Course design for different sports

[Scratchthejeepguy]

I know what IDPAstands for, and that it's really geared for carry situations... But I'm setting up some courses and while we want it geared more for IDPA style shooting, I'm curious as to what the other styles of shooting sports like USPSA and IPSC courses are geared for. I guess what I might mean, is that whenever I see a course layed out with walls, can that same course be used for any of the three shooting sports? I know with IDPA you might have a "scenario" based course like changing a tire, or walking through Walmart, etc... If I see a cool course somewhere on YouTube or something that's not an IDPA course, could it be used for one according to the rule book, or do they have to abide by certain criteria?

[kevin c]

Each sport has a rule book that specifies how courses of fire should be set up.

For instance, IDPA COF's can't be more than 19 rounds, must not have more than 1:4 nonthreat to threat targets, and also limits the distance to the target for some types of shooting. The use of shooting areas bounded by limit lines on the ground is not permitted. The course description describes the scenario and pretty much dictates what the shooter is allowed to do. IDPA also expects shooters to use cover as they define it, when it is available. Concealment of the sidearm is also frequently required.

USPSA, except for classifiers and practical concerns, doesn't limit/specify distances, uses bounded shooting areas, has a higher round count limit (32), and allows greater flexibility to the shooter in completing the COF requirements. Cover garments and use of cover is not expected.

So, if you can take one COF from one discipline and it can be used as is or modified to be compliant with the rules of the other, it's good to go.

[wes777]

Wow, that could get complicated. Idpa has a round count limit because of the magazine limitations. Impossible to run a lot of uspsa stages in idpa format for that reason. The next being that uspsa is designed around speed and the shooter has options in how they engage targets. Idpa pretty much limits this creativity for the shooter, everyone shoots the same COF pretty much the same way.

[Tim/GA]

While I am sure some USPSA courses of fire could be adapted, most would be tough. In general we use "walls", barrels, etc. as vision barriers/hard cover to induce movement within a shooting area. Ideally this will leave multiple ways to shoot a stage but it does not mean you could/would use them as "cover". For example, a COF I designed for today's match had the shooter pick up their gun from the table, load and engage 4 targets from that point of the shooting area because they could only be seen from there. There was also 1 target on each side of the shooting bay at the far end of the course that COULD be engaged from there but did not have to be. In IDPA I believe they would have to have been engaged from there.

If a shooter did not want to take the long shots on those two, you could also engage them from the very front of the course much closer but it would require the shooter to move to the each side to the end of the wall to get them. If you shot the long shots then you just had to shoot through the two middle ports to finish the stage. Basically the choice was slower, longer shots or more distance to cover and to get faster short shots. Would never have been legal in IDPA.

[Scratchthejeepguy]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'll keep it in mind in my course design.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

In USPSA, you're free to move and shoot as you please -- after the course designer has put in walls and boundaries to restrict which targets you can shoot from where. In IDPA, you're free to move and shoot as you please -- after the course designer has designated which targets you can shoot from where. It's not quite that simple, but keep in mind that USPSA uses barriers and boundary lines where IDPA uses the course description to provide similar constraints.

The rules intersect with these things differently, too. In USPSA, you have the 180 rule. In IDPA, you have rules about shooting in tactical priority -- near to far, in the open, slicing the pie, around cover -- or, if the course demands it, in tactical sequence, one shot at each target of the array before re-engaging any target.

The other big difference, as others have pointed out, is that IDPA courses of fire tend be around a dozen shots (on a half-dozen targets), which may feel more constrained, too. You can convert USPSA courses by requiring just one shot per target, dropping extra targets in an array, and making other small changes.

[PistoleroJesse]

The Summary:

IDPA to USPSA = Easy Enough

USPSA to IDPA = Gets Tricky

[bbbean]

If you're serious about designing stages for any of the sports, the first step is to spend some time competing in those particular sports. They're all a lot more involved that simply "shoot some targets from here or around these obstacles", and there are a lot of subtleties within each sport that make certain features especially attractive or unattractive. Spend some time learning the sports, spend some time learning the particular rules of each sport, and spend some time studying stages better stage designers have designed.

Of course, if you're just looking for ways to make your plinking sessions more interesting, then your imagination and safety are your only limits.

[ihocky2]

I shoot a lot more IDPA than USPSA and as most have said, transitioning a USPSA stage to IDPA is more diffincult than vice versa. In IDPA you are not required to specify which targets can be engage from where, but a lot of stage designers do. My opinion is that makes for a weak stage design and a boring stage. GOOD stage designers stay within the rules, but allow enough room in the description to allow the shooter to choose the order in which the will engage targets. At times it is beneficial to mandate certain targets in a certain order to remove the easy options if you want a more challenging COF. But the best stages I've seen usually say Start at P1 and finish at P2. It is up to the shooter to choose their own path and follow the cover and reload rules as needed.

IMHO a good stage for IDPA gives the shooter options. An example would be starting at a closed door that you have to open to engage targets andalso having targets to one side or the other. The shooter has to decide which direction works to their strong points and which exposes more weaknesses. It might have faster foot movement to move to the left first, but requires shooting from behind cover from the weak side for the shooter and makes for a bad reload position. Moving to the right first might require more movement put is a stronger shooter side and allows a reload while moving behind cover.

In real life self defense there is no required order of engagement.

[PistoleroJesse]

In real life self defense there is no required order of engagement.

I wish your line of thinking was more prominent in IDPA.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

In real life self defense there is no required order of engagement.

In real-life self-defense, no one tells you the required order of engagement, but some folks need shootin' early 'n' often, and others you can take your time gettin' 'round to.