New IDPA Rules

[AKDoug]

IDPA's divisions are what keep me away. Keeping guns like PPQ's and XDm's out of SSP is retarded.

Adopt USPSA's production class.

It's an old argument, I know..

[HuttoAg96]

I don't know about the PPQ, but the proposed changes removed the SSP restriction which lumped the xD and XDm into ESP. I suspect that the PPQ probably now qualifies as well. Round dumping has no mention in the new rules, either.

I have no problem with frame stippling putting a gun into ESP personally.

There are douchebag SOs/ROs in every sport.

[Ty_B]

IDPA's divisions are what keep me away. Keeping guns like PPQ's and XDm's out of SSP is retarded.

Adopt USPSA's production class.

It's an old argument, I know..

In addition to what Hutto said, the classification for SSP and ESP are so close now it almost doesn't make any difference.

I kind of agree with the general consensus. My plan is to make master at the next classifier, and when I do, I'll need to decide whether or not to go to more USPSA and fewer IDPA matches. Obviously, doing well there requires a lot more practice and commitment.

I was hoping for some of the Vickers/Hackathorn suggestions, like higher PFs. Granted, I load to the current PFs, but the PF system seems to run contrary to what they say the goal is for most of the other rules. If I can't stipple the frame, why can I use powder puff loads?

More than anything, I wanted .40 165 PF CDP.

[HuttoAg96]

More than anything, I wanted .40 165 PF CDP.

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.

[RSA-OTC]

IDPA is a game, ran in many cases by people whose only exposure to "TACTICS" is IDPA. The folks who first helped form the sport, Vickers, Hackenthone, Cirillo & Rauch had a handle on tactics of the day. Our understanding of tactics is fluid, evolves and definitely not set in stone. Something that a game with rules to establish fairness and competitiveness can't adequately handle. Much of what was "Solid tactics" when I first was certified as a NRA Police Firearms Instructor in 1979 is considered foolish & dangerous today.

Quite frankly my two biggest complaints about IDPA were not being able to start an emergency reload when moving to cover & tactical sequence. One is now taken care of and one isn't. Am I going to stop playing the sport because of this, nope. Not like some of the primadonnas I happen to shoot with who are going to stop shooting IDPA because they didn't allow 40 major in CDP. IDPA is locally available and gives me a time to practice my gun handling skills while under some modicum of pressure. My feeling has always been if I am really against something because I think it is just wrong I'll take the procedural rather than do it. It's not like I'm going to compete for a National Championship. Is it training NO; is it better practice than standing in a booth at a public range, in many cases YES.

Frankly I'm more bothered by the safety implications of their new Finger On the Trigger penalty/rule & the almost break the muzzle safe points penalties than any of this tacticool stuff.

[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.

[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.