[Nemo]

Has any of you read Duane Thomas' article in the latest edition of HANDGUNS magazine?

Comments?

 

[Snake45]

I read it. I thought he made a pretty good case, but then I've never shot IPSC so I don't know.

I like DT even if he's a bit wordy sometimes. Hell, maybe that's WHY I like him. He really thinks a thing through from all angles.

If I read the piece right, he's back to carrying some kind of 1911? So he's over his Glock and SIG phases, then?


_________________________________
WWTSD? (What would Tony Soprano do?)

 

[Al Thompson]

I've shot both IPSC and IDPA. Biggest problem I see is that the draw stroke and firing stroke are usually one and the same. IMHO, this is a bad thing.

I'll catch the article soonest.

 

[Sarge]

I haven't read...

the article to which you refer, but I do recall a very similar article by the same author, that ran in Guns a few years ago. I personally believe that anything that enhances the DVC factor is a good thing, so long as you don't let yourself get hypnotized and quit "thinking on your feet". Law enforcement firearms trainers put a lot of effort into varying range exercises, and throwing in "draw & challenge on command" stages to avoid this kind of thing.

 

[Mad Ogre]

I've not read the article, but I will probably disagree with it. IPSC rigs are only good for IPSC competition... as are compensators and mag funnels and C-More optical gunsights... IPSC is very gamey and I think had little tactical application other than practicing your rapid firing. IDPA is pretty good too. But I think the best source for skill improvement is 3-Gun.

 

[Nemo]

Finally

Found the issue of Handguns at Wally World yesterday and got to read Mr. Thomas' article. I'm an IPSC shooter so I didn't need much convincing, but anyway agree with Snake45 that Duane makes a good case for practical shooting.

His point basically is that the gun handling and shooting skills you gain from shooting IPSC, when looked at from a defensive shooting perspective, are superior and unequaled by any other of the shooting games.

Don't rule it out Mr. Ogre. Try it, you may even get hooked...

Later,

 

[Mad Ogre]

Tried it... prefer IDPA over it.

 

[Glen Wertle]

Don't you think that any time shooting is better than...Oh, say blabbing on the internet?
I have never shot a big time IPSC match but the small club level matches were at least fun.
Lets face it, all matches are games, no matter how many guns you use or what letters you string together.

 

[Mad Ogre]

Ammo is cheaper on this site than at Gunsite, but I do agree with you.

 

[Art Eatman]

I heard of IPSC in late 1980, I guess it was. I and some others started the local club in Austintatious in early 1981. We had some 25 members, including Chip McCormick.

This was before the days of the gamey stuff. No race guns or plastic holsters. 1911s, with good trigger jobs, bevelled mag wells and throat/polish. Better sights, of course. All in all, pretty practical.

So, time marches on as time will and IPSC got gamier and gamier. Some folks wanted to stay more practical and started IDPA.

While I've not seen an IDPA match, from what I understand of the rules it strikes me as easier for an IDPAer to cross-enter an IPSC match than vice versa. Not that it matters.

Seems to me that if your head is into street-tactical, IDPA is probably better. If gun-handling skills and good shooting comprise the overall goal, either is good.

Arguing against either style, or worrying about which is "better" is like arguing between IRL and NASCAR...

, Art