IDPA Rule Changes - Suggestions [Archive]

another okie

July 31, 2003, 12:22 PM

I sent my suggestion to them a little while back. Here it is:

IDPA
2232 CR 719
Berryville, AR 72616

re: rules on Vickers count

I would like to suggest some clarification of the terminology used in Vickers scoring. In the current rules it is a little unclear when the term “Vickers” is used whether this means both limited and unlimited Vickers, or just unlimited.

For example, on page 32, # 14, the term “Vickers” is used. This rule requires the pistol be loaded to full capacity in any Vickers stage. In the context of this rule it only makes sense if this means unlimited, since in fact many limited stages require downloading to six and reloading from slide lock. However, on page 24, the paragraph titled “Penalties for Vickers Count” only makes sense if Vickers is used to mean both. And on page 26, # 3, the term “standard Vickers Count” is used to mean unlimited.

This is not a theoretical issue. At one local club match I shot, there was a limited stage in which it would have been an advantage to have a slide lock reload after ten rounds rather than eleven. I was very unclear after reading the rules mentioned in the previous paragraph whether this was allowed.

I suggest using the terms “limited Vickers” and “unlimited Vickers” consistently, and using “Vickers count” as a generic term for both. “Standard Vickers” is a little unclear and does not describe what it means. Saying “unlimited” instead of “standard” makes explanation much easier for the SO.

A sentence in the rules could say something like this:

“In these rules when the term ‘Vickers count’ is used it means both limited and unlimited Vickers count.”

Correia

July 31, 2003, 02:30 PM

Add a BUG class. Instead of just having the occasional BUG stage, have a class for the Kel Tec P32s and snubbies that most folks actually carry.

Allow squating instead of requiring kneeling, both put you behind cover about equally. One is easier on old guy's knees, and in real life kneeling on some broken glass in a parking lot would really suck. :)

I like the idea of a class above Master. Not that I'm in any danger of breaking into it anytime soon. But it would seperate the super-duper professional shooters from the rest of us slugs.

Death to the reload with retention!

Clarify the rulebook. Good idea. Get somebody who is a professional writer to give it a good go over.

I also like the holster description vs. the approved holster list. I've seen plenty of odd ball holsters that work just fine for concealment.

Steve Smith

July 31, 2003, 03:21 PM

Part of my job is technical writing. I could do it, but I doubt IDPA would want to pay me for it.

Dr.Rob

July 31, 2003, 05:58 PM

BUG class would be a good idea, minimum power=centerfire, minimum rounds per mag=6, max 10. This way a shooter would still be competeitive (as are revolvers) but they might not knock down much steel.

I have a buddy that wants to do IDPA, but he wants to use his Makarov, everyone says OK, but they won't score him. I think that's a little silly.

July 31, 2003, 06:09 PM

I thought there was a BUG class?

The IDPA rulebook sounds like it was written by 9th graders with an attitude. It needs to be dealt with. It's embarrasing.

I agree that there has to be some sort of accomodation for people shooting their carry gun when it doesn't fit with the IDPA idea of an 'approved' carry gun. Same with the holsters.

- Gabe

GeneS

July 31, 2003, 10:11 PM

Clarify the Rule Book.
Allow 10mm in CDP.
Change penalty for Hit on Non-threat to 10 seconds.

ChristopherG

July 31, 2003, 10:19 PM

Allow moonclips as a modification, so I don't have to buy a whole 'nuther revolver (610/625) to make the grade.

Dr.Who

August 1, 2003, 01:11 AM

It would be nice to allow 7 and 8 shot revolvers to shoot to full capacity. As it is now, they can only shoot 6 and then must reload if they are used in a match. Maybe it should be different class like unlimited or included in the CDP category.

The LGB does need to be simplified and a better indexing system to find it after you have read it the first, second, third.... time.

faustulus

August 1, 2003, 02:12 AM

Get rid of the "get shot in the head while I fumble with this mag" reload. Let them drop.

Holsters should be like guns not on an individual basis.

As everyone has said, take out the "I'm more tactical than IPSC" in the rule book.

Allow 7&8 shot revolvers to load all the rounds but only shoot six.

hicap class.

Outlaw the phrase "in real life" any shooter can be dq just for saying it.

Have someone who speaks english as a first language rewrite the rulebook.

Bump up the round count. No one wants to drive 30 minutes to shoot 50-75 rounds.

More steel.

have one stage of every match a classifer. or at least have a way people have to take the classifier more than once.

Long dustcovers and bull barrels should be allowed.

Did I mention the 'tactical reload'?

Jim Watson

August 1, 2003, 09:16 AM

I agree the LGB needs rewriting for clarity. Supposedly a new edition is in the works but I am not optimistic about real improvements. About three years ago a professional tech manual writer between projects offered to redo the rulebook gratis. He was ignored.

Nobody likes the Tac Load, it is a demanding little exercise in sleight of hand and the "experts" who can't do it well say it isn't really tactically wise. OK, if the Tac Load is abolished and you are allowed to drop half loaded mags on the ground occasionally, are you going to WIN with all the time you save?

Lot of other good points made here. Some of them would help, some of them would turn IDPA into IPSC even faster than it is moving anyway.

PDshooter

August 1, 2003, 10:02 AM

That's easy..."Less rules":)

Steve Smith

August 1, 2003, 10:16 AM

As long as IDPA shooters continue to verbally and mentally seperate themselves from IPSC, IDPA will continue to be in a struggle with itself.

For instance (I'll grab Larry for this). Larry Correia, prove you are Larry Correia.

Easy enough. Right?

Larry Corriea, prove you are NOT Daffy Duck.

How does he prove THAT?

IDPA is (and has been since inception) trying to prove they aren't IPSC, when all along they should have focused on who THEY were.

