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

Impenetrable Targets? Rule 4.9


Braxton1
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know one should never begin an IDPA Rules discussion with the line "In USPSA and IPSC..." but: in those organizations, all targets are considered to be impenetrable.

 

The same cannot be said in IDPA.  Should this be changed?  I see "penetrable" targets (both Threat and Non-threat) as a scoring nightmare, with bad "IRL" implications.  If a bullet hits a Non-Threat (especially in the center), is it right to presume that said bullet continues its flight where it may score as a great hit on the Threat target behind it?  In the other aforementioned rulesets, it'd be a Miss on the Threat target.

 

Of course, if this rule were to be changed, there'd also have to be changes to Course Design criteria, discouraging target placements that could result in shoot-throughs.  Because of IDPA's mandatory use of cover when available, the shooters' positions are more-restricted, making eliminating shoot-throughs much easier.

 

Just thoughts....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Braxton1 said:

, discouraging target placements that could result in shoot-throughs.  Because of IDPA's mandatory use of cover when available, the shooters' positions are more-restricted, making eliminating shoot-throughs much easier.

 

Just thoughts....

 

 

Honestly thats one of the things that makes IDPA suck.. Verbage like encouraged, discouraged, should, ,, etc. rulebook was full of it. Why I refer to it as a suggestion book.
A rule book  uses direct verbs. SHALL, SHALL NOT..  CAN ,CAN"T
I do agree with your sentiment, but not discouraged part.. Make it a black white rule.

No idea if it has changed but this exact issue is what had me noticing the above issue back in the late 90"s
I had a shoot through penalty...  only way to not get a shoot through hit on a non threat was to be really tall or kneel... 
When I brought up that this was an illegal stage because the rule book stated  (paraphrased) that no shoots should not be placed  where they are hit by a shoot through.
MD responded with, rule says should,,,, doesnt mean you have too.   
IIRC,, rules also said tac reloads  should not be required on the clock, because you would only ever do a slidelock in a gunfight,, or some such Timmy talk. and then proceed to have a classifier full of on the clock tac reloads.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rowdyb said:

Ipsc in the USA in 1976.

Uspsa as a region of ipsc 1981.

Uspsa incorporated and totally own rules 1984.

Idpa 1996.

 

Thanks for the chronology.

Do you have dates for when the various Divisions came and went as the sanctioners tried to keep up with the industry and preferences?

Like, when did USPSA put in Production?  After watching IDPA SSP for a while, I figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first year there was a Production National Champion was 2000. Limited 10 also.

The first year there was a Revolver National Champion was 2002.

Single Stack 2006.

Carry Op 2016

PCC 2017

 

https://uspsa.org/pages/champions

 

I'm sure there were some of the Divisions before these dates (especially Revolver) but there was no National Champion listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Watson said:

 

Thanks for the chronology.

Do you have dates for when the various Divisions came and went as the sanctioners tried to keep up with the industry and preferences?

Like, when did USPSA put in Production?  After watching IDPA SSP for a while, I figure.

Idpa was birthed with ssp, esp, cdp, esr, ssr. The rumor is the success of ssp was a big influence on the adoption and initial rules.

Edited by rowdyb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDPA originated with SSP, ESP, CDP, and SSR.  BUG was a side match only.  I was there.  My first four years I shot one full year in each division.  I was starting on another go-round when some distractions cropped up and after a project flopped, I went a long time in CDP, then into ESP. 

 

ESR was later calved off from SSR because a light loaded 625 was at an advantage over a plain vanilla .38.  Then rejoined into REV but with separate power factors for clips vs speed loaders.  A 9mm or clip converted .38 at f 155 is not much fun.

Edited by Jim Watson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...