DVC and targets

[Flexmoney]

I kinda like the targets we have now.  But, the IDPA type targets might be a better fit for USPSA.  In fact, IDPA (which promotes tactical) ought to be using the USPSA targets...and USPSA (which has accuracy as one of it's founding tenets) should be using the IDPA cardboard.

[Storm]

If you want to promote accuracy, use the classic (ameoba) target.

[DogmaDog]

Flex,

wherefore your position?  

Like, the A zone of an IPSC and the -0 zone of an IDPA are about the same size, and different shapes, niether of which does a better job of approximating the fatal zones of a human target.  The targets don't seem to make much difference, in my opinion.

What is different is the scoring system:  IDPA places a premium on accuracy by assessing a .5 sec penalty for each point down.  It would always be worth it to spend an extra 1/2 sec to get a -0 hit vs. a -1 hit, no matter your skill level.

In IPSC, if your hit factor is 10, then it only makes sense to spend 1/10 sec to improve a -1 hit to -0...your hit factor would have to be 2 (very low) to justify slowing down enough to spend 1/2 sec more on a shot.

So I would argue IDPA emphasizes accuracy over speed, relative to IPSCs emphasis on speed over accuracy.

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[Flexmoney]

I agree with your post completely.

Especially this part:

---

Quote: from DogmaDog on 5:08 pm on April 25, 2002

So I would argue IDPA emphasizes accuracy over speed, relative to IPSCs emphasis on speed over accuracy.

---

That is the reality...which I think is bass-ackwards from the design.

[Vince Pinto]

It's interesting that you guys feel IDPA (the tactical guys) emphasise accuracy over speed, whereas IPSC (the sporting guys) are the opposite.

Although I'm certainly not Masaad Ayoob, my defensive instruction has always been that, in a real life scenario, a 1 second "C" shot is better than a 2 second "A"  shot. This is particularly important for LEO's who often need to react by outdrawing an assailant.

In other words, speed is more important than accuracy in a defensive scenario.

[Chriss Grube]

It basically comes down to putting lead in the bad guy as fast as possible. Too many armchair commandos forget that those paper targets aren't shooting back. The idea is to stop the bad guy as quickly as possible, that might mean 1 shot or 20. USPSA goes a long way in gun handling skills but it still doesn't give the same stress as the possibility of death.

It's a game, same as IDPA.

[Flexmoney]

Let me steer this away from the 'IDPA is a gamme too' direction...

In USPSA/IPSC:

1.1.3 Balance

Accuracy, power and speed are equivalent elements of IPSC shooting, and are expressed in the Latin words "Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas" ("DVC"). A properly balanced course of fire will depend largely upon the nature of the challenges presented therein, however courses shall be designed, and IPSC shooting competitions shall be conducted in such a way, as to evaluate these elements equally.

Lets leave the power portion for another thread.  (Assume it to be a constant.)

That leaves us with Speed vs. Accuracy.  The vast majority of stages are won with a hit factor (points per second) that favors speed over accuracy.

My point of discussion is the tragets are too easy.  Our scoring system is biased toward speed, or stage design puts the targets too close.  Now, if we move all the targets back, we risk losing the core of new shooters (who can't hit them).  

So...I think we need to look at the way our targets are scored.  The other game (IDPA) moves the bias away from speed (Somewhat with tactics...mostly with scoring).  There is also the Paladin (sp?) scoring system that I see in the back of the gun rags all the time.

What else?

[Vince Pinto]

As Storm said earlier, if you think the IPSC Metric target is too easy, I suggest you try the IPSC Classic target. You'd be surprised at the difference.

[Flexmoney]

I've tried it.  I hope that is not the answer.  I just hate the look of that thing.  But...I might have to look at it from a different perspective.

I haven't put much thought into this, other than formulating the question, but...I was thinking more along the lines of adjusting the points awarded for various hits(please don't hold me to that idea).

Keep the ideas and thoughts coming.

