The final version of the IDPA rule book posted.

[ToddG]

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]

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]

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]

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.

RDS is now specifically allowed at local matches if you don't mind shooting without score.

AIWB is now specifically banned even at local matches, which sucks. But it's their game and their rules.

I don't think simply having tighter scoring is enough to separate the two games.

[VolGrad]

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]

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.

[VolGrad]

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]

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]

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.

[VolGrad]

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.