August 1, 2003, 11:55 AM

In thinking about this, it would seem that the way to keep IDPA 'reliastic' is through stage design restrictions and restrictions on equipment, not through mandating that shooters do things that IDPA thinks are 'tactical' (the tacload is a prime example. 'Tactical Sequence' is another). The state-of-the-art in defensive training is constantly in flux and you can hardly find two trainers who agree on anything. IDPA needs to realize that it's strength is in presenting shooters with a forum that allows them to practice skills they have developed outside of IDPA that have practical validity, not in mandating that people shoot using the IDPA skillset or trying to dictate or teach people engagement scenarios. Stage design and equipment restrictions would seem to be the key.

Ultimately, though, it's up to the shooter to determine how they want to shoot the game. Shoot your carry rig and use the skills you have been taught or push the limit of the rules and compete. It's one or the other. You're never going to get rid of the split, so stop trying so hard that you piss people off. Emphasis needs to placed on attitude: IDPA can be venue for you to get trigger time under stress to practice your gunhandling and tactics you learned in class (but you will likely not place well), or you can compete on the scoreboard. These two attitudes are going to have to learn to get along or IDPA is always going to be arguing with itself.

- Gabe

Correia

August 1, 2003, 03:25 PM

Steve, I'm afraid I can't do that.

DUCK DODGERS IN THE TWENTY FOURTH AND A HALF CENTURY!!!!!!!

Dropping the tac load doesn't mean that new people are going to win. In fact the same people who win now will continue to do so. However many of us don't think the tac reload is a viable technique for whatever reason, and so we find it silly that it is presented as such.

I will agree that IDPA as an organization should not talk bad about its competitors. It makes the organization look bad. Now as an individual IDPA shooter I will make fun of IPSC until the cows come home. :p (I've never seen so many guys shooting in spandex bike shorts! Downright scary if you ask me) :D

Navy joe

August 1, 2003, 05:42 PM

I think if any rules need to be maintained it should be tac order and sequence, while not perfect they simulate the idea of dealing with the greater threat first.

Photog vests should be outlawed, what a joke! Everybody gripes about gamers and then shows up in a slicked up Royal Robbins vest. how many folks wear this daily?

Power factors need work, leave SSP as the minor class and penalize minor in the other classes. Differential target scoring is the way to go. Oh wait, that sound like IPSC. Anyone shoooting a .40 in ESP and making 130 Pf is not dealing with recoil. This is supposed to be defensive, how about 180 major, 135 minor?

As someone pointed out to me a RWR requires less hand travel and thus clock time than a tac load. Do we throw it out for being gamish or keep it because it's fast? How is it that I can't count to 10 and drop an empty mag on the deck while leaving one in the pipe?

The holster list seems like a punitive "who's IDPA mad at so we won't let their gear run list".

In the end big changes are not likely. As an IPSC guy I view the rules as a mental exercise to confuse my shooting. I memorize what I have to do and see how my mental focus works once that buzzing sound starts. It helps. I see a lot of the same folks I see at IPSC. I have a good time. I make fun of their silly rules only because I know they are going to SO for me and pay me back for all the rotten calls of "MEDIC" I made when Ro'ing for them. So in the end I come back to my mantra. Just shut up and shoot.
;)

ChristopherG

August 1, 2003, 06:35 PM

If you set the power floor at 135, you've just ruled out virtually all 38 specials, including +Ps. You really wanna do that?

Dr.Rob

August 1, 2003, 07:09 PM

IDPA is supposed to be set up for stock or nearly so guns. I think thats a good thing. (as opposed to needing a tricked out 16 shot race gun with hand loaded bullets barely popping out of the barrel... not that everyone in IPSC does this)

I've only had ONE "tactical order" discussion with an SO in three years. And I was right.

IDPA should allow holsters to be evaluated by an SO who says yay or nay. Give a guideline on what a holster should do, ie, completely cover the trigger guard, positively retain the weapon, etc.

From concealment should mean just that, though many of us have shot IDPA in a t-shirt with our holsters exposed. (is that gaming or being practical on a HOT day?)

The tac reload has gotten so much flak and frankly I don't understand it (the flak) why on earth would you leave a partially loaded mag on the ground (unless it malfunctioned?)

IDPA is a game, IPSC is a game. Hopefully at its best IDPA is supposed to be about learning something useful as opposed to 'winning.

Both can be fun.

Navy joe

August 1, 2003, 11:56 PM

Yeah, 135 is still well within the realm of 9mm +p. I carry some that well exceeds that. The point being that most people defensively carry the hottest thing they can and then come to play with wimp loads.

A grand poohbah class would be nice.

One classifier, get real. Oh wait, maybe IDPA finally figured out a way to make sure folks will practice.

444

August 2, 2003, 01:53 AM

"The tac reload has gotten so much flak and frankly I don't understand it (the flak) why on earth would you leave a partially loaded mag on the ground (unless it malfunctioned?)"

From what I understand, the argument against the tac load is this: It is an administrative proceedure. It isn't something that you do in the middle of a gun fight. If there is a lull in the gunfight, then OK, top off the gun and keep the mag, but when you have known targets and you are behind cover, this isn't the place for a tac load. If you do a speed load and have the opportunity, you can squat down and retrieve the mag. while keeping the gun and eyes on the danger area. Another side issue is that IDPA is supposed to be training for real life gun fights. Most real life gunfights don't involve huge round counts and multiple mag changes. However, IDPA wouldn't be fun if we neutrilized a single threat with a single shot or a hammer and the match was over. So, we have a higher round count to make it a match. Now in a real gunfight, I don't really think you would be making tac loads, I may be wrong, but I doubt that I would. I would be shooting until all known threats were down. This would almost certainly involve primarily reloading from slide lock.
I personally can see both sides of the argument. If it came down to me making a choice, I would forget the tac load. However, I am neither a gun fighter or a serious IDPA shooter.

faustulus

August 2, 2003, 04:13 AM

The tac reload REQUIRES you to stow a mag that is empty. That is stupid anyway you slice it.

Another problem IDPA has is many of the rules are too subjective. They rely on the range officer to make a judgement fall. (procedural for dumping rounds comes to mind.)

IDPA wants rules but doesn't want people to cut the rules too close. If you are shooting just to shoot why does it matter what the gamers do? For that matter IDPA is a answer in search of a question since anyone who wants to can 'shoot what they carry' in IPSC, lord knows I do.

