IDPA Quote of the Day

“A gamer is what IDPA Marksmen call IDPA Masters”.

I shot coffee out of my nose at that one.  Because it’s both funny AND true.  I had a similar conversation with an SO at a local club match, we were discussing how to assign procedural penalties (3 seconds) vs. failure to do right (20 second) in situations where taking the procedural could give someone an advantage over other shooters.  He said to me “if his classification says ‘Expert’ or ‘Master’, it’s probably a failure to do right.”


  1. Well, IDPA’s not actually that bad; but unlike USPSA there is a certain subculture in IDPA that thinks that every pie should be sliced and every reload should be tactical.

    Those guys are why I still shoot IDPA – because it’s fun seeing their reactions when I go all “wicked gamerfag” on them.

  2. That was my major disappointment with the state IDPA match last year.
    Several shooters deliberately shot hostages because they missed the steel targets behind them and knew that the procedural penalty was less than the miss and failure to neutralize points.
    I didn’t see any of them given a failure to do right.
    Preferably, a competitor that intentionally shoots a hostage should be disqualified.

    1. I don’t know about a DQ, that’s a bit harsh. Remember, bottom line IDPA is a game, and some people (myself included) are playing to win.

  3. Mmmm. It’s not that, really. I don’t particularly mind shooters trying to shoot IDPA ‘tacticaly.’ It’s their game to play, and their time to waste.

    My problem is with the FDR. If a sport is to be taken seriously, then the rules need to be objective and consistent. More than once, I’ve seen the FDR used as a club to beat up shooters who didn’t conform to some chairborne ranger’s idea of tactical best practice.


    1. Ah, now on that we agree. I’ve actually been threateded with FTDR at one range for things that are fine at a different IDPA sanctioned match. Uneven application of the FTDR is the biggest problem with IDPA at the major match level. The only time i’m okay with FTDR penalties is if there is a clearly spelled out reason for it IN THE COF description. For example, if it says “shooting through the no- shoot to activate the popper will incur an ftdr.”

      Other than that, IDPA should just get rid of the penalty entirely.

  4. Isn’t one rule of a gun fight, “The faster it is over, the less ‘shot-up’ you’re probably going to be.”?

    In that regard, trying to blow through stages isn’t exactly a bad idea…

  5. I agree that IDPA is a game, but it is supposed to be about Defensive Pistol scenarios. Try deliberately shooting an innocent bystander during a self-defense situation and see how well that plays in front of a jury.
    A few months ago, gunbloggers were at each others’ throats over how the armed tea partiers were being perceived by the public just for open carry of firearms (scaring the white people). Now imagine a “major expose” on some news network showing firearm enthusiasts blasting away at hostage targets.

    1. A lot of that can be averted with good course design though. A well thought out COF should never give an advantage to someone intentionally shooting a hostage, which is why I’m opposed to using no- shoots to obscure steel activation targets.

Comments are closed.