Is Shooting IDPA Training or Just Another Action Pistol Game?

[coolluke01]

If it was really "real world" practice I would bring my G26 instead of my G34. I do plan on shooting a few times with the G26 but I bought the G34 for shooting IDPA. Being that they are both Glocks and operate the same way, I do think I get benefit from my time shooting IDPA with the 34.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

For me, it's just a way to hone my shooting skills as opposed to standing at a shooting bench.
I'm sure if those paper targets were able to return fire, it wouldn't be all that much fun.
I shoot with my carry gun and holster in IDPA. It's made me a much better shooter. I don't care if I win, I just like the practice. {for what it's worth}

 

[Jeff22]

Is IDPA training? (IMHO, not exactly . . . )

Is Competitive Shooting relevant to self-defense? Is IDPA or IPSC competitive shooting a form of training? This question gets discussed a LOT on various shooting related internet forums.

When I discuss the "training" aspect of such matches, I guess what I really mean is that it's structured practice dealing with a variety of circumstances and challenges and it can make you better in marksmanship and gun handling. Neither discipline is "training" in a tactical sense.

I've been shooting IPSC/USPSA at the local level since 1978 and IDPA since 2001. I find a PPC match to shoot in once or twice a year. IMHO, IPSC and IDPA are best considered skill building exercises that have some training value and can be very entertaining. Any competitive event, of necessity, will not be able to duplicate the dynamics of a real gunfight.

But,depending upon the course of fire, there CAN be training value in the process, if you are shooting the IDPA classifier or an IPSC classifier that measures basic marksmanship and gun-handling skills. Some IPSC assault courses totally lack any connection to reality and are best avoided in my opinion, but classifiers and most IDPA courses of fire are at least semi-realistic in regard to the marksmanship challenges presented.

In such competitions I've usually used whatever my duty gun was at the time. Currently it's a Sig 226R-DAK in .40 cal. I shoot that gun in "production" class in USPSA and "stock service pistol" class in IDPA. Every year I do shoot for classification with a 1911A1 pattern pistol (in "single stack" and "custom defensive pistol" classes and I usually classify in stock service revolver in IDPA with a Smith & Wesson 15 and speedloaders.

I'm more interested in getting trigger time than in shooting the matches as a competitive activity. Of course, I'm not particularly fast, so if I WAS attempting to become the next USPSA champion, I'd be way out of luck . . .

In general I prefer the course design philosophy of IDPA. I shoot USPSA matches as well, depending upon what the courses of fire are for that particular club.

I particularly like the USPSA Classifiers and the IDPA Classifier match as methods to test basic skills. Also, several of the local IPSC clubs have LOTS more steel and movers and bobbers and so forth than what we have available at the police range, so the courses of fire they use on match days are much more innovative that what we can do during in-service training at the PD.

There was a similar discussion on one of the other forums a few years ago, and one poster had an interesting thought that kind of mirrors my philosophy -- he takes IDPA more seriously and competes in IPSC as a sort of structured practice session.

You'll get out of it what you put into it. Be safe and have fun with it. At the very least, shooting in matches can show you which skills to need to practice more . . .

Many clubs are now on the web and some clubs post the course descriptions for upcoming stages on their web site. If clubs near you do this, you'll find this to be very useful. I don't look at the courses of fire in advance to figure out a "game plan" on how to shoot the course, but rather to get an idea of what skills I might need to practice before the match. (practice strong hand only and weak hand only shooting to start with, and engaging multiple targets from behind high & low cover)

Also, some clubs are more practically oriented, and some have more members who shoot purely as a competitive activity (usually the IPSC shooters, BUT NOT ALWAYS) and by looking at posted courses of fire you can determine which orientation the club has and if the matches they run have any value for what you're trying to accomplish. (Sometimes I'll look at the posted courses for one of the local clubs and if three out of five stages are "run & gun" assault courses [which don't fit in with my philosophy very well] I'll just go do something else that day . . . )

 

[waktasz]

What is "training" anyway, in this context? Are we talking about drawing, reloading and shooting accurately and quickly? I know for sure, without a doubt, that my interest in the competition aspect of pistolcraft is the only reason I've put this much time in with a pistol. If there was no such thing as IDPA or USPSA I'd likely have a different hobby, and never have spent so much time practicing at the range because just standing still and shooting paper gets old pretty quick. IDPA and USPSA in and of themselves isn't training, but the amount of practice I put in in order to be good at them is.

