Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Cardboard Target Comparison: 3D vs. Shoot Steel vs. USPSA vs. IDPA

  1. #1

    Cardboard Target Comparison: 3D vs. Shoot Steel vs. USPSA vs. IDPA

    Target Type Comparison.pdf


    The purpose of this exercise is to see how well popular cardboard targets actually compare anatomically to the human body.

    Did some cardboard target comparing today against an anatomically correct reference target, and made some notes.

    Would like some feedback on what I may be missing or not considering.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluemonday View Post
    Target Type Comparison.pdf


    The purpose of this exercise is to see how well popular cardboard targets actually compare anatomically to the human body.

    Did some cardboard target comparing today against an anatomically correct reference target, and made some notes.

    Would like some feedback on what I may be missing or not considering.

    Thanks in advance.
    Consideration: USPSA and the IPSC turtle targets are supposed to look less like humans to not freak out casual observers, media and anti-2A.

    To the point where in some countries they’re only allowed non-humanoid targets and fatigues / military type clothes are prohibited.

    USPSA target engagement is not realistic unless you’re a crazy active shooter gunning down defenseless victims. They’re unarmed, don’t know you’re coming, but you’re trying to inflict as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time.

    Consideration: most people can’t hit what they’re aiming at with much speed, so it doesn’t matter so much if it’s anatomically correct. What matters is that you train to hit what you aim at, and quickly.
    Currently I’m still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    Consideration: USPSA and the IPSC turtle targets are supposed to look less like humans to not freak out casual observers, media and anti-2A.

    To the point where in some countries they’re only allowed non-humanoid targets and fatigues / military type clothes are prohibited.
    Excellent point.

    USPSA target engagement is not realistic unless you’re a crazy active shooter gunning down defenseless victims. They’re unarmed, don’t know you’re coming, but you’re trying to inflict as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time.
    Agree.

    Consideration: most people can’t hit what they’re aiming at with much speed, so it doesn’t matter so much if it’s anatomically correct. What matters is that you train to hit what you aim at, and quickly.
    Right but I'm talking about people who train seriously for self defense and having a target that is more anatomically correct does aide in building good habits on the live fire range in preparation for Force on Force.

  4. #4
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluemonday View Post
    Right but I'm talking about people who train seriously for self defense and having a target that is more anatomically correct does aide in building good habits on the live fire range in preparation for Force on Force.
    Have you seen the Birchwood Casey 3D ones? They’re pretty cheap.



    3D I think is good if they’re moving perimeter or circles while engaging.

    Otherwise paper might have more detail.

    Like the VTAC or even the Sage Dynamics printable tacked to a backer.
    Currently I’m still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by JCN View Post
    Have you seen the Birchwood Casey 3D ones? They’re pretty cheap.

    3D I think is good if they’re moving perimeter or circles while engaging.

    Otherwise paper might have more detail.

    Like the VTAC or even the Sage Dynamics printable tacked to a backer.
    I have and they are good. We've also used others like P3DT and the one you saw in my PDF from RU.

    For this post, I was really just more interested in 2D cardboard targets and how they line up with the body.

  6. #6
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluemonday View Post
    For this post, I was really just more interested in 2D cardboard targets and how they line up with the body.
    I guess, but gaming appliances aren’t really meant to be anatomic and if that’s the goal, use printed enhancement if anatomy really helps this drill.

    Name:  ED928D09-45BD-4759-B127-AD60008FD58C.jpg
Views: 179
Size:  26.4 KB

    Name:  FB6501AD-64D9-40F0-9442-520A857116B0.jpg
Views: 171
Size:  21.6 KB

    If you require more anatomy, use more anatomy.

    If you require scoring zones for training that happen to have a humanoid inspired silhouette, then fine.

    But it’s kind of a weird mismatch to limit to cardboard while comparing against something 3D when you could augment your cardboard with $0.02 of copy paper as above.
    Currently I’m still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  7. #7
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    “Lack of a neck or human shaped head impedes more realistic training.“

    This I think is an opinion and not a fact.

    And I would disagree with it as well.

    What if your attacker is wearing a hoodie and sunglasses? Are you now not going to be able to engage because you can’t see the head outline, neck or ears clearly?

    Or what if they have long flowing hair and you can’t see ears or neck.

    Would it make a lick of difference?

    Or are you going to cue in off midline axis regardless of what features are or aren’t there….

    That’s the point.

    If you think you need anatomic fidelity, go full hog and print it.

    That’s different than marksmanship training which is what the scoring zones are designed for.
    Currently I’m still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  8. #8
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Most people regardless of what the targets are, have a hard time with their mechanics.

    So working on that on a human inspired target is good. Circles and the like.

    If you want human facsimile, because of fidelity requirement… use pictures.



    But caring if plain cardboard is anatomic or not misses the point of the exercise.

    If you can pick a specific spot in a sea of brown (and actually hit what you’re aiming at), you can pick a spot on a plain black T-shirt.
    Currently I’m still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

  9. #9
    Deadeye Dick Clusterfrack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wokelandia
    3D dynamic shooting problems are challenging, and there are a number of ways to train for that sort of thing.

    A while ago @Mr_White set up USPSA metric targets with D zone sides folded to give them some thickness. If I recall, there were also close and distant “3D” non-threat targets. The drill involved engaging the threat while moving to cover. It was a very fun and challenging drill that could be shot a bunch of different ways.
    "You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
    "You don’t really graduate from certain problems or certain things… like you always have to work on trigger control and pulling the trigger straight. " --Ben Stoeger 1/24/2018

  10. #10
    Oh Dremel, Dremel, Dremel JCN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    3D dynamic shooting problems are challenging, and there are a number of ways to train for that sort of thing.

    A while ago @Mr_White set up USPSA metric targets with D zone sides folded to give them some thickness. If I recall, there were also close and distant “3D” non-threat targets. The drill involved engaging the threat while moving to cover. It was a very fun and challenging drill that could be shot a bunch of different ways.

    Name:  A97E19AA-840D-4E9C-B4CA-B399A8B56D37.png
Views: 174
Size:  53.8 KB

    I have one of the heavy rubber dummies too.

    But if committed enough, these are only $65

    Name:  588DB3AD-967D-4B9C-8D96-4E498720B1E8.jpg
Views: 163
Size:  26.2 KB
    Currently I’m still within the acceptable dickhead parameter of PF 2017+.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •