Shooting Sequence

[Clay1]

This should be a simple one and I believe I know the answer but wanted your input. COF says shoot T1 through T3. I shot if right to left, T3 first. The SO who is experienced gave me a proceedural for not shooting it in order per the COF. Then the match director said, "it's OK, it doesn't really matter" and the Procedural was taken away.

Was the match director being nice or do I have to shoot it in that particular order? It was a 3 target array where you shot it 1, 1, 2, 1, 1. It was not part of the classifier, just a club level match. Thanks for the comments.

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

If there is a definite "Tactical Priority" as required by rules, OR the course of fire specified an order, you deserved the PE.

CoF 10. Targets must be engaged in tactical priority unless tactical sequence is specified. Targets within two (2) yards of each other relative to the distance from the shooter are considered to be equal in threat.

On this note though, there are too many courses of fire specifying which target to shoot first, second, etc. There is nothing being left up to the shooter anymore. This makes many matches very boring and not worth the ride.

regards,

Edited November 6, 2005 by Round_Gun_Shooter

[Clay1]

I should have originally posted a better discription of the COF. Sitting at a table, all three targets at 5 feet distance, 2 feet apart. Tactical sequence was specified.

My question pertains more to: can you shoot an array left to right or right to left, if the COF says T1 through T3? Everything else being equal.

Thanks for the response.

Rick

[revchuck]

Rick - If the CoF specified that it was to be shot T1-T3 in that order, then you'd deserve the PE. Since there's no tactical priority issue here - all targets were the same distance - there shouldn't have been a PE involved IMO. The SO should have clarified this in the stage walk-through...and you probably should've asked too.

[solaritx]

If targets are equal distance from the shooter, there is no priority between these threats if in the open (as with the CoF discribed) UNLESS the CoF specifically states a "super threat".....i.e.: Target with red bandana MUST be engaged first........OR if the CoF specifically states that threats MUST be shot left to right or right to left, etc.

CoF stating that T1-T3 must be engaged is not (IMO) specifically stating that the threats MUST be engaged in the order of T1 engaged, then T2 engaged, and then T3.

Just for information sake.......did the SO that gave the PE indicate which targets were T1, T2 and T3? If not, how would you know?

Garry N

[Merlin Orr]

If there is a definite "Tactical Priority" as required by rules, OR the course of fire specified an order, you deserved the PE.

CoF 10. Targets must be engaged in tactical priority unless tactical sequence is specified. Targets within two (2) yards of each other relative to the distance from the shooter are considered to be equal in threat.

On this note though, there are too many courses of fire specifying which target to shoot first, second, etc. There is nothing being left up to the shooter anymore. This makes many matches very boring and not worth the ride.

regards,

+1 to all

Gary - Is a "super threat" common? Never seen one. What would it designate? A 12 with 00 or what?

[solaritx]

We use the "super threat" in some scenarios to "make" a shooter engage a specific target first, if it would be "out of the norm" in tactical order. We don't do it all that often, but it does get shooters out of the routine mind set.

The "super threat" would be something like specify in the CoF that the super threat is the one with the shotgun, or rifle when all others have handguns.......or the super threat is the one with the handgun when all the other threats have knives and bats, etc.

Another "super threat" would be engagement of a threat that is next to a no-shoot even though there might be closer targets to the shooter that normally would be engaged first......thus neutralizing the threat to a loved one before neutralizing the threats that put the shooter at risk.

It's something that we do, (but not all that often) to make shooters think and take them out of the standard routine that scenarios so often fall into.

Garry N

[kdmoore]

If targets are equal distance from the shooter, there is no priority between these threats if in the open (as with the CoF discribed) UNLESS the CoF specifically states a "super threat".....i.e.: Target with red bandana MUST be engaged first........OR if the CoF specifically states that threats MUST be shot left to right or right to left, etc.

CoF stating that T1-T3 must be engaged is not (IMO) specifically stating that the threats MUST be engaged in the order of T1 engaged, then T2 engaged, and then T3.

Just for information sake.......did the SO that gave the PE indicate which targets were T1, T2 and T3? If not, how would you know?

Garry N

My thoughts exactly. Seems like the SO was reading in something not meant to be there. I read "engage t1-13" as the group of targets to be addressed, not the order. I suppose you could mistake that for order.