I think it would really help if IDPA had a vision of what it wanted to be leading it instead of a vision of what not to be. As it stands now it is basically a game with a Bill Wilson class.

TEX

August 2, 2003, 05:02 AM

Many good suggestions. I was interested in what others thought about the rules and it seems my thinking is in the same realm. Changes I would suggest are...

No topping off, just start with 10 rounds and go. Saves time

No reloads with retention - allows gamers so shave time in a manner that is not tactically smart. Granted, the savings in time is very small.

Maybe keep tac reloads because they are good to practice, but I think a simple "reload as necessary" would do the trick all the same.

One simple rule for magazines. Any magazine or loading device left behind that still contained rounds, would snag a penalty.

Increase hits on non threats to 10 seconds

No holster list. Just a set of guidelines for holsters, one of which would be that it must take a certain amount of effort to remove the gun from the holster.

Full dust covers, bull barrels and heavier guide rods do not, IMHO, reduce recoil enough to make any real difference. Allow them.

Forget the one knee on the ground when shooting over cover, etc., just stick to 50% of your "A" zone behind cover. Keep it simple

Allow any sight that isn't optical or projects a beam of light. Again, keep it simple.

Keep tactical sequence and tactical order. They make pretty good tactical sense.

Allow moon clip modifications for revolvers.

Get rid of limited vickers count - gone - good bye

Encourage use of cover garments on targets.

Put Springfield XD back in SSP where it belongs

Re-write the rule book, trimming out all unnecessary rules, comments, etc.

Come up with a Logo that does not have a picture of a gun in it. Something I could have as a decal or patch that only other shooters would recognize.

August 3, 2003, 12:07 PM

Tex,No topping off, just start with 10 rounds and go. Saves timeBut saving time isn't the point.No reloads with retention - allows gamers so shave time in a manner that is not tactically smart. Granted, the savings in time is very small.Agreed, sort of. The RWR and Tacload on the clock are so silly that it's embarrasing. A high-speed tacload or RWR has zero utility (note the 'on the clock') Retaining spent mags and topping off your gun when you have no immediate threat is a good idea. Screwing around with complex mag changes while you are being shot at or hunted is just about as idiotic a thing to do as I can imagine. Perhaps for someone in a third-world combat zone with multiple aggressors it makes some sense, but for 99.999% of the shootings in America those saved rounds are not worth the effort or mental energy it takes to keep them. As I said above, if IDPA wants people to practice topping off their guns in a 'lull in the fight' (whatever that is), then spliut the stage into two strings and have the RWR/tacload in between them...off the clock.One simple rule for magazines. Any magazine or loading device left behind that still contained rounds, would snag a penalty.I disagree, see above.Increase hits on non threats to 10 secondsGood idea. The only bummer about that, however, is that you hit a non-threat just once and you're pretty much out of the match, competitively. On second thought, that's probably a good thing.No holster list. Just a set of guidelines for holsters, one of which would be that it must take a certain amount of effort to remove the gun from the holster. Sounds good, except for the 'effort' part. Unenforceable rules are trouble. I keep my carry holster pretty loose. It'll hold the gun in if you turn it upside down, but not if you give it a little shake. Is that bad? It's what I carry... The 'effort' rule would pretty much kill half the Uncle Mikes line right there.Keep tactical sequence and tactical order. They make pretty good tactical sense.Tactical order I can see keeping. Sequence is just the 'flavor-of-the-month' in gunfighting doctrine and not everyone agrees that it's a good idea. I'm of the opinion that anything that is at all arguable re: training doctrine should be removed from the rules. Create a 'realistic' environment through equipment restrictions and stage design and let people solve the problem with skills they learned elsewhere. Get out of the mindset that IDPA is 'teaching' anyone anything. Present an arena where the state-of-the-art in gunfighting training can get a little workout. A perfect set of IDPA rules would produce the result of the best gunfighting training concepts rising to the top of the pack and inferior concepts losing. How to get that result is the trick and, IMO, not possible with static targets. If IDPA was force-on-force simmunitions or something maybe it would be possible.Get rid of limited vickers count - gone - good byeLimited Vickers is only used for standards and skills tests now, so I don't see why it should be dumped. It's already verboten for scenario stages...Re-write the rule book, trimming out all unnecessary rules, comments, etc.Hear hear!Come up with a Logo that does not have a picture of a gun in it. Something I could have as a decal or patch that only other shooters would recognize.Why? I like the idea of emphasizing mindset over weaponry...but IDPA isn't using knives.

NavyJoe,Photog vests should be outlawed, what a joke! Everybody gripes about gamers and then shows up in a slicked up Royal Robbins vest. how many folks wear this daily?This is a good point. It's hard to just outlaw something, though. Plenty of people do use RR vests as cover garments...although I don't think as many as do when it comes to match day. ;) It's always funny to see someone complain about the 'gamers' when they themselves are shooting with one of those vests.

If you look at all the suggestions made in this thread (and the hundred others) it becomes clear, to me at least, that you are not going to be able to remove the 'game' aspects from the game. It is not going to happen and you are going to piss off enourmous numbers of people in the futile attempt to keep people from 'playing' this game. There is going to have to be room made for two sets of attitudes.

- Gabe

444

August 3, 2003, 01:02 PM

I agree; you will never be able to regulate any shooting sport enough to make it, not a game. There will always be people that push the rules and technicalities of the rules as far as they possibly can to get that little edge. But, by the same token, the second rule of gun fighting is to cheat. The bottom line is that you can make IDPA or any other shooting sport whatever you choose to make it. This is one point that I always bring up in IDPA or IPSC bashing threads. If you choose to make this a training exercise and an attempt to put your own technique to the test, then you have the opportunity. If instead you choose to do whatever it takes to win, even if it means violating the spirit of the game, then you can do that also. If you choose to use it for your personal training, it actually provides an additional challenge for you. If you ever had to use your pistol in a self defense situation, there are no rules. There is no attempt at a level playing field. Excuses are meaningless. At the end of a gunfight no one says, yeah he won, but he wasn't using realistic equipment; all that counts is who is alive when the smoke clears. So, get used to it. Accept it as a challenge and strive to beat the other participants no matter what. That is what it is supposed to be about.

faustulus

August 3, 2003, 09:28 PM

Get out of the mindset that IDPA is 'teaching' anyone anything. Present an arena where the state-of-the-art in gunfighting training can get a little workout. A perfect set of IDPA rules would produce the result of the best gunfighting training concepts rising to the top of the pack and inferior concepts losing.

