RE Factor vs VTAC Targets

[Ledanek]

RE Factor's targets


vs
VTAC's


This comment was posted in the SSD post

"Weaver says:
August 25, 2015 at 18:34
Notice how far a standard IPSC target has to be elevated to get the head box correct anatomically – and what effect this has on the rest of the body of the target

To be sure, the “vital zone” of an IPSC target is too low (adjusted for by LAV when he designed the IDPA target), but trying to correct for both leaves absurdly high shoulders."

Mr Weaver might take a while to respond to my query:

"sorry, I must have run out of caffeine, but, are you saying these targets are “off” or “too low” vs VTAC’s targets?
sorry, just trying to understand the statement.
Not trying to flame but trying to learn something here.
Thanks"

Perhaps someone else can reply here. I'm curious as to what is Mr Weaver saying. I'm trying to learn as much as possible.

Again, not trying to flame Mr Weaver's statement, merely trying to get clarity and knowledge.
Thank you.

[ggammell]

I don't know man. I'm not looking at ratios between body parts. People come in all shapes and sizes. Are you aiming at the head? The hit in the head where you need to hit. Aiming at the chest? Hit in the chest where you need to hit. I think that's probably more relevant than how high above the chest the head box is.

Overall, I think the VTAC target offers much more versatility (Smaller side targets and the back side Bulls).

[T2C]

Most of the people I have met over the years have necks. The VTAC target appears to be more in line with human anatomy.

[Failure2Stop]

The location of one target in relation to another target is irrelevant.
What is important is the visual input given for targeting and successful round placement.

ETA: the best people to qualify the reasons that they used the graphic overlay that they did, and how they use that in class is the creator and prime users.

I built my own target for classes for specific reasons, and the thought of someone criticising that target without my input would bother me a little.

[T2C]

I view this as more of a criticism of the practicality of the IPSC target than the RE Factor or VTAC targets for defensive firearm training.

[Ledanek]

Sir, for competition, the anatomy layout on both target is irrelevant? The grids and boxes are merely for points?

The anatomy is separate for MIL/LEO training then?

Basically, don't get caught up with mixing either class/teachings?

Thanks for this education.

[ST911]

Of the two, the VTAC is more proportionate. The RE Factor is off. The problem with using established scoring targets like USPSA and IDPA is that you have to adjust any additional imagery to fit. The best possible outcome is a compromise. I found it best to select imagery I like for the target, and then draw the zone on that I want to use for accountability. I keep plastic templates in my range bag for that purpose. I also like the B8 repair that many are using these days, and keep a couple of reams of them on hand. Easily made, easily managed on the line, with high accountability for hits.

All that said, I think we still get way too wrapped around the axle with target type and design. If I aimed at a spot and fired a round, it's binary: I hit, or missed.

[Ledanek]

I like that; it's binary: I hit, or I miss.

Something Dirty Harry would say...shoot, just aged myself.

[Failure2Stop]

Sir, for competition, the anatomy layout on both target is irrelevant? The grids and boxes are merely for points?

The anatomy is separate for MIL/LEO training then?

Basically, don't get caught up with mixing either class/teachings?

Thanks for this education.

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, as "sir" usually doesn't proceed conversation with me...but since you used the words "target" and "irrelevant" in close proximity, please forgive me if I was not the intended conversation recipient.

Anyway:

Not really talking about the overlay of the IPSC over a skeletal structure, but rather the location of the "head" in relation to the "body".
In gunfights, the target is rarely straight upright and stationary. They generally change orientation, direction, speed, and relative access. The primary high success probability target areas remain constant, and certain visual targeting landmarks remain the same. These landmarks really don't care if the face is exactly 6.3 inches above the clavicular notch, and nor would that information be particularly useful for the shooter.

As far as why those graphics are mingled on the target, I cannot say, as I didn't make them and don't use them, as I have a different preference for skill-building targetry.

I didn't mean to imply that classes/techniques shouldn't be mixed, simply that I don't know the whole reason (beyond immediate observation and assumption) that the targets were built that way.

[Ledanek]

Thanks for clarification.
Always good to learn more.