The final version of the IDPA rule book posted. [Archive]

ToddG

06-27-2013, 12:54 PM

but their philosophy seems to be to minimize risk and downplay leading edge equipment, tactics, and physical performance so "older" and less fit shooters can win matches and not get hurt.

Disagree.

IDPA from the beginning was supposed to be:

focused more on shooting than athleticism, and
approachable by shooters of low and moderate skill level.

If you want a game where having a great VO2 Max is more important than being able to shoot down zero to be competitive at a mid-tier level, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.

If you want a game where you spend seven seconds of a 9-second stage doing things other than shooting, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.

If you want a game where developing a stage strategy in advance plays a significant role in your score, there's a game for that. Coincidentally enough, it's also called USPSA.

I've got absolutely nothing at all against USPSA. It's a different game with different rules and a different focus. People who lament that IDPA isn't more like USPSA should try to understand that.

I can understand the angst as among other things, replacing a stupid reloading rule with yet another stupid reloading rule leaves people flat after such a build-up.

While I may not necessarily agree with it, I completely understand the flat footed reload rule. First, especially with the elimination of the round dumping rule, it mitigates against the gaminess of timing/planning reloads... again taking the strategy/gamer option off the table per IDPA's original intent.

Second, while plenty of people -- most of them with little or no tactical experience or even training, from what I've seen -- are crying "it's not tactical to stand still during a reload!" I think they're missing a big point. It's not tactical to run toward known trouble while fidgeting with your partially- or un-loaded gun. LE/mil have been teaching people forever don't leave cover until you've topped off your gun. Same concept here. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, it doesn't prevent you from moving while reloading when you're exposed to threats. But if you're behind cover and "safe," you're supposed to top off the gun before charging forward. If I've misread the rules, please correct me.

PPGMD

06-27-2013, 01:30 PM

If you want a game where having a great VO2 Max is more important than being able to shoot down zero to be competitive at a mid-tier level, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.

With the flat footed reloads required people that can sprint will be the ones that win the stage. IMO this hurts the non-athletic shooters more than it helps.

Besides which the entire thing is a game to begin with. I think IDPA needs to get out of the mindset that it is "tactical" because it isn't. If you can't use every advantage available it isn't freaking tactical. The light lanyards, weapon lights, and Tomahawk style lights being banned are an excellent example of this. They claim they don't want to make it an equipment race, but if something is practical for "tactical usage" and yet competitors flock to it because it improves their scores that should be a freaking clue.

IDPA has the same mindset that Gunsite had. They are being run by people that are stuck in the past. Does every change need to be embraced? No, but they shouldn't be so reactionary that they ban everything that upsets the norm.

Chris Rhines

06-27-2013, 01:44 PM

...don't leave cover until you've topped off your gun.

If this were the sum total of the rule, then I'd be in full agreement with it.

The rule as written assigns a procedural if you take a step while reloading, even if you remain completely behind cover. This is dumb.

ToddG

06-27-2013, 01:50 PM

With the flat footed reloads required people that can sprint will be the ones that win the stage. IMO this hurts the non-athletic shooters more than it helps.

That is a very excellent point.

Besides which the entire thing is a game to begin with. I think IDPA needs to get out of the mindset that it is "tactical" because it isn't.

Having spoken to every single founding BOD member, they were all aware it was a game. It was -- and is still trying to be -- a game that sets its rules based on some considerations that are important to certain shooters and not others. Same could be said of USPSA, Bianchi, Steel Challenge, etc.

The light lanyards, weapon lights, and Tomahawk style lights being banned are an excellent example of this. They claim they don't want to make it an equipment race, but if something is practical for "tactical usage" and yet competitors flock to it because it improves their scores that should be a freaking clue.

I remain baffled about the lanyards even though I don't use or like them myself.

Weapon lights I totally understand. If you don't think creating an advantage for people who shell out the hundreds of dollars for the light, holster, etc. is an "equipment race" we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Tomahawk style lights (as well as the new Surefire wrist light thingy) are along the same lines. Are they practical? Perhaps so. But if you allow them, it creates a huge competitive advantage over folks who have to hold a light in one hand. So either you allow them -- which in practical terms means requiring them -- or you don't.

Personally, I'd be fine with either way. Allow WMLs or don't; allow body-mounted lights or don't. But (a) I'm not shooting IDPA regularly and (b) I can afford to go out and buy $500 of specialized equipment if I want to... I even get to write it off my taxes. IDPA has always been about accessibility for people who wanted to show up with a cheap gun and cheap holster and still be competitive against other guys at the NO/MM/SS level.

IDPA has the same mindset that Gunsite had. They are being run by people that are stuck in the past. Does every change need to be embraced? No, but they shouldn't be so reactionary that they ban everything that upsets the norm.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. The new rulebook certainly recognized modern tech in terms of SFA guns, for example. They got rid of the dumping rule. Just because they aren't having an Open division doesn't mean they're unwilling to look at new tech. As I've said before, I banged my head against this same wall a decade ago over Lasergrips. I don't like their decision but I understand it. Same is true for WMLs and other equipment.

IDPA has to draw the line somewhere and whether one agrees with or not, it's hard to argue that there's logic behind where they've drawn it.

ToddG

06-27-2013, 01:53 PM

The rule as written assigns a procedural if you take a step while reloading, even if you remain completely behind cover. This is dumb.

No, it is not. It will hurt the gamers who've mastered the art of the tucked-in-my-shirt RWR and that's about it.

Imagine the following scenario. You're moving down a hallway. You get to a doorway and shoot a few guys. Your gun has only a few bullets left in it. Do you:

reload while running towards the sound of more bad guys in the next doorway, or
stay as far away from the other bad guys until your gun is topped off and as ready as it can be, then put your full attention on aggressing towards the next fight?

jlw

06-27-2013, 01:59 PM

Todd,

I don't have an issue with not leaving a position of cover without a loaded weapon.

The rule states that you can initiate an emergency reload while in the open and on the move but that you can't engage threats until reaching cover. So, you can reload, but you can't shoot at the guys trying to kill you.

That is just as screwy as having to run to cover in order to initiate a reload.

3.8. All reloads must be performed behind cover; however, a shooter, who runs the firearm empty while in the open, may initiate an Emergency Reload while advancing to the next position of cover. The shooter must continue moving while performing the Emergency Reload and may not engage any remaining targets until behind cover, if cover is available.

PPGMD

06-27-2013, 02:06 PM

Having spoken to every single founding BOD member, they were all aware it was a game. It was -- and is still trying to be -- a game that sets its rules based on some considerations that are important to certain shooters and not others. Same could be said of USPSA, Bianchi, Steel Challenge, etc.

Except those sports don't have to completely rewrite their rule book every few years.

Personally, I'd be fine with either way. Allow WMLs or don't; allow body-mounted lights or don't. But (a) I'm not shooting IDPA regularly and (b) I can afford to go out and buy $500 of specialized equipment if I want to... I even get to write it off my taxes. IDPA has always been about accessibility for people who wanted to show up with a cheap gun and cheap holster and still be competitive against other guys at the NO/MM/SS level.

Then perhaps we should rename IDPA to Action Shooting Lite.

Again if they are so much faster that in order to win the match you need them (just like you need a flashlight period to even compete in a low light stage), perhaps that is a clue that having a way to retain the light while doing gun handling tasks (be it a lanyard, special light, or WML) is something you need to be "defensive."

IMO it is either something based on defensive shooting or it isn't. If their goal is a sport that any man can get into, do away with low light stages, do away with every divisions except a 1911 division and an IPSC based Production division (basically no modifications). But if their goal is to be a defensive game, they need to embrace some of the changes that the defensive shooting industry has made in the last decade.

ToddG

06-27-2013, 02:07 PM

The rule states that you can initiate an emergency reload while in the open and on the move but that you can't engage threats until reaching cover. So, you can reload, but you can't shoot at the guys trying to kill you.

So again while I don't necessarily agree with it, I can see the logic behind it.

What's the greatest practical distance between you and a point of cover in IDPA when your gun goes dry? Fifteen, maybe twenty-five feet?

How long does it take you to sprint 25 feet? How long does it take you to reload your gun? If you're really trying to get to cover as fast as possible -- as opposed to trying purposely to stay in the open so you don't have to shoot from cover -- then how many people can shoot back before they're at cover? I'm guessing very, very few. (note that this goes directly to PPGMD'd criticism about rewarding the athletic guy who can sprint that 25' twice as fast as the old fat dude)

Believe me, I'm not fond of any rule that tells me I can't shoot at a threat in front of me. But it seems to me that the principle here is: if your gun goes empty then run to cover, don't dawdle out in the open.

ToddG

06-27-2013, 02:17 PM

Except those sports don't have to completely rewrite their rule book every few years.

That's unfair. One of the big criticisms of IDPA has been that they've gone so long without fixing a lot of the problems we all knew were in the old rulebook. IDPA has been around for sixteen years and this is only the second major revision to the rules I'm aware of. Anyone with a good grasp of history have an idea how that compares to early IPSC? Or even the past sixteen years of IPSC/USPSA?

Then perhaps we should rename IDPA to Action Shooting Lite.

Hasn't it always been, in a sense, though? And I don't mean that as a criticism necessarily. But IDPA has never been as challenging athletically or in terms of shooting performance as serious USPSA. There have always been rules to make sure that head shots, one-handed shots, and the like weren't too far away, etc.

Again if they are so much faster that in order to win the match you need them (just like you need a flashlight period to even compete in a low light stage), perhaps that is a clue that having a way to retain the light while doing gun handling tasks (be it a lanyard, special light, or WML) is something you need to be "defensive."

But now you're making the same error that you've accused IDPA of making. You're basing decisions on what's tactical instead of what's right for a game. If you believe a WML or body-mounted-light is necessary then so be it. But no matter how you feel about it personally, there are plenty of people who don't routinely walk around with WMLs on their guns or lights mounted to their wrists, heads, etc. And since you obviously agree that those pieces of equipment provide a significant advantage, you're as much as admitting that they create a competitive must-have. IDPA has always opposed equipment beyond gun, holster, mags, pouches, and ammo as "must have" to keep the cost of initiation down.

IMO it is either something based on defensive shooting or it isn't. If their goal is a sport that any man can get into, do away with low light stages, do away with every divisions except a 1911 division and an IPSC based Production division (basically no modifications).

I'm honestly not trying to start a fight with you but I fail to understand how your arbitrary decision about what stages/rules/equipment makes sense is more valid than IDPA's arbitrary decisions about the same. IDPA has been pretty darn successful running things the way it does. People like low light stages and it forces them to deal with problems they won't see in most USPSA, Bianchi, SC matches.

