Handicapping

Gary D said:
I was thinking along similar lines earlier today about introducing new shooters to a league night and how to do so safely when they have not had any formal training and trying to accommodate pistol shooters while avoiding having another club rule requiring a holstering course. (When a club has too many rules it becomes no fun for anyone.) I hadn't thought about .22LR, but I had though about the holstering and low ready. Problem is without holsters they will not be able to do any start that is not facing squarely down range and the equivalent of facing target hands at sides. The only way I could conceive a way around that is apply a procedural penalty. As for the .22, perhaps figure out what the Pf of a .22 LR would be and then divide minor by that and that is the number of shots required on target : (minor Pf/.22 LR Pf)x2= required hits per target eg. (125/(40x1200/1000))x2= 5.2 so instead or requiring 2 hits per target you would require 5. Better get good with mag changes. I'm thinking different division as well solves all the issues including COF restrictions.
Click to expand...

My concern with this approach is that it that it assumes an ineffectiveness that may not be valid.
Does it really require 5 shots in the face with a 22LR to equal the impact/effectiveness of two 9mm???
 
I would say yes it would conceivably take 2 shots to the face from a .22 to equal that of a one 9mm. Minimum minor is (Standard and classic divisions) is 73.5% if minimum major, if you prefer using this factor in your handicapping formula, then minimum micro would be 73.5% of minor or a power factor of 91.2 which is realistically more than twice that of actual. So I would say you have two choices, increase hits accordingly or reduce score accordingly. Being generous and rounding up A=3 C=2 and to balance out the generosity and realistically a .22 in the D-zone not having any real stopping power, D=0. Of course I'm coming at this from an IPSC scoring perspective, if you're worried about "effectiveness" perhaps and IDPA scoring perspective is more in order.

Or you can let them play for practice and experience and score them minor, but not allow them to actually place in the match. If you want to compete bring the right gear, if you want to learn and play well have fun and the score doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
For the sake of discussion, if you are looking to keep shooter competitive in an IDPA scoring scheme, then I would say you have to add shots based on what you perceive is the effectiveness of the round. One to the head and one to the chest is not going to even be even in the same ballpark in .22 as say a .40 (or a 9mm or a .45) To attempt a balance in a way that would be competitive and marginally fair is require 3 shots of .22 per target, head remains -0, centre of mass -1, torso -2 and peripheral -5. That way a .22 shooter is in the game if he places his shots well, but has increased chance of missing and misses are more costly. I think this is more viable than an IPSC scored match.
 
Last edited:
Gary D said:
For the sake of discussion, if you are looking to keep shooter competitive in an IDPA scoring scheme, then I would say you have to add shots based on what you perceive is the effectiveness of the round. One to the head and one to the chest is not going to even be even in the same ballpark in .22 as say a .40 (or a 9mm or a .45) To attempt a balance in a way that would be competitive and marginally fair is require 3 shots of .22 per target, head remains -0, centre of mass -1, torso -2 and peripheral -5. That way a .22 shooter is in the game if he places his shots well, but has increased chance of missing and misses are more costly. I think this is more viable than an IPSC scored match.
Click to expand...

So this last point you made makes me think the distinction is ONLY in the points down.

Let's consider the two head shots, 22LR vs 9mm. In a real world situation, both pairs would be equally effective in the zero zone - the overall damage might be different, but the threat is very likely going to stop being threatening. But if the same pairs of shots landed in the -1 zone, there is a greater chance that the threat persists with the 22LR rds as opposed to the 9mm. You quite correctly said that the 22LR shooter must accurately place his shots to be effective. So therein lies a possible solution: modify (double?) the points down impact of any 22LR shots.

We had a mini-match (internal match) this week, but we had no 22LR shooters. I compiled a list of skills required to complete the match and only isolated 2 of the 18 distinct skills would be impacted by caliber size. More research is required, but I'm starting to think this is smaller and simpler than it appears.

FYI, my skill list was:

• Threat assessment
• Stance
• Grip
• Draw
• Present
• Aim
• Trigger pull
• Recoil Management
• Follow-up shots
• Reloads
• Reloading strategy
• Targeting strategy
• Bracing
• Malfunction management
• Movement and footwork
• Balance and weight distribution
• Movement of threat
• Use of cover
 
It looks like you're heading to the conclusion of Pocket Carry Competition Association. A very experienced and smart guy created this competition. Take a look at the targets. The A, B and C zones are different.

https://sites.google.com/a/lewistownpistolclub.com/home/pocket-carry-competition-association


Most of the guns used are prohibited north of the 49th but represent the lower power factor guns.

Regardless, there are different divisions separating those goes also.

DNH

DNH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom