Please define "air gunning"

[BigDave]

Yes, we're all dysfunctional. We admit it and revel in it, too.

It is difficult to have a conversation about IDPA and not bring up IPSC because of the circumstances in which IDPA was established and the folks who estabished it. You don't really have that issue with, nor do we have the same conversations when we talk of Bianchi, SASS, SCSS, or even 1911 Society because they were established on their own. IDPA made it clear that they wanted to get back to the roots of where IPSC started. Tell me there isn't a connection, and I'll StFU.

IDPA establishes its rules based on subjectivity. Inherently, that is spark for discussion and debate because each individual has at least a slightly different standard than the person next to them. Then you get what we have here in this thread, a healthy respectful debate and discussion. IPSC isn't the target here because the rule or ruling inquestion isn't an IPSC rule, it is an IDPA rule or more directly, Ken H.'s opinion on the spirit/intent of IDPA. If you would like to see a similar USPSA/IPSC disucussion, do a search regarding the number of rounds in a magazine under the Production division. It happens on both sides.

Debate and discussion is a healthy thing. It leads us all to deeper understanding.

[rmills]

Roy,

Rob and I aren't the problem. I can only assume you single us out because he is an USPSA Area Director and I am a Section Coordinator.

You don't like USPSA. We get it.

The point I'm making is a logical one. Rob and yourself have expressed opinions quite often in regards to IDPA. My question is simple, have either of you shot a match or a number of matches so that you truly understand the rules and how shooting IDPA differs from USPSA. I participated in USPSA for 12 years and feel that I have a good working knowledge of the organization and it's rules. How can one make comments as to the infrastructure and operations of another organization of which they have no experience other than the heresay posted in forums?

You should not take it personally, but go get some IDPA experience before you post comments without foundation about the organization.

"Practice is practice. "Air-gunning" is practice and IDPA is about application, not practice. That's how I see it. "

Precision40, you are right on tract with your statement!

[Jake Di Vita]

Matures....definetely.

I think the fact that they need rules clarification is the greatest understatement of the year.

The fact that it needs to mature are when well known USPSA shooters shoot IDPA Nationals, and are handed penalties up the ying yang, such as with Taran this year.

Any sport that doesn't want to do something because they dont want to be like "that" sport, once again, greatly needs to mature.

And yes, I would rather it change to my liking, and I'm also pretty sure I would have the interest of furthering the shooting sports driving me....unlike some.....

[rmills]

Matures....definetely.

I think the fact that they need rules clarification is the greatest understatement of the year.

The fact that it needs to mature are when well known USPSA shooters shoot IDPA Nationals, and are handed penalties up the ying yang, such as with Taran this year.

Any sport that doesn't want to do something because they dont want to be like "that" sport, once again, greatly needs to mature.

And yes, I would rather it change to my liking, and I'm also pretty sure I would have the interest of furthering the shooting sports driving me....unlike some.....

Obviously, Taran and the other USPSA shooters violated stage procedures or the rules to be given such penalities. How many IDPA matches had he shot before attending the nationals? Was he fully aware of the rules? Did he attempt to "game" around the COF procedures?

We need more specific information on each penalty before the situation is painted with the often used "IDPA Tactical GODS picked on a USPSA shooter" brush.

Taran is very, very, talented shooter and does well in USPSA, but IDPA is a different sport with different rules and skill tests.

[rmills]

Why was the "No-Airgunning" rule invoked? It's very simple. In IDPA competition, the shooter is expected to be completely ready to perform on demand. When one comes to the line and the LAMR command is given, no sight pictures may be taken, period. If one needs to take a sight picture to check their sights or for whatever reason, they are not ready to shoot (just as if a competitor takes a long time to load and make ready due to practice draws, studying the stage too long before acknowledging Ready, etc., in which case they will be asked to unload, go to the back of the line, and be ready to shoot next time up). Competitors started trying to get around this rule by "air gunning" when pasting targets or while waiting to shoot to try to gain an advantage. When one air guns they are still going thru the motions of developing a sight picture, just without a gun. That is why it was ruled illegal (or if you will, the no sight picture rule was clarified).

It's a very simple concept. The rule is: Don't take a sight picture, period (either with a gun or not). The keyword is sight picture.

[tightloop]

rmills

OH PLEASE....I have tried to be nice, but you keep harping on being ready to perform on demand when you get to the line...if that was REALLY the case there would be no walk thru at all and each stage and each match would be a total surprise...

Get a grip...IDPA and USPSA are both games...the reason there is any rule even close to airgunning is that Ken H and Bill W have a bug up their ass about it looking like something that would be done at a USPSA match and they don't want it to look like that...it is that simple....and on top of that, I have YET to see an air gun with sights on it, and neither does my finger....so there goes your sight picture argument...

Let's face it... that's the way it is..

[BigDave]

It's a very simple concept. The rule is: Don't take a sight picture, period (either with a gun or not). The keyword is sight picture.

No, it isn't.

Isn't a sight picture only possible with a set of sights? If you have no gun in your hand, the sights are likely attached to the gun which is in the holster, on your hip. The extension of sight picture to air-gunning is illogical.

If you want to make the rule clear I would suggest it be changed to something like, "No loaded or unloaded sight pictures are allowed. As well, no "air-gunning" or weapon index checks are allowed. Covering down after the completion of a scenario/COF is allowable."

[rmills]

No Tightloop, the reason airgunning is not allowed is because it's a sight picture, period. Because it doesn't meet your understanding of a sight picture means nothing. Bill Wilson and Ken Hackathorn set the rules for this sport, period. Your misunderstanding of the purpose and procedures of IDPA is no reason to become emotional. I would suggest going to the IDPA website and downloading the "white Paper" on IDPA's purpose and foundation. Once read, if you find that you don't understand or agree with it, fine, no one is forcing anyone to shoot IDPA.

Mark....................This topic has run it's course and has very much turned into an IDPA bashing event. Is it time to close it?

[tightloop]

rmills

I give you an A for persistence, ...you get the last word...even though it is WRONG...

[Mark Perez]

RMills is on the right path.

Airgunning is an ad hoc individual walk through , which as we all know is not permitted .

Refer to rules 2 and 3 .

2.  Any attempt to circumvent or compromise the spirit or rationale of any stage either by the use of inappropriate devices, equipment, or technique, will incur a twenty (20) second penalty (Vickers Count Stage) or a two hundred (200) point penalty (PAR Time Stage); this is the "FAILURE TO DO RIGHT RULE".

3. Unsportsmanlike conduct, unfair actions, or the use of illegal equipment which, in the opinion of the match director, tends to make a travesty of the defensive shooting sport shall result in disqualification from the stage or the entire match at the discretion of the match director.

Emphasis is mine - but the quotes are directly from the LGB.

Again , we fall back to what the desires are of the MD - some may be more lenient in regards to walk thrus / airgunning - I can assure you that I am not.

If there is any doubt - ask the MD what his stance is regarding airgunning.

Honor their 'spirit of the game' or pay the penalties.

Mark

[BigDave]

Roy -

It isn't that we misunderstand the rules. Its that we think they're bogus. Illogical. Silly. I understand and agree with the basic spriit and premise of IDPA, but the rules, the interpretation of the rules and the application of those rules is often contradictory to the stated intent of the sport itself.

And, please, don't you misunderstand a healthy debate of therules as bashing. You are insulting the intelligence of many experienced and wise people here and there is no grounds for it. We don't agree with this ruling that Ken has handed down and we're stating reasons for it. Don't make this out to be any more than it is.

Dave

[Duane Thomas]

It is difficult to have a conversation about IDPA and not bring up IPSC because of the circumstances in which IDPA was established and the folks who estabished it.

Kind of like trying to discuss the Protestant church right after the Great Schism without mentioning Catholicism.

[BigDave]

Mark/Roy,

Would you not agree, based on the rules outlined below that defining in the walk-though the engagement type/order and the type of reload that must be performed violates the spirit of defensive shooting?

Dave

[Duane Thomas]

No Tightloop, the reason airgunning is not allowed is because it's a sight picture, period.

Actually, no, it isn't. In order to have a sight picture, you must have two things: a front sight and a rear sight. Holding my hands out without a gun in them is, de facto, not a sight picture because I have no sights.

I have to mention, though I think this rule is silly, it doesn't bother me that much. The best reason I can think of to do a sight picture before shooting is to get your NPA down. But what I've found over time is that I don't really need a sight picture to do that. After awhile you can just walk up to a stage, look at the first target, and have your body drop into the correct relationship to it, without even thinking about it, much less getting a sight picture.

I'm not saying I never do the pre-shoot draw and sight picture in USPSA, but even as I'm doing it, I realize it's not necessary.

[BigDave]

Right here I'm reminded of the coconut scene in Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail

[rmills]

Roy -

It isn't that we misunderstand the rules.  Its that we think they're bogus.  Illogical.  Silly.  I understand and agree with the basic spriit and premise of IDPA, but the rules, the interpretation of the rules and the application of those rules is often contradictory to the stated intent of the sport itself.

