I'll bite. I think the research into comps, holsters, etc. does have application outside of the game. Superficially, I heard of one study that found IPSC Open guns to be more effective than subguns at CQB, but that the training required to shoot an Open gun well was prohibitive. (I also wouldn't want to shoot mine a lot indoors. )

Going a little deeper, the research put into comps is making its way out into the world. One can't swing a dead cat without hitting a "tactical" AR muzzle brake.

I wondered why having a secure "switch" that locks the gun into the holster like I have on my competition Limcat holster hadn't made its way into the world of tactical holsters, then the SERPA came out, though I understand it still has its problems.

I'm not sure to what other competition-specific gear you might be referring.

Outside of gear, both games have fleas in their techniques. IPSC ignores cover, has no concept of slow and careful, and has safety-oriented things like draw with the strong hand and then transfer to the left hand. IDPA has tactical reloads on the clock, reloads with retention, and "use just enough cover to make the RO happy." In this regard, I don't think either one is more fleabitten than the other.

Lincoln

As I said, I think both games have fleas.

Both games place a tremendous emphasis on planned footwork and set-ups, which just aren't practical fighting issues. Yes, you could argue that a perfect set-up will be beneficial under some specific circumstance in a fight, but in reality no one is going to figure out whether it's a 2-step or 3-step set-up from here to the car, etc. Essentially, both games measure movement so much that small differences in shooting skill become meaningless compared to having the best plan and footwork.

IDPA was a perfect idea that got corrupted. When all the "real world" people quit the Board of Directors, that's a clue. Now you have a game that imposes some funky tactical commandments down upon competitors ... some of whom have vastly more tactical experience than the folks writing the rules. IDPA also suffers from personality troubles; too many SOs think that reading the IDPA Handbook has made them Warrior Gods competent to judge tactics, gear, etc. IDPA has become "ballet with guns." You have to make sure your exact plan is approved in advance by the SO every step of the way or you face getting a penalty for thinking outside the course designer's mental box.

IPSC varies a lot more from club to club than IDPA, in my experience, but around here there are far too many memory-game stages. Personally, I can't stand waiting around while every competitor walks through the entire stage one footstep at a time practicing everything in advance. IPSC is definitely about maximizing performance and I wouldn't take that away from them. But for some folks (like me), it's a little too much thinking and a little too little shooting. Also, just as IDPA has become sort of a tactical-wannabe cult, IPSC seems to lean far the other way ... I've actually been teased at matches for using my carry gear and mentioning that I carry a concealed gun.

I once admitted after a match that I had been carrying my 442 in a pants pocket through the whole match and I thought the competitors around me were going to stroke out. (and yes, I knew it was against the rules ... )

Both games are worthwhile and I shoot both as time allows, though admittedly more IDPA than IPSC. It's easier for me to ignore the 24 year old who thinks he knows everything about fighting than it is for me to ignore the 42 year old who thinks guns are nothing but toys.

As an interesting aside, I took a class in October with Henk Iverson of Strike Tactical. It was the first class he's ever taught to private citizens. Henk was in the South African military tracking terrorists in the bush with a dog and then worked for many years in antiterrorist operations with the police. The guy hasn't just seen the elephant, he's seen a herd of elephants.

In the class, movement was emphasized heavily. I deliberately used movement techniques that I learned for competition in a competition class that I had taken with USPSA GM Jake Di Vita. Henk complemented me multiple times on how quick and smooth my movement was.



As I think I've mentioned to you before, this may be regional or a club variation. In Indiana, anyone remotely interested in guns has a CCW. Almost everyone, if not everyone, with whom I shoot regularly carries to some degree. In fact, at the last match I attended most of the attendees of the Iverson class were shooting.

Now, these people, for the most part, know that a game is a game and will try to do well at the match, me included, but they would never denigrate someone for using their carry gear.



I honestly think a hot range is safer than a cold range, but you can't explicitly tell people that you are committing a DQable offense and then expect them not to soil themselves.



I've ended up in the opposite place. I love to play with my toys and to play a game that helps to improve my shooting skills. Having an RO who's never so much as attended a class tell me all about what's tactically correct and what's not irritates me to no end.