But if their goal is to be a defensive game, they need to embrace some of the changes that the defensive shooting industry has made in the last decade.

Not even WMLs have become commonplace even in LE much more the civilian CCW crowd that IDPA caters to. The Tomahawk & body-mounted lights are even less so. You want a game that allows leading-edge tech. That's fine and I get it. But IDPA isn't that game and has never pretended to be.

(I still don't get the lanyard thing at all, though)

Clusterfrack

06-27-2013, 02:22 PM

Todd--I hear what you're saying, but I don't want IDPA to become like USPSA. I just would like to see the game do more to embrace leading edge equipment, tactics, and physical performance--allowing RDS equipped handguns and AIWB for example. The difference in scoring already emphasizes accuracy more than USPSA does, and there are other ways to make the sport approachable to beginners.

Anyway, this is a good discussion.

I'm disappointed by the new rules as well--but not surprised. In an offline discussion with OrigamiAK I suggested that we may see more progress in IDPA (and USPSA) rules as younger and more modern shooters transition into leadership roles. I do enjoy IDPA (even though the rules are lame), and plan to keep shooting their matches--but their philosophy seems to be to minimize risk and downplay leading edge equipment, tactics, and physical performance so "older" and less fit shooters can win matches and not get hurt.

The "not for score" option is a step in the right direction at least.

Disagree.

IDPA from the beginning was supposed to be:

focused more on shooting than athleticism, and
approachable by shooters of low and moderate skill level.

If you want a game where having a great VO2 Max is more important than being able to shoot down zero to be competitive at a mid-tier level, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.

If you want a game where you spend seven seconds of a 9-second stage doing things other than shooting, there's a game for that. It's called USPSA.

If you want a game where developing a stage strategy in advance plays a significant role in your score, there's a game for that. Coincidentally enough, it's also called USPSA.

I've got absolutely nothing at all against USPSA. It's a different game with different rules and a different focus. People who lament that IDPA isn't more like USPSA should try to understand that.

While I may not necessarily agree with it, I completely understand the flat footed reload rule. First, especially with the elimination of the round dumping rule, it mitigates against the gaminess of timing/planning reloads... again taking the strategy/gamer option off the table per IDPA's original intent.

Second, while plenty of people -- most of them with little or no tactical experience or even training, from what I've seen -- are crying "it's not tactical to stand still during a reload!" I think they're missing a big point. It's not tactical to run toward known trouble while fidgeting with your partially- or un-loaded gun. LE/mil have been teaching people forever don't leave cover until you've topped off your gun. Same concept here. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rule, it doesn't prevent you from moving while reloading when you're exposed to threats. But if you're behind cover and "safe," you're supposed to top off the gun before charging forward. If I've misread the rules, please correct me.

ToddG

06-27-2013, 02:27 PM

VolGrad

06-27-2013, 02:47 PM

I think IDPA needs to get out of the mindset that it is "tactical" because it isn't.
I wasn't aware IDPA as a collective thought of themselves as "tactical". IMO it's the IDPA critics that always bring in the "tactical" or "real world" aspects to the discussion with arguments about "shooting what/how you carry", WMLs, RDSs, etc.

It's a game. There are rules. Deal or move on. That's my take anyway.

jlw

06-27-2013, 02:49 PM

How long does it take you to sprint 25 feet?

When I ran track in high school they measured my time with a calender instead of a stopwatch. I'd be better off taking my chances reloading and shooting than relying on my feet to get me out of trouble. :cool:

VolGrad

06-27-2013, 02:58 PM

Bye bye IDPA, I will be letting my membership expire.Were you happy with IDPA prior to the new rule book being published or is this decision something that has been building for a while? Just curious.

On a local IDPA club social media site where I participate there have been a couple of similar comments. What's weird is they are from folks that have been very active in IDPA up to and including participating in a sactioned match this past weekend. I know they were there. I saw them. I spoke with them. They seemed genuinely happy to be there. Now, today they are talking as if IDPA is the debil.

I guess I'm just not complicated enough to understand most of the angst.

Mr_White

06-27-2013, 02:59 PM

I wasn't aware IDPA as a collective thought of themselves as "tactical". IMO it's the IDPA critics that always bring in the "tactical" or "real world" aspects to the discussion with arguments about "shooting what/how you carry", WMLs, RDSs, etc.

It's a game. There are rules. Deal or move on. That's my take anyway.

I don't know, here is what the IDPA website says. Sounds 'tactical' to me.

The International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) is the governing body of a shooting sport that simulates self-defense scenarios and real life encounters. It was founded in 1996 as a response to the desires of shooters worldwide. The organization now boasts membership of more than 20,000, including members in 50 foreign countries.

One of the unique facets of this sport is that it is geared toward the new or average shooter, yet is fun, challenging and rewarding for the experienced shooter. The founders developed the sport so that practical gear and practical guns may be used competitively. An interested person can spend a minimal amount on equipment and still be competitive.

The main goal is to test the skill and ability of the individual, not equipment or gamesmanship. “Competition only” equipment is not permitted in this sport.

I think they should have a rule that if you don't show up and leave wearing it concealed and hot, then you can't shoot it.

NEPAKevin

06-27-2013, 03:06 PM

AIWB is now specifically banned even at local matches, which sucks.

Well, from my perspective, as a guy who has run at least one local match that was attended by a shooter who has recently gained notoriety for claiming that his gun fired into his holster of its own accord..., I'm kind of OK with it.

http://youtu.be/So8LbsHWl3U

VolGrad

06-27-2013, 03:54 PM

orionz06

06-27-2013, 04:04 PM

I was just thinking. With all the people threatening to quit IDPA over the new rule book we might get finished with our matches earlier now and not have so much down time waiting on the squad in front of us to finish their stage.

Or all of the locals don't spend all day on forums debating it and will just show up and shoot anyway as they really never knew the rules too well to begin with.

Chuck Haggard

06-27-2013, 04:17 PM

Or all of the locals don't spend all day on forums debating it and will just show up and shoot anyway as they really never knew the rules too well to begin with.

We are something like that around here. Guys know I am more about shooting the problem than working at trying to win if the rules interfere with not doing stupid stuff. I'm often Mr. Procedural at the local matches.

Chris Rhines

06-27-2013, 05:10 PM

No, it is not. It will hurt the gamers who've mastered the art of the tucked-in-my-shirt RWR and that's about it.

Imagine the following scenario. You're moving down a hallway. You get to a doorway and shoot a few guys. Your gun has only a few bullets left in it. Do you:

reload while running towards the sound of more bad guys in the next doorway, or
stay as far away from the other bad guys until your gun is topped off and as ready as it can be, then put your full attention on aggressing towards the next fight?

Like with most scenarios, my answer is, "It depends." Most times I'd take option #2, but I can certainly think of realistic scenarios where I'd prefer reloading on the move.

Of course, I'd probably just drop the partly loaded magazine on the floor, so I'd be kittened either way.

This kind of relates to my core problem with IDPA. Good tactics are subjective and situationaly dependant, but IDPA acts like there is a single tactical dogma that must be followed at all times, and the dogma often isn't a good one.

cclaxton

06-27-2013, 05:45 PM

IMO it is either something based on defensive shooting or it isn't.

I disagree with this statement. This represents a black and white view of IDPA shooting. There are lots of shades of grey from the novice shooter to a master IDPA shooter to a Tactically-Trained, combat-seasoned Weapons Master. IDPA IS based on defensive shooting, but it is not meant to be THE GOLD STANDARD of Defensive Shooting. IDPA is meant to be a way to get novices/average pistol-shooters to improve pistol shooting skills by using competition to motivate them to shoot faster, accurately and simply BE A BETTER PISTOLIER. And to make it a sport with rules that can be applied fairly to all levels of shooters and all pistol divisions, there have to be compromises to make the game a fair competition and easily administered by average SO's.

We will argue until eternity about what the rules should be, but I don't buy the argument that IDPA is not defensive shooting.

I am a big supporter of people who own handguns learning to shoot them safely and being able to shoot them well under pressure. I would much rather have an IDPA shooter covering me in a gunfight than a guy who owns the most expensive .45cal with lasergrip but who goes to the range every month to shoot 100 rounds.

I think IDPA is a good way for average people to improve their shooting skills and do it in a fun way and in a competitive sport that, overall, is fair to the novice and the master.

After I feel my shooting skills are at a good level, I plan to take tactical training and Krav Maga and get better at those more advanced techniques. But in the meantime I am having a great time going to matches, learning where I need to improve, practicing, shooting really fun courses of fire...and challenging ones. I like shooting KSTG for the same reasons.

CC

PPGMD

06-27-2013, 05:48 PM

That's unfair. One of the big criticisms of IDPA has been that they've gone so long without fixing a lot of the problems we all knew were in the old rulebook. IDPA has been around for sixteen years and this is only the second major revision to the rules I'm aware of. Anyone with a good grasp of history have an idea how that compares to early IPSC? Or even the past sixteen years of IPSC/USPSA?

The difference is that USPSA/IPSC make small tweaks, release them about a year before enforcement, hear what the members say. They don't wait until people get so fed up with the problems, and then make huge changes to the way that the game is played. And I am sure that early IPSC had issues, but you can't really compare it as they were building a whole new sport from the ground up.

The other biggest difference is that members actually have a real conduit into the management. I have a half a dozen emails that I can use to contact USPSA/Steel Challenge leadership, those leadership participate actively on forums like Brian Enos. I can directly call Tom Hughes (the guy that manages NRA Action Pistol).

Hasn't it always been, in a sense, though? And I don't mean that as a criticism necessarily. But IDPA has never been as challenging athletically or in terms of shooting performance as serious USPSA. There have always been rules to make sure that head shots, one-handed shots, and the like weren't too far away, etc.

It really becomes what's the point. Perhaps that is why Bob Vogel is one of the last of the top level sponsored shooters that remain in IDPA.

But now you're making the same error that you've accused IDPA of making. You're basing decisions on what's tactical instead of what's right for a game. If you believe a WML or body-mounted-light is necessary then so be it. But no matter how you feel about it personally, there are plenty of people who don't routinely walk around with WMLs on their guns or lights mounted to their wrists, heads, etc. And since you obviously agree that those pieces of equipment provide a significant advantage, you're as much as admitting that they create a competitive must-have. IDPA has always opposed equipment beyond gun, holster, mags, pouches, and ammo as "must have" to keep the cost of initiation down.

And there is the problem IMO. IDPA uses both excuses when dismissing ideas.
Shooter: "Why can't I use this tactical equipment?"
IDPA: "Because it is just a game we don't want an equipment race."

Shooter: "Why do I have to do tac sequence?"
IDPA: "Because that is tactical."