[Gun Geek]

Never seen it in practice where "...T1 - T3" means shoot T1, then T2, then T3. This might create a bias against lefties, or people who take Matt Burkett classes.

I'm still thinking about the language decomposition

If they really want you to shoot targets in a particular order they will say so.

[Clay1]

Gun Geek and all who responded, I originally posted "I believe I know the answer but wanted your input." Thanks for the input. No target was a super threat, all targets were visable in the open, all the same distance. When I shoot strong hand as a right handed shooter, I prefer to shoot right to left and when I shoot weak hand I prefer to shoot left to right. I believe it is the shooters choice, but wanted to bounce it off the crew here. Thanks again for your responses.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Clay1

[Ted Murphy]

I attended a match that had a pretty Salty BTDT type shooting. One of the stages had a "super threat", a target with a 12 guage that had to be shot first. He laughed at the stage and the designer came over. He looked the designer in the eye and said, "who's more dangerous" You with a 12 guage, or me with a .22?"

Always thought that funny.

Generally I don't do super threat stages, but they can be fun.

Ted

[shooterready]

Sounds like there was no advantage either from right to left or left to right. No procedural should be given. That's why we have Match Directors!

[Duane Thomas]

Was the match director being nice or do I have to shoot it in that particular order?

The whole T1, T2, etc. thing is generally just a way to identify the targets on the course diagram. Some people don't understand that. Unless the course description specifies "shoot in this order," you're perfectly okay to engage in any order you desire.

I have to admit this is the first time I've ever heard the term "super threat." It's certainly not in the IDPA Rule Book. I have to wonder if it's even legal. Not saying it's not, just wondering out loud.

[Clay1]

I've never heard the term super threat either, but we have had some local matches where a target was identified as having a knife and another target was identified as being unarmed. The COF said to shoot the targets in Tactical priority and we we suppose to engage the knife yielding target before the unarmed target. Never seen that in the rule book either, but have shot a course like that.

[COF]

We've done the same thing in the past. The idea is to get the shooters to think about something other than just near to far. While it's not called out in the rulebook, I don't see it as counter to the rulebook.

Jerry

[Mayonaise]

No cover, all targets are within' 2yds depth of each other, then there is no priority unless specified.

[NEPAKevin]

While the rule book contains limits to what may be done with in a course of fire while still being an IDPA stage, it also states the general guideline that a scenario stage should be realistic, i.e. if it could happen in that mythical place sometimes referred to as the real world, then it is allowed. As long as you are not doing something that is prohbited, being creative and specifying a target to be engaged first, call it a super threat if you will, makes sense if the premise is such that you have a primary aggressor. Many clubs do not have the resources to make moving targets on all their stages, so specifying "stuff" in the course of fire, is one way CoF designers try to simulate things like a dynamic engagement or force the shooter to do things like move, or make the less natural transition, i.e. engage from inside out instead of sweeping from one side to the other. While some do not like being forced out of their comfort zone, many find the variety of creative and challenging CoFs to be part of the fun. CoFs should however be reasonable in their demands and IMHO have a logic justified by the premise and not just make the stage a memory test. Standarads are another matter and if the CoF says to do something, unless it's dangerous or illegal, JFDI.

Kevin

[Infinity001]

Dear All. I am an Italian IDPA Shooter and an European S.O.

First of all please excuse me if my written english, is not so good.

In this discussion the answer, in my opinion, is very clear, if the s.o. at the breafing doesn't specify the order you can shoot from t1 to t3 or t3 to t1 (I mean from left to right or from right to left) with no problem. The only problem can be if there is a security problem. For ex if you start seated with gun in condition one and you have to withdrow the gun from your right side you have to shoot before to the right target, even if you could pass on your legs with the loaded gun (and this is really well written on the role book). In all the other situations, if is not specified, in my opinion, you can start from the side you prefer.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Antonio\Infinity001

[revchuck]

Dear All. I am an Italian IDPA Shooter and an European S.O.

First of all please excuse me if my written english, is not so good.

Antonio - Welcome! There's no need to apologize for your English - it's excellent. I teach French to American students, and I wish my students were as good as you are! Edited November 16, 2005 by revchuck

[hopalong]

infinity001,

Also Welcome to the forums!!!!

And yes your written English is quite good.

HOPALONG

[Infinity001]

thank you for your welcome!