PDA

View Full Version : Latest IDPA Stage Design.... Thoughts?


iamdb
August 8, 2012, 09:02 AM
What do you guys think?

Jim Watson
August 8, 2012, 09:15 AM
I have nothing against it as a shooting challenge, but as a match stage...

It has a lot of moving parts, better have an extra SO to reset them like you want them. I don't mind pasting cardboard, but standing up a popper is about my limit of involvement with other people's mechanical toys.

A movable NT out of 3 targets is not an equal challenge to all and I doubt it would be AC approved. Put it on the right and the shooter has to pie farther than the guy who finds it on the left. If you want to be fair, you could have 4 targets and randomly swap the NT between the middle two so everybody would have to pie the same to get the end threats.

Gonna be tough for us six-shooter shooters, 13 shots and a reload in the middle of a swinger. But we are used to it.

iamdb
August 8, 2012, 10:48 AM
We have had similar floating NT's and nobody has ever complained, but I see how it could be unfair. I have heard complaints about IDPA stages not allowing a shooter to think on his feet or being dynamic enough so I have been toying with some ideas. I wanted to add an additional threat but I thought that would push the round count to high for the people who have a hard time with poppers.


Thanks for the feedback by the way!

g.willikers
August 9, 2012, 09:35 AM
Being a sucker for moving target stages, (the more the merrier), I like it.
As those stages go, it's not all that complicated.
But to avoid getting complaints, it will have to be consistent from competitor to competitor, without variation.
Any change in the way it operates could even cause the stage to be thrown out of the match.

RickB
August 9, 2012, 03:32 PM
Cover must be used if cover is available. No option but Tac Priority from Position B for the popper and two swingers. You can't cross from Pos B to Pos C until after the three targets available from Pos B are engaged.
I'm not high on the "floating no-shoot", and I am absolutely certain my AC would not allow it at a sanctioned match, but if your AC doesn't shoot your matches, and the MD is cool with it?

iamdb
August 9, 2012, 05:54 PM
I was under the impression cover was not needed while advancing or retreating. Our coordinator does not shoot locally but the MD does. I already submitted it to him. I will see what he says. We have had 3 position floating targets before with no complaints. Actually everyone seemed to enjoy them. I'm sure it will come back altered. I will post any alterations he makes. Thanks for the feed back guys.

RickB
August 9, 2012, 06:36 PM
You don't need cover while advancing or retreating, but if you have a target that's visible from Position B - the cover of Position B - you can't ignore the available cover and engage it while "advancing" (moving across to Position C?). Any target that is available through the "port" that is the open ground between B and C, must be engaged before crossing from B to C.

iamdb
August 9, 2012, 07:38 PM
I see. I was intending for shooter to walk down hall way then retreat to "C" or take the long shots from the corner. Perhaps the barrels should have been "C" and the adjacent corner should have been "D"

RickB
August 10, 2012, 11:42 AM
Shooting on-the-move is now essentially limited to moving to cover from an initial start position that is in-the-open. All other engagements are expected to be from cover.
I designed a stage for a sanctioned match that included targets that appeared (popped-up) after the competitor entered a Cooper Tunnel, forcing engagement while moving through the tunnel, since no cover was available, and was told, via my Area Coordinator's conversation with Robert Ray, that I couldn't do that. You not only can't leave cover to engage while moving, you can't design a stage that encourages it.
At the local level, I'm sure Robert Ray isn't looking over your shoulder when you design a stage, but the rules addendum removed the option of engaging while moving from one cover position to another.
I think it's an attempt to reduce "round dumping" via limiting the ability to run your gun dry while moving.