Differences between IPSC & USPSA stages

[ong45]

I have always heard that ipsc stages are different from what we shoot in the U.S.

I know the round count is lower, but how are they more technical?

For those who are fortunate enough to shoot both, could you describe the differences?

Many thanks,

James

[hoser]

In my experience, IPSC stages are always freestyle. The international matches I have shot seem to allow many options to the course of fire. The targets are almost always the classic (turtle) targets and they require more accuracy than the metric target.

Large USPSA matches are usually pretty good at the freestyle concept, as well. When Denise and I changed our stage over at the Nationals in Bend last year, we spent about 3 hours moving targets around to ensure there were multiple ways to shoot the stage. We even left the upper A/B zone of a fast swinger available before it was activated from one certain position - it was a very tough shot, though, and only one person shot it before activating the target.

So, if careful course design is employed there is very little difference between USPSA and IPSC courses.

Arnie

[Skywalker]

Arnie, in a few days you'll be able to relate on the topic...just wait and see what the Classic Italian Challenge is!

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

I endorse the comments made by Arnie. In the "old days", USPSA courses of fire generally used many shooting boxes, where you were told to shoot T1-4 from Box A, then T5-T7 from Box B and so on. However these days I'm delighted to know that the USPSA has all but abandoned such shooting boxes.

Of course it's much more difficult to create a truly freestyle COF, especially in relation to critical items like avoiding potential shoot-throughs, but the extra few hours it takes to achieve this gives competitors many days of more challenging shooting.

[schmitz]

Indeed,

it's very difficult to design courses for Free-style only esp. for beginner-coursedesigners.

Boxes are easy going!

Everything depends on rules (i.e. rulebook) now. Where do you find the experts?

I have a problem with that!

DVC, Wile E.C.

PS. Anybody out there?

[Skywalker]

I'm no expert at all, in fact I'm a young jedi that seldom gets gold stars from father Darth, but I'll be happy to help.

You can PM or email me if you don't feel like posting publicly.

[Garfield]

in fact I'm a young jedi that seldom gets gold stars from father Darth

Poor you, I'm alomost starting to feel sorry for you

[Jim Norman]

With rare exception, we use a shooting box only as a place to start from and of course in a Classifier stage.

Generally our stages are Start here in this position and shoot 'em as you see 'em. We may and do put up various vision barriers such as wall or no shoots to force a shooter to a position or to prevent a shooter from engaging a target that might cause a DQ. We strive to keep targets off the 180/90 line as the ONLY place you can see them. Steel is about the only time we specify a shooting position and that is limited to Steel must be engaged prior to crossing the charge line, or Steel must be engaged pror to entering the Free fire zone. If at all possible we will place the steel so that it cannot be seen once you pass the forward safe postion.

Biggest problem I had as a new designer was allowing multiple solutions to a stage without allowing over gaming of a stage. I wanted it shot in the way I designed it. Once I got over that, I simply had to work out the number of targets visible from a given position.

Our best courses allow multiple views of the same targets You shoot it from a port then see it again later around the end of a wall, it looks different, did you shoot it? Bit me on the A$$ last month.

Jim

[ivanhu]

I have always heard that ipsc stages are different from what we shoot in the U.S.

Well, several years before that might be true, but I've learnt that today USPSA stages are pretty much alike the "Rest-of-the-World" stages. I've seen but one USPSA match in Barry, IL (Pan-American Champ), and seeing only the stages, none could tell which part of the world he was.

As a matter of fact, while several USPSA classifier stages use the good old "from this box shoot these targets, from that box shoot those targets", which is pretty much different of those that we're used to here, but the IPSC classifier stages adopted the very same technique - and for a good reason, too.

So I'd say that seeing the stages, USPSA and "The Rest" is not different at all.

[Jim Norman]

It would be a wonderful thing if we could set up classifer stages that better reflected the "real world matches" that we shoot. It is hard enough to ensure that every one that sets of a simple three target array measures it correctly.

As a result the individual classifers do test certain individual skills, but do not often test transitioning between various skill sets.

One problem with setting up a free-style match is that since you are not allowed to tell a shooter "You must shoot T1 to T-3 from Port A" it requires a lot more props and it also requires time. Most local matches have to be set up the morning of the match and torn down and put away the same afternoon. My personal match day runs about 10-12 hours depending upon how many people show up to help us.

Our club is very lucky to have a strong group that works very hard to build and tear down our matches.

How do most of you go about handling stage designs to make them "Freestyle" I am assuming that "Engage all targets thru ports" is not freestyle, that you are running a full shoot 'em as you see 'em type of match.

Jim

[ivanhu]

It would be a wonderful thing if we could set up classifer stages that better reflected the "real world matches" that we shoot. It is hard enough to ensure that every one that sets of a simple three target array measures it correctly.

Absolutely. That's the good reason why IPSC adopted the same technique - this is perhaps the only way to provide that the stages will be the very same every time and everywhere.

One problem with setting up a free-style match is that since you are not allowed to tell a shooter "You must shoot T1 to T-3 from Port A" it requires a lot more props and it also requires time.

