[litman252]

Hello all.
Here is a target that I built, Tell me what you think.

http://www.luvtohunt...php?p=6047#6047

I have built others but don't have the pics, yet.
Tony

[Caspian_45]

I can't seem to ge tthe pictures to come up.

[litman252]

Trying pics here.








Tony

[Caspian_45]

Ok,I got to see a few of them.

From what I see here. there is a lot of room between the front target and the back target. Depending on the set/ location of the system you may be able to see some of the back target before and after it cycles. A disappearing target, by the rules, must completely disappear. And even if you don't want it to disappear, you will have the problem of the target exposure being the same for all competitors.

Plus the front target is going to get shot to crap with splatter from the popper.

Clarks range has a slightly different system that uses a plate to pop a target up behind the plate. Thats all it does (IIRC).

Sorry if you don't like the critic. These are just my observations. Sure looks like you put a lot of time in cutting and welding.

[litman252]

The 2 targets are something like 40 inches apart, its a mini popper. When shooting from the steel min. of 21' you don't see much. If the front target was closer it would apear bigger and hide the rear target more.
As for splatter, we have a popper at the range on wood base it allows you to see the splatter quite well. We have at least 300 shots on it and all hit in a 4" window on the wood, none go very far forward at all.

Thanks for looking.

Tony

This post has been edited by litman252: 15 January 2006 - 10:48 AM

[Caspian_45]

A little testing of your target system will show just how much splatter you get.

How much of the target will be exposed if the target is engaged from an angle or different shooting location?

Good luck.

[shred]

Caspian_45, on Jan 15 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

A disappearing target, by the rules, must completely disappear.

Doesn't it just have to not present the A-zone at rest to count as 'disappearing' now? I agree that leaving parts out is bad, but I think the rules allow for some leeway.

[Tman33_99]

shred, on Jan 15 2006, 04:13 PM, said:

Caspian_45, on Jan 15 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

A disappearing target, by the rules, must completely disappear.

Doesn't it just have to not present the A-zone at rest to count as 'disappearing' now? I agree that leaving parts out is bad, but I think the rules allow for some leeway.

Shred is correct

USPSA 2004 Green Book

Quote

9.9.1 Moving targets which present at least a portion of the highest
scoring area when at rest, or which continuously appear and disappear,
will always incur failure to shoot at and/or miss penalties
(exception see Rule 9.2.4.5).
9.9.2 Moving targets, which do not comply with the above criteria,
will not incur failure to shoot at or miss penalties except where
Rule 9.9.3 applies.
9.9.3 Moving targets will always incur failure to shoot at and miss
penalties if a competitor fails to activate the mechanism, which
initiates the target movement.

[Caspian_45]

Yes, you both are correct.

What I was meaning to saying, is that if you want the target to be designated as a disappearing target. His system won't work well.

You must have a portion of the highest scoring area avaliable, moving or not, to be a legal target.

It appears he has a working prototype. Now he just needs to design several courses and try the thing out. If he really wants to know if it is a good target system, have a master class shooter game it for him. They know how to cheat real good, ya know.

[litman252]

We have been using this for over a year now. If you try real hard you can get a shot on the target with out hitting the no shoot at rest, it's enough of a sliver that it is a risk.
As to splatter, gone through 2 no shoots in this time, neither one needed a paster due to splatter.

Tony