DMark

You know what....., Bob is right!

Agree. Old Thinking (that IDPA simulates self-defense scenarios and real life encounters) and experiences (those of us who have been shot at and returned fire) don't seem to mesh well with the new rules (that make IDPA a low round count while wearing vests form of USPSA). It is almost like we've returned to the early 1990s when a growing number of shooters began to realize that there wasn't anything really "Practical" about USPSA and that a new type of combat focused shooting competition was needed.

Along with other armed professionals, I have started shooting more and more NFC. We shoot the way our experience and training has shaped us. Our gear and firearms are for the most part IDPA legal. We seriously use cover (many of us have been shot at before). None of us wear colorful "NASCAR" logo shirts or gamer vest. I will often shoot wearing a dress shirt and jacket. The main thing NFC allows us to do is not concern ourselves about the number of shots we take or limiting the number of rounds in our mags. We Shoot Until The Threat Goes Down, or as an example - until we feel that whatever multiple shots have done the job. We are concern about making hits as fast as we can make those hits. NFC is the what many of us used IDPA for back in the mid 90s, a place to practice our skills. To us employing firearms isn't a game.

Well so much for my EDC Colt Lt Wt CDR in .38 Super. 4.25 barrel.

Good! Now we SOs can get back to the important stuff like keeping our focus on where the muzzle and trigger finger are.

Chris, The points you make sound just like the conversations that many of us were having back in the early 90s that led to the founding of IDPA. I think we lost the original intent from those days when that first "Pro" shooter arrived at a match wearing their "NASCAR" shirt with all of the sponsor logos.

Some of us who have been shot at and had to shoot somebody IN REAL LIFE can't understand how we lost the original intent of IDPA (the practice of our skills). OR - - - Why its OK to mock and ridicule those of us who, as armed professionals, point out the failure of IDPA to uphold the first sentence of the rulebook which states that IDPA is, "..... based on simulated self-defense scenarios."

Heck...., I wish there was a rule against all of this running around like its a track meet. Never saw any of that back in the mid 90s when IDPA was just coming together. Whenever I bring up the topic about using tactical movement techniques instead of dashing around - - - there is always some strange reply from folks about "Killing Kittens." Odd...., don't recall ever seeing a kitten during a firefight. And the "Founders" of IDPA that I knew never saw any kittens either.

Agree 100% with your post and the final comment is spot-on! I have already seen a drop off of available SOs at our local matches. Just this past Saturday, two in the squad I was running and whom I could always count on to help, told me that they wouldn't be SOs come 1 Oct. The most telling comment was from the younger of the two who said that he became a SO to understand how to be a better shooter...., and not to become a "plate umpire." Very Telling...., caused to me to recall the debates going on in the late 90s about standing up certification for those of us conducting IDPA matches. I remember one key discussion about using the term "Safety" over "Range" officer. Since many of us shooting and running IDPA had a Police or Military background, we understood the differences in those two words. A Safety Officer has a Direct & Total Focus on the safety of the participants while a Range Officer is in change and controls the operations of the event. Perhaps it was a simple way of thinking, but to me it was clear early on in IDPA that the SO's main focus was the firearm and the shooter connected to it.

A very poor online testing product for an open book exam. An open book is meant to be a teaching tool. I have been part of the distance learning world within the military since the late 90s and the method use with this test is referred to as the "Treasure Hunt." It requires searching back and forth through the text without any regard to the flow of the overall concept of the material. Not a good means to educate....., but a great way to Rat F- - k with the those taking the test. A better way, especially when the subject matter covers an area where the test subjects are being introduced to new information in a field that they are experienced in is the "Cover to Cover" method. That type of exam starts its questions at the first of the book and finishes on the last page of the book. In other words as you look for and find the answer to the first question you can continue to read and the answer to the next question will appear. At the end of the exam the test taker will have read most of the book cover to cover. Also, the questions for an open book exam must be Word-For-Word for what is in the book. Several of the questions in the SO exam did not do this.

It helps to explain to the gamers why some of us use cover so well - - - having been shot at for real.

I would still like to see a single, documented, real world example of a "tactical sequence" engagement ever being employed in an actual shooting.