IDPA and USPSA transitioning

[John Thompson]

I find that when I shoot an IDPA match after a USPSA match I have problems following IDPA's game rules.  I'll run by cover and have to set back, have to pick a mag off the ground after dropping it, etc.  This is a big problem for me and sometimes kills my IDPA scores.  Some people think I'm a gamer(nice word for cheater) but that's really not the case because it dosen't feela ta all good to win by cheating.  I'm becoming concerned because having to conciously slow down is hurting my scores more than the mistakes.

This thread is not intended to be a IDPA vs USPSA thread and I don't want any sport bashing reponses.  I'm just want to see if anyone else is having a similar problem.

[cpty1]

I don't really have problems transitioning between IDPA and USPSA, but I do struggle with just the differences in how the two games are played.  IMO, IPDA seems to dictate everything that is done on every stage.  Shoot this target X number of times, before going to this target, with X rounds, tactical priority, tactical sequence, etc.   I struggle with the shot by shot directives of how each stage must be shot at times.  Granted, USPSA has some of that as well as it relates to classifiers, standards, etc. but it's not every stage of every match.  There's always the mind-freeing shoot'em as you see them stages that provide a mental  break.

[John Thompson]

On a little different note there was a field course stage yesterday where you had to engage the targets "as you see them" and in "tactical order".  It's hard to explain this stage as simple as it was but I'll sum of the problem I had.  There was a wall as cover, then three targets(second array) real close to the walls corner, then another wall of cover very close to that second array which was cover for the third array.  I made my tactical reload(had to pick mag with two bullets off the ground)after engaging the first array  then ran around the corner and engaged the point blank second array while moving towards the cover infront of the thrid array.  I was accused of failure to use cover and gaming but was not penalized.   I was told to "solve the problem" and was not told I had to shoot a certain way.  I said I was ADVANCING towards the threat and to COVER but was told my plan was wrong.  Nevermind the fact the second array was too close to the cover for it to effective instead of dangerous, I was gaming.

[Ron Ankeny]

John:

I had the same discussion about transitioning between the games with two other shooters on the way home from an IDPA match just yesterday. I am trying to get serious in IPSC and move up to Master. I think my time would be better spent practicing than shooting IDPA matches.

When we did our little "walk through" yesterday I was suprised to learn that IDPA wants shooters to shoot each target once before shooting them the second time. No more pairs except on the last target of an array or when shooting while moving. So if you have three targets in your face the shots would be one on the first target, one on the second target, two on the third target, then one on either the first or second target, then one on the remaining target. This becomes horribly inefficient (as far as getting two hits on each as quickly as possible) and it becomes almost comical when shooting around props.

One of the guys that I went to the match with is a law enforcement firearms trainer and he has shot a few IPSC matches. This was his first IDPA match and he commented that IDPA came closer to his training needs than IPSC but some of the scenarios and shooting sequences are tactically unsound. My point being, that I shoot IDPA with my carry gun and if the game isn't even any good for "real world scenarios"  then what's the point?

I don't know what to think anymore. I like to shoot, but the more I am around IDPA the more I dislike the rigid structure. Add to that the fact that the "pair", "double tap" or whatever you want to call it is now a precedural penalty... Hell, I don't know...

(Edited by Ron Ankeny at 8:07 am on May 6, 2002)

[John Thompson]

Ron,

Two of the stages we shot yesterday had that one shot on two, two on a third, then one again on the first two.  Our yearly qualification at work has the same thing in a stage.

This IDPA club I shoot at is a little different than most.  For one we had two field course which is a no-no technically.  It's a nice place to shoot and is usually very tolerant of shooters like me which is why it pains me to start hearing some of these things(I threw some negativity around yesterday and now regret it).  We only have a few shooters ranked expert and above: me, Joe B(a member of this forum), a "founding father", and a couple of other guys.  I wonder if some resentment is starting.  I hope not because I switched from a USPSA club to this IDPA club on the first Sunday to get away from that(among other reasons, I still like that USPSA club).

I think I'm going to have to accept the transition problems because slowing down is a poor alternative.  It screws me up and is not fun.  Going all out is fun, I'll take the penalty.  But if I did something enough wrong to call me a gamer behind my back and to my face then penalize me for the infraction and end it right there.

[DogmaDog]

Ron said:

"This [shooting in tactical sequence] becomes horribly inefficient (as far as getting two hits on each as quickly as possible) and it becomes almost comical when shooting around props."

The tactical sequence rule is based on the premise that it is better to shoot each of your assailants once before you shoot any of them twice...get one bullet in each bad guy as fast as possible, and then mop up those that aren't neutralized with a second shot.  However, in IDPA when cover is available, you should expose yourself to one target at a time, and shoot the total number of required shots on it.  If you are engaging 3 targets from around cover, you shoot 2, 2, 2, and only lean out far enough to see/shoot the left or right-most target remaining.  If you are shooting 3 targets in the open, then you shoot 1, 1, 2, 1, 1.  So it sounds like your club is doing something weird if they make you shoot in tac sequence from around cover.

It does take a little longer to get all 6 shots, but presumeably it takes less time to get one on each than by firing pairs.

It is an annoying rule sometimes, and easy to forget.  I had a stage Saturday with 2 targets at 3 and 4 yards.  Start at ATM machine, turn, draw, and engage in tac sequence.  My first string I draw, blast T-2 twice, transition, hit T-1 once, realize I made a procedural, pause, then hit T-1 again.  3 seconds.  + a 3 second procedural.  That's gonna hurt.  

Anyway, I think the IDPA tactics are generally sound, but the sport is probably still new enough that stage designers haven't yet figured out how to make stages where you can have broad freedom to chose different courses of action yet still remain within the rules.

As for mag changes...I practice both tactical and slide lock reloads at home.  The night before a match, just practice the kind you're gonna do at the match tomorrow a couple dozen times, and you probably won't trip up.

Semper Fi,

DogmaDog

[Ron Ankeny]

DogmaDog:

You nailed it. The club had us doing the one on each target then mop it up gig from around a barricade on one stage, then we did it again from around a car (golf cart) and yet again from a pile of tires. That's the type of thing that my LEO buddy was calling unsound from a tactical point of view. Obviously, the club was doing it wrong. We are all friends up here, but dammit anyway, it gets old trying to figure all of this stuff out when I could be out working on transition drills, etc.

The real problem comes into play when an IPSC shooter like me begins to question things because it kind of pisses the IDPA guys off. Maybe it's the way I ask. We aren't at each other's throats by any means, but it would be nice to get everyone on the same page.

[John Thompson]

Dogma Dog,

We shot the two stages in question from behind cover.  Like you said the wrong way.  When a stage designer starts madating what "they" think is tactical then all they're asking for is trouble.  Ecspecialy when someone like me finds a different way of shooting it, still tactially, and not doing the way the designer had envisioned everyone was going to HAVE to do it.

[Nik Habicht]

Here's what I remember from my Safety Officer training on engaging targets:  If you're shooting from around cover, you slice the pie and put two on each target as you see them.  You should have to move slightly between targets to maintain 50% of your torso behing cover.  Your legs must remain behind cover.  When engaging an array of targets in the open you may engage them with two rounds each, near to far, if there are two yards or more downrange separation between them, i.e. targets placed at 7, 10, and 15 yards may be engaged this way.  If you are facing an array where targets are lined up side-by side or with less than two yards separation, then each target must receive one round before any target in that array gets a second round.

I constantly screw that one up unless I'm chanting 1,1,2,1,1, while waiting for the start signal.  On one of the stages at this years IDPA Winter Nationals, we had to shoot five targets and two plates this way while standing in a doorway.  I shot the second plate, dropped the mag and was about to rack the round out of the chamber, when I realized that I still had to hit five paper targets a second time.....

That little mistake got me a procedural, and forced me to reload and re-engage from around the cover of the door frame.  One of two stages I completely blew during an otherwise solid match.

[Mayonaise]

Hi guys.  First thing to remember is IDPA like IPSC is a game.  COF's are only as realistic as the designer makes them. I consider tactical sequence stages designed properly can be sound tactically.  Mostly I consider them a mental challenge.  

The main issue is what do you want from IDPA?  Do you want to win? Or Do you want to use it for tactics practice?  I know people that are outstanding shooters that finish next to last or last every match.  They don't care about the score.  They often have they highest time but the lowest points down.  And sometimes most of those points down are from procedurals they take intentionally.  Others look for every possible way to cut time within the rules to win.  Different strokes ya know?  If you want to win you have to leave some of the tactics in the parking lot.  IDPA isn't training.  We live life in 360 degrees not 180 degrees, so no matter what the cof is it's not training.

If your club is constantly throwing less than realistic scenarios at you consider sitting down and working out some COF's yourself and offering them to your Match Director.   As someone who runs a WEEKLY IDPA match trust me it's not easy coming up with COF's to keep people interested.  I always appreciate contributions.  

Don't give up on it.  Offer to help.  That's what makes a strong club and IDPA fun.  It's not easy running a match each month or week.  the MD's level of "fun factor" is probably the lowest of anyone involved.

The spirit of IDPA is based on grass roots club level involvement.

Mark

(Edited by Mayonaise at 9:27 pm on May 7, 2002)

(Edited by Mayonaise at 9:31 pm on May 7, 2002)

[Billf]

IDPA is still a shooting game,  I think  the way they want me too, then shoot the target.  

I disagree with the way a few  IDPA shooters think but I play anyway. It has its benefits. I believe it benefits my IPSC shooting to some degree.In my opinion the only benefit either have to self defense  is that they are both means in which to motivate one to improve shooting skills.

The goal in both games is to have the fastest times with the least points down. That is what it takes to win. Those who say they shoot only for selfdefense tactic training are usually the first to look where they place.

Bill

[Ron Ankeny]

Billf:

Actually, the goal of IDPA is to have the fastest time with the least points down. In IPSC the goal is to have the highest hit factor. It's not quite the same thing and that's just one of the differences that I have to resolve in my pea sized brain.

[John Thompson]

There's a little bit of thread drift going here.  I have no problem with the IDPA trying to be tactical.  I want the game to be different than IPSC.  My problem is basically winning and shooting tacticaly is hard as hell.  Think about the last time you used cover when you were trying to win, you probably didn't use it very well or if you stopped to readjust yourself then you lost time and lost the match.  I don't shoot the IDPA to be tactical because I'm not interested in it and the quite frankly the IDPA has had medicore results at best at trying to do it.  I try to win while playing within the rules.  In the IDPA when doing field courses you have to go a controlled full speed, a skill that IPSC has left me lacking in.  It's the opposite in speed shoots and standards, IPSC has done a better job there of training me to shoot afast and in control.

[Billf]

Ron,

Isn't the fastest time with the least point down the highest hit factor?

John,

IDPA is a different game in some respects, but it is still  shooting. I think of it like driving in a new town, you have to be more aware till your familiar with the roads to get to the place of your destination, but driving is the same. Some of the courses of fire are like driving on the oppisite side of the road, but I recall driving in Australlia and I still got to point B without crashing and only slightly slower. Once your familiar with the road (rules and techniques) you can start driving from auto pilot again. I don't think its harder just slightly different.

[Ron Ankeny]

Billf:

I don't want to get into thread drift here but there is a huge difference in the scoring and that effects the game plan.

Suppose (in IPSC) bonedaddy shot the El Pres with 54 points in 4.8 seconds and I shot it clean in 7 seconds. Bonedaddy would have a hf of 11.25 and I would have a hf of 8.57. Bonedaddy would be a clear cut victor. In fact, his score would be a couple of classes above mine.

OK, now shift to IDPA. Suppose bonedaddy's Charlie hits are all in the area occupied by the -1 area on the IDPA target and of course all of my A hits are down zero. This is not an unrealistc scenario. We take bonedaddy's 4.8 seconds and add 3 seconds for a total of 7.8 seconds. My score is 7 seconds and I win. Which of us is the better shooter?

(Edited by Ron Ankeny at 9:03 am on May 9, 2002)

[Flexmoney]

Ron,

That is a great example (you should be a teacher).  That realy highlights the speed vs. accuracy differences...which we kicked around in another thread.

[Billf]

Ron,

Sorry John for this drift.

Great example and  I see your point.

My point is. Bonedaddy just wasnt thinking IDPA. .  I'll bet next time in IDPA Bonedaddy will shoot it in the 5.5 range clean (considering that he wasn't lucky with the 4.8).

When I  shoot IPSC think IPSC, when I shoot bullseye I think bullseye, when I shoot IDPA I think IDPA etc.. But I have never been good at discribing my thoughts in words. If a C hit or a minus hit it worth the risk in a course of fire then by all means take it, but it is of my opinion that if the match competitors are of my skill level or higher, in both games. No course of fire is worth the risk of falling off the edge. So I always try to shoot for points and stay as close to the edge without risk. Doen't always happen but I have found that I place higher in both games  shooting that way. Of course there are them times one just has to turn it on.

Bill

[JFD]

I just try my best to follow the rules of each game and keep any bitching about how they want me to reload in IDPA to myself since it's just a minor personal problem.  

Our IDPA guys are really afraid of anything resembling IPSC and use the words "tactical" and "training" a lot, so anyone who shoots USPSA is watched closely since we're apparently "evil".  

