Practical Equipment and Real-World Scenarios

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I don't really know what IDPA's "tiger teams" are up to, but I was thinking about IDPA's stated goals -- namely, using practical equipment to solve real-world scenarios -- and how else you might design a shooting sport to meet those goals.

For instance, a full-size 1911 or Glock 34 isn't an impractical gun, but far more people -- as I understand it -- carry a compact gun, like a Glock 19, or a subcompact, like a "Baby" Glock -- or a true pocket pistol. If you want ordinary concealed-carry guns to be competitive, perhaps compact guns deserve their own division? I can imagine moving all full-size 9mm pistols into ESP and replacing SSP with a compact or subcompact division.

Also, if we already have a box to limit size, do we need to restrict specific race-gun features? Is a Glock 17C, with its ported barrel, too impractical for IDPA competition?

What kind of scenarios best reflect defensive shooting? Ideally all scenarios would be blind, so competitors couldn't plan out mag changes, round dumping, etc., and they'd have to slice the pie without already knowing the perfect foot placement. But that's not practical. I've seen some good semi-blind stages though, where you don't know ahead of time which of two targets is going to be the threat and which is going to be the non-threat.

Also, it would be great if just about every target -- and non-threat -- was moving, if only a little bit. Again, that's not easy to implement.

If we're training for concealed carry, then many scenarios should involve lots and lots of non-threats. My understanding is that someone had a bad experience with that, and hordes of non-threats have since been outlawed. That's a shame.

I suppose lots of scenarios should involve low light.

Everyone enjoys a higher round count, but most scenarios should probably involve drawing and shooting one, two, or three threats while, say, retreating and closing a door. Twenty-yard shots can come in handy in some real-life scenarios, but I have to imagine they're rather rare outside of competition.

Also, the nature of the sport is that we give competitors an unambiguous start signal -- the buzzer -- and unambiguous targets. It would be nice if threats could reach for a weapon to kick things off, but cardboard targets don't do that, and shot-timers can't hear that.

The sport will never perfectly reflect real-life shooting, but are there any ways you can see to move it in that direction?

[bhurte]

This seems to be the constant struggle balancing competition and training.

The scenarios you list are common topics among those involved in IDPA. I encourage you to read a summary of the initial suggestions collected by the "Tiger Teams" listed here:

http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/8070/Summary-of-all-suggested-changes-to-the-rule-book

IDPA is never going to be a complete simulation of concealed carry/home defense scenarios. I encourage you to enjoy it for what it is, shoot what you want/or carry, and get what YOU want out of it. Whether that is to win a game, assess your shooting skills, confirm you can shoot under stress, etc.

[motosapiens]

I don't think I'd bother showing up for 1, 2, or 3 round real-life scenarios. I like to shoot. If you want to train for real life, I think a real training class is a better option.

Having said that, I do carry the same gun I shoot in idpa (cz75). One of the things idpa did for me is convince me that if i ever have to use a gun defensively, i'd like one I can shoot well.

Edited February 17, 2012 by motosapiens

[Steve Koski]

Look at this IDPA match:

It is low round count and more practical than most IDPA matches. My take is that some stages like this are great, but I also want to shoot more and have more fun.

Koski

[shootaglock89]

Look at this IDPA match:

It is low round count and more practical than most IDPA matches. My take is that some stages like this are great, but I also want to shoot more and have more fun.

Koski

If I paid $80 plus for a match and this was all of the shooting I got to do... well I would not be very happy. Practical? Sure, but I am at a match to compete and shoot A LOT.

Edited February 17, 2012 by shootaglock89

[motosapiens]

Look at this IDPA match:

It is low round count and more practical than most IDPA matches. My take is that some stages like this are great, but I also want to shoot more and have more fun.

Koski

If I paid $80 plus for a match and this was all of the shooting I got to do... well I would not be very happy. Practical? Sure, but I am at a match to compete and shoot A LOT.

I think what steve koski is implying is to have a couple stages like that is fine, mixed in with some more shoot-em-up higher round count stages. I think thats pretty reasonable, and something that the OP can easily volunteer to help design and set up some stages for his local matches.

