COF questions and rules

[Duane Thomas]

what a memory course

Like standards, I tend to really enjoy memory stages. Because, through whatever mental quirk, I'm really good at them. At the same time, when I watch every other shooter on my squad blow them - badly - I do have to wonder if the ability to execute short term rote memorization under stress is really what we need to be testing at the match.

[Duane Thomas]

STAGE PROCEDURE: On the start signal load your gun and take out the 4 threats in both tactical priority and tactical sequence

How can you execute both tactical priority and tactical sequence at the same time? The two would seem to be mutually exclusive.

[SDM]

STAGE PROCEDURE: On the start signal load your gun and take out the 4 threats in both tactical priority and tactical sequence

How can you execute both tactical priority and tactical sequence at the same time? The two would seem to be mutually exclusive.

He said it was near to far with no cover so you'd put one on all targets, starting with the nearest one, then come back and put the remaining 2 required shots in whatever order you choose. When you combine sequence and priority you can really only apply priority for the first shot on each target.

[freeidaho]

He said it was near to far with no cover so you'd put one on all targets, starting with the nearest one, then come back and put the remaining 2 required shots in whatever order you choose. When you combine sequence and priority you can really only apply priority for the first shot on each target.

An interesting definition. One problem is I have seen other definitions for the same term too. I hope this term that is not defined by IDPA is clearly spelled out in the COF description. It seems like a good place to give out a lot of procedurals. Another problem is that Tactical Sequence is by definition used where the threats are equal in priority. So how does one shoot the highest priority target of targets that are deemed equal in priority. Hence the whole thing seems like going out of ones way to complicate things needlessly. Why not just shoot the prime numbered targets first, then the remaining even numbered targets, then the remaining odd numbered targets, and call that Super Black Ops Tactical Order.... or some such?

That said, whenever course designers invent some new term or technique and then forces it on the shooters, I just ask the SO how he wants it shot, then do it. It is supposed to be fun and procedurals are expensive.

kr

PS: I salute stage designers, and in fact anyone that works so we can play! I probably did some dumb stages in my early years, but my memory is not good enough so that I need to have a guilty conscience!

Edited December 4, 2008 by freeidaho

[rvb]

So how does one shoot the highest priority target of targets that are deemed equal in priority. Hence the whole thing seems like going out of ones way to complicate things needlessly.

big +1.

"You put your left foot in, you put your left foot out... that's what it's all about!"

As this is becomming more and more common, I just say "please tell me how you want it shot" and try not to roll my eyes. The worst I saw was a tac-seq + tac-pri while pie'ing a wall !!

-rvb

[lugnut]

As this is becomming more and more common, I just say "please tell me how you want it shot" and try not to roll my eyes. The worst I saw was a tac-seq + tac-pri while pie'ing a wall !!

-rvb

I can honestly say I've never seen that. Wow. We are a relatively new group that is doing what we can to learn. I've only done this for 2 years or so and I have more experience than most in our group- we are all still learning. What helps is when some of the more seasoned shooters come and offer ideas for changes... without complaining. Complaints at a match just discourage new shooters from getting involved. Most newer stage designers are more than willing to take good advice. On the other hand I've seen shooters pull a nutty on some stages.... and pissed everyone off even when they were offered a reshoot. That's frustrating.

It's a competitive sport. But it's run by volunteers..... so when I see a hookey COF... I try to grin a bear it and offer help when I can.

[SDM]

An interesting definition. One problem is I have seen other definitions for the same term too. I hope this term that is not defined by IDPA is clearly spelled out in the COF description. It seems like a good place to give out a lot of procedurals. Another problem is that Tactical Sequence is by definition used where the threats are equal in priority. So how does one shoot the highest priority target of targets that are deemed equal in priority. Hence the whole thing seems like going out of ones way to complicate things needlessly. Why not just shoot the prime numbered targets first, then the remaining even numbered targets, then the remaining odd numbered targets, and call that Super Black Ops Tactical Order.... or some such?

That said, whenever course designers invent some new term or technique and then forces it on the shooters, I just ask the SO how he wants it shot, then do it. It is supposed to be fun and procedurals are expensive.

kr

PS: I salute stage designers, and in fact anyone that works so we can play! I probably did some dumb stages in my early years, but my memory is not good enough so that I need to have a guilty conscience!

Oh, I agree with you. I’m still waiting on the stage that states “Start here, two on each target, all rules apply”.

I have seen the two shooting orders combined though and that was how we were told to handle it. I had forgotten the part about sequence applying to targets of equal threat. That does seem to make only one of the two possible.

[Jim Watson]

Combined Tactical Priority and Tactical Sequence is dead common around here. Usually three targets at unequal ranges are visible at the same time. So you shoot one each, near to far, then finish the required number of hits in any order. I think that a reasonable test and not a mind game.

But I also see an unfortunate number of "Shoot THESE targets THREE times, and THOSE targets TWO times each." Which I do NOT consider a reasonable requirement. It is usually done to increase the round count without having to complicate the target layout any further.

[Duane Thomas]

Except that it violates the requirement that Tactical Sequence only be used when targets are an equal distance away.

[Jane]

Except that it violates the requirement that Tactical Sequence only be used when targets are an equal distance away.

Where do you see that requirement in the rule book, Duane ?

[lugnut]

Except that it violates the requirement that Tactical Sequence only be used when targets are an equal distance away.

Duane- I checked the rule book and couldn't find that requirement. This is what it says:

"Tactical Sequence: A method of target engagement. For Tactical

Sequence, all targets are engaged with one round each before being

engaged again. In the case of three (3) targets requiring two (2)

rounds each, all targets would be engaged with one round to each

target BEFORE reengaging the targets with another round in any

order (1-1-2-1-1)."

The only other thing it says is:

"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."

I don't see this as meaning that tactical sequence can only be used when targets are equal distance away. I think that part is more relevant when shooting in tactical priority. Example- when targets are further away by 2 or more yards than a closer target you must use priority on the closer target whether it's just tactical priority or tactical sequence with tactical priority.

[rvb]

Except that it violates the requirement that Tactical Sequence only be used when targets are an equal distance away.

actually Duane, the new book no longer says that. they [also] screwed that up with this new book. now it just says something about targets w/in 2 yards are considered equal threat but it doesn't say why we should care (except in the tac-priority order). It's just some random, extra information in the new book. old book says tac-seq was for equal threat targets. new book just says tac-priority unless told otherwise.

don't know if that was the intent of the rule writers or an over-site. so the hokey-pokey dance isn't technically illegal... just goofy. It's a fine point but important. Also, if all threats are "equal" you are no longer required to shoot tac-seq unless specified (ie 2 ea is ok vs 1-2-1 unless specified).

-rvb

Edited December 5, 2008 by rvb

[Duane Thomas]

actually Duane, the new book no longer says that.

Poltroons! No one ran that by me first.

[Bones]

0 for 2 on the rulebook so far Duane - it might be worth leaving a copy in the bathroom.

Unless your reference point is the Magna Carta, I'm not sure a 3 year old document classifies as "new".

Craig

Edited December 6, 2008 by Bones

[Duane Thomas]

Well pfffffft! Hah! Let's see you argue with that logic!

[Duane Thomas]

0 for 2 on the rulebook so far Duane

I'd count it 0 for 1, actually.

How can you execute both tactical priority and tactical sequence at the same time? The two would seem to be mutually exclusive.

This was a question - not a mistake - seeking clarification on a new idea. New to me, anyway. I've never seen this sort of thing at any match before.

Except that it violates the requirement that Tactical Sequence only be used when targets are an equal distance away.

This was a mistake, based on old information. I actually have read the latest Rule Book - several times - just not recently. Obviously I've gotten gotten some of the old, and some of the new, mixed up in my mind. That's one reason this forum is such a great resource, it can help to sort out stuff like that.

[Dennis Sherman]

In shooting this sport since 1999 both in the local area as well as many regional matches, I have seen plenty of off the wall courses of fire. This was just another lack of enough information in the course description. RO's get angry when a person can think on thier feet and adapt and use what they can to solve a problem and after they watch the shooter prevail, they remember what they forgot to write in the course description and start the penalty phase.

The bigger issue here for me is that why would you want to try and confuse the shooter with a bunch of extra words such as the 2nd issue. A good way to ensure that you have some people not return is to be unprofessional and leave information out of a course of fire and then try to ding them after the fact.

I recall a state match where we were required to do a one handed reload, using the weak hand only. You can just imagine the danger this created for some people. It was stupid, period.

While I go with the crowd and shoot the low light/ no light stuff, I feel that if I never shot another stage with it, I would be fine. The firearms I have for my defensive use all have mounted lights on them, and all concerned in my posse are well versed in thier use. In my simple mind, IDPA should allow the use of mounted lights, then maybe these match killing, time wasteing stages would be gone, lol.

Guys two interesting scenarios came up this week at a local match- let me know what you think should have happened:

1) Indoor low light stage:

START POSITION: Seated at table, back touching chair’s back with hands on Xs on table. Unloaded firearm and either 3 magazines or 4 speed loaders/moonclips (all loaded to division capacity) placed on the table. Flashlight placed on the table. No concealment is required.

STAGE PROCEDURE: On the start signal load your gun and take out the 4 threats in both tactical priority and tactical sequence with 3 shots each. All firing must be done from behind the table between the “X” marks on the table.

On the buzzer a shooter clicked their flashlight on (a large high power one) while it was laying on the table pointing down range. Shooter shot with two hands on the gun and never touched flashlight after.

Qustions: Is this legit? He got a procedural and was told it was almost an FTDR. The COF didn't say how the flashlight was to be used but this did sound like trying to gain an unfair advantage... Thought?

2) Skill drill:

START POSITION: At P1 facing down range, handgun and 2 ammunition carriers loaded with 6 rounds each. Concealment is not required.

STAGE PROCEDURE: This is a skill drill testing speed reloading, target evaluation and target transition. On the start signal, the first six rounds are fired at T1 and then the first speed reload is conducted. The first four shots after the reload (rounds 7, 8, 9 and 10) must be shot at T2-T5, only one shot on each target, shooters choice as to what order to engage T2-T5. Rounds 11 and 12 are shot at T1. A second speed reload is conducted and the last six shots are fired at T1. Of the 14 shots fired at T1, 6 must be head shots. It is the shooter’s choice as to when to engage the heads.

Question: A shooter was having major jams during the use of all 3 magazines. Only about 4 out of 6 of each magazine were used. At the end of the 3rd magazine- with several missing shots the shooter pulled a 4th magazine out of his pocket and finished the remaining shots. Should this shooter get a procedural for using more than the allowed "3" magazines? If so- do you remove the best points from all the shots fired from the 4th magazine? It was limited vickers and he didn't use more than the required shots but several rounds did come from a 4th mag.

[Duane Thomas]

I recall a state match where we were required to do a one handed reload, using the weak hand only. You can just imagine the danger this created for some people. It was stupid, period.

Agreed. Especially since most people have never been trained in how to do that.

Actually, at a match recently, in the stage briefing for a SHO/WHO stage, part of the stage description was "No one-hand only reloads" which I thought was an EXCELLENT idea.

[freeidaho]

The 2005 IDPA rulebook has this to say:

CoF 16. No “weak-hand only” reloading.

kr

[Duane Thomas]

Still good to put it in the stage description, though.

[RobMoore]

Quick deviation: What are some ways of strong hand only reloads that you are comfortable with having your shooters perform?

I like the "drop the mag, holster still at slide-lock, insert fresh mag, draw, slide forward, continue".

[Duane Thomas]

For a strong hand only reload, that would be the way to go. Don't know how comfortable I'd be having people who've never done it before have to execute at a match, though.

[Bones]

I hope we get to debate in person at the 2009 S&W IDPA Indoor National Championship Duane.

After reviewing and refining the COFs over the last few days, I'm sure we'll have several rounds of drinks worth of topics to discuss.

With the right perspective, the rulebook gives quite a bit of lattitude to come up with many varied and safe stage designs. Insignificant distractions can really make things interesting.

Hope to see you there-

Craig

Edited December 12, 2008 by Bones

[Dennis Sherman]

As I continue on the downward spiral that is my participation in the action pistol sports, before I am done, I will host a major match where the SO's and the organizers will shoot the match for fun and not be part of the match results. This way, it will be a true surprise to those who compete and no one will have an advantage. Its not popular with most, but my old shooting pal Dale once suggested it and I think its a great idea.

I hope we get to debate in person at the 2009 S&W IDPA Indoor National Championship Duane.

After reviewing and refining the COFs over the last few days, I'm sure we'll have several rounds of drinks worth of topics to discuss.

With the right perspective, the rulebook gives quite a bit of lattitude to come up with many varied and safe stage designs. Insignificant distractions can really make things interesting.

Hope to see you there-

Craig

[Duane Thomas]

Actually, at the Washington State IDPA Championships the past several years they've done exactly that. The SOs shoot the match the day before, and their scores are counted against each other, only for the SO match.

Kind of sucks when the guy would would have won the state championship is one of the SOs, so his score doesn't count toward possible State Champion status, but overall it seems like a solid system.