IDSA in the works check it out

[Genghis]

Response

I have only been shooting in IPSC and IDPA since February, and I haven't yet helped design or set up stages. I defer on the issue of how much of a hassle the rule would be. But I'd like to see matches run and scoring kept using PDA's, so we could score things instantly. Maybe computers can make the whole thing workable. All you'd have to do is type in the shooter's time and points for the stage, then let the computer do the calculations and rank everyone.

You'd have to chrono everyone in major matches, but you could rely on the honor system for minor ones.

Monster said, "When you choose a carry gun, rig, and ammo, you're balancing shootability, concealability, comfort, effectiveness, and other factors. When you choose a competition gun, you're simply maximizing shootability within the ruleset."

This proposal would force the shooter to weigh these factors. Now the only way they come into play is by forcing the shooter into various divisions. Some of these results are a bit ridiculous, like the fact that an out of the box Taurus 8-shot ported .357 can't be used in IPSC or IDPA. Or the rules push you into the same class as Han Solo, which is crazy. If people are buying these off the shelf and carrying them, why should the sport bar them but allow race guns or $2,000.00 custom 1911's?

Monster: ". . . you want competitors to select their own optimum, taking into account all relevant factors. . . you can't score people objectively on how concealable, comfortable, and effective their choices are . . ."

I like trigger time, regardless of the variations. So I'm going to IPSC, IDPA, and steel matches. But it would be nice to see rules that enhance the purposes of the sport.

 

[Genghis]

Response

The cost factor is an interesting question. My first response would be, "So what?" If one guy gets a better deal, then let him enjoy the benefits. But then you'd have the guy who got one as a Christmas present coming to shoot. You might have to standardize things in the end, or assign some standard value if the gun isn't bought retail.

Reloading complicates things, too. If you outlawed it, you could just assign a power factor based on a standard commercial load, but that would inconvenience a lot of people.

A shooter doing his own gun work is another problem that would require some more complexity in the rules. If you're a gunsmith, then use whatever you would charge a customer. If not, then I don't know what to do.

Reliability shows up in scoring, just like it does now. If your gun isn't reliable, then you'll take longer to shoot the courses.

In response to Zak, if the rules reflect the real world, then maybe a cheap pistol of light to moderate weight that can shoot moderate power factor ammo is the balance of those concerns. Penalizing for weight and cost may not be a perfect system, but it would encourage smaller, lighter guns (just like the need to conceal the gun encourages them in the real world. And it would encourage less expensive guns (just like your wife does in the real world). But it would let you choose bigger, more expensive guns if their performance justified the tradeoff.

 

[Zak Smith]

I mentioned reliability as something that is not externally visible nor really "provable" but is often done by somebody in their basement with some stones or buffing compound. If I buy a $250 POS and put 20 hours of TLC into it to get it on par with the reliability of a $700 out of box pistol, can I still claim $250? (It's rhetorical - you see the point.)

Nothing is stopping anybody from shooting IPSC with your carry gun. Sure, your pistol probably won't be optimized for the rules, but you're shooting your carry gun instead of a comp gun because you want to learn, right?

 

[Correia]

Genghis, trust me on this one. We already use computerized scoring for tabulation, and even with that, your proposal is an absolute nightmare of epic proportions. Simple is good. Complex turns shooters off. Our job is to put on a good match that people enjoy, get something out of, and most importantly come back for. Arbitrary and complicated rules do not help any of those goals. It is hard enough getting people into one of four classes in 3gun matches without massive confusion and arguments.

Once again, I carry a big, heavy, powerful, high cap gun. I do it all of the time. I shoot my carry gun in competition. I carry my competition gun. By your logic why should people like me be penalized for carrying a more effective weapon? If you can't carry a full size gun because of the weight, get a better belt and a better holster. If you are jealous because somebody else's gun costs more, get a better paying job, or practice until you can whoop them. (by the way that is a good feeling).

