PDA

View Full Version : 3 things IDPA should change



shootist26
09-17-2012, 03:35 PM
Just my opinions on what IDPA should do. IDPA has always purported to be more "real life" and "realistic" than USPSA. Not that I necessarily agree with what it claims, but I do think that the following suggestions might actually help out the sport. I do play both of these games, and I think these three would be pretty easy for IDPA to implement. Any thoughts? Do you agree or think I'm 'tarded? What else should IDPA change?

1. Get rid of the round dumping/FTDR rule
Such a rule is impossible to enforce as it is completely and utterly subjective. It also runs in direct opposition to the Vickers scoring count, the entire point of which is that you may fire as many rounds as you deem necessary at a target to get the specified number of hits required. In "real life," shooting a bad guy more times is always better than shooting him fewer times. I should not be penalized for putting extra rounds into a threat target so that may reload at a "more convenient" time.

2. -1 hits should be a 1 second penalty
I personally think 0.5 seconds penalty for a -1 hit is too lax. -1 hits are not that great in "real life."

3. Penalties for hits on non-threats should be proportional to where you hit them.
I don't really like the uniform 5 second penalty for a hit on a non threat. In "real life" hitting a NT in the head is a lot worse than hitting him in the extremities, and I think the scoring should reflect that. I would prefer that you get a 5 second penalty for a -3 hit, 10 second penalty for a -1 hit, and a 15 second penalty for a -0 hit.

mpd046
09-17-2012, 03:56 PM
In "real life" hitting a NT in the head is a lot worse than hitting him in the extremities, and I think the scoring should reflect that.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I like your idea of a 15 second penalty, but it should be for any NT hit. I think hitting any non threat in real life is going to be bad very bad, no matter where you hit it. I think in most scenarios someone with a CCW that hits a non threat is going to get eaten alive in civil court and possibly criminal court.

Matt

ToddG
09-17-2012, 04:09 PM
FWIW, when SLG and I wrote the KSTG rulebook we specifically went with a difference between an A-zone non-threat hit and a more peripheral hit. While certainly either is bad, actually killing an innocent person has far greater implications from moral, legal, and even financial standpoints.

As far as IDPA is concerned, if they simply got rid of the round dumping rule they'd be good.

Next on my list would be the reload rule, which needs to be reassessed. In an attempt to be tactical, they've created situations where you have to run around with your gun empty and that's about as un-tactical as you can get.

Finally, as we've discussed here before, personally they'd need to allow AIWB before I'd compete again. That's almost certainly not going to happen, though.

kmartphoto
09-17-2012, 07:40 PM
As far as IDPA is concerned, if they simply got rid of the round dumping rule they'd be good.


Next on my list would be the reload rule, which needs to be reassessed. In an attempt to be tactical, they've created situations where you have to run around with your gun empty and that's about as un-tactical as you can get.

Discriminating minds agree. I like the KSTG rule for reloads. the way the rule is now it is used as a way to make easy stages hard or annoying.


Finally, as we've discussed here before, personally they'd need to allow AIWB before I'd compete again. That's almost certainly not going to happen, though.

This will happen after they allow shoulder holsters & 50 BMGs in ESP... and just before pigs fly out of my butt.

orionz06
09-17-2012, 07:46 PM
It would be cool if they recognized that some people do in fact carry a weapon mounted light and allow them to shoot their carry gear.

kmartphoto
09-17-2012, 07:50 PM
It would be cool if they recognized that some people do in fact carry a weapon mounted light and allow them to shoot their carry gear.

all the gamers would insta buy the heaviest light possible for their G34s

orionz06
09-17-2012, 07:52 PM
I am not so sure about that.

kmartphoto
09-17-2012, 07:58 PM
I am not so sure about that.

I am... there are legions of tards that will do anything that reduces muzzle flip, or makes them believe that it is less.

TheRoland
09-17-2012, 08:16 PM
I am not so sure about that.

Call me a gamer, but I probably would. Why wouldn't I?


I am... there are legions of tards that will do anything that reduces muzzle flip, or makes them believe that it is less.

Well, you don't have to be a "tard" to think a big weight at the end of the gun might reduce flip, as it pretty obviously does.

jlw
09-17-2012, 08:31 PM
My list:

- Reloads can be initiated at anytime but a shooter may not leave a position of cover with a pistol that is not ready to fire. Magazines with live rounds must be retained unless stripped to clear a malfunction.

- Two pistol divisions based upon power factor and capacity with a list of permissible modifications.

(Previously I advocated two stock and two modified divisions based upon power factor and capacity, but I now advocate the above.)

orionz06
09-17-2012, 08:41 PM
I am... there are legions of tards that will do anything that reduces muzzle flip, or makes them believe that it is less.

I know there are but what are they really gaining? Time wise. At that top level are they gaining anything worthwhile? Would it impact them so much so that we should slap the guy who is trying to shoot with his real carry gear? I don't believe so. Why piss all over the guy attempting to stick to his actual carry gear in favor of trying to limit the guys at the top, who will be there anyway. Instead they force Joe CCW to go out and buy another holster and he ends up with a Comp-Tac belt holster (gamer gear). Ironic.

LittleLebowski
09-17-2012, 08:42 PM
Allow AIWB if you have a Gadget or hammer fired weapon and know how to reholster it properly.

TheRoland
09-17-2012, 08:44 PM
I know there are but what are they really gaining? Time wise. At that top level are they gaining anything worthwhile? Would it impact them so much so that we should slap the guy who is trying to shoot with his real carry gear? I don't believe so. Why piss all over the guy attempting to stick to his actual carry gear in favor of trying to limit the guys at the top, who will be there anyway. Instead they force Joe CCW to go out and buy another holster and he ends up with a Comp-Tac belt holster (gamer gear). Ironic.

They'd gain very little, except on low-light stages, where it would be ridiculously faster at almost all skill levels.

Besides that, IDPA leadership clearly thinks that matchs are being decided by 1/10ths here and there, so if a light gives you an extra hundredth per split, they won't go for it.

It would have to be its own class, where you'd be unlikely to have much competition.

orionz06
09-17-2012, 08:48 PM
They'd gain very little, except on low-light stages, where it would be ridiculously faster at almost all skill levels.

Besides that, IDPA leadership clearly thinks that matchs are being decided by 1/10ths here and there, so if a light gives you an extra hundredth per split, they won't go for it.

It would have to be its own class, where you'd be unlikely to have much competition.

Sure, they gain 1 second at a large match, so does everyone else. They effectively win nothing, the guy who is no longer changing his carry gear actually does gain something.

orionz06
09-17-2012, 08:51 PM
Allow AIWB if you have a Gadget or hammer fired weapon and know how to reholster it properly.

What is this gadget you speak of?

ToddG
09-17-2012, 09:26 PM
Besides that, IDPA leadership clearly thinks that matchs are being decided by 1/10ths here and there, so if a light gives you an extra hundredth per split, they won't go for it.

While I cannot speak for IDPA HQ, I don't think believe the issue is that they believe it will make a difference. The issue is that the general membership will believe it might make a difference, and very quickly a mounted light will be seen as a near-requirement to be competitive. Now you've just added a couple hundred dollars to the cost of competing, and IDPA has always been very sensitive about that. It's the same manner in which they've dealt with similar accessories (lasers, etc.).

The fact that some dood (TM viewfromtheporch (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/)) carries a WML every day doesn't change anything. IDPA doesn't promise to let anyone carry anything they want so long as they cross their heart hope to die that it's their EDC. "Of course I carry compensated, optic sighted 24rd pistol concealed every day!" At a certain point, what you carry every day has to give way to objective enforceable rules that keep the game as the owners and members want it.

