PDA

View Full Version : Is USPCA a joke?


FirstFreedom
July 12, 2004, 04:57 PM
When are you going to be wearing that belt with speed holster and 4 mag speed pouches during your daily life routine? If you're not, then why are you using it - i.e. why are you shooting USPCA instead of IDPA? The entire point is to simulate real, potential defensive encounters. I know it will ruffle some feathers, doubtless, but I think IPSC is a joke. If I want to play a game, I'll stay home and play Unreal Tournament or Everquest. If I want to train to help save my life in the future (potentially), AND have fun doing it, I'll shoot IDPA, thank you very much. Nomex: ON! :)

Jeeper
July 12, 2004, 05:07 PM
I guess then if it is a joke the best USPSA(not USPCA) shooters wouldnt be good at IDPA. Oh wait! The best USPSA shooters train military, police, special forces and WIN MOST if not ALL IDPA championships and are better pistol handers than ANYONE on earth. If IDPA isnt a game then why do they use a timer? I hope you are just trying to be funny and not serious. :) If you are serious then feel free to get into a gunfight with an USPSA Grandmaster. Those guys can shoot any and I mean ANY gun well. Shooting is shooting.

raz-0
July 12, 2004, 05:15 PM
there's a WHOLE lot of peopel out there who coudn't give a crap what YOU think the point of something is supposed to be.

You might notice there is a trend there if you care to mull that one over.

Jim Watson
July 12, 2004, 05:42 PM
And what self defense techniques do Unreal Tournament and Everquest develop?

I have shot both IPSC and IDPA for some years. A good shot is a good shot. So what if a service pistol slows an IPSC Master to half speed? He is still twice as fast and much more accurate than any crook. And most cops.

Winners at both Nationals tend to be the same people.

Oct_97
July 12, 2004, 05:58 PM
If IDPA is not a game why do we keep score. Page one of the IDPA rule book states that IDPA is a sport (Game?).

fyrestarter
July 12, 2004, 08:47 PM
I was told at an IDPA match that I couldn't have a tungsten guide rod in my G17. Why? Because it wouldn't be in my carry gun. Oh no? I assured the RO that my carry gun has one, and I rely on it. But I couldn't use it in IDPA. Where's the joke, huh?

C_Yeager
July 13, 2004, 04:28 AM
It's a GAME it doesnt have to be some kind of "real life simulation".

Basketball hasnt taught me crap about staying alive, but it's still fun.

FirstFreedom
July 13, 2004, 11:48 AM
No, IDPA is a game, to be sure. But it's not a pure game. The game is secondary - learning to shoot AFTER DRAWING REALISTICALLY FROM A TRUE CARRY HOLSTER in a realistic scenario is the primary point - that is NOT the primary point of USPCA - the primary point of it is to play a game, whereas any skills you might pick up are secondary. Yes, you will undoubtedly gain pure shooting skills from shooting USPCA, but your false sense of security can get you killed when you need to draw to protect your life from your CARRY holster, concealed under a garment, and whaddya know, it's not just like drawing from your speed holster, so it took you an extra 3/4ths of a second to draw from it, than it would have if you had trained in IDPA from your CARRY holster, and that 3/4ths of a second is all the BG needed to kill you DEAD.

The example of the guide rod is beside the point. Why? Because it ain't got nothing to do with the primary difference, and that is holster type, extra mag pouch type, actual number of exta mags (or speedloaders) and method of holster carry. Now, should IDPA let you use any damn guide rod you want, and are their rules idiotic for not let you using it? Yes, and yes. But you could still shoot the IDPA course with it, and just not receive a score, which you really ought to do it this way if you're concerned about practicing for realistic scenarios. If you're not, then why did you show up for the IDPA event to begin with?

Jeeper, you're logic is entirely flawed, and here's why. You say that the IPSC guys usually win IDPA events. While you offer no evidence of that, let's assume for a moment that it is true. This doesn't prove that IPSC is a better way to train for real scenarios. It only proves that the best shooters, and those dedicated to becoming the best shooters are initially drawn to IPSC first, for whatever reason, and then happen to also do quite well at IDPA when they choose to do it. It does NOT prove that they would not be even better at IDPA if they had done IDPA to begin with. It also does not prove that they would be EVEN better well-prepared and trained for REAL defensive scenarios if they had competed in IDPA all along, and they would. So, flawed logic. It only proves that a lot of really motivated and/or talented guys LIKE to shoot IPSC (probably because they are competitive and it is indeed a GAME). But they are competing in a JOKE, *IF* (and that's a huge if) their goal is to become the best possibly prepared to save their life.

there's a WHOLE lot of peopel out there who coudn't give a crap what YOU think the point of something is supposed to be.

