Tactical Sequence then head shot

[freeidaho]

It's IDPA. Do NOT think. Shoot it as told to, all will be fine.

You sure have a way with words

Thanks for all your feed back

Jamie

Of as Matt Burkett is fond of saying: "Just ask the SO how he wants it shot and then do it faster and better than everyone else."

kr

[Chills1994]

Couldn't you just shoot all head shots like this:

T1: Head

T2: Head, head

T1: Head, head

T2: Head

Then done! ?

The way I see it the CoF description did NOT specifically say "2 shots center mass".

[Steve J]

Couldn't you just shoot all head shots like this:

T1: Head

T2: Head, head

T1: Head, head

T2: Head

Then done! ?

The way I see it the CoF description did NOT specifically say "2 shots center mass".

Sure in this case, but it might be slower depending on the distance to the targets and your skill level of course.

I like the Matt Burkett quote - ask the SO how he wants it done, then do it faster and better than everyone else. Those are words to live by in IDPA.

[rvb]

Couldn't you just shoot all head shots like this:

T1: Head

T2: Head, head

T1: Head, head

T2: Head

Then done! ?

The way I see it the CoF description did NOT specifically say "2 shots center mass".

Technically on the second time around on T1 you "may" be avoiding a transition. Possible 3 sec PE.

-rvb

[Chills1994]

^^^^

I am just reiterating/re-emphasizing what Highvelocity wrote on the first page, especially the bold part:

The head is the body but the body's not the head. If you had shot T1 in the head twice instead of head, then body, you would've been OK.

Now... I know I left my range lawyer bar card somewhere...

Oh well... I am probably better off just leaving this thread alone.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Chills1994

[rvb]

^^^^

I am just reiterating/re-emphasizing what Highvelocity wrote on the first page, especially the bold part:

The head is the body but the body's not the head. If you had shot T1 in the head twice instead of head, then body, you would've been OK.

Now... I know I left my range lawyer bar card somewhere...

Oh well... I am probably better off just leaving this thread alone.

Pg 45, Paragraph 3.

Search the rulebook for "transition" and the relevant sentence contains the first hit.

Can't shoot all to the head to avoid a transition.... or it, um, "may" be a procedural.

Between the definition of tactical sequence and the transition clause, these types of arrays are so constrained by the book that designers don't need to get all out of shape about where every shot goes and when. It's just a memorization game and a hoke-pokey dance routine at that point. Unfortunately, and I say this all the time... this has to be the most unknown rule by shooters, stage designers, and MDs in the book. "3 ea., tac-seq, 2/body +1 head" should be all that's required in the brief for this type of array and that in itself is quite limiting in how it can be shot (at least to any advantage in number of transitions).

The 2 kickers are 1) you have to know if the SO/MD actually does consider that a PE and 2) heaven help you if you actually do attempt to shoot the body and it accidentally goes into the head. Even if you still had to "transition," the holes in the paper "may" say you are screwed.

The most brilliant way to handle this that I have seen was by my buddy JJ, the Maryland State MD. I kept bringing this up that the SOs AND the shooters had to be made aware of how this was to be handled so it would be handled consistently and fairly. Ever since his stage briefs have state "3 to ea target, at least 1 must be a head shot." If you want to accept the higher chance for disaster and put all 3 in the head, fine. any order is fine. It lets the shooter balance that risk/reward.

As has been said many times in this thread (and I agree with it), it really comes down to doing exactly what your are told faster than everyone else. But heaven help you if you miss up into the head. You'll need a whole team of range lawyers to OJ you out of that situation.

Now, if we look at the exact situation you mention (2 in the head then one in the body), well you still have a transition, so no foul there. But per the dance steps the THIRD shot was supposed to be a head shot. So even though you made it harder on yourself by making one of the body shots a head shot, you may be rewarded with a PE because the body is not part of the head.

The common theme in my post??? Dance steps make scoring a headache. I'm not just coming at this as a shooter, but as an SO. The SO has to know if the transition clause is in effect and if 2+1 is an exact required sequence.

my 2 pennies.

-rvb

Edited January 29, 2009 by rvb

[Steve J]

RyanVB, the "avoiding the transition" bit only applies to a Mozambique drill. There's no body to head transition required or implied in the original poster's COF, only target to target transitions. All head shots is actually harder, and the head IS part of the body, so no harm no foul. In correlation, would a procedural be assessed for all head shots if the COF only said "Engage T1-T2 with two rounds to the body in Tactical sequence". No. So, why would there be a procedural for all head shots in the case below. There wouldn't and shouldn't be one.

Stage Set-up

Qty 2 Targets Positioned Side by Side at 7yards

Shooter facing targets, Scoring Vickers

On signal Engage T1-T2 with two rounds to the body in Tactical sequence then reengage

T1-T2 with one head shot each.

[rvb]

RyanVB, the "avoiding the transition" bit only applies to a Mozambique drill. There's no body to head transition required or implied .... So, why would there be a procedural for all head shots in the case below...

On signal Engage T1-T2 with two rounds to the body in Tactical sequence then reengage

T1-T2 with one head shot each.

Steve,

Ok, I might have missed a tiny detail on the wording in the rules. I had to wiki "i.e." as used on pg 45. If used as "for example" then a moz is just an example as I originally thought. If wiki is right on the usage then maybe it is only applicable when specified as 2 on body and 1 on head? I took "ie" to mean 2+1 is an example of shots being required on specific areas of the topic. If I had to guess, I'd guess 2+1 was intended to be an example and the book should have said "e.g." Do we have any english professors in the house?

But regardless we ARE talking about a moz now, right? 2+1? Book doesn't say that 2 body + 1 head changes if there are more than 1 target to 2+1 on, it only talks about where on a target the shots are specified. I don't see anything in your stage description that means pg45,P3 doesn't apply. Your stage description tells me very specifically I should shoot 1-2-1-H-H. You did specify 2 to the body and 1 to the head (just as on pg 45). The bold part is a required transition on a that drill, right? The rulebook tells me the shooter "may" receive a PE if they shoot it 1-2-2H-H (or as Chills described) since you will "circumvent sight alignment transition," right?

As that section of the rules states: "CoF designers and MDs should be aware of this possibility and decide beforehand how to handle it." THAT is the point I am trying to drive home. Even the rule itself admits to the possibility of confusion and in practice it IS handled differently everywhere. Either the very scripted stage description needs to be dropped or the shooters and SOs need to understand before the first shot is fired how the stage will be scored. Especially with wording such as "may be considered...."

Is there another section of relavant rules I'm missing?

-rvb

Edited January 29, 2009 by rvb

[Steve J]

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're stretching the meaning of a Mozambique drill. This is not a body, body, head / 2 + 1 drill. In a Mozambique drill as I understand it each target is finished before you go on to the next. This COF is a tactical sequence drill followed by a head shot. In the tactical sequence portion of the drill the head is part of the body. All head shots is perfectly acceptable.

Now that's my opinion without any other information. If the COF had a scenario in which the simulation of body armor was implied then I'd say you're right. The only correct way to shoot it then would be 1-2-1 to the body, head, head.

So, I'd agree with you with said scenario, but would score it differently without it. Shish. Stage design is everything, isn't it.

[rvb]

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're stretching the meaning of a Mozambique drill.

Hi Steve,

I searched the rule book and don't see "mozambique" mentioned anywhere.

The text of the rule for vickers scoring is:

the course description may specify that a

certain number of shots may be required on specific areas of the

target, i.e. two (2) shots to the body and one (1) shot to the head.

So while you think I'm stretching the meaning of a specific drill, I think you are using that drill to limit the text of the rule.

That is exactly what we are doing on these arrays is requiring a certain number of shots go on specific areas of the target. We are also adding a shot sequence.. However, nowhere do I see an exception to requiring shots on specific areas if a certain sequence is required... so IMO the rule still applies [er, um, "may" apply].

So perhaps we'll just have to AGREE to disagree.... and at that it comes full circle to "ask the SO how it is to be shot AND how it will be scored if ...." 'cause if they are close and you'll let me double the head (as in 1-2-2H-H), I'm going for it because I see a definate advantage over 1-2-1-H-H.... but it's not faster-enough to make up for a PE if an SO like me considers it avoiding a transition!

Stage design is everything, isn't it.

Yup!

-rvb

Edited January 29, 2009 by rvb

[Duane Thomas]

I see where you're coming from, but I think you're stretching the meaning of a Mozambique drill. This is not a body, body, head / 2 + 1 drill.

Actually a Mozambique is two to the body, then one to the head. But in this case, I'll agree that the smart move is simply to read the course description and do exactly what it says - or allows.

"Ask the SO how he wants it done and then do it faster and more accurately than anyone else" is great advice, as long as the same SO is running everyone through the stage. But when you have each roving squad run by its own SO, where you can get into trouble is when one SO perceives that you can't run it the fastest way, but another squad's SO perceives you can. Tell me I have to run it the same as everyone else, fine. Just make sure everyone does run it the same way. But that's a matter of communication between SOs and MD. With the channels of communication kept open, IOW the MD gets called in the moment there's a question, and the answer/clarification then gets annotated on the stage description, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Chills1994]

Ya know... moving one of these targets about 3.5 feet back or forward from the other target would have alleviated this tac sequence "can you remember the dance steps?" nonsense and the ensuing procedural and headaches for the SO/MD.

Just sayin'.... as MD, I would never set up a gHey stage such as this.

[Mayonaise]

Procedural earned per the original post. If the intent were three shots in tactical sequence regardless of location it would have been worded as such. Whether intentional or not, procedural was earned. If I were SO'ing the stage and someone shot all heads I'd give them an FTDR.