Texas Star

[Mt Shooter]

I was wondering what other thoughts about the texas star in uspsa. My thought is that they should do away with it. My reasoning is this, when I see a new shooter stand there and go through 4 or 5 mags at it they lose interest or feel bad about it. You may never see them again. That and I have not looked out the window and seen too many texas stars attacking. Thoughts?

[Double Naught Spy]

There is a reason why they call it "competition."

[yar]

I like the texas star as it's not a static target. It's a more challenging shooting problem which is really what uspsa/ipsc is about.

If we dumb down to what is doable by the new shooter without hurting their ego you will also risk keeping the interest of the more advanced shooter.

I really like texas stars. In So Cal you see a lot of them. We even have 6 and 7 arm star and mini plates.

Old School Star Stage (http://madtrigger.net/videos/ssa/SSA%20Steel%20ray4%2012-31-06.wmv)

[Chris Rhines]

I love Texas Stars.

I have never seen a new shooter get so frustrated by one that they gave up practical shooting. I have also never seen anyone attacked by a piece of brown cardboard on sticks, although that might make a pretty cool J-Pop horror flick.

- Chris

[mscott]

Texas stars are cool.

Some guys will burn up a whole mag on a 30 yard popper as well, but that's part of the game. Don't let the star scare you. Once you realize it is not impossible it is just another shooting challenge. If a new shooter is having trouble then maybe a more experienced shooter should help him with a little advice after the match. I hate to see new guys get frustrated, but that dificulty level is also what makes it rewarding to make a good run on a stage.

[jmorris]

The realistic argument can be made for many stages with steel or not. Many folks have problems with steel, it seems that if you miss once you try to knock it down with area saturation of lead. Of course the solution is to aim for each shot but where is the fun in that. I used to despise the Texas star so I built a few of them (one with a motor to make it spin before engaging it) and practice them until they were no longer intimidating (freestyle, strong hand & weak hand). http://s121.photobucket.com/albums/o213/jmorrismetal/?action=view&current=funstar.flv
Is a link to the latest twist to the Texas star I put together. I built another axle for the star and put a spur gear on the end. Just below that shaft is another shaft, with spur gear, that runs back 20” or so and a mount for four non-threat targets. As the star rotates the non-threats counter rotate. The strange part is I’ve never seen that many shooters clear the star without at least one miss. I guess they finally had a reason to aim.

[Lurper]

They should do away with them because they don't follow the principles upon which the sport was founded. Targets are supposed to be representative of a target which a person with a handgun may face. The Texas Star is not.
It is just another symptom of what is wrong with the sport. It has become more and more Carnival shooting and less and less practical.
I blame NORCO for it!:neener:

[yar]

Then wouldn't it be the norco star?

[1911NM]

The local group here bought a Texas Star this winter, and we had our first match using it last Saturday. Yes, some people burned a 10rd mag without clearing the star, but overall everyone got into the spirit and had a great time with it. Sure, you could call it a carnival challenge, but it sure is fun, and isn't that what we are supposed to be having out there?

[Double Naught Spy]

Targets are supposed to be representative of a target which a person with a handgun may face.

Yeah, we all know the real threats we might face with a handgun are neckless, armless, square headed genderless people with no legs and who are 2 dimensional in shape. They also tend to stand really still for the most part as match shooters go around spree shooting them, often with pistols folks aren't likely to use on threats.

http://www.uspsa.org/USPSA_Videos/index.html

[Lurper]

I don't blame NORCO for the Texas Star. I blame NORCO for the entire transition from Practical to Carnival.

It isn't a question of what is fun. It is a question of following the principles the sport was founded on. The Texas Star, the 32+ round field courses and several of the other changes made have taken the sport down the wrong path. If you read Ron Avery's article in front sight last year or the year before about "bubble gum IPSC", that pretty much sums it all up.

BTW, NORCO is credited for being one of the places that started the trend of huge assault courses and high round counts.

[SDC]

Targets are supposed to be representative of a target which a person with a handgun may face.

If you can quickly and accurately clear a Texas Star, I'm sure that you would have very little trouble shooting fast and accurately enough to protect yourself in a "real-life" incident.

[Hoser]

They should do away with them because they don't follow the principles upon which the sport was founded. Targets are supposed to be representative of a target which a person with a handgun may face. The Texas Star is not.
It is just another symptom of what is wrong with the sport. It has become more and more Carnival shooting and less and less practical.

Could this be you Ron (No More Bubblegum IPSC or Taliban IPSC) Avery?