Spelling mistakes aside, that entirely misses the point as well. I'm not saying that is it wrong to play a game. More power to you - no one is wrong for thinking that the point is playing a game - in fact, they're exactly right - that's what it is, and what it is alone. But it remains a joke if they're trying to train to save their life by drawing from CONCEALMENT when the feces collides.

It's a GAME it doesnt have to be some kind of "real life simulation".

Exactly my point - IPSC is a game, not a "real life simulation". Glad we agree. And, since the time you spend on this game COULD be spent on a game that happens to try very hard to be a "real life simulation" (at least as close as we can come - it's called IDPA), then you're really wasting valuable time, once again - only *IF* your goal is to prepare for emergencies.

Meh, just my opinion. Guess I'm not the only one, though, since Ken Hackathorn, Richard Thomas, John Sayle, Walt Rauch, Larry Vickers and Bill Wilson started IDPA for the reason that their opinion was exactly the same as mine, as I understand it. But to be fair, I guess I mispoke when I said that the entire point is to train for real life encounters - that would be the entire point for ME, but obviously not everyone. It just seems to me such a waste of time to be participating in a nearly identical sport that only trains you 80% on realism, when you could spend that exact same time on a sport that trains you 98% on realism. Obviously, I firmly believe that the muscle memory formed, which takes over in an adrenaline-rushed emergency, by virtue of using the exact same holster carried in the exact same way, is of the utmost importance is slicing fractions of a second of the time it takes to get to those all-important first well-placed shots, to put the BG down, before the BG get his shots off and puts you down. See, I *knew* I'd get flamed - ha! :)

DDGator
July 13, 2004, 12:24 PM
I shoot IPSC because I enjoy it, not because I am hell-bent on using every free moment to prepare for a self-defense situation.

That being said, trigger time is always beneficial. Trigger control, proper use of sights -- it all transferable to whatever you do. Personally, I sometimes compete with a speed rig and sometimes with my carry gun -- nothing says you have to use a race gun -- there are whole divisions for production guns.

I certainly disagree with IDPA being 98% realistic. I don't find it to be even 20% realistic if I had to pull a percentage out of the air. When I shoot IDPA (which admittedly is not that often), it sure seems like OFFENSE to me. I cruise through a scenario advancing on multiple targets and shooting at things that are not shooting at me until they are all dead. In real life in 90% of those scenarios I would beat feet and run. Plus -- how realistic can it be if you are not under attack in any way? Don't get too high on your horse about the realism of IDPA.

As for game playing, I would sure rather be out with my friends throwing lead at an IPSC match than sitting at home on the couch with a video game.

FirstFreedom
July 13, 2004, 01:14 PM
When I shoot IDPA (which admittedly is not that often), it sure seems like OFFENSE to me. I cruise through a scenario advancing on multiple targets and shooting at things that are not shooting at me until they are all dead. In real life in 90% of those scenarios I would beat feet and run. Plus -- how realistic can it be if you are not under attack in any way? Don't get too high on your horse about the realism of IDPA.

Good point. But OK, suppose IDPA is 20% realistic. But if so, then IPSC is only 10% realistic. So which do you choose to spend time on? The best of the available choices. Oh well.

Jeeper
July 13, 2004, 01:42 PM
First Freedom,

If you are going to insult the sport please at lease learn the letters first. Obviously you didnt read my first post very well when you pointed this out. IT IS USPSA!!!

You obviously know very little about IDPA also if you don’t know who the best shooters are. Lets look at last years national champions. Dave Sevigny (USPSA Grandmaster), Matt Burket (USPSA Grandmaster), Ernest Langdon(USPSA Master). The winningest IDPA shooter for nationals is Rob Leatham who is the greatest USPSA shooter of all time.

I think the reason that your logic is so completely flawed is that you think drawing from a certain holster or other gear means that you cant draw from anything else.

98% realistic is funny since you know that you are going to shoot in a match but not on the street. What is the difference between the two and what is real life. Most gunfights are under three shots and under 3 yards. How many IDPA scenarios are like that. It would be pretty boring. The only difference is that you wear a vest and a slightly different holster. My carry method and gun arent allowed in IDPA.

