JCN critiques cardboard targets

[JCN]

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

OH!

I love that! Thanks for the link. I’ll see if I can get a pass from the wife to go!

[John Hearne]

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)?

Open enrollment expectations vary. A state mandated CCW course is open enrollment and practically nobody will do it. A two-day combative pistol class will have a few solid shooters in it. Out of 100 such students, I'd guess 5-7 can pull off a sub-5 second FAST.

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?

No absolutely not. One of my pet peeves is labeling foundations skills as "advanced," ignoring them until later in a students development, and then watching them struggle to adjust to material that should be second nature. I'm running a similar class and my recommended minimum skill is the ability to hit an 8" circle from concealment in less than 2 seconds. Being able to put 5 rounds in a 5" circle at 5 yards from concealment is better but not required. Obviously, the better shooters will find the class easier but even someone who can only safely run their pistol will get a lot out of the class. Most importantly, it will show them what realistic standards are and how they'll need to work to get there.

Again, one of the under appreciated functions of a target is to calibrate the shooter's use of the trigger/sights to ensure hits. If you spend you're shooting career banging full size steel silhouettes, it will really suck when you have to display the sights/trigger/recoil control needed to hit a realistic target.

[WobblyPossum]

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.

I agree with your point for the most part. Building a solid grasp of the fundamentals of shooting, such as being able to call your shots, should be prioritized before worrying about the nuances of whether your chosen target is realistic enough.

I think that those known standards you referenced when talking about the strength of USPSA targets could be scaled to whatever size your target zone ends up being. The thing about those standards is that the USPSA A zone encompasses things that are good hits (the upper half) and things that aren’t (the lower half). While any hit in that A zone is scored the same for the purposes of the drills or skills tests, since were talking about superimposing these targets into human anatomy, not all of those hits are worth the same when trying to stop a human assailant. Hits in the top half of that lower A zone would be worth a lot more than hits in the bottom half of the lower A zone. A shot to the guts isn’t as physiologically as effective as a shot to the heart/lung/major vessels we’ve been discussing. The standards, as established, don’t account for that. For the purposes of scoring a Bill Drill or El Prez, all hits to the A zone count the same. For the purposes of making someone stop endangering your life, they absolutely don’t.

[JCN]

I agree with your point for the most part. Building a solid grasp of the fundamentals of shooting, such as being able to call your shots, should be prioritized before worrying about the nuances of whether your chosen target is realistic enough.

I think that those known standards you referenced when talking about the strength of USPSA targets could be scaled to whatever size your target zone ends up being. The thing about those standards is that the USPSA A zone encompasses things that are good hits (the upper half) and things that aren’t (the lower half). While any hit in that A zone is scored the same for the purposes of the drills or skills tests, since were talking about superimposing these targets into human anatomy, not all of those hits are worth the same when trying to stop a human assailant. Hits in the top half of that lower A zone would be worth a lot more than hits in the bottom half of the lower A zone. A shot to the guts isn’t as physiologically as effective as a shot to the heart/lung/major vessels we’ve been discussing. The standards, as established, don’t account for that. For the purposes of scoring a Bill Drill or El Prez, all hits to the A zone count the same. For the purposes of making someone stop endangering your life, they absolutely don’t.

Yes, but a good shooter still knows how much space he/she has to work with and adjusts.

For example, there are many classifiers with partial coverage with no shoots. Often with just the lower half of the A blocked. There are also ones with just heads exposed. Add to that matches were you see targets at every kind of distance and on the move, good shooters get good at scaling their speed and abilities to the available target.

These are some well known classifiers.

[Hambo]

I think we need to train people to identify the external landmarks on the human body that correlate with critical internal structures.

Then we need to put clothing over it so you can't see the landmarks. Unless you're only training to gunfight in a nudist colony. #preciouszone

[BehindBlueI's]

Then we need to put clothing over it so you can't see the landmarks. Unless you're only training to gunfight in a nudist colony. #preciouszone

Even with clothes, identifiable landmarks exist. Arm pits and nose, for example.

[LittleLebowski]

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.

Correct.

[JCN]

Even with clothes, identifiable landmarks exist. Arm pits and nose, for example.

One of the things with USPSA targets is that you can index the chest A zone off the neck/head and extend the line downwards.

It’s kind of hard to describe, but instead of staring at the spot in the chest you’re aiming at (because it’s just a field of brown), you’re keeping the head/neck in alignment and referencing off that.

I would think that’d be reasonable for a heavy clothed individual.

Instead of staring at the button on their jacket and trying to hit that, you’d quickly assess where their axial skeleton / spine ran and aim in that general direction 5-9 inches down from the chin/neck.

[revchuck38]

One of the things with USPSA targets is that you can index the chest A zone off the neck/head and extend the line downwards.

This is true, but it's also true of just about any target with even a vaguely defined head/neck area, even a B-27.

Instead of staring at the button on their jacket and trying to hit that, you’d quickly assess where their axial skeleton / spine ran and aim in that general direction 5-9 inches down from the chin/neck.

If I ever have to do this for real, I'll be happy to hit center chest roughly at nipple/armpit level. I kinda doubt there'll be time for more precision. And since I'm still using iron sights, I won't be able to focus on a button.

[JCN]

This is true, but it's also true of just about any target with even a vaguely defined head/neck area, even a B-27.

Absolutely. It's mainly a training / marksmanship feedback thing (for me) to have straight vertical borders.

The QIT-97 is my favorite.

If I ever have to do this for real, I'll be happy to hit center chest roughly at nipple/armpit level. I kinda doubt there'll be time for more precision. And since I'm still using iron sights, I won't be able to focus on a button.

Maybe you'll be lucky enough that the criminal will be wearing this?