And nothing is stopping people from showing up without, simply that if it dominates the gamers are going to use it, but then again nothing the gamers use is tactical. So the idea that is discourages new shooters is BS IMO. They aren't showing up with custom made fishing vests, fancy OWB belt holsters, Glock 34 with a trigger job/fiber optic sights, double magazine pouch etc. But yet that is what it takes to win a match.

Not even WMLs have become commonplace even in LE much more the civilian CCW crowd that IDPA caters to. The Tomahawk & body-mounted lights are even less so. You want a game that allows leading-edge tech. That's fine and I get it. But IDPA isn't that game and has never pretended to be.

If more people shot in the dark with them, IMO more people will buy them. Your shooting is 100% better with a WML. And the Tomahawk and others "hands free" type lights are also an improvement.

cclaxton

06-27-2013, 05:51 PM

Like with most scenarios, my answer is, "It depends." Most times I'd take option #2, but I can certainly think of realistic scenarios where I'd prefer reloading on the move.

Of course, I'd probably just drop the partly loaded magazine on the floor, so I'd be kittened either way.

This kind of relates to my core problem with IDPA. Good tactics are subjective and situationaly dependant, but IDPA acts like there is a single tactical dogma that must be followed at all times, and the dogma often isn't a good one.

This reminds me of something Vogel said: He wants shooting to be an automatic function that he doesn't have to think about. He then can THINK about which tactics to use and which moves to make in a threatening situation or a police action.
CC

VolGrad

06-27-2013, 06:13 PM

Or all of the locals don't spend all day on forums debating it and will just show up and shoot anyway as they really never knew the rules too well to begin with.

I actually wish those that want to debate it all day would stay home. I don't want to hear that crap between stages. I just want to shoot. :cool:

rob_s

06-27-2013, 06:20 PM

It's a game. Games have rules. Those rules quite often don't make sense. Those that don't like the rules shouldn't play the game.

What is interesting is that it always seems to be the mediocre shooters who get all bent about the rule changes. The great shooters simply adapt and find new ways to win within the rules, and the atrocious shooters just never notice.

TheRoland

06-27-2013, 08:19 PM

What is interesting is that it always seems to be the mediocre shooters who get all bent about the rule changes. The great shooters simply adapt and find new ways to win within the rules, and the atrocious shooters just never notice.

Depending on how you define 'mediocre', this is pretty much what you'd expect, though. With limited shooting time and money, rules changes are going to impact the semi-serious shooters most. People who shoot matches, are competitive, but aren't hardcore.

Several people in my local group have 'defected' to USPSA and were hoping the new rules would draw them back. They're not going to.

ford.304

06-27-2013, 10:12 PM

I think the question isn't "is IDPA tactical?" The question is "is it enough more tactical than other action sports to be a worthwhile niche?" I mean, you may want to start returning fire against someone while still in the open, but you're definitely not going to drop a half-loaded mag in the open because you counted the bad guys and the rounds and you're sure that will lead to a faster time ;-)

IDPA still seems, to me, have to value as a "tactics lite." It's enough of a facsimile of tactics to be beneficial to your average shooter, in the same way that "get off the dot" and "scan when finished shooting" can be kind of useless in a lot of situations but are probably a much better *default* response to most people than sitting there thinking.

ToddG

06-27-2013, 10:33 PM

When I ran track in high school they measured my time with a calender instead of a stopwatch. I'd be better off taking my chances reloading and shooting than relying on my feet to get me out of trouble. :cool:

That raises another issue: the "run to cover" rule is a hindrance for anyone who cannot, due to whatever physical limitation, actually run to cover. So we've got a rule that actually makes sense for the majority of shooters but penalizes the most competent shooters (who won't be able to shoot at the speed of their reload) and the physically challenged shooters (who will have to take however much time is necessary to reach cover before shooting).

Well, from my perspective, as a guy who has run at least one local match that was attended by a shooter who has recently gained notoriety for claiming that his gun fired into his holster of its own accord..., I'm kind of OK with it.

Which is why I never get upset about the anti-aiwb rule.

Like with most scenarios, my answer is, "It depends." Most times I'd take option #2, but I can certainly think of realistic scenarios where I'd prefer reloading on the move.
<...>
This kind of relates to my core problem with IDPA. Good tactics are subjective and situationaly dependant, but IDPA acts like there is a single tactical dogma that must be followed at all times, and the dogma often isn't a good one.

Cover, in particular, is extremely situational. And while we are looking at these as reload rules the reality is that they're really just further extensions of how IDPA wants folks to use cover.

So we're faced with a dilemma: use of cover is situational but the rules cannot cover every situation. No matter what set of rules IDPA comes up with, someone somewhere will be able to posit a hypothetical in which those rules aren't ideal. They could abandon use of cover altogether (there's already a game like that... ) or they can establish generally applicable rules.

The changes to reloads behind and/or moving towards cover are logical and sound. Are they the ideal rule for every person in every situation imaginable? No. But you could say that about most of the rules of most games.

Of course, I'd probably just drop the partly loaded magazine on the floor, so I'd be kittened either way.

If you can see your way past being barred from doing that "more tactical" thing, then why not see your way past this new rule, too?

The difference is that USPSA/IPSC make small tweaks, release them about a year before enforcement, hear what the members say. They don't wait until people get so fed up with the problems, and then make huge changes to the way that the game is played. And I am sure that early IPSC had issues, but you can't really compare it as they were building a whole new sport from the ground up.

First you said IDPA keeps changing too often, now you're saying they wait too long before changing. I am confused. :cool:

The other biggest difference is that members actually have a real conduit into the management. I have a half a dozen emails that I can use to contact USPSA/Steel Challenge leadership, those leadership participate actively on forums like Brian Enos. I can directly call Tom Hughes (the guy that manages NRA Action Pistol).

IDPA called for comments on the new rulebook and very clearly made some major changes based on member comments. I have no idea how easy it is for the average Joe to contact IDPA HQ but I'm guessing it doesn't take much more than a glance at their website.

It really becomes what's the point. Perhaps that is why Bob Vogel is one of the last of the top level sponsored shooters that remain in IDPA.

Having spoken with more than a few "top level sponsored shooters" who've left IDPA, the degree of challenge has never been mentioned as a reason for leaving. After all, Vogel keeps winning, right? When the top USPSA guys were shooting IDPA, they were the ones winning and they were constantly battling against one another.

And there is the problem IMO. IDPA uses both excuses when dismissing ideas.
Shooter: "Why can't I use this tactical equipment?"
IDPA: "Because it is just a game we don't want an equipment race."

Shooter: "Why do I have to do tac sequence?"
IDPA: "Because that is tactical."

First, the two are not mutually exclusive. As I've said repeatedly now, IDPA places the equipment race issue as a very high priority. It has nothing to do with whether things are tactical or not. Do you really think the folks at IDPA HQ don't understand the benefits of WMLs and lasers? Wilson Combat sells them. They make guns with rails. They get it. They just don't want to add to the initiation fee for shooting the game. No matter how much it bothers you and no matter how many other issues you bring into the debate, that will remain the same.

And nothing is stopping people from showing up without, simply that if it dominates the gamers are going to use it, but then again nothing the gamers use is tactical. So the idea that is discourages new shooters is BS IMO. They aren't showing up with custom made fishing vests, fancy OWB belt holsters, Glock 34 with a trigger job/fiber optic sights, double magazine pouch etc. But yet that is what it takes to win a match.

I don't think I agree with a single thing in that paragraph.

If more people shot in the dark with them, IMO more people will buy them. Your shooting is 100% better with a WML. And the Tomahawk and others "hands free" type lights are also an improvement.

Final time I'm going to say this: it has nothing to do with whether they work better, it is about the fact that it will cost more money to play the game. The more you argue about how much better WMLs are, the more it proves the point that they'll be de facto required for anyone who wants to feel like he is on a level playing field.

orionz06

06-27-2013, 11:46 PM

rob_s

06-28-2013, 04:51 AM

Depending on how you define 'mediocre', this is pretty much what you'd expect, though. With limited shooting time and money, rules changes are going to impact the semi-serious shooters most. People who shoot matches, are competitive, but aren't hardcore.

So the real issue becomes that the people that get upset are the ones without a well-rounded skillset and who therefore feel that a change in the rules is "unfair" because it calls attention to their weakness. The fatass will lament any rule change he believes adds more physicality. The poor marksman will lament a change that rewards accuracy. The guy that has poor gun handling will lament the change that adds more reloads.

What seems even more common is that these discussions are almost always dominated by those who prefer, or started out shooting, USPSA. As Todd posted earlier, most of their bitching tends to revolve around "how come they didn't make it more like USPSA?" And as he also mentioned there is already a game for that, it's called USPSA.

My local IDPA club is planning a get together to go over the new rules. I think that will be the absolute best venue to discuss the changes because only people that really care will turn up, which means they will have more commitment than those that just happen upon an Internet discussion and decide to chime in. I plan on attending just to eaves drop.

rsa-otc

06-28-2013, 06:22 AM

The way I look at it is that in any action shooting game that has actual movement there is favoritism. It's going to favor the younger, thinner or more athletic. You can't make enough rules to level the playing field without totally changing the sport.

So someone is always going to bitch no matter what because somehow, someway a stage or something is going to be unfair in their eyes to them.

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 06:33 AM

............ and the atrocious shooters just never notice.I just had a realization. I am an atrocious shooter. I've looked over the new rules and frankly didn't see too much that would change my day. :o

As I understand it one of the reasons for the re-write was to remove some of the abiguity so clubs could enforce rules more consistently among/across themselves.Many wanted IDPA to "clear things up" and make them less subject to interpretation. In a discussion on the local club social media site last evening one of the more vocal members mentioned the state match, hosterd by their club, was known to be a stickler for the rules. They frequently call things other matches don't/won't. Specifically, he cited the new rule stating they can no longer penalize a shooter for not firing the prescribed number of shots on a disappearing target. He said their club currently calls that penalty at state matches but none of the other surrounding state matches do. Their fear is ppl will game the stage by just not taking shots on the difficult moving target and just take the PD and move on. Personally, I don't think "that guy" is the one you have to worry about beating you. However, he said the new rules will no longer allow them to assess extra penalties other than PD and was upset about it. My response was that it sounded like the new rule will make the rules/penalties more consistent because all the sactioned matches around here will be called the same now. I also pointed out I wasn't sure if I wanted folks still blasting away once a target had disappeared just to get in the number of shots lest they be penalized. Doesn't sound too safe. Besides, would that have been round dumping under the current rules? Either way, I still fail to see the problem.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 07:08 AM

First you said IDPA keeps changing too often, now you're saying they wait too long before changing. I am confused. :cool:

No I said that every few years they completely rewrite the rule book, because the wait until the last moment and then make way too many changes at once. USPSA for example only does minor tweaks, and because they've progressively made changes they don't have to rush the rule book into production giving the members plenty of time to comment and their comments to be taken into consideration.

IDPA called for comments on the new rulebook and very clearly made some major changes based on member comments. I have no idea how easy it is for the average Joe to contact IDPA HQ but I'm guessing it doesn't take much more than a glance at their website.

Taking comments doesn't mean they are listening to them. And talking with someone you don't know is quite different from talking to a local section coordinator, or area coordinator. These are people that actually shoot matches local to you, I can show him my issue in person if needed. He knows me vs a random caller. And finally he actually has a say in how USPSA is run (a single vote, but a vote none the less). It is quite a different form of management.

Compare that to the IDPA where they said they will ignore anything that doesn't come in through their comment form.

Having spoken with more than a few "top level sponsored shooters" who've left IDPA, the degree of challenge has never been mentioned as a reason for leaving. After all, Vogel keeps winning, right? When the top USPSA guys were shooting IDPA, they were the ones winning and they were constantly battling against one another.

No it was the rules, and how abirtary they were. But rules are in place to prevent them from shooting at the peak of their performance.

First, the two are not mutually exclusive. As I've said repeatedly now, IDPA places the equipment race issue as a very high priority. It has nothing to do with whether things are tactical or not. Do you really think the folks at IDPA HQ don't understand the benefits of WMLs and lasers? Wilson Combat sells them. They make guns with rails. They get it. They just don't want to add to the initiation fee for shooting the game. No matter how much it bothers you and no matter how many other issues you bring into the debate, that will remain the same.

I don't think I agree with a single thing in that paragraph.

Final time I'm going to say this: it has nothing to do with whether they work better, it is about the fact that it will cost more money to play the game. The more you argue about how much better WMLs are, the more it proves the point that they'll be de facto required for anyone who wants to feel like he is on a level playing field.

Well there is the issue. I disagree that IDPA isn't an equipment race, sure the top level of equipment is set rather low, but IDPA requires special equipment to win. I can't show up at an IDPA match with a Glock 26, gun shop leather IWB holster, Fobus double magazine pouch, and tshirt over it expecting to win (unless the level of competition at the local club is rather shitty unless my name starts with Bob and ends with Vogel). But the people that want to win IDPA buy special equipment custom fishing vests that they starch pretty regularly, a worked over Glock 34 with fiber optic sights, competition OWB holster with mag pouches, etc. Sure the guy with the full competition rig won't hesitate to buy WML, Tomahawk, or laser. But that doesn't mean that the guy with the Glock 26 has to, he isn't expecting to win, he can borrow a flashlight and shoot the stage at pretty much his level of competence.

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 07:42 AM

I can't show up at an IDPA match with a Glock 26, gun shop leather IWB holster, Fobus double magazine pouch, and tshirt over it expecting to win (unless the level of competition at the local club is rather shitty unless my name starts with Bob and ends with Vogel). But the people that want to win IDPA buy special equipment custom fishing vests that they starch pretty regularly, a worked over Glock 34 with fiber optic sights, competition OWB holster with mag pouches, etc. Sure the guy with the full competition rig won't hesitate to buy WML, Tomahawk, or laser. But that doesn't mean that the guy with the Glock 26 has to, he isn't expecting to win, he can borrow a flashlight and shoot the stage at pretty much his level of competence.

I can't disagree with this statement enough, especially the part I bolded. Why can't you show up and win with that equipment? You even said yourself Vogel could do it. Why can he do it but you can't? I suspect it is because he shoots better than you, no? So it probably isn't the equipment.

I just started a C25K program this week. The app starts the workout with a "tip". Yesterday's tip seems quite applicable here. It said, "The problem with setting goals isn't setting them too high they can't be reached but rather setting them too low that they can."

If the guy showing up with the G26, etc. isn't expecting to win then maybe he isn't trying hard enough.

The people that show up with the fancy starched vests, the worked over GLOCK, etc etc aren't winning because of their equipment. No, they might take their sport seriously and thus buy better equipment. At the end of the day the equipment isn't what's lining up the sights and pressing the trigger.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 07:58 AM

I can't disagree with this statement enough, especially the part I bolded. Why can't you show up and win with that equipment? You even said yourself Vogel could do it. Why can he do it but you can't? I suspect it is because he shoots better than you, no? So it probably isn't the equipment.

Bob Vogel can do it because he is head and shoulders above any other competitor in IDPA at the moment. But if he were competing against Dave Sevigny or another shooter at or near his level, that equipment is going to put him at a disadvantage if they are using a full IDPA race rig.

This is no different than racing, Sabine Schmitz could probably beat me (in say a rented sports car) around the ring in a minivan, that doesn't mean that she would take on another driver of her class in a minivan while they use a sports car.

When you have two people of the same skill level and one is using better equipment, barring any mistakes the one with the better equipment is going to win. Because if that isn't true then we should just delete all those equipment rules.

jlw

06-28-2013, 07:58 AM

So the real issue becomes that the people that get upset are the ones without a well-rounded skillset and who therefore feel that a change in the rules is "unfair" because it calls attention to their weakness. The fatass will lament any rule change he believes adds more physicality. The poor marksman will lament a change that rewards accuracy. The guy that has poor gun handling will lament the change that adds more reloads.

What seems even more common is that these discussions are almost always dominated by those who prefer, or started out shooting, USPSA. As Todd posted earlier, most of their bitching tends to revolve around "how come they didn't make it more like USPSA?" And as he also mentioned there is already a game for that, it's called USPSA.

My local IDPA club is planning a get together to go over the new rules. I think that will be the absolute best venue to discuss the changes because only people that really care will turn up, which means they will have more commitment than those that just happen upon an Internet discussion and decide to chime in. I plan on attending just to eaves drop.

Rules that take the gaminess out of IDPA help me. However, I don't like the reloading rules because they simply don't make sense.

rsa-otc

06-28-2013, 08:05 AM

I can't disagree with this statement enough, especially the part I bolded. Why can't you show up and win with that equipment? You even said yourself Vogel could do it. Why can he do it but you can't? I suspect it is because he shoots better than you, no? So it probably isn't the equipment.

I just started a C25K program this week. The app starts the workout with a "tip". Yesterday's tip seems quite applicable here. It said, "The problem with setting goals isn't setting them too high they can't be reached but rather setting them too low that they can."

If the guy showing up with the G26, etc. isn't expecting to win then maybe he isn't trying hard enough.

The people that show up with the fancy starched vests, the worked over GLOCK, etc etc aren't winning because of their equipment. No, they might take their sport seriously and thus buy better equipment. At the end of the day the equipment isn't what's lining up the sights and pressing the trigger.

+10000

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 08:13 AM

.... if they are using a full IDPA race rig.
I still don't get this statement. My IDPA gear is a regular old Comp-Tac paddle (neatral cant) and a Comp-Tac double mag pouch. Together these cost approx $100 total. I hang them off the same belt I'd wear everyday. As a cover garment I'm really inconsistent. Sometimes I wear a Columbia fishing vest I bought on sale. Sometimes I wear a flourescent traffic safety vest. Sometimes I wear a polo or t-shirt untucked. The rest of my attire is the same as I'd wear every day. I often wear cargos but gave away all my 5.11 ninja pants a while back. They didn't give me the advantage I needed to win I guess.

I've shot a couple of guns during my brief 3yr IDPA career. Each has had some minor trigger work done but it was all done by myself and a very, very minimal $ outlay if any at all. If I had to go into a gunfight today I'd have no hesitation to pick any of them up and go. My point is they aren't "tricked out" to the point they are impractical. I would prefer a tritium front in a carry situation over the flourescent paint I have on them now for daytime IDPA.

So, with my current setup am I at an advantage or disadvantage in your opinion? I've spent very little money. I'd have no issue carrying a weapon for EDC with any of the equipment I use for IDPA (except the gay looking vest). So am I am gamer that should beat everyone or do I suck and shouldn't expect to win EVER?

TheRoland

06-28-2013, 08:29 AM

So, back on the topic of the actual rule changes, have they satisfied anyone? Is there anyone out there who was frustrated before, and is now happy?

What seems even more common is that these discussions are almost always dominated by those who prefer, or started out shooting, USPSA.

Eh, bitching about the rules is a pretty integral part of every IDPA match I've ever shot, from club to national level.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 08:38 AM

USPSA for example only does minor tweaks, and because they've progressively made changes they don't have to rush the rule book into production giving the members plenty of time to comment and their comments to be taken into consideration.

Was adding Production a minor tweak? Heck, even Single Stack was contentious and took forever to get put on paper. There have been plenty of huge changes in IPSC/USPSA since its inception.

As for giving members "plenty of time," I'm not sure what the benefit is there. Do you think there were folks who missed the announcement about the proposed rulebook until it was too late? I've seen wild discussions here, at the IDPA forum, on other forums, on blogs, etc. I doubt there are too many people with an interest in IDPA that didn't have the opportunity to comment.

Taking comments doesn't mean they are listening to them. And talking with someone you don't know is quite different from talking to a local section coordinator, or area coordinator. These are people that actually shoot matches local to you, I can show him my issue in person if needed. He knows me vs a random caller. And finally he actually has a say in how USPSA is run (a single vote, but a vote none the less). It is quite a different form of management.

I haven't checked the new IDPA website, but the old one made it pretty easy to contact your Area Coordinator or whatever it was called.

No question that IDPA as an organization is run much differently than USPSA. The founders of IDPA had a reason for that: they saw how USPSA changed over time in ways they considered deterioration of what the sport was "supposed to be." Obviously, not everyone feels that way. USPSA continues to be wildly popular. But the whole point behind IDPA was to create something that wasn't USPSA and wouldn't become USPSA.

Compare that to the IDPA where they said they will ignore anything that doesn't come in through their comment form.

That makes sense to me, though. They wanted to collect all the comments in one place in one way. It also gave every person's comments equal weight. Not seeing the problem here.

No it was the rules, and how abirtary they were.

Of the two really "top" guys I know who've stopped shooting IDPA, neither of them quit due to arbitrary rules. One quit because he felt like ROs at matches were constantly making bad calls against him just to screw with him. The other quit for what I'll simply call political reasons.

But rules are in place to prevent them from shooting at the peak of their performance.

Huh? What rule keeps them from shooting as fast and accurately as they can?

Well there is the issue. I disagree that IDPA isn't an equipment race, sure the top level of equipment is set rather low, but IDPA requires special equipment to win.

I've got a closet full of 1st Expert CDP trophies from matches around the country that were won with a SIG P220ST shooting full power 230gr JHP ammo out of an IWB holster. So I'd say that at least up to and including Expert level, the argument that you need gamey gear to win in IDPA is baseless.

Sure the guy with the full competition rig won't hesitate to buy WML, Tomahawk, or laser. But that doesn't mean that the guy with the Glock 26 has to, he isn't expecting to win, he can borrow a flashlight and shoot the stage at pretty much his level of competence.

If you can't understand the difference between "advantage of a G34 over a G26" and "advantage of a WML over a handheld light," I'm sorry. You're the one who keeps harping on what a huge advantage the special lights provide. I don't think any of us here really think a G26 is at a huge disadvantage to a G34 at IDPA ranges and IDPA stages.

Bob Vogel can do it because he is head and shoulders above any other competitor in IDPA at the moment. But if he were competing against Dave Sevigny or another shooter at or near his level, that equipment is going to put him at a disadvantage if they are using a full IDPA race rig.

Agree 100%. For people of equal skill, having a level playing field in terms of equipment is critically important. I think that proves my point, no?

jlw

06-28-2013, 08:38 AM

What seems even more common is that these discussions are almost always dominated by those who prefer, or started out shooting, USPSA.

I've never shot a USPSA match. I've never even been on a range at the same time a USPSA match was being shot.

I still think the reload rules, both old and new, make no sense.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 08:39 AM

I still don't get this statement.

What is there not to get I've already said what I considered to be the race rig. Sure it might not be as racy as say a USPSA open division gun, but it still is a long way from EDC gear.

So, with my current setup am I at an advantage or disadvantage in your opinion? I've spent very little money. I'd have no issue carrying a weapon for EDC with any of the equipment I use for IDPA (except the gay looking vest). So am I am gamer that should beat everyone or do I suck and shouldn't expect to win EVER?

You are somewhere in the middle of the road. I simply gave the two extremes, but few ever go straight from cheap EDC gear to a full race rig overnight. Typically it happens slowly.

cclaxton

06-28-2013, 08:42 AM

I can't show up at an IDPA match with a Glock 26, gun shop leather IWB holster, Fobus double magazine pouch, and tshirt over it expecting to win (unless the level of competition at the local club is rather shitty unless my name starts with Bob and ends with Vogel).

I disagree with this statement. I know a master IDPA shooter who shoots just as well with his Glock 26 as his M&P Pro. If it were not for night sights instead of fiber for his front sight, he would probably compete with it. On top of that his eyesight is very poor in his dominant eye.

He is not winning top overall, but he frequently places in the top 3 and sometimes wins Master SSP.

It is all about how quickly you can develop your skills to be as good with a 26 as a 34.

But more to the point: When it comes to the "equipment race" you have to draw the line somewhere, and I think it is drawn appropriately, otherwise it just becomes an endless amount of money chasing new tech, new guns, etc. The amount of investment in a complete setup to win is probably under $2000 for everything: gun, holster, vest, mags, mag holders, belt, etc. Compare that to the $2000 you will pay just for a gun to get into some divisions of USPSA. Also, I travel around a bit going to local clubs...there are a lot of people who struggle just to get the money to buy a rig to compete in IDPA matches, plus ammo, fees, etc. The bar needs to be set low enough so they are not disadvantaged due to limited means.

CC

ToddG

06-28-2013, 08:47 AM

So, back on the topic of the actual rule changes, have they satisfied anyone? Is there anyone out there who was frustrated before, and is now happy?

There are a heck of a lot of happy XD shooters. :cool:

They got rid of the dumping rule which was often touted by "serious shooters" as one of the #1 reasons to stay away from IDPA. It was always a ridiculous rule (and one that didn't exist originally, btw). That it took so long to delete is a testament to the tactical-excuse stagnation that PPGMD has been talking about. But it's gone now and I think that makes an awful lot of folks happy.

IDPA HQ backed off on a bunch of poorly thought out safety rule changes and that makes a lot of people happy.

The new version of the reload/cover rules will be more about how it's explained to shooters than anything else. MDs and ROs who put a negative spin on it will build the resistance movement. Ones who say, "If your gun goes empty, sprint to cover rather than dawdling in the open," and "Don't charge toward the next part of the fight until your gun is in the condition you want," will get understanding nods and no drama.

At the end of the day, I doubt IDPA will see a huge blip up or down in membership over the new rules. People who wanted to hate IDPA will still hate IDPA for the most part. People who loved IDPA will still love IDPA for the most part. It will continue to appeal to shooters who want to use everyday carry gear to shoot realistic problems. The Earth will keep spinning and revolving around the Sun.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 08:57 AM

Was adding Production a minor tweak? Heck, even Single Stack was contentious and took forever to get put on paper. There have been plenty of huge changes in IPSC/USPSA since its inception.

Adding a new division is an addition, I see it no different than if IDPA (over the current management's dead body) added a carry optics division. Other than adding a trophy or two for sanctioned match it doesn't change any of the existing rules.

As for giving members "plenty of time," I'm not sure what the benefit is there. Do you think there were folks who missed the announcement about the proposed rulebook until it was too late? I've seen wild discussions here, at the IDPA forum, on other forums, on blogs, etc. I doubt there are too many people with an interest in IDPA that didn't have the opportunity to comment.

The comment period before it went permanent was two months including the changes being made and approved. That is ridiculously short comment period, particularly based on their reports on the amounts of comments they received.

I haven't checked the new IDPA website, but the old one made it pretty easy to contact your Area Coordinator or whatever it was called.

The IDPA AC is basically the equivalent to a gun company sales rep, he has an ear to management but he has no say in how the organization is run.

That makes sense to me, though. They wanted to collect all the comments in one place in one way. It also gave every person's comments equal weight. Not seeing the problem here.

Some problems can't be adequately explained in words, pictures, videos, and even in person examples are needed.

If you can't understand the difference between "advantage of a G34 over a G26" and "advantage of a WML over a handheld light," I'm sorry. You're the one who keeps harping on what a huge advantage the special lights provide. I don't think any of us here really think a G26 is at a huge disadvantage to a G34 at IDPA ranges and IDPA stages.

Huge, probably not. But there is a significant different or you wouldn't see 75% of all the Glocks at the nationals be Glock 34s.

Agree 100%. For people of equal skill, having a level playing field in terms of equipment is critically important. I think that proves my point, no?

Except among those that wish to win the match the equipment would be level. All the DMs would be running WML, or lanyards, or Tomahawk style lights.

Anyways I disagree that there isn't already an equipment race in IDPA, the only difference is that unlike say USPSA open or limited division there is a clear finish line so most people quickly finish the race. Believe me I've seen it, as people go from cheap crap to quality game specific gear. Adding a WML would be no different.

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 09:05 AM

What is there not to get I've already said what I considered to be the race rig. Sure it might not be as racy as say a USPSA open division gun, but it still is a long way from EDC gear.

You are somewhere in the middle of the road. I simply gave the two extremes, but few ever go straight from cheap EDC gear to a full race rig overnight. Typically it happens slowly.
What's funny about this statement is the idea that ppl on this forum use "cheap EDR gear". :p

The other interesting thing is I have in the past and wouldn't hestitate in the future to wear the same rig I wear for IDPA as an EDC setup. There is NOTHING wrong with using it for that purpose. It excelts over most carry gear out there. It's also less expensive than what I actually do carry. The whole setup ... belt, holster, pouches, extra magazines, vest, etc. ... is less expensive than the SME holster everyone here was clamoring about a few months ago.

My point is we must really be shooting in different IDPA circles because even at the sanctioned matches I shoot most people are using gear that is far from sexy race gear.

Question, What is this, "Tomahawk style lights"? Seriously, I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 09:07 AM

The IDPA AC is basically the equivalent to a gun company sales rep, he has an ear to management but he has no say in how the organization is run.Hey Claude .... did you hear that? Your opinion doesn't matter and the folks at IDPA HQ don't listen to you.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 09:16 AM

Adding a new division is an addition, I see it no different than if IDPA (over the current management's dead body) added a carry optics division. Other than adding a trophy or two for sanctioned match it doesn't change any of the existing rules.

Come on, that's disingenuous. Creating a new division means a ton of new rules. And they're rules specifically about the legality of equipment which, as we can see from this discussion, is often hotly debated.

Also, IDPA now specifically allows RDS on guns not-for-score at local matches. So comments that the BOD will never allow them seem a bit premature.

The comment period before it went permanent was two months including the changes being made and approved. That is ridiculously short comment period, particularly based on their reports on the amounts of comments they received.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Some problems can't be adequately explained in words, pictures, videos, and even in person examples are needed.

But then how is emailing USPSA HQ or calling your USPSA Area Coordinator any different?

What part of the new rules was offensive to you but couldn't be explained without being in person?

Huge, probably not. But there is a significant different or you wouldn't see 75% of all the Glocks at the nationals be Glock 34s.

As our own membership proved not long ago, the perception that a G34 is better doesn't always play out in real life. The G34 is popular more because people think it helps them shoot better than because it really creates an improvement. The first IDPA national event was won by Rob Haught shooting a S&W Shorty Forty...

Furthermore, the difference in cost between a G34 and G26 is minimal. So someone who wanted to start shooting IDPA and chooses a G34 isn't bankrupted compared to the guy who buys the G26.

Except among those that wish to win the match the equipment would be level. All the DMs would be running WML, or lanyards, or Tomahawk style lights.

Those that wish to win the match have level equipment now. And it's the same equipment that guys who aren't DMs and who don't want to buy yet another holster, light, etc. are already running.

Anyway, you keep proving my argument. In terms of the game, the guys at the top currently compete with equal gear. Allowing additional, more expensive gear just means they'll all compete equally with the newer, more expensive gear. How does that change anything for them? It doesn't. But for all the guys who think they need that top level gear to play -- that 75% with the G34s you mentioned -- they'll now have to shell out a lot more money. And all the guys who don't want to spend that money or don't want to hang stuff off their guns/foreheads/whatever get stuck in a drastically worse position, by your own description of the wonderful benefits brought about by WMLs and such.

Dude, you want to run a WML or a Tomahawk. We get it. The rules say you can't. Accept it or don't play.

I want to run an aiwb holster. The rules say I can't. I either accept it or don't play... and I choose the latter. I'm not hate-quitting over it.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 09:19 AM

What's funny about this statement is the idea that ppl on this forum use "cheap EDR gear". :p

The people on this forum are the exception. The typical new IDPA shooter shows up with a cheap gear.

My point is we must really be shooting in different IDPA circles because even at the sanctioned matches I shoot most people are using gear that is far from sexy race gear.