Real world targets move as do the plates on a Texas Star.

I like the Texas Star.

I like them even more at 100 yards with a rifle.

[Lurper]

No, I'm not Ron. But I do agree wholeheartedly with the views Ron expressed in his articles. The Texas Star does not meet the criteria set forth in the principles of the sport.

It's not a question of liking them or not. Nor is it a question of ability. I shot on the super squad for a couple of years, so I'm not intimidated by any target. It's a question of getting too far away from the principles the sport was founded upon.

[eflatminor]

I'm a weekly NORCO shooter and I'm on the fence about Texas stars. For what it's worth, we RARELY see them at IPSC competitions but they show up regularly at Ron and Nora's bi-monthly "Steel Madness".

I love the challenge of shooting them. They are not easy to clean without taking extra shots. They're just fun if you're in the right mood and in a competition, they really separate the men from the boys. On the other hand, they're not exactly representative of a real-life tatical situation. I guess the truth is, I don't really care. Either way is fine with me.

[skinewmexico]

I think Lurper is describing what caused the birth of IDPA. Although we use a Texas Star in our IDPA matches. I hate it. I think it hates me back. Doesn't bother the good shooters though.

[jmorris]

Practical/Defensive, as soon as they throw away the timers I’ll “play right”. If you don’t practice shooting targets that are difficult to you will loose shooting at them to others.

[Mt Shooter]

This is not quite what I was looking for when I started this thread, but I do have to agree with Lurpur. I could be wrong but that is the reason Bill Wilson started IDPA. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Chris Rhines]

The Texas Star is an affordable and reliable way to simulate an erratically moving target. Close enough for me.

- Chris

[Tim Burke]

I think USPSA gave up on the principles of the sport long ago. Still, I don't think the Texas Star is inconsistent with the principles. The ability to engage inconsistently moving targets and rapidly transition between targets seems like a practical skill to me.
Haven't tried them at 100 yards with a rifle, but I have shot one at 70 yards with a 1911.

[RH45]

I think they are fun, if I remember to shoot them in the right order. They piss me off when I'm a dumb-a$$ and try to shoot them in the wrong order!

[ADKWOODSMAN]

Order, order, order--get the right order and there fun. IPSC et al.

We've even shot them in SASS with the rifle at about 25 yeads and finished any left with the shotgun, much fun, as all SASS is if your not a gaaaaaaammmmmeeeerrrrr!!!!

[SDC]

What part of "You have to shoot fast AND accurately to win" is inconsistent with IPSC principles?

[-terry]

What's the "right order"? I've gSearched and found several different "orders" suggested.

[Tim Burke]

It depends. One technique is to start at the top and work your way down, alternating sides. This minimizes the speed with which the star rotates. Another technique is to shoot the one at about 4 o'clock, keep your gun in place, and pick off the rest of the plates as they pass by. This works well... if you don't miss.

[yar]

You really have to be able to do it several ways. Top, top right, top left, botom left and then let the remain plates rotate into the sights. This is the most popular and the star moves very little.

If you do it fast enough you can also shoot top, top right, top left, low left and swing on the low right as it is coming over. This is a little faster.

Shooting the 4 o'clock plate and letting the plates turn into the gun is fairly fast and something you should practice. Sometimes they weight the star and have it popper activated to get it moving. This will simulate the speed and also give you the most targets to shoot at. If you do any practice on the star do it this way. Some of the better shooters prefer to shoot the star this way.

Another thing about the star is learning to ambush the plate. You have to determine the top of the arc or a spot you will camp and wait for the plate. This will get you out of bad situtations where you shoot the star, miss a few plates and get that thing really turning. When you see the better shooters chasing after a plate on a fast moving star this is what they are really doing. They aim for a point the star is just about to turn into. To me it doesn't really matter how fast the star is moving, it's just confidence from having shot them so much. In fact I worry much more about swingers.

[Lurper]

What part of "You have to shoot fast AND accurately to win" is inconsistent with IPSC principles?
Umm . . . that would be the part that doesn't fit in with principle number five:
Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearms may be reasonably called upon to hit in their primary intended use.

The Texas Star even in the most liberal interpretation does not meet that criteria.
Saying that the sport shouldn't follow the principles it was founded upon because it's not as much fun is like saying our country shouldn't follow the bill of rights because it's not fun.

This is what happens when the lunatics run the asylum.

