One shot targets at competitions

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Given the shortage of ammo - I wonder if that will discourage folks to compete at venues like IDPA. USPSA folks love to hose away but IDPA you usually shoot two and maybe three at a target - supposedly duplicating the real world (yes, I know ).

But what about this - at a local match make it optional that you can declare that you will chose the one shot option.

Each target gets one shot. It must be a Zero zone or it is a miss. That will save ammo and stress accurate shots.

It would also work for shooting 5 shot J frames or the smaller pocket guns.

What do you think? This might offend the competitors as it increased the novices. But it might get more people and certainly speak to the ammo shortage. Will new folks start if they can't sustain the ammo requirments.

Reloading isn't something everyone wants to do.

 

[1-DAB]

strikes me that guns and shooting is turning into a rich man's game. pricing out the more common man and woman who might have an extra $20 a week for fun. chasing down a concealed carry permit, or going to a class or two to get instruction is also shutting out the poor (and some political types like it that way it seems).

22LR is still the cheapest game in town.

 

[Jim Watson]

I have been to a couple of IDPA matches with one-shot targets as a novelty and challenge. No reason not to set up more in order to save ammo in these trying times.

I see no point to making up a new game for the purpose.
Write up some stages for those organizations you list in your sig line.

Finding an economical round count that people will actually take the trouble to attend will be the trick. One club near here had a 6 stage 45 shot match that was well received. When I was setting up IDPA here, I tried for a long time to offer "one box" matches you could get through in 50 rounds... if you didn't miss much.

That was appreciated by the new shooters of the day but as they got more experience, they wanted more shooting. The current crop wants to be entertained and I don't know how they will respond to a short sharp event.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree we don't need a new game - I was suggesting for local club matches as an option until the panic crowd stops lining up at the sporting good stores at 4:00 AM (would you believe?).

I know a regional coordinator - see him a week, I'll ask.

 

[kraigwy]

I'm curious about how this is going to play out myself.

In are club, every other week match, it's not uncommon for us to go through 100 round per match.

Most everyone in our club reloads, I guess it depends on how people were prepared for this, mainly in the primer department.

 

[g.willikers]

If match participation is dropping, then it's time to think about options.
Otherwise, not.
The easy way to decide if lower round count matches are desirable is let the competitors decide.
Those who want a full round count match can do it that way.
And those who want a lower one can run it their way.
Everyone is happy.
This approach shouldn't be a hassle for local matches.
Higher level ones will always run under the rule book, and anyone going to one wouldn't want changes, anyway.

 

[Old Grump]

Back about a hundred years ago we shot against a visiting team, they shot our course then we shot their course, (international) and then we had a fun match. 2 shooters at a time to the line. 5 targets each. They faced the targets to the shooter for 8 seconds then turned them again, you reloaded and repeated so hopefully each target had 2 holes. That was the only match where they beat us soundly and is the match that caused me to start shooting at multiple targets when I practiced. Sure did surprise me how easily a cocky sharpshooter could get spooked and look bad facing a brand new challenge for the first time especially when their guy I was matched up with sounded like a machine gun, he didn't need 4 seconds let alone 8. Good days.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, I went through quite alot of 22 at a steel match today. I can see using it all up by the end of this year.