(Edited by Flexmoney at 5:17 am on April 27, 2002)

[Flexmoney]

Here is a link to compare the classic vs. metric target that Vince & Storm mentioned.

http://www.uspsa.org/rules/14th_Ed_US_html...S_Rules.14.html

[Chriss Grube]

I don't see a problem with this in Eastern PA. It comes down to the MD and course design. You have to shoot fast and be accurate to win. I suppose it depends on the level of the competition. We are blessed or cursed with some damn good shooters. Speed can make up for some mistakes but start throwing too many points and you get smoked. I think the balance comes through the whole match not just a stage or two. The other part of the equation is the new shooters. The top guys are going to solve the toughest courses, get the new guy that zeroed every stage to come back next month? I think we spend to much time trying to reinvent the wheel. The scoring and classification systems aren't perfect but it beats the hell out of the alternatives that have come out lately. IDPA has sandbaggers too and they don't give out prizes!

[benos]

For no reason except that you have to "aim more," I like the IDPA target over the IPSC target. The tall A box of the IPSC target promotes shooting with a lateral visual orientation emphasis. Effective aiming/scoring on an IPSC target is almost like a trick. Please, no comments on what is "practical." I'm just an old-schooler who feels shooting is hitting a small, concentric sized target. Unless I'm attempting to shoot playing cards in half, edgewise, that is.

[ErikW]

Another good thing about the IDPA target is it awards full points for the more difficult upper A/B shots. It's standard practice to hardcover or lay a no shoot below the A/B zone of the IPSC target to force you to take the difficult head shots. But then they go and give you less points for your B hits.

I like the Classic target because it requires more accuracy.

[DogmaDog]

Hmmmm...

I haven't shot too much IPSC (only a couple matches so far), but I like the scoring system now that I (almost) understand it.  The value of a shot is sort of scaled to your skill level, in that the amount you can afford to slow down is dictated by your hit factor.  

IDPA's system is a helluva lot SIMPLER for a newbie to understand, and that has probably contributed to the growth of that sport as much as anything.

I agree, though, that accuracy needs more emphasis in IPSC...in my couple of matches, I've seen too many guys shoot off 20 rounds in 6 seconds and score mostly C hits with Ds and misses in equal proportion to As.  Growing up shooting highpower rifle, a MISS is just unconscionable to me!

Possibly USPSAs scoring of all Production guns as Minor addresses this?  

Maybe shooting Minor is what the REAL marksmen ought to be doing?  

Maybe the targets need to evolve the way highpower rifle targets evolved (HP targets used to have rings for V, 5, 4, and 3, but as rifles became more accurate, and shooters started shooting "cleans", they went to X, 10, 9...5) with essentially the same total scoring area).  If the A zone were worth 10 points, then the others could be made proportionately less than they are now (Cs could be 7 (vs. 8), and Ds 2 or 1, say).  You could still score less for Minor, AND place more emphasis on accuracy for both Major and Minor.

A real crazy idea would be to have an exponential points function.  Take the square of your points, and divide it by the time.  Hit factors measured this way would decrease very rapidly as total points scored decreased only slightly, but would decrease less rapidly as the number of points got very low, so low scoring (raw points) shooters would clump together, while high scoring shooters would be spread apart.  This would suffer some crazy string size effects, though...and good luck teaching it to anybody!

Anyway, I agree with Mr. Enos--I like a round bullseye, and with Erik--what's with that tiny little A zone on the head anyway...why is a shot between the eyes really better than a shot in the center of the forehead??

Well, there it is...

DogmaDog

P.S.  Check me out..."Hunter"  all right.  Gatherer...Hunter...when do I become "Reclining Epifaunal Suspension Feeder"?

[Flexmoney]

I like the idea of making the A worth 10, and adjusting the other hits down a bit.  I was hoping someone would post that.  As it stands, anything but a D or a miss is acceptable (at major).

Then again...major does represent Power.  Perhaps Alpha-Charlie is OK.  (just trying to keep the discussion going)

[Duane Thomas]

"Maybe shooting Minor is what the REAL marksmen ought to be doing?"

Years ago when my carry gun was a 9mm I was having one of those perennial Nine Vs. .45 discussions with a friend of mine who just couldn't leave the topic alone. And when I said I was perfectly comfortable carrying a Nine, just as much as a .45, he said, "But you're a good enough shooter to make a Nine work."

