IDSA in the works check it out

[pistolero]

Idsa

How can it be fair if double stack 1911s are in the same class (SA) as 8 shot 1911s? Don't those Para-Ordnance and STI/SVI models hold 15 or more rounds? Or is it just shoot what you carry and the heck with how you place?
Also, once again, you will have some who show up in trench coats with Desert Eagles and LAR Grizzlies, "What, this IS my daily carry".

 

[Grump]

How can it be fair if double stack 1911s are in the same class (SA) as 8 shot 1911s?

What's "fair" got to do with it? These "revolver-neutral" ninnies justified their gamey rules, in part, with the mag capacity ban of '94, but that doesn't apply any more.

Use what you carry and learn it, at its capacity. Don't train your fellow shooters to reflexively reload after 6 or 10 or 11 or any other arbitrary number of shots with this max-rounds-between-reloads nonsense! Test reloading skills with a mandatory (minimum!) reload on two stages per match, and no more. Let the chips fall where they may.

One of the old stated purposes of IPSC was to serve as a "test bed" for guns, gear and techniques. They've done that, as Jeff Cooper has said regarding the limits of human dexterity, but strayed mostly with race holsters, and a bit with race optics and the *size* of raceguns.

Your opponent in a lethal force encounter will *not* care if the equipment matching is lopsided. Deal with it. You already know that the battle of wits will be quite lopsided now, don't you? Your predatory opponent(s) will be virtually unarmed in that respect. Or do you want that to be "fair" too?

 

[Genghis]

Reaction to Rules

I am new to IPSC, IDPA, and steel matches, starting in February. I have experience with various organizations, rules and regulations, and other types of competitions, so I'll add my $.02.

1. Your organization sounds a lot like IDPA but with very general rules. The generality of the rules (like the holster rules) will produce some inconsistent applications. If you have area matches, or people visiting other clubs, they will run into some surprises as rules are interpreted differently.

2. What about shoulder holsters? Either they are crossdraw (illegal) or attached at the waist (legal).

3. I assume you discard any points over what is necessary to neutralize the threat. This could be interpreted as good (if he's dead, more rounds won't make him any deader) or bad (discouraging better shooting).

4. You might consider awarding 8 points for a head shot. IPSC and IDPA don't encourage head shots. Many bad guys are starting to wear armor, so we should probably encourage more head shots.

5. One thing I really do like about your rules - they would seem to allow factory-ported guns like the Glock and the Taurus revolvers, and also allow you to shoot hi-cap revolvers with full loadouts. I'd really like to buy one of the Taurus titanium 8-round ported .357's and shoot it at the local matches, but I don't believe the rules of either organization would allow it. Ports are out, and you have to leave any chambers over six empty. It's a shame, because it would definitely make a good carry revolver.

6. The openness of the gun rules will leave the competitions open to a wider range of guns, like IPSC. That openness will encourage innovation. But the more "gamey" guns will win more competitions. And people like to win, so they'll adapt their equipment with that goal in mind. Therefore, like IPSC, you will end up with more exotic guns as opposed to actual carry guns.

7. It's tough to balance safety, fairness, and real-world applicability. I guess you could come up with a detailed point system that rewards concealability, mag capacity, practicality, and other valued traits of a carry gun. And you could chrono each competitor's ammo then create a detailed hit location system and score everything accordingly, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

I like shooting with the guys at the local IDPA matches, the armed Olympians at the IPSC matches, and whoever shows up at the local steel match. If you had a local IDSA group, I'd probably come out and shoot with you guys.

 

[Morgan]

If you really want to test yourself against the best, IPSC/USPSA has a class for you, between open, limited, limited 10, and production.

I would still shoot IDPA or I&%&*(* or whatever, as it's all fun - but IPSC is still the gold standard.

 

[Tory]

Missed one!

"If you really want to test yourself against the best, IPSC/USPSA has a class for you, between open, limited, limited 10, and production."

Not so fast, Ace - you forgot REVOLVER .

Real men are WHEEL men!