IMO, tactics can be learned much faster than can the pistol manipulation skills that you learn via shooting and training for matches.

 

[twofifty]

IDPA as training?

Not really as it's a game.

But you do learn what a decent enough sight picture is, at various ranges.
You learn to quickly place center of mass shots where they do your score the most good. You learn to reload and carry on.

Imo there is something fundamentally practical to those skills.

 

[Gryff]

Game...wait, let me think about that...yep, it's a game. IT IS NOT TRAINING!

Granted, it is fantastic for honing your mechanics...drawing from a holster, sight acquisition, target transitions, reloads, malfunction clearance. It is also good because it is one of the rare opportunities to handle your weapon while under some sort of pressure (albeit only a timer).

But it also reinforces attitudes that will get you killed in a fight...expectation of knowing where and how many targets there are, targets that don't move and that will only provide a full silhouette to you, rushing through a situation.

IDPA is an attempt to create a game that has defensive principles as a foundation. But it is still a game. That's why it always cracks me when people say "compete with what you carry" and then whine when they don't win. Nothing wrong with using your carry gun, but generally a gun designed with concealed carry is not going to compare with a full-size 1911, 5" XD, or Glock 34, so you have to accept that you are playing the game with a disadvantage from the very start.

It's great shooting experience, but if you rely on it as a method of "gunfight" training, it is going to get you killed.

 

[Sam1911]

...but if you rely on it as a method of "gunfight" training, it is going to get you killed.

I hear that so often, but I still fail to see how practical that sentiment really is. Is anyone going to actually hear that "bump in the night" and think, "I'd better run out and engage a bunch of targets just like I did in the walkthrough?" Or expect to stand there on a dot and shoot mozambiques just like in the Classifier, when a seriously bad dude is presenting a lethal threat?

IF we were mechanical robots responding only to the programming written in during IDPA, USPSA, PPC, or whatever, that would be true. But I don't believe humans really work exactly like that. I don't think IDPA is writing in programming that will get anyone killed.

Rather, I see IDPA as writing in programming that can improve some of the intermediate-level shooting tasks that you might be called on to perform in a defensive situation. There are areas of defensive strategy where there are holes in that programming. Where an "IDPA education" is going to leave the practitioner to fill in the gaps in that programming as best as they can.

By the same token, though, you could look at Gunsite's 150 level or even 250 level defensive pistol classes and say the same thing -- if you address your gunfight through rote manipulation of these processes, it's going to get you killed. The education isn't complete. It may or may not adequately prepare you for the fight you really will have. You're going to have to fill in the holes as best as you can when your threat presents itself in its own unique way.

Whatever level of training and practice you have will prepare you to do things better than you would have otherwise. That may or may not be good "enough." More complete training will prepare you for a higher degree of complexity in engagements.

Fortunately, though, a great many defensive encounters are settled without a shot even being fired. And when a shot IS fired, a great many defensive encounters are positively concluded even though significant tactical mistakes were made by the defender. Each higher level of training (and practice) we avail ourselves of should reduce the number of mistakes we're likely to make in addressing a threat -- and the only reason higher levels of training exist is that some things presented at lower levels of training, if taken as rote, will "get you killed."

 

[BullfrogKen]

The education isn't complete. It may or may not adequately prepare you for the fight you really will have. You're going to have to fill in the holes as best as you can when your threat presents itself in its own unique way.

That's pretty much the limitation of training on any level.