The two sports are almost identical in what they teach someone to do. They teach about shooting and drawing under stress. What do you think you are trying to learn. No situation is ever the same. Gun handling is gun handling. When you become good at it the gear is irrelevant. Perfect example is watching a GM shoot a match with a borrowed gun and holster. Do they still shoot better than most. Of course they do. I think it is funny that you list people like Bill Wilson. Ask him if he would want o take on a USPSA GM on the street? Ask him if he thinks that USPSA means that you cant handle street situations? Everyone in the know realizes that good gun handling is universal. Maybe everyone but you!

Number 6
July 13, 2004, 01:51 PM
Especially when he doesn't even know the initials of the organization he's denigrating? It's uspSa; not uspCa, ace :rolleyes:

Yeah, we've all seen this debate before; how IDPA is "real world" and all. Without for a moment suggesting that any USPSA division other than Production and - depending on your gear - Revolver is remotely "practical;" neither do I buy into that "IDPA trains for Real Life" nonsense.

In "Real Life," your primary responsibility is to WITHDRAW if possible; not engage, unless you are law enforcement.

Moreover, you will be dealing with targets HUNTING you and SHOOTING AT you; IPDA provides neither. Cardboard is not a threat.

So, unless you attend one of those shoot-back simulator ranges where you WILL receive fire unless and until you neutralize the threat, spare us the lectures on how "tactical and practical" you are. The fact is, USPSA shooters can shoot IDPA and kick butt - how many IDPA shooters transition to USPSA successfully? :D

Jim Watson
July 13, 2004, 01:57 PM
If you recall, Bill Wilson was a pretty high ranked USPSA shooter himself. IDPA is a lot more like IPSC of the 70s and early 80s than the "my match is better than your match" types from either side are willing to admit. I am sure he got IDPA going because he saw the P for Practical fading out of IPSC. If IPSC/USPSA had put in the stock gun classes and some carry holster requirements ten years earlier, there might not BE an IDPA because there could have been room for everybody in IPSC. But the then USPSA and IPSC management made the choice to totally favor the "gamesmen" over the "martial artists" and the split was done.

FirstFreedom
July 13, 2004, 04:30 PM
Oops, USPSA; sorry. Why would I learn the details of such a joke that uses silly Buck Rogers holsters? ;)

Well, the fact remains that logic dictates that you would choose the one that is the most realistic of the two, whether it's 98% realistic or 2%, as long as it's the more realistic of the two (i.e. if the other one is 1%), *if* you're serious about self-defense. A lot like choosing a president this year. (I guess GSSF is the green party candidate). No one's been able to refute that, nor will anyone be able to. Everything else is a complete red herring. You talk a lot but say very little, number 6. spare us the lectures on how "tactical and practical" you are In fact, I'm confused; show me again where I said anything remotely resembling anything of the sort. You need a lesson in logic 101, and the fallacy of the straw man.

Jeeper:

I think the reason that your logic is so completely flawed is that you think drawing from a certain holster or other gear means that you cant draw from anything else

No, that's not it at all. I didn't say that; and it is your logic that is flawed; not mine. I didn't say that you *can't* draw from anything else. I said that when your life is on the line, it's certainly possible, and quite likely in fact, that if you don't draw from the exact same holster you've trained with, it will take you a half second longer, give or take a few fractions of a second, and that could well nigh be the difference between life and death. The fact is, as long as you're spending all this time on a training game, why not choose the one that is likely to be most helpful, even if only a scrunthair more likely? It so happens that IDPA is significantly more likely to help when the muscle memory nut-cuttin comes down in an adrenaline rush, and you fumble with your carry draw, because it's not like your Han Solo rig. And the duty to retreat is a red herring, because obviously in real life, you can and will retreat if you can, but the scenarios are if someone or someones are hellbent on killing you, and what do you do then?


Jim Watson:

am sure he got IDPA going because he saw the P for Practical fading out of IPSC. If IPSC/USPSA had put in the stock gun classes and some carry holster requirements ten years earlier, there might not BE an IDPA because there could have been room for everybody in IPSC. But the then USPSA and IPSC management made the choice to totally favor the "gamesmen" over the "martial artists" and the split was done.

Exactly. All supports my conclusion (and Bill Wilson's, and...). Thank you.

Number 6
July 13, 2004, 05:05 PM
Our Tactical Titan issues this challenge:

"In fact, I'm confused; show me again where I said anything remotely resembling anything of the sort."