 

[Joe D]

The NRA has a habit of shooting itself in the foot when it comes to shooting games other than Bullseye Pistol or High Power Rifle. Hunter Pistol was doing quite well until the NRA stopped listing the matches in the back of the Rifleman.
There are several things I would change about IDPA. First get rid of Bill Wilson. Change the way targets are scored to recognized Major and Minor. I shoot a Glock 35 in SSP. It is downloaded to 800 fps with a 180 gr bullet. I load my wife's G34 to 870 fps with a 147.
I would score a -1 hit as +.5 sec. for Major and +.75 for Minor. A -3 hit would be +1.5 for Major and +2.0 for Minor.
Keep the classes just like they are. If you load your Glock 22 or 35 to a Major PF then you should be allowed to shoot it in CDP if you download your mags to 8 or in SSP and ESP with 10.
I have mixed emotions about the STI/SVI guns in IDPA. A STI Eagle is not a carry gun. This might be a little hard to enforce but why not just limit the cost of guns to no more than $1,000.
I kind of like the idea of a head shot bonus. I would change the IDPA target head to the IPSC head and and use the ocular box for the bonus. Maybe take off 1 or 2 seconds for a hit there.
On the subject of USPSA, I would change Limited to restrict the round count in mags to 20. Allow 9mm Major, but limit the round count in the mag. Allow a mag long enough in .45ACP to hold 20 rounds. This would go a long way to add some diversity in Limited. One other thing I would do is have a single stack class for 1911 pattern guns. I would allow .40, but restrict the class to no more than 8 in the mag.
Just my .02.

 

[Archangel]

How about this scoring, if you want to keep it "realistic."


Use an IPSC-like target. Score the body 5-4-3 and the head 10-8.

For each target do this eqation:

Points x bullet weight x muzzle vel. x bullet diameter
-------------------------------------------------- = incapacitation rating (IR)
6120 for inch calibers, 153000 for metric

(Based on 9 points on the target with a 170 PF .40 = 100 IR. This is somewhat arbitrary, and could be tweaked if needed)

IR must be 100 or higher, or you are "dead."

Shoot the stage however you like, best time wins.

 

[Zak Smith]

Archangel,

The matches also have to be feasible. To use a "power incapacitation" scoring scheme, they'd have to weigh and chrono everybody's ammo, and calculating the scores would require a lot more figurin'.

At big 3Gun matches, we don't even bother with A/B/C/D scoring and points-- either the target is neutralized (1 A hit, or 2 BCD hits) or it's not. That makes scoring FAST and tabluating results easy.

-z

 

[Correia]

Joe, I've got to differ on a few things. $1,000 is not a very good limit for a carry gun. Slap different sites, a little work, and a trigger job onto a Sig, Kimber, or HK and you are over that. I carry a Kimber poly (14 shot) full size all of the time, and it is the same size as an STI Eagle.

 

[Joe D]

I was just trying to come up with a number. Most Kimbers I have seen are in the $700-$850 range. Springfields are less than that. Nothing wrong with the stock sights on both. A 1911 trigger job should not run over $50. That is what I charge for one. Most Sigs and HKs are way less than $1000.
I doubt less than 5% of those that carry have a double stack STI/Kimber. They are not the mainstream carry guns.

 

[Correia]

Joe, I've never been one to worry about what is mainstream.

My carry Kimber has more than $1000 into it, and that was with out really trying. What about folks that carry Wilsons, Les Baers, or nice custom guns? An arbitrary price limit would be a horrible way to go. A $750-$800 gun is only a little bit of accesorizing or refinishing before it is over your limit.

 

[Archie]

The solution to 'equalize' is simple....

Design the stages to test shooter skill, not round count.

I've shot the "Wild Bunch" team stage at the End of Trail cowboy match a couple times. It is based on the wild shootout at the finale of the movie, "The Wild Bunch". Four or five team members, armed with shotguns and carbines and handguns, and about sixty or seventy bowling pins set up over an area about thirty yards wide and about eighty deep. Time starts when the whistle blows and ends when the last pin falls. Everyone has to reload at least once.
It's a lot of fun, and a bit of a panic. However, it isn't very real.