And, please, don't you misunderstand a healthy debate of therules as bashing.  You are insulting the intelligence of many experienced and wise people here and there is no grounds for it.  We don't agree with this ruling that Ken has handed down and we're stating reasons for it.  Don't make this out to be any more than it is.

Dave

Big Dave:

You state that IDPA rules are bogus. If this is the case, why shoot IDPA at all? I don't shoot USPSA anymore but if I did, I would follow the rules to a T as that's their rules. If one comes from USPSA and attempts IDPA and then bashes it becuase they attempted to do something they would do in USPSA that isn't legal in IDPA, who is at fault, the sport or the individual?

[rmills]

Mark/Roy,

Would you not agree, based on the rules outlined below that defining in the walk-though the engagement type/order and the type of reload that must be performed violates the spirit of defensive shooting?

Dave

Other than Standard Excercises, IDPA COF's don't dictate reload types or shooting positions. Reloads must be performed as outlined in the rulebook in regards to not dropping a mag with any rounds in it and reloading from behind cover. The competitor may engage targets as they appear while using any available cover. When multiple targets are present, they must be engaged in a proper defensive order (Tactical Sequence or Tactical Priority depending on the position and cover available) as outlined in the rulebook. No, one cannot stand in the open with cover available and hose the targets.

[BigDave]

Roy,

I'm not suggesting that I or anyone come and apply IPSC rules to IDPA events. I shoot IDPA because I love to shoot, despite the inherit sillyness of some of the rules. I pay taxes because too, but I still think those are silly. I follow the speed limit (mostly ) but I think those are stupid also.

You're getting bent over contrary ideas and thoughts, not actions. Big difference. It is the action that is subject to the rules, not what we think or think about those rules. I submit to you that the basis of this very discussion is the same seed in which IDPA was born.

Dave

[Mark Perez]

Mark/Roy,

Would you not agree, based on the rules outlined below that defining in the walk-though the engagement type/order and the type of reload that must be performed violates the spirit of defensive shooting?

Dave

Not really , this is after all a game and a general breifing is a courtesy to the shooters , both old and new.

The depth of the walk thru is at the mercy of the stage CSO .

In addition , there may be a surprise/blind COF that a competitor must deal with.

We can only take the "reality" so far in this game.

Mark

[geezer-lock]

On November 15th there was another thread here with this same discussion. My thoughts then:

I’m always curious about how folks can infer or imply “air gunning” from the very direct and simple statement about sight pictures published in the LGB. Even Ken’s statement in the IDPA journal is incorrect. In what must be one of the few examples of clarity in the rule book, the definition is laid out thusly:

“NO "sight pictures" will be allowed. A sight picture is defined as drawing a

loaded or unloaded firearm and aiming it down range before the start signal to

begin a course of fire; a procedural penalty will be incurred for each infraction.”

This is not a case of “it’s not in the rule book” type of circular argument. Anything else is horse hockey. This is a case of misguided interpretation of the FTDR and good sportsmanship rules applied by match directors or RO’s. I have even heard a clearly ridiculous statement at a match that you could get a procedural for pointing at the targets from the gallery!

When I attend a match out of my usual area of operations I always ask in a loud and clear voice, “How do you guys define a sight picture?”

I like IDPA and shoot at a lot of matches but there are lots of “local rules” out there. Caveat emptor.

geezer

[tightloop]

If the members of this forum had said everthing they wanted to say on this subject, this thread would not be continuing...so evidently there are still some things people feel the need to get off their chest...

I agree with BigD, that this must have been the type of discussion that was the seed from which IDPA was born...the founders were tired of what they thought was crap and formed their own game...I think that is wonderful....

However it is not as perfect as they have convinced themselves it it...there are plenty of inherent problems..most of them could be easily solved with some good leadership...Perhaps Bill and Ken might consider hiring someone to fix the problems....Naw...that is too logical, and they'd have to relinquish control of the operation..that could never happen...but it isn't like building a watch to figure out what is the matter and take some action....Oh wait...Bill W used to be a watchsmith.....damn.

I guess the ferver with which the posters argue is determined by their ability as shooters and what they want from any match they attend..it is easier to advocate obeying arbitrary rules if you have no chance to win the thing than it is if you are in a tooth and toenail battle to see your name at the top of the page...and the rules are not being applied equally to all contestants...

[smokshwn]

If one comes from USPSA and attempts IDPA and then bashes it becuase they attempted to do something they would do in USPSA that isn't legal in IDPA, who is at fault, the sport or the individual?

