View Full Version : What qualification target do you use?
I use lots of different targets depending on what skill I'm working on (or teaching).
On the cheap, it's hard to beat 3x5 cards and paper plates.
WA State BLEA target. Can find them at LE Targets.
DANGER CLOSE
11-11-08, 04:27
work: transtar ii
personal shooting: usmc srq / idpa
i like the srq because even though it is the military 'e' target shape, the actual print of the bad dude is a bit slimmer than the outline. i very much like how the zones are not visible from a distance. it has head, chest, and pelvic zones. i like the idpa targets to practice with too. mainly because it is plain cardboard. i dont like the transtar for work because i think it is a big target.
oh yeah, +1 letargets.com
CSAT target, or the DOE TQ-15, usually a reduced size.
Howes target, is basically a IPSC target, with only the a zone defined, and as Howe grades it either in the a zone or its a miss, It also has 3 1" squares for zeroing.
The DOE is what I qual on at work, the reduced size one make it a little more difficult, so when I get to work, the 50mtr doesn't look so bad. Its also not to bad of a target.
Bob
John Frazer
11-11-08, 12:16
For testing myself against various standards, whatever the author of the standard or COF prescribes. Most often IPSC targets (but always trying for the top half of the A zone).
For precision shooting, business cards from before my last promotion.
For working on speed (or the occasional Farnam drill), 8.5"x11" copy paper from failed print jobs, or from outlines from law school exams that I never, ever have to take again. :)
If I forget the IPSC targets, I'll tear the copy paper in half over the edge of the range bench to get a reasonable approximation of an A-zone.
We use many targets for various training however for Qualifications we have 1 target that we use for my division, for pistol, rifle and shotgun.
When I re-wrote the quals for my division 1 year ago I also changed the qual target, we used to run the FBI-Q. For the new qual I looked over just about every target out there. It was narrowed down to a few but I chose the USMC-SRQ. Downfalls to the B27 types is that by design of the targets mass and X location, it forces the shooter to make shots that are not high center mass and basically gut shots. The Q target is similar but the main drawback was an unrealistic type of target. Current trends in legal settings, it is good to have anatomically correct shaped targets but photo-realistic targets may be too much to show juries or the courts.
Therefore I chose the USMC-SRQ. By design of the target it naturally forces the shooter to shoot high center mass as the largest portion of the target is just below the shoulder girdle line, or upper center mass. The target also delineates good sized areas for combat effective hits in the upper center mass, head and pelvic regions. However these lines of delineation are very subdued and cannot be seen once you hit about 15-20 yards. The target has a good semblance of a human torso but is not photo-realistic.
The targets has worked exactly as we had hoped, re-inforcing shooters to attempt to make upper center mass hits.
USMC SRQ
http://www.letargets.com/images/usmc-srq.jpg
Erick Gelhaus
11-11-08, 13:14
We use the standard IPSC target at work. For now, we still score anything inside the A, B and C zones as a hit and anything in the D or edge as a miss.
sigh ... Maybe, someday, we'll get that shrunk down in size a fair amount.
Failure2Stop
11-11-08, 14:00
Danger Close, Surf, and whoever else is using the USMC SRQ-
I had some input on the target and am glad to hear that you like it.
All-
While I think it is a good target, it isn't perfect. It was designed to fit onto the unwieldy and unrealistic E-silhouette.
I don't like the pelvic girdle, but it was put on at the time due to mis-information about the effectiveness of pelvic shots. However, you don't have to shoot it there anyway.
The target was designed as a "transitional" target- moving the shooter from bullseye/COM shooting to upper torso/T-Box to encourage the shooter to successfully engage photo-realistic, 3-D, and live targets with solid upper torso/CNS hits when under stress.
Facial features were included for a number of reasons, foremost to give the shooter reference points and images that would be present at close range. The torso area was left vague to force the shooter to simply reference "high in the chest, between the shoulders" to achieve reward, which stops the shooter from being able to reference an artificial aim-point to achiece "combat" effectiveness. There was a conscious choice to place a human face on an otherwise bland target, and was to reinforce to the shooter exactly what it is that they will be expected to shoot in their duty.