Like I said, I teach CCW. I know what people carry. I know what people use. Giving bonus points for shooting an itty bitty gun encourages the WRONG behavior. When I teach, I encourage my students to pack the most powerful, and more importantly, shootable gun that they can effectively hide. I want my students to shoot IDPA or IPSC, and then compare those good guns to their itty bitty guns, and come away thinking, "dang, I shoot a lot better with this real gun, I'm going to carry a better gun."

If you shoot the gun that is ten ounces heavier better, then go with it. As a match director, it isn't my place to make up arbitrary rules about what is and is not effective in the "real world" according to my own personal interpretation.

 

[Correia]

And one other thing, outlawing reloading?????!!??!!!!!

Do you have any idea how many of the good shooters reload their own ammo? Probably the vast majority. The guys that make master do so by shooting hundreds, or possibly thosands of rounds a month in practice, and several thosand a year just in matches. Reloading your own ammo is the only way that the vast majority of good shooters can get to the point that they can afford to shoot that much.

And let me kick this dead horse one more time, I carry my handloads. Same ones I use in competition. So there. Score that.

 

[faustulus]

But it would be nice to see rules that enhance the purposes of the sport.

I thought the sole purpose was to have fun.

I always look at a match like a round of golf. There are other golfers, yes, but the real competition is between me and the course. Since I don't play golf, shooting sports are my outlet. I can come in dead last and as long as I had fun, it was a good day. (conversely I can win and not have had fun and it was a wasted day.)

like the fact that an out of the box Taurus 8-shot ported .357 can't be used in IPSC or IDPA

It is legal in USPSA in open division, infact you would have to look pretty hard to find a gun that was not legal in open.

 

[Zak Smith]

I'd venture to say that for anything besides minor PF 9x19, the only people who can afford to shoot factory ammo are already top shooters with ammo sponsors and not enough time to load their own.

 

[Morgan]

Zak sez:

Nothing is stopping anybody from shooting IPSC with your carry gun. Sure, your pistol probably won't be optimized for the rules, but you're shooting your carry gun instead of a comp gun because you want to learn, right?

Exactly.

I carry and compete with a USP45. Since it only carries 13rds it isn't competitive in Limited, but it, and pretty much any autoloader, can be competitive in Limited-10. Just download the mag to 10 and go have fun.

 

[vesmcd]

Ya' know, after shooting various forms of firearm competition over 40 years, I have found out that all the rules,handicaps and expensive equipment won't turn a mediocre shooter into a winner. A top level shooter in any gun game can swap gear with you and still beat you like a drum, unless you are normally right on his coat tails or your gun just doesn't run.I know this, I am a mediocre shooter and have been beaten with my own gun.I agree with the points put forth by Morgan,Correia,Zak and Faustulus. From my own point of view, as a retired match director( unless I have to do it, I guess an M/D never REALLY retires), I think fewer "nit pickin' " rules would make a match a lot more fun.

 

[bradvanhorn]

Lots of interesting points; thought I'd add some random thoughts...

I haven't competed much, but I found that a lot of common sense usually went a long way to making rules more acceptable. In other words, the clubs where I shot wasn't strictly adhereing to certain rules (per IDPA or IPSC), such as holster and pistol requirements, but it didn't seem to matter to most of us. Doing so allowed everyone to shoot and enjoy themselves without being subjected to too many "silly" rules.

Where I see the problem with any "sport" shooting event is there is inherent competition; someone will "win". And, those who shoot to win for the express purpose of wanting to win (and there are quite a few in this category) will always complain about restrictive rules, or complain about opponents adherence to those rules (while most likely trying to bend those rules themselves). It then turns into a he said/she said thing where competitors argue over mag capacity, holster position, air gunning, not using enough cover, the relationship of the sun and the moon, or whatever. All because someone wants to win, and not because it mimics "reality".