Roy,

I think this reflects in many of your posts. You wrongly assume that the reason someone has problems with IDPA is because they are trying to do some kind of voodoo USPSA conversion. I know for a fact that for me and many others, this is not the case. I am lucky enough to have two IDPA clubs and two IPSC clubs within an hour of me, with each shooting on a different Sat. I shoot 4 weekends a month. I have no problem following different rules. However I get frustrated when a legitimate question/problem comes forth and members such as yourself blow it off as simply a "gamer" trying to change the rules for an advantage/dislike/ etc.

IDPA is faced with some serious growth problems. They are legitimate and will only grow larger the longer they are ignored. Bill and Ken need to step forward and clarify some rules and update others. It is very evident to myself and many others that the reason for not doing so does not have so much to do with doctrine as it does personal egos. This is sad. Solutions to almost all the current questions could be easily developed and implemented while still remaining true to the IDPA doctrine. It is only a matter of Bill and Ken stepping up and doing the right thing. Time will tell, but the matters will need to be addressed.

Take care, Craig

[Nik Habicht]

Mark/Roy,

Would you not agree, based on the rules outlined below that defining in the walk-though the engagement type/order and the type of reload that must be performed violates the spirit of defensive shooting?

Dave

Other than Standard Excercises, IDPA COF's don't dictate reload types or shooting positions. The competitor may engage targets as they appear while using any available cover. When multiple targets are present, they must be engaged in a proper defensive order (Tactical Sequence or Tactical Priority depending on the position and cover available) as outlined in the rulebook. No, one cannot stand in the open with cover available and hose the targets.

I started out as an IDPA shooter. Unfortunaltely in my neck of the woods, the game's almost dried up and gone --- or I'd be shooting it a lot more. That said --- I've read and attempted to understand the the old red book and the current green book. Imagine my surprise, when I shot a stage at a major match last year, only to be informed of an engagement order that directly contradicted the LGB, during the walkthrough. I'd like IDPA to mature to the point where all stages designed follow the rules in the rulebook. That way shooters might have a chance of avoiding penalties --- rather than spending every second of a stage thinking of how they have to shoot it in violation of the rulebook. But what do I know?

Oh, and for the record --- I wasn't standing in the open hosing targets.

[rmills]

If one comes from USPSA and attempts IDPA and then bashes it becuase they attempted to do something they would do in USPSA that isn't legal in IDPA, who is at fault, the sport or the individual?

Roy,

I think this reflects in many of your posts. You wrongly assume that the reason someone has problems with IDPA is because they are trying to do some kind of voodoo USPSA conversion. I know for a fact that for me and many others, this is not the case. I am lucky enough to have two IDPA clubs and two IPSC clubs within an hour of me, with each shooting on a different Sat. I shoot 4 weekends a month. I have no problem following different rules. However I get frustrated when a legitimate question/problem comes forth and members such as yourself blow it off as simply a "gamer" trying to change the rules for an advantage/dislike/ etc.

IDPA is faced with some serious growth problems. They are legitimate and will only grow larger the longer they are ignored. Bill and Ken need to step forward and clarify some rules and update others. It is very evident to myself and many others that the reason for not doing so does not have so much to do with doctrine as it does personal egos. This is sad. Solutions to almost all the current questions could be easily developed and implemented while still remaining true to the IDPA doctrine. It is only a matter of Bill and Ken stepping up and doing the right thing. Time will tell, but the matters will need to be addressed.

Take care, Craig

Bill and Ken have stepped up in keeping our IDPA game within it's original doctrine. I applaud them for not caving in to those who would wish to move the sport from it's basic premise.

Some of the founder's goals for IDPA were:

1) A stable, non-changing rule book, preventing the need for range lawyers and not allowing shooters to "game" their way to a win.

2) Preventing an equipment race so shooters did not have to spend $3000 on a pistol to be competitive.

Just as IPSC refuses to dilute the Production division by changing the rules to allow for a myriad of pistol modifications, IDPA chooses to stick with it's rules to keep the sport stable and simple.

[Nik Habicht]

Some of the founder's goals for IDPA were:

1) A stable, non-changing rule book, preventing the need for range lawyers and not allowing shooters to "game" their way to a win.

2) Preventing an equipment race so shooters did not have to spend $3000 on a pistol to be competitive.

I applaud them for achieving the second --- even though they pissed off a bunch of revolver shooters by shortening barrel length's allowed a few years ago. The first is a complete failure --- since match directors are free to make their own laws, listen to any challenges to those laws, and then make a final decision. This results in a situation where the competitor can face a totally different game anytime he attends a match in a new venue.