Well, as long as you don't think that your stage will be "gamed", it's not that bad. I mean, if you don't think that the "should be followed" way exists, that is. If you have a strong concept/idea in what way it should be shot, then you'll need more time and props, agreed.

Jim, don't you think we should be scared - we again agree...

How do most of you go about handling stage designs to make them "Freestyle" I am assuming that "Engage all targets thru ports" is not freestyle, that you are running a full shoot 'em as you see 'em type of match.

Well, it really depends. E.g., if you have several ports, but several targets are visible from more than just one port, then it'll qualify. But if you build a stage where only one solution exists, then it won't really qualify. The only question is, is the stage designer brave enough to let the shooters to find several different solutions. Even better if there are different solutions for the differently skilled shooters. (e.g. the slow fat but accurate guy like me might pick up longer distances and/or more difficult shots, the quick young boy might run closer and therefore have close clear target shots.)

[Jim Norman]

I am preparing for the seven horsemen of the apocalypse as I write this. To be in agreement twice in one post is more than I can take with out becoming very very concerned.

Shooting all targets through ports as long as you can see multiple presentations would I agree be freestyle, allowing only 4 targets per port and not being able to see them elsewhere would be less likely to be considered freestyle, even if you could engage a particular target on the way up to a port and take others as yo leave, everyone still would have to go to the same positions to shoot.

You would have loved a course we ran last month, 14 no shoots and 6 targets, you could see most of the targets at least 3x but never more than 2 at a time and if you stood back a few feet from the free fire zone, you couldn't see any brown at all.

Interestingly enough there were very fast times and very few no shoots.

Jim

[dirtypool40]

Back to the original question posed;

I have limited experience shooting international IPSC but I do notice some differences.

1. There is more "dicking around" with the gun or props before you shoot. "At the beep assemble you gun from the parts laid on table one, load six rounds of ammo, chamber check the ammo, load and engage T1-T3.

2. Courses are shorter, and the ones I have seen are LESS free style than at good USPSA matches. It may be the range or props available, but ports and boxes BAD, Free Fire Zones and Vision barriers to "encourage movement" GOOD.

3. IPSC has that 321 rule which I don't agree with. Under that rule (three short, two medium courses and one long), you can often throw a course in the garbage so long as you burn the big one. I just shot the FL State match and most stages were within a couple of rounds. If you wanted to do well consistency was the most important thing.

IPSC (&USPSA) has been laughingly criticized as an armed track meet. We've all heard that one.

But if you make shooters stand and hose from one spot, box or port, then haul ass to the next "allowed" shooting position, it really does reward foot speed.

That being said, ANYONE can move fast enough to be competitive shooting smoothly on the move.

And I'll close with the warning that it all comes down to effort in course design. Someone above commented on how much effort it took to think a course through and set it up so there were several ways to do it that ARE COMPETITIVE.

Good courses take thought and time as well as props. Dicking around with the props before the shooting does not make a good stage, challenging shots and options make a good stage.

Nuff said.

[Jim Norman]

I have to agree that the 321 ratio is a bad idea. At our club we run mostly 20-32= round courses. The shorter courses are generally in the smaller pits where adding a target for the sake of adding a target is the only reaason to increse the count.

An ideal stage allows for all types of shooting. A quick draw and engage a couple targets from the start, a few tight shots, a couple longer shots and a few to shoot between the places where you'll shot the rest. In other words, once you hear the beep you should hear a fairly continuous bang-bang, bang-bang till you get to the end of the stage, not a bang-bang long time while shooter moves to next position bang-bang and so on.

As to non-shooting props in a USPSA match. Doing something before you start is not always bad, you can be reading the paper, you can have to place the "Baby" safely in the carriage, etc. Doing something absurd however is just wrong. Now we have had a course where you started with the unloaded gun on the table and "Cleaning supplies" in hand, You did however have loaded magazines. Also to require the shooter to carry a prop is acceptable since it requires non-standard gripping of the gun. The prop should be easily carried by all the shooters and there should be certain caveats such as "NO, You may not grasp the Bunny rabbits ears in your teeth". A breif case that you must retain for 6-8 shots is a good prop, You reload before you grab it and shoot 6 while carrying it, then drop it and reload balance of the stage is free of impediments. Or you can start free, pick up the case, shoot a certain number determined by target placement of course and then go free again.

Essentially design a course that encourages all three elements and you have a good course. Speed, Power and accuracy. The Power portion is covered byusing steel and that is almost passe with forward falling steel and Chronos. Accuracy is fairly easy, put a head shot in the middle of the otherwise open stage, Speed, give the shooters a clear path with targets along the way.

I'm done.

Jim

[shred]

While I haven't been to an international IPSC match yet (look out Nicaragua!), I'm told that what Jim says is right.. much less often do you start "standing in box A, on signal draw and.."

