New IDPA Rulebook being released today

[PPGMD]

Hopefully in the next couple of hours.

A quick preview of some change confirmed (or not happening) with an interview with Joyce Wilson:
http://www.balloongoesup.com/b...pda_rulebook_change/ (http://www.balloongoesup.com/blog/epi014_ipda_rulebook_change/)

Confirmed IDPA Rule Book Changes

An increased flexibility for local clubs to hold specialty matches (like the Backup Gun Nationals) for specific guns or people.
Authorization for a .22lr class for local matches to reduce the cost of participation and make it even more new shooter friendly.
SSP has been redefined to be for striker fired guns
Changes to the rule using muzzle safe points
Development of a code of conduct
Changes to the clothing rules (vest, kneepads…)
Changes to the classifier
Allowance for shooters to move backwards in classification
Annual review of the rule book

Confirmed No’s

In addition to the confirmed changes there were a few confirmed “No’s” that I believe will be of interest to many members.

CDP will remain 45acp only.
There will be no power factor changes for ESR or SSR
Appendix carry is still forbidden
Slide mounted optics are still a no… for now


She also said that she wanted clubs to allow outlaw shooters (slide mounted optics and other non-standard equipment) to shoot for unofficial score.

[PPGMD]

And posted here:
http://members.idpa.com/Rules/Home

You have to log in to view it.

[JV_]

You have to log in to view it.Just use this link, no login required:
http://members.idpa.com/Content/Rules/mywujz25.qyt.pdf

[PPGMD]

I read through it briefly, honestly the changes are pretty minor so far, but I don't have time to get into the details.

One annoyance, now there are muzzle safe points and the 180 rule. I think it should be one or the other.

Second annoyance, they changed SSP rules, stippling still not allowed, nor is the Grip Force adapter, but stock grip tangs (like the ones Glock released) would be allowed. Which is funny because the other change was allowing after market slide stops, and magazine releases as long as they are similar to the factory one. I think they need to add the grip tangs to that rule, Grip Force adapters provide no competitive advantage over a Glock factory one.

Well I am about to drive home, hopefully some other people can read through and provide their insights. I am wondering about round dumping.

[JV_]

Still no lasers.


Lasers that are incorporated into the firearm or sights are legal if they comply with all other division
rules and the laser is covered with tape so that it can't project.

[JV_]

It looks like the bar was raised for a SSP Master classification, it's now at 91 or less, not 98.xx.

[JV_]

We do not specify that stages be CDP-neutral or ESP or
SSP Neutral. If any firearm runs dry in the open, reloads can
now be initiated in the open to simulate a real-life scenario.
Revolvers compete only against other revolvers, so it is not
a tactical disadvantage to eliminate this rule.

[orionz06]

Still kind of funny how a defensive pistol has changed to quite often include a light and or laser yet both are still not allowed. I get the idea but it is ironic that they force competitors to have carry gear and competition gear, there very thing they seem to be against. Did I miss "competition clothing" or gear?

[jlw]

It looks like the bar was raised for a SSP Master classification, it's now at 91 or less, not 98.xx.

I have been sitting at 102 on the classifier fora while. I guess I had better find a way to shave four seconds before October 1. ;)

[ToddG]

I cannot find any reference whatsoever to round dumping. Anyone? If they did away with that, the game just got a lot better.

The reload/cover rule still makes very little sense but I suppose it's better than the previous rule. Now you can start your reload out in the open, but if you're out in the open with a reloaded gun you aren't allowed to shoot at threats until you make it to cover. So silly.

Tactical sequence is still in the rules... hate.

No aiwb means I probably won't shoot IDPA, but that certainly wasn't a surprise ruling. We do have three weeks to comment. I wonder if we could generate enough groundswell support to get them to reconsider.

Allowing "outlaw" gear at local matches not-for-score really surprises me. IDPA did that in the early days and then got away with it specifically because people would show up to major events and act surprised that their gear was disallowed. I do think it's a good idea (and one we incorporated into KSTG), it's just interesting to see IDPA reverse itself.

[rsa-otc]

It looks like the bar was raised for a SSP Master classification, it's now at 91 or less, not 98.xx.

Actually all the division's bars have been raised some more than others.

[rsa-otc]

I have been sitting at 102 on the classifier fora while. I guess I had better find a way to shave four seconds before October 1. ;)

I don't see any reference to how they are going to handle that. If your previous high classification score was just with in that class but doesn't make it under the new standards are you still the higher class or do you get knocked back to the lower class come Oct?

Personally I'm not on the bubble with any of the 3 divisions I'm classed in, but it makes me wonder.

[KeeFus]

I cannot find any reference whatsoever to round dumping. Anyone? If they did away with that, the game just got a lot better.

Nope, I didn't see it either.


The reload/cover rule still makes very little sense but I suppose it's better than the previous rule. Now you can start your reload out in the open, but if you're out in the open with a reloaded gun you aren't allowed to shoot at threats until you make it to cover. So silly.

Still, its better than having to wait to get to cover to reload. That one rule has given me so many PE's over the past few years I cant count.

[jetfire]

As near as I can tell after reading the rulebook cover to cover (twice) round dumping has been eliminated as a penalty. Some other good stuff is a formal definition of cover as extended to infinity uprange, which will eliminate the "you must be within 2 feet of cover/arm's length" cover call that some ranges were so very fond of.

XD pistols are now in SSP where they belong, and there are a lot of minor clarifications that help some of the nagging equipment issues. One of the ones I'll be talking about later this week on Gun Nuts is that they've put a strong criteria in to enforce the "skinny guy holster penalty" which means that my old IDPA holster won't be legal unless I gain 20 pounds around the waist.

You can read my entire thoughts on Gun Nuts on the new IDPA rulebook (http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/05/07/idpa-rulebook-first-look-and-quick-thoughts/). Also, just for Todd, I turned regular comments back on.

[JHC]

Skinny guy holster penalty???

[ToddG]

My thoughts on the round dumping situation:


The old rulebook specifically discussed it and declared it an FTDR.
The proposed rulebook does not address it at all.


Knowing how IDPA clubs and even major match MDs tend to run things in different parts of the country at different times, I think we'll need a more concrete "round dumping is no longer illegal" clarification from IDPA HQ. There will continue to be people who enforce round dumping penalties and justify it as falling under some generic FTDR description.

SO: "FTDR. You shot your gun empty so you could start your reload before you got to cover."

Competitor: "Yeah, I did. But that's not against the rules anymore. They took the dumping rule out."

SO: "No, it's right here: The FTDR is intended to be used solely as a penalty for deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage. They took most of the specific FTDR causes out of the rulebook because they know SOs and MDs are psychic and can detect competitive advantage neurons firing in the brains of shooters from many miles away."

Mark my words... people will still get FTDRs for round dumping in some places until this is finally explained in ten foot tall concrete letters.

[rsa-otc]

Am I correct in the opinion that they have eliminated all mandatory "reloads with retention or tactical reloads" on the clock during stages which effectively eliminates them on scored stage designs except for the classifier or a standards stage.

[rsa-otc]

Still, its better than having to wait to get to cover to reload. That one rule has given me so many PE's over the past few years I cant count.

Totally agree one of my biggest peeves with IDPA. To be frank unless you are operating at Robbie's, Todd's or Dave's level you should cover the distance to cover prior to completing the reload rendering it a moot point for the majority of us. The largest distance by the rules on stage design you should have to cover is 10 yards and assuming you were moving while shooting that distance is going to be much less.

[John Ralston]

Skinny guy holster penalty???

+1

[JV_]

If your previous high classification score was just with in that class but doesn't make it under the new standards are you still the higher class or do you get knocked back to the lower class come Oct?

It reads like you'd be grandfathered:


Shooters may not go down in Classification except for permanent physical disability or for other irrevocable
reasons

[jar]

Am I correct in the opinion that they have eliminated all mandatory "reloads with retention or tactical reloads" on the clock during stages which effectively eliminates them on scored stage designs except for the classifier or a standards stage.

You can still make them a damn good idea through stage design with disappearing targets.


All in all, I'm pretty underwhelmed. It took them 18 months to make some minor clarifications, delete the round dumping rule, and copy popper calibration and arbitration from USPSA. I'm pretty amused that they added that calling for a calibration subjects you to immediate chrono.

[jetfire]

Skinny guy holster penalty???

The new rulebook has a pretty exhaustive procedure in place for testing to make sure that your gun is not offset more than 3/4ths of an inch from your body. What this means (and it even says this in the rules) is that a holster that's legal on someone who enjoys a more sedentary lifestyle than I do may not be legal on me. The de facto IDPA holster, a Blade-Tech OWB belt holster that attaches using either belt loops or a tek-lock is illegal for me to use because it holds the gun about 1.25 inches away from my lack of love handles. Same with my Comp-Tac holsters.

Well, I guess I could always eat more donuts.

[orionz06]

So eating poorly for you now becomes IDPA training.

[jlw]

It appears that duty gear is now not allowed in a sanctioned match. Very unhappy with this development.

[jetfire]

It appears that duty gear is now not allowed in a sanctioned match. Very unhappy with this development.

I can honestly say that having shot a considerable number of sanctioned matches over the past 5 years, I have never once seen an officer use their duty gear to shoot.

[jlw]

I can honestly say that having shot a considerable number of sanctioned matches over the past 5 years, I have never once seen an officer use their duty gear to shoot.

I have never shot a sanctioned match using anything other than duty gear. In fact, the number of club matches I have shot as a tactical fisherman can be counted on one hand.

I am not the only shooter in my area that does similar.

[ToddG]

So eating poorly for you now becomes IDPA training.

Or you could look at it the opposite way: your holster actually has to be a good concealment holster for you regardless of whether it would work on someone else. Dictating location/offset rather than just a blanket allowance for certain holsters definitely lives up to the principles of the game. In Caleb's example, the holster he mentioned allows him almost twice as much offset from the body as the rules allow... so why would it be legal for him?