[Hoser]

Umm . . . that would be the part that doesn't fit in with principle number five:
Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearms may be reasonably called upon to hit in their primary intended use.
Please remind me again the approx shape and size of a human head.

[1SOW]

The star is a tough target for me, but I like the challenge. It's fun, which is why I shoot USPSA. Some shooting skills could be improved at a good carnival.
The target doesn't have to look like a terrorist or a mugger. If you can shoot accurately at moving targets, shoot accurately while you are moving, and shoot accurately at various distances and positions you are better able to defend yourself.
LURPER:
Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearms may be reasonably called upon to hit in their primary intended use.
Many/most of the guns being used by the above 50% shooters are designed specifically for this type of shooting! This is their primary intended use.

I don't like the 4:00 method because the next shot comes up shaded/hidden by the gun.
It took 8 shots last time. Next time I'll beat the @#$% thing!

[8ring]

In my opinion, Texas stars are bubblegum IPSC. I also dislike them because I can't practice shooting them so I never seem to get better on them. Finally, I generally shoot revolver which makes them an even bigger PITA.

That said, I think USPSA should allow moving targets like those found in Bianchi Cup.

My 2 cents.

Chris

[Tim Burke]

Practical competition is conducted using practical targets, which reflect the general size and shape of such objects as the firearms may be reasonably called upon to hit in their primary intended use.
The Texas Star even in the most liberal interpretation does not meet that criteria.
The targets are the steel plates.

[Lurper]

This is their primary intended use.
The primary intended use is for defense.

Please remind me again the approx shape and size of a human head.
Please remind me how a head rotates that way.

The targets are the steel plates.
This is true. But the movement is not. That used to and should be a consideration. In a way, it doesn't matter since most shooters aren't aware of the founding principles and they don't publish them in the rule book anymore.
Many of the changes that have taken place in the last few years have been self-serving. Many of the people making the decisions have had vested interests in the changes.

As far as shooting Texas Stars goes, they are fairly easy if you don't try to shoot in rythm.

That said, I think USPSA should allow moving targets like those found in Bianchi Cup.
We shoot movers all the time. We shoot Texas Stars pretty often too.

[ZXD9]

My first experience with 'The Star' was a stage that had TWO of them :what:

I was sure there was no way I could get through the whole stage without running out of ammo. I got myself all worked up over it. :(

I think I shot both stars with no more than 3 or 4 misses total. It's really not that hard and I ended up enjoying the challenge.

I think it is practical. Not all of your targets will be standing still when the SHTF.

[jmorris]

If you take away TX stars because heads don’t move that way, you’ll need to get rid of swingers and drop turn targets at the same time as well as others. If our goal is to be “real”, we will also need to reduce the number of threat targets used in a scenario to no more than 3 and a round count of less than 10. This change will allow the sport to better reflect the national statistics on situations where firearms are used defensively.

[Tim Burke]

But the movement is not. That used to and should be a consideration. In a way, it doesn't matter since most shooters aren't aware of the founding principles and they don't publish them in the rule book anymore.Not publishing them anymore goes back to my point that USPSA gave up on the principles long ago. As for the movement, IMO the lack of movement in most USPSA targets is one of the most unrealistic and impractical features of the match. As noted above, the movement of swingers and drop-turners aren't realistic. Even having a zip line runner is fairly artificial, but it is the only moving target that springs to mind whose actual movement seems somewhat realistic.
What is realistic about the Texas Star is that its pattern of movement is not completely predictable. This is a quality that the other moving targets do not share.

[Lurper]

Drop turners represent a target that is exposed then disappears and is out of the fight. Swingers represent a target which engages you then ducks behind cover.
If the stage is set up properly (a rare find anymore), they are realistic.
Movement isn't really an issue either. The trend to 30+ round courses is also a bad one. So are some of the equipment rules. The Texas Star is just one of the symptoms.

[Sistema1927]

Four or five mags and still didn't clear it?

We recently used the star for a handgun stage at a CAS shoot, and I think that every shooter cleared the star with their revolvers (10 rounds total), most clearing it with only one revolver, thus necessitating a dump target.

[Tim Burke]

I just looked in my new rule book, dated January 2008, and the very first page, i, has the Principles of USPSA Competitions. #5 is listed, exactly as quoted above.

[Lurper]

Had two handy, 1990 and 2004. Didn't see them in the '04 edition.

[bofe954]

I had a hard time with a star once. If anything it made me want to shoot better, not quit.

If you wanted to make a star more "practical" (and a lot more difficult) you could put it behind a wall with a window (maybe one at the top and bottom) then the plates would move in and out of a window.

