PDA

View Full Version : IDPA's Proposed Reload/Cover Rule



ToddG
05-07-2013, 11:22 PM
The internet is apparently moments away from collapsing into a black hole due to the changes to reloading behind cover from the latest rulebook.

To catch folks up quickly:

Old rule: you were free to perform a Reload with Retention or Tactical Reload while moving along a piece of cover if you weren't exposed to any targets.
New rule: if we're reading it right, basically you cannot be moving while performing a reload from behind cover.


First, let me say that I don't care one way or the other.

But I'm just amazed at how many people are losing their minds over this and trying to justify it as some kind of critical tactical sheepdog ninja technique without which one will certainly die a fiery lead-filled death. The argument, as best I understand it, is that standing still to do the reload will Get Ya Killed!

Now it's been a few years since I last shot an IDPA match but as I recall there were essentially two types of cover you'd be moving behind or past. The first was a car. The second was a wall. In both cases, you were moving from a point where you'd just eliminated a bunch of threats to a place where you were about to go head to head with more threats.

So on the one hand you have people saying that it is Bad Tactics[TM] to remain where you were because the bad guys know where you are. So you need to skeedaddle ASAP.

On the other hand, you could look at it as your current location has just been made safe or at least relatively more safe than the next shooting position where you know there are more bad guys who haven't been shot yet. Charging toward them before your gun is topped off might not be so bright. Heck, it could Get Ya Killed!

What I find most amusing is that the people upset about the rule seem all too happy to imagine a situation in which the guys they just shot might overrun their current position, but they feign ignorance of the possibility that the guys they're running towards might be just as mobile and come 'round that corner while the good guy is juggling mags for a reload.

Me? I'd probably either do a speed reload (leaving bullets behind, which is against IDPA rules) or I'd move straight to the next place I needed to be without reloading. It's easy to say "behind cover" against pieces of cardboard nailed to the earth but if you knew those threats could come around the corner at any moment would you really start a magazine swap? That's especially true when the cover is something as small and bullet-permeable as a car. You've got bad guys at the front and rear of the car. You shoot the guys in front and then reload your gun on your way to the rear... seriously?

Here's the real situation: forcing people to do flat footed reloads means they'll be slower and the guys who've spent time and effort mastering IDPA-legal reloads on the move will no longer have an advantage over the guys who haven't. Period. All the Get Ya Killed nonsense is just an excuse for people who are upset about a rule change that steals a perceived advantage from them.

Now for all I know, IDPA is going to come out and say the rule was written wrong or is being interpreted too harshly and that they never intended to prevent people from reloading while moving along a covered position. If so, that's fine, too. Because at certain times under certain circumstances, either method might be the smartest thing to do.

If the rule stands as it's written and being interpreted right now, though, know what you'll start to see? A whole lot fewer tactical reloads on the clock and a whole lot more shooting the gun empty in a fight... which I think the community has pretty much come to understand is the norm in Real Fights[TM].

/rant

jetfire
05-08-2013, 07:01 AM
The srs IDPA guys are mostly upset because we like having the option to do Tac load on the move behind cover on certain stages. Of course, the whole conversation hinges on what thy mean by a position of cover.

ToddG
05-08-2013, 07:09 AM
The srs IDPA guys are mostly upset because we like having the option to do Tac load on the move behind cover on certain stages. Of course, the whole conversation hinges on what thy mean by a position of cover.

That I understand. In some ways it's one of the last "options" a shooter has in a game that often devolves into a strictly choreographed ballet. People who say, "I'm upset if this is a rule because the game is no longer fun" or challenging or whatever... that's fine. As I said above, makes no difference to me which way IDPA comes down on the issue. It's just the silly "Gonna Git Ya Killed!" whining that makes me roll my eyes.

jetfire
05-08-2013, 07:42 AM
I agree with that 100% - I'm of the belief that if you think IDPA is in teaching any sort of tactics, you need to get your head examined.

orionz06
05-08-2013, 07:47 AM
I agree with that 100% - I'm of the belief that if you think IDPA is in teaching any sort of tactics, you need to get your head examined.

I wish I could have recorded my RSO class...


