Precision 3D Targets - solid Meh...

The place for general discussion about guns, gun (and gun parts) technology discussion, gun reviews, and gun specific range reports; and shooting, training, techniques, reviews and reports.
Post Reply
BDK
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Precision 3D Targets - solid Meh...

Post by BDK »

So, I bought some Precision 3D targets, instead of the TacMan ones I have bought before.

I haven't shot them yet, but based on initial impressions:

They're description of their material is a bit misleading - or it could be my ignorance - they appear to be made out of the same stuff as an egg carton (except they cost about $35/target). TacMans claim a life of thousands of rounds, and I have seen that, even leaving them outside, etc.

Precision 3D targets claimed "hundreds" of rounds... Maybe - they'll last about like a standard USPSA cardboard target, I expect - and I doubt they'll take getting damp.

The insert looks very good, which is why I bought them - along with the formed back. (The Tac-Man insert, for comparison

But, I'm not sure how easy it will be to pop them apart to evaluate the hits - the rubber bands which were supposed to come with them, were not in the box - not a big deal, I just don't have any in the house to evaluate the ease fully assembling them/then looking inside at the scoring area.

The target stand seems well-made.

It could be a useful system - and kudos to the designer, in a way, for possibly coming up with a system that could work - but the price has to drop significantly to be useful. At ~$35/target, given their limited life, its just going to be too expensive for regular use. (I expect 100-200 rounds/target will be about the max.)

I'm guessing I will get 1 or two sessions teaching 2-3 folks on them, if its dry. (Not very common in the South, during the summer.)

With that said, while I realize the company has to recover the mold cost, etc - this could, potentially, be an effective system, if the costs came down - TacMan targets are vastly more durable, for the same cost - and, IMO, the improved scoring area, and the shaped back wouldn't be worth the cost difference.
Post Reply