JCN critiques cardboard targets

[DDTSGM]

I still like the USPSA metric target with the Taran mod.

From what I saw in the videos, her precious zone definitely was not hard cover.

[JCN]

You punch through the sternum or close- there is a darn good chance that lights are going off in a few seconds. You hit a little high but still center - there is a C-spine right there. Good enough probability for me.

High thoracic hits are the best hits IMO.

I think the very top of the B zone on down to the lower border of the C zone would cover the heart and great vessels in most body habitus. Of course the target assumes that the person does not have a hard sternum nor ribs. The sternum is deceptively hard.

The B zone is located on the vertical centerline at armpit level. That represents the mass of major vessels atop the heart, including the aorta, pulmonary arteries, etc. The theory is those vessels cut or tear easily and then the heart pumps blood into the body cavity. Air goes in and out, blood goes round and round, anything else is bad.

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.


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?



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.



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.



And so does an IDPA target.

I very much look forward to seeing what you design, produce, and bring to market.

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



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

[JCN]

I ordered a bunch of these:



And these:



Note the prices are for 3-packs so the cost per target is pretty reasonable.
Shipping on those sites was also flat rate $7-10 so really wasn't bad at all.

Looks like they are cardboard and it seems like they would be a very good option for a defensive training class.
Will see if my local indoor range freaks out if I use them.

It seems like they're pretty new on the market and haven't seen a lot of reviews.

[JCN]

And, just to completely and totally beat that dead horse....

My criticism of the original target was that it was pseudo-anatomical but inaccurate.
If you're going to have a target that touts anatomical, it should be anatomical... or else you're better off with a traditional IPSC A-zone / IDPA -0 zone.

Especially when there are real anatomic targets on the market for $0.50-1.00 more.



Cardboard 3D target with IPSC classic A-zone. Looks perfect.

Here it is with great vessel and heart anatomy to correlate aiming points.



But no matter how I try and overlay it (I scaled to head size on this one), the B-zone of the "anatomic" target winds up being high.



If I were a student in a self-defense class, I think I'd want a cardboard 3D target for the cost of one 9mm round more.

[rob_s]

IMO humanoid targets in general are pretty stupid for a “fighting” point of view.

Learn to shoot. Learn to put rounds where you want them to go. Then, get a basic understanding of physiology. Learn to aim at things beyond what you can see, and without a clear visible aiming point or bullseye.

I forget if it was Bill Jeans or Louis Awerbuck (probably both, plus Randy Cain) that talked about “deep hits” and really got into the discussions regarding anatomy and physiology and learning to understand the “deep” targets that you need to hit and how to identify them “in the real world”.

If you think you are training for a gunfight with any of these flat cardboard targets, I would argue that you are mistaken (or misled. Or both).

[jlw]

Hoe about our own @jlw 's FPS-1 target?

https://firstpersonsafety.com/2018/05/09/fps-1-target/

I analyze that it costs me $0.06 each to have printed.

[Stephanie B]

All that is fine, but.... if we're talking about practicing for a self-defense situation, the RL target isn't going to be standing there with his arms by his side. Try standing in front of a mirror, go into a two-hand hold and you'll see how much stuff is in front of the chest area.

Is there a better commonly available target than the classic "thug"?

[JCN]

I kind of like this knife fighting target

[BehindBlueI's]

IMO humanoid targets in general are pretty stupid for a “fighting” point of view.

Learn to shoot. Learn to put rounds where you want them to go. Then, get a basic understanding of physiology. Learn to aim at things beyond what you can see, and without a clear visible aiming point or bullseye.

I forget if it was Bill Jeans or Louis Awerbuck (probably both, plus Randy Cain) that talked about “deep hits” and really got into the discussions regarding anatomy and physiology and learning to understand the “deep” targets that you need to hit and how to identify them “in the real world”.

If you think you are training for a gunfight with any of these flat cardboard targets, I would argue that you are mistaken (or misled. Or both).

I wanted to think about this before I weighed in, and I think I largely agree with this. I say largely, as I think a flat target with landmarks can be helpful in allowing people to visualize and make aiming more subconscious. I think it also helps people get a more realistic understanding of their ability. We do a lot of shooting at targets wearing shirts to obscure the "torso" but the shirt gives you arm pits and helps build the idea of landmarks for aiming. No target is perfect, but no training is perfect either and that's why nobody advocates just doing one type.

The full frontal squared up view is likely to be the beginning stage of the gun fight if you're the intended victim. It's much less likely to be the view as time goes on or if you're interfering in someone else's gunfight (like engaging an active shooter who's not yet aware of you).

[Lost River]

#GwynethTarget

Grin,

I still tend to read hashtags as pounds,

"PoundGwynethTarget"...