[MarkCO]

I have not shot IDPA in a LONG time, but I did help start one of the first clubs, competed in some of the first big matches and was the RM for a state level match, so I do at least have a perspective.

IDPA's stated goals, while admirable, do not reflect the desire of a large majority of the participants. A game is NOT practice for real life. It may be a simluation of some elements thereof, but if you use a timer and keep score, it is a game. Some of the best "martial arts" complete defensive personalities I know shoot IDPA matches, and they use it to refine skills, shedding the competitive drive to win in order to utilize the opportunity to practice. At the same time, some of the least tactically oriented people I know shoot IDPA and place fairly high, but I would not choose them for support in a life and death scenario of any kind. Add to that divergent opinions (some proven right and some proven wrong in the ctual crucilbe of real life) as to what is "tactical" and you end up with a problem that is multi-faceted and will be difficult to solve.

This tearing of a split personality has been going on since the inception of IDPA. To that end, we see some shooter leave IDPA and move on to USPSA while still others go the opposite direction to lower round count home-grown types of tests. I know of one group that left IDPA and does a monthly event. There are times where you show up and will not fire a round. Other times you might fire a 30 round course of fire. But the tactical debreif is where the real training occurs.

I beleive all the shooting sports are good and should be encouraged, but I think IDPA will devolve or evolve and that their "mission statement" may need a tweak at this point in time.

[Steve Koski]

I think what steve koski is implying is to have a couple stages like that is fine, mixed in with some more shoot-em-up higher round count stages. I think thats pretty reasonable, and something that the OP can easily volunteer to help design and set up some stages for his local matches.

Yeah. That.

[hkguy]

I don't really know what IDPA's "tiger teams" are up to, but I was thinking about IDPA's stated goals -- namely, using practical equipment to solve real-world scenarios -- and how else you might design a shooting sport to meet those goals.

For instance, a full-size 1911 or Glock 34 isn't an impractical gun, but far more people -- as I understand it -- carry a compact gun, like a Glock 19, or a subcompact, like a "Baby" Glock -- or a true pocket pistol. If you want ordinary concealed-carry guns to be competitive, perhaps compact guns deserve their own division? I can imagine moving all full-size 9mm pistols into ESP and replacing SSP with a compact or subcompact division.

compact and pocket guns already have a division, the BUG division, but this division is vastly different when compared to the other 5 and is tougher to accommodate. some clubs run annual BUG matches, wished more MD's would do so.

Also, if we already have a box to limit size, do we need to restrict specific race-gun features? Is a Glock 17C, with its ported barrel, too impractical for IDPA competition?

I feel pretty strongly about this, and yes, i agree that most "race gun" features should not be allowed. this is supposed to be an affordable way for the average joe to play. you can get into and be competitive for less than $600 for a complete rig, can't really do that in USPSA. as far as "compensated" glock's and such i would argue that its not so much that their impractical, but theoretically offer a competitive advantage. i know some MD's allow them at the local level, but for sanctions matches, i dont see the need.

What kind of scenarios best reflect defensive shooting? Ideally all scenarios would be blind, so competitors couldn't plan out mag changes, round dumping, etc., and they'd have to slice the pie without already knowing the perfect foot placement. But that's not practical. I've seen some good semi-blind stages though, where you don't know ahead of time which of two targets is going to be the threat and which is going to be the non-threat.

it the nature of being a game and not the real life streets of anytown, usa. there are so many factors that come into play for a real life encounter that one could not possibly plan for in a stage design. not to mention the battle of resources. this would be easier for larger programs to accommodate, but not the smaller ones.

Also, it would be great if just about every target -- and non-threat -- was moving, if only a little bit. Again, that's not easy to implement.

If we're training for concealed carry, then many scenarios should involve lots and lots of non-threats. My understanding is that someone had a bad experience with that, and hordes of non-threats have since been outlawed. That's a shame.

