Thoughts on how IPSC works
- Thread starter Madness
- Start date
More practical for what? Just because we shoot fully tricked out open guns, does not mean we don't know how to shoot a production gun or draw from concealment. I find race guns more practical for IPSC.
Oh just for the hell of it, here are some quotes from "The Combat Automatic" by Bill Wilson circa 1991
"Before touching on the growth of the whole new generation of sophisticated guns - including our own Accu-Comp and Super Grade Accu-Comp - in traditional andd non-traditional calibers like .45, .38 super, 10mm, .40 S&W and even some wildcats like 9mm major and .356 TSW, I'd like to address some of the criticisms leveled at the so-called "gadget gun."
Long slides, bowling pin guns and compensated guns have all come under fire recently as being somehow in violation of the spirit of IPSC-style practical competition. The criticism has been that such guns are no better than the finely tuned bullseye guns or the super specialized revolvers used in police PPC shooting.
Nothing, I believe, could be farther from the truth.
One of the basic tenets of IPSC shooting, as laid down by Jeff Cooper, is that practical shooting presents a problem, and the shooter is free to solve that problem in whatever way he or she sees fit. One of the most common problems presented is rapid shots against multiple targets, usually at close range.
In a situation like that, a device that reduces felt recoil and allows the shooter to quickly come back on target gives that shooter an advantage. Thats exactly what the "gadget gun" is designed to do."
"Were I to go into a life threatening situation with only a handgun, the handgun I would choose without any reservation is my competition Accu-Comp. It has fired tens of thousands of rounds of full-charge ammo without misfiring, it is fiercely accurate, and it is as reliable as a handgun can possibly be made to be.
If this isn't practical, I don't know what it is!"
Bill Wilson
pages 118 and 128 of The Combat Automatic
"Before touching on the growth of the whole new generation of sophisticated guns - including our own Accu-Comp and Super Grade Accu-Comp - in traditional andd non-traditional calibers like .45, .38 super, 10mm, .40 S&W and even some wildcats like 9mm major and .356 TSW, I'd like to address some of the criticisms leveled at the so-called "gadget gun."
Long slides, bowling pin guns and compensated guns have all come under fire recently as being somehow in violation of the spirit of IPSC-style practical competition. The criticism has been that such guns are no better than the finely tuned bullseye guns or the super specialized revolvers used in police PPC shooting.
Nothing, I believe, could be farther from the truth.
One of the basic tenets of IPSC shooting, as laid down by Jeff Cooper, is that practical shooting presents a problem, and the shooter is free to solve that problem in whatever way he or she sees fit. One of the most common problems presented is rapid shots against multiple targets, usually at close range.
In a situation like that, a device that reduces felt recoil and allows the shooter to quickly come back on target gives that shooter an advantage. Thats exactly what the "gadget gun" is designed to do."
"Were I to go into a life threatening situation with only a handgun, the handgun I would choose without any reservation is my competition Accu-Comp. It has fired tens of thousands of rounds of full-charge ammo without misfiring, it is fiercely accurate, and it is as reliable as a handgun can possibly be made to be.
If this isn't practical, I don't know what it is!"
Bill Wilson
pages 118 and 128 of The Combat Automatic
- Location
- my heart in the blue sea
IPSC is a very fun game. still,there's some funny rules in that game in the sens it favorise the speed detrimentally to accuracy imo. you can get away with more C's than a's if you achieves a faster time which is something i don't understands yet.
another point is here in canada, the rules regarding the IPSC production class is far away from the USPSA's one , and it should be harmonized .
the reason is, here in canada,we have practically access to the same parts as the americans, then our rules should Mirror that fact.
as example, anyone can get a competition spring kit for ZEV technologies,which is accepted in USPSA .not in IPSC .
same goes for a SS guide rod adding more durability, accepted in uspsa production, but not in ipsc...mag lenght for the standard class..wheeew. i can get any +0 base pads ,but most of them don't fit the ipsc box. and the list goes on.
also, why the hell minor scoring has to be different than major in the standard class . i mean, shooting a minor load with a 180grs projectile is mellower than with a 147!!
scoring should give the same 2 point for a D minor,while i agree that for the C zone major should keep 4 , while minor is good for 3 .
the C zone is 37.5cm and the D is 45cm. C score is tighter ,and it's ok that major scoring is reflecting that.
another point is here in canada, the rules regarding the IPSC production class is far away from the USPSA's one , and it should be harmonized .
the reason is, here in canada,we have practically access to the same parts as the americans, then our rules should Mirror that fact.
as example, anyone can get a competition spring kit for ZEV technologies,which is accepted in USPSA .not in IPSC .
same goes for a SS guide rod adding more durability, accepted in uspsa production, but not in ipsc...mag lenght for the standard class..wheeew. i can get any +0 base pads ,but most of them don't fit the ipsc box. and the list goes on.
also, why the hell minor scoring has to be different than major in the standard class . i mean, shooting a minor load with a 180grs projectile is mellower than with a 147!!
scoring should give the same 2 point for a D minor,while i agree that for the C zone major should keep 4 , while minor is good for 3 .
the C zone is 37.5cm and the D is 45cm. C score is tighter ,and it's ok that major scoring is reflecting that.
- Location
- my heart in the blue sea
loll
The only time you can get away with more C's and a faster time is if you're not planning on winning. There comes a limit to how fast you can go, and once you reach that plateau, more points become super critical. Speed is more important than time if you want to win B class, but to progress further, you will need to be turning those C hit's into A's.
If I go to a match, I consider D's a miss, because I simply can't afford to give up 3 points on a single target against the people from other provinces that I know I will be competing against. I know a few people that say D's are worth 13 points, because the only thing they're good for is to keep you from getting a miss penalty.
If I go to a match, I consider D's a miss, because I simply can't afford to give up 3 points on a single target against the people from other provinces that I know I will be competing against. I know a few people that say D's are worth 13 points, because the only thing they're good for is to keep you from getting a miss penalty.
That would be me haha. D's mean you are out of control and the only reason you didn't miss the target completely, is dumb luck!
That is because USPSA uses their own rule book. If they want to shoot an IPSC match like in October at the US IPSC Nationals they have to follow IPSC rules.
We do not want to get into why the rule books are different!
We do not want to get into why the rule books are different!
Shoot throughs reinforce "Rule 4 - Know your target and whats behind it!" In a COF, you may need to change your angle or go for the 'box' on top of the target to avoid hitting the non-threat behind in the field.
Regarding IPSC, I still stand by my comments from 2 years ago. We should be submitting level 3 results to ICS while we wait for the 'new and improved' Canadian system that was supposed to already be in place...
Last edited:
Nope. IDPA requires that you draw from concealment* (ie: from under a concealment garment) and shoot from cover**. Now, whether that cover is 'cover from view' or 'cover from fire' is open to debate.
*for most scenerio based stages but seldom for standard exercise stages.
** unless the stage starts in the open in which case the competitor must move to cover.
Cover from view? I've never heard this term. Concealment is what it is, IDPA can pretend it's cover, which specifically means from fire, but it's not. It's a game, just like IPSC just different rules. People bring up things like pieing corners as an example of how realistic IDPA is, except they don't realize that's how top IPSC shooters engage targets as well, most of the time at least.
My point regarding shoot throughs was actually directed at a few matches I've seen online and read about, where the top shooters purposely shot through the crowd targets to engage threat targets. However allowing shoot throughs doesn't reinforce anything, it's still a game, and it costs you minor points if you hit a hostage. Wouldn't a zero or maybe a complete match failure be more realistic? In certain SOF and HRT training that would get you kicked off the team.
My point regarding shoot throughs was actually directed at a few matches I've seen online and read about, where the top shooters purposely shot through the crowd targets to engage threat targets. However allowing shoot throughs doesn't reinforce anything, it's still a game, and it costs you minor points if you hit a hostage. Wouldn't a zero or maybe a complete match failure be more realistic? In certain SOF and HRT training that would get you kicked off the team.
"Cover from view? I've never heard this term. Concealment is what it is, IDPA can pretend it's cover, which specifically means from fire, but it's not"
Slavex, the term cover is valid to mean hiding from view. In fact, "soft cover" is specifically that, it hides the target partially or completely but shots can go through. "Hard cover" is when the cover stops the bullets. Hard cover can also hide the target or let it be seen like bulletproof glass.
Slavex, the term cover is valid to mean hiding from view. In fact, "soft cover" is specifically that, it hides the target partially or completely but shots can go through. "Hard cover" is when the cover stops the bullets. Hard cover can also hide the target or let it be seen like bulletproof glass.
It's not just a term used in IDPA. I first learned the term from a Canadian Armed Forces manual 30 odd years ago when I was an instructor and as far as I know it's still part of the doctrine. Considering what the CAF has been up to for the last decade or more, can't get much more real world than that.