I can honestly say that having shot a considerable number of sanctioned matches over the past 5 years, I have never once seen an officer use their duty gear to shoot.

I have, though rarely. There was at least one guy at the '07 Nats who shot in full uniform. But I've also seen the (old) rule abused, including by a top name competitor at a club match who just wanted to shoot without concealment so he claimed "LE status" because he was teaching law enforcement folks and used his "official LE gear" which was basically an open top competition holster. The requirement now for a Level 2 holster is good, though it would be nice to see how they define that since it's not an official NIJ standard or anything. Blackhawk considers the SERPA a level 2 retention holster.

[jlw]

In looking at the new classifier score breakdowns, I am at a loss as to why SSP and ESP are separate divisions...

[jlw]

I have, though rarely. There was at least one guy at the '07 Nats who shot in full uniform. But I've also seen the (old) rule abused, including by a top name competitor at a club match who just wanted to shoot without concealment so he claimed "LE status" because he was teaching law enforcement folks and used his "official LE gear" which was basically an open top competition holster. The requirement now for a Level 2 holster is good, though it would be nice to see how they define that since it's not an official NIJ standard or anything. Blackhawk considers the SERPA a level 2 retention holster.

In another portion of the rules it states one retention device for duty holsters.

Duty gear for LE was supposed to be for those with arrest powers. I have seen that stretched as well. There is a guy in GA that claimed to be shooting using duty gear, but he is a correctional officer for a private prison and thus doesn't meet the IDPA interpretation. Funny thing is that he still wore a tactical fisherman vest; so, I don't exactly know what his point was.

At any rate, anyone thinking that duty gear is an advantage has no practical knowledge of duty gear.

[ToddG]

At any rate, anyone thinking that duty gear is an advantage has no practical knowledge of duty gear.

I cannot agree with that. An ALS holster on a solid Sam Browne-type belt with open mag pouches (which are certainly not unusual these days) is definitely as fast on the draw as an open top concealed holster and gives an obvious speed benefit during the reload.

[rsa-otc]

At any rate, anyone thinking that duty gear is an advantage has no practical knowledge of duty gear.

+1

[jetfire]

Or you could look at it the opposite way: your holster actually has to be a good concealment holster for you regardless of whether it would work on someone else. Dictating location/offset rather than just a blanket allowance for certain holsters definitely lives up to the principles of the game. In Caleb's example, the holster he mentioned allows him almost twice as much offset from the body as the rules allow... so why would it be legal for him?

I actually agree with the intent of the rule; I'm mostly just grousing for the sake of it.

[jlw]

I cannot agree with that. An ALS holster on a solid Sam Browne-type belt with open mag pouches (which are certainly not unusual these days) is definitely as fast on the draw as an open top concealed holster and gives an obvious speed benefit during the reload.

You are not taking into account other issues that arise from the use of duty gear.

Also, any time savings, if any, wouldn't be statistically relevant across the board.

[JConn]

I'm actually glad they made master classification harder for ssp. I had never shot the classifier before and was just a few points off of master on a bad day. Master should be hard to achieve and have some meaning. Also 91 is a completely doable score if you are accurate.

[jar]

I can honestly say that having shot a considerable number of sanctioned matches over the past 5 years, I have never once seen an officer use their duty gear to shoot.

In New England, the Coast Guard Academy Combat Arms Team regularly shoots matches with boarding team duty gear.

[taadski]

It appears that duty gear is now not allowed in a sanctioned match. Very unhappy with this development..


I'm feeling the same way. I shoot IDPA SSP (and USPSA production) exclusively from my duty gear. I haven't competed at the Nationals but I've shot a number of State level matches that way. I suppose some might use the duty gear rules to game things but I always thought the purpose of the rule was to allow sworn Officers to shoot with the same gear they have to work in, for better or for worse. If someone legitimately carries on duty in an ALS holster with open top pouches, I don't have a problem with them using that gear for this game. (My duty holster is a level III ALS/SLS combo, for the record.) It seems odd that one set of rules are going to be used at local matches and a different set for major matches. Between this development and the ongoing appendix carry rules, I won't be able to have a competition/game setup that mirrors anything I'm actually going to be using day to day. :(


t

[jetfire]

In New England, the Coast Guard Academy Combat Arms Team regularly shoots matches with boarding team duty gear.

Yes, but how many major sanctioned matches do they shoot with that kit? And for what it's worth, they didn't always do that.

[jlw]

If duty gear offered an advantage, don't y'all think Vogel and the other top shooters who are cops would have been using it all these years?

[ToddG]

You are not taking into account other issues that arise from the use of duty gear.

On the contrary, I don't think you're taking into account the fact that some people show up with nothing but a holster and mag pouches on their belt and say, "this is my duty gear!"


Also, any time savings, if any, wouldn't be statistically relevant across the board.

At least one Nationals was won by less than a quarter of a second. IDPA.com only lists Nationals going back to '03. I want to say '02 or '01 was even closer than that but I may be misremembering. Plus it's not a matter of whether someone thinks it's "statistically relevant." If it provides a benefit, it's prima facie unfair.


I'm actually glad they made master classification harder for ssp. I had never shot the classifier before and was just a few points off of master on a bad day. Master should be hard to achieve and have some meaning. Also 91 is a completely doable score if you are accurate.

SSP and ESP have become so interchangeable it's almost silly to have both. But at least in theory SSP is there for the new shooter who doesn't want to feel disadvantaged by having stock parts compared to some of the mods allowed in ESP/CDP.


If someone legitimately carries on duty in an ALS holster with open top pouches, I don't have a problem with them using that gear for this game.

If it gives him a competitive advantage over people who cannot use that equipment, how can it be fair?


It seems odd that one set of rules are going to be used at local matches and a different set for major matches.

I understand where you're coming from but I'd suggest looking at it from the perspective of the game's intent which is very clearly about concealed carry. Allowing uniform gear at local matches is basically a nod to local LEOs and hopefully gets them more interested in the sport. IDPA has essentially said that local matches can be run with a bit of "outlaw" flavor. Whether that's good or bad is open to debate, admittedly.


Between this development and the ongoing appendix carry rules, I won't be able to have a competition/game setup that mirrors anything I'm actually going to be using day to day.

Nor can I. Their game, their rules.

[ToddG]

Based on the OP:


Authorization for a .22lr class for local matches to reduce the cost of participation and make it even more new shooter friendly.

I do not see that in the rulebook.


She also said that she wanted clubs to allow outlaw shooters (slide mounted optics and other non-standard equipment) to shoot for unofficial score.

I do not see that in the rulebook.

[jar]

Yes, but how many major sanctioned matches do they shoot with that kit? And for what it's worth, they didn't always do that.

I know I've seen it at at least CT state and New England regional. I'm not sure if they do it at S&W or not.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

[PPGMD]

SO: "No, it's right here: The FTDR is intended to be used solely as a penalty for deliberate attempts on the part of the shooter to circumvent or violate the competition rules to gain a competitive advantage. They took most of the specific FTDR causes out of the rulebook because they know SOs and MDs are psychic and can detect competitive advantage neurons firing in the brains of shooters from many miles away."

Mark my words... people will still get FTDRs for round dumping in some places until this is finally explained in ten foot tall concrete letters.

I agree, and they also need to spell out just how level of a penalty that FTDRs are. Requiring that a MD be involved is good, but they need to spell it out along the lines as Bubba put it recently, FTDRs are only one minor step below a DQ, which is a HUGE leap from a PE. It should be something that would almost get someone kicked out of a match for cheating.

[jetfire]

At Indoor Nats in 2012, they used M&Ps out of regular holsters.

[PPGMD]

Based on the OP:



I do not see that in the rulebook.



I do not see that in the rulebook.

*shrugs* She said it on the internet, so it must be true.

Anyways most clubs already did this.

[PPGMD]

R9.1. If the shooter runs the firearm empty behind
cover, the shooter may not advance in the stage (move
toward the next shooting position) until the weapon
is deemed loaded.
R9.2. When performing a Loaded Cylinder/Loaded Chamber reload, the shooter may not advance in the
stage (move toward the next shooting position) until the weapon is deemed loaded.

To me this reads that virtually all reloads must be static reloads. If that was the intent, I am done with IDPA totally.

[rsa-otc]

In looking at the new classifier score breakdowns, I am at a loss as to why SSP and ESP are separate divisions...

This is something I have remarked about before, are all those mods for ESP over SSP actually giving you a benefit or not? On the classifier maybe not so much. At a sanctioned match where you shoot more stages with a variety of gun handling problems the difference between a tweaked SSP gun compared to a fully tweaked ESP may show up. Lets face it other then us dinosaurs who shoot Revolvers, other than Ernie Langdon who shoots DA, DOA or even DA/DA guns outside a local match here and there anyway? SSP is the striker fired division for all intents and purposes. ESP was supposed to be SA only guns such as the 9mm 1911. With all of todays trigger mods available to the striker fired guns the difference between a striker fired gun and a SA gun is minimal. So you're down to the fractions of a second the oversize controls my gain you as well as the mag wells. With the way the Classifier is set up I don't think it gives ESP that much of an advantage.

[ToddG]

*shrugs* She said it on the internet, so it must be true.

Just to be clear, I wasn't jumping on you. Just noting that what had been reported by that site didn't match up with the rulebook as it was released.


R9.1. If the shooter runs the firearm empty behind
cover, the shooter may not advance in the stage (move
toward the next shooting position) until the weapon
is deemed loaded.
R9.2. When performing a Loaded Cylinder/Loaded Chamber reload, the shooter may not advance in the
stage (move toward the next shooting position) until the weapon is deemed loaded.

To me this reads that virtually all reloads must be static reloads. If that was the intent, I am done with IDPA totally.

I thought the same thing when I first read it. However, if we go back to first principles: would you advance toward known trouble before your gun was 100% ready to go?


This is something I have remarked about before, are all those mods for ESP over SSP actually giving you a benefit or not?