In my experience, transitioning the shooter immediately from the SRQ to 3-D and live (simunition) targets results in acceptable shot placement to increase the probability of rapid incapacitation or CNS destruction.
I personally like to work with index cards and paper plates of varying sizes for most of my personal training. If you can consistently hit a 3X5 index card at good speed, it's almost easy to hit the A-Zone of a USPSA at speed.
There are as many different targets as there are reasons to use them- be sure to match the target to the skill to be improved.
Cheers
-F2S
DANGER CLOSE
11-11-08, 15:12
wow, you guys got all technical and stuff. i am just a dumb grunt shooter. just kidding. another target that i really want to try is the action target 3d cardboard target. does anyone have any experience with this one? sorry about the thread jacking.
I use lots of different targets depending on what skill I'm working on (or teaching). On the cheap, it's hard to beat 3x5 cards and paper plates.
Same here.
Required quals use a B21 variant.
I like and use several variants of the IALEFI Q target as well.
For working on the cheap, add a ream of colored copier paper, sheets cut in half (or to other size). Use/combine as needed.
Danger Close, Surf, and whoever else is using the USMC SRQ-
I had some input on the target and am glad to hear that you like it.
All-
While I think it is a good target, it isn't perfect. It was designed to fit onto the unwieldy and unrealistic E-silhouette.
I don't like the pelvic girdle, but it was put on at the time due to mis-information about the effectiveness of pelvic shots. However, you don't have to shoot it there anyway.We are less concerned about the pelvic markings but do often run body armor drills, but in reality the pelvic marking is not a big deal. While not really needed it doesn't detract from the target. We do not put them on the E-target backers and if I had one comment, I wish I could get them in a full size paper and not cutout to match the silhouette, but that is a minor issue.
As mentioned, it does a fine job of forcing the shooter, in the high center. By leaving off the arms it makes a shooter naturally go towards the largest target of opportunity, which happens to correctly be high center. Our departmental quals use that fat (unrealistic blue man target) with various lighter shades as you work in. This target also suffers the same issues as the B21's. Shooters are looking at the center ring which is more in the lines of a gut shot.
Also we have found, that while we heavily use photo-realisitc targets for training, we or I did not want to use a photo-realistic target for quals. I have had to testify as both a defendant and as an instructor / trainer. IMO a target should, for legal and practical reasons, resemble what we are shooting, however I have found that Corp counsel, courts and jurors seem to have a bad reaction to the photo-realistic targets. A little to real or connective for them. Kinda like we are out there just training to kill people.
Anyway, good job on the target.
lso we have found, that while we heavily use photo-realisitc targets for training, we or I did not want to use a photo-realistic target for quals. I have had to testify as both a defendant and as an instructor / trainer. IMO a target should, for legal and practical reasons, resemble what we are shooting, however I have found that Corp counsel, courts and jurors seem to have a bad reaction to the photo-realistic targets. A little to real or connective for them. Kinda like we are out there just training to kill people.
Where there's resistance to photo-realistic targets, I advocate hanging an old tee shirt. This conceals most hits and keeps hole-chasing to a minimum, as well as adding a measure realism, albeit more politically correct.
There are a lot of crappy targets the agencies inexplicably use.
Paper plates and index cards are a useful cheap alternative. 6" steel plates are also nice.
One of the better commercial targets is the Oakland PD, although only use the black and gray sections for scoring: http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=BT5-OCPD
The Alameda target also is good, but only score the central zone as a hit: http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=ACSO-99
The central zone on the CSAT is reasonable, as well: http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=CSAT
As long as you only use the light grey inner portion for scoring, this is a decent target: http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=VSRT
Where there's resistance to photo-realistic targets, I advocate hanging an old tee shirt. This conceals most hits and keeps hole-chasing to a minimum, as well as adding a measure realism, albeit more politically correct.The only issue with photo realistic targets is from the perception of the civilians that may have to look at them in some type of a legal setting, not due to a training issue for the men. Yes we have been inclined to use T shirts etc. We like to do this on our 3D torso on our wheeled mover.
In reality, there will never be one target for everyone.
