USPSA vs IDPA

When you join IDPA be sure to ask when you will get your ballot for election of your directors and president.
 
IDPA has slightly more fun props, which is really what I'm in it for. Sure there's shooting, but I mostly am a fan of targets with springs and hinges and wacky waving inflatable arms.
 
USPSA. I also like to shoot stages my way, for good or bad, not choreographed shooting. I also prefer penalties to be defined and not subjective. I like to shoot more than 18 rounds at a time too!!!
 
IDPSA [smile]


IDPA I enjoy more just from a "prop" perspective. I have more "FUN" at IDPA matches, and the 5.11 pants and vest have a slimming effect....


Oh and I also vote MAC over PC... And Iphone over Droid.....
 
Last edited:
If your club could only do one, which would you choose and why?

USPSA

IDPA for sure. You'd get a lot more shooters.

At NB, our USPSA shoots attract roughly twice the the number of IDPA competitors. I would guess that ratio holds true for Harvard Sportsman Club also.

USPSA and IDPA are two very different games:

USPSA as a game is more heavily weighted towards speed - it's fast and exciting. It's run with a good set of rules, devoted members, a division for most modern medium to full-size firearms, a range officer program and staff that leads the shooting sports, an organization that responds to its members and has the ability to digest, remake, and reform itself in response to members desires and technical changes from manufacturers, or the members themselves. With the recent purchase of Steel Challlenge by USPSA and the (recent) past President Mike Voigts emphasis on multigun, USPSA appeals to a wide range of action shooting competitors - and those competitors have a real say about the future of the sport because they are USPSA - thus .org and not .com.

IDPA? Well I shoot a fair amount of it and I have worked a match or two. As a game it is geared towards accuracy - you are heavily penalized for poor marksmanship. The scoring system is simple to use and understand. The game makes you think about some of the issues that you may have to deal with in a self-defense situation with a firearm. The thing that frustrates me about IDPA is that in their attempt to stick to their self-professed principles (I'd say hubris really), the self-defense/concealed carry world is passing them by -and that's too bad. No laser sights, no gun mounted lights, concealment garmets that would likely get you arrested in some states (try wearing an unsnapped or zippered vest outside with the wind blowing - 'Hey Mary, did you just see that guy carrying a gun? Call 911'). The rule book sucks - and every experienced shooter that I've ever talked to says the same thing. A lot of the equipment rules just don't make sense a lot of times. That being said, IDPA is in the process of studying changes to the rules, but after reading about the 'Tiger Teams' tasked with this (there's that hubris word again) on the IDPA forum I'm not holding my breath. They've stated that they don't want to be all things to all people (fair enough) and they are not trying to attract shooters from other shooting sports(?)! Really it's too bad - there is a market (and IDPA is a business) for a shooting sport based on real concealed carry gear and tactics. At this point I'll paraphrase and agree with Rob, at least it's trigger time.
 
Last edited:
USPSA is a shooting sport.

IDPA is a sport where there is shooting.

Both are fun, but in terms of pure trigger-time, there's no comparison.
 
, an organization that responds to its members and has the ability to digest, remake, and reform itself in response to members desires and technical changes from manufacturers,

USPSA announced the results from it's annual election yesterday. As a result of the member vote, the incumbent president is being replaced by his challenger since the members, not the board or founders, choose who runs the organization. The outgoing president did a great job, and I am optimistic the new president will prove equally capable. It demonstrates that "member run" actually means something, and is one of the reasons the organization has survived the transfer of leadership over many years.
 
I have shot mostly USPSA, but I have also shot a couple of IDPA matches, but I hope to shoot more IDPA matches in New Bedford next year since I get better practice from that than I would going to the range myself.
I agree that USPSA is a sport more focused toward speed and IDPA focused more towards accuracy and self defense (shooting behind cover for example, which is a good thing in IDPA), but I think some of the strict rules in IDPA needs to go. For example, you cannot use a guide rod made of another material than the factory guide rod in SSP. I believe a lot of Glock owners replace the cheap plastic factory guide rod with either a steel or tungsten guide rod on their carry gun.
 
Last edited:
but I think some of the strict rules in IDPA needs to go. For example, you cannot use a guide rod made of another material than the factory guide rod in SSP. I believe a lot of Glock owners replace the cheap plastic factory guide rod with either a steel or tungsten guide rod on their carry gun.

Always had a problem with that...if its in my carry/self defense gun for everyday why cant i use it for a competition?
 
Always had a problem with that...if its in my carry/self defense gun for everyday why cant i use it for a competition?

One of the driving philosophies of IDPA is to avoid an equipment race. Their goal is to allow someone to buy a stock gun, some mags, holster, and mag loader, and have a competitive rig.

Once you start allowing recoil reducing guide rods, lasers, gun-mounted lights, red-dot sights, etc., those items then become must-haves to be competitive, and you have raised the entry cost significantly.

IDPA has started reviewing all its rulebook, so some changes may happen in the next year or so.
 
Last edited:
Always had a problem with that...if its in my carry/self defense gun for everyday why cant i use it for a competition?

USPSA has a similar set of limitation for "Production" division - many changes that are "Street acceptable" are not allowed within the division.