The IDPA nationals equipment survey tells a different tale. Almost exclusively OWB holsters from Comp-tac and Blade-tech. And competition length guns dominate. Granted ESP guns don't go quite as far as Limited Division guns but even those aren't cheap.

Question, What is this, "Tomahawk style lights"? Seriously, I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

It is basically a handheld light that doesn't interfere with your firing grip very much.

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 09:30 AM

Almost exclusively OWB holsters from Comp-tac and Blade-tech.I guess we just disagree on what constitutes race gear. I used Comp-Tac paddles as EDC for a long, long time. I wouldn't hesitate to do so again if the need arose. They are great holsters, conceal easily under a cover garment (even an untucked shirt), and aren't expensive. Blade-tech .... never used one but my impression is the same.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 09:41 AM

Hey Claude .... did you hear that? Your opinion doesn't matter and the folks at IDPA HQ don't listen to you.

Unless you are on the BOD, you have no votes on how the organization is run.

Come on, that's disingenuous. Creating a new division means a ton of new rules. And they're rules specifically about the legality of equipment which, as we can see from this discussion, is often hotly debated.

Also, IDPA now specifically allows RDS on guns not-for-score at local matches. So comments that the BOD will never allow them seem a bit premature.

A ton of new rules, for that division. It doesn't effect the other divisions. For example did the IDPA 3 gun rules effect the core IDPA matches? It is the same way for adding a new division. Until they start shooting it it doesn't effect people who aren't shooting that division.

As far as the carry optics, I will eat my hat if is an add as an official division in the next five years.

But then how is emailing USPSA HQ or calling your USPSA Area Coordinator any different?

What part of the new rules was offensive to you but couldn't be explained without being in person?

Because there is a descent chance I will see my AC at least once every couple of months (assuming we don't shoot a major match together). Most ACs I know attempt to get around their area to shoot matches at other local clubs. If it is something I can't sufficiently explain over the phone, we plan to hook up when he comes to the local match next.

A good example would be to show the difference between a Grip Force adapter and the Glock Factory beavertail.

The first IDPA national event was won by Rob Haught shooting a S&W Shorty Forty...

And Bianchi was won by iron sights for a couple of years after Enos brought a red dot to it.

Furthermore, the difference in cost between a G34 and G26 is minimal. So someone who wanted to start shooting IDPA and chooses a G34 isn't bankrupted compared to the guy who buys the G26.

But OTOH a Glock 26 is something that many gun owners already own and carry. The Glock 34 is typically purchased only after someone decides to shoot competition.

Those that wish to win the match have level equipment now. And it's the same equipment that guys who aren't DMs and who don't want to buy yet another holster, light, etc. are already running.

Anyway, you keep proving my argument. In terms of the game, the guys at the top currently compete with equal gear. Allowing additional, more expensive gear just means they'll all compete equally with the newer, more expensive gear. How does that change anything for them? It doesn't. But for all the guys who think they need that top level gear to play -- that 75% with the G34s you mentioned -- they'll now have to shell out a lot more money. And all the guys who don't want to spend that money or don't want to hang stuff off their guns/foreheads/whatever get stuck in a drastically worse position, by your own description of the wonderful benefits brought about by WMLs and such.

True most will go buy it (though honestly there aren't that many low light stages), but I see it no different than the game specific holsters and guns. If it were allowed from the get go everyone would have it already, and there would be no argument about it. But moving an already established line is what this argument is all about.

Dude, you want to run a WML or a Tomahawk. We get it. The rules say you can't. Accept it or don't play.

I want to run an aiwb holster. The rules say I can't. I either accept it or don't play... and I choose the latter. I'm not hate-quitting over it.

Hate quit, I may bitch about the rules on the internet. But it's not like I am going to drive to the local IDPA club's range and throw my IDPA card over the wall (besides which the wind would probably blow it back to me). I have simply stopped shooting it. If I see someone from the IDPA club and they ask me why I don't shoot I will tell them I don't like the new rule book.

Anyways my opinion is you either go full tactical, or you go full game. I think the idea of a tactical game is stupid as it results in people dictating what your tactics should be. A lot of times I see an IDPA stage description and my response is along the line "I wouldn't put myself in the ******* situation to begin with."

rsa-otc

06-28-2013, 09:56 AM

Of the two really "top" guys I know who've stopped shooting IDPA, neither of them quit due to arbitrary rules. One quit because he felt like ROs at matches were constantly making bad calls against him just to screw with him. The other quit for what I'll simply call political reasons.

I shoot with a DM who definitely feels this way. I know Taran Butler has said in a Podcast after last years Nationals that he felt that way. Also he claimed he had overheard match staff saying they were going to show the USPSA shooters what for. After this years Carolina cup one of IDPA's top female shooters stated on Facebook that she had shot her last IDPA stage because of a bad cover call.

I don't know. Cover calls are hard to dispute and can be honestly blown by the RO or used by the RO to screw with the shooters.

As long as you have humans ROing the stages there are going to be disputes over cover calls. Until we have instant replay no matter how you rewrite the rules there will be hard feelings over cover calls, RO's are human and make mistakes.

orionz06

06-28-2013, 10:12 AM

The people on this forum are the exception. The typical new IDPA shooter shows up with a cheap gear.

The IDPA nationals equipment survey tells a different tale. Almost exclusively OWB holsters from Comp-tac and Blade-tech. And competition length guns dominate. Granted ESP guns don't go quite as far as Limited Division guns but even those aren't cheap.

It is basically a handheld light that doesn't interfere with your firing grip very much.

Competition length guns? 4-5" has been standard full size for how long? Calling the G34 a race gun is even a stretch. It has a trigger pull that the G26 you mention could have and the same sights and the same mag release and the same slide release... I generally consider finer optic sights to be game sights or rather not carry sights but people buy then because they are cheaper than night sights. Bob Vogels "gamer rig" would not be out of place on 90% of the guys that shoot Idpa around here as their EDC.

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 10:17 AM

jlw

06-28-2013, 10:18 AM

I shoot with a DM who definitely feels this way. I know Taran Butler has said in a Podcast after last years Nationals that he felt that way. Also he claimed he had overheard match staff saying they were going to show the USPSA shooters what for. After this years Carolina cup one of IDPA's top female shooters stated on Facebook that she had shot her last IDPA stage because of a bad cover call.

I don't know. Cover calls are hard to dispute and can be honestly blown by the RO or used by the RO to screw with the shooters.

As long as you have humans ROing the stages there are going to be disputes over cover calls. Until we have instant replay no matter how you rewrite the rules there will be hard feelings over cover calls, RO's are human and make mistakes.

There are some ROs who can attest to having made legitimate calls only to have a MD overrule in favor of the "top name" shooter just to keep from ticking of said shooter. It puts the ROs in a bad spot too.

I have also heard of one top shooter who was a DM in once division and when told that if he shot in another division he would be a MA got ticked and hasn't shot IDPA since. That may very well be an oversimplification of what transpired, but it is being told pretty consistently through a number of people supposedly in the know.

rob_s

06-28-2013, 10:20 AM

Rules that take the gaminess out of IDPA help me. However, I don't like the reloading rules because they simply don't make sense.

They don't make sense TO YOU, and it really doesn't matter. It's a rule. Deal with it to win, or ignore it because tactical.

That "because tactical" as an excuse for not winning gets really, really, old however. And this from someone who spouted that nonsense for YEARS as an excuse for not winning.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 10:31 AM

Anyways my opinion is you either go full tactical, or you go full game. I think the idea of a tactical game is stupid as it results in people dictating what your tactics should be. A lot of times I see an IDPA stage description and my response is along the line "I wouldn't put myself in the ******* situation to begin with."

Yet IDPA has satisfied tens of thousands of people by bridging the gap between "full game" (there's a game for that...) and "full tactical."

You're right, any time you start dictating "tactics" you'll get folks who can argue with the choice. For example, I despise "tactical sequence" (everyone gets shot once before anyone gets shot a second time). It's ridiculously unrealistic. But it's a rule. So when a COF calls for it, that's how I shoot it. It's just a different shooting challenge.

I've witnessed first hand how incorporating some generic tactical rules into a game can teach and benefit competitors. In KSTG, we have a rule against crowding cover. After just a few months, people who'd never had any formal tactical/"fighting" training were using cover without crowding. Now, it wouldn't take you or me ten seconds to come up with a hypothetical in which crowding cover was smart or even necessary. But it's a good general rule. That's all you can accomplish in a game. The alternative, "full game," means no use of cover whatsoever. That's not the kind of practice I want. It's not the kind of match that a lot of our competitors want. Ditto IDPA.

As for the equipment race:

Between a G26 and a G34, the difference is more about perception than actual performance given a typical IDPA match. I can show up with my gun, whatever it is, and feel like I'm giving up little (or nothing) to the guys with G34s. The same was true when I was shooting from behind the hip IWB. Was it costing me a fraction of a second? Maybe. But Dave Sevigny and Rob Leatham weren't bearing me because they had faster holsters.

Between a handheld flashlight and a WML or body-mounted light, though, the performance difference is substantial (as you keep saying). So now, to be even marginally competitive I have to invest in a light and a WML holster. This even though the vast majority of people aren't using WMLs, body lights, or bulky handhelds as part of their EDC gear.

The shooting challenge I had with a P229 was the same as the one Joe Schmoe was handling with his G34. Give him a WML while I'm stuck with a handheld, though, and we're no longer on any kind of even footing.

That is what makes WMLs, etc., an equipment race.

rob_s

06-28-2013, 10:34 AM

After this years Carolina cup one of IDPA's top female shooters stated on Facebook that she had shot her last IDPA stage because of a bad cover call.

I don't know who this was, and don't really care, but I've run many a sponsored shooter through a major match and they hang their kitten right on the ratty end of what is acceptable in terms of the cover rules. They are choosing to take that chance, and sometimes it bites them in the kitten. You plays the game you takes your chances.

Frankly, I would LOVE to see the people like that leave IDPA forever. At the Florida state match one year I was squadded next to the superstar squad, that contained two sponsored Glock shooters. One did nothing but kitten and moan all day, the other just took everything in stride and I never heard a cross word. IMO the one that spent all day whining probably should find another career.

jlw

06-28-2013, 10:40 AM

They don't make sense TO YOU, and it really doesn't matter. It's a rule. Deal with it to win, or ignore it because tactical.

That "because tactical" as an excuse for not winning gets really, really, old however. And this from someone who spouted that nonsense for YEARS as an excuse for not winning.

I don't win IDPA matches because I am not good enough to beat the competitors who do. "Because tactical" has nothing to do with my not winning IDPA matches. It is because other people play the IDPA game better than I do.

