The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

yankytrash · April 1, 2002, 08:49 AM

Attended my first competition this past weekend - IPSC. It was fun as could be, but probably not totally what I expected. I really didn't like the equipment game involved.

Been doing some research on IDPA, and found that I don't really like the limitations imposed on equipment (namely, no open carry unless you're a LEO), and some of the rules of certain stages (required reloads, even if not needed).

Having only been to one competition, I don't speak from hardcore experience here. However, there are extreme advantages of one over the other, and vice-versa. That's seen in past pro/con arguments on this board and others about the subjects of IDPA vs IPSC. I think I'd like them both equally.

They both have their limitations, but both are fun.

Is there a grassroots competition that incorporates the advantages of both associations? With so many pro/con arguments out there on both associations, it seems somebody must have come up with their own version, which would include the pro's of both associations.

Ideally, I'm thinking along these lines:

Practical carry guns, like the IDPA rules, but without as many restrictions. Basically, if it fits in a holster that's suitable for daily carry, and there's no parts hanging off the gun that would break easily during daily carry/tactical manuveurs, you can wear it.
Holster restrictions along these lines - open carry acceptable for all persons, retention levels of 2 or 3 (no "1's" or speed holsters). CCW has no retention level requirement (remember, some people just like to throw a .32 in their jacket pocket on their way to the store...).
No required reloads. IE., if your mag has the capacity to run through a stage with no reloads, why reload? No mags that hang below the grip of semi-autos more than, say...., 3/4" or so. "Weighted" mags allowed, as long as they meet the length requirement.
To give the 1911 shooter a competitive edge, course design should be centered around 8 shots or less. The realism here is: How many times do you really run into a situation that would require more than 8 shots? In real life, if you miss 8 times in a self-defense situation, you're probably dead anyway.
Steel calibrated more toward heavier calibers, like .40 or larger, but no restrictions on caliber size. Real life situations would reflect this, in the stopping power of a bullet. Smaller calibers allowed, but they might have to hit that steel more than once to drop it. This would allow those 32ACP users in the game (Which is a popular carry caliber for a majority of CCW practioners, as we all know from past posts on this board and others). With a mixture of steel and paper targets, smaller calibers could make up for their time disadvantage (in trying to drop the steel) in shot placement.
"X" amount of seconds allowed outside of cover, regardless of situation. Less seconds allowed outside of cover depending on how many "bad guys" are presented in that particular stage. Don't think I have explain the realism of that one.
No gun "divisions" or "classes". In real life, does a BG decide not to engage you over the caliber you've chosen? Does he engage you any differently depending on the type of gun you carry?

I have a lot more ideas, but I think you get the idea by now. Basically, an association that doesn't require a master's degree in law to interpret the rules of the association (IPSC), or the rules of the courses (IDPA). Something that allows the freedoms we are granted in real life, reflecting the consequences of our choices in guns/calibers/actions in real life.

Anybody got any links, or ideas of their own? Let's keep this thread away from the same ol' IDPA vs IPSC argument. Like I said, they both have their advantages, and their reason for the rules they've adopted over the years.

April 1, 2002, 08:49 AM	#1
yankytrash Senior Member Join Date: April 17, 2001 Location: Farnham, Va Posts: 2,183	A happy medium between IPSC & IDPA? Attended my first competition this past weekend - IPSC. It was fun as could be, but probably not totally what I expected. I really didn't like the equipment game involved. Been doing some research on IDPA, and found that I don't really like the limitations imposed on equipment (namely, no open carry unless you're a LEO), and some of the rules of certain stages (required reloads, even if not needed). Having only been to one competition, I don't speak from hardcore experience here. However, there are extreme advantages of one over the other, and vice-versa. That's seen in past pro/con arguments on this board and others about the subjects of IDPA vs IPSC. I think I'd like them both equally. They both have their limitations, but both are fun. Is there a grassroots competition that incorporates the advantages of both associations? With so many pro/con arguments out there on both associations, it seems somebody must have come up with their own version, which would include the pro's of both associations. Ideally, I'm thinking along these lines: Practical carry guns, like the IDPA rules, but without as many restrictions. Basically, if it fits in a holster that's suitable for daily carry, and there's no parts hanging off the gun that would break easily during daily carry/tactical manuveurs, you can wear it. Holster restrictions along these lines - open carry acceptable for all persons, retention levels of 2 or 3 (no "1's" or speed holsters). CCW has no retention level requirement (remember, some people just like to throw a .32 in their jacket pocket on their way to the store...). No required reloads. IE., if your mag has the capacity to run through a stage with no reloads, why reload? No mags that hang below the grip of semi-autos more than, say...., 3/4" or so. "Weighted" mags allowed, as long as they meet the length requirement. To give the 1911 shooter a competitive edge, course design should be centered around 8 shots or less. The realism here is: How many times do you really run into a situation that would require more than 8 shots? In real life, if you miss 8 times in a self-defense situation, you're probably dead anyway. Steel calibrated more toward heavier calibers, like .40 or larger, but no restrictions on caliber size. Real life situations would reflect this, in the stopping power of a bullet. Smaller calibers allowed, but they might have to hit that steel more than once to drop it. This would allow those 32ACP users in the game (Which is a popular carry caliber for a majority of CCW practioners, as we all know from past posts on this board and others). With a mixture of steel and paper targets, smaller calibers could make up for their time disadvantage (in trying to drop the steel) in shot placement. "X" amount of seconds allowed outside of cover, regardless of situation. Less seconds allowed outside of cover depending on how many "bad guys" are presented in that particular stage. Don't think I have explain the realism of that one. No gun "divisions" or "classes". In real life, does a BG decide not to engage you over the caliber you've chosen? Does he engage you any differently depending on the type of gun you carry? I have a lot more ideas, but I think you get the idea by now. Basically, an association that doesn't require a master's degree in law to interpret the rules of the association (IPSC), or the rules of the courses (IDPA). Something that allows the freedoms we are granted in real life, reflecting the consequences of our choices in guns/calibers/actions in real life. Anybody got any links, or ideas of their own? Let's keep this thread away from the same ol' IDPA vs IPSC argument. Like I said, they both have their advantages, and their reason for the rules they've adopted over the years. __________________ Right turn, Clyde.