Is a SWAT sniper shot "real world"?

[mwc]

As a former military and retired law enforcement...I see nothing wrong with the games we play. Whether its IDPA or USPSA, its all shooting practice under stress. Maybe not life and death stress, but stress none the less.

If I am ever taken hostage, I would rather have someone with the confidence to take the shot because he/she has done it a thousand times in practice or on the move in a match, than someone who thinks those shots are too hard or risky.

In the real world, being calm under pressure and having the confidence to do what needs to be done, when it needs done, is what matters.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I fear getting too "real world". If it was "real world" most stages would be at around 4 feet and be 3 or 5 shots.

What would "real world" stages involve? Moving targets and lots of moving non-threats, mainly.

The active-shooter events that end up in the news are rare, but they would involve a single moving target at long range, maybe requiring a head shot, and lots of moving non-threats around him.

Edited February 23, 2013 by Not-So-Mad Matt

[JD45]

The specific set-up that is used to death these days is: a no-shoot stapled over a threat target in a position that would simulate an attacker holding a knife to someone's throat, or a gun to their head. In that situation, I wonder if our bullet would shut the bad guys reflexes off before he hurt the hostage? Pretty risky endeavor it seems. On the other hand, I NEVER see noshoots just sort of beside targets, like someone you may have to avoid to shoot the threat.

I see that no one agrees with my point, so hope ya'll enjoy those no-shoots. As long as I can get ammo, I'll keep dealing with it.....ain't got to like it though.

[Tom C]

I left IDPA not because of IDPA itself but because the local club was unfortunately run by some rather unpleasant people who felt they were above having to help tape, reset stages, score etc. So I moved to USPSA and guess what? Yep, same general problem. I like both shooting disciplines and truth be known, I really do prefer IDPA. I will get back to IDPA in the not to distant future but for now I have 2 grandkids that take up most of my free time. I still shoot.......just have precious little time to get to matches. Remember one thing folks...If you are shooting, you are learning (least I am).

Edited March 8, 2013 by Tom C

[KSH]

Even though I like the sport of USPSA better, I shoot more IDPA matches because they are close by and I like to shoot with friends. I started in 2001, and I'm seeing things now that makes USPSA look more like a defensive sport than IDPA.

The worst case by far is the use of the no-shoot target. And being forced to engage a target half(or more) covered by one while moving!! At 10-12yds!! Doing this at 3yds. would still be risky in a defensive gunfight. How would you like to explain the former in court after you put a round through the non-threat while moving and shooting?

The way I see it, a hidden trained police sniper would think hard about taking some of the shots we make near a hostage, with a rifle. Don't you agree?

Plus these shots are a nightmare for a new shooter, especially after they watch Master class guys eat up the no-shoot.

I may add to this later, but designing stages that are too hard just to be cute does not help a sport that claims to be "real-world".

Your missing the point of the exercise, think of the "NT" as a steel protective barrier. You only have a certain area to place your shot.

If you want to see something interesting set-up up a course and have a target that is head shot only. Have everybody shoot it then add a "NT" to the same target so the head shot is the only thing available.

I bet that 25% of the people that hit the head shot the first run through will miss there head shot the second time through.

[Luv2rideWV]

I haven't tried IDPA, but I have seen it on YouTube once or twice. It didn't look to be as much fun as USPSA. I'm on board with all those above to state that IDPA and USPSA are games. IDPA may have a little more real world emphasis, but it is still a game. If games weren't fun, we wouldn't play them, and our games make us better marksmen.

I would bet it to be a natural progression for IDPA to change and evolve to become more "game like." I think that was the reason the IDPA creators left the IPSC/USPSA style shooting was because it had changed and lost some of its relevance as a training tool. However, how many times can you do the same thing before it becomes stagnant? If we expect realism, we should go to a school and pay for it.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Luv2rideWV

[JD45]

Even though I started this thread about IDPA only, I just found something interesting printed years ago about USPSA.

I found this in Front Sight magazine. May/June 1992, page 24. PRACTICAL COURSE DESIGN, by J. Michael Plaxco:

....."Many stages are designed so that the offensive use of a firearm becomes the scenario rationale. Having numerous hostage targets, especially those demanding pinpoint precision incorporated into a stage, turns the scenario into a S.W.A.T. rifleman's task simulation, not a defensive-minded pistol shooter's."

That is a piece of the article word-for-word. Having just read that today, I had no idea someone shared my exact thoughts over 20 years ago, before IDPA even existed.

I wish I could post the entire article. He presented some really good ideas for the sport.

Edited March 18, 2013 by JD45

[19852]

I've shot more than one stage that I thought was outside of the game/reality of IDPA. Shooting from a relatively fast moving vehicle [golf cart] with a couple of NS around. My father did this while training to be an aerial gunner during WW2. Shooting at targets I considered to be retreating at a fast pace, on the street I would let them go.

I look at it as a challenging shooting exercise but not training.

I still have a lot of fun.