Well, the first assertion is clearly correct. As for the rest:

"If I want to play a game, I'll stay home and play Unreal Tournament or Everquest. If I want to train to help save my life in the future (potentially), AND have fun doing it, I'll shoot IDPA, thank you very much"

Your words, ace: "If I want to train to help save my life..." If you want that, go to a real school and / or a shoot-back sim. Heck, even a good paintball tournament will provide more "practical" skills than stalking killer cardboard.

If, as, and when the paper shoots back, you can tell us all about the "training" you got at IDPA events. Unless and until that happens, you're just playing a version of the USPSA game. Stop deluding yourself. :barf:

Jeeper
July 13, 2004, 05:10 PM
If you were serious about self defense only then you wouldnt shoot either type of competition. You would spend all that money attending places like gunsite. You would hire people to surprise you in public. You wouldnt play games AT ALL.

You quote people who wouldnt agree with you. There really isnt any point in arguing with you further since you have missed every point that has been presented. Your only point is muscle memory. The next time you get in a gunfight where you are shooting at cardboard that doesnt shoot back or move and where the gunfight starts with a beep after a series of range commands please let us know.

FirstFreedom
July 13, 2004, 05:17 PM
Jeeper, you are absolutely correct. But that's more of a time commitment than a 1 day a week scenario. But no, it is you have have missed the one and only point - teaching a pig to sing with you. And tell me, genius, how is it that the fact that a target is cardboard affects your draw and firing technique?

Number 6 - dude, you are so making up stuff, it's incredible. I don't think for one second unreal tournament is in any way "tactical" - nor did I say that I was - show me again where I said I was "tactical" (whatever that may be), or in any way even implied it? You are completely putting words in my mouth, and your conclusions are wrong, to the extent you base them on these words you put in my mouth. Unreal tournament has nothing to do with anything - it's simply a game I can play if I want to play a game - just use monopoly instead - its beside the point. I never said I was tactical, and quite franky, it's you who are the poser - posing as one who purports to possess logic. Again, IDPA may not be totally realistic, or even fair to partly realistic, but that is utterly irrelevant to my point - the only thing relevant is, is it *MORE* realistic than the alternative, for a one-day time commitment training exercise, than the other alternatives? The answer, with respect to IPSC, is yes. GSSF, bout the same. So why waste time with it? And I just disagree; paintball is not as good of a training exercise for using a CCW tool in self defense, as either IPSC or IDPA, but particularly not as good as IDPA. That's like preparing for a gunfight with your knife - apples and oranges. I'm not deluding anyone. Gunsite or shoot-back sims are great, when and if you have the time and money, as often as may be possible. But when you don't, which is the better choice? You are the king of red herrings, and you and jeeper there suffer from chronic RCI.

Morgan
July 13, 2004, 05:31 PM
Yeah, anything that rewards fast accuracy with a powerful pistol must be a complete waste of time :rolleyes:.

I find the raceguns to be an interesting and impressive show, but I'll stick to Limited or Limited 10 myself.

fyrestarter
July 14, 2004, 01:20 AM
In a recent IDPA match, one course of fire had five steel plates partially obscured by two cardboard targets. The start line was SIX FEET from the targets. If the situation ever arises that I have to engage five carjackers with 8" diameter heads while standing inside a FedEx truck, then I will thank IDPA for their "realistic" training. Until then, IPSC and IDPA will remain, to me, sport, with IPSC Open being nothing more than an equipment race and IDPA chock full of arbitrary and ridiculous rules. I can have an extended magazine, but not a magwell? I can have night sights but not a ghost ring? An extended slide release is ok, but not an extended mag release?

If you can't shoot Limited, shoot Open.
If you can't shoot Open, shoot Cowboy.
If you can't shoot Cowboy, shoot Paintball.
If you like to comply with inane rules, shoot IDPA

nyetter
July 15, 2004, 10:45 AM
The entire point is to simulate real, potential defensive encounters.
This is where you made your mistake, making a faulty assumption.
That is not the entire point. It is, in fact, no part whatsoever of the point.

Tamara
July 15, 2004, 05:40 PM
Random musings:

1) "False dichotomy": the notion that because someone participates in one sport, they don't participate in the other.

2) Other than breathing and trigger control, indoor three-position smallbore has squat to do with shooting real rifles, but lots of folks sure do seem to enjoy it, and it can't hurt your performance with your thutty-thutty.