Just look at aiwb. That's how I carry every single day. Literally thousands of people from all across the country have seen me do it. But if I show up at IDPA Nationals, they're going to DQ me on the spot if I use an aiwb holster. It's against their rules, they have a reason for it being so, and I either choose to shoot the game within their rules or I don't.

jetfire
09-17-2012, 09:32 PM
I pray nightly that the round-dumping rule will be eliminated.

jar
09-17-2012, 10:01 PM
Sure, they gain 1 second at a large match, so does everyone else. They effectively win nothing, the guy who is no longer changing his carry gear actually does gain something.

And the vast majority who don't carry a mounted light lose.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk 2

orionz06
09-17-2012, 10:17 PM
Do they? I bet if they cared enough they would buy the light. I would bet money the vast majority are just there to shoot. Maybe I cling to the WML a bit too much but it seems to me that an organization based on "defensive pistol" should at some point get back up to speed with what that really means. No matter the rules people will game it. Whether they are adding lights, lasers, sights, optics, etc they will flex the rules as far as they can. Most of the people that shoot IDPA are not the ones that IDPA seems to be trying to push away.

VolGrad
09-18-2012, 06:27 AM
I don't want IDPA to turn into an equipment race but also agree if someone normally carries a WML then let them shoot with it mounted. If someone carries AIWB let them shoot the match that way. Frankly, I worry more about the novice gun toter carrying behind the center line as he generally sweeps the gallery while drawing or re-holstering. No one seems to concerned with that. Heck, the AIWB guy is probably only going to shoot himself, right? If someone carries their mag pouches forward of the 9 o'clock position then let them shoot the match that way.

Eliminate restrictions on re-loads. If you want to re-load as you run across an open doorway then have at it. If you want to drop a mag with rounds in it then do it. It's your loss if you need them later.

I also agree I'd like to see something different with HNT. I agree winging the good guy isn't as bad as giving him a third eye.

rsa-otc
09-18-2012, 06:44 AM
While it has never affected me, in reading the discussions on round dumping, that rule needs to go. It’s too arbitrary to enforce fairly and effectively.

In a recent post on M4C, LAV commented that after he and Ken Hackenthorn had shot the Carolina Cup, one of the things they would like to see changed in IDPA is changing from the .5 second penalty to a 1 second penalty for every point down. It was their feelings that accuracy needs to become more important in the game. This is a position I have held since I first started shooting IDPA 3 years ago. Recently I shot a club match where the overall winner was 77 points down over 80 rounds fired with a couple of FTN thrown in to boot. I will agree with the opinion that this kind of shooting wouldn’t be successful at the major matches and some shooters start speedy and build accuracy and other are reverse starting out accurate and then building speed. IDPA is based in the grass roots club level and I think good accuracy should be stressed throughout the spectrum. While IDPA is a game, it is supposed to reflect real life encounters/experience and accuracy should be stressed. You can’t criticize civilians and police missing in real life and not say that accuracy is not as important as speed.

The rule regarding reloads needs to change to reflect real life as well. As observed previously if you are standing in the open with an empty gun during a gunfight you are going to reload on the way to cover, not waiting until you get to cover. I never understood the rule that you couldn’t begin your reload until you were behind cover. I TOTALLY agree that you shouldn’t leave cover until you have completed your reload.
AIWB, I’m luke worm over in a match setting where you get a lot of people you have no experience with. That can be frightening to a match director and his RSO’s. But I can’t help but think back to the early days of ISPC when most competitors wore their holsters AOWB. I don’t remember any cases of competitors shooting themselves. But then I wasn’t really into that game either.

TheRoland
09-18-2012, 07:35 AM
Sure, they gain 1 second at a large match, so does everyone else. They effectively win nothing, the guy who is no longer changing his carry gear actually does gain something.

Keep in mind, though, that low-light stages are pretty common in IDPA, and you're talking about way more than 1 second for those stages.

I'd love to see a "defensive open" division, with WMLs, lasers, slide-mounted optics, etc. But I suspect this will never happen for reasons people have covered.

orionz06
09-18-2012, 07:37 AM
I was talking in specific daylight. Sure low-light is there but many clubs don't even allow night shooting. But I agree, the lights we have today really make some low-light classes seem like a joke.

secondstoryguy
09-18-2012, 08:26 AM
The reload while moving is the one that always gets me. It's downright stupid IMHO. I also wish IDPA had an "open" division. You could still require it to be concealed in a carry type holster, but allow RDS, WML, Lasers, comps, etc. As these things become smaller, more popular, and possibly integrated in from the factory, I think you'll see the rules start to change.

orionz06
09-18-2012, 08:33 AM
An open division would be cool. I suspect limitations would still screw some people but slide mounted red dots, WML's, lasers, threaded barrels, etc. I'd say no comps though, that does point to gamer gear. I have no doubts that somewhere out there some guy is carrying an M&P with an X300 and RMR with a CT grip, I am pretty sure that no one is using a 9mm BattleComp on their EDC gun.

jetfire
09-18-2012, 08:55 AM
When I was dreaming up the rules for the IDPA Open Division, it was pretty simple: Must weigh less than 40 ounces with an empty magazine inserted, no compensators, and must fit in the box.

I also know that will never happen, but hey - a bro can dream.

secondstoryguy
09-18-2012, 09:18 AM
40oz would be a good cutoff, if your willing to conceal something heavier you might as well pack an MP5K. A G17/34 with RDS and an x300 would probably be right around there, probably about 6-10oz lighter. But then you'd have all the 1911 crowd crying fowl!

orionz06
09-18-2012, 09:27 AM
With a 4# trigger pull minimum.

Tamara
09-18-2012, 09:54 AM
I am pretty sure that no one is using a 9mm BattleComp on their EDC gun.

What about the person who totes a G23C?

orionz06
09-18-2012, 09:59 AM
What about the person who totes a G23C?

I would backpedal and say externally threaded compensators different from factory configuration, or something like that. I think allowing the stupid holes in the top should be fine, either factory Glock or Lone Wolf but allowing a 9mm BattleComp should be a no-go. Make sense?

kmartphoto
09-18-2012, 10:12 AM
I know there are but what are they really gaining? Time wise. At that top level are they gaining anything worthwhile? Would it impact them so much so that we should slap the guy who is trying to shoot with his real carry gear? I don't believe so. Why piss all over the guy attempting to stick to his actual carry gear in favor of trying to limit the guys at the top, who will be there anyway. Instead they force Joe CCW to go out and buy another holster and he ends up with a Comp-Tac belt holster (gamer gear). Ironic.

This is a good point.

To keep the argument alive I have around a 1.3-1.55 draw to first shot with an IWB or OWB. It doesn't make much diference except I feel like I get a more consistent grip with an OWB. At maximum I think there is only a few hundreths diference between the holsters I run.

Now with a weight on the end of the gun your gonna get that kind of difference or close on every split not just on the presentation. If you allow lights IDPA will become dudes in shoot me vests with rail guns and lights.

ford.304
09-18-2012, 10:13 AM
I think an "open" division with just "any sights, laser, or light that will still fit in the box" and not much else would be fair and still in the spirit of the competition.

kmartphoto
09-18-2012, 10:15 AM
Recently I shot a club match where the overall winner was 77 points down over 80 rounds fired with a couple of FTN thrown in to boot.

damn! I need to come shoot where you are... that sounds like my kinda score!

JRas
09-18-2012, 10:40 AM
I've left a couple rounds in a magazine and been penalized, didn't know that was the case at the time.

In the end a lot of stages are stupid/unrealistic.. I tend to not care about my score and try to make it as realistic as I can. I'm not going to run through a stage shooting like Rambo so I can get a good score. I'm only cheating myself.

