Standing reload Question

[BillR1]

Such as?

From the rulebook:

"Our main goal is to test the skill and ability of the individual. Equipment that is designed with no application for daily, concealed carry is not permitted in this sport."

and...

"1.1.3. Provide a level playing field for all competitors that solely tests the skill and ability of each individual, not their equipment."

"1.1.5. Provide shooters with practical and realistic courses of fire, and test skills that could be required to survive life-threatening encounters."

How is this contrary (ironic?) to what I said?

The other way simply discovers who is the more creative tactician

I find that pretty ironic and will leave it at that so I don't violate forum rules about "real world".....

Some "creativity" can be very detrimental outside of our games. Fact.

[Forrest Halley]

Games are supposed to be fun. Some people play chess and others play checkers. I like choices and find utter joy in finding the loopholes.

More on the topic, I've put some thought into this standing reload. If threats are said to potentially exist in the environment after all visible threats have been neutralized then how is being stationary behind cover a good idea? If the boogietarget can get me at anytime I'd like to keep on keeping on. The attempt to equalize the stage between highly and barely ambulatory is never going to be successful and is an overall fun killer. Why isn't there a motion to streamline the discipline's rule set to make it more beginner friendly and less cerebral.

[motosapiens]

Such as?

From the rulebook:

"Our main goal is to test the skill and ability of the individual. Equipment that is designed with no application for daily, concealed carry is not permitted in this sport."

and...

"1.1.3. Provide a level playing field for all competitors that solely tests the skill and ability of each individual, not their equipment."

"1.1.5. Provide shooters with practical and realistic courses of fire, and test skills that could be required to survive life-threatening encounters."

How is this contrary (ironic?) to what I said?

The other way simply discovers who is the more creative tactician

I find that pretty ironic and will leave it at that so I don't violate forum rules about "real world".....

Some "creativity" can be very detrimental outside of our games. Fact.

Pretending that a game has anything to do with the real world can be very detrimental imho. I think it's better for a game to avoid any pretense at being real-world or tactical rather than to do it really really badly and unrealistically. If you can discuss real-world and keep a straight face, you have to admit that teaching people to hide behind walls and plastic barrels is pretty detrimental. Most walls will not do anything to stop a bullet.

I like the focus on real carry gear in IDPA, as well as the shorter easier courses that are more beginner-friendly, but I don't really care for the rules that pretend to be related to the real-world. We can all agree how to score shooting speed and accuracy, but scoring tactics is imho bound to turn into an exercise in simpleminded dogma.

In the real world, if you depend on a game to get your tactical training, you are doing it wrong.

[BillR1]

Pretending that a game has anything to do with the real world can be very detrimental imho. I think it's better for a game to avoid any pretense at being real-world or tactical rather than to do it really really badly and unrealistically. If you can discuss real-world and keep a straight face, you have to admit that teaching people to hide behind walls and plastic barrels is pretty detrimental. Most walls will not do anything to stop a bullet.

outside of our games. Fact.

I like the focus on real carry gear in IDPA, as well as the shorter easier courses that are more beginner-friendly, but I don't really care for the rules that pretend to be related to the real-world. We can all agree how to score shooting speed and accuracy, but scoring tactics is imho bound to turn into an exercise in simpleminded dogma.

In the real world, if you depend on a game to get your tactical training, you are doing it wrong.

Valid points for sure. I guess the disagreement is whether or not IDPA replicates real-world skills "badly". Several top trainers such as Mas Ayoob say otherwise. I'm certainly not claiming that any IDPA match IS tactical training, but the equipment, concealment, reloads, and movement seem to be much closer to "real-world" than the other game.

[motosapiens]

Pretending that a game has anything to do with the real world can be very detrimental imho. I think it's better for a game to avoid any pretense at being real-world or tactical rather than to do it really really badly and unrealistically. If you can discuss real-world and keep a straight face, you have to admit that teaching people to hide behind walls and plastic barrels is pretty detrimental. Most walls will not do anything to stop a bullet.

outside of our games. Fact.

I like the focus on real carry gear in IDPA, as well as the shorter easier courses that are more beginner-friendly, but I don't really care for the rules that pretend to be related to the real-world. We can all agree how to score shooting speed and accuracy, but scoring tactics is imho bound to turn into an exercise in simpleminded dogma.

In the real world, if you depend on a game to get your tactical training, you are doing it wrong.

Valid points for sure. I guess the disagreement is whether or not IDPA replicates real-world skills "badly". Several top trainers such as Mas Ayoob say otherwise. I'm certainly not claiming that any IDPA match IS tactical training, but the equipment, concealment, reloads, and movement seem to be much closer to "real-world" than the other game.

Mas ayoob advocates hiding behind a wall in your house? lol.

I agree idpa is closer to 'real world', but I don't think that's a benefit. In fact, I think it has the potential to be dangerous since it's still so far away from 'real world', and the rules are so inflexible (unlike the real world).

In the real world, if you are ever in a self-defense scenario, you need to be able to shoot accurately under pressure. either game gives you plenty of practice at that. You need to be able to do other stuff too. Neither game gives you any practice whatsoever on the other stuff.