The art of mastering a lethal fighting skill has existing for centuries. And although the weapons have changed, the way we learn them hasn't changed much since then. We can't have practitioners hacking on each other with swords; striking each other with full-power blows; or shooting at each other with live rounds to learn the art. So we do what we've done for centuries.


We break it down into manageable pieces that allow us to practice skills that - by design - don't result in training injuries. We'll practice live fire drills correctly and with precision to master fundamentals. And we'll practice skills quickly, under stress, and in a less structured manner designed to cement performing those fundamental tasks in a dynamic environment. We'll put away all the knives, guns, and baseball bats so we can practice Role Playing/Force on Force exercises, allowing us to see how an encounter evolves and learn to interact within it.



All this results in precisely what Sam said. The individual is going to have pieces of a gunfight that he'll have to put together if someday he finds himself in one. The goal of all that training does not pretend to make us a good gunfighter. What it does do is give us glimpses of the pieces. And just like putting a puzzle together, the physical and mental training hones our minds to recognize certain patterns. In the chaos the ability to recognize something similiar to our training, instantly know the next step, and immediately execute it is a tremendous advantage.


For me, IDPA gives me some of those pieces. While its not complete, nothing is.

 

[jmorris]

Quote:


...but if you rely on it as a method of "gunfight" training, it is going to get you killed.


I hear that so often, but I still fail to see how practical that sentiment really is.

Rule #1 in non lethal gunfights is that no one fires any rounds at all. All of the games require a shooting solution.

 

[Hangingrock]

Let me use this story as an analogy. I use to spar with a boxer when I was in the military. The reason the boxer liked to spar with me because I was left handed.

This boxer was a very good inner military service fighter and went to the Pan American Games and if memory serves me correctly a medalist in the Pan American games.

The boxer got into an altercation with for the lack of a better term a street fighter and the boxer got his bell rung.

The boxer probably thought he was prepared and could handle himself. I wonder if the games we play give us a false sense of security.

None the less with this topic respondent’s have made thoughtful replies.

 

[Sam1911]

The boxer probably thought he was prepared and could handle himself.

Ah ha, but against some young punk kid, he would have been dominant, using the skills he had honed in the ring. He just happened to meet someone who had BETTER skills.

It would be hard to argue persuasively that he got beaten BECAUSE he was a trained fighter. He just wasn't trained well enough for the challenge he faced that day.

There's many different levels of training, of practice, and of experience, in all martial arts.

Whatever level of training and practice you have will prepare you to do things better than you would have otherwise. That may or may not be good "enough." More complete training will prepare you for a higher degree of complexity in engagements.

 

[mgmorden]

Let me use this story as an analogy. I use to spar with a boxer when I was in the military. The reason the boxer liked to spar with me because I was left handed.

This boxer was a very good inner military service fighter and went to the Pan American Games and if memory serves me correctly a medalist in the Pan American games.

The boxer got into an altercation with for the lack of a better term a street fighter and the boxer got his bell rung.

The boxer probably thought he was prepared and could handle himself. I wonder if the games we play give us a false sense of security.

None the less with this topic respondent’s have made thoughtful replies.

All well and good, but I don't think its an apt comparison to compare the boxer to a "street fighter", but rather: do you think this guy did better than say, the local line cook who doesn't practice fighting at all?

My guess is yes. Sure, the guy with actual raw combat experience prevailed in your story, but realistically with firearms we can't legitimately go out and practice actual combat. As I said earlier in the thread - I don't even shoot IDPA. I'm a USPSA shooter and have no desire to do "combat" training anyways. I just find it find it funny that many people trot out the "competition will get you killed" line when a) as noted by Sam1911, people aren't really like robots that are going to respond to every situation as if they were running a match, and b) most of the people criticizing shoot static targets from a line.

 

[Hangingrock]

All well and good, but I don't think its an apt comparison to compare the boxer to a "street fighter", but rather: do you think this guy did better than say, the local line cook who doesn't practice fighting at all?

The point is the boxer was overconfident in his abilities.

