USPSA Lingo

[rhino]

Hmm. I've only seen the IPSC-CB. That IPSC-CL is new to me. Is it the course designer to choose which one they run?

Yep.

The "Classic" target (aka the turtle target) was born because some of the IPSC regions can't use targets with simulated heads on them. Because it has no head, it also has no B-zone (which has the same point value as the C-zone anyway).

What I find ironic is that the turtle is actually a better target to represent the more vital part of a human torso than the IPSC metric target, especially if you turn it upside down. I don't know if that was intentional or just a happy coincidence. The classic does present a slightly more significant marksmanship challenge in some ways, since it is less forgiving of lateral deviation than the metric target.

 

[indyjoe]

Ah, I have heard of locations with limitations of humanoid targets. Never thought of that within the context of IPSC/USPSA.

 

[HICKMAN]

Hit factor explained:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUBMJT9cGPI


Check out his channel, he did a few beginner USPSA videos, sort the videos by popularity

 

[rhino]

Ah, I have heard of locations with limitations of humanoid targets. Never thought of that within the context of IPSC/USPSA.

Well, it's sad.

IPSC has martial roots, but they've been completely lost in most of the IPSC regions, including USPSA (to a large degree). Whether that's good or bad is debatable, but it bothers me.

 

[indyjoe]

Well, it's sad.

IPSC has martial roots, but they've been completely lost in most of the IPSC regions, including USPSA (to a large degree). Whether that's good or bad is debatable, but it bothers me.

The founding of IPSC was for defending yourself from other humans. That is the bottom line. It does seem silly that targets representing that is objectionable.

 

[rhino]

The founding of IPSC was for defending yourself from other humans. That is the bottom line. It does seem silly that targets representing that is objectionable.

It's not just the target. Those ideas have been systematically stripped from the sport over time, especially during the 1990s when everyone and his uncle was afraid of being branded as a "militia" member. In many of the other countries, it never was anything other than a fun game to play with guns from the time it arrived, in many cases because private ownership of firearms for defense was not only illegal, but to many inconceivable. This has led to people around the world and many in the US trying use "sporting purposes" as a justification for private firearms ownership, but that is clearly a dead end.

Sorry for the topic jack!

 

[midget]

It's not just the target. Those ideas have been systematically stripped from the sport over time, especially during the 1990s when everyone and his uncle was afraid of being branded as a "militia" member. In many of the other countries, it never was anything other than a fun game to play with guns from the time it arrived, in many cases because private ownership of firearms for defense was not only illegal, but to many inconceivable. This has led to people around the world and many in the US trying use "sporting purposes" as a justification for private firearms ownership, but that is clearly a dead end.

Sorry for the topic jack!

It's ok, you forgot to mention how people get up in arms that we aim at brown targets and whites are considered no-shoots...