Tac Sequence

[maeson]

We started have a debate around course design and when Tac Sequence can be or has to be assumed by a shooter. When cover is available, the targets are different distances from the shooter or are more than 2 yards appart it is quite clear in the rules that Tac Priority should be followed i.e nearest to furthest or slicing the pie.

When targets are an equal threat ie. same distance from shooter and less than 2 yards apart, should Tactical Sequence be assumed by the shooter or is it shooters choice on how to engage assuming of course that the designer has not specified that Tac Sequence must be used?

[Mark Perez]

In the scanario you give - it is the shooters choice.

which will be most likely double taps.

[vincent]

If tactical sequence is not specified by the course description it is the shooters choice. In 5 years of IDPA shooting I've never seen a shooter use tactical sequence when it wasn't specified.

Tactical order / tactical priority should be used by the shooter unless an alternate engagement order is specified in the course description (for example a "super threat").

[tightloop]

Your statements contradict themselves.

[rhino]

I thought that when you were shooting from cover, you "sliced the pie" and shot them as they became threats to you, regardless of the distance. Is that wrong?

[tightloop]

Generally speaking, you are correct. Unless there is anything in the stage description that supercede shooting them, as you see them, while slicing the pie.

If you are shooting from cover, it is best to slice the pie and shoot them as they come into view, and unless there is an over riding factor from the MD there should be no penalty for shooting them as you describe.

[Nik Habicht]

It is my understanding that if you are in the open with multiple targets at a set distance --- i.e. all at seven or ten yards ---- that you must, in the absence of cover, engage each target once before engaging any target with a second round. If you are behind cover, then in the absence of ther relevant information, you'd slice the pie and engage each target with the required number of rounds.

[Bill Nesbitt]

The only time you would "have" to use tactical sequence is if it is called for in the stage description.

Bill Nesbitt

[maeson]

Thanks for the posts to the topic. The majority seem to think that when you are in the open and the targets are close together, an even distance from the shooter and the sequence is not specified then it is the shooters choice whether to follow Tac Sequence or rather to double tap each target.

[vincent]

Dave,

My first sentence is in regards to tactical sequence. The second is about tactical order also known as tactical priority. They are different concepts so the statements do not contradict. I will edit the post to clearly refer to tactical sequence in the first sentence so there is no confusion.

----------

Since there seems to be confusion let's go to the IDPA rulebook.

The only place tactical sequence is mentioned in the rulebook is:

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “TACTICAL PRIORITY” AND “TACTICAL SEQUENCE” TARGET ENGAGEMENT?

“Tactical priority” refers to the targets being engaged in order of the threat posed. Basically this is either near to far if the targets are all visible at the same time and are more than 2 yards distant from each other. In IDPA competition, targets within 2 yards of each other are considered equal threat and no tactical priority should be required. Tactical priority is also used when you lean out from cover to engage targets (slicing the pie); targets are considered priority based on their order of visibility to the shooter (shoot them as you see them). Tactical sequence is totally different. “Tactical sequence” refers to a method of target engagement, specifically engaging all targets with one round BEFORE you engage with an additional round or rounds. Say you have 3 threat targets to engage: you would shoot them 1 – 1 – 2 – 1 – 1 or shoot one round at each, then come back in ANY sequence and put an additional round or rounds on each target.

There are no rules designating a time when tactical sequence MUST be used other than when it is specified in the course description. The default engagement order for shooting in the open and around cover is specified as well.

Also from the IDPA Safety Officer Training Guidelines.

What should I cover with each new group that comes to my COF?

Time spent explaining the COF to the entire group will eliminate problems and save time. Don’t rush through it. Make sure each group knows:

1. The general course of fire

2. Potential safety problems, how to avoid them

3. Begin concealed or open

4. Special rules such as tactical sequence, strong hand only, shoot while

moving, empty gun reloads only, begin with only 6 rounds, etc.

The above section clearly labels tactical sequence as a "special rule" for the course of fire, just like strong hand only.

In the Courses of Fire section under "basic criteria":

9. Targets should be engaged in tactical order whenever possible, i.e.

either near to far or shoot the first target that's visible when you lean out

from behind cover (some common sense should be used here).

The basic criteria for IDPA stages lists tactical order as the default method of target engagement. If tactical order is not to be used then that would be a special case which would have to be specifically described in the course description.

[ToddS]

WOW, I thought IPSC was PHU(%ED UP!!!!!!!!

[tightloop]

Vinny

Mr. Kotter, told me to tell you not to get carried away quoting the Rule Book, as we have seen, and know, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Depending on the circumstances and situation, it has been/can be, either flaunted in the face of the questioner if the Book supports the call of the MD, or completely ignored if it does not/cannot support the call of the RO/MD. Been there, seen that...but I drift the thread.

[vincent]

Depending on the circumstances and situation, it has been/can be, either flaunted in the face of the questioner if the Book supports the call of the MD, or completely ignored if it does not/cannot support the call of the RO/MD.

Yep, I agree with you on that one! A vague rulebook that is inconsistently enforced is my biggest pet peeve with IDPA. I know I've been shooting more IPSC because of that problem. The free-style nature of IPSC/USPSA is very appealing. Now I'm drifting the thread....

I do think that it is best to refer to the rulebook since there were conflicting posts. I personally don't take the "rulebook as a guideline" stance. Of course I'm a gamer, so you have to know the rules to be able to run at their limits

[Ted Murphy]

Unless the COF description specifies tac sequence you do not have to do it. Most times I run into it at matches it's in the course of standards. most idpa stages up my way are of the "here's the problem, solve it" variety that doesn't waste time scripting such things.

I have several shoters who do tac sequence on every group of targets not shot from cover but they do that on their own initiative. It's a fun afternoon listening to them argue the merits of tac sequence with those that think it's not real streetwise.

Tac sequence isn't used from cover. You'd neutralize a target before poking out further to engage the next target.

Ted

[GRW]

Has anyone shot an IDPA match that didn’t specifically call out the stage procedure, leaving it up to the competitor to shoot the stage within the guidelines of the “LGB”?

For this case having the shooter engage two (or more) targets at the same distance, without there being cover available, tactical sequence should be used, or a procedural would be issued.

[tightloop]

Ted

If your matches are "solve the problem" w/o further explanation, I 'm headed that way.

[Mayonaise]

Has anyone shot an IDPA match that didn’t specifically call out the stage procedure, leaving it up to the competitor to shoot the stage within the guidelines of the “LGB”?

For this case having the shooter engage two (or more) targets at the same distance, without there being cover available, tactical sequence should be used, or a procedural would be issued.

Almost all of my stages are "solve the problem" stages. I get a lot of new shooters and put them at the bottom of the shooting order. They usually have a clue by the time their turn arrives. Plus we tend to cut them some slack since you can't force feed them the rules on day one.

My opinion is that MD's that dictated every minutia of each COF don't design them very well or are intentionally setting traps for the shooters.. Good stage design takes time and experience. If they are done right there is only one way to shoot the stage fast without getting gigged. I hate to use the term "gamer proof" but you know what I mean.

Mark

[GRW]

Mark, - I like the bases of your stage design. Most of the matches I shoot here in MI are the typical start here, move there, reload like this, etc...etc. Great for beginners, but after awhile there is very little mental challenge.

[tightloop]

Be it lack of exposure to and knowledge of, the rules/guidelines, or physical infirmities which preclude shooters from strictly conforming to the use of cover, etc., as prescribed by the LGB, the MD would do well to consider the individual shooter and any "unique" requirements that might be brought into play when that shooter toes the line for LAMR. Since it is, after all, the MD's implicit charter to enlarge the shooter base for his club and the sport, and to encourage all shooters to be safe and come again, correct?

That is what I hear you saying, isn't it Mark?

[Ted Murphy]

Has anyone shot an IDPA match that didn’t specifically call out the stage procedure, leaving it up to the competitor to shoot the stage within the guidelines of the “LGB”?

For this case having the shooter engage two (or more) targets at the same distance, without there being cover available, tactical sequence should be used, or a procedural would be issued.

Has anyone shot an IDPA match that didn’t specifically call out the stage procedure, leaving it up to the competitor to shoot the stage within the guidelines of the “LGB”?

=============================================================

Yes, often.

Try the Carolina Cup sometime.

Ted

[Ted Murphy]

Ted

If your matches are "solve the problem" w/o further explanation, I 'm headed that way.

Ted

If your matches are "solve the problem" w/o further explanation, I 'm headed that way.

=================================================

We don't have too much of a stage description, we like the solve the problem school of thought, except for standards stages that is.

from:

http://www.eastontacticalops.com/stages/2003_5_1.jpg

"Procedure: At the start signal shooter will stand, turn, draw and engage T1-T4 with 2 shots each. Reload as needed or desired."

That's more complex than most, but the Girlfriend wrote it and wanted to make darn sure folks turned before drawing.

On stages that have movement we usually say something like "engage T1-T6 with 2 shots each moving to P2 as necessary"

Amazing how many PE's that stops from happening when you don't script the stage. My favorite stage was one from last year that was a blind stage and the COF description was "Enter the door at the beep. Use cover and follow IDPA rules".

Ted

[bman]

Has anyone shot an IDPA match that didn’t specifically call out the stage procedure, leaving it up to the competitor to shoot the stage within the guidelines of the “LGB”?

We do this often also. Especially in house type scenarios. I always tell my group in this case to make sure they use cover, slice the pie and make reloads where they need to as long as they use cover. I like to see people think and enjoy the different views on a stage. We still do some that are shoot here, reload there but we are using less and less. It makes people read the rule book

Back on subject: If the COF description does not specifie tac sequence then you do not have to use it.

[Larrys1911]

You might use Tac Seq when shooting OVER or UNDER cover....

Guys if you dont tell someone to use Tac Seq you cant gig them for not doing it, period!

IDPA is still a sport and there are rules. If you want me to shoot your opinion of tactically, you better tell me what you want done as your opinion of "tactically" and mine may differ and rarely can you tell me without a doubt either is wrong!

If your going to do this stuff of solve the problem you better understand that my way may be different than yours and accept that.

The problem with "here is the problem solve it" is that the stage description would have to explain in DETAIL everything that is going on in the stage, whats lead up to the situation, the background of your surrounding etc etc etc. Then you have to know what kind of training I have had an what I know about my oun skills and my skill level. Then above all YOU have to know what YOU are talking about to the point of being a REAL tactical GURU (how many of those are there I wonder) and be open minded to the fact that you still may not know it all.

Then I think you owe it to your competitiors to tell them that you are running a "tactical" match, not an IDPA match.

Here is the problem

Tac Seq

Draw to fire (generous) 1.5

Tgt Trans .4

Tgt Trans .4

Double .2

Tgt Trans .4

Tgt Trans .4

So you have everyone gets ONE in [Re-edit] 2.3seconds

Draw to fire (generous) 1.5

Double .2

Tgt Trans .4

Double .2

Tgt Trans .4

Double .2

So you have everyone gets ONE in 2.7 seconds

.4 best case.

Thing is I have Doubled MANY MANY MANY MANY more times than I have TSed so I think I am probably better and smoother at it than TSing so in a RL situation it would problably be better for me to take the chance and double. Then Take in maybe one guy has a SG the other maybe a HG the other a Knife/Impact weapon whatever. To much stuff to question.

IF you want people to use TS. TELL THEM! Otherwise be happy!

Larry P

EDIT NOTE!

The time on this post (Tac Sequence 1-1-2-1-1) was edited to 3.3 while that is the "total" time using Tac Seq its NOT the time it takes for everyone to get 1 in which is 2.3.

In doing this I did realize that I made a mistake on Tac Priority (2-2-2) !

In reality we wouldnt count the last split because we are figuring on how much time it takes for each tgt to get ONE round, so I edited that to say 2.7 seconds and the difference would then be .4 seconds.

[tightloop]

Larry

thanks for your input.

IT'S A GAME. It is not training.