3) The "Keepin' It Real" touts will get a lot more notice from me when I see a stage where you earn maximum points for diving behind hard cover at the buzzer and drawing... ...your cell phone. :p



Oh, and can we continue the discussion with a little less vitriol? :)

dukeofurl
July 16, 2004, 05:51 PM
Steel plates at SIX FEET?

Thats a MAJOR safety violation if anyone hasnt told you yet.

Was anyone injured?

fyrestarter
July 16, 2004, 09:12 PM
Duke...yards...I meant yards....six feet would be ridiculous. Thanks for catching that flub. And yeah, many of us were hit by flying shrapnel. So much so that that the club vowed to never have any steel closer than 25 feet, and every match since then, the plates have been put at 10 yards.

89sp
July 17, 2004, 04:25 AM
My 2 cents, not everybody shoots IPSC with raceguns, many people shoot with their carry gear, there are many divisions to allow for whatever you want. LImited, limited 10 and Production. I don't think anyone pointed that out..... that's all...
bicker on! :p

bulm5
July 18, 2004, 01:28 AM
First Freedom, have you ever shot a USPSA match? I found that most people who criticize USPSA have not even shot a USPSA match. Or you shot one and got your A#$% handed to you by a B class shooter. Just ASking??

Agencyman
July 18, 2004, 12:30 PM
I am hereby starting the newest shooting organization. It is to be called the ICCS-BS, or the "International Couch Commando Shooting" & "Bragging Society".

Major caliber is anything with the momentum of Mini-Mag or better, don't want any recoil slowing down those race guns' rpm.

SERIOUSLY folks, those two older organizations are both fun, and both offer good skills to acquire. The day you need your experience on the street you will of course want to draw like a flash from under your garmet, then zap the BG with triple-taps that sound like a burst sear at work.

But the real skills come into play after the match, on the keyboard. Our guys will be constantly striving to out-"B.S." the other guys' sport, and we shall surely prevail.

Bruce

ryucasta
July 18, 2004, 07:13 PM
I agree with the point of view thats expressed in the following link

http://www.craigcentral.com/idpaipsc.asp

Navy joe
July 23, 2004, 07:56 PM
bulm5, I think it was a D class shooter! :D

Original poster:
Please refer to my all purpose shooting motto. "Just Shut up and Shoot!"

bulm5
July 23, 2004, 10:54 PM
I'll tell you what, when tactical Ninjas shoot a USPSA match thinking that their skills are better than most USPSA shooter, they are proven wrong after they see the score. Usually they are at the near bottom.

Navy joe
July 24, 2004, 06:49 AM
Ahh, but brasshopper, score matters not! The ninja may have been slow and clumsy to the eye, but he lived by employing tactical skills to thwart threats that you gaijin gamers could not even see!

Or, we all had a good laugh as he gave himself a wedgie by not taking the retention strap off of his tactical nylon thigh holster... :D

You know what, I just can't stand it when people make up crap about what they don't know. Get off your lazy computer game butts and go shoot a match any match before you tell us how much it sucks. You know, I am 90% that a GSSF match will make my head hurt with simplistic courses of fire and newbie shooters. But!, I refrain from trashing it because:
a) I've never tried it yet...
b) It might be fun
c) It's still shooting

I shot IDPA the other night, had fun. Drew two procedurals, that hasn't happened in many matches, I usually remember the rules. One for tac order where it really didn't matter "tactically" and one for charging the last target in a house clearing stage instead of plinking in from cover. I was pretty flat out when I nailed the little fwella thrice, no cover anywhere close. Who knows, maybe my IPSC "training" would have gotten me shot, but by all accounts I think a real fellow would have just pooped his drawers and died. Who knows? We don't until we try it for real. Same stage had us shooting at a retreating mover. Heck, moving aggressively towards targets and shooting retreaters in one stage?! Tactical posers unite! That isn't "REAL LIFE" Oh BS. It was a game, a fun stage, and that's it.

Scooter2
August 9, 2004, 08:40 PM
Of all the discussions on various forums on this topic of which is more "practical", the best reply I've seen is from TGO (The Great One), Rob Leatham. He posted this on the Brian Enos forum.