Excellent point GRD.

Dr.Who

August 5, 2003, 07:32 PM

Some good points, now lets see if IDPA will see them and act on any of them.

Not saying I agree 100% with all, but good conversation....
:)

Sludge

August 6, 2003, 02:41 PM

Well, some have mentioned IDPA like it was training.. Its NOT training. Good tactics are punished in IDPA because good tactics arent clock friendly at times... IDPA is a GAME. The tac reload is part of the GAME. IDPA does reinforce weapon presentation from concealment, it does promote good gun handling skills, manipulation skills, muzzle control, and trigger control, and use of reasonable carry weapons. However, it doesnt teach tactics.

Some of ya mention power factors. Well I dont like downloaded ammo either. All I care about is making sure that the cheap Walmart special 100 round boxes of Winchester ammo can still play. Otherwise ya end up making the game more expensive for new shooters and less attractive. Lots of ppl, esp new shooters dont have reloading equipment to help keep the costs of this little game down.

As far as having higher round counts in stages. I dont think a high round count equals a good stage. The stage design is what trips my trigger. Have a few simple stages for the new shooters so they can do well. Have some challenging stages too. High round counts dont automatically make a stage good. Also, someone mentioned having the classifier stages ran. I think thats a good plan, but I would hate to have one stage out of EVERY match from the classifier. I like the idea, but I dont want it to be mandatory.

The holster debate. Yup the market is always ahead of the sport. Its gonna stay that way. Having clubs all over the country though means that you need some standard to keep everyone playing the same game. So, I support the holster list. Perhaps it needs to be a constantly updated thing, but everyone needs to be reading off of the same page. So, if I shoot at Oxford, NC or at the SC state championships.. the same equipment is going to be ok. If you drop the list and leave it up to the SO or MD, then your gonna lose the uniformity of the matches.

BUG gun categories? Sure im all for that.

The rule book? Yup it is poorly written. I agree it needs to be re-done.

The website? Yup it needs to be redone too. Perhaps add a forum and a chat room as well. That way ideas could flow through that place where it could gain the attention of IDPA instead of here where anything we say is just hot air. Although it would probably be ignored there as well.

Ulitmately WE the shooters, SOs, Match Directors, etc we are the ppl who make IDPA good or bad. Welcome those new shooters, share, inform, discuss, assist, ...

Attitude is everything.

444

August 6, 2003, 04:04 PM

"Its NOT training. Good tactics are punished in IDPA because good tactics arent clock friendly at times"

This of course only applies if you care about the clock. As I mentioned in my previous post you can use it to enhance your own training, or you can try to win. Obviously it is a game, and there are certain rules that must be followed; so you may be limited to the tactics you can use to some extent, but you can still use it as a legitimate training tool. For that matter, dry firing at home is a GREAT training tool. Some world class shooters actually think it is equal to or superior to live fire. There are very little tatics involved in dry firing at home; you are perfecting the basics and excellance is the basics, mastered. Every stage of an IDPA match is good training. You are working on your draw, your flash sight picture, your surprise trigger break, your magazine changes, shooting on the move, percision marksmanship in some cases. This is TRAINING.

August 6, 2003, 06:13 PM

Big difference between training and practice. IDPA is practice. If there were a teacher it would be training.

Semantics, really. I know what you mean.

- Gabe

444

August 7, 2003, 01:46 PM

The teacher is you. If you take shooting seriously, you have learned what you are supposed to be doing. You don't need a "teacher" to stand over your shoulder and tell you what you are doing wrong, you know; It is just a question of making those actions a part of your muscle memory. It will require thousands of repititions and you will get some of those under pressure in an IDPA match, along with dry practice, and your own training at your own range.
How do you know if you are progressing ? How do you know if this stuff is taking hold deep down in your subconscious ?
By testing yourself under pressure. And that pressure comes from shooting in competition. The pressure is provided by you. No one else really cares how you shoot but you. Again, if you take it seriously, you will be working against plenty of pressure.

August 7, 2003, 02:06 PM

Sure, but the point is that IDPA is not the teacher. The IDPA rule book is not (or shouldn't be) a 'how-to' guide for defensive shootings. IDPA is a forum where you can improve your skills, that you learned elsewhere, if you approach it with the proper mindset and eye towards refinement.

But to call IDPA 'training' implies that when you go to an IDPA match, you are learning how to handle a possible scenario, tactically. I think we both agree on this, it's just that I think the word 'practice' better describes what you described in your post above. The term 'training' implies a teacher imparting knowledge that you then have to 'practice' in order to master. IDPA should not get into the business of thinking it's teaching anyone anything, because it isn't, shouldn't and can't ever hope to do that with any success.

If people wish to learn how to handle themselves when it's do or die, an IDPA match is not the place to start. But it's a useful, accessible forum to practice what you've learned.

- Gabe

444

August 7, 2003, 03:09 PM

Ok, I agree with that 100%. I guess it is all just a question of terminology. I use the term training in several ways including me practicing techniques I have learned elsewhere, training myself in those techniques. Similar to someone talking about weight training or training for a triathalon or something to that effect.
I too consider doing something to find out what works and what doesn't work to be training, along with watching other people to see what they do that seems to work.

Grump

August 7, 2003, 10:31 PM

Quite a discussion!:D

In general, I'd like to see it get away from the CCW emphasis. Every match should have a stage that starts with either gun in hand or gun on table/etc. Read your after-action reports and you'll see how seldon anyone fires from the draw. It's usually either draw, yell/assess/etc. then shoot, or pick up gun when you know trouble is close.