----

There is nothing that makes sense about not being able to reload an empty gun in the face of threats. There is nothing that makes sense about having a loaded gun and not being allowed to shoot at threats. Either way it isn't going to make a difference in my ability to lose matches to people who play the game better than I do. The reload rule isn't going to change the fact that I run slowly. Even when I ran five miles a day I still ran slowly. I could just run slowly for a long time. Now I can only run slowly for a short time, and I am not sure that running is even an accurate description of my faster than a walk gate.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 10:44 AM

I've seen this from every angle.

I've been the "sponsored guy" who got generous calls from ROs.
I've been the "sponsored guy" who got BS calls from ROs.

I've been an RO who made tough calls that ticked off sponsored shooters.
I've been an RO who made generous calls that benefited sponsored shooters.

I've watched and heard plenty of ROs at major matches say and do things that were absolutely meant to put sponsored shooters under an unfair microscope.
I've watched and heard plenty of ROs at major matches say and do things that were absolutely meant to give deference to sponsored shooters that the other competitors would never get.

I've seen plenty of sponsored shooters accept and even beg for generous calls they didn't deserve.
I've seen plenty of sponsored shooters get ticked off because they didn't like a perfectly reasonable call.

There's a reason we recently had a many-paged thread about establishing a cover rule for a pistol game. IDPA's approach is great except for when it's not. It's subjective and there will always be people who are unhappy about calls.

rsa-otc

06-28-2013, 10:47 AM

It's subjective and there will always be people who are unhappy about calls.

Amen brother!

rob_s

06-28-2013, 10:48 AM

The reload rule isn't going to change the fact that I run slowly. Even when I ran five miles a day I still ran slowly. I could just run slowly for a long time. Now I can only run slowly for a short time, and I am not sure that running is even an accurate description of my faster than a walk gate.

So the problem is you, not the rule, right? are you not just reaching for rationalization and justification to suit your shortcomings?

rob_s

06-28-2013, 10:50 AM

There's a reason we recently had a many-paged thread about establishing a cover rule for a pistol game. IDPA's approach is great except for when it's not. It's subjective and there will always be people who are unhappy about calls.

and there isn't anything, really, to be done about that. People that don't want to run the risk of a judgement call shouldn't run on the ragged edge, or should go take up golf.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 11:01 AM

So the problem is you, not the rule, right? are you not just reaching for rationalization and justification to suit your shortcomings?

I'm not sure that's fair. If someone really cannot sprint for some reason, the rule places him at a disadvantage. And when the justification behind the rule is because tactics that's harder to swallow. But someone who has mobility issues is always going to be at a disadvantage in any sport that involves moving from point to point.

and there isn't anything, really, to be done about that. People that don't want to run the risk of a judgement call shouldn't run on the ragged edge, or should go take up golf.

I wasn't there and didn't see the incident in question. As such, I wouldn't speculate as to whether it was a dicey call caused by someone pushing the boundaries, lousy sportsmanship on the part of the shooter who's blaming a simple call for a poor performance, or a biased call from a bad RO.

But again, that's the problem with the IDPA approach to cover. The competitor in question here might have gone to the very same exact edge as one of her peers but simply lost the benefit of a lucky call that another RO (or an RO standing a few inches left or right) may have granted. I'm not slamming the IDPA rule, but it does create an opportunity for ROs to influence the outcome. This certainly isn't the first time there's been the suggestion of impropriety.

Byron

06-28-2013, 11:07 AM

Anyways my opinion is you either go full tactical, or you go full game.
What would you consider "full tactical"? I'm genuinely curious to hear your vision of such an experience. I can't even imagine what could be called that.

Even the most aggressive FoF has rules and limitations.

jlw

06-28-2013, 11:13 AM

So the problem is you, not the rule, right? are you not just reaching for rationalization and justification to suit your shortcomings?

The rule is stupid in and of itself and has nothing to do with my performance in a match.

It has no bearing on my shortcomings. My shortcomings would still be alive an well even if partnered with a reloading rule that wasn't stupid. I run slowly. A rule concerning where I reload isn't going to change the fact that I run slowly. It isn't going to change where I finish in matches.

It's a stupidity issue and not a performance issue.

I'm not rationalizing anything. I fully understand why I lose, and it isn't because of the reloading rule be it the old stupid rule or the new stupid rule.

I can't type it any plainer than that. If you can't understand that my opinion is that the rule is stupid and my basis for that opinion has nothing to do my scores in a match then we simply have no ability to communicate with each other.

NEPAKevin

06-28-2013, 12:53 PM

After this years Carolina cup one of IDPA's top female shooters stated on Facebook that she had shot her last IDPA stage because of a bad cover call.

I have nothing for or against said shooter, but I'm told that there has been some curious back story to some of her social media commentary. (trying to keep it work safe here )

Mr_White

06-28-2013, 01:28 PM

Many interesting points have been made in this discussion and I don't see it getting resolved soon. :)

For me, I can't get away from the problem of subjective rules in IDPA. It doesn't seem like a competitive game can be fairly and consistently administrated when done this way.

I also can't get away from the reported practice of people showing up to an IDPA match and using significantly different gear than they carried to and from that match. How can this be characterized as “simulating self-defense scenarios and real life encounters”?

Most of all, I can't get away from the fact that I would have to use gamer gear (that is, gear I don't actually carry) instead of my actual carry gear to even be allowed to participate.

Instead, if you wanted, you could go back to the beginning.

Come shoot USPSA. Test yourself and your equipment, then innovate both and make them better, in keeping with the original spirit of IPSC.

Concealment is allowed in every division.

Want to shoot your stock gun with an AIWB holster? Limited or Limited-10.

Want to shoot your mini-RDS or laser-equipped carry gun, and be allowed to actually earn a score for the match? Open awaits you.

Want to be allowed :rolleyes: to use your duty gear at sanctioned matches? You'd probably fit in Production, Limited, or Limited-10.

Want to reload when and how you see fit and not be told you are wrong by an accumulation of penalties? USPSA is where it's at.

Want to use the most technically capable gun you can figure out how to carry? You can probably shoot it in Open or Limited.

Want to dispense with superficial pretense of tactics, and shoot the stage how it suits your own mind, without being told you are wrong and assigned penalties? In USPSA, if it's not specifically disallowed, then you can do it. Use the phony cover props however you want.

Yes, all those things will make the competition harder for you. So what? Enjoy the greater pressure to develop your skills and shoot well.

Grow a wicked mustache and come join the party. Not that kind of party you pervert! This kind:

http://www.ipsc.org/images/cconf.jpg

TheRoland

06-28-2013, 01:31 PM

I don't understand why "Accept the rule or find a new sport" are the two acceptable options. What's wrong with "continue to dislike the rule and advocate it be changed?"

VolGrad

06-28-2013, 01:51 PM

I don't understand why "Accept the rule or find a new sport" are the two acceptable options. What's wrong with "continue to dislike the rule and advocate it be changed?"
I can only speak for myself in response to your query. I don't think accepting the rule means one can't still advocate change. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. To me, and only speaking for me, I am just tired of hearing people kitten and moan about how this rule is stupid, that rule is too ambiguous, the other one is too/not enough tactical, etc. That's all they want to talk about everytime you bring up IDPA. That's all they want to talk about between stages. That's all they want to talk about when they paste the targets. It just makes for a long kitten day. I just want to go shoot and have a good time. I don't want all the drama. If I wanted that I'd stay at work all weekend. So to me the choices might could better be stated as, "Play by the rules without kittening non-stop or find a new sport."

Lots of us disagree with some of the rules. It's how we proceed that separates us.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 02:00 PM

For me, I can't get away from the problem of subjective rules in IDPA. It doesn't seem like a competitive game can be fairly and consistently administrated when done this way.

Which is why sports like gymnastics and diving have been removed from the Olympics. Hey wait a minute...

In all seriousness, making cover calls in IDPA is a lot like an umpire calling balls vs strikes. There is an objective guideline that has to be administered subjectively in real time at high speed while watching multiple things at once. Sometimes umpires make mistakes. The game goes on. Handling cover in a competitive environment is a really tough problem. IDPA has a way of doing it. Folks accept it, or they don't.

I also can't get away from the reported practice of people showing up to an IDPA match and using significantly different gear than they carried to and from that match. How can this be characterized as “simulating self-defense scenarios and real life encounters”?

The flipside of that is if you could somehow magically require people to wear their EDC gear, a bunch of folks wouldn't get to shoot and a bunch more would be stuck with BUGs in pocket holsters. The goal was to keep stage design relatively realistic and avoid unrealistically difficult shots or ridiculous round counts.

I think it's laudable for folks to shoot their exact carry setup in matches. I think it's even more laudable for people to change their EDC kit to reflect what they've learned at matches. But if you start trying to find a line between what people wear to a match vs what they carry on the street you're going to run into a subjective call far worse than the cover issue.

Most of all, I can't get away from the fact that I would have to use gamer gear (that is, gear I don't actually carry) instead of my actual carry gear to even be allowed to participate.

And I can't be competitive shooting USPSA if I use my actual carry gear (31 total rounds on board). I know quite a few guys who shied away from Production simply because of the number of mags they'd have to carry to play. Does that mean Production is bad or should change? No. Different rules, different sport, different shooters.

I was originally responding point by point to your USPSA comments, but instead I'll simply say this: if you'd rather shoot USPSA, shoot USPSA. No one here has ever said anything contrary to that. There's a reason why IDPA's founders created a new sport and a reason so many thousands of people flocked to it overnight.

Yes, all those things will make the competition harder for you. So what? Enjoy the greater pressure to develop your skills and shoot well.

Many of the things you point out as "legal" for USPSA would put the shooter at a pretty substantial competitive disadvantage. For example, I could just go and shoot stages until I ran out of my 31 bullets each time. I could use cover correctly and reload when it was smart to instead of when it was fastest. Etc. And my score would suck even more than it would otherwise and people would claim I was purposely shooting like that because I didn't want to be judged on my "real" shooting or whatever.

Also, as an aside, I'm curious as to whether USPSA will continue to allow aiwb if it starts to get more popular in that community.

Mr_White

06-28-2013, 02:24 PM

I was originally responding point by point to your USPSA comments, but instead I'll simply say this: if you'd rather shoot USPSA, shoot USPSA. No one here has ever said anything contrary to that. There's a reason why IDPA's founders created a new sport and a reason so many thousands of people flocked to it overnight.

....

Many of the things you point out as "legal" for USPSA would put the shooter at a pretty substantial competitive disadvantage. For example, I could just go and shoot stages until I ran out of my 31 bullets each time. I could use cover correctly and reload when it was smart to instead of when it was fastest. Etc. And my score would suck even more than it would otherwise and people would claim I was purposely shooting like that because I didn't want to be judged on my "real" shooting or whatever.