As I read it, putting any Vickers anything on a Glock moves you to ESP. There are definitely some folks -- myself included -- who find some of those parts useful or even necessary. From my perspective it's mostly a matter of providing the new shooter a "safe harbor" of stock(-ish) guns to feel like he's on an even footing.

[rsa-otc]

R9.1. If the shooter runs the firearm empty behind
cover, the shooter may not advance in the stage (move
toward the next shooting position) until the weapon
is deemed loaded.
R9.2. When performing a Loaded Cylinder/Loaded Chamber reload, the shooter may not advance in the
stage (move toward the next shooting position) until the weapon is deemed loaded.

To me this reads that virtually all reloads must be static reloads. If that was the intent, I am done with IDPA totally.

When I read R9's opening statement that the shooter may not leave a position of cover with an empty gun and interpret R9.1 & R9.2 I don't read it that way. If your cover is a wall 8 feet wide and you go to slide lock reload having fully engaged the target from the left corner of the wall you may reload while moving behind cover to engage the targets around the right side of the wall. What you may not do is leave one piece of cover to travel to another position of cover with an empty weapon and you can not reload along the way ala USPSA. Frankly this is as it's always been and is within the intent of IDPA. What's nice now is that if you are in the open engaging targets and your gun runs dry you may start your reload prior to arriving at your next position of cover. This is certainly what I would do in a real gunfight.

[jar]

When I read R9's opening statement that the shooter may not leave a position of cover with an empty gun and interpret R9.1 & R9.2 I don't read it that way. If your cover is a wall 8 feet wide and you go to slide lock reload having fully engaged the target from the left corner of the wall you may reload while moving behind cover to engage the targets around the right side of the wall. What you may not do is leave one piece of cover to travel to another position of cover with an empty weapon and you can not reload along the way ala USPSA. Frankly this is as it's always been and is within the intent of IDPA. What's nice now is that if you are in the open engaging targets and your gun runs dry you may start your reload prior to arriving at your next position of cover. This is certainly what I would do in a real gunfight.

The issue is, people who pay attention to this stuff enough to be discussing it online on day one reasonably differ as to how to read the wording. If it goes in to the wild like this, it's going to be a mess of conflicting officiating. You know, the whole issue this new rulebook was supposed to solve.


Re the divisions, I think Todd is spot on that SSP provides a place to feel like you're on even footing with a stock gun, with feel being the operative word. IMHO, the magwell is the only truly significant difference other than the inability to tweak a specific gun to shooter preferences.

[PPGMD]

I replied to the P-T thread, but I figured I would post it here also.

You can propose rule changes in the logged in members section here:
http://members.idpa.com/Rules/Home

[jlw]

This is something I have remarked about before, are all those mods for ESP over SSP actually giving you a benefit or not? On the classifier maybe not so much. At a sanctioned match where you shoot more stages with a variety of gun handling problems the difference between a tweaked SSP gun compared to a fully tweaked ESP may show up. Lets face it other then us dinosaurs who shoot Revolvers, other than Ernie Langdon who shoots DA, DOA or even DA/DA guns outside a local match here and there anyway? SSP is the striker fired division for all intents and purposes. ESP was supposed to be SA only guns such as the 9mm 1911. With all of todays trigger mods available to the striker fired guns the difference between a striker fired gun and a SA gun is minimal. So you're down to the fractions of a second the oversize controls my gain you as well as the mag wells. With the way the Classifier is set up I don't think it gives ESP that much of an advantage.

When everyone was suggesting rule changes, I proposed two pistol divisions:

One division at 10+1 and 125pf and one at 8+1 and 165pf with a list of permissible mods.

[jlw]

On the contrary, I don't think you're taking into account the fact that some people show up with nothing but a holster and mag pouches on their belt and say, "this is my duty gear!"



We have state agencies here in GA to which that would legitimately apply. However, that is not the crux of my argument. A simple clarification to define duty gear as to that of traditional patrol type duty gear would clear up the matter.

Batons and ECDs tend to hang up on seated props. Duty gear can also make getting into and out of pockets more problematic on those stages where ammo is supposed to be retrieved and stowed in a pocket, etc. Retention devices can be problematic.

Again I ask, if duty gear were an advantage, how come Vogel and crew don't use it for matches?

[rsa-otc]

When everyone was suggesting rule changes, I proposed two pistol divisions:

One division at 10+1 and 125pf and one at 8+1 and 165pf with a list of permissible mods.

Giving this some thought you maybe on to something there. Other than those who can rock and roll in Master Class what difference does it really make. If you shoot sharpshooter with a SSP gun you'll be shooting against people who achieved that level by having a tricked out gun. Your both playing at the same level whether you achieved that level by skill or through equipment. The only people who would really be effected is the master class shooters because unless you win a major match there's no division higher than that. Once you've reached that level you are probably tweaking your gun anyway.

[ToddG]

Batons and ECDs tend to hang up on seated props. Duty gear can also make getting into and out of pockets more problematic on those stages where ammo is supposed to be retrieved and stowed in a pocket, etc. Retention devices can be problematic.

The new rules specifically state that while the holders for those items must be on the belt, the gear itself doesn't have to be in the pouches, holsters, etc.

And it still doesn't deal with the guy who shows up and claims he doesn't normally wear any of that stuff and just gets away with shooting from a SERPA, open pouches, and no concealment. If you cannot understand how that's unfair I'm sorry.


Again I ask, if duty gear were an advantage, how come Vogel and crew don't use it for matches?

I'm not sure who "and crew" is. As for Bob, you'd have to ask him. Perhaps under the old rules, because he's honest, he'd have been stuck lugging around a lot of gear that would have been a detriment. Under the new rules, a lot of that stuff can be left off... which might be why they changed the rule to cover only local matches. Maybe he just knew that if he showed up with gear that gave him a serious advantage that someone (like the BOD) would step in. Like I said, call him up and ask.

But it all seems moot to me. From the rules:

The IDPA competition format was designed to be enjoyable to all shooters of all skill levels, with a premium put on the social interaction and camaraderie of the members. Participation in IDPA matches requires the use of handguns, holsters and other equipment suitable for concealed carry self-defense. With that in mind, and keeping the shooters' best interests in mind, IDPA's founders established equipment requirements that remain based on commonly available firearms and gear allowing individuals the opportunity to compete with minimal investment.

It's a concealed carry sport. That's the level playing field. That they let anyone shoot from anything but concealment is a kind gesture. Complaining that they don't let people run that way at major events is rather missing the point, I think. What's next? "I'm on SWAT and always have an AR15." :cool:

[jlw]

The new rules specifically state that while the holders for those items must be on the belt, the gear itself doesn't have to be in the pouches, holsters, etc.

And it still doesn't deal with the guy who shows up and claims he doesn't normally wear any of that stuff and just gets away with shooting from a SERPA, open pouches, and no concealment. If you cannot understand how that's unfair I'm sorry.



I'm not sure who "and crew" is. As for Bob, you'd have to ask him. Perhaps under the old rules, because he's honest, he'd have been stuck lugging around a lot of gear that would have been a detriment. Under the new rules, a lot of that stuff can be left off... which might be why they changed the rule to cover only local matches. Maybe he just knew that if he showed up with gear that gave him a serious advantage that someone (like the BOD) would step in. Like I said, call him up and ask.

But it all seems moot to me. From the rules:


It's a concealed carry sport. That's the level playing field. That they let anyone shoot from anything but concealment is a kind gesture. Complaining that they don't let people run that way at major events is rather missing the point, I think. What's next? "I'm on SWAT and always have an AR15." :cool:


It's a defensive shooting sport (or at least it was).

Duty gear is a whole lot more relevant to defensive shooting than is a Glock 34 with a magwell, 2lb trigger, and fiber optic sights.

There are several high level MA shooters that are also sworn officers. They play tactical fisherman instead of using duty gear.

Please read all of my comments where I wrote that IDPA clarify what duty gear means rather than striking it completely for sanctioned matches. Please don't cherry pick by using a Serpa example.

Another simple solution would be to require those wanting to shoot with duty gear to bring a letter from their agency or a copy of the agency policy authorizing the specific gear being worn.

[orionz06]

Or you could look at it the opposite way: your holster actually has to be a good concealment holster for you regardless of whether it would work on someone else. Dictating location/offset rather than just a blanket allowance for certain holsters definitely lives up to the principles of the game. In Caleb's example, the holster he mentioned allows him almost twice as much offset from the body as the rules allow... so why would it be legal for him?


With a fishing vest it is.

I like the idea behind the rule but how it appears is a whole different thing.

[ToddG]

It's a defensive shooting sport (or at least it was).

No. It was always geared toward concealed carry. In the very beginning there was no allowance for duty gear. None. Then the BOD decided to add it to accommodate LEO requests. The rule had to get clarified over time to the "mace & handcuffs" requirement because there were people abusing the rule.


Duty gear is a whole lot more relevant to defensive shooting than is a Glock 34 with a magwell, 2lb trigger, and fiber optic sights.

I don't disagree. But a G34 w/magwell, 2# trigger, and FO sights under a vest is a lot more relevant to concealed carry, which, I repeat, is what the game is about. Don't take my word for it. Read the intro to the new rulebook.


Please read all of my comments where I wrote that IDPA clarify what duty gear means rather than striking it completely for sanctioned matches. Please don't cherry pick by using a Serpa example.

IDPA has clarified it. It means a "level 2 holster" (whatever that means, since manufacturers set their own definitions) anywhere on the belt or leg and any mag pouch in any location whatsoever. That's why the SERPA example is valid. You said yourself there are agencies where the LEOs could legitimately make the claim that was their duty gear.

Do we let them shoot with that, thus giving them an unfair advantage over all the people who are shooting from concealment as called for in the game and per the founding principles of the game?

Or do we tell LEOs that they're welcome to come play but if they want to shoot a championship they need to play by the same rules as everyone else?