Too many IPSC matches I've seen are based on what I call the "Thirty Round Burst" syndrome. Every stage requires multiple hits on multiple targets. That's fine for the IPSC game mindset, but what about those who seek to work on actual shooting skills?

What about stages requiring 'neutralizing' no more than three targets? Think about it; how many of the unholy do you really expect to face at one time? How many do you think you can shoot before number - eight(?) - gets you? What is the point of blasting away at twelve or fifteen targets?

Motion? The only potential gunfights I've been in were pretty static events. Yeah, I got behind some form of cover, but I didn't have to run a 100 yard dash, either.

Some one mentioned not all shooting situations start with a holstered gun. How about starting gun in hand from time to time; or gun in box or under pillow or in glove compartment? Maybe even unloaded in a closed box?

Set up stages to duplicate an actual event. The Miami shootout comes to mind as a team event, and it could be edited for a single shooter. After all, there were only two 'targets' in that whole scenario. The California Northridge Bank robbery could be interesting. Again, only two 'targets' (armed with fully automatic rifles, but only two.)

The other valid stage design is what Cooper used to call 'schoolhouse' drills. These are stages set up to test basic marksmanship skills. The "El Presidente" comes to mind, testing multiple target acquisition and reloading skills. However, mandating multiple reloads simply gives the autopistol shooters an artificial advantage. Check out the actual "Mexican Defense Course" to see a challenging but simple match.

How about a stage where the shooter has to 'neutralize' a single target at sixty yards? Could be over in two rounds. Or twenty-six.

This concept is what makes IPSC and IDPA both lacking. Not the rules, but the stage design. By designing stages to test the shooter, the director has removed the advantage of the double stack pistol, or the laser sighting system, muzzle breaks and even metal seeking bullets.

I also want to record my distain for most of the 'holster rules'. I've carried in my waistband or pocket for over thirty years without incident. But all the new experts 'know' it's unsafe. Balderdash.

On the plus side for this new venture, I like the 'minimum eight point' per target plan. It's simple to check and it makes sense. If I can find one of these outfits around my area, I'll make a holster and check them out. Maybe they're getting the idea.

 

[Zak Smith]

Too many IPSC matches I've seen are based on what I call the "Thirty Round Burst" syndrome. Every stage requires multiple hits on multiple targets. That's fine for the IPSC game mindset, but what about those who seek to work on actual shooting skills?

What about stages requiring 'neutralizing' no more than three targets?

So you want to test actual shooting skills, but not shoot more than three targets? One good thing about USPSA/IPSC matches is that, besides the qualifiers, you generally get to shoot a bunch -- like 2x the number of rounds at an IDPA match with the same number of stages.

What's the complaint about 30 round stages anyway? You'd hate 3Gun, since we often have 60+ round stages. Anything you can fit into a "2 target" stage, you can fit into a longer stage, and the shooter will need more versatile skills and problem solving ability to shoot it well.

By the logic that most defensive encounters are less than 8 rounds (or whatever), one could extend it to say that the average person never has a defensive encounter with a handgun, so why bother in the first place?

And by the way, in IPSC, every paper "shoot" target requires two hits, however, it is not true that every target requires multiple hits; steel targets do not.

Some one mentioned not all shooting situations start with a holstered gun. How about starting gun in hand from time to time; or gun in box or under pillow or in glove compartment? Maybe even unloaded in a closed box?

Set up stages to duplicate an actual event. The Miami shootout comes to mind as a team event, and it could be edited for a single shooter. After all, there were only two 'targets' in that whole scenario. The California Northridge Bank robbery could be interesting. Again, only two 'targets' (armed with fully automatic rifles, but only two.)

Again, these get away from a test of "actual shooting skills", which you bemoaned the lack of, and into scripted events more apt in a training event vs. a scored match. And if I want training, it will be from a BTDT with creds, not an ID*A range nazi. This is exactly the dilemma Monster detailed in his excellent post.

This concept is what makes IPSC and IDPA both lacking. Not the rules, but the stage design. By designing stages to test the shooter, the director has removed the advantage of the double stack pistol, or the laser sighting system, muzzle breaks and even metal seeking bullets.

