Training Question (edit - IPSC/IDPA competition worthwhile for training?)

[dawg23]

Comment #1: I've never seen a gun forum where the moderators engage so heavily in debates.

Comment #2: This is from Massad Ayoob:

The Crucible Of Competition
American Handgunner, Nov, 2000 by Massad Ayoob
There is no direct correlation between qualification scores and gunfight survival results, but there is a stark and direct correlation for those officers who shoot competition with handguns. Jim Cirillo of NYPD Stakeout Team noticed it, Border Patrol noticed it, and only those with their own peculiar agendas to advance manage to blind themselves to it.

Cops who have shot a lot in competition are overwhelmingly more likely to win actual gunfights, and to have a hit ratio in the field hugely higher than their brother officers who have not been in a match. The reason is simple: handgun competition inures you to shooting under stress. When the fight-or-flight reflex hits, those without this conditioning often break under stress. For those who have this conditioning, stress with a gun in their hand has become the norm.

Right now, IDPA is probably the best. Diverse scenarios require distinguishing shoot and no-shoot targets, movers, knock-downs, bad light shooting, use of flashlights, shooting while moving and, above all, use of cover and shooting targets in tactical order. The latter means simply that instead of standing out in front of God and the undertaker to shoot at three "armed attackers," you take cover and engage each, one at a time, from a position in which you'd be protected from the fire of his companions.

Comment #3: Not knowing any more than I do about the posters here (except that one or two acknowledge they have never shot competitively), I'll take Jim Cirillo's opinion and Ayoob's opinion over some of the argumentative, dogmatic posts on this this thread.

p.s. If you start a new thread, feel free to move my comments there if you wish to.

 

[GoRon]

Cops who have shot a lot in competition are overwhelmingly more likely to win actual gunfights

Cops are also more likely to have been trained in proper tactics so their competition might fall under the category of marksmanship training. Meanwhile tactical training prepared them to properly evaluate the situation and have the proper mindset.

It shouldn't be surprising that the cops who are avid shooters have better hit ratios.

If a LEO is training properly and then also adds to it occasional competitions then the competition is probably going to be beneficial.

What about the folks who don't get good tactical training? The only "training" they have is their competition where they may learn some very bad habits.

This thread and questions I've asked of some of the folks I shoot with has made me realize how fortunate I am. I had the chance to start practical pistol shooting under the direction of someone who not only believes in good tactics but knows of that which he speaks. Also I get the opportunity to shoot with him and others who share his philosophy a couple/few times a month.

 

[10-Ring]

The nice thing about IDPA is that you get a taste of shooting under pressure, you get to learn to use cover & you're shooting at targets that aren't just lined up down a lane. Plus, its a ton o' fun

 

[Walt Rauch]

Gentlemen(and ladies of course);

Let me add the already published column below to the mix of this debate of Games v. Real World training. I also note any organized competition, regardless of the sport is stressful; so much so that it is simply avoided by folks who do not care for this exposure. (Denial is not just a river in Egypt!)

Next and to take look at but one example - officers found dead with brass in their pockets -and make the leap this purported act was the immediate (and with the implication that it alone) was the cause of their deaths is, most kindly put, intellectually shallow. If one takes the time to examine the facts and circumstances of the incident(and others) you'll find other factors much more the causes of the failed engagement. (To name but one in the example, not making good hits when the balloon went up!)

I've known and shot with a number of LE who have shot and continue to shoot IPSC and IDPA and win matches! Not one saw either as detrimental to their self defense.

The LE I personally know include Federal Air Marshals, DEA and FBI Special Agents, Deputy Sheriffs, state and local police officers.

Others who look for and find the "elephant" are the private Security Contractors who work in hot zones within and outside the USA. The two sports also have both active and former US Military who are GI Joes- officers and enlisted as well as the more highly trained "operators".

Walt Rauch


GUNFIGHTING, GUNS AND GEAR (Column, Combat Handguns )
By Walt Rauch

The shooting contests of the United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) and the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) do not provide training in the use of firearms for self defense. Every detractor who has pointed this out is 100% correct!

No, I’ve not had a “struck down on the road to Damascus” moment, I’m simply restating what I think many of the founders, presidents and directors of both USPSA and IDPA recognized – the existence of anti-paramilitary training laws. And when they did, made great efforts to insure that the two sports were seen as additions to already-recognized shooting sports. Along with this, by insuring that there was no training in the use of arms, they allowed every member to be comfortable knowing that by his membership and participation, he was demonstrating his commitment to the highest levels of responsible gun ownership as well as not being part of, nor supporting, any part of the lunatic fringe. (Before going any further, my comments here are mine alone. I do not speak for anyone connected with either sport.)