Another simple solution would be to require those wanting to shoot with duty gear to bring a letter from their agency or a copy of the agency policy authorizing the specific gear being worn.

You and I both know there would then be a hue and cry from officers who can't get that from their agency. And seriously, are MDs supposed to call around and ask for the Chief of NYPD to verify that the letter is legit?

I understand you want the rules to be different and you want to be able to play a concealed carry game with your duty gear. I really do get it. I want to play it with my aiwb gear (which is in every way in keeping with the spirit of the game) but I can't, either. There are other games that we can go shoot instead.

[ToddG]

And I'm so tired of hearing people whine about the vest. For the folks who were unaware of concealed carry before IDPA existed, the photographer's vest was being used by people around the world for concealed carry for decades before anyone thought to create International Defensive Pistol. And to this day there are countless people who do, in fact, use such vests to carry concealed.

You're better and smarter than that. I get it.

The fact is those vest do in fact do a great job of concealing a gun, they allow for pretty fast draws and reloads, and outside of the Internet Gun Culture and LEOs no one notices or cares about them. I cannot begin to tell you how many times during my IDPA days that Ernest, Rob, Super Dave, and I would walk into a restaurant all wearing Royal Robbins (now "5.11s") trousers and vests and huge hordes of customers would immediately and violently fail to notice or give a kitten.

Do I think they're ideal? No.
Do I wear one now? No.
Are they the winning ticket in IDPA? Yes.
Were a lot of the people who created IDPA wearing such vests for actual concealment before IDPA came to life? Afraid so...

[jlw]

No. It was always geared toward concealed carry. In the very beginning there was no allowance for duty gear. None. Then the BOD decided to add it to accommodate LEO requests. The rule had to get clarified over time to the "mace & handcuffs" requirement because there were people abusing the rule.



I don't disagree. But a G34 w/magwell, 2# trigger, and FO sights under a vest is a lot more relevant to concealed carry, which, I repeat, is what the game is about. Don't take my word for it. Read the intro to the new rulebook.



IDPA has clarified it. It means a "level 2 holster" (whatever that means, since manufacturers set their own definitions) anywhere on the belt or leg and any mag pouch in any location whatsoever. That's why the SERPA example is valid. You said yourself there are agencies where the LEOs could legitimately make the claim that was their duty gear.


Do we let them shoot with that, thus giving them an unfair advantage over all the people who are shooting from concealment as called for in the game and per the founding principles of the game?

Or do we tell LEOs that they're welcome to come play but if they want to shoot a championship they need to play by the same rules as everyone else?



You and I both know there would then be a hue and cry from officers who can't get that from their agency. And seriously, are MDs supposed to call around and ask for the Chief of NYPD to verify that the letter is legit?

I understand you want the rules to be different and you want to be able to play a concealed carry game with your duty gear. I really do get it. I want to play it with my aiwb gear (which is in every way in keeping with the spirit of the game) but I can't, either. There are other games that we can go shoot instead.


The burden should be on the peace officer to show documentation that they meet the definition of an officer for IDPA purposes and to show proof that they are using their actual approved gear. It shouldn't be the burden of the MD. The shooter should provide the documentation at registration or at the equipment check or get DQed. How hard is it to print a page out from the SOP?

Why clarify that duty gear means patrol gear and not that of an undercover or investigative assignment and then outlaw duty gear for sanctioned matches?

I've only been shooting IDPA since 2010. I don't have the historical reference of the "beginning". It irks me that something that I have been doing within the rules the entire time I have been shooting the sport is now illegal, and it is apparently illegal because a few folks try to beat the system. The solution being implemented is no better a system than suspending elementary students for drawing a picture of a gun. I simply have a low tolerance for institutionalized stupidity, and that is what this rule change is.

If it is going to be a "concealed carry" sport, outlaw all of the gamer equipment. Wasn't IDPA supposed to not be an equipment race?

[orionz06]

Yeah... My point wasn't to whine about the vest. The stuff just doesn't stack up, that's all. Legal/preferred concealment garments that fit properly do conceal the holsters in question despite violating the new (proposed) rules. Ultimately it is not that big of a deal but looking at Yamil Sued's pics from the IDPA events he photographed leads me to believe a lot of people will be on the same boat. I imagine Comp-Tac and Bladetech are already making a slightly closer fitting holster as we speak or have some ready to go. Ultimately the difference will be meaningless for the top shooters but at the club level I can already see the issues with active shooters at my club not adhering to the new rules.


Looking over the old rulebook makes me wonder if the original intent was the same as the new rules.



If it is going to be a "concealed carry" sport, outlaw all of the gamer equipment. Wasn't IDPA supposed to not be an equipment race?

I brought this up at my RSO class. Lot's of stuff is intended for IDPA technically making it competition equipment. I got a stern talking to and the guy continued on to tell a room full of 50 people how IDPA is as good as training.

[ToddG]

Why clarify that duty gear means patrol gear and not that of an undercover or investigative assignment and then outlaw duty gear for sanctioned matches?

I don't think it was much of a clarification. The previous rule, if anything, was more onerous because it required carrying all the belt gear (OC, cuffs, baton, etc.) and now you don't have to do that.


I've only been shooting IDPA since 2010. I don't have the historical reference of the "beginning". It irks me that something that I have been doing within the rules the entire time I have been shooting the sport is now illegal, and it is apparently illegal because a few folks try to beat the system. The solution being implemented is no better a system than suspending elementary students for drawing a picture of a gun. I simply have a low tolerance for institutionalized stupidity, and that is what this rule change is.

I just don't see it that way. There was an issue with the rules that some people were exploiting. The whole point of reviewing the rulebook was to fix problems. Rather than dictating to every LEA in the country what "appropriate duty gear" means, they instead allow every LEO to practice with his gear at local matches even if it gives him an advantage. For major sanctioned matches, though, everyone has to play by the same rules.

I'll say that one more time: at sanctioned matches, everyone has to play by the same rules. There are no longer special rules for LEOs.


If it is going to be a "concealed carry" sport, outlaw all of the gamer equipment. Wasn't IDPA supposed to not be an equipment race?

Preaching to the choir, brother. But one man's gamer equipment is another man's lifeline. Lasers are outlawed but plenty of people think they're legit. I think G34s are ridiculous but I know more and more people who carry them for CCW... some even with WMLs attached!

I can't find my calipers but I'm pretty sure the extended mag catch on my SACS/Warren 1911 is illegal because it extends more than 0.20" from the frame. The gun is so close to the 43oz limit (measures 42.25 on my scale with an empty ETM mag) that I would be worried about it getting dinged. It's my everyday, everywhere carry gun but without modifying it I can't shoot it. Silly? I think so.

But as someone who's gone through the process of writing rules for a concealed carry-oriented shooting game I can appreciate how hard it is to walk the line between fair and fun. You'll always have people who say that polishing your trigger bar is gaming and you'll always have people who insist their EDC has a Subaru hood scoop for a magwell.

It's like any other sport that has a strong equipment component: people are always pushing the technology forward while the organization has to keep things in check. That's why my review of the equipment rules was so cursory. They are what they are. They're the amalgamation of fifteen years of tidal forces between "tacticians and gamers" resulting in an odd hodgepodge of rules that make so little sense it's silly. (M&P owner can stipple the wrap-around grip panel of his gun because it's removable, but someone with a gen3 Glock can't get the same benefit because it's a permanent mod... how utterly dumb is that?)

[jlw]

Screw it. I'll just go hammer down over the next few months on the classifier and knock out the last four seconds I need for SSP/MA and then just not shoot any sanctioned matches. I haven't signed up for any this year because of the costs involved; so, it isn't like it will be that big of a change to status quo.

[Sal Picante]

Screw it. I'll just go hammer down over the next few months on the classifier and knock out the last four seconds I need for SSP/MA and then just not shoot any sanctioned matches. I haven't signed up for any this year because of the costs involved; so, it isn't like it will be that big of a change to status quo.

Honestly, why bother then?

[ToddG]

Looking over the old rulebook makes me wonder if the original intent was the same as the new rules.

Originally, the rulebook had a list of approved holsters. If you wanted a holster design added to the list you had to send a sample to Ken Hackathorn and he'd decide whether it was suitable for concealed carry. Only then would it be legal in IDPA.

One of the first holsters ever denied was the Gunsite Range Holster (or whatever it was called). That caused a huge uproar with half a trillion people swearing they'd never shoot IDPA again, yadda yadda yadda.

It quickly became clear that (a) there were too many holster options for Ken to review all of them and (b) a holster that was reasonable for one person might not be reasonable for another. So the objective standard (which is usually considered a plus in game rules) was created.

I've never shot an IDPA match from anything but an IWB holster so it never really affected me one way or the other.

[PPGMD]

It's like any other sport that has a strong equipment component: people are always pushing the technology forward while the organization has to keep things in check. That's why my review of the equipment rules was so cursory. They are what they are. They're the amalgamation of fifteen years of tidal forces between "tacticians and gamers" resulting in an odd hodgepodge of rules that make so little sense it's silly. (M&P owner can stipple the wrap-around grip panel of his gun because it's removable, but someone with a gen3 Glock can't get the same benefit because it's a permanent mod... how utterly dumb is that?)

Another example, you can install a Glock beavertail back strap on your Gen 4, but you can't install a Gripforce on a Gen 1-3, or a backstrapless Gen 4.


You'll always have people who say that polishing your trigger bar is gaming and you'll always have people who insist their EDC has a Subaru hood scoop for a magwell.

Really that works, off to the junk yard. Anyways if people think throwing an optic on a slide is a race gun, they need to go to Bianchi, those guns are so specialized it is not even funny.

[jlw]

Honestly, why bother then?


As I wrote earlier, I have a low tolerance for institutional stupidity, and I am irked that something that has been completely legal for matches now isn't.

[PPGMD]

Well I submitted a proposed rule change relating to the Glock beavertails, and I got an email saying that the IDPA responded, but I have no idea how to check that response. I found my proposed rule change and nothing is visibly different.