Here's my vision... "You got your gun? holster? ammo? O.k. behind that door are the 'bad guys', go have fun." (This is much like the one steel challenge match I shot.) As long as the range is run safely, I could really care less how someone else is drawing, shooting, reloading, etc.

 

[Archangel]

I've been out of this thread for a while, but I think I'll jump back in.

I thought about the system I proposed some more, based on what Zak said about the matches needing to be feasible. I agree, and I think what I was suggesting would be easier than you might think.

First off, you don't need to chrono everyone's loads. There are club level IPSC (and I'm sure IDPA as well) matches run all the time where PF is on the honor system. No reason you can't do the same thing here. If someone knows their approximate MV or IPSC power factor, use that. Otherwise, use a pre-determined factory average. Sure, it might take a little research to make up a chart of those factory averages, but you only have to do it once. Publish it in your rulebook, and you're done with it.

As for the whole big equation, you anly need to do it once, at sign up, to determine how many points per target that shooter needs to incapacitate a target.

Here's the equation again, just so you don't need to go looking for my other post.

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

or, written differently:

612,000 for inch calibers, 15,300,000 for metric
--------------------------------------------------= pts needed per target
bullet weight x muzzle vel. x bullet diameter

So, for an example.

John B. signs up for the match. He'll be shooting factory 230gr .45ACP. A quick look at the chart of factory standard velocities shows 825fps for that load. So:

612000
--------------- = 7.167
230 x 825 x .45

John needs 8 points per target to incapacitate. The signup person writes "8" in the appropriate space on John's scoresheet, takes his money, and says "next."

Next up is Gaston G., shooting 9mm reloaded to an IPSC power factor of 135.
(ok, so Gaston wouldn't really be shooting reloads. Its just an example. )

15,300,000
----------- = 12.593
135000 x 9

Gaston needs 13 points per target to incapacitate.

Scoring would go something like this:

RO: "unload and show clear, etc, etc. Time: 12.48. How many we need?"
Scorekeeper, glances at scoresheet: "He needs 8"
RO: "8, ok, T1 is good, T2 is good, T3.... Only 4 points on T3. John, you're dead. Next shooter up..."


Does that sound any more appealing explained that way, or still too complex?

 

[Zak Smith]

Complete nightmare. Scoring a field of USPSA/IPSC targets is hard enough without getting errors, especially when the score sheet doesn't have enough target lines for the number of targets on this stage. Mental math on the clock is very error prone.

Many big 3Gun matches have gone to simply 1A or 2B-D scoring to simplify the math and make scoring targets faster.

Having to add up points on each target while scoring and then compare to a per-shooter requirement would be a nightmare. I virtually guarantee a third of the scoresheets would have errors.

If we can to get all technical about it, what relation does your "IR" have to actual incapacitation? Surely none of the contemporary research on terminal ballistics came up with that I.R. Hell, they just test everything in gel to quantify terminal effects without computing anything a priori.

 

[Genghis]

Look what I stirred up . . .

This idea comes from an old board game called Car Wars. It was like Mad Max with dice. The game let you build cars with various weapons and other components, with set prices. You then compete in combat on maps with the other players. The arena matches included different divisions based on the cost of the car; for example, Division 25 was for vehicles costing $25,000.00 or less. So you could build and compete with whatever you want, as long as you stayed under the spending limit for your division. If a $15,000.00 cannon on a cheap little vehicle can take out a lightly armed van with loads of armor, then so be it.

I am not proposing outlawing reloading. We have to let people reload, but doing so complicates the rules by making it possible for some people to manipulate them.

The idea is not to penalize bigger, better guns, but to adjust things to let everyone compete. The current rules separating guns into classes do the same thing, by preventing someone with a big, effective gun from competing against someone with a smaller, more concealable one.

