IDPA vs USPSA. Have you tried both? Which do you enjoy more?

[jar]

There are techniques that allow people to come up with their own solution that do not involve randomness or secrets. Some examples:

- A freestyle course in which the shooter is told to "solve the problem" but not where to shoot from. You can set up a stage where, for example, a shooter may engage all targets from 2 positions or 3 positions - but engagement from only 2 positions involves a longer shot; shots at a target partially obscured by hard cover or a no-shoot when shot from 2 positions but fully visible if the shooter uses a third position, or perhaps allow the shooter to save some movement if he is confident enough to engage that mini-popper positioned right in front of a no-shoot unless the shooter goes to an extra position which allows engagement without the noshoot directly behind the popper.

- Use movers creatively. Consider a popper that causes a target to be temporarily exposed and them mostly covered by a noshoot, and which has several exposed targets nearby. The shooter has a couple of choices:

a. Do I attempt to engage the pop up target while it is fully exposed before the no-shoot exposes all but a small part of the target, or make the tight shot after the movement has ceased?

b. When I shoot the steel, do I use the time while the moving target pops up to go engage other targets or do I have the gun pointed and waiting for the popup?

Done properly, such choices will not be "obvious" and you'll see all sorts of different choices. A stage at the recent BUAS match in Boston provided 5 shooting positions (3 ports, around the left wall and around the right wall). I saw people engage in using anywhere from 1 to 4 of the shooting positions - and even the top shooters did not all use the same strategy.

I love stages with risk reward tradeoffs and choices. That's one of the key factors in a good stage, IMO. Regarding the BUAS stage you mention, what about 1.2.1.2?

The IDPA guys up in Pelham, NH do some cool things.

In one pit they led you in blindfolded and set up barrels 2 high so that you could not see the stage. The SO was behind you and you had to engage targets as they presented to you, and they were very vocal about calling you for cover. It was a slow but very meaningful stage.

Blind stages are cool, but I'm not sure they have a place in matches. It's really hard to administer them fairly.

I've done both. I've had fun at both. However, I found IDPA to have more subjectivity in the SOing. IDPA scoring is simpler and quicker to grasp yet I feel like I can read more out of a USPSA hit factor score sheet. There's more data there. Time plus vs Hit factor shooting is just plain different for the average shooter.

Something I've observed, you walk away from a USPSA match and you talk about the shooting. You walk away from an IDPA match and you talk about the rules.

Yeah, it's a lot easier to call a foot fault than cover. I agree that there's more info on USPSA score sheets. Since I started shooting both, I hate that IDPA results generally don't break out individual stages.

Before I shot USPSA, I derided their huge complicated 'rulebook by committee'. Then I went to a couple matches, and there were NO ARGUMENTS ABOUT RULES. IDPA's rulebook could use some work with input from competitors.

That brings me to another big difference between the two. USPSA is run by the shooters via an elected board. The rulebook is updated on a regular schedule and there's a process for making suggestions. IDPA is run by Bill Wilson. The rulebook hasn't been updated in 5 years. I definitely worry about a future rulebook pissing off enough shooters to fracture IDPA.

 

[Supermoto]

Regarding the BUAS stage you mention, what about 1.2.1.2?

The stage was a long course. 24 rounds I believe. so 1.2.1.3 would apply.

 

[jar]

The stage was a long course. 24 rounds I believe. so 1.2.1.3 would apply.

The relevant bit of 1.2.1.3 is the same, "nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in
the course of fire from any single location or view."

 

[MFP4073]

... the urban commando look and the grossly overweight wearing spandex.

Hey dont talk about Supermoto and I like that!

Get those bandanas and shirts with only the top button out for the next match Mike.

 

[Supermoto]

The relevant bit of 1.2.1.3 is the same, "nor allow a competitor to shoot all targets in
the course of fire from any single location or view."

you are correct. I don't think it was the intent of the stage designer for shooters to be able to shoot all the targets from one spot. It just happened that if you were tall enough you could see over the NS

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I love stages with risk reward tradeoffs and choices. That's one of the key factors in a good stage, IMO. Regarding the BUAS stage you mention, what about 1.2.1.2?

It's called a mis-estimation of what is possible. With slight modification, shooting it all from a single position would not have been possible.

IDPA is run by Bill Wilson.

IDPA is run by a board, not one individual. The difference is that in IDPA, only current board members get a vote in the election for new board members.

It's fairly common for shooting organizations founded by an individual to set themselves up on the "benevolent dictator" model. In addition to IDPA, SASS (cowboy shooting) and TSA (Tactical Shooting Association - Dave Middlebrooks) both took this approach. It actually seems to be the exception rather than the rule for a competitive shooting organization to have enough faith in their members to give them binding votes. SASS (which is doing quite well) and TSA (which, from the looks of it's website may be fading into oblivion) both have something like directors, but their role is limited to making suggestions to the real leadership. Dave Middlebrooks summed up his position on elections when he stated that he would not allow newbies to tell him how to run his organization.

It's similar to the Coakley/Brown logic - Kennedy's vs. The People's seat.

 

[TheWookie]

I've shot both sports and enjoy them; however, I prefer IDPA.

I'd suggest to try'em both out and see what's more of a challenge. I think that shooting one or the other will not be the differnce. The key is knowing your weapon of choice; how it runs, and what makes it run, shooting in the most uncomfortable/impossible ways that you never thought you would shoot.

If you're really new to competitive shooting I'd say go with IDPA for awhile at the local club level. It is great for beginners, you can compete with almost anything! AND, it's closer to playing cops and robbers than the other shooting sport.

Once you get used to the buzzer and spectators try IPSCA.

Good luck and have fun, be safe.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

you are correct. I don't think it was the intent of the stage designer for shooters to be able to shoot all the targets from one spot. It just happened that if you were tall enough you could see over the NS

Correct. The intent was to make the shooter shot from more than one location, hopefully confusing them in the process and make them forget targets or engage targets more than once. It's not always easy to account for tall shooters with freakishly long arms and necks than can slither around walls and props whilst still having their feet firmly plated within the fault lines. . We'll just have to try to make the next one harder for you......

 

[Steve_P]

...
If you're really new to competitive shooting I'd say go with IDPA for awhile at the local club level. It is great for beginners, you can compete with almost anything! AND, it's closer to playing cops and robbers than the other shooting sport.

Once you get used to the buzzer and spectators try IPSCA.

...

This was my thinking at the beginning of the 2009 season. I saw some awesome youtube videos of guys like Supermoto and PistolPete shooting USPSA Open and I was very nervous about stepping into that ring.
I went to my 1st IDPA match at WPRC in march and had a blast. I shot a bunch of IDPA earlier on in the season.
I finally decided to try USPSA in July. Shooting production, I was able to use my same gear that I used in IDPA (with 2 additional mag pouches for production). I enjoyed it very much, and not everyone was shooting the tricked out guns that I saw on youtube. All the people I shot with were very helpful and gave many pointers on the rules and technique.

I enjoy the additional shooting and freestyle, problem solving nature of USPSA. However I don't believe that it is so complex that new folks can't handle it. The key is to get a good look at the stage during your 5 minute walkthru and develop a plan.

I still do shoot both games, however I shoot more USPSA now than I do IDPA.

I would say to try both and see what you like. You will more than likely gravitate more towards one or the other, but you may wind up loving both and having multiple matches every weekend to go to!!!

Good luck and hope to see you soon at a match!!

Steve

 

[ScottS]

I shoot more IDPA than anything else, mostly because of geography/availability, but a few things about IDPA grind my gears:

1. Low rounds count. I don't to shoot a match every weekend throughout the summer, so when I do go to a match, I want to pull the trigger. A lot. If I could find a belt-fed upper, I would. Please don't make us jump through all the hoops required to shoot a major match (schedule/travel/fees,etc.), and then show us a 6-round stage. And don't show us many 12-round stages. We're here, so let's throw some lead down-range. We should need a train of pack mules to haul our ammo.

2. The rule book. To me, a rule book should contain rules, not editorial commentary. Rules are "Do this. You may not do this." Rules, to me, are not, "Do this, because USPSA sucks. You may not do this, because USPSA does, and they suck." If you removed all the editorial crap, I think it would be about 10 pages in it's current form.

3. The rule book. Hey, how about updating it more than every five years? Shit happens. Things change. People develop lots of questions. You don't have to do a major re-write every year, but at the very least, they could provide official numbered change/updates, or even official quarterly "circulars," like the FAA does. "In this update: Yes, the XD is ESP. Yes, you can have Crimson Trace grips installed, as long as they are not activated. No, you're not required to wear your flashlight behind your hip. etc, etc, etc." Some opinion buried in a Walt Rausch or Ken Hackathorn piece in Tactical Journal doesn't cut it as official guidance. Too much is left to individual interpretation by local MD's, and look where that got organized religion.

Still, it's like complaining about your favorite ice cream: it's not that you don't like it. It's that you don't get enough of it. It's still ice cream!

 

[Lugnut]

I shoot more IDPA than anything else, mostly because of geography/availability, but a few things about IDPA grind my gears:

1. Low rounds count. I don't to shoot a match every weekend throughout the summer, so when I do go to a match, I want to pull the trigger. A lot. If I could find a belt-fed upper, I would. Please don't make us jump through all the hoops required to shoot a major match (schedule/travel/fees,etc.), and then show us a 6-round stage. And don't show us many 12-round stages. We're here, so let's throw some lead down-range. We should need a train of pack mules to haul our ammo.

2. The rule book. To me, a rule book should contain rules, not editorial commentary. Rules are "Do this. You may not do this." Rules, to me, are not, "Do this, because USPSA sucks. You may not do this, because USPSA does, and they suck." If you removed all the editorial crap, I think it would be about 10 pages in it's current form.

3. The rule book. Hey, how about updating it more than every five years? Shit happens. Things change. People develop lots of questions. You don't have to do a major re-write every year, but at the very least, they could provide official numbered change/updates, or even official quarterly "circulars," like the FAA does. "In this update: Yes, the XD is ESP. Yes, you can have Crimson Trace grips installed, as long as they are not activated. No, you're not required to wear your flashlight behind your hip. etc, etc, etc." Some opinion buried in a Walt Rausch or Ken Hackathorn piece in Tactical Journal doesn't cut it as official guidance. Too much is left to individual interpretation by local MD's, and look where that got organized religion.

Still, it's like complaining about your favorite ice cream: it's not that you don't like it. It's that you don't get enough of it. It's still ice cream!

Great post.

 

[jar]

It's called a mis-estimation of what is possible. With slight modification, shooting it all from a single position would not have been possible.


IDPA is run by a board, not one individual. The difference is that in IDPA, only current board members get a vote in the election for new board members.

I figured that was the situation with that particular stage. I want to make clear that I wasn't intending to impugn the stage design, simply to further my understand of the rules, since I'm new to USPSA.

Who's on the IDPA board? After a decent amount of web searching last night, I couldn't find the answer.

 

[Lugnut]

Dave Middlebrooks summed up his position on elections when he stated that he would not allow newbies to tell him how to run his organization.

Hmmm, not sure I disagree. But a democracy isn't always best.... neither is a dictatorship. Look at the fools that vote for the politians we have now!

 

[Scrivener]

Who's on the IDPA board? After a decent amount of web searching last night, I couldn't find the answer.

If Wilson thought you needed to know, he'd have told you.

 

[TY43215]

Basically already covered but I have shot both. Started in IDPA in 1999. I have invested a lot of time in IDPA over the years. I Shoot USPSA and have also invested time in that sport. I am a IDPA SO and more and a NROI certified Range Officer.

I now rarely shoot IDPA because I feel the sport in New England has changed and not for the better. I will drive 3 or 4 hours each way to shoot a good USPSA match and would wash the dogs rather than drive 20 minutes to shoot IDPA

With one exception. All matches no matter what the sport at Rod and Gun Club of New Bedford are well run and worth any shooters support.

 

[Lugnut]

Basically already covered but I have shot both. Started in IDPA in 1999. I have invested a lot of time in IDPA over the years. I Shoot USPSA and have also invested time in that sport. I am a IDPA SO and more and a NROI certified Range Officer.

I now rarely shoot IDPA because I feel the sport in New England has changed and not for the better. I will drive 3 or 4 hours each way to shoot a good USPSA match and would wash the dogs rather than drive 20 minutes to shoot IDPA

With one exception. All matches no matter what the sport at Rod and Gun Club of New Bedford are well run and worth any shooters support.

Gary- I respectfully disagree with you, and although I haven't been involved in the sport as long as you- my creditials with IDPA and USPSA are similar. NB does a great job and has a bunch of great people- we agree. Howeve there are many other good clubs- including HSC and WPRC that you haven't been to in the last year or so. Every club, every match- regardless of whether or not it is IDPA or USPSA has it's issues... whether it be cranky MDs, prop issues, lost scores, differing rule interpretations, etc. Furthermore- I, unlike yourself, had a great time at that major indoor match in the Springfield area last year. Yeah- there were issues but the stages and most SOs were top notch. If you say that that IDPA has changed and you aren't happy with the newer rules- I have no issue.. but to say that the sport in New England has changed for the worse? That's ironic- as both HSC and WPRC have almost doubled their match attendance in the last couple of years alone. So... stop being so negative.

 

[TY43215]

Gary- I respectfully disagree with you, and although I haven't been involved in the sport as long as you- my creditials with IDPA and USPSA are similar. NB does a great job and has a bunch of great people- we agree. Howeve there are many other good clubs- including HSC and WPRC that you haven't been to in the last year or so. Every club, every match- regardless of whether or not it is IDPA or USPSA has it's issues... whether it be cranky MDs, prop issues, lost scores, differing rule interpretations, etc. Furthermore- I, unlike yourself, had a great time at that major indoor match in the Springfield area last year. Yeah- there were issues but the stages and most SOs were top notch. If you say that that IDPA has changed and you aren't happy with the newer rules- I have no issue.. but to say that the sport in New England has changed for the worse? That's ironic- as both HSC and WPRC have almost doubled their match attendance in the last couple of years alone. So... stop being so negative.

Dave,

I have had bad experiences in several major matches in New England. It has driven me away from the sport. The fact that people need to tell me how to shoot a course of fire, where to reload, and when I am finished they say "I could have given you a precedural for???" is an improper way to run a match and an improper way to officiate at at match.

I had to limit my comments to New England. I have not shot IDPA out side of New England. I have worked major matches in Ma, New Hampshire, and Vermont in IDPA over the years. I have shot at Bass River, Harvard, Riverside, Nashua, Pioneer, S&W, Hartford, and Pelham until last year when I saw a severe decline in uniformity as to how rules were applied to the sport. The people for the most part are a great bunch but for me, I stand by my original statement. The quality of IDPA in New England has gone down.

The people contributing to the growth are a good thing but the more experienced shooters that were around when IDPA in New England started is becoming a lost group for the same reasons I have pretty much walked away for.

Since you brought up HSC and I did not I will tell you this, I will shoot USPSA at Harvard for as long as I am welcome but I would not shoot an IDPA match there if the fee were waived and you paid for my gas. Sorry but that is the way it is. Negative maybe but so has my recent experience.

 

[Lugnut]

Since you brought up HSC and I did not I will tell you this, I will shoot USPSA at Harvard for as long as I am welcome but I would not shoot an IDPA match there if the fee were waived and you paid for my gas. Sorry but that is the way it is.

Do as you wish.. but I think your perspective is a bit off IMO. I can't tell you how many new shooters come to our matches and practices like kids at a candy shop. A good measure of success is the attendance- and it's growing for IDPA and staying relatively the same with USPSA. To each his/her own... and don't worry.... no one would pay for your gas.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I can't tell you how many new shooters come to our matches and practices like kids at a candy shop.

Whooo wait a minute I can get candy also??? The only thing I have received from IDPA at HSC and MWT are good times, great education, my shooting skills are drastically improving, practices and club match's have been very well run.

Next monday I wanna see some candy

Granted yes I'm a new shooter so I cannot really make any comparison to USPSA, however MWT has shown themselves to be an amazing group of people and I'm proud to say I plan on being an IDPA shooter for quite sometime.

 

[jar]

RGS, I haven't been around as long as you, but over the 2 years I've been shooting IDPA, quality has gone up. Worcester has gone from 4 stages to a well oiled 6 stage machine. Harvard has had some growing pains with a few matches running long, but we're working on it. The New England Regional at Harvard this past summer ran extremely smoothly and got a number of compliments. I'm sorry you feel the way you do, and I hope the new shooters reading this thread will try out both sports and make their own decisions.

 

[Lugnut]

Back to the OP if we haven't scared him/her away already... and for others trying to make a similar decision...

As you can see we all have our individual passions and interests. There is NO right or wrong answer- but the decision should not be which... but WHEN are you going to jump in to try things out. You don't need an IDPA or USPSA membership to try out either, and as much as we have differing views... our passion for action shooting is the overriding factor. Most of us on this thread know each other very well and are some of the best people you could get to know... the ribbing here and there is kinda fun if you don't let it get to you. Heck there are still people that don't realize that Glocks are superb firearms... but I won't let their ignorance get to me.

One of the best things that I don't think anyone mentioned- is that they are both sports that are spectator driven... at least locally. That means if you find one (or hopefully both) you like, you are more than encouraged to help step up, provide input, SO, run matches, design stages, etc. Heck some people on this forum have this bizarre facination with zoombies... make a zoombie stage if you feel the need. It's all good.

 

[TY43215]

OP asked a question, he got honest answers from all.

Now, get your gear together, attend a few matches at different places and make up your own mind. Your experiences as a new shooter will be better going with an open mind. Make sure you tell them you are new and hopefully you will be squadded with someone that will help you along.

Remember, trigger time is trigger time. Pins, Plates, PPC, Bulls eye, IDPA, USPSA or whatever. Get out and shoot. If you want more shooting for your match fee find a place that will let you shoot.