IDPA officially endorses multi gun

[rob_s]

how about no head shots outside x yardage wow talk about a nice happyland space.....


as for the weapon light issue thats BS on there part really please who many folks do you really think its going to help

Go to any sanctioned IDPA match and look for the guys with logos emplazoned all over themselves like a Tour de France rider.

It absolutely would become an issue, regardless of whether or not it would actually help 99% of the shooters trying to make use of it.

IDPA is a GAME. It is designed to be easy for a new shooter to enter and get involved in, and not scare/chase them off right out of the gate. Of course it has some silly rules, they had them in the base rules and now they have them in the multi-gun rules, but it works really, really well for what it is. IDPA was the gateway for me to training and everything else I do now, and without it I'd still be posting on barfcom arguing with the xtians in GD.

[p7fl]

Just reviewed the rules. I have some minor experience with a IDPA style rifle matches. IMHO they did a very good job. IDPA has at its core a push pull of guys who want to view the matches as tactical V those who want to shoot as competition.
The rules seem to allow for both. I also like how they set up the safety rules. Bagging and unpacking long guns is only obvious unless you have not seen it done at matches. And having someone sweep you with a loaded rifle that they thought was empty while transitioning is not fun.

All and all the success will be based on the stage designers skill in using the rules not the specifics of load or mag changes.

[rob_s]

All and all the success will be based on the stage designers skill in using the rules not the specifics of load or mag changes.

Strongly agree.

[bulbvivid]

Wonder why they excluded 5.45 and made 5.56 the minimum caliber?

Maybe because the majority of the ammo available (the surplus stuff) is steel core?

The safety aspect is exactly it. It is the primary reason that we do not take walk-ons at our matches, and why I wouldn't want to shoot in an open match that performed transitions and DID allow walk-ons. Without a way to vet people prior to the event, transitions become horribly dangerous in my experience. I've spent 3 hour blocks of training teaching people to do them and allowing them to practice them over and over again and STILL wound up with dangerous people.

Something happens when you put two guns in a persons' control that seems to cause an instant brain disconnect or a vapor lock in some people and they just turn into drooling, mouth-breathing, idiots. Transitions can be learned in one evening of live fire, and perfected in a few hours a week of dryfire practice in less than a month, but people don't do it and persist in being a danger to themselves and others.

To do it right in a competitive setting you have to start with downloaded rifle magazines and/or very intelligent stage design. You need them to run dry in exactly the right moment, give or take a target or two, and not before or after depending on the types of targets you use. Many of the transition stages we do are simple drills stages for exactly this reason where we do a head-to-head with 3 paper and three steel. Start with 6 rounds in the carbine, each paper gets two (the minimum number to neutralize a target in my scoring system), transition to handgun, drop the poppers. Last poppers are set to overlap, popper on the bottom is winner provided that all paper is neutralized. This is a big crowd pleaser, but once you get into setting up actual dynamic stages it can get much more complicated to force the transition where you want it.

My local club just recently started having monthly 3-gun matches, so I haven't shot very many yet. All of our transitions have been with the bolt locked back after starting with a downloaded magazine. I can certainly see where the utmost attention need be paid to stage design and how much more it puts on the ROs in ensuring safety.

I like much of what I read in the provisional rules for DMG, but I'm not quite ready to give up 100 yd. jungle run stages either.

[JSGlock34]

Having now read the proposed DMG rules, I agree that there is a solid foundation here. Nice work.

However, there were two items that leapt out at me (well, besides the aforementioned 5.45mm - but hopefully that's just an oversight...).

The first was that the Redi-Mag and magazine coupling devices (e.g. mag-cinch) are permitted in both Stock Service Gun (SSG) and Enhanced Service Gun (ESG). Having seen these devices used in matches, I think they are unbalancing and will appeal strongly to the gamer crowd. Furthermore, allowing them in SSG seems contrary to the philosophy of that particular Division, as I've never seen a 'Redi-Mag' on any 'stock' rifle that you could buy off the shelf.

IDPA was always against 'must have' modifications in order to remain competitive. It seems that a Redi-Mag could become required in order to compete effectively. The various mag coupling products would also likely see use - the price point is lower and the competition environment would not pose any of the drawbacks that these devices encounter in the field. They certainly shouldn't be in SSG, and I'd prefer not to see them altogether.

My remaining concern is the philosophy behind the prohibition on transitions using the sling. Here's the quote from the rulebook.

Slings and Transitioning
Much thought has gone into the idea of permitting shooters to transition from long gun to handgun by the use of a sling, and of transitioning from hand gun to long gun by the use of a sling. We decided not to permit this for two reasons. First, there are safety issues with handling loaded long guns while slung. Second, we believed that an arms race would ensue over getting the “right” kind of sling for IDPA DMG gun use. Since the typical Home Defense scenario will involve the immediate and rapid deployment of the arm, IDPA feels that few scenarios would exist that would have the time required to for the shooter to loop up into a “tactical” type sling. (PP33)

Rob has already commented on the safety issue, but the remainder of the above argument is weak. An "arms race" over the right sling seems a minor thing (and I'm surprised that this is a concern but that a Redi-Mag race isn't, but I digress...). The Home Defense argument is poor - we acknowledge that this is a game. We've already suspended our disbelief to the point that our intrepid home owner is wearing a pistol, two pistols magazines and two rifle magazines on his belt when something goes bump in the night...properly slinging his weapon seems a minor point.

