"Be sure of your target..." in competition

[jetfire]

I should add that the stages weren't blind, but you didn't know which target was going to take priority or be a non-threat...

Those are less annoying than blind stages, but I still don't think they belong in any sort of serious match. All shooters should shoot the same stages with the same target presentations and the rules enforced exactly the same for everyone. We have a hard enough time with that as is!

[cclaxton]

Those are less annoying than blind stages, but I still don't think they belong in any sort of serious match. All shooters should shoot the same stages with the same target presentations and the rules enforced exactly the same for everyone. We have a hard enough time with that as is!

Caleb,
I agree with you, especially now that I am SOing stages.

But is there a way to introduce more challenging target ID in a standard way without it being blind and add another element....gun+badge or gun-friendly?

Just asking could it be safely added?...I think so.
Cody

[Sal Picante]

Those are less annoying than blind stages, but I still don't think they belong in any sort of serious match. All shooters should shoot the same stages with the same target presentations and the rules enforced exactly the same for everyone. We have a hard enough time with that as is!

Its just a club match...

[MikeyC]

Its just a club match...

The number of people that don't get that is astounding.

[cclaxton]

The number of people that don't get that is astounding.

The issue is that people know what to expect with IDPA or USPSA.
"Club Match" provides a level of uncertainty and it's just easier to say that it's an IDPA match and follow the rules. What people don't like is saying it's IDPA and then it turns out to be a club match.

CC

[Chuck Whitlock]

Before the new IDPA rules, I shot a match last year at the shoothouse and it went like this:
Standing in front of a table, holstered and gun hot;
five cards face down on the table. Each card had a symbol on its face: diamond, square, circle, star and moon. Every target in that part of the shoothouse COF had a different symbol on it, and you were able to walk through and see all the targets before the stage. There were about 7 targets that you had to engage either from cover or while advancing, depending on the location in the room.

On the buzzer turn over ONE card, and the target with that symbol was a non-threat. Draw, and engage.
The end of this stage was at a door, where we would top-off and prepare for the next stage in the back half of the house, which used the same symbol idea. While I am stopped there and tell the SO that I didn't see my symbol, so I shot all the targets. He smiled, and said, "It was there...you shot it."

I learned a valuable lesson...LOOK AT THE TARGETS!.

I think what happens in competition is that since there are only two kinds of targets, we don't really think about them...they become threat or non-threat and we don't really think about looking at the target. That is my point.....how can we "Be sure of your target..." if we are subconsciously making shoot/no-shoot decisions?

CC

With respect, I'm thinking that this is backwards......we should be looking for threat indicators, not non-threat indicators, if you get my meaning.

(caveat...I've only shot in one IDPA match in my life....mostly because I'm usually working weekends, which is when the few in my area are usually held.)

[jetfire]

Caleb,
I agree with you, especially now that I am SOing stages.

But is there a way to introduce more challenging target ID in a standard way without it being blind and add another element....gun+badge or gun-friendly?

Just asking could it be safely added?...I think so.
Cody

To do it in many sort of realistic way, you'd have to fundamentally change the rules of IDPA to allow for more non-threats on a stage. The reason it doesn't work right now is because when I go into any given IDPA stage, I know for a fact that the majority of the targets need bullets. If you changed the rules to allow a majority of the targets to be non-threats, you could probably do some interesting threat designation stuff.

[Chuck Haggard]

Not IDPA or anything, but every year at the Tactical Conference Tom Givens' and his crew put on a great match where the shooters is forced to threat PID the targets.

Last year there were a LOT of no shoots. They also used realistic knockdown targets so you had to shoot until the threat went down.

A perfect run on the one COF required two shots, but it was rather challenging.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Not IDPA or anything, but every year at the Tactical Conference Tom Givens' and his crew put on a great match where the shooters is forced to threat PID the targets.

Last year there were a LOT of no shoots. They also used realistic knockdown targets so you had to shoot until the threat went down.

A perfect run on the one COF required two shots, but it was rather challenging.

It took me a LOOOONNGGG time to ID the threats!

[Chuck Haggard]

It took me a LOOOONNGGG time to ID the threats!

See quicker, that's my advice.