It's rare to see concealed carry holsters as well...

kmartphoto
09-18-2012, 11:26 AM
Gamers aren't exactly cheaters... but here is a good talk about how the mind works in situations where the mind plays tricks on itself to allow cheating as long as the person doesn't feel bad about the cheating.


http://youtu.be/nUdsTizSxSI

rsa-otc
09-18-2012, 12:02 PM
damn! I need to come shoot where you are... that sounds like my kinda score!

You really want to cry. I was running my SSR gun was only 16 points down and was 3rd fastest overall in time. Even accounting for my extra reloads running a wheely I got smoked time wise. Thats ok because I can account for every round fired.

markp
09-18-2012, 12:39 PM
Just my opinions on what IDPA should do. IDPA has always purported to be more "real life" and "realistic" than USPSA. Not that I necessarily agree with what it claims, but I do think that the following suggestions might actually help out the sport. I do play both of these games, and I think these three would be pretty easy for IDPA to implement. Any thoughts? Do you agree or think I'm 'tarded? What else should IDPA change?

1. Get rid of the round dumping/FTDR rule
Such a rule is impossible to enforce as it is completely and utterly subjective. It also runs in direct opposition to the Vickers scoring count, the entire point of which is that you may fire as many rounds as you deem necessary at a target to get the specified number of hits required. In "real life," shooting a bad guy more times is always better than shooting him fewer times. I should not be penalized for putting extra rounds into a threat target so that may reload at a "more convenient" time.
I made the suggestion on the idpaforum to rid the dumping rule and count all hits on the target.
That did not go over well.


2. -1 hits should be a 1 second penalty
I personally think 0.5 seconds penalty for a -1 hit is too lax. -1 hits are not that great in "real life."
Didn't IDPA have that in the beginning?



3. Penalties for hits on non-threats should be proportional to where you hit them.
I don't really like the uniform 5 second penalty for a hit on a non threat. In "real life" hitting a NT in the head is a lot worse than hitting him in the extremities, and I think the scoring should reflect that. I would prefer that you get a 5 second penalty for a -3 hit, 10 second penalty for a -1 hit, and a 15 second penalty for a -0 hit.
We use to have an outlaw IDPA match where the PE for a NT was +150.
Sundog Shooters were way ahead of their time.

TheRoland
09-18-2012, 01:21 PM
Gamers aren't exactly cheaters... but here is a good talk about how the mind works in situations where the mind plays tricks on itself to allow cheating as long as the person doesn't feel bad about the cheating.

People who play the game by the rules instead of some nebulous "spirit" are not just "not exactly cheaters"; they're not cheaters, period.

The widespread obsession with denigrating people who play a game as if it's a game is not healthy.

Regarding hypothetical Open, I'm sensing the line is a bit unclear. Someone is making a judgement call on what is sufficiently "tactical", which, in my opinion, is subjective, arbitrary, and futile.

orionz06
09-18-2012, 01:32 PM
The rules merely establish limits to what you can or cannot do. Going to one extreme or the other is not cheating. Whether it be viewed as tactical or gaming is up to the viewer. Ultimately who cares, more often than not they will judge you based on their own performance, not yours.

JodyH
09-18-2012, 01:33 PM
I'm sensing the line is a bit unclear. Someone is making a judgement call on what is sufficiently "tactical", which, in my opinion, is subjective, arbitrary, and futile.
In other words, it would fit right into the IDPA rules framework.

kmartphoto
09-18-2012, 01:37 PM
The rules merely establish limits to what you can or cannot do. Going to one extreme or the other is not cheating. Whether it be viewed as tactical or gaming is up to the viewer. Ultimately who cares, more often than not they will judge you based on their own performance, not yours.

+1

thats what I was trying to say.

TheRoland
09-18-2012, 01:39 PM
In other words, it would fit right into the IDPA rules framework.

You may be on to something! Off to start putting my Defensive Open Pistol (DOP) rig together!:cool:

NickA
09-18-2012, 02:41 PM
In other words, it would fit right into the IDPA rules framework.

What, "making a travesty of the sport" isn't specific enough? ;)

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

cclaxton
09-18-2012, 03:23 PM
Those competing at the top level of IDPA are using every single advantage they can gain and not violate the rules. There is nothing wrong with gaming...I think it's a compliment...it means you are taking this seriously as a competitive game. It's certainly not cheating, although there are those who try to cheat, but they eventually get found out. There were 13 DQ's at the Carolina Cup and some were due to low-powered ammo and illegal modifications.

Besides, who wants to win knowing that they cheated?...not much self-satisfaction in that.

My only issue is when rules cannot be applied fairly to all contestants or judgement calls are just too difficult to make. That is the reason that the round-dumping rule should go.

If we wanted to change the rules related to points and penalties, it will change the play-action of the game. If the penalties for non-threats are too high, then the action will slow down to avoid that mistake. So, the real question is whether IDPA contestants are too careless with their shots near non-threats. I don't think so, and I have been shooting an IDPA match every weekend except for vacation week since March 2012. 5 Seconds is still 5 seconds of time I cannot afford to add to my score and be competitive.

Just my humble opinion...not asking anyone to agree.
CC

Jason F
09-18-2012, 11:20 PM
I don't want IDPA to turn into an equipment race but also agree if someone normally carries a WML then let them shoot with it mounted. If someone carries AIWB let them shoot the match that way. Frankly, I worry more about the novice gun toter carrying behind the center line as he generally sweeps the gallery while drawing or re-holstering. No one seems to concerned with that. Heck, the AIWB guy is probably only going to shoot himself, right?....

Funny you should say that VolGrad. I got called out a few weeks back at Cherokee while reholstering (IWB, right side, in a Milt Sparks VM2 so it's got a 15degree cant or something like that). Anyways, I show clear, go to reholster and I slightly pivoted my right hip and foot forward (downrange) so that as I reholstered I would be keeping the muzzle downrange and away from the SO and the people behind me.... got a quick verbal "what are you doing!?"

AIWB in IDPA would be great. But it won't happen, just too much liability for most clubs I'd guess.

DVCPrepper
09-19-2012, 12:10 AM
Nobody else has an issue with the cover rules? 50% torso over a car hood is OK but a toe sticking out is not?

I want to use a shoulder holster too! :)

ToddG
09-19-2012, 12:26 AM
Didn't IDPA have that in the beginning?

No. In fact, in the beginning IDPA only penalized shooters 0.3 seconds per point down.

As far as scoring issues are concerned, you need to keep in mind that this is a game. If you make a hit on a no-shoot a 100 second penalty, the disaster factor becomes ridiculous. That one mistake is essentially destroying any chance someone has of placing in a match, while plenty of other mistakes are barely a blip on the radar.

LHS
09-19-2012, 02:14 AM
I'd like to see the 1-second-per-point penalty, and removal of the ammo dumping prohibition. I'd also like to see some kind of rule that discourages 'shoot me' vests in favor of more normal types of garments.

Lastly, I would like to see WMLs, lasers, and eventually red dot optics. IPSC was envisioned as a testing ground for new defensive technologies, and IDPA was envisioned to get back to IPSC's original mission. I understand the founders' desire to avoid the kind of NASCAR-ization via equipment race that IPSC saw, but total technological stagnation is not the answer. When they switched from an inclusive holster list to an exclusive one, that was progress. Let's keep it going in that direction.

cclaxton
09-19-2012, 11:32 AM
I'd like to see the 1-second-per-point penalty, and removal of the ammo dumping prohibition. I'd also like to see some kind of rule that discourages 'shoot me' vests in favor of more normal types of garments.

Lastly, I would like to see WMLs, lasers, and eventually red dot optics. IPSC was envisioned as a testing ground for new defensive technologies, and IDPA was envisioned to get back to IPSC's original mission. I understand the founders' desire to avoid the kind of NASCAR-ization via equipment race that IPSC saw, but total technological stagnation is not the answer. When they switched from an inclusive holster list to an exclusive one, that was progress. Let's keep it going in that direction.

