jayinsat wrote:I'm gonna shoot my first IDPA match at Cedar Ridge range tomorrow offered through Texas Tactical. That's should be a good, less expensive training aid.
Just an observation that IDPA, and USPSA as well, are excellent for gun handling and shooting practice, but they're sports, complete with arbitrary sets of rules specific to the game, not real-world defense. As such: good practice, but they're not training in defensive shooting.
For example, most modern defensive handgun instructors teach that getting off the "X" is critical, that you need to be moving off your original position
while you're presenting your firearm. That's less safe on the square range than drawing and
then moving, so the latter is what you see in IDPA.
Another example: depending upon the shooter's skill, if presented with two relatively equal threats, the fastest and most efficient option may be a controlled pair to COM on the closest target, then two on the farther target and assess. But the Tactical Sequence rule in IDPA says that if the CoF requires two hits each on multiple, relatively equal threats, regardless of the distance, you have to put one round in each before returning for the second round (i.e., three targets would get 1-1-2-1-1).
IDPA matches are also conducted straight up and down, meaning there is no 180-degree rule and the muzzle of the gun must be oriented downrange at all times. But, of course, bad things don't always come at you head-on. Defensive training, particularly force-on-force, will address the real, 360-degree world.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the IDPA rules. But it's a game employing a potentially dangerous implement, so when the rules were codified they had to strike a balance between practicality, repeatability and, above all, safety. It's great and fun practice. You just have to keep in mind that not all elements of the game are sound defensive tactics, and you have to find ways to train appropriately and keep the other defensive skills honed.