On the topic, meh. Rules are rules. If they change them and make them objective without room to screw up the call I'll be fine. If I disagree that strongly I can not play or start my own game with my own rules.

ToddG
05-08-2013, 08:01 AM
Believe me, I'm no fan of some of IDPA's core "tactics" like Leave no round behind! and shoot everyone once before you shoot anyone twice! I'm not suggesting everything in the IDPA rulebook is sound self-defense doctrine. But this one particular rule change isn't bad because:Tactics!

rsa-otc
05-08-2013, 08:14 AM
Believe me, I'm no fan of some of IDPA's core "tactics" like Leave no round behind! and shoot everyone once before you shoot anyone twice! I'm not suggesting everything in the IDPA rulebook is sound self-defense doctrine. But this one particular rule change isn't bad because:Tactics!

+1

Chuck Haggard
05-08-2013, 09:09 AM
That's why I only shoot local matches (the rules are less Nazified if guys care less) and also shoot IPSC to round out my fun quotient on matches.

I only look at these as further trigger time, and helps keep me honest because I am shooting someone else's problem.


Almost all of the guys who only do live fire get slaughtered the first few times they have to run the barricade field FoF, which I find really amusing.

Mr_White
05-08-2013, 02:52 PM
Almost all of the guys who only do live fire get slaughtered the first few times they have to run the barricade field FoF, which I find really amusing.

Do you mean that when they first face people who move and think instead of paper and cardboard that doesn't, that they get behind their cover, break line of sight with their opponent, and their position immediately gets flanked or overrun and then they get shot directly? Or do you mean something else? Just trying to understand what you mean...thanks!

jlw
05-08-2013, 03:50 PM
"It'll get you killed" is highly situational.

ToddG
05-08-2013, 04:00 PM
"It'll get you killed" is highly situational.

Exactly. Creating a few unified rules to cover every imaginable situation just doesn't work. But without the rules, you end up with an even bigger mess.

IDPA's Tactical Sequence is my favorite example. I despise the rule and know very few respectable trainers who still subscribe to the idea of putting one anemic bullet in a bunch of people before finally getting down to finishing each one of them off in turn. But it's a pretty straightforward rule once you understand what they're asking you to do. It's hard for me to get too worked up about how I'm being asked to shoot unmoving, harmless "threats" that I've been able to look for ten minutes and think about exactly how I'm going to shoot them.

This new cover rule (if it's being interpreted correctly to say that reloads behind cover must be flat footed) can be pilloried for being extremely untactical or it could be shown to be quite tactical... depending on the situation, etc.

jlw
05-08-2013, 04:30 PM
Exactly. Creating a few unified rules to cover every imaginable situation just doesn't work. But without the rules, you end up with an even bigger mess.

IDPA's Tactical Sequence is my favorite example. I despise the rule and know very few respectable trainers who still subscribe to the idea of putting one anemic bullet in a bunch of people before finally getting down to finishing each one of them off in turn. But it's a pretty straightforward rule once you understand what they're asking you to do. It's hard for me to get too worked up about how I'm being asked to shoot unmoving, harmless "threats" that I've been able to look for ten minutes and think about exactly how I'm going to shoot them.

This new cover rule (if it's being interpreted correctly to say that reloads behind cover must be flat footed) can be pilloried for being extremely untactical or it could be shown to be quite tactical... depending on the situation, etc.

I had on old salt cop once tell me about a fellow officer who walked in on an armed robbery with three perps involved. The cop drew and put two each into the first two bad guys prior to getting his ticket punched by the third. The old salt was not a sport shooter, but he opined that perhaps if the officer had put a round into each guy instead of the 2x2 perhaps he could have gotten all three of them.

While I understand the theory, I do feel that one against three is pretty bad odds no matter what tactics are used.