I recently ran a class of military shooters, and among other things, ran them through the IDPA classifier, Participated in a local steel match and shot The Arizona State IDPA Championships! Let me share with you some interesting observations. They get more wound up and nervous in a match than they do in combat! Why? Because they have time to think about it and get tense! I respect these guys opinion more than ANY so called tactician out there who is sure he knows the tricks to surviving an armed confrontation. These guys have been doing that a bunch lately and think IDPA and IPSC shooting both offer much to the testing phase of ones ability. On the other hand, they to a man do not agree with the philosophies that either is inherently more practical. All the little things like which way do you turn or where you do the load is all something that we can discuss all day on the range, but on the battlefield, men do things that may not be considered practical or tactical and live because they did it fast, accurately and decisively. On the other hand, there are those who did it "right" by some folks judgement and still lost. We all have our ideas of how it should be done, and the rules of the existing games are just that, some ones ideas. To say going to any kind of shooting event will teach you technique that will get you killed is idiotic and irresponsible. Guys, it is cool to have your own plan but do not try to pass it off as gospel to the rest of us. A discussion of technique and philosophy seldom ends with agreement, but that does not make the other guy wrong or stupid. These are just games designed to test your abilities in a very controlled and pre-planned arena. Who wins is your best shot, not your most likely survivor. That can not be tested under the clock. However, those that master executing under the timer are probably more likely to do well in a pressure situation, than someone who chokes, misses or gets procedural penalties. This is a point the boys all agree on, thus they train hard and test themselves in the arena of competition to see what they know and whether they can do it.
Rob

fyrestarter
August 9, 2004, 09:56 PM
I just shot my first IDPA match last weekend. Coming from IPSC, I envisioned it to be similar with only a slight change in equipment or scoring. In addition to some truly asinine rules, I didn't much care for the attitude of the fellow shooters, either.

For one thing, they kept referring to the targets as BG's or "criminals". Instead of "engaging" their targets, like we do in IPSC, IDPA shooter "neutralize" theirs. I understand that it's a "defense" pistol match, but something about a lot of guys getting excited about "head shots" makes me nervous. Ditto the fact that a lot of these guys had their guns in behind-the-hip holsters and kept jerking them out at the buzzer. A presentation should be fluid and graceful -- it should not look like someone got stung in the behind.

Secondly, I decided to use a stripped down Glock 17 for the match. I was told by the RO that I could only load 10 rounds in my mags. Fine, no problem, I'll just pretend I'm shooting Lim 10 IPSC. After clearing the first course of fire, I was told by the same RO that I was getting a penalty. When I asked why, he told me that I dropped a mag that still had rounds in it. Obviously I could do nothing about the penalty, but I asked for a logical reason behind it. I was told, "You're penalized for not maintaining ammunition on your person. If this were a real firefight, you might run out of ammo."
I responded, "If this were a real firefight, I wouldn't be restricted to 10 rounds in my mag, nor would I be forced to make tactical reloads at specific points. In a real firefight, people shoot their guns until all BG's are stopped and / or they've run out of ammo." He just sort of grumbled at me and walked away. Then I watched as people, instead of simply dropping their mags, would attempt to stick them in their pockets, taking upwards of three seconds to do this. I wonder what the RO would have said if I mentioned to him that three seconds, standing there in the open trying to stick in a mag in your pocket isn't the kind of tactical procedure taught at Gunsite.

On the second course, there was to be a total of twelve rounds fired, two in one set of three targets, reload, two in the second. I figured that to avoid the mag-drop penalty, I'd just load my first mag with six rounds, drop the empty mag, and pop in a fresh mag. Nothing doing. I was told this is a "failure to do right", as it was considered "gaming". Hmm....isn't it a game?

Finally, on the last course, during a tac reload, I grabbed the mag and stuck it in my mouth, reloaded and finished the course. One of my squad mates (and IPSC shooting buddy) laughed that this was an inventive way to get around the mag drop penalty, as it was quicker than stuffing it in one's pants. Well, you know what, placing a mag in one's mouth or down the front of a shirt receives the same penalty as if I dropped it on the floor.

At the end of the match, I discovered that those mag drop penalties amount to ten seconds! If I missed the target completely, I wouldn't receive a ten second penalty. So what IDPA has taught me is that in a "real" firefight, one can only carry 10 rounds, must not let any still loaded mags drop, and if they do, that's worse than if you missed the bad guy entirely and hit some innocent on the other side.

IPSC is NOT training for defense, not in the slightest. But neither is IDPA. There's nothing realistic about either. They are games, pure and simple, both with rules invented seemingly to frustrate the player. If you want to shoot, shoot, but pick the sport that has less asinine rules. For me, I'll use the IDPA matches to "train" for the "reality" of IPSC.