I suppose lots of scenarios should involve low light.

in my experience, a few clubs in my area offer low light/night shoots, but they do pose increased safety risks and additional equipment requirements

Everyone enjoys a higher round count, but most scenarios should probably involve drawing and shooting one, two, or three threats while, say, retreating and closing a door. Twenty-yard shots can come in handy in some real-life scenarios, but I have to imagine they're rather rare outside of competition.

perhaps you should offer stage designs to your club if your not already to address these areas of concern. again there are rules addressing the percentages of shots that can be at extended ranges.

Also, the nature of the sport is that we give competitors an unambiguous start signal -- the buzzer -- and unambiguous targets. It would be nice if threats could reach for a weapon to kick things off, but cardboard targets don't do that, and shot-timers can't hear that.

as you mentioned, some things need to be the same. you can do things like paint knives or guns on threat targets to simulate priority and make shooters on the fly decided what threat target in an array of 3 takes priority with one having a knife...

The sport will never perfectly reflect real-life shooting, but are there any ways you can see to move it in that direction?

I feel that this sport offers the average shooter a great opportunity to work on and use skills that would be needed in a real life situation (drawing from concealment, reloading, shooting from cover, shooting under stress, tactical decision making in threat v non-threat, etc) in a fun format that is closer related to CC than virtually all other shooting sports. savvy stage design can get you closer to real life situations, but after all it is a game.

[Joe4d]

I feel ESP and SSP should be scrapped altogether. The scores just dont reflect a difference in trigger action. You also have SSP legal guns winning in ESP.

Keep ESP rules as is,

SSP should be changed to compact pistol, with a 20 something weight limit, and 4 " max barrel. Use the same box, but include a 1 " thick piece of wood on the end. For CP you put the block of wood in.

IDPA is suppossed to be about defensive pistol, yet nobodies defensive pistol is competitive. And lets not start on BUG, its not a real division that shoots at real matches, so it might as well not even exist.

Just call CDP what HQ wants it to be, The 1911 45 ACP division and leave it at that.

[Chills1994]

I don't really know what IDPA's "tiger teams" are up to, but I was thinking about IDPA's stated goals -- namely, using practical equipment to solve real-world scenarios -- and how else you might design a shooting sport to meet those goals.

For instance, a full-size 1911 or Glock 34 isn't an impractical gun, but far more people -- as I understand it -- carry a compact gun, like a Glock 19, or a subcompact, like a "Baby" Glock -- or a true pocket pistol. If you want ordinary concealed-carry guns to be competitive, perhaps compact guns deserve their own division? I can imagine moving all full-size 9mm pistols into ESP and replacing SSP with a compact or subcompact division.

Also, if we already have a box to limit size, do we need to restrict specific race-gun features? Is a Glock 17C, with its ported barrel, too impractical for IDPA competition?

What kind of scenarios best reflect defensive shooting? Ideally all scenarios would be blind, so competitors couldn't plan out mag changes, round dumping, etc., and they'd have to slice the pie without already knowing the perfect foot placement. But that's not practical. I've seen some good semi-blind stages though, where you don't know ahead of time which of two targets is going to be the threat and which is going to be the non-threat.

Also, it would be great if just about every target -- and non-threat -- was moving, if only a little bit. Again, that's not easy to implement.

If we're training for concealed carry, then many scenarios should involve lots and lots of non-threats. My understanding is that someone had a bad experience with that, and hordes of non-threats have since been outlawed. That's a shame.

I suppose lots of scenarios should involve low light.

Everyone enjoys a higher round count, but most scenarios should probably involve drawing and shooting one, two, or three threats while, say, retreating and closing a door. Twenty-yard shots can come in handy in some real-life scenarios, but I have to imagine they're rather rare outside of competition.

Also, the nature of the sport is that we give competitors an unambiguous start signal -- the buzzer -- and unambiguous targets. It would be nice if threats could reach for a weapon to kick things off, but cardboard targets don't do that, and shot-timers can't hear that.

The sport will never perfectly reflect real-life shooting, but are there any ways you can see to move it in that direction?