 

[twofifty]

He may well have been overconfident, thinking that a few big wins in the ring meant he would prevail against all comers.

But he ran into the wrong guy, one of maybe a handful in that town who could drop him. That does not negate the fact that through years of training the man knew how to land a devastating punch, better than I ever could. With a boxing mindset, he probably didn't see the street fighter's kick coming at his head.

 

[Sam1911]

If the point is that shooting IDPA -- or taking various levels of training of lesser depth than ... whatever -- will lead you to be complacent and overconfident, well, I guess it could. Heck there's plenty of people who simply OWN a gun and decide then that they have a pretty good defense plan. Complacency is an issue all its own.

 

[Hangingrock]

It’s not my intent to be argumentative with the view point of others. What happened to the boxer was a reality check. We all may not be as good as we think we are.

To be honest the boxer used me as substitute punching bag during our sparing secessions. Thus I learned my limitations. Humility is a great teacher especially if we survive.

 

[GCBurner]

I shoot IDPA with the stock Glock 26 that's my usual carry gun, from my inside the waistband holster that I usually use. That keeps me from getting overconfident in my abilities.
As far as practical applications, the main things I get out of IDPA are being able to draw more smoothly from concealment, hit more consistently with my first shot, and reload or switch magazines without dropping or fumbling them too much. Those are the things I practice, and they have indeed improved from when I first started.

 

[Ankeny]

IDPA and USPSA in and of themselves isn't training, but the amount of practice I put in in order to be good at them is.

I agree. It seems to me folks can be really quick to offer up criticism of the value of the shooting sports without even understanding what it takes to shoot at the higher level of competition. Some of my favorite remarks include: "IPSC will get you killed". "I can beat (insert favorite world champion here) in a gunfight because I he ain't tacticool". The list goes on and on...

 

[sigpro2022]

That's pretty much the limitation of training on any level.

The art of mastering a lethal fighting skill has existing for centuries. And although the weapons have changed, the way we learn them hasn't changed much since then. We can't have practitioners hacking on each other with swords; striking each other with full-power blows; or shooting at each other with live rounds to learn the art. So we do what we've done for centuries.


We break it down into manageable pieces that allow us to practice skills that - by design - don't result in training injuries. We'll practice live fire drills correctly and with precision to master fundamentals. And we'll practice skills quickly, under stress, and in a less structured manner designed to cement performing those fundamental tasks in a dynamic environment. We'll put away all the knives, guns, and baseball bats so we can practice Role Playing/Force on Force exercises, allowing us to see how an encounter evolves and learn to interact within it.



All this results in precisely what Sam said. The individual is going to have pieces of a gunfight that he'll have to put together if someday he finds himself in one. The goal of all that training does not pretend to make us a good gunfighter. What it does do is give us glimpses of the pieces. And just like putting a puzzle together, the physical and mental training hones our minds to recognize certain patterns. In the chaos the ability to recognize something similiar to our training, instantly know the next step, and immediately execute it is a tremendous advantage.


For me, IDPA gives me some of those pieces. While its not complete, nothing is.

Well said.

I taught myself to weld. How? by reading How-to books on welding. Did I receive any training? NO. I taught myself. Did I become proficient? Well, I began to sell the items that I had made including trailers for hauling 4 wheelers. How did I do this without training? Practice, Practice, Practice.

My father gave me my first handgun, an H&R 929 .22cal revolver when I was 15 years old. He taught me proper and safe gun handling methods. I then taught myself to shoot, without any formal training only by practice, 1000's of rounds. Many things require training some only require that you practice.
IDPA give me that practice. All I want to do after pulling my weapon from my CC holster, is hit what I aim at every time. IDPA has given me that ability. Was it training or practice? I don't care. It gave me what I wanted, the ability to quickly, safely draw my weapon, to be aware of what is behind my target and then hit my target. Practice.
Not to mention is loads of fun.