However, I'm also concerned that the transition rules are actually enforcing bad habits. The best sling in DMG may be no sling at all, particularly if the stages require you to ground the weapon on the clock. Or if you have a sling, not using it.

I'd prefer to see DMG rules that encourage proper use of the sling. I think Rob_S has captured a lot of the problems that allowing transitions can introduce. But his solution is sound - a course of fire that includes a long gun to handgun transition must be done with an empty long gun. No exceptions. Failure to shoot the long gun empty prior to transition is a safety violation and a DQ, just like grounding a loaded weapon. This puts the onus on the match designer to craft a safe and effective transition stage.

Again, I'd just like the rules to reinforce good habits, not introduce bad ones. I'm happy to see multi-gun matches based off the IDPA rules, and I think the rulebook is a fine place to start.

[rob_s]

I agree with you that the potential is there to reinforce bad habits. I also agree that their arms race argument is just wholly stupid when it comes to this issue.

As a COF designer under these rules I would never design a stage that required a transition from long-gun to handgun because as a serious-minded shooter I would not want to be forced to ground the long gun. This is part of what p7fl brought up above about the rules being a framework and it's the COF designers that make the matches. I would, and do, however design "fight your way to the carbine" and "found gun" stages where the shooter begins with the handgun, engages on the move to a fixed position, and retrieves the rifle from said fixed position to remain there and finish clearing out the stage. In this way the shooter would do in the stage what they very likely would do in real life: ditch the inoperable gun in favor of the bigger and better tool.

I also agree that coupled mags and Redimags have no place in the most basic "stock" division. I do, however, think that limiting the use of the optics to carbines only and not shotguns is silly.

[epete]

I think IDPA would do well to allow hi-cap mags where allowed by law, and perhaps even institute a compact gun division with a smaller magazine limit to cater to the G26 crowd.

I shoot at a club that borders Massachusetts. We get a good number of them at our matches. Having local law supersede IDPA rules could put out-of-staters at a severe disadvantage.

[Arclight]

Again, I'd just like the rules to reinforce good habits, not introduce bad ones. I'm happy to see multi-gun matches based off the IDPA rules, and I think the rulebook is a fine place to start.

I very much agree with this mentality. The rules as written make for a great sounding game. With a few minor tweaks (including standard, proven calibers such as 5.45, removing unbalancing and largely game-only gear like mag couplers and allowing slings under sensible circumstances*), we can achieve a high skills and realism standard in keeping with the spirit of IDPA and have a lot of fun doing it!

*Sensible circumstances likely best defined as: You can only sling and transition from an empty or "broken" long-gun, just as you would in a "reasonably likely" real-life scenario. To remove slung transitions from rifle work removes a core skill. In the defensive/tactical world, sling is to rifle what holster is to pistol. We should be encouraging proper sling use, not making it a liability. The rules should allow for that at the MDs discretion, at a minimum.

[rob_s]

The rules don't make it a liability, the shooters do. It's one thing to say "the gun must be empty or malfunctioning", it's quite another to get them to actually do it.

[LHS]

I am on the fence the more I think about it. Mag changes are very important, so there are two ways to do it, allow full capacity and require reloads, or limit to 10 and control where they reload in the same manner. It is really tough to say, and the more I consider it, the less I am concerned with it.

There are plenty of stages that require down-loaded mags. But if IDPA is going to be about realistic defensive shooting, then it makes sense to use all the real-life advantages. Back when the AWB was in place, I carried my 1911 more than my Beretta, because I couldn't afford hi-cap mags, and 8+1 of .45 seemed better than 10+1 of 9mm. Now that I have hi-cap mags for the Beretta, the 1911 has been relegated to a safe queen, because I can carry 15+1 or 20+1. That's a real advantage, not a gaming gimmick. If you have to reload more often, you're putting yourself at a real tactical disadvantage, not just a gaming disadvantage.

Similarly, I have CT lasergrips on both my primary and BUG carry guns. Shouldn't a 'defensive' sport allow for them? Yes, they're a major advantage in night-shoot stages, but guess what? They're a major advantage in low-light defensive shootings too.

IPSC went nuts because the gear was tailored to the game, rather than real life. IDPA is losing its luster for me because the gear is stagnant, and isn't evolving with technology. I love the requirement for concealment rigs as opposed to silly USPSA game holsters/belts/pouches. But if we're going to make it realistic, let's allow the use of emerging technologies once those technologies are field-proven and in common use. Hi-cap mags and lasers are both, and micro-red-dots will be there soon.