It's a game.

Meh!

It prepares you in about the same quantity and quality with respect to a real world gunfight as say being in a taekwondo dojo prepares you for a barroom brawl.

You take away whatever training from either simulator with...well, whatever you take away with. That is only limited by how open your mind is.

EDITED TO ADD THIS: we could just get rid of all divisions and classifications

Edited February 18, 2012 by Chills1994

[Merlin Orr]

My stage submission for "Real World."

At sound of buzzer walk through door to encounter "cracked up evil do'er/Poor misunderstood disadvantaged young boy who never hurt anyone" with large caliber stolen handgun. Draw from concealment and engage threat until gun locks back on empty.

One threat target

17 Threats scattered around and behind main threat target who turn to non threat targets if shot or have projectile pass within 3'.

First shot must be fired with gun still in holster.

Shooter must piss self prior to firing first shot.

Shooter must yell loudly.."Stop! I have a weapon and will use this gun. I do not want to use deadly force but will do so to defend my self. Please do not make me shoot you." This must be repeated at least twice (prior to shooting) and, if anyone is visible with a cell phone who may video the scene, an additional repetition of the statement is required.

Upon firing last shot shooter is required to drop weapon to ground, interlace fingers together behind head and 3 SOs will throw shooter to ground while wrenching arms to well beyond full travel behind back and knee dropping full weight to shooter's ribcage.

Scoring

To engage hostile threat target. $6,000.00 - $30,000.00 legal fee

Non Threat target. $5,000.00 for near miss.

-3 on Non Threat - Entire life savings, home and all assets if non threat is actually touched by projectile.

-1 or down zero on Non Threat - Entire life savings, home and all assets plus jail time not to exceed 40 years. (May be changed to local penalty for Capitol Murder in certain states and/or locales)

[jualdeaux]

Training? IDPA is in no way "training." It is a GAME where one can practice "some" skills that you have learned that can be useful in concealed carry. Anything else you might ascribe to it is just BS.

[Chills1994]

I'd like to make a motion to close this thread down.

I know it's been a long winter for some of you, but this topic has been hashed, rehashed, and hashed again. This is NOT the _____Talk forum.

Ya, know, for every guy on every forum who has said unequivocally that "IDPA is not training" I'd certainly like to see their DD214 that says they were on Delta Force or SEAL Team Six...or heck, I'd just settle for a copy of a police report that actually states they were in a gunfight.

[JakeMartens]

I don't really know what IDPA's "tiger teams" are up to, but I was thinking about IDPA's stated goals -- namely, using practical equipment to solve real-world scenarios -- and how else you might design a shooting sport to meet those goals.

For instance, a full-size 1911 or Glock 34 isn't an impractical gun, but far more people -- as I understand it -- carry a compact gun, like a Glock 19, or a subcompact, like a "Baby" Glock -- or a true pocket pistol. If you want ordinary concealed-carry guns to be competitive, perhaps compact guns deserve their own division? I can imagine moving all full-size 9mm pistols into ESP and replacing SSP with a compact or subcompact division.

Also, if we already have a box to limit size, do we need to restrict specific race-gun features? Is a Glock 17C, with its ported barrel, too impractical for IDPA competition?

What kind of scenarios best reflect defensive shooting? Ideally all scenarios would be blind, so competitors couldn't plan out mag changes, round dumping, etc., and they'd have to slice the pie without already knowing the perfect foot placement. But that's not practical. I've seen some good semi-blind stages though, where you don't know ahead of time which of two targets is going to be the threat and which is going to be the non-threat.

Also, it would be great if just about every target -- and non-threat -- was moving, if only a little bit. Again, that's not easy to implement.

If we're training for concealed carry, then many scenarios should involve lots and lots of non-threats. My understanding is that someone had a bad experience with that, and hordes of non-threats have since been outlawed. That's a shame.

I suppose lots of scenarios should involve low light.