How about applying 1-sec per point rule to those who shoot gun-mounted lasers and non-lasered shooters get .5sec per point?
Also, some clubs are already allowing gun mounted lights for dark stages...nice thing about local clubs doing IDPA is they don't have to follow every rule required by a sanctioned match.

I would like to see IDPA find a way to do shoothouse stages with par-times and target identification penalties. One club I shoot at has a shoothouse with pictures pasted on the IDPA targets of guns or saws or coke bottles or LE badges. Seeing a gun doesn't mean shoot if its got an LE badge on it. They shoot a 100 second par time and usually 8-10 threat targets and just as mean non-threats. Perfect score is 100s down zero. You could adjust the par-time based on the classification of the shooter, with higher classes getting less time to shoot it.
CC

jlw
09-19-2012, 11:44 AM
Making the -1 a full second penalty would be good for two reasons:

It would make the math of scoring easier.

It would put more of a premium on accuracy.

orionz06
09-19-2012, 11:47 AM
I'd like to see the 1-second-per-point penalty, and removal of the ammo dumping prohibition. I'd also like to see some kind of rule that discourages 'shoot me' vests in favor of more normal types of garments.


But you need a vest to conceal the gamer holster you wear because you change from your carry gear to IDPA gear...

ToddG
09-19-2012, 11:57 AM
Scoring differently depending on equipment gets complicated. If you're going to be fair about it, you need to assess what the real benefit of the "better" equipment is. Look at how wrong USPSA does it, where the huge benefit of shooting major is so obvious that very few people compete in minor (outside of Production, obviously, where everyone is scored minor). How often does someone win Nats or an area match shooting minor in Open, Limited, or L10?

It also leads to complications when you score the match. The original KSTG rules had a 1s/pt penalty for major and 1.2s/pt for minor. Keeping track of who shot what (not everyone self-reports properly) and making sure the right equation got used for each person added a level of complexity that just wasn't worth it.

re: PAR-based shoot house stages, it's funny you mention that. We (the NRA HQ IDPA Club, now disbanded) sent IDPA HQ a formal request to do that years ago, as did, I believe, Marty Hayes at FAS. The way we used to run shoot-house stages was with what we called "PAR Plus." The stage had two starts, one of which was for time and the other (the actual "room clearing") was PAR. For example:


Shooter begins outside the shoot house, facing a lone target.
On the buzzer, the shooter retreats while firing at least six rounds at the exterior target. That time is recorded.
Shooter performs a tac or retention reload off the clock, then approaches the door to the shoot house.
On the second buzzer, shooter enters the house and clears it. There is a PAR for clearing the house.



The PAR was generous enough to allow folks to use cover properly and perform a search rather than racing through and rewarding the guy who could outrun the SO calling out cover warnings. That was always the problem with complicated "room clearing" stages at IDPA matches. It wasn't about who could do it best, nor was it about who could do it fastest. It was about who could do it closest to the edge of what a particular SO at that particular moment let you get away with before calling cover penalties. You'd frequently see two shooters go through the stage almost identically but one (a buddy of the SO, a club local, or a well known competitor) wouldn't get called for cover while the other would.

I once watched a teammate clear a complicated "house" stage in 12 seconds. He never stopped moving and simply shot targets as he ran past them in the open, too quickly for the SO to call out a cover warning. He won the stage by something like 20 seconds over the next closest competitor. That's a twenty second advantage at a major match. And it's why the subjective cover calls in IDPA are flawed.

VolGrad
09-19-2012, 11:58 AM
Funny you should say that VolGrad. I got called out a few weeks back at Cherokee ...I've asked shooters at Cherokee at least twice to watch themselves while reholstering IWB behind the hip. I often see novice shooters sort of dip grip of their pistol somehow while they attempt to find the holster. This usually tends to sweep the folks behind them. I know the gun is empty as I just watched him clear it. However, it's still something to be aware of for future reference.
Making the -1 a full second penalty would be good for two reasons:

It would make the math of scoring easier.

It would put more of a premium on accuracy.Agree on both parts.

YVK
09-19-2012, 12:02 PM
I don't know if one second penalty is going to change things conceptually. There may be some circumstances where it plays out, but it is not an incremental change. Last weekend's local match winner had more B-zone hits than guys who took places 2-5, to the tune of 11-13 more Bs; still, even 1 second penalty wouldn't have changed the outcome. I think this issue is best solved by mixing in stages where the speed just can't be a huge factor, i.e. a truly hard targets. Given the huge size of IDPA targets, this may require pushing them quite a bit further, getting a lot more partial coverage etc.

I wholly agree with things mentioned above - proportional penalty for NT hit depending on zone (I'd even suggest a DQ for a head shot), the round dumping thing, AIWB, minimal trigger weight (doesn't 4 lbs seem too low though?). Putting RWR or Tac-Load on timer seems strange; while I understand you don't want to take forever doing those, those reloads by definition are the actions one takes when one has enough time.

The thing the annoys me the most though is a rigidity, often times stupidity, in stage solving that in turn leads to idiotic procedurals. I got a procedural once for engaging three targets while moving away because the CoF called for engaging them while standing (from 3 yards or so) and then move away. Factually, what I did was "tactically" sound, and I took harder shots, but no. Last match had stages where clearly visible targets couldn't be engaged until it was their turn. This certainly could be a local match issues, although seems like this happens elsewhere too.

ToddG
09-19-2012, 12:03 PM
FWIW, we use a 1s/pt accuracy penalty in KSTG and I don't know that it really slows people down or forces them to fire more make-up shots for C-zone hits. At least speaking for myself, I don't think I approach stages differently than I would for IDPA.

The bigger difference is our FTN rule, which is an additional 5s penalty if you don't score at least one A-zone hit. Plenty of folks will be down two points (two C-zone hits) and then have an FTN tacked on. That hurts, and we've definitely seen it affect shooters in terms of staying on target until they score a meaningful hit.

Wes Peart
09-19-2012, 12:53 PM
No. In fact, in the beginning IDPA only penalized shooters 0.3 seconds per point down.

As far as scoring issues are concerned, you need to keep in mind that this is a game. If you make a hit on a no-shoot a 100 second penalty, the disaster factor becomes ridiculous. That one mistake is essentially destroying any chance someone has of placing in a match, while plenty of other mistakes are barely a blip on the radar.

If it's only a "game" then loosing once in a while if you blow a shot shouldn't bother you, should it? If IDPA is going to claim any sort of association with "real life" or "defensive" shooting and not 100% game shooting, then if you drill a hostage in the chest, DQ'ing is not unreasonable. Why is it that an ND will instantly DQ you from a match while shooting a hostage is OK, or at least results in a penalty you can come back from? I would argue in principle, an ND is not near as bad as shooting someone who doesn't deserve to be shot. So what if someone gets a 100 second penalty once in a blue moon, I'm sure they're grown ups and can take the fact that they lost.. They can always deduct that penalty and see where they would have stood had they not shot a NT target if it really bothers them that much.

It would be cool to see IDPA shift direction back to what it was originally intended to be.. So, things that would be nice if IDPA changed..

-DQ or 100 second penalty for shooting a NT. Double or quadruple accuracy penalties.

-Get rid of vests.. They are gay and I don't know anyone that actually wears one on a daily basis. Know this would piss a lotta people off but the truth is they are 100% gaming BS for people who are too lazy to use what they actually carry/wear on a daily basis. For those seniors and photographers that actually wear them- sorry. Wear a jacket or an "untucked barber shirt of denial". Or a t-shirt, if you're really a rebel.

-Get rid of the round dumping rule.

