It is no secret among the ingenue (those in the know) that I am a not a big fan of those NASCAR gamers who show up at our road courses and make noise about our game (IDPA). I can only attribute this to them not having anything else to do as the other matches take so long, no one wants to run them! Just kidding...but they have already driven me out of IPSC once! Now don't get me wrong, they are fast, accurate and very athletic but that rooney equipment and assault courses have already left me behind.
But, we are indeed fortunate in the area to have three (3) well established IDPA type matches monthly at RRPC, CAVP and at BC. Makes me wonder why there is not another one but both ammo and ranges appear to be in short supply. For instance, there is an IPSC match in Fburg, a CSA match at West Point and something down in the Tidewater area but no IDPA! It would be nice to have one IDPA event each weekend.
Now having said that, not all IDPA matches are equal and some are, in fact, more equal than others. They reflect the experience, personality and interest of each of the dissimilar match directors and it is reflected in both the course of fire and the RSOs involved. Again it is no secret that I prefer some matches to others but as long as the MDs are willing to do the grunt work, I am just going to shoot them and not complain about them. But, I think we should examine in some detail what IDPA COF should be.
At the recent match at the ITI training center, the COF was entirely devoted to law enforcement and/or police scenarios other than the steel plate stage. That only makes sense as it was a function of the Police Memorial Foundation. But it was not quite IDPA in that you ran quite a bit and took many more long shots than close ones. No WHO, No SHO, some movement, no disadvantaged shooting positions and the LEOs seldom employed cover. It was not advertised as an IDPA match but a sort of modification to suit the clientele. In my not inconsiderable experience with IDPA, LEOs are not generally thick on the ground at IDPA or for that matter IPSC matches. This was a special case.
The principles behind IDPA are directed at guns and equipment for self-defense that test the skill and ability of the shooter and not the stuff or the game itself. It calls for practical, realistic scenarios that simulate potential encounters or test the requisite skills for self-defense with a handgun. The theory behind COF design is stated to present problems that shooters are asked to solve while reflecting some reality with an emphasis on self-defense tactics and skills.
Listed in the philosophy section of the rule book things like the use of cover, reloading behind cover and limited rounds per string are included specifically. "Could this really happen?" like being attacked by steel circles or stars! The scripture tells us to make this up with SHO, WHO, retention and movement.
Safety considerations must be taken for granted and the physical demands of the square range somewhat limit us. Generally we do not have access to a shoot house or AC fuselage much. Sometimes we do not do much with props at all, the distances grow long and a few other things like head shots get over used.
The complaint that people won't attend if they don't get to shoot X number of rounds is not valid. They can shoot it twice or better yet, take up IPSC. They shoot lots. Or, better they can join a club!
How about a few new scenarios? I got dinged recently for retreating before two targets at less than 4 yards from me. Tueller would have been proud as I shot them on the move backwards! The RO said I was supposed to have shot them kneeling! Not in accordance with the challenge to have the shooter solve the problem is it?
I am hoping to stir up some thought on this. Undoubtedly it will become a beauty contest.
Last Call….Classifier - Gang… This Wed., afternoon 06-21-17 I will be running the classifier for the last time. Then back to our regular COF for IDPA. You need to be a current mem...
6 days ago