I like to shoot, so I'll continue to shoot IDPA.    The IDPA matches are new to our club, so I figure the guys will calm down one of these days.

My prior shooting experience has been in matches sort of combining IPSC and IDPA, with IPSC type reloads and IDPA type stages and equipment.  

My only problem with the transition from one to the other is that I haven't been able to speed up enough for IPSC and find IDPA mag changes (except for slide lock reloads) to be very uncomfortable and impractical.  All "A" hits and a medium fast speed just doesn't quite get the job done in IPSC matches.  The same performance in IDPA will result in me stomping the competition (better than IPSC anyway).

[j1b]

John,

I want to answer your question real quickly. I used to be a die hard IPSC shooter - in fact I was VERY resistent to IDPA when it first came out. I relocated and IDPA was the only game in town - so I naturally adopted it.

The answer to the question is yes. I struggled with my first few matches. I got more procedurals and shot things wrong more times then I did right. It was extremely frustrating. Like IPSC though I learned from my mistakes and now I have really no issue what-so-ever with transitioning between matches.

A neat side note is that because IDPA ephasises points and time, I actually became a lot better shooter once I accepted IDPA. In IDPA C's were killers - and a miss was unacceptable. In IPSC I can remember frequently having a miss or two at any given match. IDPA forces you to not do that - hence I have benefitted from playing both games.

JB

[Joe D]

I am starting to see a subtle change in some of the IDPA stages that actually allow you to "game" some of them. Maybe game is not a good description, but rather being able to shoot a stage more than one way.

[Phil]

I just got back into competitive shooting this year after several years off of IPSC and got into IDPA. Boy did i have a hard time with the penalties in IDPA having cut my teeth on IPSC but after a while I figured it out.  Now in order to get more trigger time I shoot IPSC once a week followed by a IDPA match the next night.

What I do is to shoot the IPSC matches the way I would IDPA for the most part. Tactical order and may even do IDPA tact loads.  It hurts my IPSC times but my hits are better than ever.  I think it's a matter of being abel to walk up to a COF and shooting it the way you plan on instead of just doing what you know how to do.  Being abel to develop that skill I don't think will hurt your abilities in either sport.

The main difference I find between the two that hurts my scores is that I tend to shoot center mass  on a IPSC target and  that's still in the A zone where as on a IDPA target I have to hold a touch higher.  In IDPA most of my dropped points are just low of the A zone.

Phil

[Flexmoney]

Phil,

I had a post waaaay back...

I was having trouble hitting the center of the A-zone (thus putting low hits into the C-zone)...my rookie year.

What I did was to run a piece of tape across the center of the A-zone to help me get a visual que as to where the center of the A-zone actually is.  Which, of course, is highier than the center of the target.

[DblTap]

---

Quote: from Ron Ankeny on 9:02 am on May 9, 2002

Billf:

I don't want to get into thread drift here but there is a huge difference in the scoring and that effects the game plan.

Suppose (in IPSC) bonedaddy shot the El Pres with 54 points in 4.8 seconds and I shot it clean in 7 seconds. Bonedaddy would have a hf of 11.25 and I would have a hf of 8.57. Bonedaddy would be a clear cut victor. In fact, his score would be a couple of classes above mine.

OK, now shift to IDPA. Suppose bonedaddy's Charlie hits are all in the area occupied by the -1 area on the IDPA target and of course all of my A hits are down zero. This is not an unrealistc scenario. We take bonedaddy's 4.8 seconds and add 3 seconds for a total of 7.8 seconds. My score is 7 seconds and I win. Which of us is the better shooter?

(Edited by Ron Ankeny at 9:03 am on May 9, 2002)

---

I like to get some time in with my carry gun, that's why I shoot IDPA.  Ron hit the nail on the head here though! While IDPA is good in many ways, the fun of "hosing targets" has been lost due to the rediculous penalties for dropped points. I think that in a fight I'd rather have the 4.8 second El Pres with real life, armed BG's. Accuracy means nothing if while you're transitioning to target two target three is shooting you! It takes speed and accuracy. IDPA, IMHO, needs to go to about a .25 sec per point dropped rule.

[John Thompson]

Phil,

Most of my C-hits in IDPA are just below the A zone too.

I hate so-called tactical reloads and only do them when I have too.

Welcome to the forums.

[Phil]

John T,

thanks for the welcome,  this is a great form.

It's funny  when they have a shoot (IPDA) with shirts on the targets I dont' drop as many points as when they are just buff?

Phil