Many of today’s readers were not even born or legally able to possess a gun in 1982 when USPSA was created to be the formal USA representative to the world body of the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC). Back then, and I fear this is now again being brought to the fore, a great hue and cry was raised about the existence of secret “commando camps,” where wannabe mercenaries and so-called “militia” groups received training with firearms in a militaristic manner. The camps, the wannabees and the militia groups did (and do so now) indeed exist and trained with arms in a manner that amounted to small-military-unit tactics. (Also, and not surprisingly, those against whom these militias directed their focus sometimes responded in kind by forming their own armed organizations with similar training.)

All these groups shared commonalities other than their use of arms, secrecy and selectivity of members: They adopted some sort of distinctive clothing. Some opted for the camouflage look, others chose bed sheets and pillowcases, while yet others wore berets and/or armbands. Distinctive hair styles were also part of the costume. They all were armed and held organized training events in anticipation of “when the day came.”

Don’t misunderstand me, though. These types were and are dangerous. They torture, rob and murder for a multiplicity of reasons, but all done in the name of the cause to be sure. (Does any of this sound eerily familiar?) Our government officials – federal, state and local – were not asleep at the switch. They enforced exiting laws and when gaps were found that restricted these legal efforts, they were quickly plugged with new laws. These laws are still on the books and are available for use at any time.

Now, with the above in mind, let’s look at one simple rule in USPSA: “No camouflage clothing allowed.” In the early 1980s, wearing cammo was not common. For vets, it was much more the norm to see them wearing their “memento” jacket...a washed-out GI OD-green one issued to them long ago. But the “fruit loops” wore cammo as their uniform de jour and to “make a statement,” as well as T-shirts with such idiotic sayings as “Kill ‘em all; let God sort ‘em out!” (Seeing this anti-gun “photo-op” running in national media was not, and is not now, hard to imagine.) Sure, at the local level, many of us had (and still have) no problem telling someone to either lose their rags or take a hike, but not everyone is willing to be so confrontational absent an official rule. Thus the “no cammo” rule.

Addressing the issue of neither IDPA nor USPSA providing training, I direct your attention to first, the IDPA Official Rule Book (April 15, 2005), page 1, second paragraph, “...The founders developed the sport so that practical gear and practical guns may be used competitively.” Continuing to the next paragraph, “The main goal is to test the skill and ability of the individual...” (Emphasis added by author.) And in the IPSC rule book, on the first page under PRINCIPLES OF PRACTICAL SHOOTING: Number 4. “Practical competition is a test of expertise in the use of practical firearms and equipment.” (Emphasis added in the original.)

I’m not a lawyer, but I can read a Crimes Code. (And do an internet search for “anti-paramilitary” and “anti-militia” laws.) Since I live in Pennsylvania, I turned to the PA Crimes Code, Title 18, section 5515: Prohibiting of Paramilitary Training. “... (b) Prohibiting training
(1) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other persons the use, application or making of any firearm, explosive or incendiary device or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

(2) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with or being instructed in the use of any firearm...., said person intending to employ unlawfully the same for use in or in furtherance of a civil disorder commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Then (d) Excluded activities. – nothing contained in this section shall make unlawful...any hunting club, rifle club, rifle range, pistol range, shooting range or other program or individual instruction intended to teach the safe handling or use of firearms...or other weapons or techniques employed in connection with lawful sports or other lawful activities. (Emphasis added by author.)

My read is self-defense training can done, but within limits which are not well defined. Therein lies the rub: Who makes the definition? My intent here is certainly not to create yet another “monster under the bed,” but as one of the founders and then an official of both USPSA and IDPA, I did not want the sports to have the slightest hint of providing paramilitary training. To read this law as did many others and say, “Well, they didn’t mean us,” is at the best not too bright and at worst, irresponsible to the gun world as a whole.

The previously-described sects have, for now, been pushed out of the 24/7 news cycle, but there have been snippets of mention of alleged terrorists training in the U.S. I think now, even more than back then, the Practical Shooting sports must maintain their founding postures, as noted earlier, which is to “test defensive skills in a sporting environment.” Our firearms heritage, the right to possess and to use arms for self defense is at stake. Responsible gun owners, USPSA and IDPA members included, must continue safeguarding and preserving our rights!

As I finished this, the following was sent to me via E-mail, excerpted from a regional newspaper, regarding increased gang activity: “...What the experts told us back a few years ago is that it will start with the gangs marking and spraying their spots. Then you will see ...gang activity, and then ... the turf wars. That’s happening in ...... where factions of the Bloods, called ‘sets,’ have been involved in a power struggle that left many people dead. The sets in the struggle are called ‘Sex, Money, Murder’ and ‘Gangster Killer Bloods.’ Sex, Money, Murder has its own promotional recruiting video on DVD, ...... The shocking segment of the video for ... police shows self-proclaimed gang members firing ‘two to the chest, one to the head’ of a paper target at the (commercial) pistol range in (xxxx) Township.” (Identifiers deleted by writer.)