Both games give stage designers the opportunity to challenge the shooter with a variety of shooting positions (prone, kneeling, squatting, sitting, leaning around 'cover', etc....), and a various levels of difficulty.

But whatever.... as long as people are still showing up to IDPA matches, they are doing something right, and people are shooting and having fun.

[RammerJammer]

Pretending that a game has anything to do with the real world can be very detrimental imho. I think it's better for a game to avoid any pretense at being real-world or tactical rather than to do it really really badly and unrealistically. If you can discuss real-world and keep a straight face, you have to admit that teaching people to hide behind walls and plastic barrels is pretty detrimental. Most walls will not do anything to stop a bullet.

outside of our games. Fact.

I like the focus on real carry gear in IDPA, as well as the shorter easier courses that are more beginner-friendly, but I don't really care for the rules that pretend to be related to the real-world. We can all agree how to score shooting speed and accuracy, but scoring tactics is imho bound to turn into an exercise in simpleminded dogma.

In the real world, if you depend on a game to get your tactical training, you are doing it wrong.

Valid points for sure. I guess the disagreement is whether or not IDPA replicates real-world skills "badly". Several top trainers such as Mas Ayoob say otherwise. I'm certainly not claiming that any IDPA match IS tactical training, but the equipment, concealment, reloads, and movement seem to be much closer to "real-world" than the other game.

I think this mindset is the problem. The 'real world' sucks. IDPA could be really really fun and almost has been. Now it is unbearable in the name of the 'real world'. I shoot for fun. I have shot to stay alive and it blows... bad. I don't comment to put down IDPA, I want IDPA to be fun because it is on Saturdays near me and I want to shoot it... to have fun... the way games are supposed to be.

[prk]

I agree , we shoot IDPA for fun -- and some of these new stupid rules are sucking the fun away. What's the " real world " scenario -- most shoot outs occur at what 3 - 5 yds? So what's IDPA gonna do set all COF stages at 3-5 yds -- TOTALLY NOT FUN !!!!!!!!!! I love shooting on the move , being able to practice my reloads when I'm moving and any other skills that tests my abilities to shoot fast and accurately under different scenario's. Let's not turn this into a standing Bulls-eye match

[motosapiens]

I agree , we shoot IDPA for fun -- and some of these new stupid rules are sucking the fun away. What's the " real world " scenario -- most shoot outs occur at what 3 - 5 yds? So what's IDPA gonna do set all COF stages at 3-5 yds -- TOTALLY NOT FUN !!!!!!!!!! I love shooting on the move , being able to practice my reloads when I'm moving and any other skills that tests my abilities to shoot fast and accurately under different scenario's. Let's not turn this into a standing Bulls-eye match

In the real world, most stages should require you to talk your way out of it and not shoot at all. meow.

[prk]

so it's agreed -- let's turn this back into a GAME !!!!!!! everybody write in LOL!

[captain037]

Bottom line for me is both IDPA and USPSA make me think. They each make me think about something different but they make me think and shoot fast and accurate. Those are the things that WILL keep you alive in a real life encounter. Been there, done that.

[nvshooter]

Shot at a local match last weekend and they were saying that you cannot reload while moving behind cover period. From looking around a bit and reading the rules its kinda hard to understand some people are saying its just no tactical reloads while moving behind cover. I got a penitly while reloading a slide lock on the move behind cover. So... anyone know what it really is?

I cant wrap my mind around why you would not be able to reload a slide lock on the move behind cover. If this is really a rule what is the reasoning behind it?

[45 Raven]

This is by far the most frequently discussed "new rule" being discussed at every IDPA match (sanctioned and non-sanctioned) that I have attended since the new rules went into effect in October. Believe me . . . . . you are not the only one who cannot "wrap your mind around" the thought process behind this rule. Lots of opinions behind it, but I'm not aware of an "official" explanation, although it might be out there somewhere.

[JD45]

You can't move your pivot foot while reloading. If you go dry in the open, you can reload on the way to cover. But you can't shoot til you get there.

Hey, it took like 2 years to create these awesome rules, and was such hard work! Call headquarters and thank them.

P.S. Ask when they are gonna mail your 40 dollar rulebook. LOL hahaha

[sperman]

I moved this topic into the rules section, and merged with a similar thread

[sjz]

I need to re-examine this rule.

If I even shuffle a foot while reloading I get the finger.

Edit:

3.9.4.

Advancing or moving while reloading behind cover is defined as either lifting a foot off the ground or sliding a foot along the ground. The shooter may pivot on one foot or move the torso, as long as the pivot foot does not lift or slide.

Ok, how am I suppose to pivot and not slide a foot or lift it off the ground?

Can someone paint me a picture where this happens and you don't get the finger?

The rule is pretty clear- reloads must be done flat footed. The "pivot on one foot" wording confuses many people who think that this implies that you can lift the other foot. That was my immediate interpretation, however, the rule simply does not say this.

What I find more perplexing is rule 3.9.4.1. Exception: The shooter may shoot around both sides of a Bianchi barricade or barrel, including shifting their feet and knees without penalty.

This wording is not good, a new undefined term is now introduced "shifting", but this rule is labeled as an exception, so the guess would be that you can "lift or slide" either foot when "shooting around" a barrell for example.

More bad wording, we already know that it is ok to "lift or slide" your feet when "shooting", so what does this even mean ?

"Shooting around" a barrell is different than "reloading" while using a barrell for "cover", after all you can't be shooting and reloading at the same time.

If the rule was meant to allow you to "lift or slide" your feet without penalty while reloading behind a barrell, then that begs the question, what if there were more than 1 barrell side by side ? A very common COF.

Can you actually "shift" several feet in distance to the other side of the other barrell while reloading without penaly?

Edited November 14, 2013 by sjz

[JohnRodriguez]

can you use the Tim Conway foot shuffle while you reload and not get a PE?. You've seen it if you've seen the Carol Burnett show

I'll try it at the local IDPA match tomorrow and let you know how it went

Edited November 16, 2013 by JohnRodriguez

[Glock3422]

My son and I started shooting IDPA in 2002. Over the years I shot as many as five sanctioned matches a year. I was asked to become an SO, took the course, gained experience and ended up working the Nationals and Indoor Nationals several times.

I was concerned about the direction the Tiger Teams might be taking based on the rumor mill. The rumor mill was pretty accurate.

My membership expired two years ago and I have not renewed. I will not renew. Needless to say, I did not recertify as an SO. The two years of no new SOs and a large number of previous SOs not recertifying is going to be a big problem for IDPA.

Prior to 2005, a stage designer could mandate a Tac Load/RWR. After the rules were changed in 2005, you could not require one, except as part of the classifier. Now, with the flat footed reload rule, a Tac Load/RWR is obsolete outside of the classifier. The classifier previously had little to do with a scenario stage. Now, it is a different sport.

IDPA was my first competition with firearms. I have moved on to 3-gun and tactical rifle.

The new rules have dumbed IDPA down to where a Sharpshooter is a hero. There is very little left for Experts and Masters. At least the brain trust behind the new rules can feel better about their performance and not worry about the skills they do not possess or, God forbid, a 35 yard shot with a potential for a Failure to Neutralize.

[sjz]

"1.1.3. Provide a level playing field for all competitors that solely tests the skill and ability of each individual, not their equipment."

"1.1.5. Provide shooters with practical and realistic courses of fire, and test skills that could be required to survive life-threatening encounters."

Why the flat footed reloading? Isn't reloading safely on the move much more demanding skill wise?

What is more real life when safely behind cover - standing still to reload or moving to a more tactical position while reloading?

Edited November 21, 2013 by sjz

[BillR1]

If I'm "safely behind cover", I'm sure not leaving that spot without a full gun.

[motosapiens]

If I'm "safely behind cover", I'm sure not leaving that spot without a full gun.

if your cover is a normal wall or plastic barrel, you're not safely behind anything.

[sjz]

If I'm "safely behind cover", I'm sure not leaving that spot without a full gun.

I didn't suggest leaving cover while reloading.

In my opinion, in a real life situation, you should be able to reload while moving "behind cover." Under our game and rules if you are behind hard cover, you are safe. let's not confuse the issue with walls and barrels.

The new rule doesn't allow you to move while reloading behind cover. You must stand flat footed- both feet on the ground while doing a reload. To me this is not a real life scenario.

[BillR1]

If I'm "safely behind cover", I'm sure not leaving that spot without a full gun.

if your cover is a normal wall or plastic barrel, you're not safely behind anything.

I agree, but that wouldn't be "safely behind cover" would it?

[BillR1]

If I'm "safely behind cover", I'm sure not leaving that spot without a full gun.

I didn't suggest leaving cover while reloading.

In my opinion, in a real life situation, you should be able to reload while moving "behind cover." Under our game and rules if you are behind hard cover, you are safe. let's not confuse the issue with walls and barrels.

The new rule doesn't allow you to move while reloading behind cover. You must stand flat footed- both feet on the ground while doing a reload. To me this is not a real life scenario.

I guess I look at it this way...if you're currently at a safe spot and you need to reload, you should do it before you move from that spot. I see the other point though. If that "safe spot" is fairly large, you should be able to move AND reload.

[sjz]

If I'm "safely behind cover", I'm sure not leaving that spot without a full gun.

I didn't suggest leaving cover while reloading.

In my opinion, in a real life situation, you should be able to reload while moving "behind cover." Under our game and rules if you are behind hard cover, you are safe. let's not confuse the issue with walls and barrels.

The new rule doesn't allow you to move while reloading behind cover. You must stand flat footed- both feet on the ground while doing a reload. To me this is not a real life scenario.

I guess I look at it this way...if you're currently at a safe spot and you need to reload, you should do it before you move from that spot. I see the other point though. If that "safe spot" is fairly large, you should be able to move AND reload.

Exactly! That is the point I am trying to make.

[Racinready300ex]

But in a gun fight, is any spot "safe"? Is harder to hit a stationary kitten or a moving kitten?