Lincoln

Lincoln -- smooth movement is good. Being able to execute specifically the right pre-planned number of steps to end on your left foot at a precise angle right as you break a shot around a wall at a target you know isn't going to move ... that's something altogether different.

It's something I've really noticed a lot watching the champs at major matches. The stuff they do in between shooting (getting from position to position) plays a much bigger role in which wins than their raw shooting ability relative to one another.

A buddy of mine jumped from B-class to Master in USPSA primarily by refocussing his efforts on footwork and set-ups rather than improving his shooting (which was already exceptional). We spent two days working on it at his range earlier this year and while he certainly knows what he's doing, I just can't see a practical application to those skills. They only work in the highly artificial & static world of a match.

I guess that's my main thought on IDPA, IPSC, and similar games: they're great and can motivate you to shoot better, but at the same time if your focus is on getting better at playing the game, what you'll get better at is playing a game.

The first IPSC match I ever attended was at Ft. Meade, MD. I showed up with a G27 in an Mad Dog IWB covered by a sweatshirt. Got to the line and the RO bitched at me for not bringing a gun! When I showed him the G27 under my sweatshirt, he stopped the match until the Match Director could rule on whether it was safe or not.

I'm one of those who actually wear their gun to the match and shoot it, with the exception of USPSA revolver (because I don't like trying to hide a 6" M14 and eight speedloaders). I shoot both IDPA and USPSA and don't seem to have a problem switching mindset between them.

I shoot IDPA because it gives me a chance to practice some of the stuff I've learned in defensive classes, and because it's more revolver-friendly. (I've gotten a warning at a major USPSA match for correctly dumping the empties from a revolver by pointing the muzzle straight up and slapping the ejector rod - almost broke the vertical 180. I never got a warning like that at an IDPA match.) I enjoy USPSA because I like to shoot a lot; I've been shooting Limited minor so I can load my CZ-75's mags all the way up and only have one reload per stage. When I shoot revolver, I get lots of reload practice.

One thing that has been said often is that the main self-defense benefit of shooting in competition is that you get used to shooting under pressure. I haven't had to shoot anyone yet (knock wood!), but I have cleared houses in Iraq with my 16A2's selector switch on "burst", and actually knowing that I have hit targets under pressure before gave me confidence others with me didn't have. And yes, clearing a house with a 16A2 and body armor does suck.

Rather than concentrate on the fleas, I think it's profitable to examine the beneficial parts of competition.

Sure, but I'll be more specific. I was using Di Vita's methods for leaving and entering shooting boxes, the gamiest things in gamertown, in the Iverson class. To be even more specific, I was using his "hard" leave and "hard" enter: there's also an "easy" leave and an "easy" enter. :^)

To take another strange turn, I think Di Vita's heavy emphasis on footwork--more than half of my notes from his class--came from his martial arts background. So, martial arts influenced the game techniques that I in turn used in the tactical class. :^)



Absolutely. As Di Vita pointed out, most of the time in a stage is spent not shooting. The biggest gains can be made in improving things not directly related to shooting. Brian Enos says to get to the shooting as soon as possible. There is less difference than many might think between the basic shooting ability of A, Master, and Grand Master shooters: the big differences are in movement, gaming stages, etc.




To what are you referring specifically? I don't think that's true for, say, shooting on the move, exploding away from one place, or arriving smoothly at a new place ready to shoot. That's why I brought up the shooting box movements and the Iverson class.

Lincoln

OK, primary example:

Barricade A and Barricade B, separated by about 3 yards.
Engage two targets from around the outside of Barricade A, move to Barricade B, engage two targets from around the outside of Barricade B.

What wins this game is movement. The shooting is almost immaterial if the targets are reasonably close.

But, I contend there is little to no tactical value in performing the movement from barricade to barricade in a perfect planned manner. Under stress in a fight you aren't going to figure out whether that's a 3-step set-up or a 2-step set-up. And while moving from point of cover to point of cover quickly is valuable, getting to cover is what matters as opposed to performing a set-up.