Reading this, I don’t see where applying the above-quoted anti-paramilitary training laws would be much of a stretch. (And no, the gang members were not taking part in a Practical Shooting contest, but it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to see the possibility of this occurring!)"

 

[Jeff White]

Walt Rauch said;

Next and to take look at but one example - officers found dead with brass in their pockets -and make the leap this purported act was the immediate (and with the implication that it alone) was the cause of their deaths is, most kindly put, intellectually shallow. If one takes the time to examine the facts and circumstances of the incident(and others) you'll find other factors much more the causes of the failed engagement.

I think you should re-read the entire thread and then put my comments in context of the discussion. I never once indicated that dead officers found with brass in their pockets was the cause of the Newhall tragedy. It was an example of how habits we train ourselves in on the range somehow find their way out on to the street. A professional trainer would have been able to see the point that was made. Do you deny that people default to their training under stress? That show a rather shallow understanding of training methodology and how it relates to a real fight.

The issue here is if gaming is training. And it isn't. Are there skills that are practiced in games that are the same ones used in a fight? Yes. Is competetion in IPSC or IDPA all one needs to do to train for conflict? NO! Is it possible that if all of your training consists of IPSC nd IDPA or PPC shooting that you may subconsciously carry range habits to the fight (as happened at Newhall)? Yes.

People are often impressed by throwing words like operator, federal air marshal, DEA around. Those people are not endowed by the creator with fanciful tactical skills at birth, they got the skill they have through hard work at training just like every other soldier or cop. The thing that makes a member of a top tier military or police organization is the amount of resources expended in their training. That's right it's money. An equivalent amount of time and ammunition and instruction spent on your local PD or even your average CCW holder will result in a similar result.

The fact is, there are few high speed, low drag, top secret training techniques out there. The people who are really good, and I know some of them personally, are really, really good at the basics because that's what they spend countless hours training at.

Jeff

 

[TxD11]

RE: ShakleMeNot Post #27
Did you get any info on the IPSC shooter that got killed using bad tactics?
Thanks.

 

[Walt Rauch]

OK,

 

[Walt Rauch]

PM sent. Gentleman to gentleman.

 

[Correia]

Jeff, BF Ken, I've got to but heads with you guys on this one.

Now hear me out. As for background, I shoot a lot of competition, but I also train whenever possible, and I've had the opportunity to work with and learn from some extremely competant instructors. I also have more hours on a FATS type system than most police officers. (it helps to have one to rent out in your gunstore). I've done force on force, and done okay.

I don't think that any of the competition shooters on this board are saying that IPSC or IDPA are pure training. None of us are that stupid.

But the fact of the matter is that comp guys shoot better...

Don't get offended, this is where I'm coming from.

I'm a CCW instructor. The average student I get through the doors has an embarassingly low level of skill. Oftentimes we're starting from a baseline of zero here.

The vast majority of them don't train on their own, don't even think about it, and haven't put any sort of time in to anything other than slowfire marksmanship on the square range. Now they want to carry a gun.

If I can get them to shoot IDPA for even a handful of matches, they will shoot about 110% better than the average CCW holder.

We tend to think in terms of operators, and HSLD kinds of folks, but in truth, most gun people can't shoot worth a damn. Though in instructing them, most regular gun people think they can shoot great. Competition guys can shoot.

Now for mindset, I've got hairdressers that shoot IDPA that wouldn't bat an eye to cave someone's skull in. I've seen police officers who (in my opinion) were too tactically incompetant to be allowed out of the office. Mindset is an individual thing. There are people out there who've never touched a gun who have a fighting mindset, and there SF officers who are useless sacks of crap who've made a career out of shuffling paperwork who wet themselves at hearing a loud noise. (we both know folks like that I'm sure )

Mindset is totally seperate from competition.

As for ingraining bad habits, when I'm training, or running a class, or just out shooting for fun, I don't wait for a buzzer to shoot, and I don't automatically unload my gun as soon as I'm done, even though I've done it 10,000 times in matches.

I would like to think that if I'm smart enough to carry a lethal weapon, and make split second decisions on whether I'm justified in killing somebody, that I would be smart enough not to unload and automatically reholster after I shoot somebody.

Every type of training has a weakness.

1. Games - tons of weaknesses, already pointed out. Artificial environment. Limited problem solving. 2 shots works everytime. etc.
2. Gun Skool - expensive, hard for many people to attend. And even if you do manage to do this a couple of times a year, you have to keep your skills up somehow.
3. Video simulators - I love them, actual decision making needed, and you can program the computer to require multiple shots, or even head shots. A Dvorak allows you to have a recoiling gun. But it still has weaknesses. You can't move very far, and the simulations can only have some many paths.
4. Force of force - awesome. But time consuming, hard to organize, and really requires all the participants to be serious so it doesn't turn into expensive paintball.

But all of those are a huge step up from what most gun people do, and I'm sad to say, what even most gun toting professionals do. The cheapest, easiest, and most accesible of the above methods is the shooting games. And they are also the most likely method that I can get for people to actually go out there and do something other than plink.

I'm not irked at either of you guys, and I agree with many of your points. However I've argued with multitudes on this board who think they have some sort of moral superiority because they're too tactically pure to shoot competition.

I've known many of these folks in person, and 99% of them don't have the personal motivation to practice on their own. In fact most of those tactically pure types can't shoot worth a damn, even though they think they're awesome, because they never shoot around anybody who is any good.

And Ken, what does one have to do to get an invitation to the NTI?

 

[Correia]

And one other point, about reholstering/unloading after shooting, or only firing one or two shots, I've run a lot of people through a simulator now, and the usual response to somebody who tries to kill them is:

BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM Oh crap he's still moving! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM.

Then the gun tends to stay up. Then they shoot one of the innocent bystanders who runs into the scene.

During the debrief you ask, how many shots did you fire?

"Uh, four?"

Then you click back through the screen shots and show them their 12 shots.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Jeff White said: The thing that makes a member of a top tier military or police organization is the amount of resources expended in their training. That's right it's money. An equivalent amount of time and ammunition and instruction spent on your local PD or even your average CCW holder will result in a similar result.

The fact is, there are few high speed, low drag, top secret training techniques out there. The people who are really good, and I know some of them personally, are really, really good at the basics because that's what they spend countless hours training at.

I agree. Devoted time for shooting, and money for ammo. If we had it, we could achieve similar results.

Correia said: Jeff, BF Ken, I've got to but heads with you guys on this one.

Correia, not a problem disagreeing. See, guys, we mods disagree all the time. So much for the "vast, mod-wing conspiracy theory."

We're not so much in disagreement, though. My previous comment:

BFK said: And as I said earlier, if one can approach the games for what they are, keep his head about him, and his ego and desire to win out, then they have some value.

The problem I have with substituting games for training is what I highlighted in that post. I completely agree, anyone who has a background with games will be more competent with their handgun. Is it a result of the game itself, or a result of the practice one does to prepare to compete? The chicken or the egg . . . I suggest by the time one decides to compete in a local IDPA match, he already has a fair level of competency, and that competency further develops through the practice and matches, simply through sheer trigger time.

I'm not arguing mechanical ability and basic competency. I'm debating tactics and the value of games as training. They give us trigger time, and they produce stress as a by-product of pressure to perform in front of our peers and not embarrass ourselves. But, for the reasons I mentioned, and others I haven't, I really can't consider them training, in the way that I've come to understand training and instruction.

Correia said: And Ken, what does one have to do to get an invitation to the NTI?

Simply request one from Skip, and provide verifiable evidence of your level of competency. You posses it. My number is on the staff registry. Call me and I'll put you in touch with Skip if you are interested in attending. Its always the week of Memorial Day.

 

[dawg23]

The issue here is if gaming is training. And it isn't. Are there skills that are practiced in games that are the same ones used in a fight? Yes. Is competetion in IPSC or IDPA all one needs to do to train for conflict? NO! Is it possible that if all of your training consists of IPSC nd IDPA or PPC shooting that you may subconsciously carry range habits to the fight (as happened at Newhall)? Yes.

Two questions:

1. Who has said IDPA or IPSC is training, or is a substitute for training ?

2. Why so many argumentative posts coming from a mod ?

 

[Jeff White]

dawg 23 asked;

1. Who has said IDPA or IPSC is training, or is a substitute for training ?

It's been said here plenty of times before. Do a search on this subforum and you'll find all kinds of posts about how you can learn everything you need to know about fighting from paintball, airsoft, even 1st person shooter video games.

2. Why so many argumentative posts coming from a mod ?

See the answer to your first question. It's important that the subforum stay focused on actual training issues.

Jeff

 

[Correia]

If you find Jeff's posts combative in this thread, you must not read many of my posts in the other forums.

 

[dawg23]

If you find Jeff's posts combative in this thread, you must not read many of my posts in the other forums.

Actually I have. On most other sites (and yeah, I know some feel that ALL other sites pale in comparison to this one), mods moderate. On this forum, one or two engage in continual debates - and in many cases shed a good bit of their credibility in doing so.

And I sorta figured Jeff would dodge both of my questions.

Please don't mistake my comments for a blanket condemnation of Jeff's opinions, or those of any other mod here. But the frequency, tone, and argumentative nature of some of the posts, particularly one in response to Walt Rauch, clearly reflect poorly on a "moderator."

 

[BullfrogKen]

dawg23, just because we have accepted the role to act as moderators here doesn't mean we have to give up participating. We can disagree and debate issues. Its certainly why we found this place, stayed, and became a part of the community. Doesn't mean we have all the answers, or our opinion is right, or carries any more weight just because the name has "Moderator" beneath it.

