| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
PPC Eljay |
Hard cover on shoot targets |
Lead | |
|
What does everyone think about the use of hard cover on shoot targets in a COF. At a recent match someone complained that if IDPA wanted a smaller target they
would have made it that way. I feel hard cover is more real than a bunch of non-threats, if I'm using cover to shoot at someone, it seem lodgical that they
too would be using cover. After designing COFs (or chooseing) for quite a few years I'm starting to burn out in coming up with different stuff, adding some
hard cover in a COF seems to challenge the better shooters and not cause too much trouble for the newbies because they are going slow any way.
Lenny, from the west coast of NJ
|
|||
Hot Brass |
|||
|
Absolutely, we use hard cover all the time. I don't think I have ever been to a sanctioned match that did not have hard cover. Tell that whiner that if he
does not like hard cover, go shoot NRA bullseye.
-Capel
www.gadpa.com |
|||
freeidaho |
|||
|
Howdy,
Hard cover painted on the targes is a good way to make shots more difficult without violating the 3:1 ratio on no-shoot targets. Our club uses them, especially in sanctioned matches, that are supposed to be a bit challenging. We also use them in standards to make the shots a bit more difficult. That said, I think the use of the painted on hard cover for threat targets ought to be realistic. I have seen pictures of targets where only a small diamond shaped area was unpainted, for example. That doesn't seem top realistic to me. But having a left side, or right side, or bottom with hard cover painted on seems perfectly acceptable to me. Our club usually leaves at least half of the down zero area available, and usually all of the head. Ken Reed |
|||
Steve Koski |
|||
Hot Brass wrote: Exactly. Hard cover totally spices up a match. Koski |
|||
Bill Nesbitt |
|||
|
We use hard cover painted on targets a lot around here. Plus the occasional target out to 35 yards.
If they don't like the tough shots then maybe they should practice. |
|||
freeidaho |
|||
Steve Koski wrote: |
|||
Steve J |
|||
|
The rule book officially encourages the use of hard cover.
Steve J
A17557 |
|||
RobMoore |
|||
|
Sounds like that complaining someone needs to practice.
|
|||
eljay45 |
|||
|
Hard cover always makes things a little more challenging. But if you really want to spice things up put t-shirts on all of the targets.
Larry |
|||
solaritx |
|||
|
We also use hard cover to make our scenarios more realistic and fun. I have been to a match or two that seems to "over do" it a bit. I had one where
the three targets were painted with lattice fence outlines and if you hit the fence......hardcover. They were shooting through the fence and even the heads had
this at 10-15 yds as I remember. Basically a shoot to hit and then pray scenario.
On a similar subject, and it may have been already discussed here........painted guns on the target. Is it hardcover to hit the gun or not? How does your club call it? Garry |
|||
Steve Koski |
|||
|
Hard cover and T-shirts are allright.
Once you're done with that, try shooting with a bag on your head. Koski |
|||
Steve J |
|||
solaritx wrote: The painted gun is not hard cover; however, one year the Texas State match had one stage where the painted guns were declared to be hard cover in the COF. That's ok if the COF specifies it, and it was only one stage out of 12 or 13.
Steve J
A17557 |
|||
j ted murphy |
|||
|
I use a lot of hard cover targets at my indoor range. It makes even closer range targets a bit more challenging.
Ted
Cover Me, I'm going Slo-Mo!
|
|||
Scuba Simpleton |
|||
|
"If a bullet goes through it, it ain't hard cover."
Frank Glover The easiest and best call there is. Everything else is just a lack of opportunity to use props and imagination. Painted on hard cover is often used as a crutch by designers to complicate what is otherwise simple. Painted on hard cover really needs to make sense within the scenario as if it were real and not just a lack of imagination. Three targets with only heads available are not really threat targets. Indoor matches do have fewer options and need to use devices to raise the difficulty you can not acheive through props and distance. Bob |
|||
Steve J |
|||
|
That's an interesting opinion, Bob, but the IDPA rulebook says diferently.