Personally I kind of like the stars because as far as props go, they are easy to set up and reliable.

I have mixed feelings about the IPSC circus. For one thing we have IDPA, which gives IPSC more room to be creative, or less "practical".

For another, like IDPA, it is a game and must have rules. These rules need to be written and easy to define. Defining what is practical and what is not and what is a realistic situation and what is not is hard to define. Sure, we know it when we see it, but how would you write a rule that banned Texas stars? Would you ban them by name? Every year look at what people are using for props and then ban specific unrealistic ones?

You could make some vague "failure to be a right prop" rule that could be interpreted differently at every club by every competitor and RO.

How realistic and relevant is necessary? What about the helicopter props and moving cart/vehicle props? I am a civilian, my odds of shooting from a chopper are pretty slim. What about distance? Should we ban long shots? As a civilian it is unlikely that I will have to engage some kind of threat at 20+ yards, but it is good practice and I think fitting that in COMPETITION we try these shots.

How about open class guns, should they be banned too? Who carries these ported, scoped monster guns around at work or as CCW or for home protection?

I am just happy the rules are open enough that you can pretty much do what you want. If you wanted to you could put together a match (or ten) every year that had no Texas stars, no 30+ round counts and make it as practical as you want.

I haven't been there yet, (I am really hoping to go in '09) but I have been told that single stack nationals are sort of this way. Mostly just targets at varying distances with varying amount of cover.

[yar]

I see simularities with USPSA and Paintball in regards to it's growth and the orriginal idea behind their conception. Paintball started as a test of who would survive. It pitted people from different walks of life in a test of would would win a gunfight. The early years the pro tourney series was named "the national survival game". People dressed in full camoflauge, and used red paint to simulate blood. Paintball realized to grow as a sport and to attract the younger shooters it would need to change format and image. Away went the camo, format of the game changed, and they sought to differentiate themselves from the survialist image and become more of a sport. That is modern paintball today, with it's real pro sponsered teams (where members draw a salary income), regular TV covereage, and huge influx of junior shooters. In this regard paintball did a lot of what was right to insure it's growth and survival.

Lets not kid ourselves. This is also what USPSA has sought to do. Grow itself as a sport. If you look at the modern core USPSA audience what they want is big field courses. Bubble Gum stages make TV covereage, and magazine covereage. If uspsa was true to being practical it would have a much smaller audience and would limit it's growth. There is also IDPA which tries to be more practical in it's stage design. Let USPSA do it's thing, and if you want more practical then there is the other game in town.

I shoot USPSA, steel, and 3 gun for entertainment and sport. Not as some sort of training. I like the texas stars, clay flippers, and all these other targets that are bubble gun. I always ask for something I haven't seen before or haven't done before. So please for my matches break out the windmill targets, zip lines, movers and all the other fun stuff to shoot at.

[1911NM]

Seems to me I read somewhere most real life defense situation occur in the rule of 3's, less than 3 yards, 3 shots average, and done in 3 seconds. So, should we only shoot at life size targets at 9 feet, with only 3 rounds in the mag? IDPA, IPSC, and USPSA encourage speed and accuracy. Somehow I just don't see that as a bad thing.:confused:

[bofe954]

To take 1911NM's thoughts a little further-

If someone actually did put together a match with with a bunch of more realistic scenarios that were close 1-3 shot affairs, who would pay to do it over and over?

Would you really want to drive/fly somewhere, rent a hotel room and then go to a major match that involved 8 stages and 40 rounds total?

You can argue that the big round count stages are silly, but at least I get to shoot and reload a few times per stage. If I go through the hassle and expense of getting up, gearing up, and driving to a match I at least want to shoot 100 rounds or so.

I used to shoot in an indoor league (winter in Minnesota is tough for USPSA), and you had to make some pretty "unpractical" stages just to make sure the limited and open guys had to drop a mag.

[earplug]

I shoot a six shot DA revolver and I enjoy the Texas Star.
The only down side I see is its a bit slow to reset for each shooter.
I've never heard a complaint about shooting them.

[Lurper]

Let USPSA do it's thing, and if you want more practical then there is the other game in town.
That would be fine except there are principles the sport was founded upon. Those principles should be followed.

It doesn't matter what target you put out there or what the course is. The same guys are going to win. The best shooters are the best shooters period.