 

[CatsEye]

There have been a lot of good points made in this discussion. Is IDPA training? Well in a sense it is and then again it's not. Until you get into advance tactical shooting classes, what do they teach you to do? Most I have experience with teach you to draw from concealment and to get good quick hits. They teach you to manipulate your weapon under stress. The shooting sport do the same. I think most of us who shoot competition think that if you truley want to be prepared you should seek more advanced training.

Sam's statement that complacency is an issue all its own reminded me of something a new guy said after his first match one day. He was middle aged and had owned guns his whole life. He went to the range every couple of weeks to shoot. I asked him what he thought after the match that day and what he said made me laugh. He said, I learned that if I actually had to use my gun in self defense I might as well throw it at them because I obviously couldn't hit them any other way. He kept coming back and is becoming a decent shooter. I think he is less "over confident" now than before.

If the "it will get you killed" thing is true then how do race car drivers make it through life having to drive in the real world? For me, I know the difference between the sport of shooting and a real life encounter. I wouldn't dream of clearing my house in the same manner that I run a stage. I do know that if I ever have to use my weapon for self defense it will be with far superior skills than I had before starting IDPA.

 

[Bovice]

For me, I know the difference between the sport of shooting and a real life encounter. I wouldn't dream of clearing my house in the same manner that I run a stage. I do know that if I ever have to use my weapon for self defense it will be with far superior skills than I had before starting IDPA.

This is it. You would never rush a situation in the real world for the sheer sake of faster time. We would all take our time slicing the pie on each corner instead of doing a quick lean outward. We would also make much more effort of not crowding cover or corners. At least I hope so. Maybe my assumptions aren't valid since I do both traditional training and IDPA. Those are the things that really stick out as being different, besides having a possibility of bullets coming back. Somebody once said not to make it a gunfight, make it a shooting, and control the outcome.

 

[easyrider604]

Back in the early 90s, I knew of a gentleman who was into IPSC. One day when this fellow arrived home from work and was waiting for his gate to open, a kidnap-for-ransom gang tried to kidnap him. He drew his compensated 1911 45acp and was able to extricate himself from a potentially fatal (for him, since kidnap victims were freed as often as they were killed by their captors, regardless of whether ransom was paid or not) hostage situation, in the process wounding or killing at least 3 of his assailants who promptly fled.

So in the case of this gentleman, did his IPSC training help him? Training in the skillful handling and use of firearms, yes for sure. Explicit training in tactics? Perhaps not in the real life sense of say SWAT or Self Defense Training. I would venture to say that the problem solving skills honed in the many IPSC courses of fire and stages probably helped this fellow survive. A gun owner who never participated in these IPSC or IDPA games would probably suffer a tragic ending.

It is up to the individual to use his mental ability to utilize whatever tools he has at his disposal in time of need. A person's mental ability and fortitude is the key here. A smart man with presence of mind and coolness under pressure, like the hero in the above story, will probably acquit himself better than somebody who has undergone training but was not mentally prepared to recognize and deal with a situation that has gone from safe to life-threatening in an instant.

One's best weapon is his mind. The gun is simply a tool.

 

[Longhorn 76]

One really good thing about IDPA is it forces you to evaluate your equipment.
It is one thing to have a failure to feed at the range, where you clear it, think nothing about it, and continue to shoot.

IDPA makes it very obvious that the "special" pistol you carry everyday is completely deficient, the holster is trash, that cheap ammunition really sucks, and you are completely inept at any kind of reload.

 

[CatsEye]

That is a very important point Longhorn. I can't tell you how many times I have seen new shooters show up at a match with their "home defense" gun only to find that it is very unreliable. Many times being under the clock makes people much more aware of these issues than the same thing happing at a normal range.

 

[dsb1829]

It is a game. The premise of IDPA is good, however IME it isn't the guy drawing his EDC from a true CC holster that wins. Heck that guy isn't usually in the top 10. Nope, the top3-5 are guys running full size guns, fast access OWB holsters, and light reloads. If you are not running a similar setup you don't have a chance of winning the game.

That said it is good practice in varied conditions.