Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: Practical Competition Rules

  1. #1
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia

    Practical Competition Rules

    We've had a number of discussions recently concerning a rules from IDPA, and to a more limited extent, KSTG and USPSA. What rules do you like from the various practical shooting games, and which do you dislike? Please also feel free to share your own ideas to deal with the core rules in practical shooting (scoring, equipment, safety, use of cover, etc.). I'm obviously most interested in what people think of KSTG rules, but all discussion is welcome.

  2. #2
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    I like:

    Division(s) that allows appendix carry, lasers, MRDS, and WML

    Concealment or duty gear

    Division(s) where stock-ish service handguns with the associated trigger pull weights are competitive

    Accuracy-oriented scoring, as with Minor in USPSA

    Less subjectivity, as with fault lines

    Open-ended stage planning

    Well-populated Divisions where the level of competition is high


    I dislike:

    More subjectivity, as with cover calls

    Rules dictating stage plans

    Having to change equipment to be allowed to compete – least annoying is adding a mag pouch or two – changing guns or holsters is a dealbreaker
    Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
    Lord of the Food Court
    http://www.gabewhitetraining.com

  3. #3
    I have to agree with the above.

    Need: Appendix, MRDS, WML, concealment and duty gear, no dictation of how to go.

    Want: Minor power factor being more of a possibility. Accuracy based.

  4. #4
    Leopard Printer Mr_White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gaming In The Streets
    One thing this whole discussion now has me thinking about, that I'd not previously considered much: difficulty of a division/sport.

    If there were a division/sport that fit me perfectly rules-wise, but in practice it were a small, lowly-populated division, I am not sure whether I'd rather shoot that division against a tiny handful of other people, or stick with USPSA Limited because it's a highly-populous, highly-competitive division...

    Shooting both seems like the obvious answer, but I'd probably have to choose one or the other, and I don't know which I would choose.
    Technical excellence supports tactical preparedness
    Lord of the Food Court
    http://www.gabewhitetraining.com

  5. #5
    Member orionz06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I dislike rules concerning holster and reload position and orientation. I greatly prefer my reload forward of my hip, not so far that it is near centerline, just near a flatter part of my body. Even if AIWB is not allowed it is the same with holsters.


    Cover... Cover as executed in competition is lame. I would prefer fault lines but also make the cover have left and right barriers, not just corners. Make the shot tight.


    Gear wise... I think modern carry firearms are vastly different than back in the day. Stippling, tape, sights, slide mods, and so on should be reconsidered. The equipment race aspect of slide mods has been shown to be almost null. Heavier slides are preferred by more than lighter slides. Let people carve them up. Limit the addition of weight to an enhanced division. MRDS, WML, and lasers are real viable options. Allow them. I am OK with splitting them up a bit. Make a distinction between slide mounted and frame mounted optics. Until frame mounted optics become viable option for concealed carry and duty they should only be open gun material. Minimum trigger pull weights. No minimum firearm weights and have a maximum weight. WML's need to work. Add on lasers need to work.

    Power factor... Not a fan. If the premise is defensive we have enough data to argue away power factor.

    Stage design... More weak hand only and strong hand only shooting at a greater distance. WHO shots in IDPA, while I won't beat Vogel, aren't as challenging as I think they should be.

    Scoring... More like KSTG with scoring zones.
    Think for yourself. Question authority.

  6. #6
    I agree with most of what has been posted.

    It might be interesting to see USPSA minor scoring biased even further towards accuracy.

    I'd like to see some way of introducing a semi blind challenge to a stage. Difficult or impossible to do in a fair way... Could be that 1 of 3 known targets will have a no shoot partially covering it and gets changed after each shooter. Or precise locations change slightly between shooters.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Western Ohio
    USPSA Production rules suit me just fine with one adjustments: freedom to place holster and mags wherever one wants on the belt.

    Keep optical sights out of it, form another division for it or shoot open if you want a mini dot on the back of your slide.

    Minor/major scoring is BS. A hit on the periphery of the body is just as worthless with .45 ACP as it is with 9x19. Why should someone shooting a more powerful caliber score more points for a non-vital area hit? Because Jeff Cooper said so?

    Concealment optional.

    Here's the problem. Provided the physical constraints of the problem, solve it any way you want.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by littlejerry View Post

    It might be interesting to see USPSA minor scoring biased even further towards accuracy.

    .
    This. One of the reasons I decided to not "get back in the game" was, when I shot a match after many years of not doing so, one stage in particular that involved a lot of weak-hand-only shooting I did quite well on; almost all "A" hits. A guy on my squad blasted through it, used twice as many rounds, had two complete misses and one penalty (hit hard cover), yet his raw score was higher than mine because he accomplished all of that in less time. Sorry, that's complete BS as far as I'm concerned.

    I still shoot one or two matches a year just for grins, but any thoughts of getting back into serious competition were killed by that incident. I'm talking USPSA here; IDPA is another whole conversation.

    .

