Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Another procedural question


Mark Perez

Recommended Posts

I don't think we ever discussed this one .

Example ;

Stage has three targets which are to be engaged in TACTICAL SEQUENCE.

in other words : 1- 1- 2- 1- 1.

Competitor shoots 1-2-2-1-1. In effect double tapping the center target before the 3d target has been shot and then completing the original sequence.

For our discussion purposes - let us say he just went to automatic pilot and realized the error mid stream.

Since he "corrected" his error (and added more time to his score) would you give him a PE?

Or does he get the automatic PE for doubletapping T2?

If you have you ever seen something like this happen at your local (or higher) match - how was it ruled?

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules do say that "tatical sequence refers to a method of target engagement specifically engaging all targets with one round BEFORE you engage with an additional round or rounds"

Pretty cut and dried, if everyone doesn't get firsts before they get seconds, then they get a PE. I was an SO on a stage at nats that had tac sequence and this is how they called it FWIW.

It isn't much of a problem as not many of the clubs use it much anymore up my way. The odd standards here and there. We ususally do it at our indoor range every now and then to show people what it is and how to cope with it but now that I think of it, it's been 4 years since we did a tac sequence stage at the outdoor club. And I cannot recall a stage at any of our state matches either.

I don't like it. I think it gets abused and it shellshocks newbies, especially if you do stages with tac-pri/tac-sequence together.

In several years of doing SIMS as both a student and a well shot up role-player , I've not once seen anyone shoot multiple assailants in tac sequence. That's pretty much why I don't believe in it much. Doesn't seem to make sense to practice something that shooters end up being completely inable to do under stress no matter how much they practice it on the range.

Odd tac sequence isn't a part of the classifier when you think of it.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, we had a big discussion on the relative worthlesness (or not) of tac sequence at our range one day. In the end, we ended up figuring that you're better off shooting 2 hits than doing tac sequence provided you get to a skill level that gives you good splits- except for wheelgun shooters. With a wheelgun tac sequence makes some sense in that by giving each bad guy firsts before he gets seconds you can make sure you don't run out of ammo before you do bad guys. A variation of "never insult seven men with a sixgun".

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shot a stage where it was tough for the SO to really know whether or not the designated sequence was obeyed, and I shot the first target I saw and went down the line instead of the way the walkthrough said to do it. I realized my mistake, reloaded, and did it over in the specified manner.

In the end, I got the PE *and* the added time for doing it over and the extra standing reload.

The worst part is, I got "caught" because I explained why I did what I did.

No good deed goes unpunished in IDPA! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nats this year was overloaded with tac sequence stages. I think there were about four of them. My only complaint about the IDPA Nats this year was stages. I think that they should have the best stages from around the country with alot of shooting and moving. Putting several tac sequence stages at the Nats makes for a somewhat boring event.

Just my .02

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The solution is to never specify Tac-sequence in a stage procedure. When caught in the open with multiple targets at our club we specify engaging threats while moving to cover. I think that shootng on the move is a much better tactic to survive a gunfight then standing there in the open and trying to fight your instincts to doubletap the threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's not a bad idea bart, except it doesn't cove the kinds of scenarios where there is no cover or no time to get there.

Ted

Believe it or not, there are people who can't believe (or choose not to) that they might not have cover "in real life," so they won't design scenarios without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDPA is centered around the use of cover. It is part of the beast. There is a name for shooting in the open or while not moving. It's called IPSC.

Speaking of real life, those that stand in the open and blaze away have a name also. They are called casulties. If there is no cover, one should at least make oneself a harder target by moving, if they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDPA is centered around the use of cover. It is part of the beast. There is a name for shooting in the open or while not moving. It's called IPSC.

That's interesting, because most USPSA matches I shoot have the opportunity for a lot more movement than any of the the IDPA matches I've shot.

The fact that we (USPSA) also feature stages where you stand and shoot does not suddenly remove the 32 round field courses we shoot on the move from reality.

Speaking of real life, those that stand in the open and blaze away have a name also. They are called casulties. If there is no cover, one should at least make oneself a harder target by moving, if they can.

Aside from the numerous real life anecdotes of people standing still and surviving ...