That gave me pause, I must admit. I'd always heard the 9mm damned by .45 fanatics as the choice of the amateur. The idea of the 9mm as the choice of the expert, because you had to be a good shooter to make the 9mm work, was a new one on me. But if you think abou it, that's the entire basis of IPSC's Major/Minor scoring system, the idea that a center hit with anything will work, but peripheral hits will be more effective with a Major caliber.

The idea that a great shooter can take a Minor caliber weapon and beat other shooters armed with Major caliber guns only works if there's a BIG differential in skill between the shooters. Given an equal level of skill, there are simply too many targets in a typical match that force you to shoot something other than all As if you're going to have any sort of decent time for the Minor shooter not to lose on points if nothing else.

For Minor caliber shooters, Production division is the Promised Land.  And a good Minor shooter can kick ass on most people. There's a dedicated Production shooter in my area named Bruce Bennett. He mostly shoots his Glock 19 carry gun at matches. He invariably beats most of the guys shooting Major which is DAMNED impressive.

OTOH you have the people whose skill level is in no way, shape or form equal to shooting a .45 who've just got to carry one. And they can't even hit the damn target half the time, the recoil is too much for them. They would be INFINITELY better off carrying something with lighter recoil. And when you suggest to them, "Maybe you could carry a Nine. You could probably shoot it better," they look at you like you just questioned their masculinity. They puff up like little pouter pigeons and sniff, "I don't trust the Nine, I've gotta have that .45 stopping power."

My itching butt. A gun you can't shoot well enough to hit with is useless. And don't mention the .40 S&W to me. Most .40 combat loads have recoil too severe for total novices, as well. If you can't hit with a .45, carry a Nine. This is simple and not hard to understand. But somehow it seems to escape many people.

[Flexmoney]

DT,

Great post.  Good observations.  It kinda deserves it's own thread...a power vs. accuracy thread.  maybe SG will start it????

[DogmaDog]

I'd like to know if the system has always been flawed.  

As I mentioned, highpower targets evolved in response to improving technology, and possibly also improving shooters.

I assume IPSC has always had the same scoring system, but the technology has advanced much further than in highpower rifle (by my subjective appraisal).  Was the IPSC scoring system more equable in it's weighting of DVC back when single stack 1911s were used, and the courses of fire were different (assuming they were different)?

It seems technology has given the greatest advances in speed.  Pistols have not gotten that much more accurate in the last few decades.  All the speed holsters, high cap mags, compensators and dot scopes contribute mostly to speed.  So maybe the technological innovation is driving the evolution of shooting styles to emphasize speed over power and accuracy, and in the "scoring environment" of IPSC, this strategy has been successful?  

On the other hand, maybe the first guy who realized he could just spray lead...it didn't matter how many points you got if it took no time at all to get them...didn't use "speed technology".  Maybe the system was broken from the beginning, and it just took one or a few competitors to realize it and take advantage of the "fast break" that the scoring system allows?

Was anyone here around when all this stuff was happening who can give an historical perspective on what actually HAS happened?

And for fun, which technological innovation do you think contributes the most to decreases in the time it takes to shoot a stage?  I have no personal experience with most of the things I mentioned, so won't answer for now.

This is a good discussion you've started, Flex.  Thanks!

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[Duane Thomas]

I don't believe advances in technology have made the greatest impact in how fast AND ACCURATELY a course of fire may be negotiated. Most of it has been a combination of improvement in technique and a concomitant raising of expectations. In the late '70s the Weaver Stance was the state of the art. Circa 1980 when Rob & our 'umble host developed and introduced the Modern Isosceles Stance, the possibilities for speedy and efficient gun handling and firing took a quantum leap.

And as that's occurred, as shooters have become better through using more efficient technique, the expectations for what exactly the average shooter should be able to do has risen right along with it. 25 years ago if you could shoot a 5-second El Presidente and/or a 10 hit factor on the drill you were DAMN good, one of the best in the world. These days, as a newly minted A-class shooter I can take an iron sighted, uncompensated .45 firing Major loads and ALMOST break 5 seconds myself, and shoot over a 10 hit factor with some regularity. Today that's not world class, it's a solid A-class performance but that's about it.