ToddG
09-19-2012, 01:15 PM
If it's only a "game" then loosing once in a while if you blow a shot shouldn't bother you, should it?

When is the last time you spent $500 on a plane ticket, $100 on a match fee, $300 on a hotel to shoot a match? Yeah, if you blow it because of one mistake in an artificial game environment, it will bother you.


If IDPA is going to claim any sort of association with "real life" or "defensive" shooting and not 100% game shooting, then if you drill a hostage in the chest, DQ'ing is not unreasonable.

You've created a false dilemma. In fact, IDPA can both be "realistic" and still a game, and certain things have to balance out to make the gun accessible, enjoyable, and fair. The "it's supposed to be realz!" argument can be used to complain about anything: the weird cover rules, the equipment limitations, etc.

The idea that "drilling a hostage" is equivalent to a DQ is also silly. Simple scenario: you and a loved one are at the mall when two AK-wielding thugs start an active shooter campaign. To get to safety, you have to shoot one of the thugs. In the process, you also wing another shopper in forearm. Would you stop and give up or keep going to save yourself and your loved one? Of course you wouldn't stop. Merely hitting a bystander, while certainly bad, is not the end of your life.


Why is it that an ND will instantly DQ you from a match while shooting a hostage is OK, or at least results in a penalty you can come back from?

Seriously? Because an ND actually endangers real live humans at a match, and shooting a non-threat is a failure to execute the game properly. One is about maintaining a safe game, the other is just part of the game challenge.


It would be cool to see IDPA shift direction back to what it was originally intended to be..

Except that wouldn't be shifting things back, it would be a tremendous change. I'd submit that the group of guys who wrote the original rulebook had a very good understanding of what they were trying to accomplish, and all-or-nothing stages weren't part of the plan.


-Get rid of vests.. They are gay and I don't know anyone that actually wears one on a daily basis. Know this would piss a lotta people off but the truth is they are 100% gaming BS for people who are too lazy to use what they actually carry/wear on a daily basis. For those seniors and photographers that actually wear them- sorry. Wear a jacket or an "untucked barber shirt of denial". Or a t-shirt, if you're really a rebel.

This is another one I just don't get. Maybe it's because I actually did wear vests for years. Anyway, I'm not interested in a few folks telling me what is an isn't appropriate concealment wear. The weird "anti-vest" hate from a small, vocal minority doesn't jive with the reality that I do, in fact, see people using those vests as concealment garments all the time. You know that's where it came from, right? The photographer vest didn't become a darling in IDPA because it was gamey, it was what so many people used, especially overseas, when actually carrying concealed.

Every time I hear someone complain that IDPA should be more real what I really hear is someone saying it should be more like the way I do things so no one has an advantage over me!

orionz06
09-19-2012, 01:15 PM
-DQ or 100 second penalty for shooting a NT. Double or quadruple accuracy penalties.


I think that's a bit much. Drive 2 hours to the range on your day off and plug the wrong target right out of the gate. No refund and a 2 hour drive home.

Chris Rhines
09-19-2012, 01:35 PM
I was seriously going to post something about being DQ'd for hitting a no-shoot as a joke. I never thought that someone would seriously propose it.

In my opinion, shooters should not be disqualified except for unsportsmanlike conduct, or for genuine safety violations.

IDPA is a game. It's supposed to be fun. Giant penalties for a misdirected shot are not fun.

VolGrad
09-19-2012, 02:08 PM
Excellent points all around. At the end of the day (I hate the expression) it is just a game. The quirky rules do sometimes make me scratch my head but the reality is they make you think. Thinking induces stress. Shooting under stress can really help you stay on top of your game.

I can honestly say if the SHTF in real life I won't be reverting to tac reloads, staying behind cover until my gun is re-loaded, etc. I'll be getting my behind moving and reloading as needed, when needed.

Chemsoldier
09-19-2012, 02:57 PM
Wow. I think both of the major games are a good way to spend a Saturday or Sunday, but as someone who has spent most of his time shooting USPSA I find all this a bit amusing. USPSA can be silly and often unrealistic in the extreme, but by and large, when the buzzer goes off you play it as it lays and solve the problem. As to scoring, at least you all understand the scoring, I have shot USPSA for years and still do not completely understand it. :D

USPSA always has carping about this and that facet of the rules, including a desire to increase "realism." But I have never observed the level of wailing and gnashing of teeth among USPSA shooters that I frequently hear from IDPA shooters. Its like religion or something. IDPA must be an awesome game to keep people coming back despite it.:cool:

VolGrad
09-19-2012, 03:05 PM
As to scoring, at least you all understand the scoring, I have shot USPSA for years and still do not completely understand it. :D

True 'dat. That's part of the reason I haven't ever tried USPSA. That and the stages seem forever long. I simply can't remember that much at once. At least in IDPA they tell me what to do, when to do it, and even dictate how I do it. :cool:

ToddG
09-19-2012, 03:13 PM
The "more realistic" descriptor for IDPA is a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it makes the game more relevant and approachable for less experienced shooters and those who aren't necessarily just out to compete and win.

On the other, it leads many to the conclusion that realism is the primary goal of IDPA. Obviously that is not and cannot be true. If no one is shooting back, it's not real. Period. Once you accept the necessity of that fundamental compromise, and see IDPA as "more" realistic rather than "real life," it becomes easier to understand the game aspect.

But enough shooters, SOs, and MDs use "realism" as an excuse for poor stage design, bad calls, or stupid rules that it gets really, really exhausting after a while.

Chemsoldier
09-19-2012, 03:15 PM
BLUF: Both games make you get the gun out, shoot targets, move and resolve issues with your firearm (reloading or mitigate malfunctions) under time pressure. That makes them value added. I shoot the match that is close to me. If I ever end up in a town with both games, I will have to do the Pepsi challenge.

kmartphoto
09-19-2012, 03:21 PM
FWIW, we use a 1s/pt accuracy penalty in KSTG and I don't know that it really slows people down or forces them to fire more make-up shots for C-zone hits. At least speaking for myself, I don't think I approach stages differently than I would for IDPA.

The bigger difference is our FTN rule, which is an additional 5s penalty if you don't score at least one A-zone hit. Plenty of folks will be down two points (two C-zone hits) and then have an FTN tacked on. That hurts, and we've definitely seen it affect shooters in terms of staying on target until they score a meaningful hit.

IDPA has that rule


Failure to Neutralize
A failure to neutralize is a 5-second penalty for not getting at least one shot within the down-0 or down-1 zones of a threat target. If a shooter lands only peripheral hits on the target, or misses the target altogether, the threat target is still considered viable and a potential threat to the shooter. This penalty does not apply in Limited Vickers stages or for targets that completely disappear.

kmartphoto
09-19-2012, 03:32 PM
Excellent points all around. At the end of the day (I hate the expression) it is just a game. The quirky rules do sometimes make me scratch my head but the reality is they make you think. Thinking induces stress. Shooting under stress can really help you stay on top of your game.

I can honestly say if the SHTF in real life I won't be reverting to tac reloads, staying behind cover until my gun is re-loaded, etc. I'll be getting my behind moving and reloading as needed, when needed.

THIS

Vol you and I agree on just about everything... except plastic guns and how high to stow the cereal boxes in the kitchen.

ADulay
09-19-2012, 04:08 PM
Wow!

An IDPA thread that's now seven pages long and everyone is still civil!

Nicely done to everyone!