I try to encourage everyone to keep the debate civil, keep the trolls away, and in this specific sub-forum, deal with the problems unique to it. This one, moreso than the others, has a history of contributors giving advice, at times dangerous or unsafe advice, to others without themselves possessing even any training background. I make it a specific point to keep the unsafe and dangerous techniques out of here.

I stay out of debates over matters of opinion - such as "isosceles vs weaver", with the exception of maybe threads like this.

 

[Jeff White]

dawg23, check your PMs.

Jeff

 

[TheLastBoyScout]

Competition shooting getting me killed?

I'd worry more about my NROTC extremely-basic-intro to Infantry getting me killed.

As a side note, while the AROTC invests significant time into infantry tactical training, the Marines don't--since Army junior summer training evals based on infantry leadership skills, and Marine OCS is more heavily designed to run people out on PT, this makes sense. When army PTs, we PT, when army does required tactical leadership labs, we PT, and when army does optional extra infantry training... we PT.

Basically our "tactics" emphasize PT and balls to the wall aggression over maneuver--when I try this in paintball, I usually get slaughtered (we get told that flanks are good, but we actually train exclusively for leapfrogging buddy rushes and lowcrawls under heavy suppressing fire).

Seeing how that works out, I have trouble believing how something that makes me shoot accurately and move quickly can leave me any worse off. In a defense situation, I won't have grenades or a fireteam to buy me time, and in a residence, the only "rifle cover" in there is likely to be whatever armor I have on--against a smart enemy in an HD, standing my ground and blazing away seems more survivable than ducking behind a household object that a magnum/shotgun/etc will punch right through anyway.

Besides, it does wonders for my weaponhandling confidence. I had a misfire of some sort on saturday--I still don't have the slightest idea what caused it because almost before I realized I'd hear a click when I wanted a bang, I'd done a tap-rack-bang and resumed fire.

Would actual tactical training be better? Sure.
Could tactical shooting match experience save me in anything short of a full on home invasion? Probably.

 

[Correia]

Dawg, see, all of that would matter if anybody here gave a damn how other forums are run. Frankly, we don't.

 

[Jeff22]

does IPSC/IDPA shooting have any training value?

I shoot both IPSC and IDPA fairly regularly and shoot PPC about once a year. IPSC and IDPA are best considered marksmanship 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 (IMHO), but classifiers and most IDPA courses of fire are at least semi-realistic.

In such competitions I've always used whatever my duty gun was at the time. Currently it's a Sig 226R-DAK in .40 cal.

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. However, I've been shooting IPSC on a sporadic basis at the local level since 1978, and I've become more involved recently since some of the local clubs have been regenerated.

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 thread on one of the other forums lately, 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 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 . . . )

 

[Jeff22]

types of courses of fire (from the USPSA rulebook)

A lot of people who are critical of the practicality of IPSC/USPSA type shooting fail to understand the types of stages that you might find at a local match. (If you haven't shot in a variety of matches, it's really hard to have an informed opinion on the matter).

This description is right out of the USPSA rulebook:

Types of Courses:
IPSC matches may contain the following types of courses of fire:
1.2.1 General Courses of Fire:
1.2.1.1 “Short Courses” must not require more than 9 rounds to
complete and no more than 2 shooting locations.
1.2.1.2 “Medium Courses” must not require more than 16 rounds to
complete and no more than 3 shooting locations. Course
design and construction must not require more than 9 scoring
hits from any single location or view, nor allow a competitor
to eliminate a location or view in the course of fire
by shooting all available targets at an earlier location or
view.
1.2.1.3 “Long Courses” must not require more than 32 rounds to
complete. Course design and construction must not require
more than 9 scoring hits from any single location or view,
nor allow a competitor to eliminate a location or view in the
course of fire by shooting all available targets at an earlier
location or view.
1.2.1.4 The recommended balance for an IPSC match is a ratio of
3 Short Courses to 2 Medium Courses to 1 Long Course.
1.2.2 Special Courses of Fire:
1.2.2.1 “Standard Exercises” must not require more than 24 rounds
to complete. Component strings must not require more than
6 rounds (12 rounds if a mandatory reload is specified).
1.2.2.3 “Classifiers” – Courses of fire published by a Regional
Directorate and/or IPSC, which are available to competitors
seeking a regional and/or international classification.
Classifiers must be set-up in accordance with these rules
and be conducted strictly in accordance with the notes and
diagrams accompanying them. Results must be submitted
to the publishing entity in the format required (with the
applicable fees, if any), in order for them to be recognized.

Before deciding if shooting in an IPSC match is of use to your skill development, find out where the local club is and go watch a match. For those of us primarily interested in developing markinsmanship skills in a defensive context, the short and medium courses, standard exercises, and classifiers can be really useful.

