The most Evil IPSC traget array to date

Texas Star

Slavex said:
Here's what I got on the whole TS thing.

Regarding the Texas star:

The target violates items 5 and 6 of the IPSC Constitution.

5.Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect
the general size and shape of such objects as the firearm used may
reasonably be called upon to hit in their primary intended use.

6.The challenge presented in practical competition must be realistic.
Courses of Fire must follow a practical rationale, and simulate sensible
hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used.


so no wonder we couldn't get into the Olympics if our constitution is worded like that.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Texas Star doesn't violate point # 5 above at all.

The Texas Star is nothing more than an array, just like a plate rack. The actual targets, plates in this case, are within the rules as per Appendix C. It's just the array they don't like.
 
Matchlock said:
Actually, the Texas Star doesn't violate point # 5 above at all.

The Texas Star is nothing more than an array, just like a plate rack. The actual targets, plates in this case, are within the rules as per Appendix C. It's just the array they don't like.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's the array per se, but the fact that it moves as it does that is of concern to the powers that be. You are probably free to use a Texas Star as long as the axle is fixed and cannot rotate.
 
So long as this is the law of the land, Sean can you request from IPSC a clear statement of what exactly it is that they do not want us using as targets and props in a broader sense? I'm looking for something more accurate and descriptive than "carnival props are prohibitted". Or, is this a case of "I can't describe it but I'll know when I see it" that the rest of us have to just guess at?
 
I believe that arguments around the Texas Star centered around it not being consistent; it did not present the same challenge for every shooter. You've all seen the unlucky shooter who hits the plates at exactly the wrong time, and has the star whip around at a speed that was quite different from everybody else. If the star was motorized to always move at the same speed, I'm sure you would see that target array approved.

I'm not quoting anybody, or saying that this is the reason for outlawing the Texas Star, but I do seem to recall some similar arguments being bandied about at one point.
 
Slavex said:
Here's what I got on the whole TS thing.

Regarding the Texas star:

The target violates items 5 and 6 of the IPSC Constitution.

5.Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect
the general size and shape of such objects as the firearm used may
reasonably be called upon to hit in their primary intended use.

6.The challenge presented in practical competition must be realistic.
Courses of Fire must follow a practical rationale, and simulate sensible
hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used.


so no wonder we couldn't get into the Olympics if our constitution is worded like that.
Click to expand...

So lets see...clam shells, swingers, spinners, port doors, 90 degree rule, equipment behind hip bone rule, ear defender rule from the last thread... and you could go on ad nauseum.
As most agree, the P in IPSC hardly stands for practical.
I suspect some are getting their nose out of joint because these stars can be extremely tough (albeit fun) to shoot, and maybe fear that alot more will show up at shoots, turning the sport/game from impractical to impossible.
 
beltfed said:
So lets see...clam shells, swingers, spinners, port doors, 90 degree rule, equipment behind hip bone rule, ear defender rule from the last thread... and you could go on ad nauseum.
As most agree, the P in IPSC hardly stands for practical.
I suspect some are getting their nose out of joint because these stars can be extremely tough (albeit fun) to shoot, and maybe fear that alot more will show up at shoots, turning the sport/game from impractical to impossible.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing.

Courses of Fire must follow a practical rationale, and simulate sensible hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used.
Click to expand...
Because everyone carries 6 spare mags on themselves and race holsters in sensible hypothetical situations. Of course, running down a line shooting double taps at targets ASAP is a sensible hypothetical situation as well.
 
I think the recent posts (and thank you Slavex for citing the IPSC constitution) are on to something.

Item 5 has obviously been ignored for decades. Violation of this principle (and don't get me started on the Principles of Practical Shooting, or even the use of the word "Practical" which caused me to suffer a 5-year writers block on the IPSC List) has been a fact of life for at least a decade. In fact, this is the single reason why Col. Jeff Cooper (blessed be his name) gave up his title of "Honorary President For Life" ... whatever ... because Practical Pistol is no longer Practical.

Item 6 is even more telling.

The phrase "... simulate sensible hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used" is anethema to IPSC. IPSC, or more properly IPSC Management, downgraded the original 'Metric' target because it was not politically correct. IPSC wanted to water down the sport so it would be a 'demonstration event' in the Olympics, with the result that the IOC (International Olympics Committee) released a public statement that they would NEVER allow IPSC competition, in any form, to be included because it is obviously ... well, they didn't actually use the word "practical" but that was the sense of it.

Thus the folks who are the public face of IPSC have established the 'goodness' of being NOT about shooting targets which look like people.

Yet now that a target is presented which moves as far away from 'human shaped targets' as is possible, these same good folks are outraged because it does not "... simulate sensible hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used"?

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't get it. I would hope for a little more consistency.

And above all, if something is to be disallowed, I would expect the disallowers to cite the pre-existing rule, principle, policy or constitutional line-item which is the basis for the disapproval. So far, this hasn't happened even though the question was originally raised on the IPSC World Forum over a year ago.

We shouldn't have to guess.

I know, I'm verging upon being political here, and I apologise. But there is one more point.

MrFritz (#64) included the phrase

request from IPSC a clear statement of what exactly it is that they do not want us using as targets and props in a broader sense
Click to expand...

Who's running this show? This is an amateur sport. It's supported entirely by membership fees and sponsorships. I always thought the question should be what we want, not what "they do not want".

Am I that wrong?
 
I agree with you 100% Jerry, 100%. this line "simulate sensible hypothetical situations in which firearms might reasonably be used" is so ridiculous as to not even be funny. (and Sean don't take this as an attack on you, it's not). here we have a sport where we are using amoebas for targets, not allowed to call the white targets "No Shoots" (or are we now, again?), the entire idea of designing stages that simulate anything real is discouraged, and then we get the above quote, that attempts to skirt the actual application they are talking about? Please, next time at least give me some lube.
the Texas Star is fair in that good shooters will likely shoot it well, bad shooters won't. It's no more punishing than targets that move and hide, almost completely hidden behind a, ahem, Penalty Target, if you don't hit them when they are in the open. Those targets in fact penalize bad, slow shooters worse than the fastest spinning Texas Star in my opinion, and don't reasonably simulate anything we might encounter. Why? BECAUSE THEY AREN'T SHOOTING BACK, for one thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom