New IDPA Rulebook being released today

[jlw]

I don't think IDPA wants to change that much

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

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

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

[ToddG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- CDP be based on power factor instead of caliber

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

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

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

All done.

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

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

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

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

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

[PPGMD]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jlw]

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

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

.....

I don't have a dog in this fight.

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

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

---

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

[ToddG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the 1911 isn't practical anymore?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jlw]

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

No thanks. KSTG doesn't allow duty gear.

[ToddG]

No thanks. KSTG doesn't allow duty gear.

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

[PPGMD]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ToddG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ugh I hate memory stages with a vengeance.

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

[rsa-otc]

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

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