Many people, when they hear the term "IPSC" or "USPSA" think of long courses (sometimes called "assault courses") where there is lots of running around, engaging lots of targets, and (almost always) doing things that are tactically incorrect. NOT ALL IPSC MATCHES ARE LIKE THAT!!

See what they run at the local club, and see the types of stages they select. You will probably find that the shorter stages are good skill builders and relevant to your training regimen. If the club pre-publishes courses of fire (ideally posting them on their web site) you can look at next month's match and decide if it's something you want to shoot or not.

(Many of the IPSC short & medium courses and basics exercises are very similar or identical (except for targets & scoring system) to what IDPA runs, which is why so many shooters compete in both)

For good internet sources of courses of fire (so you can take a look in advance to get a feel for what is available) check out:

www.tacticalshooters.com
The Tactical Shooter's Club of Texas. Click on the "scenarios" icon.

www.stageexchange.com
IDPA & IPSC courses of fire

www.uspsa.org
USPSA Classifiers on USPSA website (click on the "additional content" icon and then "classifier stage diagrams")

 

[Jeff22]

IDPA course design rationale

COURSE DESIGN RATIONALE (from the IDPA Rulebook)

Of the many concepts set forth in the establishment of IDPA, none are more important than the requirements of Course Design. Theone issue that is critical to the long-term survival of this shootingdiscipline is that the problems shooters are asked to solve must reflect reality. The IDPA founders agreed upon this when they setout to structure IDPA guidelines. IDPA should help promotesound basic self-defense tactics and test the skills a person wouldneed in a real self-defense encounter. Requirements like the use of cover, reloading behind cover, the limiting of the number of rounds per string were all based upon that principle.

Of fundamental importance, when developing a new IDPA stage offire, is to think through what you are trying to simulate. Askyourself, “Could this really happen?” or “Would this stage testviable skills that would likely be used in an IDPA scenario?”

Some stages are by nature going to be short in the number of rounds fired. Real life self-defense shooting rarely requires a high number of rounds to be fired. You could design some really great scenario stages around four (4) or five (5) round strings. The way to make a stage more challenging is to make the contestant do the same drill with different methods, such as strong hand only, fired from a close retention position or perhaps while backing up. Consider a variety of different ways a real life encounter could be solved, then make your course of fire reflect it.

One of the great sins of many course designers is the practice of getting overly complex. Complexity is the enemy of good course design. Other guidelines in Course Design, such as most target
distances being fifteen (15) yards or less, reflect the fact that real life self defense requirements rarely require handguns to be used beyond this distance. Stages utilizing targets in excess of fifteen (15) yards can be allowed on occasion to test shooting skill. Our goal is to make the ranges at which we engage targets be within the norm of most self-defense scenarios.

The distance that a shooter must travel in any scenario is clearly an issue. Any movement of the shooter between firing points mustnot exceed ten (10) yards. Few self-defense scenarios require theshooter to run or cover a very long distance. We do not wish to see IDPA matches turn into track and field events. By allowing courses of fire to exceed fifteen (15) yards of total movement, foot speed, not shooting ability, begins to be rewarded. The Vickers Count scoring system is very good when applied to shooting, but it becomes distorted when time is excessive for long distances of travel or the need to negotiate obstacles requiring more time than the actual shooting.

Beware of course design that places too much effort in moving over a long distance or getting around obstacles.

When barricades or other range props designed to allow the shooter to use them for cover are provided, make sure that they are used properly. Make the shooter use the cover area while actually shooting and reloading. Vision and physical barriers should be used to force the shooter to shoot from the specified positions (shooting ports also work well and tend to eliminate SO judgment calls). Use of props such as brief cases, tables (especially with drawers), automobiles, simulated ATM machines, bed/night stand combos, etc. is encouraged.

Beware of the practice of setting a sea of non-threat targets out in the stage in order to increase the shooting difficulty. IDPA course rule CoF4 states that CoF may only use one (1) non-threat target for every three (3) threat targets. In the real world, shooting near non-hostile targets is dangerous, criminal, and sets you up for serious liability issues. For a more difficult CoF use simulated hard cover to reduce the amount of the target that is exposed.

Requiring multiple hits (i.e. 3-6 hits) on targets simulates real life encounters and should be encouraged. However, mixing the number of hits required on targets within the same string leads to procedural penalties and should be discouraged. The same goes for mixing strings requiring a 2-2-2 engagement with a 1-1-2-1-1 type engagement.

Keep the stage or course design within IDPA guidelines. Do not exceed eighteen (18) rounds per string of fire. If any forms of cover or props that represent cover are used as part of the stage, then the contestant must use cover. Reloads must be accomplished from cover if available.

Slide Lock reloads are the recommended type of reload in IDPA. Statistics show that this happens in the real world, regardless of intention or training. Tactical reloads and reloads with retention are intended for use during lulls in the action and should not be required on the clock. Avoid setting up stages that call for a Tac- Load or RWR in a place where shooters are likely to have an empty magazine while there is still a round in the chamber.

