Alternate IDPA Classifier

Status
Not open for further replies.
johnmcl

johnmcl

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
2,061
Location
Northern VA
Hi all,

Well this is a development. The Big Brains at IDPA HQ have published an alternate classifier over the weekend. This protocol is shot in four strings, taking 25 rounds. From my testing with self taping and self-scoring, it was about five minutes to do. The standard Classifier takes 72 rounds and about 20 minutes to run.

I'm not sure what to think of it yet, but it is novel.

http://www.idpa.com/compete/stagedetails/38
 
Interesting. Looks simpler. The third string will be a mild pain for those of us still shooting the noble round gun. Going to have to make sure that empty chamber is under the hammer when we close up.

If they keep adding a few more "alternate classifiers" we can just call them classifiers and the sport takes another another step close to coming back home to USPSA... :p
 
Hmmm. I've never fooled with IDPA, but I have wondered where I would classify in it. What are the demarkation times for each of the classifications?
 
Ah, scrolling in the window-within-a-window. Brilliant web page design.

May have to try this next time I'm at a suitable range. Will need to scrounge an IDPA target, though... all mine are USPSA.
 
What do I look like, Euclid of Alexandria? I ain't about drawing circles on things, bruh.
 
mcb said:
If they keep adding a few more "alternate classifiers" we can just call them classifiers
Click to expand...
There was quite a bit of research that went into this one to insure that the times were representative of skill levels.

The 5X5 allows a MD, should they chose to, to quickly get folks Classified who don't have current Classifications for Sanctioned matches. It also broadens the number of ranges that can run a Classifier, but don't have 20 yards available
 
9mmepiphany said:
There was quite a bit of research that went into this one to insure that the times were representative of skill levels.

The 5X5 allows a MD, should they chose to, to quickly get folks Classified who don't have current Classifications for Sanctioned matches. It also broadens the number of ranges that can run a Classifier, but don't have 20 yards available
Click to expand...

I understand and think it will do that nicely.

It's that IDPA has always used a single classifier system to avoid being like USPSA with is book of many many classifier stages. I was poking fun, if they keep adding "alternate classifiers" they are becoming more like the sport they broke away from for that among many other reasons.

I like and shoot both sports if it matters.
 
mcb said:
they are becoming more like the sport they broke away from for that among many other reasons.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, I've spoken with folks who were there at the beginning and their recollection was that IDPA was conceived as a "feeder system" (less expensive) for USPSA...besides the marketing angle
 
My understanding of the real difference in outcomes of the IDPA and USPSA classification systems is that IDPA devotes more of its resolution to distinguishing the gradations on the spectrum between the sucky and the decent shooters, leaving everyone who is pretty good lumped together at the M level; UPSA, on the other hand, devotes most of its resolution to breaking out the pretty good to great shooters, leaving the whole sucky-to-decent spectrum split up into just D&C (and maybe the bottom of B).

The USPSA system is very odd, what with all the rules about what counts and what doesn't count and scoring based on HHF percentage rather than population percentile.... but, in the end, with all the offsetting kludges and too-hard and too-easy HF's, it generally seems to spit out classifications that are reasonably predictive of how people do in matches. It's like a crazy Rube Goldberg machine that doesn't work on paper, but somehow accidentally makes the toast and coffee every morning.
 
9mmepiphany said:
Interestingly, I've spoken with folks who were there at the beginning and their recollection was that IDPA was conceived as a "feeder system" (less expensive) for USPSA...besides the marketing angle
Click to expand...

I didn't get into USPSA until 2005 and IDPA a few year later and most of the competitors from both sports I have talked to always reference the "equipment race" and the lack of rules related to the use of cover and realistic stages as the causes of IDPA spinning off to become more true to the roots that created USPSA. That said only a few of those guys pre-date IDPA's inception.
 
The "equipment race" angle probably made a lot of sense during the time frame when IPSC/USPSA went, in just a few years, from 45 1911's to 38 super 1911's to compensated iron-sights 38 super 1911's to optic-sighted 28 super 1911's to optic-sighted double stack 38 super 2011's being the optimal competition gun. For guys who were trying to keep up, and were buying custom guns every time the "winning formula" changed, they probably went through $20+k in the space of 10 years, if that long. I understand wanting to pull your hair out over that (even if it was the experimental nature of the sport truly driving innovation and/or realization of what actually works/helps).

Despite some echoes of these complaints in USPSA production class (plastic gun afficianados complaining about the CZ/Tanfo guns being too race-gun-ie and too expensive), the gear race hasn't really been a thing in USPSA for a long time. If you come into a division and buy the gear for that division, you can probably wear that gear out before you need to replace it with some new hotness. The only exception in recent-ish times, I think, would be USPSA changing the rules on revolvers and instantly obsoleting 625's in favor of the 8-shooters (which were previously barred). But that wasn't really an "equipment race" as such.
 
ATLDave said:
The "equipment race" angle probably made a lot of sense during the time frame when IPSC/USPSA went, in just a few years, from 45 1911's to 38 super 1911's to compensated iron-sights 38 super 1911's to optic-sighted 28 super 1911's to optic-sighted double stack 38 super 2011's being the optimal competition gun. For guys who were trying to keep up, and were buying custom guns every time the "winning formula" changed, they probably went through $20+k in the space of 10 years, if that long. I understand wanting to pull your hair out over that (even if it was the experimental nature of the sport truly driving innovation and/or realization of what actually works/helps).

Despite some echoes of these complaints in USPSA production class (plastic gun afficianados complaining about the CZ/Tanfo guns being too race-gun-ie and too expensive), the gear race hasn't really been a thing in USPSA for a long time. If you come into a division and buy the gear for that division, you can probably wear that gear out before you need to replace it with some new hotness. The only exception in recent-ish times, I think, would be USPSA changing the rules on revolvers and instantly obsoleting 625's in favor of the 8-shooters (which were previously barred). But that wasn't really an "equipment race" as such.
Click to expand...

That whole USPSA revolver thing dinged me I had finally upgraded my old 610 to a 625 and did not make it two full seasons with it before the rule change sent me digging for a 627 and now revolver is mostly, nearly a major, 929s. Glad I can still shoot my old model 10 in IDPA... :D

Personally the changes in the last revision of IDPA made it much better IMHO. I enjoy IDPA more than I ever have. Despite poking some fun at it I think this new smaller "alternate classifier" is another step in the right direction for the sport.
 
I just picked up a used 625-3 that I'm pretty sure was once someone's gamer gun... I'm enjoying it. I love that it doesn't care at all about bullet nose profiles, including the SWC's that my 1911 always struggled to digest. It's like a garbage disposal - just throw the rounds in there, rotate them a bit, and they're gone!

Since I'm the MD of a small weekly match, I think I'll build some 6-shot friendly stages from time to time and try my hand at it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcb
ATLDave said:
The USPSA system is very odd, what with all the rules about what counts and what doesn't count and scoring based on HHF percentage rather than population percentile
Click to expand...
Imagine what it was like figuring HF before calculators became common

[QUOTEFor guys who were trying to keep up, and were buying custom guns every time the "winning formula" changed][/QUOTE]
The problem is that gunsmiths could keep up either...remember that there were no "off the shelf" parts back then...and by the time they finished a customer's gun, it was obsolete. That is a reason Wilson was a big mover in forming IDPA, and why the rules still cater to his offerings, he couldn't sell the guns that were his mainstream offerings.

the gear race hasn't really been a thing in USPSA for a long time. If you come into a division and buy the gear for that division, you can probably wear that gear out before you need to replace it with some new hotness.
Click to expand...
This has mostly been because of the stability of the rules. The manufacturers/competitors have figured out what it takes to win and just buy it for whichever class they want to compete in

(plastic gun afficianados complaining about the CZ/Tanfo guns being too race-gun-ie and too expensive)
Click to expand...
I giggle because that was what the 1911 guys were saying the first time the Tanfo guns took over USPSA...well, unless they were blowing up
 
mcb said:
sent me digging for a 627 and now revolver is mostly, nearly a major, 929s. Glad I can still shoot my old model 10 in IDPA... :D
Click to expand...
I'm at that crossroads now. Trying to decide between the 627 or the 929...or getting a 929 and rechambering it to 356 TSW.