The gun classes are SILLY and overly complex. Should be: Duty Revolver, up to 6 inches okay, nothing beyond trigger jobs, simple grips and aftermarket adjustable notch & post sights--load only 6 if it's a BigWheel Gun. Enhanced Revolver--7 & 8-round guns, FOUR-inch max barrel, ports okay (don't whine about unsafe blast in defensive settings because the risk is overrated and revolvers ALREADY have blast closer to the shooter), "Smython" barrel exchanges okay but nothing not factory-issue on something that's not a gamey bull barrel rig.

Stock Pistol--all calibers and action types okay. Same rule as Duty Revolver, but the load limit is 10+1. Score minor as less than 165 PF and have min PF of 125 as fired from the actual gun. Must fit in "the box".

Enhanced Pistol--all calibers and action types okay. Extended slide stops, safeties and mag releases limited to 1/8 inch/3mm longer & wider than stock as they exist today. Avoid the box-production racegun problem. Forget about outlawing dust covers, cone barrels (WHY did they do that???), Briley bushings and frame rail rods. If you really think the minimal accuracy edge will make a difference in fast 'n furious shooting, it's YOUR money. Keep a fairly tight weight limit, though.

quote:
---
No holster list. Just a set of guidelines for holsters, one of which would be that it must take a certain amount of effort to remove the gun from the holster.
---
Yes, go with characteristics AND the list. Racegun holsters evolved to fit an IPSC rule which was good and simple and testable and was never revised to prevent unpractical rigs that dump your gun when you sit down in a bucket seat. Meeting the Characteristics lets you shoot ONCE with RO permission before it's on the list. The list lets you outlaw the rigs that still don't meet the spirit.

Score major: a-b-c-d as -0, -1, -2, -3
Score minor aas -0, -1, -3, -4 Yeah, it's a hassle but differential scoring was always a good idea. See targets:

Targets: Use the Front Sight real average human, but with a six-inch A zone circle, the B zone as the head outside the A-zone rectangle, and the C zone as the remainder of the thoracic cavity. Finish the rest of the target with the D zone (it may go down closer to the navel than the Front Sight target). Simplifying/stylizing the shape is okay. IDPA and IPSC targets have you doing head shots at the NECK.:barf:

Limit RWR and TAC Reload to ONCE on the clock in any match. It's a skill, we might as well test it. Allow slidelocks and rounds left behind, but keep the dump rounds rule. You can tell. We're adults and we should be allowed to face the consequences of leaving our ammo behind.:neener:

I strongly agree with dumping the kneeling rules with a keep yourself behind concealment rule.

Allow a high-round count stage in every match. Fires in the plane's cabin are really rare among in-flight emergencies, but I STILL want the flight attendants to practice with the extinguisher. Having a master of the Heimlich ("most common"? like "most shootings"?) around is not the answer to all problems!

Limit to 2 spare mags/2 speedloaders. Do the rules allow you to have a stage with more shots than ammo? Sure, it's an equipment advantage, but why not make *disaster* a part of the competition??? Handle it tactically, friends!

faustulus

August 8, 2003, 02:02 AM

Grump,
some thoughts,
Bull barrels and extended frames are not about accuracy they are about speed. More weight, less recoil faster back on target. Some people believe in them some don't, I agree insomuch as it really doesn't matter.
After action reports are all well and good, but as you point out you don't pratice for he average you pratice for the worst. Of course it is only a game, and as such I pratice for the game.
I agree the gun classes need some work, but I like what they are trying to do. Otherwise you get IPSC were everyone shoots .40 in one .super in the other. I like to have a place where my 9mm can compete, just as I am sure people like to have a place their .45 can play.

Limit RWR and TAC Reload to ONCE on the clock in any match. It's a skill, we might as well test it.
Picking navel lint out of my navel is a skill -- but not a useful one.

Allow slidelocks and rounds left behind, but keep the dump rounds rule. You can tell. We're adults and we should be allowed to face the consequences of leaving our ammo behind.
I don't follow, do you mean to say they should allow speed reloads or not?

The things I like about IDPA are it allows me a place to use my 9mms which is pretty much all I have and it is a change of pace from IPSC all the time.

Grump

August 8, 2003, 01:02 PM

Can't dump rounds downrange to artifically force a speed reload. Getting rid of the rounds left behind penalty fixes that incentive anyway.

Andrew Wyatt

August 9, 2003, 02:04 AM

It's not a game. It's a skills test, and just as integral to your training as quizzes, finals, and mid terms are to academic persuits.

rock jock

August 9, 2003, 02:46 PM

Tac reload - dumb and dumber.

Sludge

August 10, 2003, 12:28 AM

sorry, been on vacation for a week... but when I said that IDPA wasnt training.. that real tactics arent clock friendly.. i was specifically thinking about use of cover

We hug cover.. bad idea
we dont fully pie stuff out like we should in real life
hell, everything is hard cover. We need to keep in mind that a wall in a house is NOT hard cover.. its concealment.

So in those respects its not training.. its actually adverse. However, its just a game.. we all need to keep in mind the little tactical flaws of the game and hopefully if the time ever comes we wont be so programed with those bad tactics that it will get us hurt.

Now in reguards to weapons presentation, index, flash sight picture, etc.. its a good practice tool.

faustulus

August 10, 2003, 02:24 AM

It's not a game. It's a skills test, and just as integral to your training as quizzes, finals, and mid terms are to academic persuits.
They keep score like a game. They hand out plaques to winners like a game. They have rules like a game. They call it 'competition' which sounds an awful lot like a game. Playing trivia pursuit can test my knowelge skills but it is still a game. Wheel of Fortune can test my vocabluary, but I think we can agree it is a game. Pool can guage my mathematical skills, but it is still a game.
I am not saying you won't take anything useful from IPDA or IPSC for that matter, but they are games, games that can be used to work on skill sets.

VaughnT

August 12, 2003, 10:59 AM

As a new shooter, let me add my two cents. I've not shot IPSC or anything but IDPA at one club, and that was only two times.

First, the IDPA website and rulebook are shameful. I don't know who these people are, but "professional" isn't a word I would use to describe them. I was taught in business classes that you should never undermine your competition because it makes you look bad, like a poor sport, and this has held true through my adult life. Talking sooo badly about IPSC only makes the writers of the rulebook look like brats that need a spanking (or maybe they're angry because the IPSC boys gave them said spanking). There's room in this world for all kinds and they should get over it.

At the matches I've shot, I was dismayed with this Reload w/ Retention jive. Every shooter, myself included, had to take time down to hunt a pocket to stick that magazine. I can understand your not wanting to leave possibly-needed rounds laying in the dirt behind you, but being forced to take time away from neutralizing a threat is assinine. It would be much better to hold that ejected magazine in your weak hand and continue to fire. Forcing someone to stow a mag in his pocket (what if he/she has tight pants on?) when there are still hostiles to be engaged is only asking for disaster because you are teaching them a bad habit.

Shooting out of Tactical Sequence is a tough call. I had to shoot one stage from gun-on-counter. 3 t's to the left and 3 t's to the right. Draw and engage the leftside hostiles tactically, reload and stick that partially empty mag in my pocket, and then engage the rightside hostiles however it pleased me.

So, I grab the gun and shoot T1 once, T2 once, and T3 twice before returning to T's 1 & 2 for a follow-up shot (boarding house rules). Then I have to dump the mag and freshen up before engaging T4,5,6.

The thing that bothered me was that T1 and T4 were on the same plane, only about a yard apart. There I was at the counter, like in a gas station, but was told to no focus on the closest threats, first. I was to hit them in the order given. Not tactically sound to leave an opponent standing that close to you.

Anyhow, I was penalized 3 secs because I didn't reload when they told me too. I shot straight through and reloaded when I had too, and I don't regret it. I might have to shoot them in your order, but....

Here's the bottom line as I see it. I'm a new shooter and able to take third/fourth place in a match with dozens of other shooters. That means I'm fairly good in terms of speed and accuracy.

What I want to do is focus on the particulars that make me a better shooter. Dry-fire is a must. I'm not going to buy another rig because I compete in my duty gear and it's more important to me to be good with that than it is to win the game.

Having said that, though, I can't see any reason for me not to take first place in the local match. The top shooters shot roughly in half the time I did, but they had a lot more points down than me. That tells me that all I have to do is work on my speed, cutting it in half, without sacrificing my accuracy. Not a problem....if Matt Burkett can shoot fast and accurate, ain't no reason I can't.

Really, folks, we need to have fun, but realize that the only competition is with ourselves. I did better this time, in terms of speed and accuracy, than I did my first match, and I don't doubt I'll do better next month.

August 12, 2003, 01:15 PM

Good post.

- Gabe

Andrew Wyatt

August 12, 2003, 03:02 PM

They keep score like a game. They hand out plaques to winners like a game. They have rules like a game. So does every standardized test i have ever taken. Does that mean every standardized test i've ever taken is a game? I'd hate to think i wasted all that time in classrooms.

Zeke Menuar

August 12, 2003, 03:31 PM

I think that the classifier should be abolished. Use the results of a person's first three matches to assign a skill rating. Perhaps a short one or two hour training session outside matches to allow match directors to access new shooters.
Make tac reloads optional at the discrection of the course designer.
Allow ported guns if they came that way from the factory. This rule would make most of Taurus's revovler line IDPA legal.
Allow Safariland comp-two speedloaders in revolver class. Last time I checked they were still illegal. If I am using them in the real world, I should be able to use them in a match.
Abolish the equipment lists entirely. Establish some loose guidelines about holsters and other gear, the idea being "can it be used on the street and is it being used on the street? Let the match director and/or the RO decide if your gear is legal.
I agree there are to many fussy rules in IDPA. Time to make it easier for folks to shoot rather than to have to translate a rule book.

ZM

Jim Watson

August 12, 2003, 04:46 PM

I sure am sorry to see promising new shooters like VaughnT start the rulebashing their first time out. But they have plenty of company.

I have a few observations:

1. I agree, the rulebook is terrible. We are expecting a new edition, but I am not holding my breath. In the meantime, do the best you can with what is there, and hope for a SO who knows his business. You can complain if you don't agree, but don't keep whining if you can't talk him around. That is known as sportsmanship.

2. Changes in the rules mentioned here like abolishing the dreaded Tactical Reload aren't likely to happen. Bill likes things the way they are.

3. If your pet changes were made, would they make so much difference that you would WIN?

4. If all the suggestions I see here and elsewhere were made - not including the ones that contradict each other, of course - you would mostly have IPSC. So why are you cluttering up IDPA?

5. If you are going to shoot IDPA, learn the rules, contrary as they are.
Zeke, I mean you. LGB, page 36 "All currently available speedloaders are approved." Tac loads are always optional at the discretion of the course designer (Except for the Classifier, and that is also here to stay.) If you volunteered to design, erect and run courses of fire, I bet your MD would be delighted, even if you never ever put in a tac load.

6. Club events have a good deal of discretion. I have never chronographed ammo or checked a brand of holster or done anything except to require a shooter to set his back far enough to meet the rule on position. I would allow a ported barrel, but only if that was the only remotely suitable gun the shooter owned.

Grump

August 12, 2003, 06:05 PM

Quotes:
_______
2. Changes in the rules mentioned here like abolishing the dreaded Tactical Reload aren't likely to happen. Bill likes things the way they are.
-----------

Yeah, so IDPA is really the Bill Wilson Club of Combat Shooting, eh?:rolleyes:
_______
3. If your pet changes were made, would they make so much difference that you would WIN?
--------
No, and that's NOT why I suggest a few rule changes that make it actually a bit closer to IPSC without the DropGun holsters. I'm reconsidering the major/minor thing--maybe score minor only on the D hits?