The goal of USPSA, and probably IDPA, is to have a division where out of box guns are fully competitive.
 
At this point IDPA has to acknowledge the changes in sighting and lighting technology. Lasers are factory options on many pistol now. There are certainly pros and cons to gun mounted lights but every new 'production' pistol has rails cut or molded for them. On the horizon are Trijicon's new small red dot sights. Based on my experience with dot sights in USPSA and comments made regarding there use by certain special military groups, these sights could potentially be really popular - maybe more so than lasers. While I understand IDPA's desire to maintain equipment stability, I see their concern as misplaced as firearms with the same characteristics compete within the same group only.
 
USPSA has a similar set of limitation for "Production" division - many changes that are "Street acceptable" are not allowed within the division.

The goal of USPSA, and probably IDPA, is to have a division where out of box guns are fully competitive.
I agree that there needs to some regulations, and for the most I am OK with the rules in USPSA, such allowing adding up to 2oz of weight to the gun. This allows shooters to add a steel guide rod that is more reliable. It's not an externally visible change either. This has not lead to an equipment race, and there are other changes that are allowed in both IDPA and USPSA that are more expensive, give more benefits, and may be externally visible, such as after market sights and triggers.
 
The issue is always, where does it stop? Different people will draw the line in different places. Some folks will say you should be able to have widget X and others will say you should be able to have widget Y. No matter what the rules are, someone will always be dissatisfied.

Weapon-mounted lights are a real advantage. But they are hard to carry concealed and a Surefire X300 costs $275. Lasers may be an advantage in some situations, but they cost $300+ for a set of CrimsonTrace grips. Red dots like the RMR are a very real advantage, but milling of the slide will cost about $150 and the sight itself is over $400. If you want to be able to use just about anything, then USPSA Open Division is calling your name -- expect to spend about $5,000 for your blaster.

Remember the goal of IDPA having a low barrier to entry?

As I mentioned above, IDPA has put together a Tiger Team review the entire rule book. If you don't like a particular rule, then contact the Tiger Team with your idea about how the rules should be changed and why. You can send them e-mail here: [email protected]
 
Last edited:
I agree that there needs to some regulations, and for the most I am OK with the rules in USPSA, such allowing adding up to 2oz of weight to the gun. This allows shooters to add a steel guide rod that is more reliable.

Everyone says this but I've had a bunch of guns with plastic guide rods and have yet to have one break. People add steel guide rods because they want to, not because it's necessary.

FWIW I don't think that minor mods like that should be disallowed in any shooting sport. Even adding a tungsten rod doesn't give you that much of an edge. I can understand regulating holster + mag positions, power factor, comps/porting, optics, and magwells... but beyond that.... the "edge" provided by the other stuff is mostly lost in the noise Even things such as weight are really stupid to regulate, because beyond a certain point there is a law of diminishing returns. For example a very heavy pistol lowers recoil but you pay for it in terms of making transitions from target to target harder. Then they get 'tarded about regulating match barrels and that sort of
thing.... but at typical IDPA/USPSA distances, does a match barrel really make that big of a difference?

-Mike
 
Last edited:
but at typical IDPA/USPSA distances, does a match barrel really make that big of a difference?

They don't hurt.

Most upgrade are only slightly better than useless, people try to save hundredths of seconds but never work on the stuff that saves whole seconds
 
I'd agree that most production gun part upgrades probably only provide marginal performance improvements in the short term. However, if you're going to take a production gun and shoot 5k-10k rounds our more out of it per year, it can't hurt to upgrade things like plastic guide rods and plastic hammer strut boots. Most of these are cheap, easy, reliable and things I'd do, or have done, to a carry gun.

Action work also makes a tremendous difference in these guns. It's legal in USPSA, but I dont' know about IDPA. Either way, I don't think any of the allowed changes to Production guns in USPSA puts anyone in danger of getting into an arms race. There really is a limit to how much money you can pour into a Production gun. After a few hundred bucks there's not much more you're going to get out of the gun. It really comes down to the shooter at that point.
 
I shoot both several times a month. If I had to choose one, it'd be USPSA.

The appeal to USPSA for me is that it has no delusions about exactly what it is. It's a freestyle shooting game that rewards going as fast as possible with acceptable accuracy. The rules are designed to provide an equitable field of competition and then get the hell out of the way. I've shot about 20 USPSA matches and not once have I had a match slowed down by an argument over the rules. The stage briefing rarely includes anything beyond the start position, demo of any moving targets, and 'shoot em as you see em'.

IDPA tries to be more 'tactical', but forces you in to what the designers of IDPA think is tactical. The rulebook isn't well written or organized and is often ambiguous or confusing. I do think IDPA is a little easier for newbies because the stages are a lot less freestyle. There's usually only one or two ways to shoot them within the rules. Also, stages are shorter and you need fewer magazines. This eventually starts to feel pretty limiting though. After shooting a 32 round USPSA field course, a typical 12 round IDPA stage is pretty boring. IDPA around here does have a lot more props and activating/moving targets, but I don't think that's a function of the rule set. You could design USPSA matches that way if you wanted to. I think the reason they aren't around here is that it's not what the shooters want. Participation is really high and prop intensive stages really slow down matches.
 
Back
Top Bottom