IDPA

[rob_s]

Thanks for the responses.

The reason I ask is because I do not own a handgun, I was shopping for one and heard some guys talking about IDPA, so I googled it when I got home. It looks like it would be fun, and I dont want to buy anything I cant use. The gun I was originally looking at doesnt seem like it will work for IDPA.

There aren't very many guns that you CAN'T shoot in IDPA. Ports/comps and barrels over 5" (because of the box) are about all I can think of. What were you looking at buying?

[Alpha Sierra]

There aren't very many guns that you CAN'T shoot in IDPA. Ports/comps and barrels over 5" (because of the box) are about all I can think of. What were you looking at buying?

I agree with this and I too am curious abut which gun the OP is considering. The other end of the spectrum are micro-concealables like S&W J frames, many Kahrs, any Kel Tec, and the Ruger LCP. Their ammo capacity is too low or they are made in calibers not accepted by IDPA (like .38 and .32 ACP).

[perna]

I was considering a kal-tec pf9, because of the low cost. I will wait and get an M&P 9mm, which is what I would rather have anyway, but will take longer for me to afford.

[rob_s]

I don't see any reason why you couldn't shoot that Kel Tec in IDPA. You may not be competitive, but then chances are good that you won't be competitive right off the bat anyway.

But I'd wait and pick up an M&P anyway. Maybe look at the compact model since it should be easier to conceal. I've seen some guys do amazing things with a Glock 26 in IDPA. Including win their division at state matches.

[Telecomtodd]

Great choice, it's worth the wait. I have a Kel-Tec P11, and the only comparison between the two pistols is that they shoot 9mm - totally different guns. Good pick!

[Alpha Sierra]

+1 on saving up for an M&P compact.

But don't discount the full size M&P. If you carry inside the waist, the difference in barrel length is unimportant. The only difference is the longer grip of the full size pistol, and even that is not an issue with a good holster that has a moderate amount of forward cant and clothing that is not overly tight.

The cost difference between the two is also pretty small.

If you do decide to go with an M&P compact, get holsters made for the full size version, that way you won't have to buy duplicates later on.

[gtmtnbiker98]

To answer the OP, I use an HKP30L (chambered in 9mm, of course). As for holster, I use a Blackhawk CQC and a Blade-Tech double mag pouch. I am one of the few in my area that use a double-action pistol, let alone an HK. I shoot in both ESP and SSP divisions, MA in both.

I would personally recommend that you save for the M&P and forego the Kel-Tec. That way you won't realize that you needed a different weapon to be competitive.

[John Hearne]

Just wondering how many people are involved, what calibers and mag capacities you use, what holsters you use?

To answer the original question:
I often shoot our local IDPA match. I'm typically on-duty when I do it so I shoot from my duty belt with a Safariland ALS holster and Akers open top magazine pouches. I'm shooting a Sig P220 Match with X300 and use the standard 8 round magazines.

I also have a 9mm AR and I'll shoot it as a second gun to make the event time efficient. The gun is setup with iron sights and I'm shooting 20 round Colt SMG magazines. If I couldn't shoot the second gun, I don't think it would be worth my time to show up for the match.

I have shot sanctioned matches and do so with my P220ST with normal slide and a Comp-Tac belt holster.

Comments on the comments:
At a certain level IDPA is very valuable. As noted CCW holder can quickly figure out that the state standards are meaningless and they need to practice a lot. If you're shooting in the lower classifications, the IDPA will be useful in driving your skills to a higher level.

At a certain point, IDPA requires skills that have no relevance in the "real world." Things such as foot work, minimal use of cover, etc. are required to be competitive at the Master level and can be useful in Expert.

The gun I carry every day, on-duty and off-duty, is not "IDPA legal." It's a stainless frame P220 with a 5" slide assembly. It is way over weight for CDP, especially with the X300 in place which I carry whenever I'm in uniform. The local matches don't care about the weight and just let me shoot which is nice.

My major gripes with IDPA are that it's accuracy standards are tight enough to have direct benefit for real world shootings and that it allows choreography that the real world doesn't.

If I ran things, the -0 would be a 6" circle and the -1 would be a 9" circle. Everything else on the body would be a -5. There would be a realistic ocular window (3x5") and the rest of the head would be -2. While the math would be harder, I'd be tempted to charge -.75 for each point down.

I really object to the extensive choreography that is required to be competitive in the match. The best shooters formulate a "plan," practice that plan in their mind as many times as they can, and then shoot that plan with full knowledge of when to reload, where to stop for cover, etc. In the real world, you won't know when you're pistol going to run empty, you probably won't know how many threats you're facing, and you'll have to figure out the use of cover while rounds are flying.

There are better venues for realism than IPDA, like the NTI or the Rangemaster Tactical Conference, but they are few and far between. It is interesting to see how nationally ranked shooters do when they're dumped into scenarios where they can't choreograph everything they're doing.

[rob_s]

To answer the original question:
My major gripes with IDPA are that it's accuracy standards are tight enough to have direct benefit for real world shootings and that it allows choreography that the real world doesn't.

I assume you meant to say "aren't"?

If I ran things, the -0 would be a 6" circle and the -1 would be a 9" circle. Everything else on the body would be a -5. There would be a realistic ocular window (3x5") and the rest of the head would be -2. While the math would be harder, I'd be tempted to charge -.75 for each point down.

I would buy, and use, those targets for our carbine matches.

We do two hits in the -0, or three hits in the -1 to neutralize a target. Hits in the -3 don't count at all. Failure to Neutralize is 30 seconds (which is nicer than the DNF that I want to assign). I'd love to have an "A-zone" that was 6" in the chest and 3"x5" in the head, and a B that is the rest of the head and a 9" circle in the chest.

As it is, I'm strongly considering simply using 3x5 Post-It Notes vertically in the chest and horizontally in the head for the A zone.

Truth be told though, if I had my way, ALL targets would be reactive, with random "kill" spots in either the COM or ocular cavity, and would require 2-5 hits to drop in the kill spot.

[John Hearne]

The target above may interest you. It was developed by a friend who does trainups for units going overseas and has been doing so for years. The target is based on the premise the "sweet spot" is high in the chest and not very large. There is a "spine" on the target which is the only other way he's found to really drop someone. If you just score the top part of the "B" it's pretty good.


While I haven't seen one in person, my guess, based on stated target width, is that the target above has a 6" scoring zone in the center. I also like it because it has facial features that give good landmarks for the head shot.

As far as creating a "spine" my friend found that the best way to do this was with a piece of 2" masking tape. He runs it down the center of the target and it replaced very easily.

At the risk of bragging, we've use my reactive targets for the Rangemaster Tactical Conference Side-Match for three years now. You either shoot it high in the chest and it goes down or you don't. The plates are anatomically correct and if the target isn't facing you, you need to be able to solve 3-d shooting problems ala Awerbuck. This year, the targets were placed in a shoot house under low light conditions. It was very interesting to listen to shooters as they would dump rounds on target without effect as they had never had to shoot in this fashion - a fashion that is far more realistic than anything else out there.