_______
4. If all the suggestions I see here and elsewhere were made - not including the ones that contradict each other, of course - you would mostly have IPSC. So why are you cluttering up IDPA?
-----------
Because we prefer to avoid those impractical holsters and the long comped guns and the optical sights and the stages that have you clearing out an enemy barracks (so THAT's why all the hostiles were horizontal and paired vertically! I've SEEN that one...)
________
6. Club events have a good deal of discretion. I have never chronographed ammo or checked a brand of holster or done anything except to require a shooter to set his back far enough to meet the rule on position. I would allow a ported barrel, but only if that was the only remotely suitable gun the shooter owned.
-------
And I applaud your approach.:)

Cooper had some valid criticisms of IPSC which mentioned finding the limits of human dexterity. The "test bed" rationale still makes sense in a broad way, and we may eventually have truly practical optics that don't dull your image brightness and leave you wishing for plain old irons. Comps have developed enough to be practical, IMO. The holster nonsense makes me think maybe no friction holster should ever be allowed (belt slides!!!) and snapped retention snaps should be mandatory---but some of those belt slides are still better than the snapouts they use in IPSC.:barf: :barf:

Until we can find a way to stop the clock while we are hiding behind concealment/cover and assessing our options, there will not be a way to factor in speed of shooting (necessary) without tempting gamers to trash tactics (getchakillt!). Maybe someday with advanced sensors, IR beams and other ways to sense when the shooter actually begins to slice the pie...maybe.

One thing about IDPA--KEEP the rule on failure to do right if you stand there blasting away at multiple threats without fighting your way to cover/concealment.:)

August 12, 2003, 06:26 PM

sure am sorry to see promising new shooters like VaughnT start the rulebashing their first time out. But they have plenty of company.Rulebashing? I don't think the rules for IDPA were written on tablets and handed to Moses on the mountaintop. Therefore, they are fair game for debate, discussion, criticism and good 'ol fashioned bitching and moaning. Nobody said they didn't have fun at IDPA matches. We're just thinking about the things that rub us the wrong way and if changed may increase:

1. Fun
2. Realism

Which I believe are two worthy goals.

1. I agree, the rulebook is terrible. We are expecting a new edition, but I am not holding my breath. In the meantime, do the best you can with what is there, and hope for a SO who knows his business. You can complain if you don't agree, but don't keep whining if you can't talk him around. That is known as sportsmanship.I must have missed where people said that they endlessly whine to the SO about the rules... I am an SO now, and I can tell you that it matters not what rule I personally agree with, I will not tolerate whining and I don't remember seeing anyone advocate such behavior here...2. Changes in the rules mentioned here like abolishing the dreaded Tactical Reload aren't likely to happen. Bill likes things the way they are. And that is a problem all it's own, isn't it. What a ridiculous standard for IDPA to have: "Because Bill said so." Talk about alienating.3. If your pet changes were made, would they make so much difference that you would WIN?I must have also missed the part where people were suggesting rules so they could start winning. Give folks a little credit.4. If all the suggestions I see here and elsewhere were made - not including the ones that contradict each other, of course - you would mostly have IPSC. So why are you cluttering up IDPA?Plenty of suggestions in this thread are geared towards increasing the differences between IDPA and IPSC. You must have missed those.

- Gabe

Jim Watson

August 12, 2003, 06:58 PM

Yeah, so IDPA is really the Bill Wilson Club of Combat Shooting, eh?

*Yes, we are playing in his yard. I know of no plans to democratize IDPA.
_______
Because we prefer to avoid those impractical holsters and the long comped guns and the optical sights and the stages that have you clearing out an enemy barracks

*Well, that's why IPSC put in Limited, then Limited 10, Production, and Revolver. Ever hear of those? Too many folks haven't, they sure don't show up in the magazine articles, not as photogenic. If they had started sooner, there might not BE an IDPA. But L-10 and Production are still the fastest growing Divisions in IDPA. And another frequent complaint of IDPA is low round count. People must WANT to clear the barracks.

The holster nonsense makes me think maybe no friction holster should ever be allowed (belt slides!!!) and snapped retention snaps should be mandatory---but some of those belt slides are still better than the snapouts they use in IPSC.

*I don't use straps or snaps anywhere, range, home, or street. I haven't dropped a gun yet. IPSC Standard, Modified, and Production have rules as to holster placement. USPSA does not. I have always wondered why American shooters can't go by the same rules as the rest of the world in this and several other areas. Why ARE there all those italics for US-only requirements in the rule book?

Until we can find a way to stop the clock while we are hiding behind concealment/cover and assessing our options, there will not be a way to factor in speed of shooting (necessary) without tempting gamers to trash tactics (getchakillt!). Maybe someday with advanced sensors, IR beams and other ways to sense when the shooter actually begins to slice the pie...maybe.

*The Polite Society is working on this. You are limited to a generous three second exposure from cover at any one time and location. But you can take a (brief) lull under cover, reload, regroup, remember where the remaining threat targets are, and shift to get at them. A custom shot timer that would remember multiple starts and times would be a big help, present units put a heavy load on SO and scorekeeper.

One thing about IDPA--KEEP the rule on failure to do right if you stand there blasting away at multiple threats without fighting your way to cover/concealment.

*I don't think I have EVER seen a FTDR for any reason, even when deserved. SOs are maybe chicken.

VaughnT

August 12, 2003, 11:26 PM

Please don't think that I'm "rulebashing" right out of the gate, folks. As a new shooter, I came to this sport trained somewhat in the tactics necessary to get you through a fight. I was trained to fire to slidelock and not count your shots. I was trained to drop an empty mag and forget about it. If a magazine was partially loaded, but had to be ejected, I was trained to hold it in the weak hand....stowing it away only if there was a lull in the action.

When I was told to stow a mag in my pocket in the middle of firing, it very nearly knocked me for a loop and I still can't find a logical reason for it. Every time I read about a "Reload with Retention" in a gunrag, the guy is holding it in his weak hand and continueing to fire. I never assumed the IDPA would do differently? Especially when 'defensive' is part of the name.