  9. #9
    Member cclaxton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna, Va
    LIKES
    - A Course of Fire that challenges my ability to shoot fast and accurate..because the complexity or mental challenge.
    - A COF that forces me to develop a shooting solution that suits my own abilities, but also challenges master level competitors;
    - A lot of flexibility how to design a COF with regard to non-threats, target identifiers, props, movers, etc.
    - A COF that is fun to shoot through the use of vehicles, building facades, etc. (Shooting small rifle targets through a facade from an old Huey, then having to jump out of the Huey and run to the shotgun was memorable and really fun)
    - humanoid targets with heads.
    - higher penalties for hits on non-threats. I like the KSTG scoring for non-threats, 20s for down-zero hit, 5s for other hits.
    - Time+Points+Penalties scoring. While hit factor is valuable, using Time+ scoring doesn't stop the MD or the individual from tabulating Hit Factor.
    - I think the .5s per down-1 hit is better than the 1s per down-1 hit because a hit in the down-1 area is still a critical hit on a threat and it slows down shooters or forces a makeup when there may be other targets;
    - While I like the requirement to keep the muzzle behind the plane of cover, there are plenty of times when it makes sense to push the gun past cover. I suggest that MD's be allowed to specify for each stage or each type of cover whether the shooter is allowed to push past cover. Also, it is difficult to judge for barrels, and irregular objects/props.
    - Use of cover whenever cover is available.
    - I would like to see more use of soft cover concealment in combination with hard cover concealment, forcing the shooter to solve the shooting problem while getting to hard cover as soon as possible.
    - On pistols: If it fits the IDPA box and makes weight for the division, it should be allowed.
    - Pistol Divisions that make sense. Right now IDPA SSP and ESP divisions are almost the same in terms of shooting scores. Magazine size seems to be a major differentiator, 45/40major, 9mm/40minor, BUG/380ACP;
    - There is a case to be made for cover penalties without fault lines in defensive shooting because there are no fault lines on the floor in real defensive situations. Forcing yourself to learn where to place your foot so it doesn't give away your position IS an important skill. Yes, it means a referee (the SO/RO) has to make a judgement call and mistakes can be made. But this happens in lots of other sports including baseball, football, soccer, etc. The proper training and integrity of the SO/RO is important here. That being said, I also empathize with the view that using fault lines reduces the mistakes made (a SO/RO can still make a mistake even with fault lines...more commonly not catching a cover violation). My view is that this should be at the Match Director's discretion whether to use fault lines or not. This forces a competitor to be more mentally challenged by the COF, and to me that is the primary goal of competitive defensive shooting.
    - Ranges that support 180 degree targets. Ranges where you can only shoot downrange and no side berms severely limit COF designs and thus mentally challenging stages.
    - Allowing more flexibility for holstering for defense, such as AIWB, or pocket draw, but as long as the gun is concealed and can be drawn safety, I see no issue. (No cross-draws)
    - FTN penalties at 5s seem about right, but requiring a down-zero hit to avoid a FTN is too much. If you get two good hits in the down-1 area, no FTN should be given.
    - I like the 3x5 size head target zone for down-zero, but it should be 1s for a hit outside it but still on the head, and it should not be a FTN if a head shot is required in the down zero area.
    - Finger calls should be of two types: Type A: Finger in the guard or on the trigger with round in the chamber while reloading or not engaging targets and you get only two calls or you get a DQ. Type B: Finger in the guard or on the trigger during a reload, unload, load and make ready when no round is in the chamber..unlimited calls.
    - Dropping a loaded mag and requiring retention should be penalized for defensive shooting, but it should not matter whether a round is in the chamber. Counting rounds shot is an important mental skill.
    - The ability to add target identifiers such as guns, knives, cell phones, and a badge or POLICE written across them, etc.

    DISLIKES
    - While I like some running to points of cover or shooting positions, I don't like a lot of running or a lot of distance. Other than getting your heart rate up, it doesn't test shooting ability, and adds an unfair advantage to younger and fit individuals while putting overweight, unfit, or partly disabled (i.e.- guys with bad knees) at a competitive disadvantage.
    - non-humanoid targets;
    - Too many zones on a humanoid target (i.e. USCA);
    - Stupid gun restrictions, such as removing firing pin blocks, Accushadow, etc.
    - Shooting boxes...Occasional use of shooting boxes make sense, but I detest them. Also, it just adds setup time and teardown time and cost to replace and maintain them. They are also trip hazards.
    - Open Guns in defensive shooting make no sense.
    - Restrictions on target identification. Target identification is such a critical skill in defensive shooting and a Cooper Rule: Know your target and what is beyond it. By having two types of targets (threat and non-threat), we are not being challenged mentally to think before pulling the trigger.
    - Ranges that have only one downrange berm
    - USPSA scoring....gawdawful
    Cody
    That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;

  10. #10
    "Power factor... Not a fan. If the premise is defensive we have enough data to argue away power factor. "

    I don't think that is the point. PF is more like a handicap. If your gun is shooting 165pf, it is going to recoil more than an all steel 9mm shooting 130pf bunny fart round. That is why C are more in major. I don't believe it has anything to do with "defensive" scenarios.
    Last edited by Lot2Learn; 11-06-2014 at 09:41 AM. Reason: quote

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •