Human likeness targets .

I'm sure my ex wife would be happy to shoot at any target that resembled my likeness.
As the mother of my children, I will give her greater respect.
In the wider context, targets of dogs, cats and swans would be regarded as distasteful by most.
Human targets should be treated with no less disdain.
Bell target shooting was encouraged to improve accuracy. A hole in a plate proving better than a life size image.
 
Rollo said:
For air rifles, I don’t see the point of human/soldier targets. They’re military targets designed for use at much greater distances usually than air rifle targets.
Click to expand...

They were used in an 'advancing men' pistol event at Bisley that I did a couple of times a LONG time ago. The targets were edge-on on a frame that moved towards you ... at a set distance they flipped 90 degrees to become visible, then as they got closer they flipped back to edge-on. It was quite quick - IIRC there were three targets and you had nine seconds to fire two rounds at each as they approached. It was run by the army but not a military event - I remember the starting command was 'watch and shoot, watch and shoot'.
 
I did 20 years as a Cub Scout Leader. I was also a (Scouting) Qualified Range Master so organised the air rifle shooting for the kids.
During that time, we weren't allowed to shoot at targets which depicted humans or animals.

We used a lot of traditional paper targets.
We also had a goodly selection of reactive, plinking targets.
. . .
However. ... at the airgun club, we aren't quite as "PC" and portraits of various politicians, etc, have been known to get shredded.

When instructing kids to shoot at tiny (exploding) Gummy Bears at the club, I just tell them to pretend it's their nastiest teacher from school. . . It's amazing how their aim improves.. 🤣
 
Last edited:
AndytheCourier said:
I don't see a massive issue with silhouette targets but I have seen people shoot at photo realistic ones. The target in question was a photo of Jimmy Saville. Now while I don't suppose many people are going to leap to his defence it could be seen as the thin end of the wedge and if expanded to political or religious figures I can see that creating a huge issue.
Click to expand...
This is what I meant by not being offensive with actual photos of real people.

I didn't realise so many were against shooting a silhouette of a person!
It's just paper!
 
shergar said:
I'm sure my ex wife would be happy to shoot at any target that resembled my likeness.
As the mother of my children, I will give her greater respect.
In the wider context, targets of dogs, cats and swans would be regarded as distasteful by most.
Human targets should be treated with no less disdain.
Bell target shooting was encouraged to improve accuracy. A hole in a plate proving better than a life size image.
Click to expand...
Yet the bell target was meant to represent a human head at a given distance...
 
ibo7 said:
It's just paper!
Click to expand...
You're right, it is. It's what it represents which is the issue. I've shot military type targets in the privacy of my own home but I really think it portrays a negative image. There are some who feel that using animal silhouettes in FT/HFT is also alienating to the public. I must admit to feeling a bit odd shooting at monkey and owl targets in a recent competition!
 
Ade C said:
You're right, it is. It's what it represents which is the issue. I've shot military type targets in the privacy of my own home but I really think it portrays a negative image. There are some who feel that using animal silhouettes in FT/HFT is also alienating to the public. I must admit to feeling a bit odd shooting at monkey and owl targets in a recent competition!
Click to expand...
I understand your side of the argument to a degree but it just feels like we're trying to be too PC about it. Not shooting at a man-shaped paper target as it may offend a non-shooter feels ridiculous to me.
Is it any different to me shooting people on Call of Duty?
Practical shooting(if that's the right term) usually use human silhouette metal plates as targets and that's just for fun/sport, of course that has real-life & military practice reasons too but is anyone concerned about it?
I'm just surprised that it seems many clubs don't allow them, it seems too strict to me
 
Probably should have said in the opening post that I have no issues with silhouette targets and have been shooting them for decades . I think I would draw a line at realistic images of known people being shot in public though .
 
Kola said:
+1 on this, I do not really see the point, but if someone chooses to do so, also OK with me.

The last time I shot at human likeness targets was when I was 19 and it was defence force sponsored.

Seems you can still buy them.

View attachment 493905
Click to expand...
That is a figure 11 target, no longer used in any civilian competitions, replaced by the politically correct DP1 target. As long ago as 1994 at the IPSC world championships at Bisley we were castigated by the press for a stage that was shot in a simulated toilet block. One door was wider to represent the typical disabled toilet found in most toilet blocks. The press picked up on this and obviously thought that when we finished competition we were going to go round kicking doors in and shooting disabled people.The process to distance civilian from military included changing many targets including the traditional IPSC torso / headbox target.
 
Well for military or even police training they would serve a useful purpose and possibly essential especially if they're life size but i can't see why they would be or needed to be used at a civilian range where only target shooting is involved.
 
Last edited:
Kola said:
+1 on this, I do not really see the point, but if someone chooses to do so, also OK with me.

The last time I shot at human likeness targets was when I was 19 and it was defence force sponsored.

Seems you can still buy them.

View attachment 493905
Click to expand...
Fig 11's There supposed to look like this 😂🤣😂🤣
20231029_133842.webp
 
Ade C said:
If we're trying to dispel the public perception that we're all potential mass murdering psychopaths I don't think this is a great look for a public range.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Concise answer and to the point.
We've enough on our plate! without throwing this into the mix .
Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top