Everyone enjoys a higher round count, but most scenarios should probably involve drawing and shooting one, two, or three threats while, say, retreating and closing a door. Twenty-yard shots can come in handy in some real-life scenarios, but I have to imagine they're rather rare outside of competition.

Also, the nature of the sport is that we give competitors an unambiguous start signal -- the buzzer -- and unambiguous targets. It would be nice if threats could reach for a weapon to kick things off, but cardboard targets don't do that, and shot-timers can't hear that.

The sport will never perfectly reflect real-life shooting, but are there any ways you can see to move it in that direction?

You missed a couple of important things with IDPA's goal:

The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is the governing body of a shooting sportself-defense scenarios and real life encounters.

The founders developed the sport so that practical gear and practical guns may be used competitively

It is a shooting sport, a competition. Not training and that was never the goal of IDPA.

Edited February 18, 2012 by JakeMartens

[sirveyr]

The sport will never perfectly reflect real-life shooting, but are there any ways you can see to move it in that direction?

No. It is a privately held business. They can and will continue to do what they want. Play the game that they offer or find a different game to play.

[nwb01]

The sport will never perfectly reflect real-life shooting, but are there any ways you can see to move it in that direction?

No. It is a privately held business. They can and will continue to do what they want. Play the game that they offer or find a different game to play.

Best advice on the subject right there !!!

[jmorris]

For safety they don't allow SOB holsters. "Fishing vests" are almost all you see at a match but nowhere else in this area. If you want it "real", going into harms way with a pistol loaded to no more than 10+1 doesn't seem like a good idea to me anytime.

Rules are for games and there are several to pick from. Defence means different things but in many homes your best bet would be to stay put, quiet, and let the target come to you. All of the advantages are on your side at that point but that should make for a really boring, one shot, par time stage.

Several of my carry guns are practical to carry but not for the game or in some cases even legal. That also goes the other way, a 625 is a great gun for ESR but a lot better gun can be had for carry that will hold enough rounds the added benifit of the size and weight (to use as a club after 6 rounds) is not an issue.

Edited February 19, 2012 by jmorris

[chuck s]

the old question of wether IDPA is just a game or training for a potential gun fight will go on as long as IDPA exists, however, I contend it is both. Of course it is a game, that is why we like it so much. It is in most of our natures to be competitive and since we love firearms it is natural to contrive a sport using them. With that comes rules, without them there could be no game, and just like any other sport, the rules are tweeked over time to make it a better and more fair game. The practice it takes to become competitive naturally makes you a more proficient shooter. Action shooting games are certainly not the end all to becoming proficient, there are plenty of other shooting diciplines and courses that also help build a really good defensive tactical shooter, but for me it comes down to this;If I am ever faced with defending my life against a few bad guys in a real life scenario, I would prefer they not be IDPA Masters.

[waktasz]

I shot a bug match with my Keltec. It told me some things. Immediately after that I came home and bought a carry holster for my Glock 35.

[TacticalReload]

It prepares you in about the same quantity and quality with respect to a real world gunfight as say being in a taekwondo dojo prepares you for a barroom brawl.

Tae kwon do is Korean and dojo is Japanese. The correct term would be either karate dojo or tae kwon do dojang.

Also, in before the lock. In all seriousness, I'm not sure what more than be said that hasn't been said before a million times.

Edited February 20, 2012 by TacticalReload

[Chills1994]

I won't name any names here (Because I can't remember if it was ever openly broadcasted on this forum), but a forum member's brother basically performed a Bill Drill on some bad guy's chest, and "came out on top". This particular forum member at least had showed his brother the ropes on how to handle a handgun. I can't remember now if the brother had shot IDPA/USPSA. This particular incident happened within the past two years.

[Paul Burtchell]

I shot a bug match with my Keltec. It told me some things. Immediately after that I came home and bought a carry holster for my Glock 35.

Bingo !!!

[ima45dv8]

Nothing new being offered, and now we're into the "somebody shot somebody" stories.

Quoteth the Forum Guidelines:

While the occasional defensive shooting post is not prohibited, in general, defensive shooting discussions or debates are discouraged.

Closed.