The classifier is not designed for BUG. And for this reason no classes exist (marksman, sharpshooter, expert or master) within this division. I'm sure this is why the BUG division is not allowed in state and national level competitions. I suppose one could go by his classification in another division but that really doesn't seem a good option. The IDPA should establish a Back-Up Gun classifier. It could be based on the existing classifier with some minor modifications.

Most people who carry a back-up gun will have it in their pocket, a shoulder rig, cross-draw or ankle holster. Allowing any of these types of carry in competition has some real safety issues involved. Yet we would want to make the competition as real to life as possible. One solution to this would be to start all scenarios with the gun on a table, in a drawer or somewhere that would not require the gun to be drawn from a holster.

It is difficult to come up with BUG scenarios. I have posted several on our web site at http://www.tacticalshooters.com under the "Scenarios" heading. All those listed require 5 or less shots per string. Many of the other scenarios could be adapted for BUG competition by reducing the number of shots per target or limiting the number of threat targets.

Should the IDPA consider removing the BUG division? The IDPA Board of Directors needs to review this and determine if BUG has a future in the IDPA. And, assuming that they think it should stay, the BoD needs to set criteria for classification and safety issues.

---

Grand Master
By
Gary W. Burris

I started to write this article to suggest that a new classification be added to the five that currently exist within the IDPA. I've noted that the top shooters such as Robert Leatham, Ernest G. Langdon, David Sevigny and Alex Zimmermann always seem to finish at the top of the master classification in their respective divisions. They are always ten to twenty seconds in front of second place.

Why not move these folks into a "Grand Master" classification to make room for the other master level shooters? You could develop some kind of point system to advance these great shooters to the next level. How about giving them one point for each state title and three points for a national title? When they accumulate ten points then they move to the Grand Master classification.

Then I got to thinking. If I were a master shooter I would want to compete against the best shooters in the country. It is no dishonor to be bested by any of the shooters mentioned above. In fact, one could brag that, "I had it won but (fill in name) nudged me out of first place." Imagine how wonderful it would be if I beat one of the greats. Hey, it could happen. Of course I'd have to get out of the marksman classification first.

---

Test Your Skills
By
Gary W. Burris

In just about every shooting competition I attend there is at least one scenario that I consider a true test of a shooters skills. Often these are deceptively simple with small round counts. I've seen a lot of shooters including myself walk away from these tests shaking their heads and saying something like, "I wish I had that to do over."

The first one that comes to mind is Scenario #5 from the 2001 Texas State Championship match. I had the honor of being the Safety Officer for that stage. It was a simple Vickers count scenario with two strings and two starting positions. There were three threat targets about seven yards down range and about two yards apart. In addition there was a non-threat target about two yards behind the center threat target. String one started with the shooter behind a barricade and at the signal moved parallel to the targets engaging each target, strong hand only, with two shots in any order. String 2 was the same but started from the other barricade and was shot weak hand only. There were 12 scored shots total. A number of shooters that did not pay close attention to their backstop and put several rounds into the non-threat target. I spent six years in Uncle Sam's Navy and thought I knew most of the available expletives. But I learned a few new words from this stage.

Another that comes to mind was shot at the CenTex monthly match in Dripping Springs, Texas. I think Mark and Beverly McCord picked it up from one of the state matches they attended last year. Talk about simple. It was a one shot Vickers count scenario. The target was about twenty yards downrange with a tee shirt. The shooter drew and engaged the target with one shot, (or as many as the shooter thought was necessary). The tee shirt made it impossible to see your hit so the idea was to take your time and make the hit. I got lucky and shot it clean with only one shot in three seconds and change. Others engaged the target a number of times and still got a FTN plus the extra time.

I also like the scenarios like the Elevator stage from last year's North Carolina State Championship. It is a simple six shot Vickers stage. The shooter engaged three targets through a narrow opening representing elevator doors with two shots each. We used that as a basis for one we shot in the Texas State match as well but changed it to a tactical sequence scenario. Shooters could really rock on these stages. But you'd be surprised how many dropped points on targets less than two yards away.

Scenarios that make you choose the targets are very challenging. There was one in the 2000 IDPA Nationals that had four targets, two to four yards down range. Each of the targets was identified as one suit of playing cards (hearts, spades, diamonds or clubs). The shooter was seated and at the signal turned over one card lying on the table in front of him. This card identified the suit of the non-threat target. The remaining targets were engaged with two shots each in tactical sequence.

---

Turn and Shoot
By
Gary W. Burris

The IDPA clubs in this area have all adopted the "turn to your strong side" approach to scenarios that require that the shooter start with his back to the targets. I've decided that I would set some of my thoughts to paper concerning this issue.

First I made an effort to find the root of this practice. Everyone seems to think it started with the IDPA club that meets at Eagle Lake, TX. How it got started there is anyone's guess. Additionally, it is done this way for "Safety." The idea is that shooters, particularly new shooters, tend to draw before they get completely turned and might sweep folks with their muzzle.

I've been to some clubs in other parts of the country where it makes no difference which way you turn so long as you are completely turned prior to drawing your weapon. This inconsistency has bothered me a little. I continue to turn to my strong side simply because that is the way I learned to do it.

Now I'm having second thoughts about this whole issue. I can see where it might be a safety question in some folks mind. But in fact, as a Safety Officer, I feel comfortable with shooters who turn to their weak side so long as they do it safely. And as a Safety Officer, would disqualify anyone who pointed his muzzle in an unsafe direction.

I've had to DQ a number of folks for turning the wrong direction. In every case they did it safely, but I was compelled to enforce the "turn to your strong side" safety rule. I believe in enforcing the rules even if sometimes they don't seem right. And if the rule needs fixing then we should follow proper procedures to correct it.

The correct tactical approach would be to turn to your weak side so you don't expose your weapon to a potential threat. This would be very important if the threat were within a couple of yards. I would hate to think that we are instilling incorrect tactical practices in a shooter that might have to depend on this skill to survive a real life situation.

Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate our stand on this safety requirement. We would have to advise all shooters at the firing line to indicate the direction they will turn so the Safety Officer could position himself correctly. Additionally, the Safety Officer will have to be prepared to stop and DQ anyone who draws his gun too soon.