D. Hard Cover / Soft Cover. Any shot that puts a full diameter hole in "hard" cover and continues on to penetrate the target will be considered to have missed the target (whether the target is a threat or a non-threat). There is no penalty for hitting "hard" cover other than the miss. IDPA recommends that clubs/course designers standardize on BLACK for "hard" cover simulation. Stage props are commonly used to represent "hard" cover or impenetrable objects such as walls, cars, barricades and furniture such as desks and file cabinets. Shots that penetrate "soft" cover will be scored as HITS. We recommend that clubs/course designers standardize on WHITE for "Soft" cover simulation, or use props such as windows, curtains, shrubs, etc. A5 Course Design Rationale // For a more difficult CoF use simulated hard cover to reduce the amount of the target that is exposed.
Steve J
A17557 |
|||
Hot Brass |
|||
|
Bob,
I appreciate Frank's attitude about hard cover, but I don't agree with you that painted hard cover is a crutch for a lack of imagination. First, Frank puts on a great match because he owns the range and can do whatever he wants to with it. He has the option to start building stages weeks in advance. He can bring in a back hoe and dig, haul in junk cars and leave them in a bay for weeks and build a semi-permanent structures for stages. He can also take his time in breaking all of this down. This gives him options, related to hard cover, that very few clubs have. Our club can't do this because it's a commercial for-profit range. We get the pistol bays on Wednesday and by Sunday afternoon, there can be no evidence that we even held a match. This makes hauling in a school bus or building a 2 story shoot house very difficult. One of our shooters recently purchased steel to practice the steel challenge with. We are starting to use this in place of painted hard cover, but that is not always an option. I do agree with you that the stage designer should make every effort to ensure painted hard cover make sense with the stage, but sometimes we have to use our imagination in order to understand the designer's intent.
-Capel
www.gadpa.com |
|||
RobMoore |
|||
|
Piece of steel appropriate for hard cover = $100 (on average)
Places it can be used during a match = 1 Can of black spray paint = $5 Places it can be used during a match = Dozens You make the call. |
|||
freeidaho |
|||
|
Rob,
You make an excellent point. But when you have the steel, it really changes things up. We have some hard cover steel, and it really changes a stage and the way shooters deal with it. But the MD needs to decide up front how one is going to deal with the shrapnel of an edge hit. We have determined that a full diameter bullet hole is all that will be scored. Parts of a bullet are not scored. And there turns out be lots of shrapnel from edge hits. Ken Reed |
|||
RobMoore |
|||
|
I agree that the use of steel can definitely make stage design more dynamic. You begin to force the shooter to look at angles of attack, similar to the way a
no-shoot does, and fortunately there is no limit on the amount of hard cover a course can have, unlike non-threats. These differing angles change the area of
scoreable surface in a way that a painted section on the target simply cannot do.
But true hard-cover is expensive and heavy, making it difficult to maneuver into the exact position you want. A cheaper alternative, though, is the use of opaque plastic and 1"x2"s. Sure its penetrable, but very few shooters can pull off accurate "shoot-throughs" quicker than they could if they moved a bit to get more of the target, which the course was designed to encourage. |
|||
Scuba Simpleton |
|||
|
Steve
You miss the point. Hard cover is certainly a part of the rule book. It also requires interpretation if a target down range from the painted "hard cover" is hit. Did it go through the "hard cover" or did it go through the unpainted portion of the threat target? It matters. It also requires lining up holes. It requires more judgement calls to a greater or lesser degree depending on how the targets are arranged. Frank uses clearly hard cover, apparently hard cover, and surprisingly hard cover. Pay your money, take your chances, it might go through. The problem is really in the way the IDPA target is manipulated to be something other than described in the rule book. I am really tired of seeing diagonal painted hard cover on vertical targets. It is lazy. Paint realistic cover on a threat target and make it make sense. When the largest zero zone on the target is the head and it is at a greater distance than described in the rule book for a head shot, it is wrong. I have seen instances of less than half a body zero at 15 yards or more. I have no complaint with the requirement of a down one or better to avoid a FTN, but you have to give the competitor an opportunity that is at least as available as is required of the shooter to maintain cover. I guess I am spoiled. Bob |
|||
pvgeltz |
|||
|
I sure hope the real life bad guys show me more than a head shot and are kind enough to expose thier whole torso. As for diagonal hard cover being unrealistic;
I hope the same bad guys never use a stairwell for cover or for that matter a mound of dirt, bleachers, culvert wing wall,auto cab post, canned food display,
etc. ... suck it up, if this is truly a defensive pistol sport don't expect that the bad guys are going to line up graciously in perfect tac sequence and
priority waiting for thier chance to get shot .
Trey |
|||