There's nothing preventing a IPSC course of fire with a single target at 60 yards. If you think you've got some really killer, challenging stages, why not bring them to an established shooting organization instead of inventing yet another ID*A with poorly thought out rules?

The examples you gave directly prior to that paragraph (standards, school drills, and the 60 yard stage) intended to show that they test the shooting and not the equipment ironically would all be shot faster with a comp'd, double-stack pistol with a DoctorSight (optic) on it!

 

[Correia]

Agree with Zak.

I've got to chime in as a match director. I've seen complaints like Archie's plenty of times on the internet. The stages aren't realistic enough.

Well guess what? If I designed a match where every stage consisted of shooting at most two or three targets once or twice at under seven yards, it would be amazingly boring, and nobody would come to the next match.

The stage designer has to balance safety, fun, realism, challenge, and herding cats. We have to come up with forty or more stages a year that are hard, but not too hard, challenging for good shooters, but not impossible for new shooters, fun, but not too unrealistic, on and on and on.

First and foremost, most shooters come out to shoot. And if they can shoot a bunch, they are happy. Our 3gun matches run around 300 or more rounds between the three different guns. People will not drive an hour or more to come out and shoot three different targets at close range and then go home.

And for holsters vs. pocket, hey great for you. But remember what I said about balance? I can absofreakinglutely guarentee that if we allowed waistband or pocket carry, somebody would shoot themselves in the leg within three matches. If you are going to have a shooting sport that encompasses a huge number of people, you need a set of rules that encompasses the abilities and knowledge of that large of a group.

And if you can do a field course where you run cross country, fire fifty rounds, hit targets from conversational distance to way out there, and then some, your realistic stages are going to be a piece of cake. If I can run a stage where I can nail ten targets, why would suddenly a "realistic" one or two targets be more challenging.

And yes, I have done a shoot a target at 75 yards stage with a pistol. It was a lot of fun. Most of the shooters in my club were able to hit it in only a couple of shots. Silly gamers.

 

[SpookyPistolero]

A sprinter training for a meet doesn't just run one sprint in a training session because that's all he's going to run tomorrow, he does it over and over so that the real thing is small stuff by comparison.

For many, many reasons a high round count and lots of moving/reloading is great practice.

 

[vesmcd]

The handgun competitions we all participate in are GAMES. If you keep score, it's a game, Not practicle training. Everybody has their favorite game. I've been shooting IPSC (handgun and 3 gun)for 18 years. I have also shot skeet, trap, smallbore rifle,IDPA and , yes,IDSA. Len Baxley(IDSA originator) started shooting IPSC at my home club 1 year after me, so he's not a "Johnny-come-lately". He has a considerable amount of experience competing in IPSC and IDPA. After the recent IDPA rulebook fiasco, and subsequent uproar from the IDPA multitudes, Len decided to create a new gun game less restrictive than IDPA but not as segmented as IPSC(and easier to score).One of his goals is to have as few equipment rules as possible(KISS theory).He has consulted with me and numerous other experienced competitors to come up with a fast,fun, simple, safe gun game. It is a work in progress and some of the wrinkles are still being ironed out. If you prefer your game, fine. I like IPSC and IDSA( tho' I am still getting used to identifying the shoot targets, where are the white no-shoots?).Bottom line, don't flame some one elses game, as firearm owners/users we need to support each other.

 

[sturmruger]

Correia I couldn't agree with you more big stages are a ton of fun. While I am only shooting a USPSA Production gun I still enjoy shooting stages with 30+ plus rounds. The reloads are a pain, but can usually be done on the move. While small stages shot at 7 yards are fun for a while they get old in a hurry.

 

[Zak Smith]

Bottom line, don't flame some one elses game, as firearm owners/users we need to support each other.

This is a cop-out in that it is meant to squelch constructive criticism.

 

[OF]

Monster hit the nail about the fundamental issue here, and I agree. It's not possible to design a truly 'practical' defensive sport. Not going to happen. It's all a matter of degree from the goal and the goal is unachievable, for reasons outlined in Monster's post and some more good ones from Correia.

If your goal is to actually simulate a real defensive scenario, you're going to be disappointed. If your goal is to become a better shooter, develop your 'toolbox'-type skills that you can then take and use in your defensive training, then you will be rewarded.