From my perspective, one I think is still unbiased, I can see a lot of weird things in the rulebook. For example, why do I have to use the thumbreak on my duty rig when nobody is being penalized for failure to use cover or slice the pie? SC is a right to carry state and covering garments should be mandatory on at least one stage per match just so you can get better at drawing as you carry. Not requiring an overshirt because "it's sooo hot" is just another way of gaming because these people are using open-topped rigs that give them the fastest draw possible short of a dropgun race outfit. You're slowing me down by forcing the thumbsnap issue, but you're not slowing them down by forcing the clothing issue. Patently unfair.

Again, though, I don't mind as this is how I carry and this is how I want to get good. If you want to cheat yourself with a false sense of ability, that's your choice.

On the issue of the rulebook itself, my problem is simply with the writing. Having written in a semi-professional capacity in the past, and studied the written word for personal enjoyment, it really burns me up to see bad grammar in an official document. My company's rulebook is full of run-on sentences, grammatical and typographical errors and redundancies that leave you literally shaking your head. It's more of a pet peave than anything else.

And if Bill Wilson is so proud of himself, I would remind him of that atrocity of a book he published on the 1911. He should be abjectly ashamed and seek to offer penance however he may. I can honestly say that I have never seen such poor craftsmanship from a man that claims excellent craftsmanship in another field. Stick with what you know.

But, after all is said and done, I'm having a lot of fun going to these matches. I hope to make the meet in Columbia on the 17th and am looking to take a Suarez class in Atlanta this October. If you've got to spend money on something, this is as good as anything else I've tried.

Jim Watson

August 13, 2003, 12:17 AM

I was trained to fire to slidelock and not count your shots.

*IDPA standard.

I was trained to drop an empty mag and forget about it.

*IDPA standard, IF the chamber is empty, see your previous point.

If a magazine was partially loaded, but had to be ejected, I was trained to hold it in the weak hand....stowing it away only if there was a lull in the action.

*Ah-HA. The IDPA concept of the tactical reload and retaining a partial magazine is that it is FOR the lull in the action and no other time.

When I was told to stow a mag in my pocket in the middle of firing, it very nearly knocked me for a loop and I still can't find a logical reason for it.

*The only excuse I can think of for a tactical reload on the clock "in the middle of firing" is to apply stress. It isn't a combat tactic, it is a skill test under pressure. Learn to do the sleight of hand and move on.

Every time I read about a "Reload with Retention" in a gunrag, the guy is holding it in his weak hand and continueing to fire. I never assumed the IDPA would do differently? Especially when 'defensive' is part of the name.

*The gunrags don't write our rules. Some of the writers might be qualified to recommend technique, but a lot of them are not.

*Further, I think retaining that magazine and a few rounds is more a military than a civilian issue. In combat you might be a long way from spare magazines and ammo, and shouldn't throw away bullets or drop mags in the mud. Early Glock magazines not dropping free was not an accident or an error. But if one of US has to defend himself against a crook, it is not likely to be a sustained firefight like the movies and he is going home in a squad car and his gun and ammo go to the evidence clerk, so the need is a lot less. But I still do it when called on, and say nothing about it.

From my perspective, one I think is still unbiased, I can see a lot of weird things in the rulebook. For example, why do I have to use the thumbreak on my duty rig when nobody is being penalized for failure to use cover or slice the pie?

*That is just plain WRONG, and you are within your rights to criticize it and feel screwed over. A call of "Cover" not followed by an immediate move behind cover, and failure to engage in Tactical Priority (LGB code for coptalk "slice the pie") are both Procedural Errors and should be penalized.

SC is a right to carry state and covering garments should be mandatory on at least one stage per match just so you can get better at drawing as you carry. Not requiring an overshirt because "it's sooo hot" is just another way of gaming because these people are using open-topped rigs that give them the fastest draw possible short of a dropgun race outfit. You're slowing me down by forcing the thumbsnap issue, but you're not slowing them down by forcing the clothing issue. Patently unfair.

*Correct again. I don't do that stuff and I don't let it go on my range. On the other hand, the only LEO who regularly shoots with us practices HARD and can get a gun out of a Level III faster than anybody I have seen and about as fast as an old fart like me can pull it from a concealment rig.

Again, though, I don't mind as this is how I carry and this is how I want to get good. If you want to cheat yourself with a false sense of ability, that's your choice.

*Not everybody is practicing their gunslinging at a match. Many are just hobbyists who see no connection between any form of competition and self defense. Others don't look like much, but anybody who can pull a gun out of a holster and fire it in the general direction of a threat is way ahead of the pack.

On the issue of the rulebook itself, my problem is simply with the writing. Having written in a semi-professional capacity in the past, and studied the written word for personal enjoyment, it really burns me up to see bad grammar in an official document. My company's rulebook is full of run-on sentences, grammatical and typographical errors and redundancies that leave you literally shaking your head. It's more of a pet peave than anything else.

*Agreed. And it need not be that way. About two or three years ago there was a technical manual writer who offered to rewrite the rulebook free gratis for nothing, just to scratch his itch. I don't think HQ even bothered to reply.

But, after all is said and done, I'm having a lot of fun going to these matches.

*There is one sure way to improvement of the conduct of IDPA short of rewriting the rules to try to suit everybody.... put in a year to learn the ropes and then offer to write, set up, and run a stage at your club's match.

*I gotta quit these debates. I am getting too depressed to write the match for Saturday.

*I'm done.

faustulus

August 13, 2003, 03:19 AM

So does every standardized test i have ever taken.
You got a plaque for placing first on a stadardized test? Boy did I go to the wrong school.

I sure am sorry to see promising new shooters like VaughnT start the rulebashing
So when we complain about CCW laws or gun control laws we are lawbashing?

Yeah, so IDPA is really the Bill Wilson Club of Combat Shooting, eh?
Spot on.

I don't think anyone is suggesting turning IDPA into IPSC, just changing some of the rules IPSC has right. As it stands now some of the rules are just in there because Bill Wilson is mad at IPSC. "No IPSC-style speed reloads" -- even if they are faster.
Besides IDPA brought a lot of the critisism on themselves. When you go around justifing your rules with lines like "in the real world" and such people are going to jump you when you don't follow your own logic.
Most people shoot and enjoy. They just see things that they think can be made better, I thought that was what made America great, the constant search for a better mouse trap.