Nor is there a practical correlation to the fast set-up you'll get moving into the second shooting position. Change the shooting problem so that the competitor doesn't know where or how many targets he'll face from each position and the set-up becomes much less doable if you're worried about cover (or, heaven forbid, we act as if bullets might be coming in our direction from the cardboard ninja pirates).

Maybe I just haven't tried applying this stuff with Sims, but I can't remember doing any force-on-force scenarios where this stuff would have been a deciding factor. When there is an exchange of fire there are just so many other things to be thinking about and dealing with, so many variables you need to pay attention to (or get overwhelmed by) ...

There is no question that ideal footwork and perfect set-ups are monstrously beneficial when playing games. But the benefits in a chaotic, dynamic situation with incoming fire seem not so much.

OK. You're point is well taken. In the Iverson class example, we were doing what many call the "DTI dance," in reference to what John Farnam makes his students do, which is moving back and forth laterally without cover to avoid getting shot. Using the "hard leave" and "hard enter" game techniques allowed me to change my lateral position explosively and to re-engage the target quickly and smoothly. There was no cover to consider in this particular case, nor were the number of steps I was taking predetermined by the exercises.

In addition, I don't think this is unrealistic. As I'm sure I've argued to you previously, the real world has a dearth of cover. IDPA may overemphasize cover. Sims may give one a false impression of what counts as cover. I am typing this response from my basement. As I look around, I see nothing in this entire basement that would stop a pistol bullet, including a bar and walls to a utility room.



Did you move laterally in Sims? If so, did you use footwork you had practiced previously?

Lincoln

I can agree on the "DTI dance" thing, to an extent. I guess I see that as a different skill, but admittedly being good at set-ups and move-outs would translate well.

I very rarely find myself moving laterally or see others moving laterally in Sims. People tend to face the direction they want to move, and move ... at least if it's more than a few steps.

One counter-example, which I have on tape, is from some stuff I did at the Secret Service's training facility back when they hosted the Secret Service Match every year. Long story short, I was attacked by a number of people at various distances, most of whom had cars, mailboxes, or exterior walls to use as cover while I was out in the open. I appear to be doing a very deliberate side-shuffle (right foot meets left foot, left foot extends a long stretch out, right foot catches up again, repeat) which happened completely subconsciously. They actually commented afterwards that they never see people do that "for real" but only as a silly range technique. I think I was so intent on delivering hits at partially concealed targets that I wasn't really paying proper attention to self-preservation.

We were moving from the starting point; changing direction to the direction we wanted to move, which Henk recommended; and then turning back to the target. That's precisely why the "box to box" techniques worked so well. They teach one to make the directional changes smoothly and quickly.

Lincoln

OK, that makes sense. I think it's the natural way people are going to act under stress if moving is what their brains are thinking, and it comports with what I've seen doing FOF stuff.

I'm still back where I started, though: while it means the world of difference in a game, the real world application is very, very limited and not going to play a substantial part in victory versus defeat. Even in the example you gave, if the targets are moving dynamically and you're receiving incoming fire, how will that affect the application of this skill?

Todd, Lincoln,

I think the point being missed in discussions of IDPA, IPSC etc. is that while the match scenarios and game-winning strategies may not be real world applicable, they do force your concentration to focus on executing your planned strategy / movement / set up, which in turn pushes your actual shooting skills into the subconscious level..... which is a good thing.

I'd definitely go along with that! Good point, Al!

IPSC/IDPA is kinda like Boxing/MMA. Can be very useful (or not), but they are not the real thing; they are still games w rules. Some folks who have never done any of them have buried guys who were good at all of them.

I've yet to see a video of a police shooting that looked like most Q courses or a matches. I've been in more real fights than I wanted to be in, cuffed and stuffed too many nasty people, and few of them felt like most of my sparring or training. We gotta spar and train; something is better than nothing. No matter how much excellent stuff goes into both, we can still get garbage out if we aren't careful.

Red Flag and Top Gun were invaluable to improving combat survivability of our pilots. FOF/Hogan's Alley/Shoot House, etc is doing the same for cops and soldiers. How does a "civilian" do the same? Sometimes I think paintball and laser tag are more useful than IPSC/IDPA if your head is in the right place when you play them...

I know what the question is, but still I have no idea what the answer is.