New IDPA Rules

[CC556]

Glad to see this post. I was beginning to think it was just me.
My final moment was when an SO turned fired a shot 2 inches from his front foot, and the SO running him didn't notice.
I know it is different from club to club and state to state, but my local club is a for profit business and the rules are $ first.

Once I saw a SO give the "load and make ready" command to a shooter. He drew his pistol from his holster, loaded it, and reholstered it. So far so good. The SO moved behind the shooter to start him and noticed something in the guy's back pocket. He asks the shooter what's in his pocket. The shooter reaches back there and pulls a loaded pistol out of his pocket. This was on a cold range, with signs posted, and after being reminded during the safety briefing that we were on a cold range. The SO said something like "well, we'd better unload that" and then had the shooter unload the pistol and put it back in his pocket and let him continue with his stage.

[glocktogo]

I guess my question about the whole PF brouhaha would be this. If today's modern defensive ammunition relegates the performance differences between 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP to the statistical margin of error, then why worry about it at all? Since there are no perceptible advantages to the various action types (just look at who has won what major matches with which types of pistols), why the need for separate categories based on type?

Why not simply have 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP classes, with PF requirements that correspond to the weakest widely available commercial practice (not target) load, and shoot whatever fits in the box?

Emergency reloads while moving to cover and CoF design rules regarding the use of low/prone shooting positions are far more important. Personally, I see some stuff I like, some I don't and nothing that's a make or break for me.

Some will hate it simply for the sake of hating something. To each their own!

[Ty_B]

I guess my question about the whole PF brouhaha would be this. If today's modern defensive ammunition relegates the performance differences between 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP to the statistical margin of error, then why worry about it at all? Since there are no perceptible advantages to the various action types (just look at who has won what major matches with which types of pistols), why the need for separate categories based on type?

Why not simply have 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP classes, with PF requirements that correspond to the weakest widely available commercial practice (not target) load, and shoot whatever fits in the box?

Emergency reloads while moving to cover and CoF design rules regarding the use of low/prone shooting positions are far more important. Personally, I see some stuff I like, some I don't and nothing that's a make or break for me.

Some will hate it simply for the sake of hating something. To each their own!

Well, for that matter, since the 3 auto divisions are now so close, why have them at all? 1 second between SSP and CDP? Why? Assuming that's justified, that should be all that's ever needed to persuade a newer shooter away from a 1911.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe when it was started, CDP had the fastest times for classification? Of course, now it has the slowest.

My point is only that it's silly to have an arbitrary caliber for CDP when a PF would make a lot more sense, especially considering that the 1911 and .45 in general are no longer king of the hill. Why have a .45 only division? I'm not talking about when the sport was started, I'm talking about now, 2013, new rules and all.

They've been sending out emails for over a year about this Goddamn tiger team and the changes to the rules, and after all that fluff, it's basically the same as it was. I guess that's my biggest issue with this whole thing - all the hype and then nothing of substance.

[Alaskapopo]

I guess my question about the whole PF brouhaha would be this. If today's modern defensive ammunition relegates the performance differences between 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP to the statistical margin of error, then why worry about it at all? Since there are no perceptible advantages to the various action types (just look at who has won what major matches with which types of pistols), why the need for separate categories based on type?

Why not simply have 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP classes, with PF requirements that correspond to the weakest widely available commercial practice (not target) load, and shoot whatever fits in the box?

Emergency reloads while moving to cover and CoF design rules regarding the use of low/prone shooting positions are far more important. Personally, I see some stuff I like, some I don't and nothing that's a make or break for me.

Some will hate it simply for the sake of hating something. To each their own!

Sure how about a 357 sig class and a 10mm class and a 45 gap class. Sorry but that is silly especially when you get clubs where you only have 20 to 30 shooters total.
I would like to see two auto pistol classes. SSP pretty much the way it is except load the mags full. ESP allow red dots on the slide ports, weapon mounted lights, etc as long as it fits in the box. Make this a test bed carry gun divison. Then have revolver like it is with SSR and ESR.
Pat

[CleverNickname]

Sure how about a 357 sig class and a 10mm class and a 45 gap class. Sorry but that is silly especially when you get clubs where you only have 20 to 30 shooters total.
I would like to see two auto pistol classes. SSP pretty much the way it is except load the mags full. ESP allow red dots on the slide ports, weapon mounted lights, etc as long as it fits in the box. Make this a test bed carry gun divison. Then have revolver like it is with SSR and ESR.
Pat

If you add a light to most pistols, they'll still fit in the current IDPA box, but adding a red-dot while not changing the size of the box would mean that something like a Glock 26 with a red-dot would fit, but a Glock 17 with a red-dot wouldn't fit. That doesn't seem like a result that many people would want.

Allowing magazines with more than 10 rounds is problematic in that some jurisdictions don't allow such magazines, and with an 18-round limit for stages, many guns would never need to be reloaded during a stage. But I guess you could have a separate division for pistols with a 10-round per magazine limit. Maybe call it "Limited 10".

Also since a common complaint is that it's hard to judge whether a shooter is behind cover, IDPA could start using lines or sticks on the ground to determine where shooters can step. Also since magazines are so big, who cares if you leave a few rounds laying on the ground, so make it OK to drop loaded magazines. Also those fishing vests don't fool anybody, so remove the requirement to wear concealment.

[Alaskapopo]

If you add a light to most pistols, they'll still fit in the current IDPA box, but adding a red-dot while not changing the size of the box would mean that something like a Glock 26 with a red-dot would fit, but a Glock 17 with a red-dot wouldn't fit. That doesn't seem like a result that many people would want.

Allowing magazines with more than 10 rounds is problematic in that some jurisdictions don't allow such magazines, and with an 18-round limit for stages, many guns would never need to be reloaded during a stage. But I guess you could have a separate division for pistols with a 10-round per magazine limit. Maybe call it "Limited 10".

Also since a common complaint is that it's hard to judge whether a shooter is behind cover, IDPA could start using lines or sticks on the ground to determine where shooters can step. Also since magazines are so big, who cares if you leave a few rounds laying on the ground, so make it OK to drop loaded magazines. Also those fishing vests don't fool anybody, so remove the requirement to wear concealment.

Make the box bigger so long as the gun is concealed or in tactical class (new catagory) holstered in a military or police type duty rig. As for the 10 round rule too bad if you live in a state that does not allow it.
Pat

[theblackknight]

If you add a light to most pistols, they'll still fit in the current IDPA box, but adding a red-dot while not changing the size of the box would mean that something like a Glock 26 with a red-dot would fit, but a Glock 17 with a red-dot wouldn't fit. That doesn't seem like a result that many people would want.

Allowing magazines with more than 10 rounds is problematic in that some jurisdictions don't allow such magazines, and with an 18-round limit for stages, many guns would never need to be reloaded during a stage. But I guess you could have a separate division for pistols with a 10-round per magazine limit. Maybe call it "Limited 10".

Also since a common complaint is that it's hard to judge whether a shooter is behind cover, IDPA could start using lines or sticks on the ground to determine where shooters can step. Also since magazines are so big, who cares if you leave a few rounds laying on the ground, so make it OK to drop loaded magazines. Also those fishing vests don't fool anybody, so remove the requirement to wear concealment.

I've seen this somewhere.......

[glocktogo]

I think someone missed the irony.

[Moltke]

Remember who founded IDPA - OFWGs who wanted to be able to compete with their 1911's in 45, because they didn't make a 46.

There is an open comment period to the proposed rules, so hopefully they will listen and create a valid home for the .40 shooters. USPSA has major and minor power factors, but IDPA has no such distinction, putting someone at a disadvantage if they want to seriously compete with their .40 cal. This needs to be rectified somehow. Either they need to let the 40's compete in CDP, or they are going to have to change the scoring (reduce the .5 multiplier for major PF?)

This is coming from someone who shoots SSP/Production minor in 9mm exclusively.

If a shooter wants to compete with a .40, then compete with a .40.

[StrikerFired]

For me IDPA isn't about training (it isn't) or Tactics (again, it isn't) but about being able to shoot some different kinds of stages, and having fun "playing a game". That what it is, just a game. Just think about it in that frame of mind and don't try to over analyze it.