I do think we need to break up the 2x2 training scar and don't mind tactical sequence for that purpose. In my own case, I think it would be hard for me to move from a threat that hasn't been "put down" to one that hasn't

rsa-otc
05-08-2013, 04:48 PM
IDPA is a game, ran in many cases by people whose only exposure to "TACTICS" is IDPA. The folks who first helped form the sport, Vickers, Hackenthone, Cirillo & Rauch had a handle on tactics of the day. Our understanding of tactics is fluid, evolves and definitely not set in stone. Something that a game with rules to establish fairness and competitiveness can't adequately handle. Much of what was "Solid tactics" when I first was certified as a NRA Police Firearms Instructor in 1979 is considered foolish & dangerous today.

Quite frankly my two biggest complaints about IDPA were not being able to start an emergency reload when moving to cover & tactical sequence. One is now taken care of and one isn't. Am I going to stop playing the sport because of this, nope. Not like some of the primadonnas I happen to shoot with who are going to stop shooting IDPA because they didn't allow 40 major in CDP. IDPA is locally available and gives me a time to practice my gun handling skills while under some modicum of pressure. My feeling has always been if I am really against something because I think it is just wrong I'll take the procedural rather than do it. It's not like I'm going to compete for a National Championship. Is it training NO; is it better practice than standing in a booth at a public range, in many cases YES.

Frankly I'm more bothered by the safety implications of their new Finger On the Trigger penalty/rule than any of this tacticool stuff. But that's another thread on it's own.

rsa-otc
05-08-2013, 04:57 PM
I had on old salt cop once tell me about a fellow officer who walked in on an armed robbery with three perps involved. The cop drew and put two each into the first two bad guys prior to getting his ticket punched by the third. The old salt was not a sport shooter, but he opined that perhaps if the officer had put a round into each guy instead of the 2x2 perhaps he could have gotten all three of them.

While I understand the theory, I do feel that one against three is pretty bad odds no matter what tactics are used.

I do think we need to break up the 2x2 training scar and don't mind tactical sequence for that purpose. In my own case, I think it would be hard for me to move from a threat that hasn't been "put down" to one that hasn't

Not to derail this thread but ALL the studies that I have reviewed over that last 30 years (unless you want to include the discredited One Shot Stop crowd) indicates to me that on average it takes 2 solid hits (in most case its 1.5 to 1.75 hits but since I don't know how to hit someone .75 times I consider 2 a MINIMUM number) to stop aggressive action. If I'm faced by three aggressors it takes less time to shoot 2,2,2 and possibly end the fight than shooting 1,1,2,1,1. The classes I teach we shoot a minimum of two and work up from there. Unless there is a point to the exercise for shooting only once and those are rare.

Mr_White
05-08-2013, 05:03 PM
I had on old salt cop once tell me about a fellow officer who walked in on an armed robbery with three perps involved. The cop drew and put two each into the first two bad guys prior to getting his ticket punched by the third. The old salt was not a sport shooter, but he opined that perhaps if the officer had put a round into each guy instead of the 2x2 perhaps he could have gotten all three of them.

While I understand the theory, I do feel that one against three is pretty bad odds no matter what tactics are used.

I do think we need to break up the 2x2 training scar and don't mind tactical sequence for that purpose. In my own case, I think it would be hard for me to move from a threat that hasn't been "put down" to one that hasn't

This brings up a really interesting point that a couple of my friends and I discussed at length on the way back from the Ben Stoeger USPSA class we took recently. In that class, we did a number of drills specifically oriented toward building skills for USPSA competition. On the way back, we talked about how we thought those drills might or might not apply to defensive use of the pistol.

A prime example was the work we did on target transitions. In the drills in class and in USPSA, threat ID and assessment is done preemptively and you already know which targets need to be shot and you can just get to it in the most efficient way possible. Hence the process of efficient technical transitions that is commonly taught – when sights lift from current target, eyes snap to new target spot, gun follows and trigger is allowed to reset, and when the gun stops on the new target spot an accurate shot can be fired. There doesn’t need to be any threat ID and assessment in between the multiple targets/threats.

In life, it’s easy for me to envision scenarios where one threat is identified and dealt with, then another threat is identified and dealt with, etc. In that case, the manner and sequence of engagement may be very different from any doctrinal plans to shoot each threat twice, or shoot each one once and reengage any that are still threats at that point.