AD (I actually shoot my carry gun)

VolGrad
09-19-2012, 05:28 PM
THIS

Vol you and I agree on just about everything... except plastic guns and how high to stow the cereal boxes in the kitchen.
Everyone knows the cereal boxes go on the bottom shelf of the pantry. It's for the children ....... and their short father. Don't worry about me though. I married a tall woman so I dont need a step stool.

cclaxton
09-19-2012, 05:57 PM
Scoring differently depending on equipment gets complicated. If you're going to be fair about it, you need to assess what the real benefit of the "better" equipment is. Look at how wrong USPSA does it, where the huge benefit of shooting major is so obvious that very few people compete in minor (outside of Production, obviously, where everyone is scored minor). How often does someone win Nats or an area match shooting minor in Open, Limited, or L10?

It also leads to complications when you score the match. The original KSTG rules had a 1s/pt penalty for major and 1.2s/pt for minor. Keeping track of who shot what (not everyone self-reports properly) and making sure the right equation got used for each person added a level of complexity that just wasn't worth it.

re: PAR-based shoot house stages, it's funny you mention that. We (the NRA HQ IDPA Club, now disbanded) sent IDPA HQ a formal request to do that years ago, as did, I believe, Marty Hayes at FAS. The way we used to run shoot-house stages was with what we called "PAR Plus." The stage had two starts, one of which was for time and the other (the actual "room clearing") was PAR. For example:


Shooter begins outside the shoot house, facing a lone target.
On the buzzer, the shooter retreats while firing at least six rounds at the exterior target. That time is recorded.
Shooter performs a tac or retention reload off the clock, then approaches the door to the shoot house.
On the second buzzer, shooter enters the house and clears it. There is a PAR for clearing the house.



The PAR was generous enough to allow folks to use cover properly and perform a search rather than racing through and rewarding the guy who could outrun the SO calling out cover warnings. That was always the problem with complicated "room clearing" stages at IDPA matches. It wasn't about who could do it best, nor was it about who could do it fastest. It was about who could do it closest to the edge of what a particular SO at that particular moment let you get away with before calling cover penalties. You'd frequently see two shooters go through the stage almost identically but one (a buddy of the SO, a club local, or a well known competitor) wouldn't get called for cover while the other would.

I once watched a teammate clear a complicated "house" stage in 12 seconds. He never stopped moving and simply shot targets as he ran past them in the open, too quickly for the SO to call out a cover warning. He won the stage by something like 20 seconds over the next closest competitor. That's a twenty second advantage at a major match. And it's why the subjective cover calls in IDPA are flawed.

Thanks for the reply and very interesting perspective. I see your point about cover calls. I like the combination time+PAR idea. Is there a way to use camera's placed behind each cover point behind the shooter and then add more objectivity to whether they were behind cover when the pow happened? Video recorders are cheap enough these days that it is possible. Or are there other ideas using technology to detect the cover calls? Just thinking out loud here. I have often thought it would be cool to use lasertag devices mounted on the shooter so that the LED's would strike the device if cover was exceeded.

On the idea of judging based on equipment...I can see where it might be impractical. But isn't it kinda obvious if you are using a laser? I agree its hard to calculate exactly how much of an improvement using lasers would make and then how to apply that to a formula.

Thanks,
CC

cclaxton
09-19-2012, 06:20 PM
I have been shooting IDPA since August 2011, and I have had a few things happen that I thought were bad calls, but that happens in every sport. Life is unfair, etc.

But they have not reduced my excitement for the sport. I shoot an IDPA match almost every weekend. It is allowing me to gain a level of gun-handlng proficiency that I cannot get at the range or even at an occasional tactical course. I can't afford the time and money to go to a tactical training course every weekend, but I can afford to shoot an IDPA match every weekend. The competition forces me to do dry-fire practice, to stay in good physical shape and to test my own personal limits.

I am taking AFHF this weekend to make improvements in my speed and accuracy and gun handling because I want to see how far I can go personally at competing against others at my level and eventually against some of the best shooters in the world. IDPA is a way to do that.

At the KSTG match last night I got penalties for crowding, and while I felt it was a stupid game mistake, I walked away still feeling good about my shooting and my hits. IMHO, that is the attitude you bring to an IDPA or KSTG match.

IDPA and KSTG are a way to compete to see where I stand against others and the best, and the best of the best. It will not always be a fair game, but if I play enough matches and continue to improve...I will know where I stand....and that is satisfying. Besides, shooting pistols is fun.

CC

MDS
09-19-2012, 07:53 PM
I can afford to shoot an IDPA match every weekend.

I can't afford the time commitment. The only thing idpa (or ipsc) would have to change to get me to compete is the shooter flow so a given shooter only needs an hour, our two max. If kstg matches were a 4-hour thing (relatively short for an idpa match in my limited experience) I couldn't go even when my travel coincided with a match...

John Hearne
09-19-2012, 09:43 PM
The only thing idpa (or ipsc) would have to change to get me to compete is the shooter flow so a given shooter only needs an hour, our two max.

I agree. I would shoot more if a match didn't require the commitment of most of a day. Also, I'd love to see local clubs let those of us with 9mm uppers shoot them as a second gun. IDPA has mult-gun rules but there are no such matches near me. I've got two clubs that let me do this and being able to shoot pistol and carbine makes it worth the time investment.

abu fitna
09-19-2012, 10:25 PM
1. modernize equipment classing to reflect actual carry, not an ideal based on the 1911 world and all others model of the current system. formalize small carry / backup gun class and allow for inclusion on non-standard concealment pistols in this class (foreign systems, such as makarov, tokarev, etc that are commonly seen in the field). I know these can be problematic, but moving to a proper "compete as you carry" model would go a long way to actually providing a better baseline for how actual defensive pistol may play out for all of those using single stack 9mm, .380's or lesser caliber systems. allow common modifications such as grip changes, lights and lasers but distinguish from the true custom pistols and race guns. To avoid adding yet further classes, consolidate these into enhanced division along with all others. Weapons should be classed into division regardless of action type or caliber. this gives us stock, enhanced, custom, and sub threshold.

2. address silly reload rules, memory game stages, and the tactical sequence / tactical priority nonsense. The first are common complaints, and the latter is routinely abused insofar as requirements for lateral spacing between targets are not often followed by stage designers / ro's as just another way to call procedurals if one is not shooting the ideal gamer string. The change should be to a solve the tactical problem the way you would solve it... with FTDR to keep the unflinching gamers in check.

3. In conjunction with 2, focus on stage design criteria that introduce formalized concepts for testing practitioner skill as applied. this is a complex discussion worth its own thread, but here is the heart of the thing: for a range of conditions intended to simulate tactical problems, a baseline of performance data can be established (especially given the larger numbers of competitors that run through many common stages.) stage design should focus on creating new, innovative problems which measure performance against the baseline. this will involve changing scoring system, changing terminal effects models (not just 2 rounds per target, but based on accepted performance averages for shooter platform with specific outlier conditions incorporated into test design. this also means changes to the basic target, to incorporate 3d and other reactive options. equally important to the changes themselves is a protocol for data collection on performance on documented stage design with identified testing criteria. this won't be everyone's cup of tea, but there is real value in a participatory architecture that allows those who just want to play to also fit within these testing conditions. and to avoid killing all fun, allow a certain percentage of non-tactical, or gamer stages in any given match as an accepted part of the design. it happens anyway, might as well start to distinguish one from the other.

markp
09-19-2012, 10:58 PM
Thanks for the reply and very interesting perspective. I see your point about cover calls. I like the combination time+PAR idea. Is there a way to use camera's placed behind each cover point behind the shooter and then add more objectivity to whether they were behind cover when the pow happened? Video recorders are cheap enough these days that it is possible. Or are there other ideas using technology to detect the cover calls? Just thinking out loud here. I have often thought it would be cool to use lasertag devices mounted on the shooter so that the LED's would strike the device if cover was exceeded.

On the idea of judging based on equipment...I can see where it might be impractical. But isn't it kinda obvious if you are using a laser? I agree its hard to calculate exactly how much of an improvement using lasers would make and then how to apply that to a formula.

Thanks,
CC

or just use a fault line?

ToddG
09-19-2012, 11:24 PM
IDPA has that rule

In IDPA, any hit in the entire head or any hit within the border of the giant -1 zone in the body counts as neutralized. In KSTG, only the 3x5 within the head and only the -0/A-zone in the body can neutralize.


Is there a way to use camera's placed behind each cover point behind the shooter and then add more objectivity to whether they were behind cover when the pow happened?

I think you'd find that far too complicated to set up. You'd need a different camera for each target because the shooter is allowed to move between them. You'd need monitors -- and someone to watch them -- or you'd need to stop the match to review the video (for each camera).

The simple reality is that proper use of cover is tremendously situational. The more realistic you make the judging of cover, the more flexible your cover rules (and assessment) would have to be.

Regarding your frequent competition schedule, it definitely showed at last night's KSTG match.

secondstoryguy
09-20-2012, 02:18 AM
I can't afford the time commitment. The only thing idpa (or ipsc) would have to change to get me to compete is the shooter flow so a given shooter only needs an hour, our two max. If kstg matches were a 4-hour thing (relatively short for an idpa match in my limited experience) I couldn't go even when my travel coincided with a match...

This is what has pretty much killed the ride for me. Our IDPA club here in Austin was great years ago when it was 20 shooters or so but it has grown so much that shooting 5 stages takes most of the day. You spend all day shooting for less than 2 minutes. It's great that there's more interest in the shooting sports but I don't feel it's a very good use of my training time to shoot matches regularly. When I do shoot them I see it more as a socializing thing than a training thing.

ford.304
09-20-2012, 06:49 AM
This is what has pretty much killed the ride for me. Our IDPA club here in Austin was great years ago when it was 20 shooters or so but it has grown so much that shooting 5 stages takes most of the day. You spend all day shooting for less than 2 minutes. It's great that there's more interest in the shooting sports but I don't feel it's a very good use of my training time to shoot matches regularly. When I do shoot them I see it more as a socializing thing than a training thing.

Just shows that dear lord we need more ranges.

Around here the local ranges say they are doing more business on a saturday than they use to do in a week. Yet we don't have any new ranges being constructed - heck, we're down one because they got sued out by a big defense contractor who wanted to buy their land. And the vast majority of those ranges don't have action bays.

We're got the same problem. Matches sometimes go into the evening if you get too many new shooters in the same group. I wonder if places need to start splitting it into two days and asking people to preregister. Or having a separate novice shoot every so often. That's a big strain on the clubs, though - that many extra shooters aren't all turning into range officers, unfortunately.

GForceLizard
09-20-2012, 07:36 AM
1. Get rid of the round dumping/FTDR rule



My list:
- Reloads can be initiated at anytime but a shooter may not leave a position of cover with a pistol that is not ready to fire. Magazines with live rounds must be retained unless stripped to clear a malfunction.


Both excellent ideas.

P.S. I bought a photographers vest that I used for photography before I knew that IDPA existed. It's too short to be IDPA legal.

kmartphoto
09-20-2012, 07:49 AM
In IDPA, any hit in the entire head or any hit within the border of the giant -1 zone in the body counts as neutralized. In KSTG, only the 3x5 within the head and only the -0/A-zone in the body can neutralize.


yeah... I realize the zones are different. I just foolishly thought you had forgotten that IDPA has a 5 second FTN.

NickA
09-20-2012, 10:12 AM
I can't afford the time commitment. The only thing idpa (or ipsc) would have to change to get me to compete is the shooter flow so a given shooter only needs an hour, our two max. If kstg matches were a 4-hour thing (relatively short for an idpa match in my limited experience) I couldn't go even when my travel coincided with a match...


This is what has pretty much killed the ride for me. Our IDPA club here in Austin was great years ago when it was 20 shooters or so but it has grown so much that shooting 5 stages takes most of the day. You spend all day shooting for less than 2 minutes. It's great that there's more interest in the shooting sports but I don't feel it's a very good use of my training time to shoot matches regularly. When I do shoot them I see it more as a socializing thing than a training thing.

Same boat here. I used to shoot with probably the same club as SSG (but in SA) and it's turned into an all day affair. Great for them, just can't afford the time. I need to look into the local USPSA clubs, there's 2 or 3 of them so hopefully less crowded.
Something like what Todd does with KSTG would be great, have time slots with a limited number of shooters in each and get done in an hour or so. In fact I may send the guy an email and suggest it.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2

ToddG
09-20-2012, 11:02 AM
We've been running matches that way at the NRA Range almost since it opened. We've done USPSA, IDPA, Cowboy Action, and now KSTG, too.

The trick is having a crew of dedicated guys who'll show up hours early to get everything set up, and understanding what you can accomplish in an hour. We get six people on a squad and only have one squad because we only have one bay. You could do more squads if you had more bays, but understand that a delay on one bay can back up the whole time slot and once you start backing up, the problem compounds itself.

The hour time slot works very well for evening indoor matches but it leaves just a few people at the end of the night for clean-up and tear-down, too.

The other negative is that it's not particularly social because you only have a handful of guys at the match at any given time.

The better plan, in my experience, is to break matches up into AM and PM squads. Figure out how many people you can put through the match in 3 hours, let that many sign up for each block.

Of course, a big part of this falls to the match organizers. If they allow too many people to sign up, the match gets unwieldy. There's a pretty straightforward relationship between the number of bays you can run at a time, and the number of shooters you can run in a day.

TheRoland
09-20-2012, 11:23 AM
I think you'd find that far too complicated to set up. You'd need a different camera for each target because the shooter is allowed to move between them. You'd need monitors -- and someone to watch them -- or you'd need to stop the match to review the video (for each camera)

My local club once used an electric eye at knee-level (and a triggered mover) to take the place of cover calls. Shooters were suddenly mindful of cover... For that one stage, at least.

orionz06
09-20-2012, 11:32 AM
My local club once used an electric eye at knee-level (and a triggered mover) to take the place of cover calls. Shooters were suddenly mindful of cover... For that one stage, at least.

Did they also play "Electric Eye"?

ToddG
09-20-2012, 11:38 AM
My local club once used an electric eye at knee-level (and a triggered mover) to take the place of cover calls. Shooters were suddenly mindful of cover... For that one stage, at least.

Not trying to be snarky, but this points out one problem with such an approach. In IDPA, the position of one's knee is not part of the cover assessment. Someone who bowed his knee out and hit the sensor while his feet and 50% of this torso were behind cover would get dinged, while someone who kept his knee inboard but let his foot (or more than 50% of his torso) out from behind cover would avoid a proper penalty.

Different people of different sizes in different positions shooting at different targets are going to have huge variation in what is exposed, when, and where.

VolGrad
09-20-2012, 11:55 AM
Our IDPA club here in Austin was great years ago when it was 20 shooters or so but it has grown so much that shooting 5 stages takes most of the day. You spend all day shooting for less than 2 minutes.
Our club starts shooting at 12:30 (Sundays in the South ... it's a church thang). We generally finish between 4:30-5:00. There are generally 7 stages with at approx a dozen shooters per squad. There is a LOT of standing around.

TheRoland
09-21-2012, 07:30 AM
Not trying to be snarky, but this points out one problem with such an approach. In IDPA, the position of one's knee is not part of the cover assessment. Someone who bowed his knee out and hit the sensor while his feet and 50% of this torso were behind cover would get dinged, while someone who kept his knee inboard but let his foot (or more than 50% of his torso) out from behind cover would avoid a proper penalty.

Different people of different sizes in different positions shooting at different targets are going to have huge variation in what is exposed, when, and where.