ANYTHING that can be done to eliminate judgment calls on the part of the safety officers is encouraged.

Often we hear of match designers who like to make their courses or stages unusual to the point that they appear silly. Some of these are simple modifications of cowboy match stages that require contestants to ride rocking horses and shoot targets after walking through swinging saloon doors. Sometimes these stages are called silly names like “Revenge of the Green Men from Mars”. Such mindless scenarios simply degrade what IDPA is about. Please keep IDPA true to its practical roots.

One of the most commonly heard statements about poor course design is “Well, it is the same for everyone”. Please do not use the phrase “it is the same for everyone,” to use stages that trivialize the purpose of IDPA or that are not really practical. Claiming that it will be the same for everyone is a lame way of rationalizing a poor stage or course of fire. Anyone using the line “it is the same for everyone” to justify a tactically unsound stage should not be allowed to run or design any stages of fire in IDPA.

Mistakes will be made in IDPA, but allowing poor course designs to flourish will lead to the demise of IDPA quicker than any other factor.

Well-designed courses of fire should have the following attributes:
• They should test skills relevant to self-defense situations.
• The sequence of target engagement should be obvious to the shooter without extensive briefing or instruction.
• Assessment of procedural penalties because the shooter failed to understand the course of fire should be very rare.

Procedural penalties will rarely be assessed on stages exhibiting good course design.

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

 

[Therapydude]

As many of you have (accurately, in my opinion) pointed out, gun games are fairly good for practice, but should not be relied on very heavily for any type of beneficial training. Like any game, there must be a set of rules which provide a scoring system that is both objective and measurable. Unfortunately, in the shooting games, objective data is primarily limited to speed and accuracy. Although the gun games definitely have their limitations (square range, often too many targets, targets do not fight back, use of an audible beep to start the fight, clearing the weapon after the shooting stops, having to follow a pre-determined routine for engaging the targets), there are a few good aspects (shooting under stress, shooting on the move, weapon manipulation/malfunction clearance). While I do not think that gun games should be looked upon as beneficial training, there is that group of people whose only target practice is the occasional IDPA match. In that regard, I feel that any time spent firing and manipulating the weapon is better than not. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of individuals who partcipate in the gun games who honestly feel that, by participating in a shooting game, that they are training. Personally, I feel that shooting games are fine, but must be taken with a grain of salt.

To gain any functional benefit, I think that a person should participate in said game with the particular weapon that they carry, use for home defense, etc. Many of us fall into the trap of carrying one particular model of firearm, but competing with another (myself included). I started shooting IDPA a few years ago (fresh from my first defensive pistol class) with a Glock 19 in a Galco rig with an untucked shirt. As time passed, I felt that I needed to become more competitive, so I switched to a Glock 34 (Dawson fiber optic front/Heinie rear sights and a little trigger work), blade-tech holster/mag pouches and started wearing a 5.11 vest. When reloading the gun from slidelock, after loading a fresh mag, instead of pulling on the slide with my weak hand to release it (as I had been trained), I began using the slide stop lever (because it was faster). Also, when a scenario called for a tactical reload, instead of grabbing a fresh mag and changing mags at the gun (as I was trained), I began dropping and stowing the mag from the gun before obtaining a fresh mag (again, because it was faster). Basically, I let the game instill bad habits in me because of my yearning to win. It has been several months since I have shot an IDPA match (buying a house, working over-time, etc). When I do return, however, my fellow safety officers may be surprised to see me shooting my Glock 19 out of a Galco rig with an untucked shirt. I guess I have come full circle and it is time for me to check my pride at the door and return to shooting the way I was trained.

 

[AndyC]

As one's skill increases through various forms of practice and qualified, experienced instruction, the less one has to rely upon chance; in other words, the better you are, the less lucky you have to be. Not that chance can ever be entirely eradicated; I think it was Napoleon who said "I'd rather have a lucky officer than a good one" - and a golfer (Lee Trevino?) who said "The harder I practice, the luckier I seem to become".

People putting spent cases in their pockets... people performing a double-tap and then unloading? Those are people who were switched-off - sucks to be them.

No matter how you train/practice, if you're unable to stay switched-on during a bunfight, you're not going to do well unless Lady Luck is smiling on you. Obviously, the true test is the real thing; I've been unfortunate enough to have been in the position of being shot-at by highly-motivated people on a number of occasions and I can say unequivocally that being able to handle my weapons efficiently and effectively came from a lot of hard time at the range under the aforementioned qualified, experienced instructors; I just had to stay switched-on enough during the fight itself to know what to do when. Software beats hardware (as I've seen it phrased here somewhere).

Confidence in yourself and your gear, awareness, the will to win, sufficient ammo, tactics, etc are all necessary components of gunfight survivors.

 

[Jeff22]

some other thoughts on competitive shooting . . . .