Also, as an aside, I'm curious as to whether USPSA will continue to allow aiwb if it starts to get more popular in that community.

I hear you. My post was in place of a far more lengthy point-by-point post in response to many specific posts in this thread.

My post was also largely directed at those, like jlw, who seem to feel 'homeless' with IDPA's prohibitions against various practical equipment such as legit duty gear, lasers, mini-RDS (for score anyway), etc. Yes, your score would suffer big time in the various divisional scenarios I described. But at least you could participate and earn a score instead of being disallowed. And while your score might not be good, you would not receive penalties. Plus if you are willing to hang in there, even attempting to be competitive in a seriously uphill circumstance like that can really help you improve.

Sometimes ROs almost flip their wig at my AIWB rig, ask which division I am shooting, then when I say Limited rather than Production, they calm right down and don't care anymore. If USPSA disallowed AIWB, I will be super mega pissed. I don't think it's going to happen though. Just keep BigDawgBeav in IDPA and away from USPSA! :)

ToddG

06-28-2013, 02:51 PM

Yes, your score would suffer big time in the various divisional scenarios I described. But at least you could participate and earn a score instead of being disallowed. And while your score might not be good, you would not receive penalties.

This raises an issue I've always had with the guys at the other end of the spectrum, the I'm too tactical for IDPA! types. If someone is more concerned about how he does things than his score, then his score -- posted or not posted, penalized or not penalized, whatever -- shouldn't matter.

That doesn't solve the issue here, though. Either I have to run non-EDC gear in IDPA (can't use aiwb even not-for-score) or I have to run non-EDC gear in USPSA (or I'll run out of bullets before the stage is over).

Plus if you are willing to hang in there, even attempting to be competitive in a seriously uphill circumstance like that can really help you improve.

I agree. And you could go run a marathon while wearing a 30# weight vest, too. :cool:

Sometimes ROs almost flip their wig at my AIWB rig, ask which division I am shooting, then when I say Limited rather than Production, they calm right down and don't care anymore. If USPSA disallowed AIWB, I will be super mega pissed. I don't think it's going to happen though.

I hope you're right. My experience shooting from concealment at USPSA matches has been mixed at best, and that was just running a standard behind the hip IWB.

Mr_White

06-28-2013, 02:58 PM

This raises an issue I've always had with the guys at the other end of the spectrum, the I'm too tactical for IDPA! types. If someone is more concerned about how he does things than his score, then his score -- posted or not posted, penalized or not penalized, whatever -- shouldn't matter.

That doesn't solve the issue here, though. Either I have to run non-EDC gear in IDPA (can't use aiwb even not-for-score) or I have to run non-EDC gear in USPSA (or I'll run out of bullets before the stage is over).

I agree. And you could go run a marathon while wearing a 30# weight vest, too. :cool:

I hope you're right. My experience shooting from concealment at USPSA matches has been mixed at best, and that was just running a standard behind the hip IWB.

There's no perfect fit for me in USPSA either, but Limited is the closest. Sounds like the least painful route for you might be shooting Limited Minor in USPSA and adding a couple of magazines. Not perfect, but maybe the least different from what you want to do.

I hate running. But yes, the weight vest is just my style if I did run.

My experience in USPSA has been really positive, but I have only shot it in my local and semi-local area. I know other places may not be so friendly, which is sad. At least theoretically, USPSA should put the clamp down on an offending club to follow the USPSA rules.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 03:09 PM

There's no perfect fit for me in USPSA either, but Limited is the closest. Sounds like the least painful route for you might be shooting Limited Minor in USPSA and adding a couple of magazines. Not perfect, but maybe the least different from what you want to do.

I'd probably shoot L10, minor. I've got a major mental block about the extra mag pouches, though.

But yes, the weight vest is just my style if I did run.

:cool:

My experience in USPSA has been really positive, but I have only shot it in my local and semi-local area. I know other places may not be so friendly, which is sad. At least theoretically, USPSA should put the clamp down on an offending club to follow the USPSA rules.

I'm with you 100%.

Mr_White

06-28-2013, 03:26 PM

I'd probably shoot L10, minor. I've got a major mental block about the extra mag pouches, though.

:cool:

I'm with you 100%.

Duh, L10, that does make lot more sense. I had a time warp for a moment there and was still thinking of your 17-round Glock mags for some reason...

I don't like extra mag pouches either, though I would find it less offensive than using a different holster.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 03:33 PM

The alternative, "full game," means no use of cover whatsoever. That's not the kind of practice I want. It's not the kind of match that a lot of our competitors want. Ditto IDPA.

Then I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. As I don't think any of the gun games really teach you tactics even general ones, because if you don't know the reasoning behind them, or when to use it vs not to use a technique it is worthless IMO.

This even though the vast majority of people aren't using WMLs, body lights, or bulky handhelds as part of their EDC gear.

The Tomahawk light I was talking is about the size of a typical flashlight. It is sort of a cross between the old school angle light and a one cell Surefire with a combat ring. So it isn't impractical.

And besides which if people realized how well WML dominate low light perhaps more would consider finding a way to carry it. Same with lasers, they don't enter mainstream because people don't train low light. Games like IDPA have a much bigger following than the amount of people that have had low light training, but it would be a start to get WML and lasers into the main stream. After all it look IPSC to move red dots into the main stream.

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 03:37 PM

What would you consider "full tactical"? I'm genuinely curious to hear your vision of such an experience. I can't even imagine what could be called that.

It would have to be a national match, it would need tactical in the name, and we would want to filter out some of the idiots so it would be by invitation only.

So I am thinking National Tactical Invitational. :p

But they had a good idea of a match, a mixture of live fire, and FoF training events. Yes it would never be a truly objective event, but then again neither is IDPA completely objective. But when dealing with roleplayers you actually have to use sound tactics.

Even the most aggressive FoF has rules and limitations.

True but typically those rules are safety rules.

ToddG

06-28-2013, 03:54 PM

I don't like extra mag pouches either, though I would find it less offensive than using a different holster.

Agree 100% on that. There are other things about USPSA that keep me from wanting to shoot it, while most of the things that kept me from wanting to shoot IDPA went away with the new rules... except, obviously, the aiwb thing. :cool:

\The Tomahawk light I was talking is about the size of a typical flashlight. It is sort of a cross between the old school angle light and a one cell Surefire with a combat ring. So it isn't impractical.

I'm quite familiar with it. Clyde Caceres, who I was dealing with since the late 90's when he was at Crimson Trace, was one of the major players behind it. Apart from being less concealable and far more expensive, they're great. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with them being legal for IDPA. But given that 99% of the people out there don't even know they exist I'm not too worried about the people who feel disenfranchised by their exclusion.

And besides which if people realized how well WML dominate low light perhaps more would consider finding a way to carry it.

I know a number of guys who are certified instructors for Surefire Institute and Strategos (which was started by the guy who started the original Surefire Institute). None of them carry a WML when they're carrying concealed. So I think it's a mistake to suggest that people don't realize the benefits of a WML... or the benefits of the alternatives thereto.

After all it look IPSC to move red dots into the main stream.

The military was using red dots before USPSA existed, actually. And they're still far, far from "mainstream" in terms of handguns.

So I am thinking National Tactical Invitational. :p

But they had a good idea of a match, a mixture of live fire, and FoF training events. Yes it would never be a truly objective event, but then again neither is IDPA completely objective. But when dealing with roleplayers you actually have to use sound tactics.

I used to shoot quite often with a guy who was part of the NTI crew. It had a ton of problems, most of them based on one man's concept of what was tactical (e.g., huge penalty for leaving ammo behind during a reload) and very uneven application of the FOF "tests." At an early NTI, Scott Warren famously handled a stage by sprinting from the start position to the end position faster than any of the role players were ready to react, meaning he got through the whole encounter without having to draw a gun... and he was told that was unacceptable. :rolleyes:

cclaxton

06-28-2013, 04:11 PM

I shoot with a DM who definitely feels this way. I know Taran Butler has said in a Podcast after last years Nationals that he felt that way. Also he claimed he had overheard match staff saying they were going to show the USPSA shooters what for. After this years Carolina cup one of IDPA's top female shooters stated on Facebook that she had shot her last IDPA stage because of a bad cover call.

I don't know. Cover calls are hard to dispute and can be honestly blown by the RO or used by the RO to screw with the shooters.

As long as you have humans ROing the stages there are going to be disputes over cover calls. Until we have instant replay no matter how you rewrite the rules there will be hard feelings over cover calls, RO's are human and make mistakes.

So, do umpires ever call strike when it was a ball, or visa versa?

It is a part of the game. Sometimes we have good days and get good calls, sometimes we don't. My main complaint actually is that SO's let people get away with rules violations because they want shooters to have a good time shooting the match. They tell you you cannot do X at the beginning and then I see someone clearly do X and don't get called on it...at a sanctioned match. But that could have been ME and I would be grateful. I could have received the cover call and the other guy didn't for the same foot position...it wasn't my day. If someone says they are not going to shoot IDPA because of a single bad cover call, then they need a break.
CC

PPGMD

06-28-2013, 04:29 PM

I'm quite familiar with it. Clyde Caceres, who I was dealing with since the late 90's when he was at Crimson Trace, was one of the major players behind it. Apart from being less concealable and far more expensive, they're great. And really, I wouldn't have a problem with them being legal for IDPA. But given that 99% of the people out there don't even know they exist I'm not too worried about the people who feel disenfranchised by their exclusion.

Yeah they aren't very common. I've played around with one for a little while, it is a really sound concept.

I know a number of guys who are certified instructors for Surefire Institute and Strategos (which was started by the guy who started the original Surefire Institute). None of them carry a WML when they're carrying concealed. So I think it's a mistake to suggest that people don't realize the benefits of a WML... or the benefits of the alternatives thereto.

How long ago was it? I've noticed an up tick of people concealed carrying WML now that there are better holsters, and smaller lights.

The military was using red dots before USPSA existed, actually. And they're still far, far from "mainstream" in terms of handguns.

I said IPSC not USPSA. It was the competition shooters that embraced the red dot with open arms (some say they were too open).

I used to shoot quite often with a guy who was part of the NTI crew. It had a ton of problems, most of them based on one man's concept of what was tactical (e.g., huge penalty for leaving ammo behind during a reload) and very uneven application of the FOF "tests." At an early NTI, Scott Warren famously handled a stage by sprinting from the start position to the end position faster than any of the role players were ready to react, meaning he got through the whole encounter without having to draw a gun... and he was told that was unacceptable. :rolleyes:

NTI has some issues, but that is to be expected when you are judging a subjective item. But as compared to IDPA they are closer to the "tactical" roots.