IDPA is really, really just a game now

[Mr_White]

Apart from my general attitude toward bullet-stopping cover in the modern world (to whit: there isn't much), I have to sympathize with IDPA on this one. Frank Glover (of Carolina Cup fame) is the only guy I know who routinely has a rule that "hard cover is defined as things I can't stop your bullet from penetrating through."

Setting up a system for differentiating the shooter's point of cover between ballistic and non-ballistic would be incredibly complicated, especially if you wanted to achieve the goal of identifying cover properly instead of just saying "blue walls are cover, red walls are concealment."



Referring back to Frank Glover, he's had stages before that were set up like a 7-11 with real shelves piled with real products like loaves of bread, etc. You'd be surprised just how well some of those things can deflect 9mm and .45 rounds. Heck, look at all the guys whose AK mags have stopped 5.56 bullets...

I'd be genuinely interested to see how many Ding Dongs it would take to stop a typical .25 ACP round. You wouldn't even have to wear a wig when you filmed it, Gabe. (though knowing you, you probably still would)

I totally agree that there is no way competitions are going to be able to use only actual pieces of cover, as cover. I was saying that to illustrate that even a well-intentioned tactical prescription like 'must use cover', still incorporates fundamental elements of unreality and has to be taken with the requisite grain of salt. That Frank Glover guy sounds like an awesome match designer. I would like to shoot some loaves with my nine.

I bet it would be a real pain to see how many Ding Dongs it would really take - my money is on the bullet curving/veering out of the line of Ding Dongs before it had reached its full penetration potential. Obviously, I would wear a wig. You are correct. Or a hat. Or the shutter glasses. The possibilities are endless.

For now, my mini-mart cover calculus stands at:

Hostess endcap = concealment

Flats of 2-liter sodas = might be cover, depending, but with lots of gaps

[Mr_White]

Or is it in fact a fun game that falsely inflates the confidence in false skill sets for the defensive-minded person?

This is an aspect I have come to appreciate, as a defensive-minded person, of fun shooting games that carry no tactical pretense. I can't even begin to kid myself about their overall tactical relevance. I can just have fun and jack up my shooting and gunhandling skills.

[JAD]

I'm stunned that no one has pointed out that IDPA (and the other games mentioned, equally) don't teach anything. They provide a venue for practice of those things, but since no instruction occurs (or should) no learning occurs that couldn't have happened in any other practice venue.

Shooting games provide no unique value to a shooter other than entertainment, and I guess motivation.

Eta: not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Mr_White]

I'm stunned that no one has pointed out that IDPA (and the other games mentioned, equally) don't teach anything. They provide a venue for practice of those things, but since no instruction occurs (or should) no learning occurs that couldn't have happened in any other practice venue.

Shooting games provide no unique value to a shooter other than entertainment, and I guess motivation.

Eta: not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd mostly agree, but I know competitions induce stress in at least some of the participants (myself being one.) That's something more than is available in a lot of other practice venues.

[GJM]

I'm stunned that no one has pointed out that IDPA (and the other games mentioned, equally) don't teach anything. They provide a venue for practice of those things, but since no instruction occurs (or should) no learning occurs that couldn't have happened in any other practice venue.

Shooting games provide no unique value to a shooter other than entertainment, and I guess motivation.

Eta: not that there's anything wrong with that.

Assuming you are being serious, and not just funny, I would take it you do not believe match stress exists and relates to your future ability to perform under stress?

Bill Rogers, in his Sunday evening lecture, goes into the physiology of how humans react during stress, from having to pee, poop, have tremors, different breathing, and so on. When they announce at Rogers that it is test time, a bunch of those physiological reactions are commonly observed. Bill reports that he feels them to this day, right down to his hands shaking.

[ToddG]

I'm stunned that no one has pointed out that IDPA (and the other games mentioned, equally) don't teach anything.

I understand the sentiment but cannot agree with it. Just last night at the KSTG match the ROs were talking about the huge change we've seen in how folks are using cover because of our rules versus either (a) what they learned from shooting IDPA or (b) not having any instruction beyond TV & movies. That certainly doesn't mean that following the KSTG approach is tactical gold (warning: there might not be fault lines on the ground in real life; true story). But it shows, for example, that people can start making things like crowding cover (or not) a part of their subconscious process when positioned at cover.

Plenty of rules in IDPA teach people to practice certain things in a certain way. Take tac/retention reloads. When IDPA got started, they had faded from popular practice because most folks were favoring the IPSC-style speed reload. IDPA brought them back and turned them into a foundational part of the "tactical" world even though we're very, very hard pressed to find a single instance of a CONUS gunfight where a retained magazine was retrieved and used during the exchange (i.e., "needed").

Take Tactical Sequence, which creates an utterly unrealistic expectation and approach to dealing with multiple threats.

Take, as mentioned previously, shooting on the move, which as practiced & executed in most IDPA matches has almost no value and no correlation to how people actually move when they're actually being shot at.

Etc., etc.

Games do teach people things. Whether it teaches them by reward for practicing certain things (tac sequence) or by rewarding them from ignoring certain things (use of cover in USPSA) it's still influencing what & how people practice.

That doesn't mean that games are bad and, as I've said many times I think just about every truly exceptional shooter I know has been involved in competition shooting at a high level for at least a few years during his development. There are many great benefits that come from participating in USPSA, IDPA, etc. But those benefits need to be seen in context and the habits that are being formed (or the ones that aren't being formed because they're not useful to the game) also need to be considered.

[jetfire]

Take Tactical Sequence, which creates an utterly unrealistic expectation and approach to dealing with multiple threats.

As an aside, there was not a single instance of Tactical Sequence at this year's Nationals.

[ToddG]

As an aside, there was not a single instance of Tactical Sequence at this year's Nationals.

[ST911]

I'd mostly agree, but I know competitions induce stress in at least some of the participants (myself being one.) That's something more than is available in a lot of other practice venues.

I shoot our area IDPA matches and do pretty well. I've found the stress to be one of the biggest benefits, whether it's the stress of observation, competing with other shooters, or simply time/stage management. (See also: force-on-force.)

I don't do an entry the same way I run a stage, but there remains credible value in the match.

[cclaxton]

I am surprised that nobody has yet mentioned what I believe is far and away the single best thing IDPA has going for it -- the 50% off Safariland card you get by joining.

Really?


CC