IDPA would like to address some confusion regarding the IDPA.tech website. IDPA.tech was designed as a test site for IDPA rules, notifications and continuing education. Items found there are subject to change and may or may not become rules, clarifications or official communications. Nothing found at IDPA.tech should be viewed as official. The inclusion of the IDPA.tech website on the rule book update in the last Tactical Brief was in error and we regret any confusion it may have caused. There will be official announcements on a number of items, including Carry Optics, in the near future. We appreciate your patience until that time. Per our prior notifications to the membership, all official rules and communications will only be found only on the IDPA.com website and distributed by the IDPA electronic weekly newsletter, Tactical Brief, and on the only official IDPA facebook page.
http://multibriefs.com/briefs/IDPA/IDPA011718.php
Last edited by Wendell; 01-17-2018 at 07:44 PM.
This 5x5 is one of my favorite tests.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
So... the 5x5 will replace or be equivalent to the regular IDPA classifier for purposes of classification?
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie
IDPA could really do a better job of communicating. Perhaps they could start with updating their website? It has a "Latest News" link, the "Down Zero Blog", and the "Tactical Journal" (not to be confused with the "Tactical Brief"), links to their Facebook and Twitter presence, and pages that apparently haven't been updated since 2015 ("JW Chronicles", "Message from IDPA", "Industry News")...but an email with the subject line of "Getting out of a jam" is the source of info on the tech website...
Meanwhile the local club has been collecting Carry Optics data from members and has the 5x5 classifier listed as part of their next match...
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
If the 5x5 were to become the classifier, it should be included as a stage in every sanctioned match with the resulting classification being the classification for that match if it results in a higher classification or if a shooter was previously unclassified.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
So no support hand shooting, target transitions, no turn, no movement of any kind... yeah looks like it could be a good IDPA classifier. :-)
http://multibriefs.com/briefs/IDPA/IDPA011718.php
I doubt it.
Sent from my Infernal Contraption using Tapatalk
IDPA SSP classification: Sharpshooter
F.A.S.T. classification: Intermediate
Yes, but the problem with the 5x5 is it doesn't test all of the skills that in my opinion are important to IDPA match performance, primarily target transitions. It's also short enough that you can swing for the fences and zero/hero it pretty easily, similar to how a lot of people shoot USPSA classifiers. The standard IDPA classifier is too long to be able to successfully zero/hero the whole thing. Likewise, USPSA classifiers have hit factors that are often extremely high (some of them artificially increased to account for the zero/hero strategy) and are still tough to do well on shooting that way, where as the par times for the 5x5 (and the standard IDPA classifier) are more of a match pace standard.
One of my complaints about the IDPA classification system when I shot that sport was they handed out match bumps to master way too often at any level 2 match. Most of the local M class shooters I knew couldn't even come close to hitting an M class time on the actual classifier. I believe this is part of the source of the belief that IDPA M = USPSA B. In my experience, if someone can truly hit a M score on the IDPA classifier they are probably more of a USPSA upper A/low M shooter.
I think they should also do some more research on the par times they are designating to correlate to various classifications. I shot it at the range a couple weekends ago and ended up with a 12.07 raw (-3) and a 13.59 raw (-1) time in the two runs I attempted. I had shot it in the past when Bill Wilson first posted it here in the upper 12/low 13 second range clean. 20 seconds for M seems like a really generous time hack on such a short drill.