JohnH

I realize that IDPA was never meant to substitute for firearms training but I have used it as a chance to get some trigger time in relatively realistic scenarios. The last two times I've shot, I've been startled by some of the shooting I've seen. Typically, a competitor will fire three rapid shots at each target with the plan that at one will hit the "0" ring and another will snag the "-1" ring. When done quickly this does seem to offer some advantage from a scoring perspective but doesn't reflect the desired response in a realistic scenario.

It occurred to me that the solution may be to change the scoring on the IDPA target to "0," "-2" and "-4." It seems to me that such changes would force participants to shoot more carefully and discourage "spraying and "praying." (I thought about changing the penalty for each down point but thought the math would be easier this way)

While I'm thinking, what about the penalty for no-shoots. It seems to me that five seconds isn't realistic either. It seem like something between 10 and 20 would work better.

Finally, how about realistic scoring on the head? I'd love to see a 3"x5" box on the "head" with a "0" point value and the remainder of the head with -1 scoring.

shootingbuff

I could see it as -0 , -3, and -4.

I see alot of folks spraying becasue the -1 is so large and they are faster doing this than trying to improve their accuracy.

Hostage is 5 seconds not points, so it is twice a complete miss. I can live with it or with having it changed for the same reasons as above.

Glock on

sb

h4444

I'm somewhat torn on this issue. I think there needs to be a balance between accuracy and speed. I think changing the scoring zones, put the emphasis too much on accuracy. In a life and death shootout, out aren't going to "take your time" and get a perfect sight picture....after all the longer the conflict goes, the more likely you are to get shot.

People are going to try to game the stages,,,,one easy cure is to use Limited Vickers scoring. That way people can't take the extra shots without being penalized.

The problem is some people are going to be lazy shooters. The real problem I see people are trying to get around actually learning how to shoot. To do well, one must learn how to quickly re-acquire the sights and if the rules let you take extra shots, some are willing to pop another quick shot out there and hope they can get by with it.

Either everyone will get tired of getting clobbered due to procedurals on Limited Vickers scoring, or they'll actually shoot as opposed to spray and pray.

USPSA has a similar problem, but if you are taking extra shots,,,,you are losing time which hurts your hit factors,,,,,gotta be a balance.

Thanks,
H4444

Byron

Tom Freeman

I like the scoring as it is right now ‘cept I think no shoots should be more heavily penalized.

As far as adding another scoring ring in the head I couldn’t disagree more. I can’t imagine many two legged creatures that could take a round to the side of the noggin and still be an immediate threat.

Limited Vickers scoring to control shooters is fine for standards but sucks for everything else. Not only does it take most all thinking out of a stage/problem, but makes for mundane stages. If I shank a shot low and decide I want to make it up with a –1 or a 0, you penalize me. Not everyone who sometimes takes three shots at a target is a gamer.

I shot at a club late last year that did exactly this. Haven’t gone back. I feel the same about Limited Vickers Scoring as I do shooting boxes in IPSC.

Give me a problem and let me solve it my way. Limited Vickers isnt an easy cure for gamers, its a lazy cure for poor stage design.

h4444

edited

Tim Burke

Another problem with Limited Vickers: currently there is no failure to neutralize penalty in Limited Vickers scoring.
I don't like Limited Vickers and I don't like Virginia Count. I want to be able to shoot until I am happy.

BillD

If you want more accuracy in a stage, use no shoots and hardcovers to make your target smaller. Use no shoots as hostages and make shooters thread the needle on some 15 yd shots. That will make them accurate or out of the running. Also you can use swinger type targets which really need concentration. If you make your stages have the max number of rounds, the ones that shoot it with accuracy will not have to do a 2nd reload. The shooters that like to make up shots will have to do a 2nd reload thus increasing their times.

This can be achieved with course design. Make the targets more difficult to hit, put t shirts on them so you can't see your hits. There a lot of things you can do.

As for thinking through COF's and that being wonderful, my opinion is not just no but hell no. If I could, I would run all blind stages that the competitor hadn't even seen yet. Just tell them to step through the door, use cover and take on his opponents. This encourages thinking on your feet and not deciding beforehand exactly how you are going to shoot and where your reloads are going to be. Walking through COF's beforehand is too much like IPSC. Which in my opinion is too much like standards which is way too boring for me.

But that's just me, as my wife tells me, "You have your faults but being wrong isn't one of them."

Tim Burke

Sounds to me like BillD wants to run the kind of match that I want to shoot.

Tom Freeman

I think every IDPA stage should have at least two swingers, one of them being a no shoot.

JohnH

You'd be surprised at how hard it is to penetrate the head with handgun rounds. Because the skull is rounded, many bullets will richocet off the skull. The bone structure around the mouth is so thick that even a solid hit may not breach the brain case. For an effective head shot, all you have is the area from the top of the eyes to the bottom of the nose. 3"x5" is a pretty good estimate of that area.