Jim Watson
August 9, 2004, 10:20 PM
Without making a defense of IDPA itself, I'll just say that if you want to play a different game than what you are used to, it is your responsibility to learn the rules.

fyrestarter
August 9, 2004, 11:55 PM
it is your responsibility to learn the rules

Oh, don't get me wrong, Jim, I fully appreciate the fact that "ignorance is not innocence." I'm just questioning the "practical" nature of some specific rules in a game that purports itself to be "defensive" in nature.

For instance, the IDPA rule book says "Basically, if you wouldn't carry it to defend yourself, you can't shoot it in Defensive Pistol competition". It then goes on to say that a tungsten guide rod is not allowed in Stock Service class. Why? The Glock 17 I have carried every day for a year has one. So therefore, I should be allowed to use it. And if it gives me an advantage, then so be it -- isn't the point in defending yourself to have as many advantages as you can? The factory Glock sights are terrible -- and now I shoot with a Dawson Optical front and a custom designed rear. For some reason, that's allowed in IDPA. Am I to believe that a tungsten guide rod give a shooter more of an advantage than superior sights?

Seems to me that their rules are sometimes contradictory to their mission statement.

Jim Watson
August 10, 2004, 08:51 AM
I see what you are getting at, nothing new to any IDPA shooter. But don't get all het up about it. When I shoot USPSA these days I get a good deal of ribbing for pieing a corner instead of jumping out in the shooting area and blasting away. But I don't let it bother me, I have made my choice and I stick with it.

I think the disparity between IDPA principles and rules is partly due to a wish to minimize the equipment race. Most things are frozen at what was available at IDPA's inception in 1996. A lot of what was then unavailable or expensive custom work is now factory standard or option, and IDPA sees no reason to modernize. Another reason for due to a wish to keep IDPA competition at about the 1980 level of IPSC. Another reason seems to be that the rule book was apparently written by someone for whom Engish is a second language. One day we will need to hire the lawyer who did the current USPSA.

It is probably why IPSC no longer lists any principles other than safety and DVC. And why a CoF is now designed "primarily to test a competitor's IPSC shooting skills" where it used to be something like "to present a problem that might reasonably be solved with a handgun." The "P" in that acronym used to stand for something, too.

The 10 round magazine limit is based on the law. The IDPA idea was to allow shooters to compete evenly with what is available new and legal.

You worry about not being allowed to burn through a 17 shot Glock magazine at an IDPA shoot. I have worried about the BATmen setting up a sting to catch USPSA members buying "repair parts" for 28 shot Supers. I doubt that will happen in the month of AWB now remaining, but it has been a risk for nearly ten years.

mdavid01
August 11, 2004, 11:44 AM
Before I ever shot a USPSA event my perception was that it was gamey and the folks shooting it were kidding themselves. I'd only shot IDPA events prior and most shooters badmouthed IPSC for not being tactical.

I've served four years at 2nd Ranger Bn. and got more tactical training that I figure I'll ever use as a civilian. I really didn't find that IDPA comps dictated correct tactics but heck they were fun.

I moved to Colorado and found that all the local clubs shot USPSA. Now that my girl and I have shot a couple events we are very happy with the change. My perceptions of the USPSA folks are ....

1. shooters are very friendly and unassuming, no one is telling me "how it would be in the real world". One rated GM talked to me about the rules and equipment between stages, let me shoot his open gun and was totally friendly and approachable.....and humbled me with his times and smoothness.
2. events are so damn organized and consistant I am just stunned by the professional manner in which they are run.
3. everone realizes it is a gun game and are having fun playing the stages.

In the end I found that USPSA comps are a hell of a lot of fun, give me way more shooting time than before and are so well run I am content to stay. If you want to show everyone how tactical you can be then for the love of god join the marines and go to iraq and serve our nation....if you're too old or broken then accept the fact you won't be in delta or seals anytime soon and just have fun shooting. my 2c

Jeeper
August 11, 2004, 10:45 PM
IPSC is NOT training for defense, not in the slightest

I understand your post but disagree with this line. I understand that the rules may not be related to defense but I fail to see how learning how to shoot fast and accurately is NOT training for self defense. You might have just been talking about the rules though.

WESHOOT2
August 14, 2004, 04:51 AM
Random musings.........