No argument with moving when possible. It's a really good idea. Which is why I do it when it's possible, and I've been penalized in IDPA matches for shooting on the move instead of following the course designer's idea of how it should be done.

It's also a good idea to use cover as you really would if someone were trying to hurt you, but you won't see much of that at most IDPA matches with the clock going.

Given all that, it's absurd to believe that cover will always be available, but some people think it will.

If you're under the mistaken impression that I was referring specifically to you or anyone associated with Wildcat Valley, you may rest assured I was not. My only "complaint" in the past about course design at your club was the frequency of kneeling and prone requirement early in the stage, especially when I was unable (or at least less able than I am now) to do those things then. In reality, they weren't even complaints per se, just course design concepts that I chose to discuss here (and perhaps on other forums) where I can read the opinions of others and express my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, there are people who can't believe (or choose not to) that they might not have cover "in real life," so they won't design scenarios without it.

They are fun people to shoot against in a SIMS class. They never get a shot off or if they do are more focused on going to cover than hitting.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are fun people to shoot against in a SIMS class. They never get a shot off or if they do are more focused on going to cover than hitting.

Ted

There's a great facility in Washington where the majority of the training classes involve force on force scenarios with air soft. You can learn a lot just from watching them on tape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of stages that are nearly stand and deliver type, with very limited movement. Your average 1-3 target ATM type stage will (or should) go down so fast you won't have time to move much.

Any of the fast in-your-face defensive scenarios won't have much movement beyond maybe getting off the line. When you think about it, these stages are probably more real than any of the 12 round stages you'll shoot with lots of pieing from cover.

A lot of this depends on the course designer, which will keep the stages based in reality or not.

The USPSA match I shot sunday had all stages that a tactician could have easily shot "street", provided he took some fault line penalties. It would have been a very cool work out as it was. Both diciplines are a great forum for practicing gunfighting skills, I'm not a big believer in the shooting USPSA will get you killed school of thought, though I admit that standing in doorways isn't all that healthy either.

FWIW, I don't think you can say USPSA or IDPA will get you killed exclusively. Not wearing a gun will get you killed and unfortunately, it seems to me that's the common thread the majority of the devotees of both diciplines possess- if what I see at the safe area holds true. YMMV.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

80-year-old grannies regularly plink burglars with no more cover than the duvet, no compensator OR red-dot sights if the Armed Citizen is to be believed.

Confusing any sport with reality is what will really get you in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted and Shred ... showing wisdom ...

Ted ... it's not smart to stand in the doorway, but it sure is fun to pretend you're Starsky & Hutch or one of Charlie's Angels when do it! :lol:

shred ... maybe those are tactical duvets ... there's a difference!

So back to the topic ... if you don't know what a given club's operating procedure is, does it make sense to "fix" your procedural after you make it, or just go on and take your chances? It seems like just going on may be the best bet since you're obviously going to lose time during your "fix," whether you get the penalty or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So back to the topic ... if you don't know what a given club's operating procedure is, does it make sense to "fix" your procedural after you make it, or just go on and take your chances? It seems like just going on may be the best bet since you're obviously going to lose time during your "fix," whether you get the penalty or not." RHINO

I've always just continued on with the CoF , not bothering to try to correct the error.

In the instances where I did go back and try to fix things , it always made matters worse - can you say "brain freeze?"

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So back to the topic ... if you don't know what a given club's operating procedure is, does it make sense to "fix" your procedural after you make it, or just go on and take your chances?

Press on. If nothing else the time spent in the ooda loop considering 'fixing' the mistake plus the time spent fixing it will cost you some time, and if they ring you up for a PE anyway, you've really stepped on your tongue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Don't waste the time trying to correct it 'cause it's already a PE, it can't be "undone".

This happens at our club every time we have a tac sequence, if they correct the mistake, we dont assess P.E.

A classic example of the inconsistent rulings shooters constantly complain about.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't waste the time trying to correct it 'cause it's already a PE, it can't be "undone".

What about a dropped magazine (with rounds in it)? I suppose it's not a PE until you move away from it, but IF you go back for it, is it still a PE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...