You don't need to have 40 round field courses to have a high round count match. I have seen plenty of high round count matches with no course more than 24 rounds. The whole attitude that you must provide X rounds to make it worth the shooter's time is a huge contributor to the problem. So is the idea of doing something because it is fun or diffferent. In the last decade, clubs began a "one upmanship" contest. Each striving to have the highest round count or most unusual stage. That isn't what the sport is about. The principles can be followed and you can still have a high round count match and still have fun. Happened for decades before the current trend.

If you want "bubble gum" shooting, create your own sport. You could call it "The Bubble Gum Shooting Association". That's fine, but IPSC was founded on principles just like this country was, and those principles should be followed.

If someone actually did put together a match with with a bunch of more realistic scenarios that were close 1-3 shot affairs, who would pay to do it over and over?
It used to be done all the time. Scenarios used to be much more realistic. In fact in the early days, each stage had a written scenario that was read as part of the walkthrough. John Pepper (the Pepper Popper) had a knack for that. I have been to thousands of matches that had no stage with more than 24 rounds, yet had as high as 200 rounds in the match. They were just as fun as matches are now.

[huckster]

All shooting games are just that... "games"

Skeet, NRA highpower, CAS, Trap, Bullseye, Sporting Clays...

they all have rules and that in and of itself means they can't be perfect represtations of shooting in the field/wild/street.

Now, if you wanna claim that the "principles" any given discipline was founded on are as important to that sport as the constitution is to the USA, then you've gona a bit far as far as I'm concerned.

[SDC]

If "practical" is that important to you, you shouldn't be complaining about the targets used as much as you should be complaining about the pistols and leather used; how many people do you see open carrying, let alone using hi-cap comped raceguns with red dots? There's also no reason you can't shoot IDPA.

[yar]

Luper you keep going into this whole sport was founded on principal. You ever heard of a thing called evolution. The sport has grown. It has changed. It is not like how it was. Get used to it. If you don't like it go make a new game like IDPA and TSA did. I like the way USPSA is. Start a old school as real as it gets ipsc siminution match or whatever you want to do. USPSA has been fairly successful in growing it's membership over the last 5 years it is doing something right.

I shoot in So Cal and Norco. I shoot at steel matches where they will have 5 texas stars on one stage.

Back in the 80's I was a professional paintball player. Right above our paintball field was the old SWPL match where ipsc was born. I went up there to see the fuss was about. Bunch of old schoolers shooting el pres and flying M. Did not look that fun or interesting. If uspsa reverted to that kind of stuff I would shoot a different game. So would many other people.

[bofe954]

You don't need to have 40 round field courses to have a high round count match. I have seen plenty of high round count matches with no course more than 24 rounds.

32 rounds is the max for "long courses" in handgun competition. So 24 rounds is OK, but 32 is way too much? Come on...

For what it's worth I would like the type of match you describe, and I understand what you mean by the one up manship of matches, but those are big matches that are few and far between. Club matches don't seem to be like that, at least here in the great white north.

My home club has problems doing multiple low round count stages because we only have 3 bays to use. We usually do two field courses and 1 classifier. Probably one with 32 rounds. The star comes out once or twice a year and again for our points match.

The issue that remains is how would you write a rule to govern this type of thing that made sense, was fair and could be enforced?

Lurper, what would be your rule that banned these types of targets?

As far as growing the sport, I am for making an effort to grow it. I believe USPSA could do far more to repel mag bans and other bans than the NRA if it got big enough.

[Lurper]

If you don't like it go make a new game like IDPA and TSA did.
Those who like carnival matches should form their own sport in accordance with the principles they found the sport on.
IPSC was founded on principles without the principles, the sport has no soul, no purpose.

USPSA has been fairly successful in growing it's membership over the last 5 years it is doing something right.
Don't kid yourself; membership has grown every year since its inception and will continue no matter what. But, the decision about which direction a sport should go should not be based on growing the membership. If you condone that, then you condone letting money dictate which way the sport goes (that happens in USPSA too). Too many people put their own interests before the interests of the sport. The sport (and organization) should be true to its principles or the board should vote to remove or change them. By just blatantly ignoring them, the board usurps the membership's authority. Many of the changes and decisions that have come about have because of officer's of the organization self-interest. It's not a question of evolution. It's a question of laying down the framework within which you operate and keeping your word to the stockholders.

32 rounds is the max for "long courses" in handgun competition. So 24 rounds is OK, but 32 is way too much?
That is a valid point, but some matches (level one for example) are exempt. I have seen a 100 round assault course! The 2 matches I shot this weekend had 6 of 8 stages which exceeded 32 rounds.

