IDPA Will Get you Killed!!

The Michael Bane Blog: Thoughts on Competition...

Many years ago, one of the Major Gun Rags published an article titled "IPSC Will Get You Killed!" (or some equivalent verbiage).

The general thrust of the article was that IPSC competition (our local equivalent would be "USPSA Competition") teaches 'bad habits', such as engaging targets in the open, with no encouragement to 'seek cover' or 'failure to retain undepleted magazines to deny access to ammunition from the aggressor'. (I may not be quoting the IDPA content accurately, but the context is applicable.)

IDPA USE OF COVER - Appendix Five:

When barricades or other range props designed to allow the shooter to use them for cover are provided, make sure that they are used properly. Make the shooter use the cover area while actually shooting and reloading. Vision and physical barriers should be used to force the shooter to shoot from the specified positions (shooting ports also work well and tend to eliminate SO judgment calls). Use of props such as brief cases, tables (especially with drawers), automobiles, simulated ATM machines, bed/night stand combos, etc. is encouraged.

IDPA RELOAD WITH RETENTION (IDPA APPROVED RELOADS):

Reload with Retention (RWR) is recharging the gun during a lull in the action by:
A. Dropping the partial magazine from the gun.
B. Stowing the partial magazine properly (See “proper magazine retention” in the glossary).
C. Drawing a spare magazine.
D. Inserting the spare magazine into the gun.
NOTE: Should the CoF call for a Reload with Retention and the magazine is empty while a round remains in the chamber, the empty magazine must be retained.
NOTE: HQ urges course designers to draft scenario courses that do not require tac-loads or reloads with retention to be performed “on the clock”.

(NB: USPSA competitors reload whenever the mood moves them. They care not a whit what happens to the dropped magazine or whether the dropped magazine contains usable ammunition, neither do they care whether there is a round in the chamber.)

In a recent blog article, Michael Bane discussed self-defense issues. He is talking about the gun-handling skills which are part of training for competition. This is typically in reference to 'extreme shooting' sports such as USPSA and IDPA.

Having no intent to restart the eternal discourse over whether USPSA or IDPA provides better 'self-defense' training, it is still difficult to ignore Bane's cogent remarks on the "mind set" generated by the two similar, yet different, ingrained training.

...I think competition has a major effect in three specific areas:

1) Gun-handling skills
2) The ability to "game" a situation
3) Stress inoculation

As it happens, all three of those areas are critical in terms of Real Life shooting skills. First and foremost are gun-handling skills. Let me watch a shooter for 5 minutes and I can tell you if he or she shoots competition simply by watching the gun-handling skills.

I tend to agree on these points of discussion, although you will need to read the whole article (or the rewrite of the book) to decide whether you agree with the last.

To continue:

Second, the ability to "game" a situation...I know IDPA rants about how this is a bad thing, but that's bullshit. The difference between living and dying is measured by an individual's ability to perceive a situation, process the information and proceed to the correct action. That is the definition of "gaming." I strongly refer you to Malcolm Gladwell's book BLINK on how quickly we can truly process information. You might also consider Amanda Ripley's THE UNTHINKABLE: WHO SURVIVES WHEN DISASTER STRIKES — AND WHY or Larry Gonzales' DEEP SURVIVAL: WHO LIVES, WHO DIES AND WHY. I';d also recommend my book TRAIL SAFE, but you gotta pay too much for it on eBay these days...I will have an updated version in a couple of months. The ability to game is a fundamental survival skill, and all the shooting sports teach it. As we become more experienced on the range, our ability to game is drastically enhanced...I figure a good USPSA or IDPA competitor has a stage gamed out in less than half-a-second after seeing it...he or she doesn't need to walk around pointing a finger pistol at the target to understand what needs to be done.

Bane continues in a conciliatory mode, paying homage to IDPA even though he has already declared, in reference to 'gaming', that "... that's bullshit...".

But I do accept the statement "...I figure a good USPSA or IDPA competitor has a stage gamed out in less than half-a-second after seeing it...".

So what does it all mean?

Going back to the IDPA Rules of Competition:

C 4. Individual rehearsals of a CoF are not permitted.
C 5. Airgunning and/or sight pictures are not permitted. (See glossary for definitions.)
C 6. Competitors will use all available cover.

USPSA competitors are accustomed to having a five-minute 'walk-through' of any stage before engaging it. Sight pictures are permitted, all the other stuff is permitted and USPSA competitors are not constrained to engage targets behind "available cover".

(If we were to compare IDPA rules with USPSA rules, the IDPA constrictions obviously encourage much more 'defensive' activities, such as seeking cover, while the USPSA rules encourage 'aggressive' activities, such as moving in the open with no regard to the possibility that they may be under 'return fire'.)

The USPSA philosophy seems, at first blanch, to be more likely to "get you killed" in a defensive situation.

But Bane is talking specifically about the mind-set, in terms of 'gaming' a competitive stage, which may prove to be a viable asset in a defensive situation.

Think: "Finding an edge".

Think: "Cheating the other guy".

It is Bane's thesis that USPSA competition may better train a defensive shooter in the attitude needed to win a gunfight, rather than to survive it.

We can't get inside Bane's head here, and I'm not sure we want to.

(I've known and occasionally worked with M. Bane for several years, and I'm aware that this creative chaos is a way of life with him. There is no 'middle ground'; you either agree totally with his opinion, or you are repulsed by it. Michael Bane is the Dark Lord of Competitive Shooting, and while his competitive skills are not the best I've ever seen ... that's a matter of personal physical skills. He may not always be able to make it work for him; you may. The intelligent shooter will evaluate his own skills, and find his own personal best solution to any shooting problem. Isn't that what USPSA is all about?)

Essentially, Bane seems to be saying that USPSA competition cultivates the dark underworld of cheating in a gun-fight. IDPA, on the other hand, encourages "playing by the rules".

It's up to you which mind-set is most directly applicable to self defense.

But isn't it refreshing that someone has stepped up to the podium and declared that the best way to survive a gun-fight is to win it? And the best way to Win a Gunfight is to find whatever advantage you may perceive, using your own personal 'Best Skills' to gain an advantage over an opponent?


I, personally, don't ever want to get into a gunfight. There are not only no "Second Place Winners", but there are no winners at all, really.

But there are those who walk away, and those who stay ... lying in a pool of their own blood.

I know which resolution I prefer, and it's probably your first choice, too.

Think about it. Or, choose to be a victim.