JCN critiques cardboard targets

[JCN]

...when did Alpha Sierra get unbanned and change his name?

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

[Erick Gelhaus]

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”.

Both Bill & Louis definitely did it. I seem to recall Randy talking about it but we only worked together once, twice. I try to include it doing to on the range discussions about shot placement - by interjecting anatomical considerations while turning and showing different angles.

@John Hearne has a pretty solid class on this that'd be worth peoples' time.

Again, @JCN, I look forward to seeing what you bring to the market.

[JCN]

Both Bill & Louis definitely did it. I seem to recall Randy talking about it but we only worked together once, twice. I try to include it doing to on the range discussions about shot placement - by interjecting anatomical considerations while turning and showing different angles.

@John Hearne has a pretty solid class on this that'd be worth peoples' time.

Again, @JCN, I look forward to seeing what you bring to the market.

I guess people have different perspectives and motivation.

I think the original target isn't a good one with respect to the B-zone placement. If you're on the upper edge of that zone, you can get "good hits" and not hit anything vital the way it's drawn.

It's not rocket surgery to flip the B-zone circle to the lower part of the C-zone and is objectively a more anatomic location if you're going for upper heart / great vessels.

If I don't print targets, does that make the target in question less wrong?

People are saying they want to target the upper heart and great vessels. Sure, I'll buy that.
But the B-zone is still too high and optimally would be either extending towards the bottom of their C or moved lower.

But with regard to products on the market, I linked the 3D Birchwood Casey cardboard targets that when shipping is accounted for are only ~$0.50 more than the ShootSteel ones.

So that's my productive contribution.

The ShootSteel target isn't good IMHO from an anatomical perspective. It could be made better with a flip of the B-zone circle. I did give that feedback to the company.

And I showed an alternate target that would be better from a training standpoint at nominal extra cost.

You guys know that a number of students will take your word as gospel. I'd want my word to be as close to truth and accurate as possible, personally.

[Caballoflaco]

Riddle me this: Why NOT insist or endorse a better product or just acknowledge it's just a cartoon that loosely represents a humanoid rather than trying to tout it as "anatomical?"

"Just because we've always done it this way" doesn't mean it couldn't be done better.
The minute you don't believe that is the minute you stop learning and growing.

If you had been in the shooting world a little while longer you would know that the lower target area you’re advocating (and sometimes even a bit lower) was basically the standard up until about a decade ago.

There might be a reason it was changed.

[JCN]

If you had been in the shooting world a little while longer you would know that the lower target area you’re advocating (and sometimes even a bit lower) was basically the standard up until about a decade ago.

There might be a reason it was changed.

I asked and got the feedback that the heart isn’t the intended target, the top of the heart and meat of the great vessels are.

By that standard and by that description that upper zone on the target is too high if you look at the anatomy.

I asked what structures they’re trying to hit in a perfect world and then posted how the anatomy doesn’t line up on that target.

So let me ask YOU. Are you intentionally aiming so that a good 1-2” of the B zone circle hits nothing of value?

See below:

I would vertically elongate the B zone so your conclusion of a classic target's A zone shape seems spot on.

The B zone in that target doesn’t represent what you’re trying to hit anatomically.

[JCN]

This is why we lose SME’s.

Don’t you consider YVK an SME on anatomy?
Did you see my quote just above. He wouldn’t have picked that B-zone dimension either from an anatomical perspective.

Sorry if it cheeses people off, but if an instructor insists that target is “anatomical” and I ask what structures is he actually aiming for and I point out with images that the target doesn’t correlate with what he thinks it does...

Don’t feed me a bag of shit and tell me it should taste good.

[LittleLebowski]

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.

Show me the moderation again? You’re fine, within the COC.

[John Hearne]

Riddle me this: Why NOT insist or endorse a better product or just acknowledge it's just a cartoon that loosely represents a humanoid rather than trying to tout it as "anatomical?"

The vast majority of firearms training is done on a B-27, a Transtar, or FBI Q. Compared to those common options, the shoot steel is anatomical.

Also, a seldom considered purpose of a target is to calibrate your sight/trigger use needed for acceptable accuracy. The use of the sights and trigger at a level sufficient to hit the circle and keep everything else in the box is reflective of shooting an anatomically correct target.

[YVK]

The B zone in that target doesn’t represent what you’re trying to hit anatomically.

Good. I was responding while getting ready to run to work to dig inside someone's heart so I wasn't paying too careful of an attention. As already mentioned, more or less 4-6 inch wide vertical zone over the sternum would be my choice.

[JCN]

The vast majority of firearms training is done on a B-27, a Transtar, or FBI Q. Compared to those common options, the shoot steel is anatomical.

Also, a seldom considered purpose of a target is to calibrate your sight/trigger use needed for acceptable accuracy. The use of the sights and trigger at a level sufficient to hit the circle and keep everything else in the box is reflective of shooting an anatomically correct target.

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:

My favorite cardboard training target is back in production and available again. This target has anatomically correct scoring areas, a neck, and a more humanoid head. It is far superior to IDPA/USPSA cardboard targets.

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

Good. I was responding while getting ready to run to work to dig inside someone's heart so I wasn't paying too careful of an attention. As already mentioned, more or less 4-6 inch wide vertical zone over the sternum would be my choice.

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?