The issue that remains is how would you write a rule to govern this type of thing that made sense, was fair and could be enforced?
One way to address the round count is to require that anytime a club runs a classifier, they must comply with the round count. There are plenty of ways to do it, but the current powers that be don't want to.

what would be your rule that banned these types of targets?
It's not so much banning them now as it is they should never have been adopted under the principles. Equipment is also a legitimate point. Much of what is allowed violates principle four. That's because again the decisions allowing the equipment were self serving. The idea that you can't follow the principles and make the sport fun is absurd. Do you think the sport just suddenly became fun in the last couple of years? It has been fun and exciting since its inception and will continue to be. Part of the problem is apathy on the part of the membership. Most members just come, shoot and leave. They don't help, don't follow what decisions are made, don't get involved in the process and worst of all perpetuate the situation by bringing more people in the sport and teaching them to be the same way.

[Tim Burke]

While I disagree with Lurper over the appropriateness of the Texas Star, I do think his observations about USPSA getting away from the founding principles are valid.

I'd like to see a Star set up with a hard cover wall in front of it, with 3 ports, spaced so that at most only 1 plate on a fully loaded Star is visible at a time. I'd have the bottom plate be the only one visible to start with. This would simulate targets that appear briefly in different windows, and then duck away. It would have to be an actual hard cover wall, though, to prevent shoot through.

[jmorris]

I just had this though, what if we put a vision barrier to both sides and the top of the star. The only opening would then be at the bottom and this would simulate heads passing by an opening. That might satisfy those that want to make it “real” but I doubt it will help you shoot it any faster.

[Double Naught Spy]

Please remind me how a head rotates that way.

This is true. But the movement is not. That used to and should be a consideration.

Drop turners represent a target that is exposed then disappears and is out of the fight.

Please remind me how people disappear this way. Are we talking about supernatural entities? If you want to talk about being true to movement, then you can't argue that drop turners represent any human behavior as humans don't twist in place and disappear. The movement isn't true, so why isn't that a consideration?

[Lurper]

The movement isn't true, so why isn't that a consideration?
The movement is supposed to represent a target that steps out from behind a wall or other object and is taken out of the fight by either ducking behind the cover again or otherwise removed from the fight.
You have to look at the target exposure, it turns toward you and turns away. Dropping is what makes it happen.
Most of the targets that have been around all have certain representations in mind and were created for that reason.
The Texas Star was created for the "cool" factor.

The idea of ports or hard cover in front of the star would make it much more compliant w/the principles.

When I was shooting the circuit, I was considered the ultimate gamer. I think the fact that I now sound like a martial artist says a lot about how far the sport has gone down the path of carnival shooting.

[huckster]

it's a game.

you can say all you want about how targets are supposed to be realistic, they're supposed to pop left or right or up or down from behind cover.... whatever. Two points 1) actual target movement is probably going to be pretty durned unpredictable... and 2) written rules don't do very well with unpredictability.


If you want to try and simulate combat for training's sake don't muck it up with a rule book and a competition.

If you want to compete with handguns (or any other type of firearm) then live with the rules as written, work to change rules you think need changing, and shoot the game to the best of your ability. But, please, don't try get up on a high horse about principles and 'real life' when all we're really discussing is a game/sport/competition.... not a life or death situation.

[Hoser]

I am just here to shoot.

I really dont care what target I am shooting at. Even the "Classic" turtle targets are a good target.

If I want tactical training, I will pay for it and get it from someone good. IPSC, IDPA and all the other games are not tactical training. Just weapon handling training.

[Lurper]

But, please, don't try get up on a high horse about principles and 'real life' when all we're really discussing is a game/sport/competition.... not a life or death situation.

IPSC, IDPA and all the other games are not tactical training.
Neither of these was the issue. The issue is that the sport was founded on eight principles and that those principles should be adhered to or changed by vote. Not blatantly ignored. The Texas Star (among other things) does not meet the standard set by the principles.

[huckster]

Sorry Lurper - I was obviously confused by your post on the 14th....


"They should do away with them because they don't follow the principles upon which the sport was founded. Targets are supposed to be representative of a target which a person with a handgun may face. The Texas Star is not."

[Lurper]

Targets are supposed to be representative of a target which a person with a handgun may face.
That's a paraphrase of the principle. I quoted it exactly in another post.

[huckster]

Lurper - you've obviously missed my point. I apologize. If there is a next time I'll try to be clearer.