The US Armed Forces decided to 'do the MMU', and they chose IPSC.
I occasionally wear all of my guns (no, not all at once), so I compete with them all so I'll know how they work if I ever really need them.
I've found that those who slam one (or the other) shooting sport don't know much about it, OR they got their patootie kicked so badly they can't get the stink outta their nostrils, so they crap on it (or the other) in 'public'.

NEVER think certain 'gamey' tactics WON'T work in real life, because that's just making things up.

I have tried IDPA a couple times, and got a great laugh from it, AND enjoyed it (mostly), but the 'rules' about what to wear (guns n holsters n clothes n stuff) galled me. Okay, frankly, it's NOT the rules so much as hurting my brain trying to remember them.
I've shot IPSC matches in a tie and wingtips, and wearing my London Fog, and without my prescription glasses, and even with my 45 Colt Redhawk (speedloader issue, though).

I would invite all IPSC dissenters to come shoot some matches with me, because I believe I can teach you how much fun it can be while adding 'social' value to the experience.
Or at least fun.

Any match can be shot all tactically, but one will NOT win. So, is that why?
Not every person has sufficient skills, ay?

bulm5
August 14, 2004, 08:26 AM
Did they ( IDPA) require you to wear tactical underwear. :p

FirstFreedom
August 14, 2004, 10:12 AM
Guys, I've been thoroughly flamed....ok. I tried not to post, to let the thread die, but that didn't work - lol. I just hate that stupid, stupid holster setup, because nothing could be less PRACTICAL for everyday carry (remind me again, what's the P in USPSA stand for?)



Attention, Luke Skywalker wannabes: USPSA=Joke ...... :p

WESHOOT2
August 14, 2004, 10:23 AM
If I had one I'd wear the Gilmore I bought some (many) years ago; now if I use my Open gun (yes, with iron sights) I draw it from a Galco Yaqui Slide (my other Open gun has NO sights, but not enough mags -- yet).

Redhawks all fit my Sparks HSR (a beauty); my 1911 and Witnesses fit their respective Sparks 1AT's, and I have an occassional foray into Galco Royal Guard (1911) or J-Clip (Witnesses).

See? I CAN compete in USPCSAXYZ AND use my 'tactickle' gear. Except the Redwing steel-toed boots.........

Scooter2
August 14, 2004, 12:06 PM
Where in the USPSA rulebook does it specify what holster to use, besides no race holsters in production division? It's your choice. You can use your carry holster in open division if you wanted to. Now if you live in the free states that allow open carry, you can carry with your race holster if you wanted to so that makes it practical right?.

Do anyone actually read these posts? I thought my post of Rob Leatham's comments pretty much sums it up. Neither is more practical or tactical.

Another way to think of this is to compare it with auto racing. IDPA is like SCCA Autocross. You can take you everyday commuter like a Camry or whatever you drive and race it on a closed course. SCCA Autocross was set up to allow people to enhance their driving skills with their own cars. They also want to make it affordable for people to get into auto racing. You can say Autocross is "Practical".

I want to say IPSC is like Formula 1, but really it's more like the Touring Car Series. You do race with a highly modified production car. The fundamental skills are the same as Autocross except the Touring car drivers have refined their skills to another level. You can say that racing on closed road course with highly modified cars isn't too practical. However the skills that you learn from racing do carry over to everyday driving. Just look at how many people spin their cars on the road at the first sign of rain.

Taking a shooting class from any competition shooter or Gunsite, Frontsight, etc. is like attending a driving class from Skip Barber or Bondurant.

lochaber
August 17, 2004, 12:40 PM
You are really hung up on the holster thing. Not only are "normal" kydex rigs very popular with Production shooters they are also making their way into Limited. That aside, from this moment forward whenever you bring this issue up, I'll just bring up the the "special" vests with weights. Nevermind that almost no one uses tactical vests in day to day life, but then you go ahead and modify them with iron bars? So in IDPA I have lots of rules about what gun and rig I can use to avoid an arms race, but then we have clothing race. Great.

They are both games. Go shoot a good USPSA match and watch what a high rank Production shooter can do. One really has to wonder why he/she would want to use cover while moving faster then the BG could even think never mind aim and hit.

Loch.

bulm5
August 17, 2004, 05:36 PM
P stands for practice , practice, practice in USPSA. :cool: What does ID in IDPA stand for, I don't P anymore???

Don Gwinn
August 18, 2004, 12:01 AM
Yeah, I think that's enough.