Like Travis said, if the class is all white and yellow belts... is there really a point to purple belt nuances?

With shot calling it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a photo on paper or a rubber dummy or an IPSC target or a bottlecap. I look where I want the bullet to go and press the trigger. Without that ability, more precise aiming for more classes seems like a waste but I don’t know what I don’t know and want to learn why that’s not the case.

So while it looks like I’m advocating for more detailed targets, I’m actually not. I am extending the contrary hypothesis to see if it holds water.

[JCN]

@YVK

Links here (unless you were taking about lateral view, which I can overlay if that’s helpful)

Okay, as best as I can overlay and scale, this is where the B-zone on the target corresponds to with regards to great vessels and heart as the target is currently designed.
Attachment 67403

I was thinking that the circle was trying to represent heart, but if the circle represents the mass of great vessels it still seems high (but close).

Can you guys confirm that anatomically, THIS is the area you're actually targeting?

Attachment 67404

Is this worse of an area to target? Because I'd think that's where you'd be optimally aiming. In which case the B should be closer to the middle or bottom of their C zone rather than upper.

Attachment 67405

The initial premise was that the anatomy of these targets are significantly better than an IPSC or IDPA target.

But IPSC A-zone still seems pretty good.

Attachment 67406

And so does an IDPA target.

Attachment 67407



Probably the most anatomic A-zone (it seems to me) would be the IPSC classic A-zone.

Attachment 67408

I think if the target in question changed their B/C zones to an IPSC classic shape it would be more accurate.

Attachment 67409

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

It's my understanding the FAST was not designed as a tactical test but as a test of mastery of fundamentals (which may explain why it's shot opposite of a failure to stop drill), and I would also point out that the heavy emphasis on reloads make it not really relevant to what's under discussion.

[M1Garand]

I am in line with the post by NoTacTravis. I am no expert and have not seen everything so I may have missed it but I have yet to see a live threat with score lines. Is not the purpose of a target confirm we are hitting where we aim? Regardless of whether the controlled pair is above or below the diaphragm if the threat continues it's time to aim elsewhere. Has anyone with better equipment than me plotted the shots in the Maryland shooting video?

[John Hearne]

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.

They don't as the standards are long established.

If you look at their work post 9/11, the guys at Delta have stacked the bad guys like cordwood. What were their standards? First it was the black of a B-8 bullseye which has 21.6 sq in of scoring area. If you look at the history of "The Test" you find it was one of the original pistol quals for that unit.

More recent alumni, notably Kyle Lamb, Chuck Pressburg, Paul Howe, and others I'm forgetting, have clearly stated that HALF of the USPSA A zone is all that matters. This is a target that offers 36 sq in of scoring area. Now, are they talking about the top half or the bottom half of the target? What does all of their real world experience tell them to pick? If only someone from that unit had a target that showed a preference.

If only....

[NoTacTravis]

It's my understanding the FAST was not designed as a tactical test but as a test of mastery of fundamentals (which may explain why it's shot opposite of a failure to stop drill), and I would also point out that the heavy emphasis on reloads make it not really relevant to what's under discussion.

I hadn’t considered the reload aspect making it a poorer corollary. Thank you!

[JCN]

It's my understanding the FAST was not designed as a tactical test but as a test of mastery of fundamentals (which may explain why it's shot opposite of a failure to stop drill), and I would also point out that the heavy emphasis on reloads make it not really relevant to what's under discussion.

I would agree with this. In general, the more standardized the test, the less “real life” it becomes.
You can embrace the game and work on classifiers for a sport like USPSA.

In terms of proficiency skill drills that have broader application, my current favorite self defense type drill is Finding Your Level at Level 4. It requires a concealed draw, challenging par times and different target size versus cadence allowing you to internalize speed versus accuracy requirements at a high level.

The only thing it’s missing is transitions. Triple Nickel and FAM old qualification both have transitions with stringent par times and accuracy standards.

[John Hearne]

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.

Or you could clearly state your pre-requisites and offer a class that teaches people to shoot under an atypical square range cognitive load and use tactical anatomy to do it.

If only....
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....ehall-AR-07-31

[JCN]

More recent alumni, notably Kyle Lamb, Chuck Pressburg, Paul Howe, and others I'm forgetting, have clearly stated that HALF of the USPSA A zone is all that matters. This is a target that offers 36 sq in of scoring area. Now, are they talking about the top half or the bottom half of the target? What does all of their real world experience tell them to pick? If only someone from that unit had a target that showed a preference.

If only....

I love that target:

Three shots to that upper A zone from a draw in under 1 sec.



I don’t have a problem with that half of the A zone as it’s drawn / scaled on that target because the lower half of that A is in the abdomen.