Also the 3-2-1 thing. This month for the match I'm MD-ing, I'm going to put 3 little international-style (9 rounds ea) short-course stages in one bay. Similar match round-count in total, and shooters can move uprange one to the other while behind them people are taping and scoring, so it shouldn't take any longer to run. Hopefully it'll help balance running-vs-shooting somewhat. (We have four 25x50 yard bays and local matches sometimes turn into 3-30+ round field courses and one 12-round classifier)

[ivanhu]

An ideal stage allows for all types of shooting. A quick draw and engage a couple targets from the start, a few tight shots, a couple longer shots and a few to shoot between the places where you'll shot the rest. In other words, once you hear the beep you should hear a fairly continuous bang-bang, bang-bang till you get to the end of the stage, not a bang-bang long time while shooter moves to next position bang-bang and so on.

Jim,

I'm glad to announce that the Order of the Universe is returned to normal. I disagree. IMHO, it's not the stage that should be well balanced - it's the match. A good match contains several kind of stages. There'd be stages that those guys will like who just love to stand without moving and pulling the trigger as fast as they could (clear, close targets). There'd be stages that those guys will like who just love to make up tricky, long, difficult shots. There'd be stages that give advantage to the guys with more powerful weapons. There'd be stages that give advantage to those guys who can shoot during movement. And so on.

However, increasing the round count alone won't do much good. Rather, it'll give advantage to the guys with better athletic skills - whatever you do, as long as you add some movement, the faster guys gain advantage over the elder, slower ones. As long as you add low ports, the same happens.

Therefore, I don't think that the 3-2-1 rule would be that bad. It lessens the advantage that some non-shooting-related skills would otherwise provide. I don't say that you must use this recommendation exactly as it's written - but if you have a long course with 30 rounds (which most likely means advantage for the athletes), then you also should have 2 stages with 15 rounds each, and three stages with almost 10 rounds each. These later will put the emphasis on speed, and the two mid stages should put the emphasis on accuracy (and the tricks like shooting while moving, shooting at moving targets, etc.) . While it is possible that one will have 2-3-1 or

2-2-2, but then that extra middle course should have only 10-11 minimum rounds, or that extra long course should have only 18-20 rounds minimum to complete.

Having a match with six stages where the minimum rounds are 9+15+15+28+30+29 will mean a greater advantage to the shooters with better athletic skills only IMHO.

[Jim Norman]

Lets see, our last match was 15-26-26-31-33-24-12

The 15 had only a very little bit of movement, the 12 actually had about 20 feet and a dozen no-shoots leberally sprinkled in. The 2 26's had near to far and shooting on the move, but both had a draw and shoot before you moved much.

the 31 had a lot of movement between positions, the 33 had almost continuous shooting form the buzzer to the end, and the 24 was actually a three string classifier stage, Standing, kneeling and prone with a reload at 40 yards.

So I guess we are still closer than we thought. Personally I like a mix, but most of our shooters prefer more shots to less so we balance to the higher round count side. nothing wrong with the El Prez type either, but too many will also screw up the match timing. You need to be sure that yo don't have a stage that is so short that the squad is done before hals of the squad on the next stage is done and you also have to look out for stages that run over the allowable clearence time.

Jim

[shred]

Now that I actually have some international match experience, there were some differences-- mostly there were a lot more tight shots and leaning way around vision barriers. And I'm getting to like the 3-2-1 style.

What?!? less 32-round hosefests? Why??

Because an 8 or 9-round stage tests your shooting abilities a lot more than a big stage. When there's only 45 points available, you can't afford to drop C's and D's and try and make it up with speed. You need a good draw, efficient movement and good transitions. Mix in some hard cover and little poppers and even one extra shot moves you down the results considerably. Nobody (except the revo wierdos) has to reload, and they go fast.

Put 3 in a berm, move hot between them and score the first two while shooting the 3rd and it takes no more time than running one big stage.

Here are some for example (click-em for bigger versions), video and all that are on my site:

-- Gun starts loaded on the sandbag in front. You start seated on the one in back. Grab & go.

-- This one had a steel no-shoot in front. No shoot-through worries there.

-- drop the paint can and try and stay out of the black paint.

We also shot some 16-round stages that were easily as fun and challenging as most 30+ round stages I've ever shot. Two swingers, a few poppers and small plates, tight angles, moving around a car and even the Open shooters are thinking about where they might reload.

You'll note that there are very few mass-o-target "arrays" in these field courses. I think that's a good thing.

-- I had to hook my toe underneath the barrier to shoot the right side of this

[Nik Habicht]

Roy,

That looks like it was a really fun match! Maybe some year...

[spook]

Because an 8 or 9-round stage tests your shooting abilities a lot more than a big stage. When there's only 45 points available, you can't afford to drop C's and D's and try and make it up with speed. You need a good draw, efficient movement and good transitions. Mix in some hard cover and little poppers and even one extra shot moves you down the results considerably.

Exactly. I shoot IPSC only and I do understand that some USPSA guys don't see why there should be that many short courses. True, you cannot win a match by winning a short course, but you sure as hell can lose one by screwing up. Short courses are less forgiving than long courses. That's what I like about them and others hate

I have seen the USPSA Nats DVD and the thing that caught my attention was the lack of "weird" shooting positions. No very low ports or extreme barricades. No things to carry around while you're shooting "forcing" you to shoot weak or strong hand, but mandatory strong hand stages instead.