[KeeFus]

In regards to duty gear: I thought about doing that at last years Cup or Nationals (I cant remember which). However, when I put a clock to it I saw that I lost seconds, which I didn't want to lose. That being said, that was just me and I think that the removal of duty gear from sanctioned matches penalizes folks, like jlw, who really want to compete in such a manner.

I have also seen mentioned elsewhere that the ALS wont be approved now because it pushes the holster too far away from the body (internet myth and hype at this point). If that's the case I will see more USPSA in the near future. It is a fast holster and really doesn't hinder me with any considerable amount of extra draw time.

[ToddG]

http://quests.society.qub.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/futurama_good_news_everyone.jpg

Direct from Joyce Wilson, Executive Director of IDPA: Actually the 'dumping rule' is gone.

From an email to me at 20:50 EDT today.

(the prospect of making aiwb legal didn't get as good a response, unfortunately)

[Wendell]

S14. The SO will physically stop a shooter when possible, most likely by grabbing his/her arm, if the shooter is about to do something unsafe. If the shooter would have received a Disqualification for the action, even though the action was stopped the shooter will still receive a Disqualification. When a shooter is about to run into a barricade, potentially trip or fall, or do something unsafe, the SO will physically intervene when possible, to prevent a potential accident. Because the SO kept the shooter from having a safety issue due to a shooter’s error, there is no reshoot.

Sounds fair. ;)

I'm wondering whether there will be any Minority Reports.

[PPGMD]

http://quests.society.qub.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/futurama_good_news_everyone.jpg

Direct from Joyce Wilson, Executive Director of IDPA: Actually the 'dumping rule' is gone.

From an email to me at 20:50 EDT today.

(the prospect of making aiwb legal didn't get as good a response, unfortunately)

Good I no longer have to shoot a target in the shoulder to dump a round.

[Mr_White]

If that's the case I will see more USPSA in the near future. It is a fast holster and really doesn't hinder me with any considerable amount of extra draw time.

USPSA is a great place to shoot with legit gear that IDPA disregards.

Welcome. :D

[ToddG]

USPSA is a great place to shoot with legit gear that IDPA disregards.

If we're going to start a discussion about IDPA and USPSA's differences, let's do it in a separate thread. It's a legitimate discussion, just not one germane to the new IDPA rulebook.

[Wendell]

SC24. Calibration of Reactive Targets

...The Match Director will provide an IDPA compliant 9mm firearm or 38 Special firearm and ammunition that together meets the lowest power-factor (105PF) of any division...


Is this a typographical error? Has minimum power factor been reduced from 125 to 105?

[JAD]

(the prospect of making aiwb legal didn't get as good a response, unfortunately)

I'm surprised that you think that it would. It's a beginner's sport at its very core. Jane Newb gets a copy of the Tactical Journal, sees Julie G running from a Shaggy, bad things happen.

I guess I'm surprised that there are folks whose life lets them conceal in the same manner 24/7. I run a tucked in shirt from 7 to 6 every weekday with a blazer or jacket. Daytime is therefore 4:00 carry in an EX-RSO. Nighttime and weekends I love an untucked polo with an Archangel (my SME is in the queue). I totally don't get how y'all swing untucked every day.


Jon
KC

[GOTURBACK]

I think we should all will join together in a write in campaign to persuade them to allow aiwb !
We do have three weeks to comment. I wonder if we could generate enough groundswell support to get them to reconsider.

[taadski]

Is this a typographical error? Has minimum power factor been reduced from 125 to 105?

Power factor in SSR was dropped to 105 to allow folks to carry commercially available .38 which was sometimes (often?) questionable meeting 125.



I guess I'm surprised that there are folks whose life lets them conceal in the same manner 24/7. I run a tucked in shirt from 7 to 6 every weekday with a blazer or jacket. Daytime is therefore 4:00 carry in an EX-RSO. Nighttime and weekends I love an untucked polo with an Archangel (my SME is in the queue). I totally don't get how y'all swing untucked every day.


I don't but there are some pretty workable tuckable AIWB solutions out there.


PPGMD
Well I submitted a proposed rule change relating to the Glock beavertails, and I got an email saying that the IDPA responded, but I have no idea how to check that response. I found my proposed rule change and nothing is visibly different.

I did the same this am re the duty gear changes and had the same experience. If you figure out how to access the responses, I'd love a heads up.



t

[taadski]

In regards to duty gear: I thought about doing that at last years Cup or Nationals (I cant remember which). However, when I put a clock to it I saw that I lost seconds, which I didn't want to lose. That being said, that was just me and I think that the removal of duty gear from sanctioned matches penalizes folks, like jlw, who really want to compete in such a manner.


I also definitely lose time shooting out of my duty stuff. But I choose to compete that way because I've grown to appreciate being as brushed up on the work equipment as I can. My frustration at the prospect of that going away is made worse by the fact that I'll be spending a bunch of time practicing a mode of carry (OWB/IWB, under a vest or jacket) I won't likely be using in every day life. Talk about "gaming". :-/

I get things need to be fair and that some may have been using the exemption to gain an advantage. I'm just not psyched with the way in which they solved the problem.



GOTURBACK
I think we should all will join together in a write in campaign to persuade them to allow aiwb !
We do have three weeks to comment. I wonder if we could generate enough groundswell support to get them to reconsider.


Show me where to sign. ;-)



t

[PPGMD]

I did the same this am re the duty gear changes and had the same experience. If you figure out how to access the responses, I'd love a heads up.

I emailed the IDPA about it and got this response:

Apparently, there was a miscommunication between the rules managers and Rangelog. Responses are not being added. Submissions are being marked as reviewed and posted.

[PPGMD]

Someone on another site points out, ring lights, lanyards, or any other way of providing a method for the light to stay with your hand has been banned. "They don't want an equipment race"

Really, they should just rename the sport International Stuck in the Past Defensive Pistol Association. With exception of my one cell pocket lights, all my two cell defensive lights either have a lanyard or a ring on them so I don't have to stow them in a pocket while I do other tasks with my hands.

[taadski]

I emailed the IDPA about it and got this response:

Copy. Appreciate the info.


t

[ToddG]

Someone on another site points out, ring lights, lanyards, or any other way of providing a method for the light to stay with your hand has been banned. "They don't want an equipment race"

I noticed that yesterday and admit it's an odd rule. Has anyone from IDPA HQ actually said "equipment race" in regard to that decision? I don't think of lanyards as being particularly cutting edge.

The other odd flashlight rule is that it's not a penalty if you drop your light without picking it back up. That's bizarre to me. If your light has served the purpose why keep it in your hand? At the WV state match years ago they actually had a stage where you went from a lighted indoor area to a dark indoor area to a (bright) outdoor area fairly quickly. Now, I was a moron and did keep the light in my hand after I went outside but it certainly would have been smarter and "tactically sound" to dump it rather than let it muddle my shooting, reloads, etc.

[jar]

I noticed that yesterday and admit it's an odd rule. Has anyone from IDPA HQ actually said "equipment race" in regard to that decision? I don't think of lanyards as being particularly cutting edge.

The other odd flashlight rule is that it's not a penalty if you drop your light without picking it back up. That's bizarre to me. If your light has served the purpose why keep it in your hand? At the WV state match years ago they actually had a stage where you went from a lighted indoor area to a dark indoor area to a (bright) outdoor area fairly quickly. Now, I was a moron and did keep the light in my hand after I went outside but it certainly would have been smarter and "tactically sound" to dump it rather than let it muddle my shooting, reloads, etc.

"A dropped flashlight does not incur a penalty as long as the shooter retrieves the flashlight prior to
firing the next shot in the string of fire."

Sounds like it's a penalty if you drop the light and fire another shot. Of course, the rulebook doesn't spell this out. This takes away the common gamer tactic of setting the light somewhere that it illuminates the stage and then shooting freestyle.

[PPGMD]

I noticed that yesterday and admit it's an odd rule. Has anyone from IDPA HQ actually said "equipment race" in regard to that decision? I don't think of lanyards as being particularly cutting edge.

The other odd flashlight rule is that it's not a penalty if you drop your light without picking it back up. That's bizarre to me. If your light has served the purpose why keep it in your hand? At the WV state match years ago they actually had a stage where you went from a lighted indoor area to a dark indoor area to a (bright) outdoor area fairly quickly. Now, I was a moron and did keep the light in my hand after I went outside but it certainly would have been smarter and "tactically sound" to dump it rather than let it muddle my shooting, reloads, etc.

The comment attached to the rule mentions not wanting an equipment race.

If something is tactically sound (like lanyards, rings, and ring lights), and gamers all want it because it make it easier to win a stage, to quote Pat Rogers "In the police business we call that a clue."

[jlw]

The entire "equipment race" mantra went right out of the window when they made SSP and ESP virtually the same times on the classifier.

[ToddG]

The comment attached to the rule mentions not wanting an equipment race.

I think I skipped a lot of the comments, candidly. Crazy to think that lanyards are somehow an equipment race. Having been privy to some of the IDPA rule-building process in the past I'm skeptical we're hearing the whole story.


The entire "equipment race" mantra went right out of the window when they made SSP and ESP virtually the same times on the classifier.

While I'd certainly have no problem if IDPA chose to combine them (just look at the KSTG rules), I do appreciate the motivation behind keeping them separate. Classifier scores aside, one division is for folks who want to compete with sort of stock guns and many of them will feel put upon, rightly or wrongly, if forced to go head to head with guys who've done crazy stuff like stippled their grips or added an aftermarket slide plate. :rolleyes:

[PPGMD]

I think I skipped a lot of the comments, candidly. Crazy to think that lanyards are somehow an equipment race. Having been privy to some of the IDPA rule-building process in the past I'm skeptical we're hearing the whole story.