It would be very, very, hard to place a foot outside of cover, have the knee in cover, and be leaning one's upper-body out. You'd either need insect-legs or to turn sideways and 'limbo' out to shoot.:)

To be clear, this was a clever activator, not some way to solve the cover-call everywhere. But the consequence was to make around 100 shooters, many of us unapologetic gamers, to be very careful about exposing body parts. I think that's a pretty interesting result.

ToddG
09-21-2012, 04:06 PM
It would be very, very, hard to place a foot outside of cover, have the knee in cover, and be leaning one's upper-body out. You'd either need insect-legs or to turn sideways and 'limbo' out to shoot.:)

You think? I can picture it pretty easily. I'll see if I can rig up my phone/camera to get a shot in my hotel room. Foot beyond cover, knee inside cover, able to break a shot on the target.


To be clear, this was a clever activator, not some way to solve the cover-call everywhere. But the consequence was to make around 100 shooters, many of us unapologetic gamers, to be very careful about exposing body parts. I think that's a pretty interesting result.

We used a similar setup at the Low-Light Challenge back in '00 and I agree, it's neat. Ours turned the lights off in a room. So you started the stage thinking you had plenty of light, then you come around a corner and whammo... pitch black.

orionz06
09-21-2012, 04:08 PM
It would be very, very, hard to place a foot outside of cover, have the knee in cover, and be leaning one's upper-body out. You'd either need insect-legs or to turn sideways and 'limbo' out to shoot.:)

Not hard at all, just hit every dryfire target in the house this way.

TheRoland
09-21-2012, 06:30 PM
Not hard at all, just hit every dryfire target in the house this way.

Alright. Suffice it to say nobody wanted to do with a FTN on the line....

TheRoland
09-21-2012, 06:32 PM
We used a similar setup at the Low-Light Challenge back in '00 and I agree, it's neat. Ours turned the lights off in a room. So you started the stage thinking you had plenty of light, then you come around a corner and whammo... pitch black.

That sounds incredibly cool.

Alaskapopo
09-22-2012, 09:40 PM
1. Get rid of round dumping rule. (like that suggestion and agree)
2. Get rid of pro for dropped loaded mags. (tac loads are a thing of the past really and no way woud I do one in real life unless I was pretty sure everyone was dead that was a threat to me)
3. Get rid of 10 round limit. Allow guns that fit in box to be loaded full.
Change ESP to allow lasers, slide mounted red dots, comps etc. Make it open for IDPA where you can test concepts in new carry guns. Right now IDPA is on its way to becoming a slightly more modern SASS.
Pat

jlw
09-22-2012, 10:18 PM
1. Get rid of round dumping rule. (like that suggestion and agree)
2. Get rid of pro for dropped loaded mags. (tac loads are a thing of the past really and no way woud I do one in real life unless I was pretty sure everyone was dead that was a threat to me)
3. Get rid of 10 round limit. Allow guns that fit in box to be loaded full.
Change ESP to allow lasers, slide mounted red dots, comps etc. Make it open for IDPA where you can test concepts in new carry guns. Right now IDPA is on its way to becoming a slightly more modern SASS.
Pat

As for #2, the capacity limits force reloads and level the playing field. A G21 at 13+1 against a 1911 at 8+1 just isn't a fair fight. I've got no problem with sticking it to the 1911 crowd, but that one just won't work.

As for #3, straight up allowing that change to ESP without doing something for folks who want to run a carry gun is going to suck as folks that shoot XDs and CZ 75 SAOs or even a stippled otherwise stock Glock/M&P and the like would have to compete against what in essence are race guns as they wouldn't have the option of shooting in SSP.

Alaskapopo
09-22-2012, 10:27 PM
As for #2, the capacity limits force reloads and level the playing field. A G21 at 13+1 against a 1911 at 8+1 just isn't a fair fight. I've got no problem with sticking it to the 1911 crowd, but that one just won't work.

As for #3, straight up allowing that change to ESP without doing something for folks who want to run a carry gun is going to suck as folks that shoot XDs and CZ 75 SAOs or even a stippled otherwise stock Glock/M&P and the like would have to compete against what in essence are race guns as they wouldn't have the option of shooting in SSP.

As for #2 I respect your opinion and there is something about limiting the round count so its more of a stock car race but as for being fair, life is not fair and maybe it would teach people the value of having added capacity. I no longer carry a Single Stack 1911 as a duty gun partly due to the high maintance involved in custom 1911's and partly due to realizing that having a 9 round handgun is not the best idea if you were ever to find yourself in harms way.

As for XD's they should be in SSP just like they are in production in USPSA.. The CZ75 I had not thought about. I really don't take IDPA that seriously anymore. I shoot it for fun but I have to laugh at the people who think its training. Its just a game like USPSA or any other gun game. You can't practice good tactics and beat the clock one or the other has to give. If they had more USPSA matches where I am at in the winter I would not shoot IDPA at all.
Pat

jlw
09-22-2012, 10:48 PM
As for #2 I respect your opinion and there is something about limiting the round count so its more of a stock car race but as for being fair, life is not fair and maybe it would teach people the value of having added capacity. I no longer carry a Single Stack 1911 as a duty gun partly due to the high maintance involved in custom 1911's and partly due to realizing that having a 9 round handgun is not the best idea if you were ever to find yourself in harms way.

As for XD's they should be in SSP just like they are in production in USPSA.. The CZ75 I had not thought about. I really don't take IDPA that seriously anymore. I shoot it for fun but I have to laugh at the people who think its training. Its just a game like USPSA or any other gun game. You can't practice good tactics and beat the clock one or the other has to give. If they had more USPSA matches where I am at in the winter I would not shoot IDPA at all.
Pat

I'd love to stick to the the 1911 crowd, but remember who really controls IDPA, and there is no way a 1911 manufacturer is going to allow such a rule.

IDPA is a game, and I do think the rules should have a fairness about them, and handicapping a shooter that much just isn't fair. Even an M&P45 would be giving up three rounds to a G21 or XD45 shooters, and this would allow lesser shooters to win simply based on the capacity question alone.

As for the XD, I completely agree that it should be in SSP, but remember something like stippling also pushes a pistol to ESP. Even things as simple as using a Vickers extended slide stop does this as well.

Alaskapopo
09-22-2012, 10:54 PM
I'd love to stick to the the 1911 crowd, but remember who really controls IDPA, and there is no way a 1911 manufacturer is going to allow such a rule.

IDPA is a game, and I do think the rules should have a fairness about them, and handicapping a shooter that much just isn't fair. Even an M&P45 would be giving up three rounds to a G21 or XD45 shooters, and this would allow lesser shooters to win simply based on the capacity question alone.

As for the XD, I completely agree that it should be in SSP, but remember something like stippling also pushes a pistol to ESP. Even things as simple as using a Vickers extended slide stop does this as well.

A solution perhaps would be to leave SSP alone and join ESP and CDP together like single stack is in USPSA the only issue is power factor. Could just require 165 but allow 40's in and 10mm etc. Then make ESP like I was talking with full mags, slide mounted red dots, comps etc as long as it fits in the box and is concealed under your vest.
Pat

jlw
09-22-2012, 11:21 PM
A solution perhaps would be to leave SSP alone and join ESP and CDP together like single stack is in USPSA the only issue is power factor. Could just require 165 but allow 40's in and 10mm etc. Then make ESP like I was talking with full mags, slide mounted red dots, comps etc as long as it fits in the box and is concealed under your vest.
Pat

I would like to see (for pistols) a list of permitted modifications across the board with two divisions separated by power factor and capacity.

Just speaking for me, I wouldn't use lasers/red dots, etc, if allowed for numerous reasons that don't necessarily apply to other shooters. I don't run red dots on a carbine either, but that is a personal choice.