Of course, it’s also possible that multiple threats might all be ID’d before any shooting is done – as in your example jlw – and a person might in fact be able to engage using one of the multiple-threat engagement processes that are commonly taught.

But in that discussion, I noted that all of the schemes of multiple threat engagement that I have been taught in defensive training in the past were all contingent on ID’ing all the threats before doing any shooting. And it may or may not happen that way. So on this point, even a longtime defensive doctrine for multiple threats may not apply in some situations. And interestingly, that defensive doctrine shares an awful lot of similarity with gamer doctrine.

JAD
05-08-2013, 05:06 PM
Boarding house rules, as I learned them (Hackathorn, 1997 or 98) are a relic of Cooper's 'stand and deliver' mindset. I'm a huge fan of Cooper but that is definitely a part of his doctrine that's passed. If you're in a fight, especially with more than one dude, you're going to be moving and they're going to be moving. You're going to be trying to stack and get to cover, and they're going to be working against you. Do the el Prez while unassing and being charged by the targets, and then try to work in four transitions.


Jon
PHX

ToddG
05-08-2013, 05:19 PM
But in that discussion, I noted that all of the schemes of multiple threat engagement that I have been taught in defensive training in the past were all contingent on ID’ing all the threats before doing any shooting. And it may or may not happen that way. So on this point, even a longtime defensive doctrine for multiple threats may not apply in some situations. And interestingly, that defensive doctrine shares an awful lot of similarity with gamer doctrine.

Fail on my part, then, because I ordinarily discuss exactly that in AFHF: "eyes then gun" really loses purpose outside of playing games or shooting plate racks, etc... not because you'll keep your eyes on the front sight as you transition but specifically because you'll have to locate an assess each target in turn.

Mr_White
05-08-2013, 05:35 PM
Fail on my part, then, because I ordinarily discuss exactly that in AFHF: "eyes then gun" really loses purpose outside of playing games or shooting plate racks, etc... not because you'll keep your eyes on the front sight as you transition but specifically because you'll have to locate an assess each target in turn.

No fail for you, I should have mentioned that. I remember us discussing it that in AFHF. Did we do any multiple threat drills besides the Triple Nickel? I'm not remembering any others. The Triple Nickel I don't really even think of as a tactical drill, I pretty much think of it as a technical challenge type of drill.

In the discussion on the drive back, I was taking exactly your point of view on it - that one threat would probably be ID'd, shot until it was gone, then another threat ID'd, shot until it was gone, etc. - and was thinking that there was no way the transition drills we shot in class would apply to self-defense. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks that all the multiple threat engagement tactics I had been taught here (not by you) in defensive training were predicated upon ID'ing multiple threats before shooting any, just like in the USPSA class! My mind was boggled. I still tend to think that your interpretation of multiple threat engagement is highly likely, but the person who taught me the other way also knows what he is doing and jlw's anecdote may be a good example of more traditional multiple threat doctrine actually coming to pass for real, and I'm sure there must be other examples of that too.

ToddG
05-08-2013, 05:41 PM
No fail for you, I should have mentioned that. I remember us discussing it that in AFHF. Did we do any multiple threat drills besides the Triple Nickel?

Not full targets. Almost all of the multiple target drills I do in AFHF are of the changing gears variety. Not only does it help with the whole "SWYNTS" thing but it does a better job of forcing people to find and "ID" the next target instead of just driving to another high% easy shot.

I'm not saying traditional multiple target drills are bad, just that for the purpose of what I teach in AFHF they're not efficient.

Mr_White
05-08-2013, 05:59 PM
Not full targets. Almost all of the multiple target drills I do in AFHF are of the changing gears variety. Not only does it help with the whole "SWYNTS" thing but it does a better job of forcing people to find and "ID" the next target instead of just driving to another high% easy shot.

I'm not saying traditional multiple target drills are bad, just that for the purpose of what I teach in AFHF they're not efficient.

Ah yes, very true. Those indeed were transitions in addition to changing gears.

Chuck Haggard
05-08-2013, 07:47 PM
Even in FoF and with time to think about it I see everyone shoot the first target to the ground and then think about going for the next.

Everyone starts moving at the first shot anyway, if not before, both real life and FoF.