Hey, the IDPA Nationals will be down you way this year
 
9mmepiphany said:
I'm at that crossroads now. Trying to decide between the 627 or the 929...or getting a 929 and rechambering it to 356 TSW.

Hey, the IDPA Nationals will be down you way this year
Click to expand...

If I could start over I would go 929 over the 627. The moonclips for a 929 are so much more robust (.035" vs .025" thick) and less finicky about brass than 38/357 moonclip used with 38 Short Colt brass. For that reason alone I would go with the 929. Not to mention brass is easy to get cheap.

Cool the IDPA nationals are close to home. I did the USPSA Revolver Nationals in 2014. I might have to go down for the IDPA Nationals. I bet I could manage to not embarrass myself if I start practicing real hard right now.
 
9mmepiphany said:
That is a reason Wilson was a big mover in forming IDPA, and why the rules still cater to his offerings, he couldn't sell the guns that were his mainstream offerings.
Click to expand...

I see very few Wilsons or other multi-kilobuck pistols at IDPA hereabouts.
Consider the numerous Wilson models that are not competitive or not even allowed in IDPA.
Not to mention the Wilsons that were ideal by the 2015 rules and then barred by the 2017 book. CCP was a moving target there for a while.
 
Jim Watson said:
I see very few Wilsons or other multi-kilobuck pistols at IDPA hereabouts.
Consider the numerous Wilson models that are not competitive or not even allowed in IDPA.
Click to expand...
We see more than a few at my local club in CDP...A Wilson 1911 took out latest "state" match

Many folks are wobbling between the 9mm Wilson 1911s and CZs in ESP

A couple of years ago, a Wilson Beretta 92 took SSP at our big match

Not to mention the Wilsons that were ideal by the 2015 rules and then barred by the 2017 book. CCP was a moving target there for a while.
Click to expand...
The specs for CCP, while often said to be based around the G19, are made to fit the Wilson EDC X9...while "just" excluding Springfield Armory's EMP4 (too tall)
 
The nice thing about IDPA, in my mind, the Glock 19 4th Gen, I go for pancakes with, just needs those expensive Ranger T 147g hollow points, swopping for cheap hardball, on with ear muffs and safety glasses.
And shoot a match, for lets, face it, the true reason behind IDPA, is taking a pistol designed to fight with, into a sport that the only hang up is the 10 rounds in the magazines. (I know California etc!)
In my case, 17 round ones, with only 10 rounds in them. Quick mag changes get my hand pinched with the supplied 15 rounders!
 
9mmepiphany said:
The specs for CCP, while often said to be based around the G19, are made to fit the Wilson EDC X9...while "just" excluding Springfield Armory's EMP4 (too tall)
Click to expand...

In the 2015 rules, the Box height was not reduced, and a Compact would fit. Then in 2017 the height was sharply reduced.
I have read angry posts by the guy whose $3000 Wilson Compact was obsoleted a year and a half after he bought it for the purpose.

There are threads on 1911forum about the EDC X9 vs CCP. The catalog gun width is 1.4", the CCP Box is 1.375". Might have to trim the ambi safety lever or sit on the box lid. Measurements there also indicated a need to sand down the magazine floorplate, even though the catalog height is 5.25" and The Box 5.375". Maybe the catalog height is for an empty well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
IDPA Classifier
Replies
24
Views
2K
C. H. Luke
C
lpsharp88
  • Locked
Shooting First IDPA Classifier
Replies
14
Views
1K
gahunter12
gahunter12
A
  • Locked
Jun. 18, 2011 - IDPA Classifier Match - Pioneer Sportsmen Club in Dunbarton, NH
Replies
0
Views
393
Airwolfe1
A
S
  • Locked
idpa classifier
Replies
7
Views
790
jmorris
jmorris
M
  • Locked
IDPA Classifier part 2
Replies
7
Views
674
10-Ring
1
Back
Top