The guns and loads haven't changed that much, at least not in today's Limited-10 versus what was in use 25 years ago. I mean, sure, the guns are a little better and the ammo's a little better, but that doesn't explain why an average shooter today can do things only the best of the best could do 25 years ago. What has changed is the expectations of what a decent shooter should be able to do, and the existence of techniques that allow a FAR higher level of performance.

The idea that "IPSC shooters can just blow through a course as fast as possible and it doesn't really matter how accurate they are" is one a lot of people who've never shot IPSC, or are new to the sport, buy into. It's simply not true. Try that with opponents who are good and they will absolutely walk all over you. What makes today's upper class IPSC shooter a frickin' GOD compared to the average shooter is that, for him or her, speed/accuracy is not an either/or proposition. A good shooter can do both, rip through the stage faster than almost anyone else AND give up a minimum number of points at the same time.

So the system's not broken; it's given rise to a breed of shooter who can do things with a gun their hands that would have been flat impossible even a few decades ago.

(Edited by Duane Thomas at 3:34 pm on May 1, 2002)

[BSeevers]

Its like the four minute mile. Everyone said it couldn't be done but the year after it was broken I think like 50 people did it.

[Duane Thomas]

Y'know I've heard that a lot. And it's not true. After Bannerman did the first four-minute mile, in the next year, if memory serves me correctly and I believe it does from reading Bannerman's book, only one other person also broke the "magic" four minute mark.

[Vince Pinto]

While I agree that firearms developments, such as the advent of scopes and other "racing stripes" stuff, in recent years have tended to shift the emphasis in IPSC towards speed, the introduction of the smaller, more accuracy oriented IPSC Classic Target offers a counter-balance.

However the bottom line in balancing speed and accuracy in IPSC has always been, and always will be, good course design.

[gm iprod]

If shooting minor was the way to go I suspect TGO or BE would have figured it out. I shoot minor ( 9mm or 38Super 115gr JHP 138PF, Std Class here in NZ ) regularly at IPSC club matches and get scored as such. Every now and then when all the good stuff comes together, I do real well. But I have to hit nearly all A's or go like hell, or both. If I go like hell then the c's and d's come along and crap all over the hit factor. I have only done well once by shooting minor at our nationals. I hit everything dead centre and was shooting like greasy lightning. Until one stage got me. I thought I hit a popper down and took off to shoot all the paper. I had hit it real low and it stood. The next man through hit right next to mine with a major 38Super and the popper was flattened.

I still shoot my STI IPSC Std / NRA Stock gun 38Super 140pf for IPSC, 125pf for NRA. I do ok. If I was to get serious again at IPSC i would have to go 40S&W or put up with losing.

[Flexmoney]

DT,

With your zeal for editing, you missed BSeevers' point.  I'm not sure of the textbook definition of irony...but, he was supporting the position of your previous post.

Maybe there is some irony in that Roger Bannister is the the man that broke the four-minute-mile "barrier".  Who the heck is Bannerman?  (The four minute mile barrier was broken by another runner a mere 46(49?) days later.)

nudge poke prod    

[EricW]

---

Quote: from Duane Thomas on 1:19 pm on April 30, 2002

If you can't hit with a .45, carry a Nine. This is simple and not hard to understand. But somehow it seems to escape many people.

---

Amen brother Duane!  

I switched to the G19 for that very reason.  I can shoot a .45 just fine, but when you're knee-deep in it, the ease and accuracy of the 9mm is a greater comfort factor for me than a mag full of +P+ "flying ashtrays."  

---------------------------

I find the importance of major versus scoring dubious though.  I would like to propose an experiment:  At the Factory and Race Gun Nationals, recalculate the scores as all major or minor regardless of class.  I doubt you'll see much shift in overall position in the upper end of the shooters - as in, I doubt anyone will be jumping up ten slots because of it, simply b/c most of the top guys are shooting A's.  You will see a shakeup in the lower end of the spectrum just due to all the C/D speed hosers.

E