Or all of the locals don't spend all day on forums debating it and will just show up and shoot anyway as they really never knew the rules too well to begin with.Originally Posted by VolGrad
Or all of the locals don't spend all day on forums debating it and will just show up and shoot anyway as they really never knew the rules too well to begin with.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
We are something like that around here. Guys know I am more about shooting the problem than working at trying to win if the rules interfere with not doing stupid stuff. I'm often Mr. Procedural at the local matches.
Like with most scenarios, my answer is, "It depends." Most times I'd take option #2, but I can certainly think of realistic scenarios where I'd prefer reloading on the move.
Of course, I'd probably just drop the partly loaded magazine on the floor, so I'd be kittened either way.
This kind of relates to my core problem with IDPA. Good tactics are subjective and situationaly dependant, but IDPA acts like there is a single tactical dogma that must be followed at all times, and the dogma often isn't a good one.
-C
My blog: The Way of the Multigun
I disagree with this statement. This represents a black and white view of IDPA shooting. There are lots of shades of grey from the novice shooter to a master IDPA shooter to a Tactically-Trained, combat-seasoned Weapons Master. IDPA IS based on defensive shooting, but it is not meant to be THE GOLD STANDARD of Defensive Shooting. IDPA is meant to be a way to get novices/average pistol-shooters to improve pistol shooting skills by using competition to motivate them to shoot faster, accurately and simply BE A BETTER PISTOLIER. And to make it a sport with rules that can be applied fairly to all levels of shooters and all pistol divisions, there have to be compromises to make the game a fair competition and easily administered by average SO's.
We will argue until eternity about what the rules should be, but I don't buy the argument that IDPA is not defensive shooting.
I am a big supporter of people who own handguns learning to shoot them safely and being able to shoot them well under pressure. I would much rather have an IDPA shooter covering me in a gunfight than a guy who owns the most expensive .45cal with lasergrip but who goes to the range every month to shoot 100 rounds.
I think IDPA is a good way for average people to improve their shooting skills and do it in a fun way and in a competitive sport that, overall, is fair to the novice and the master.
After I feel my shooting skills are at a good level, I plan to take tactical training and Krav Maga and get better at those more advanced techniques. But in the meantime I am having a great time going to matches, learning where I need to improve, practicing, shooting really fun courses of fire...and challenging ones. I like shooting KSTG for the same reasons.
CC
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
The difference is that USPSA/IPSC make small tweaks, release them about a year before enforcement, hear what the members say. They don't wait until people get so fed up with the problems, and then make huge changes to the way that the game is played. And I am sure that early IPSC had issues, but you can't really compare it as they were building a whole new sport from the ground up.
The other biggest difference is that members actually have a real conduit into the management. I have a half a dozen emails that I can use to contact USPSA/Steel Challenge leadership, those leadership participate actively on forums like Brian Enos. I can directly call Tom Hughes (the guy that manages NRA Action Pistol).
It really becomes what's the point. Perhaps that is why Bob Vogel is one of the last of the top level sponsored shooters that remain in IDPA.Hasn't it always been, in a sense, though? And I don't mean that as a criticism necessarily. But IDPA has never been as challenging athletically or in terms of shooting performance as serious USPSA. There have always been rules to make sure that head shots, one-handed shots, and the like weren't too far away, etc.
And there is the problem IMO. IDPA uses both excuses when dismissing ideas.But now you're making the same error that you've accused IDPA of making. You're basing decisions on what's tactical instead of what's right for a game. If you believe a WML or body-mounted-light is necessary then so be it. But no matter how you feel about it personally, there are plenty of people who don't routinely walk around with WMLs on their guns or lights mounted to their wrists, heads, etc. And since you obviously agree that those pieces of equipment provide a significant advantage, you're as much as admitting that they create a competitive must-have. IDPA has always opposed equipment beyond gun, holster, mags, pouches, and ammo as "must have" to keep the cost of initiation down.
Shooter: "Why can't I use this tactical equipment?"
IDPA: "Because it is just a game we don't want an equipment race."
Shooter: "Why do I have to do tac sequence?"
IDPA: "Because that is tactical."
And nothing is stopping people from showing up without, simply that if it dominates the gamers are going to use it, but then again nothing the gamers use is tactical. So the idea that is discourages new shooters is BS IMO. They aren't showing up with custom made fishing vests, fancy OWB belt holsters, Glock 34 with a trigger job/fiber optic sights, double magazine pouch etc. But yet that is what it takes to win a match.
If more people shot in the dark with them, IMO more people will buy them. Your shooting is 100% better with a WML. And the Tomahawk and others "hands free" type lights are also an improvement.Not even WMLs have become commonplace even in LE much more the civilian CCW crowd that IDPA caters to. The Tomahawk & body-mounted lights are even less so. You want a game that allows leading-edge tech. That's fine and I get it. But IDPA isn't that game and has never pretended to be.
This reminds me of something Vogel said: He wants shooting to be an automatic function that he doesn't have to think about. He then can THINK about which tactics to use and which moves to make in a threatening situation or a police action.
CC
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
I actually wish those that want to debate it all day would stay home. I don't want to hear that crap between stages. I just want to shoot.
It's a game. Games have rules. Those rules quite often don't make sense. Those that don't like the rules shouldn't play the game.
What is interesting is that it always seems to be the mediocre shooters who get all bent about the rule changes. The great shooters simply adapt and find new ways to win within the rules, and the atrocious shooters just never notice.
Depending on how you define 'mediocre', this is pretty much what you'd expect, though. With limited shooting time and money, rules changes are going to impact the semi-serious shooters most. People who shoot matches, are competitive, but aren't hardcore.
Several people in my local group have 'defected' to USPSA and were hoping the new rules would draw them back. They're not going to.
I think the question isn't "is IDPA tactical?" The question is "is it enough more tactical than other action sports to be a worthwhile niche?" I mean, you may want to start returning fire against someone while still in the open, but you're definitely not going to drop a half-loaded mag in the open because you counted the bad guys and the rounds and you're sure that will lead to a faster time ;-)
IDPA still seems, to me, have to value as a "tactics lite." It's enough of a facsimile of tactics to be beneficial to your average shooter, in the same way that "get off the dot" and "scan when finished shooting" can be kind of useless in a lot of situations but are probably a much better *default* response to most people than sitting there thinking.
Reply With Quote