Oh I am sure, but honestly this is turning into a pattern. IDPA has turned into the old curmudgeon, you know who I mean, the guy that is set in his ways and thinks that everything else is stupid techniques.

A perfect example is Jeff Cooper is his later years, he wouldn't acknowledge modern iso even when he was giving the Coopers Cup to someone that won it using modern iso. That is what the IDPA has become, they won't consider anything new because you know, it might kick the butt of everything else out there.

In my opinion the IDPA won't change until the leadership becomes elected by the membership. As long as the leadership is decided by the current leadership it is unlikely that they will appoint anyone that is outside their sphere of influence.

[Stuffbreaker]

The entire "equipment race" mantra went right out of the window when they made SSP and ESP virtually the same times on the classifier.

+1. Its as though IDPA is saying that a Limited gun from that other organization is on the same level as a Production gun in the same caliber. Seems pointless to have both SSP & ESP if they are both scored essentially the same.

[ToddG]

That is what the IDPA has become, they won't consider anything new because you know, it might kick the butt of everything else out there.

IDPA was never touted as being the testbed for new technology. Believe me, I went through this same heartache with them more than a decade ago over the Lasergrip thing. I'd even got Crimson Trace to commit to provide a free set of Lasergrips to every contestant at a major match where we were going to allow Lasergrips and IDPA HQ squashed it.

At the end of the day, just as there have been people who really do have lasers on their carry guns, or really do use compensated guns, there are people who really do use MRDS or whatever. Why do they use it? Because they believe it gives them an advantage. If they're right, then allowing it in IDPA really does create an equipment race and makes the start up cost for a new shooter unreachable.

Why do you think USPSA created Production? It wasn't because the BOD loves stock guns. It's because the organization saw its membership slowing while IDPA grew at a rapid rate. New shooters, casual shooters, and people who wanted to feel competitive with "their real carry gun" looked at Limited and Open and often ran away scared.


In my opinion the IDPA won't change until the leadership becomes elected by the membership. As long as the leadership is decided by the current leadership it is unlikely that they will appoint anyone that is outside their sphere of influence.

I don't think IDPA wants to change that much and I don't think most IDPA members want it to follow in the footsteps of the other big shooting sport that saw member elections turn it into the madcap shootfest it's become. In '96 when the first rulebook was being discussed the issue of BOD control vs. membership control was debated. And we all looked at what USPSA had turned into and most of us agreed that the BOD's plan was the smarter one. I think the Tiger Team idea was an attempt to bridge the gap between stagnation and running amok. It just appears that the people selected for the teams were, on balance, pretty conservative. Which cases the question: were people expecting a whole new game? The idea behind the TTs was to correct problems. In fairness, a lot of the glaring issues we used to complain about have been fixed. The draft definitely has some other new issues, admittedly.

Plus, just look at how many ridiculous rules come out of the omnipotent NROI. No paint in the magwell? Magazines in your front pocket kicking you into Open? Come on...

[PPGMD]

At the end of the day, just as there have been people who really do have lasers on their carry guns, or really do use compensated guns, there are people who really do use MRDS or whatever. Why do they use it? Because they believe it gives them an advantage. If they're right, then allowing it in IDPA really does create an equipment race and makes the start up cost for a new shooter unreachable.

I disagree, IDPA has a history of being obstructionist to anything that upsets their opinion of the way that things work. They could easily create a carry optics division, and keep them there. Instead they use the equipment race like a club to prevent things from moving forward.


I don't think IDPA wants to change that much and I don't think most IDPA members want it to follow in the footsteps of the other big shooting sport that saw member elections turn it into the madcap shootfest it's become. In '96 when the first rulebook was being discussed the issue of BOD control vs. membership control was debated. And we all looked at what USPSA had turned into and most of us agreed that the BOD's plan was the smarter one. I think the Tiger Team idea was an attempt to bridge the gap between stagnation and running amok. It just appears that the people selected for the teams were, on balance, pretty conservative. Which cases the question: were people expecting a whole new game? The idea behind the TTs was to correct problems. In fairness, a lot of the glaring issues we used to complain about have been fixed. The draft definitely has some other new issues, admittedly.

I honestly only see two issues fixed, namely round dumping, and the reloading while outside cover. USPSA maybe a shootfest, but they adapt change to the membership, that is why production and single stack are fairly conservative, but limited and open are practically anything goes.


Plus, just look at how many ridiculous rules come out of the omnipotent NROI. No paint in the magwell? Magazines in your front pocket kicking you into Open? Come on...

The magazine issue was fixed due to up roar from the members. The paint in the magwell is annoying, but there isn't enough uproar to overturn that yet.

[jlw]

I don't think IDPA wants to change that much

There were a few recurring themes that "most" IDPA shooters wanted addressed:

- CDP be based on power factor instead of caliber
- get rid of round dumping
- allow reloads to be initiated if run dry in the open
- XDs in SSP

Other than that maybe clear up some wording and "most" IDPAers would have thought the effort was a success. As it is now, there is a fair amount of discontent with the changes.

[ToddG]

I disagree, IDPA has a history of being obstructionist to anything that upsets their opinion of the way that things work. They could easily create a carry optics division, and keep them there. Instead they use the equipment race like a club to prevent things from moving forward.

Again, I think that's too harsh. "Carry optics" are far from universally accepted at this point. And while I agree in principle that a new division just for them would solve the problem for the tiny percentage of people who are complaining about it, it brings a whole slew of new problems. How many guns are going to fit in the box with an optic attached? There's also a very real burden, both administratively and financially, when you add more divisions, more trophies, etc.

You may disagree with the BOD's thoughts on equipment race but nonetheless it's been a core issue since the first draft of the original rulebook. IDPA isn't trying to push the envelope on equipment. It's the wrong game for someone who wants to do otherwise just like NASCAR is the wrong game for someone who wants to drive a dragster.


I honestly only see two issues fixed, namely round dumping, and the reloading while outside cover. USPSA maybe a shootfest, but they adapt change to the membership, that is why production and single stack are fairly conservative, but limited and open are practically anything goes.

And then matches are built around the open/limited guys. How "practical" is it for a guy with a 1911 in .45 to run around with eight magazines on his belt just to finish one stage? To me, that's off-putting.

Again, IDPA was created specifically with the intent of avoiding what its founders thought had led to the collapse of practicality in USPSA. One of those things was watching how the gamers took over the sport and kept pushing it farther and farther toward run 'n gun hosing with firearms that weren't (a) practical or (b) affordable for the vast majority of IDPA's target audience.


The magazine issue was fixed due to up roar from the members. The paint in the magwell is annoying, but there isn't enough uproar to overturn that yet.

So I'm not sure how I see that as any different than what just happened in IDPA. Some things created enough uproar that they were changed. Some things didn't, and weren't. Except for some very vocal folks stomping around threatening to hatequit over personal preferences I doubt IDPA will suffer. There certainly are some goofy things in the new rulebook that need changing or clarification but that's probably why IDPA is having this 3wk comment period and why the new rules aren't scheduled to go into effect for almost five months.



- CDP be based on power factor instead of caliber

While I understand why, I also understand why IDPA wanted to keep it the way they did. The original change came about specifically because people were beginning to realize that they could tune ammo and guns to shoot a lot softer with .40/10mm 1911s. In turn that leads to an equipment race (IDPA does not want) and it eats away at the special place the .45 1911 has in the universe (IDPA does not want).

BTW, a big part of the problem comes from the mash up of old & new PF rules. Now that PF is supposed to be determined by a gun with the longest allowable barrel in a division, concerns about "making PF from short barreled guns" start to go away. I'd be all for a PF-based CDP if the PF was set at, say, 190.


- get rid of round dumping
- allow reloads to be initiated if run dry in the open
- XDs in SSP

All done.


As it is now, there is a fair amount of discontent with the changes.

No question. Again, that's the point behind a comment period.

Most of the complaints that I've seen boil down either to safety issues (which are numerous in the new rules) and the dreaded flatfooted reload. Most of the hatequit threats have been about the flatfooted reload. So again, if we look at the history and intent of the original game we see that the FFR would probably put the game more on track than it is now.

Shooters will essentially have a choice between a FFR with a hot gun or shooting to empty and reloading from slidelock in the middle of an array. Before IDPA, most folks had moved away from the "never let your gun go dry" doctrine of Gunsite and realized that actually, slidelock is a pretty common thing with low capacity guns like most CCW pistols. From the very beginning, IDPA BOD members worried that "IDPA will do for tac loads what IPSC has done for speed loads" (exact quote from Ken Hackathorn, 1997). And sure enough it has. It's turned the tac load into both some kind of cool guy fighting technique and it's also been co-opted by the gamers to make IDPA a little more run 'n gun.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Unless IDPA changes the aiwb rule I won't be playing. But having gone through the process of writing a rulebook and making a billion little judgment calls I appreciate what IDPA has had to do here. They're never going to get it "right" for each individual person. Some folks will quit and/or go play in another sandbox. Some folks will whine endlessly online and to all their friends at every match. Most will do what they've always done and just play by the rules.

[PPGMD]

Again, I think that's too harsh. "Carry optics" are far from universally accepted at this point. And while I agree in principle that a new division just for them would solve the problem for the tiny percentage of people who are complaining about it, it brings a whole slew of new problems. How many guns are going to fit in the box with an optic attached? There's also a very real burden, both administratively and financially, when you add more divisions, more trophies, etc.

Revolvers don't have to fit in the box, we can make a similar exception for carry optics, just specify a maximum barrel length (most 5.25" just barely fit in the box), and weight (take the current weight limit and add enough for most micro dots).

As far as trophies, dump the current rules that require 60-70 trophies for your average match. Make it top three of each class/division requires trophies, everything beyond that is optional. Honestly I wouldn't waste my time sticking around for anything but the top three, and I wouldn't put anything but first place on my wall.


You may disagree with the BOD's thoughts on equipment race but nonetheless it's been a core issue since the first draft of the original rulebook. IDPA isn't trying to push the envelope on equipment. It's the wrong game for someone who wants to do otherwise just like NASCAR is the wrong game for someone who wants to drive a dragster.