"Any shooting SPORT is just a GAME. All forms of competition shooting can improve basic shooting skills, but the activity must be approached as a COMPETITION. Over time, IDPA has evolved from it's radically practical right to a more and more moderate center as more influence from other sports seeps in. It remains a place where if you choose you can use the gun you carry, in the gear you carry, and you can apply your tactics to the stages if you are not concerned about the score. As long as someone keeps score and there are rules it will remain a game and tactics and methods will emerge to win within those parameters. If you think about it, that's what real world tactics are, only the price of finishing in second place is higher. What competitive shooting has to offer the tactical shooter is a clearing house for the development of shooting skills and the development and evaluation of equipment. Competitive shooting has had a tremendous influence (both good and bad) on training programs across the country in the last ten years or so. Shooting in "combat" matches also allows you to participate in shooting under a certain amount of pressure. It is amazing to see how many otherwise competent people self-destruct under match pressure. I think competitive shooting has some training value as long as we keep in mind that it is just a game."
-- Rob Haught Firearms Instructor & Police Chief /Sisterville, West Virginia PD /09-12-2005

"What anyone gains from any endeavor in life depends on what they put into it and their attitude and goals. Shooting sports are no different in that regard.
Another thing that the action-oriented shooting sports offer is the chance to engage in practices that may not be allowed at the range under other circumstances. Far too many shooting clubs and ranges disallow drawing from the holster, shooting more than one shot per second, and moving with a loaded gun, etc. By contrast, some of those very same clubs suspend their silly rules when an organized competition is underway.
For a lot of us, matches are how we choose to practice. Some people practice FOR the matches. There's room for everyone.
I think one of the biggest problems is people who claim to have the agenda of practicing their defensive skills, but then complain because they can't be "competitive" when they "do it right". If they were true to their professed goals, it wouldn't matter what the other shooters did or did not do. If their goal is actually to be competitive, they should admit it to themselves and then take steps to improve those skills which will enhance their progress toward their actual goal." -- Joseph Viray/09-12-2005

“I think shooting in IPSC or IDPA matches is a lot of fun and a good way to develop high-performance shooting skills. Just remember, competitive shooting is NOT tactically correct. Once you put a timer on your tactics, you take the reality out of it!”
– Tim Lau/Operational Skills Group, LLC/6 November 2004

"Once your basic skills are developed, the next step is to test yourself in competition. Shoot in IPSC or IDPA matches to develop your ability to respond to different situations. Competitive shooting may not be tactically correct, but it IS a good way to develop your abilities as a high performance shooter. Responding to a shooting problem designed by somebody else forces you to get out of your "comfort zone" and to learn to think on your feet and react to different challenges." -- Ernest Langdon

"What's a good measure of your shooting ability? I like the IDPA classifier match. If you can consistently score high in the "Marksman" class with your carry gun and carry gear, that's a pretty good start. The classifier is a good measure of basic skills." -- Ernest Langdon

"To be really successful at IPSC or IDPA competition, you have to practice a LOT and then shoot in matches a LOT. To be competitive at the highest level, you'd really have to shoot a match nearly every weekend, and shooting in all the major matches that you could. It's not just SHOOTING, it's shooting in COMPETITION that helps to make you better." -- Ernest Langdon

"What professional competitive shooters like Brian Enos or Rob Leatham or Jerry Barnhart can do is impressive. Sometimes spectacular. But it's not the same as what us mere mortals can do with stock guns and real holsters. Always strive to achieve, but have realistic goals and expectations."
--Ernest Langdon

"Competition can teach you to be mentally tough. At a match, if a new shooter blows one of the first stages, they usually get rattled and blow all the rest of the stages too. Or, if they do better than they expected, they get a case of nerves, and their performance goes downhill from there. If an experienced and mentally tough shooter blows a stage early on, he will usually refocus and bear down and burn down the rest of the stages.
It's just like a veteran football team who makes it to the playoffs most every year. They've been there before and they know what it takes to win."
--Ernest Langdon

"When you read a book about shooting techniques, remember that the description in the book is usually based on a particular person shooting a particular gun. What's in the book may or may not apply to you. And if it's a book by some famous competitive shooter with phenomenal skills, it particularly may not apply to you. Some of those guys have such special physical skills that they can do things wrong or at least do them weird, in a way that won't work for anybody else, and they're STILL able to perform at a high level.
It's like other sports. The average player usually makes a better coach than the superstar does, because the average player had to work to learn technique, and the superstar just does it, and probably doesn't know why what he is doing works or not. "--Ernest Langdon

"Shooting IPSC or IDPA matches is fine. It can be a lot of fun. Just remember, those targets have A zones and B zones and C zones and D zones. On the street, there is only the A zone. Train yourself to be accurate. Accuracy is more important than pure speed. You have to hit the target."
--Louis Awerbuck