And those who say that USPSA/IPSC is all $3000 handmade red-dot sighted race guns haven't been to a match lately...

- Gabe

 

[sturmruger]

Ditto what Gabe said. Many of the USPSA matches I shoot in the top two divisions are Production, and Limited.

 

[Genghis]

Classifying Pistols - Suggestion

I have an idea for classifying pistols that might move your rules closer to the real world. What if we eliminate all the classes, but adjust the final score for differences in guns and ammo?

We could take a shooter's raw score like USPSA and IDPA do now, then multiply it by a "equipment factor" based on dividing the power factor of the ammo by the gun's cost plus weight in grams. You could figure size in too, but loaded weight will be a rough approximation. A club could log in the info on one member's gun, then let him use the same equipment factor until he changes guns, changes ammo, or modifies the gun. You could have a standard power factor for commercial ammo of each caliber, for simplicity. That way if a new shooter shows up with a Colt Series 80 and Winchester ammo, you type in a set factor and send him out to shoot.

This would force shooters to balance the gun's performance (firepower, accuracy, capacity, and features) with its weight and cost. Do you buy the Glock, or spend the money on a hi-cap Para? Do you settle for the cheap, concealable .380, or lug around a hand cannon? If you're going to get a trigger job, it had better help you shoot better. Your final score will show how well you do with what you have.

You might also give awards for shooters who improve significantly, or improve over a period of time. You'd be comparing your current score against your past score, and after all, isn't it all about getting better?

 

[Zak Smith]

Administrative nightmare.
Need a chrono stage (or at least a chrono "station") at every match.
Taking cost into account is not practically possible, and it's impossible to enforce for "invisible" things like fixing reliability.

 

[Genghis]

One More Thing . . .

If you use the rule I proposed in the last post, some guns will rise to the top. I would guess that the fairly economical, well designed guns like Glocks would provide the most "bang for the buck" under those rules. I don't think someone with a $3500.00 race gun would have a prayer of shooting five times as well as a guy with a decent $500.00 gun.

So you might calibrate your rules by having people shoot with various types of guns with various features, weights, and costs, then equalizing things by adjusting the conversion factors. In other words, if ten grand masters shoot a bunch of different guns, the rules should adjust things so they come out with roughly the same scores when they shoot different types of guns.

If you worked it like this, the results of your matches might point to stuff that would work in the real world. For instance, if someone comes out with something new like the Rohrbaugh 9mm (billed as "the world's smallest and lightest 9mm handgun"), it might start kicking butt in your matches because it has features that work in the real world.

 

[Zak Smith]

Genghis,

I was not arguing against your rule per se, but just saying that there's no way to actually run a match like that and have scoring make any sense.

Examples--

If I buy a police trade-in Glock 17 for $300, should my cost divisor be $300, or the cost of a new Glock 17? That's a 50% difference in the divisor!

If I buy a cheap $300 1911, and I need to tweak the extractor, what's the cost? What if I have to polish the feed ramp or do some filing to get the thing running reliably? A trigger job? $300? $300 + shop rate for how long it took me? Do I need a quote from a real gunsmith to prove the cost?

If you worked it like this, the results of your matches might point to stuff that would work in the real world.

No it wouldn't, because of the dilemma MoNsTeR detailed. It will optimize for cheap pistols of light to moderate weight that can shoot moderate power factor ammo.

 

[Correia]

Genghis, when it comes to match rules, I totally believe in the KISS principle. Your idea, and I do not mean this as a personal snub in any way, would be a total and complete nightmare for those of us who run matches. No way would my club ever touch that with a ten foot pole.

And once again, factors like weight, cost, and even power level are all arguable about what is and is not the best. So to come up with a base number of what is or not acceptable, and what should be penalized is going to be impossible.

Like I said before, I really do often carry a 14 shot full size .45 and I'm a CCW instructor. So if it is reasonable for me to carry a powerful, 38 ounce gun daily, how come you guys have to carry itty bitty .380s? And then justify why on your system, when I beat you in the match by twenty seven seconds how come you actually win.