Oh I agree with the mindset they should prevent too much race gear from entering IDPA, I just think that they use the equipment race argument more of a club than a scalpel. We aren't talking about open guns with 170mm magazines. Take the flashlight issue, someone invents a better mousetrap (as lanyards have issues) with ring lights, and combat rings, what does IDPA do. Instead if evaluating if it is good carry equipment, and is tactically sound they ban it outright, if the answer is yes to both questions, and the gamers are all over it like fat kids on cake, they shouldn't be banning it they should be supporting it as it moves defensive shooting forward.


And then matches are built around the open/limited guys. How "practical" is it for a guy with a 1911 in .45 to run around with eight magazines on his belt just to finish one stage? To me, that's off-putting.

Again, IDPA was created specifically with the intent of avoiding what its founders thought had led to the collapse of practicality in USPSA. One of those things was watching how the gamers took over the sport and kept pushing it farther and farther toward run 'n gun hosing with firearms that weren't (a) practical or (b) affordable for the vast majority of IDPA's target audience.

Perhaps the 1911 isn't practical anymore? The USPSA matches I shoot the average round count is in the mid-20s, which is a lot of rounds, but many police have had gun fights where they've shot that many rounds, more if you count what other people shot at the guy.

Honestly I tell people, if you don't like the stages, volunteer to design and setup a stage the more dedicated shooters typically are the open/limited shooters. Stages typically reflect the strengths that competitor has, for example my stages typically have long distance shots to separate the men from the boys, and target arrays that are easy to track (as I suck at memory stages where you have multiple places you can shoot a target). Because of the distances involved I typically keep the round count low (so the stage takes about as long as 32 round hose fest), except for the fact that I love steel they would probably be IDPA legal. But OTOH many open/limited shooters are hosers, so typically their stages are short range hose fests.

[jlw]

While I understand why, I also understand why IDPA wanted to keep it the way they did. The original change came about specifically because people were beginning to realize that they could tune ammo and guns to shoot a lot softer with .40/10mm 1911s. In turn that leads to an equipment race (IDPA does not want) and it eats away at the special place the .45 1911 has in the universe (IDPA does not want).

BTW, a big part of the problem comes from the mash up of old & new PF rules. Now that PF is supposed to be determined by a gun with the longest allowable barrel in a division, concerns about "making PF from short barreled guns" start to go away. I'd be all for a PF-based CDP if the PF was set at, say, 190.

.....

I don't have a dog in this fight.

I know the .45 GAP hasn't been widely accepted, but I would like to be able to shoot mine in CDP. I have been able to find GAP ammo whenever I needed some, which is one of the reasons I have GAP pistols in the stable. I have run GAP in ESP/SSP on the club level when I needed to conserve my supplies in other calibers which is where I'm at right now with ammo.

IDPA fixed one issue with the reload rules but created another controversy with the other changes. I suspect this one will come up in the annual review next year.

---

I haven't signed up for any sanctioned matches for 2013 and probably won't at this point. I have gotten a little burned out on IDPA, and combined with the rising cost of match fees and my new found disgruntlement, my enthusiasm is waning. I'll keep shooting club matches at one of the local clubs just because I enjoy our group so much. I don't have any interest in USPSA; so, I am stuck without a place to go for any "action" type pistol shooting sports.

[ToddG]

PPGMD -- I hope my posts aren't coming off as "if you quit you suck." I'm the very first person to say that if the rules don't work for you, let them know and then vote with your feet/wallet. When Joyce and I were trading emails clarifying the dumping rule she mentioned that I hadn't shot an IDPA match in 4-5 years and I said, "Yeah, because you won't let in AIWB." I doubt it gave her nightmares.


Revolvers don't have to fit in the box, we can make a similar exception for carry optics, just specify a maximum barrel length (most 5.25" just barely fit in the box), and weight (take the current weight limit and add enough for most micro dots).

That is certainly an option. It would, however, go against the change they just made to bring the semiauto divisions into line with one another regarding weight. Personally, I think the exception for revolvers fitting in the box is pretty stupid, too. Either they've defined the box as the reasonable limit for a carry gun, or they haven't.


As far as trophies, dump the current rules that require 60-70 trophies for your average match. Make it top three of each class/division requires trophies, everything beyond that is optional.

Agreed 100%. While I've talked to the guy who won "eighth Marksman" at Nationals and he was pretty proud of his trophy, tough noogies I say. At really big matches the top sub-Master awards are a little silly to begin with. I came in 2nd Expert ESP one year at Nationals. The 1st place guy & I had a laugh about it later that he was a better sandbagger than I was.

(as an aside, that's why the Classifier in KSTG is so simple. The idea was that it would be a mandatory stage in any major match and if you bumped yourself due to a better score, your new classification counted for the match. Put another way, if you wanted to sandbag your classification you'd have to risk losing ground on that stage to a competitor.)


Oh I agree with the mindset they should prevent too much race gear from entering IDPA, I just think that they use the equipment race argument more of a club than a scalpel.

I can't speak for the current board but it is fair to say that the original BOD was admittedly reactionary when it came to equipment changes. In terms of the MRDS I think we're all in agreement that there is no solution short of a new division and it's reasonable if they want to avoid that. In terms of the flashlight lanyard, I'm still not convinced their excuse in the rulebook is sincere. If their concern is something more complex than lanyards they could simply have said, "lanyards only."


Perhaps the 1911 isn't practical anymore?

Dude, please... I'm enjoying my fantasy! In all seriousness, though, you're not going to get anywhere making that argument. It's still a religion and a major part of IDPA's "soul." Having said that, I think it would be interesting if they merged ESP and CDP, make them both have an 8rd limit, and see where things shake out. If the 1911 .45 guys feel put upon, well, that's the price you pay for being a true believer. It'll never happen, though.


The USPSA matches I shoot the average round count is in the mid-20s, which is a lot of rounds, but many police have had gun fights where they've shot that many rounds, more if you count what other people shot at the guy.

I wouldn't argue with that. Nonetheless, in reality most people only carry one or two spare mags. For the 8rd guys that's cutting it close. (this ties in to the CDP issue above, but again if we accept it as read that CDP is staying as-is then it's a sticking point)


Honestly I tell people, if you don't like the stages, volunteer to design and setup a stage the more dedicated shooters typically are the open/limited shooters.

Again I agree but at most clubs it's not that easy. The USPSA clubs around here are pretty strictly controlled and memory stages are a huge part of any local match. Like you, I don't enjoy them. It's one of the reasons I don't shoot USPSA.


I know the .45 GAP hasn't been widely accepted, but I would like to be able to shoot mine in CDP.

I feel you. I was also ticked off that USPSA wouldn't recognize 357 SIG for Major in Limited. That's the price of shooting an oddball cartridge. If I were running IDPA my cold hearted answer would be, "Shoot it in SSP or ESP all you want."


IDPA fixed one issue with the reload rules but created another controversy with the other changes. I suspect this one will come up in the annual review next year.

It definitely did create a heck of a controversy. My guess is that they were very aware of what they were doing. The new version of the rule pretty much eliminates the benefit of "planned" reloads which, from HQ's standpoint, probably translates into fewer "gamey" reloads. It remains to be seen whether the gamers can make enough noise with their faux-tactial reasoning to get the masses in line and push the rule away.

IDPA has always been willing to make decisions that drive off the top 1% guys and if the new flatfooted reload rule primarily costs them the sponsored super shooters they'll shrug it off. If the middling MM and SS guys yell, though, it will probably get changed.


so, I am stuck without a place to go for any "action" type pistol shooting sports.

OK, just for you one time offer: KSTG franchise for $900M.

[jlw]

OK, just for you one time offer: KSTG franchise for $900M.

No thanks. KSTG doesn't allow duty gear. :cool:

[ToddG]

No thanks. KSTG doesn't allow duty gear. :cool:

I can't speak for SLG, but for $900M I'd be willing to consider a minor re-write.

[PPGMD]

PPGMD -- I hope my posts aren't coming off as "if you quit you suck." I'm the very first person to say that if the rules don't work for you, let them know and then vote with your feet/wallet. When Joyce and I were trading emails clarifying the dumping rule she mentioned that I hadn't shot an IDPA match in 4-5 years and I said, "Yeah, because you won't let in AIWB." I doubt it gave her nightmares.

I do, when my membership expires I don't plan on renewing. Even now IDPA is one of the last matches I consider shooting anymore, the people are great to hang out with, but I simply don't find the match fun. Half the fun of USPSA is figuring out how to shoot the stage. While in other sports the basic shooting skills are being pushed to the bleeding edge it is fun to excel there too.


That is certainly an option. It would, however, go against the change they just made to bring the semiauto divisions into line with one another regarding weight. Personally, I think the exception for revolvers fitting in the box is pretty stupid, too. Either they've defined the box as the reasonable limit for a carry gun, or they haven't.

That is a good point about the box, either it is the perfect size or it isn't. But IIRC wasn't the box a holdover from IPSC's standard division? Anyways weight wise, I just looked it up, most micro red dots are a couple of ounces and often the milling for the mount knocks a bit of weight off the slide, so unless you are running something close to the limit like an all stainless gun we could keep the weights the same for carry optics.


Agreed 100%. While I've talked to the guy who won "eighth Marksman" at Nationals and he was pretty proud of his trophy, tough noogies I say. At really big matches the top sub-Master awards are a little silly to begin with. I came in 2nd Expert ESP one year at Nationals. The 1st place guy & I had a laugh about it later that he was a better sandbagger than I was.

(as an aside, that's why the Classifier in KSTG is so simple. The idea was that it would be a mandatory stage in any major match and if you bumped yourself due to a better score, your new classification counted for the match. Put another way, if you wanted to sandbag your classification you'd have to risk losing ground on that stage to a competitor.)