Our bottom line was, we wanted in a "qualification target", that when you look at the target, it is a definite representation of a human with features, to give a good replication during training. We also wanted the target to help re-inforce good shooting habits with high center mass hits. The USMC SRQ accomplishes these goals very well, especially the high center. Due to the targets shape, anyone who shoots this target will almost always adjust their point of aim to this area, re-inforcing good skills.
The other thing we did not want is too realistic of a target like a photo-realistic target. The courts want realism in training, but from experience, too much realism like a photo realistic target does not get good reactions from legal advisors or the courts / juries.
In any event, training can be as varied and different and is limited only to safety and imagination. So IMO a wide variety of targets etc, can and should be incorporated. But for Qual purposes, we use the SRQ.
For working on the cheap, add a ream of colored copier paper, sheets cut in half (or to other size). Use/combine as needed.
For those willing to spend a little bit more on targets, you can get 5x8 cards made from the same stock as 3x5 cards. They are almost exactly the same size as half a sheet of paper (which is 5.5x8.5) and they don't tear as easily. Makes it easier to count your hits. :cool:
However, it's a fairly small target and not necessarily ideal for building speed, especially if there is no way to identify where your misses are landing.
edited to add:
Where there's resistance to photo-realistic targets, I advocate hanging an old tee shirt. This conceals most hits and keeps hole-chasing to a minimum, as well as adding a measure realism, albeit more politically correct.
I've got to disagree with this one. It's a personal pet peeve of mine that you see a lot in IDPA matches, and while it's well intentioned I think it can be counter-productive. If the target isn't reactive (i.e., if it doesn't fall down) then hiding where the bullets strike is hurting the shooter more than helping him. Without the ability to perform some sort of immediate assessment of the shots' placement (and "effectiveness") we just program in dangerous habits about assuming BGs will stop with a few rounds fired in their direction.
I'm all for t-shirts and similar realistic adornment for reactive targets.
citizensoldier16
11-12-08, 13:12
I've got to disagree with this one. It's a personal pet peeve of mine that you see a lot in IDPA matches, and while it's well intentioned I think it can be counter-productive. If the target isn't reactive (i.e., if it doesn't fall down) then hiding where the bullets strike is hurting the shooter more than helping him. Without the ability to perform some sort of immediate assessment of the shots' placement (and "effectiveness") we just program in dangerous habits about assuming BGs will stop with a few rounds fired in their direction.
I'm all for t-shirts and similar realistic adornment for reactive targets.
I respectfully disagree. As an avid IDPA competitor, I've seen this done plenty of times on standard IDPA targets. It adds a bit of realism, but more importantly, it forces the shooter to aim for "center-mass" and not just the -0 ring.
I understand what it tries to accomplish, and it is very popular at IDPA matches. But if you talk to people with a lot of "tactical" training or background, in my experience most of them see it as a feel-good approach to add realism and little more. As I said, the major issue is that you've got a target that doesn't react to being hit and you can't assess your hits. Those two things, combined, actually reduce realism rather than increase it.
In an IDPA match, you're shooting two at everything (or whatever the course of fire calls for). So yeah, it's fine to throw two rounds at the t-shirt and be done.
Like many other range exercises, the utility of the tee shirt (or similarly obscured target) depends on how it is used and explained.
Conventional "qualification"....square range assessment of basic proficiency within an established standard...simulates short engagements of predetermined round count, testing a specific aspect of skill level. Within that context, denying the shooter the ability to assess impacts keeps them focused on the threat as a whole, rather than fixating on individual holes. It also helps to isolate each event (distance/stage/exercise) from the others, so that one is not contemplating a score for the 25yd stage while they're shooting at the 15-10-5.
It is also instructive in deploying to target zones without the benefit of artificial delineation (scoring area), as they would do in the real world. Now, in the real world the target would be running/bobbing/etc, but it's a step in the right direction.
Imperfect, but not without utility.
I'd agree that reactive targets are indeed ideal. Most don't have them.
Where the activity is training or other non-Q exercises, I'd think the tee-covered targeted would indeed be counterproductive for most things.
Where the activity is training or other non-Q exercises, I'd think the tee-covered targeted would indeed be counterproductive for most things.
I think you and I are on the exact same page, dude.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.