another bad point of IDPA is the moving while firing. If you are only moving back, you might as well not be moving at all.Note: shooting with IDPA is better than not shooting at all!!!!which reminds me, I'm gonna have to go out shooting on friday or saturday....
Yea, I understand your POV. I just don't consider it a game. It may be the only "training" some people get. And as has been pointed out many times that in a real situation you're most likely going to do what you train. That's why I don't shoot IDPA. No offense meant. Just my POV.
Why is knowing how to shoot while moving bad?
Most self defense instructors ....Like he who shall not be named....(snip)
If you want training, go to ......or become a LEO.
I think OB is questioning the moving straight backwards. Spiff posted his take on it. I don't really agree with Spiff either. We've argued over it before and I'm sure neither will change. I think the bottom line is we're really discussing why we like or dislike IDPA instead of what a 2 gun event might be. I see no real reason to have a 2 gun IDPA event. 3 gun is really more "tactical" and I think is limiting itself because there are a lot of people who don't have or don't want to shoot a shotgun. Having a 2 gun tactical event seems like it would better fill a void than adding a rifle to IDPA. I could be wrong.
If I were ever in a SHTF situation and had my .22lr bolt gun, I guess I would just have to lay down and die...