Thank god for match bumps. That is the one advantage of the two sports I compete more seriously (NRA Action Pistol and Steel Challenge) since the courses are set, your classification is directly related to your score/time with no sandbagging.


I can't speak for the current board but it is fair to say that the original BOD was admittedly reactionary when it came to equipment changes. In terms of the MRDS I think we're all in agreement that there is no solution short of a new division and it's reasonable if they want to avoid that. In terms of the flashlight lanyard, I'm still not convinced their excuse in the rulebook is sincere. If their concern is something more complex than lanyards they could simply have said, "lanyards only."

Would be nice if they come out and gave us the reason, as I am baffled to think of any. If I were to guess, it is because of the lights like the Surefire watch light or the ones these guys are putting out:
http://www.first-light-usa.com/

But if that is the reason, I don't see why lanyards, and combat rings are caught in the cross fire.


Dude, please... I'm enjoying my fantasy! In all seriousness, though, you're not going to get anywhere making that argument. It's still a religion and a major part of IDPA's "soul." Having said that, I think it would be interesting if they merged ESP and CDP, make them both have an 8rd limit, and see where things shake out. If the 1911 .45 guys feel put upon, well, that's the price you pay for being a true believer. It'll never happen, though.

I wouldn't argue with that. Nonetheless, in reality most people only carry one or two spare mags. For the 8rd guys that's cutting it close. (this ties in to the CDP issue above, but again if we accept it as read that CDP is staying as-is then it's a sticking point)

Oh I know, IDPA is the only sport where I see single stack 1911s in any numbers outside of the couple of weeks leading up to the single stack nationals. I know that it would take an almost complete institutional change for people to admit that. Well that, or a plastic fantastics dominating CDP for a few years in a row at major matches. But we know how the IDPA BOD would react to that (I'm betting with a minimum weight limit).


Again I agree but at most clubs it's not that easy. The USPSA clubs around here are pretty strictly controlled and memory stages are a huge part of any local match. Like you, I don't enjoy them. It's one of the reasons I don't shoot USPSA.

Ugh I hate memory stages with a vengeance. Must be a regional thing, but then again in the south weather permitting we shoot all year long, only stopping for the holidays or if the week conflicts with a major regional match. By the time the end of summer rolls around the clubs are begging for help.

[ToddG]

I do, when my membership expires I don't plan on renewing. Even now IDPA is one of the last matches I consider shooting anymore, the people are great to hang out with, but I simply don't find the match fun. Half the fun of USPSA is figuring out how to shoot the stage. While in other sports the basic shooting skills are being pushed to the bleeding edge it is fun to excel there too.

At the risk of ticking off the IDPA faithful or the BOD, this demonstrates a key facet of the game. From the beginning it was less about game and more about a way for people to get in some quasi-realistic practice. Like I said earlier, IDPA is more like "competitive drills for the everyman" than eye-straining Bianchi performance or strategic USPSA stage analysis.


That is a good point about the box, either it is the perfect size or it isn't. But IIRC wasn't the box a holdover from IPSC's standard division? Anyways weight wise, I just looked it up, most micro red dots are a couple of ounces and often the milling for the mount knocks a bit of weight off the slide, so unless you are running something close to the limit like an all stainless gun we could keep the weights the same for carry optics.

So now you've got a problem. Let's say the MRDS adds 1.5oz to a gun. I've got a gun that right now weighs 42.25oz as measured by IDPA. Allow me to simulate a response to an announcement that MRDS can be added so long as the gun remains within weight:

"WHAAAAA! NOT FAIR! WHY SHOULD A GLOCK GET A RED DOT BUT MY GUN CAN'T? WHAAAAAA!"

Even the people who don't want a red dot will kvetch just because they'll feel put upon.


Would be nice if they come out and gave us the reason, as I am baffled to think of any.

I'm with you. Like I said, on my first read through the rules I put a bunch of question marks next to that rule with one simple word: WHY?


Oh I know, IDPA is the only sport where I see single stack 1911s in any numbers outside of the couple of weeks leading up to the single stack nationals. I know that it would take an almost complete institutional change for people to admit that. Well that, or a plastic fantastics dominating CDP for a few years in a row at major matches. But we know how the IDPA BOD would react to that (I'm betting with a minimum weight limit).

Polymer highcap guns have one CDP more than once at Nationals, I'm pretty sure. Ernest won one year with an M&P I believe, and I'm fairly certain Dave won at least once with a G21. Dave Olhasso won with an XD in '07 I'm certain because it was the last Nationals I attended.

To be honest, I'd be fine if IDPA wanted to make CDP 1911-specific by just saying so. If that's what it's supposed to be let's just jump to it and be done.


Ugh I hate memory stages with a vengeance.

Me too. Which is poor because outside of a competitive event it is actually pretty reasonable... it forces you to search and ID threats instead of just shooting at obvious things that are easy to keep track of.

[rsa-otc]

Polymer highcap guns have one CDP more than once at Nationals, I'm pretty sure. Ernest won one year with an M&P I believe, and I'm fairly certain Dave won at least once with a G21. Dave Olhasso won with an XD in '07 I'm certain because it was the last Nationals I attended.

Dave Olhasso first won with an XD and since has a couple of Nationals both indoors and out with M&P45. He has been in 2nd when he doesn't win.

[jar]

There were a few recurring themes that "most" IDPA shooters wanted addressed:

- CDP be based on power factor instead of caliber
- get rid of round dumping
- allow reloads to be initiated if run dry in the open
- XDs in SSP

Other than that maybe clear up some wording and "most" IDPAers would have thought the effort was a success. As it is now, there is a fair amount of discontent with the changes.

I think the biggest recurring theme, at least among the crowd who takes the competition part seriously, was taking the subjectivity out of cover calls. Instead of doing something about that, they merely codified the 'mother may I' walkthrough. As discussed elsewhere on here, it's a really hard problem to solve, but it's pretty frustrating to have the result of 18 months of effort be almost nothing at all.

[PPGMD]

At the risk of ticking off the IDPA faithful or the BOD, this demonstrates a key facet of the game. From the beginning it was less about game and more about a way for people to get in some quasi-realistic practice. Like I said earlier, IDPA is more like "competitive drills for the everyman" than eye-straining Bianchi performance or strategic USPSA stage analysis.

But then again a real shooting you are basically doing a stage analysis on the fly, including adapting the plan as the scenario changes. For me though it is mostly because different people shoot different ways. For example I had one stage where there were like a dozen poppers in this center area visible from the starting position and from another position 10 yards closer (and the poppers were 10 yards from that position), most production shooter just accepted the standing reload and shot them at the closer position. But realizing that I could hit it, and had extra rounds at the starting position I shot three of them from the starting position to eliminate the standing reload.


So now you've got a problem. Let's say the MRDS adds 1.5oz to a gun. I've got a gun that right now weighs 42.25oz as measured by IDPA. Allow me to simulate a response to an announcement that MRDS can be added so long as the gun remains within weight:

"WHAAAAA! NOT FAIR! WHY SHOULD A GLOCK GET A RED DOT BUT MY GUN CAN'T? WHAAAAAA!"

Even the people who don't want a red dot will kvetch just because they'll feel put upon.

They could always do what many did to make weight for SSP in the past, internal lightening cuts. I am sure a smith could find a couple of ounces to mill out in the dust cover, and on the inside of the slide.


To be honest, I'd be fine if IDPA wanted to make CDP 1911-specific by just saying so. If that's what it's supposed to be let's just jump to it and be done.

USPSA did that with their Single Stack division, the griping is pretty minor though when they do they typically point to CDP allowing other guns. :D


Me too. Which is poor because outside of a competitive event it is actually pretty reasonable... it forces you to search and ID threats instead of just shooting at obvious things that are easy to keep track of.

It is one thing to track a single person through a crowd when you can key on certain indicators (be in looks, behavior, or the most obvious one, he is pointing a gun at you). But to figure out which target is which in the shooting areas is much too difficult for lizard part of my brain that takes over during a match. It would be different if the targets were painted different colors, or had some indicator of which target is which.

But then again, I've become an increasing believer that competition is about testing skills. FoF with a good instructor is where you test/learn tactics. But to go with your search, and ID, I've heard that Paul Howe has an identification drill, but I've only read about it since it isn't open for lowly civilians.

[Lofty]

When I read R9's opening statement that the shooter may not leave a position of cover with an empty gun and interpret R9.1 & R9.2 I don't read it that way. If your cover is a wall 8 feet wide and you go to slide lock reload having fully engaged the target from the left corner of the wall you may reload while moving behind cover to engage the targets around the right side of the wall. What you may not do is leave one piece of cover to travel to another position of cover with an empty weapon and you can not reload along the way ala USPSA. Frankly this is as it's always been and is within the intent of IDPA. What's nice now is that if you are in the open engaging targets and your gun runs dry you may start your reload prior to arriving at your next position of cover. This is certainly what I would do in a real gunfight. I know I am a bit late but having just completed the SO re-training the key to the reload is the moving from shooting POSITION ( not cover ) I agree the intention is probably as you say rsa-otc but the way it is written ......
here in Sarf Efrica we have been told to enforce he ...no move until reloaded rule....even behind cover ???http://pistol-forum.com/images/smilies/eek.png
:eek:

[shootist26]

I think the biggest recurring theme, at least among the crowd who takes the competition part seriously, was taking the subjectivity out of cover calls. Instead of doing something about that, they merely codified the 'mother may I' walkthrough. As discussed elsewhere on here, it's a really hard problem to solve, but it's pretty frustrating to have the result of 18 months of effort be almost nothing at all.

I agree the subjectivity of cover calls can suck, but I do not see any feasible solution for it. Unless you have optical scanners downrange pointed at every piece of cover that will alert you to a body being out of cover, how else would you do it?

"Using cover" is an integral part of the IDPA game. An appropriate level of cover for a given situation is in and of itself a subjective thing. Therefore, cover calls in IDPA are always going to be subjective.