In response to Faustulus, saying that the sole purpose is to have fun allows the organizers to deflect arguments about the real world. But we aren't just playing an abstract game here. Many people shoot for proficiency because they might have to use their skills and their guns in the real world. Thus the use of the words "Practical" and "Defensive" in the organization's names. That's why we don't stand at a measured distance, with a one-hand grip, and calmly punch holes in paper. Hopefully everyone would agree that there is a benefit to making IPSC and IDPA, or a new practical shooting sport, more like the real world.

Another motivation is competition. People like to win things and to take home bragging rights. We don't give out certificates for participation. It's not a sport unless you keep score. This motivates us to improve. And there is a practical benefit to keeping score, because it lets you see if you've improved.

 

[Correia]

Genghis, you are talking about the goal being practicallity, but you are advocating adopting a system based upon a role playing board game with monster cars or something. And something that every single good shooter does (reloading) is bad because it further complicates a rule set that is simply unworkable and drastically complicated to begin with.

The people disagreeing with you have decades of combined experience actually shooting in or running matches, populated with real live human shooters. Are you noticing a trend in the disagreements yet?

I'm done.

 

[Zak Smith]

Lemme just add one more thing here, and it's not meant as a criticism of "your game", but just a statement of my preferences--

I want challenging stage design, moderate to high round count, "freestyle" shooting (ie minimal instructions), and straightforward rules.

USPSA/IPSC has set the bar IMO to which other practical pistol games are compared, so I have to wonder, would I get more out of shooting YADPPG (Yet Another Defensive Practical Pistol Game) or shooting my carry gun at a USPSA/IPSC match?

-z

 

[bradvanhorn]

...would I get more out of shooting YADPPG (Yet Another Defensive Practical Pistol Game) or shooting my carry gun at a USPSA/IPSC match?

I like this question... I'm planning to do the later option myself. Now if only I could settle on just one carry gun

I'm going to digress for a second, but here's something I've never heard before. I went to a fairly popular range last weekend and asked about IDPA/USPSA or similar action shooting events. I was told, "Yeah, we used to do IPSC-type matches here, but not anymore." I said, "Oh really? Why'd you quit, not enough interest?" The man replied, "Oh not at all; we had 'too many' shooters show up, and the matches would take all day. Some of our range members complained about the matches using too much range time, so we just quit having them." I couldn't believe my ears...

 

[Genghis]

I'm not coming into these sports and trying to change things after a couple of months. Shooting in these matches for two or three months hasn't given me enough knowledge to make changes, even if I had the power to do so. But that will not stop me from questioning the existing rules and discussing ideas for how some of these issues might be handled differently.

Experience certainly counts for a lot, but the systems are not perfect. I'm sure every experienced competitor could suggest a number of changes to the rules that he'd like to see. And even experienced shooters get set in their ways. Even new shooters can come up with an occasional good idea.

I shoot in IPSC, IDPA, and steel matches now, and if the IDSA or YADPPG gets organized in my area, I'll probably show up at their matches too. The fun and the practice I get at these matches outweighs any possible nit-picking about the rules.

 

[Jim Watson]

Brad, I got a complaint like that one time: "Why should a couple of dozen people tie up the range for most of a Saturday every month?" I and the rest of the club officers just ignored him.

Well we did decide to get by on half the range on our shoot that falls on opening day of deer season. It is a real hoot to be out there in a pistol match and the hunters coming in around 10:00am to sight in. I figure that late, they have already been in the woods and missed one because they haven't fired their gun in a year.

 

[faustulus]

Hopefully everyone would agree that there is a benefit to making IPSC and IDPA, or a new practical shooting sport, more like the real world.

In the real world I am unlikely to ever need to draw my gun, much less shoot it. And if I did it is likely that the whole thing would be over in less than six seconds and take less than four shots.

I'll take the 32-round house of zombies stage anyday.

Heck I am wanting to shoot cowboy action just because of how much fun it would be. Nothing remotely tactical or pratical about that, but it sure looks like a blast (pun intended)