Glock3422

OK, now I have a great idea. We could have the IDPA Gangsta division for less than 9mm/.38. Seriously, there are .22 that are far more expensive than the typical IDPA gun, which would open yet another equipment race. There are not many reliable .22 over the course of a match. The most distressing part of this discussion is that it is prompted by a poll in the IDPA magazine and that Robert Ray voted in favor of .22. Having had a few discussions with him, I am fairly sure we know which way Bill Wilson's wind is blowing. I am not a USPSA member, yet. That is not said as a threat, but rather from concern of what a .22 neutral match would look like. 6 shooters are enough of a burden. My club takes that seriously and 12 round stages are quite limiting.

As scary as it has been, I was right with you up until this. Just because you think something is a really bad idea, it is no excuse to project your version of the end of the world. Your discussion would carry more weight if you focused on reasoning and rejected hyperbole.

No, no, no, a thousand times NO! But if you must- All rules apply: From concealment Holster retention features must be used Max of 18 required rounds in a stage Steel must fall to score (Bring a bigger gun) Activators not activated are the shooter's responsibility (Bring a bigger gun) Shots out to 35 yards are encouraged Min 125 PF If you believe that a .22 is a full power self-defense round, I invite you to use a .22 pocket pistol on a standard IDPA COF. See you at the range. Steel Challenge is THAT WAY=======> Now can we get back to serious matters? Which major match has the best food?

This is starting to sound like L-10.

I was, but it's still a great game to shoot, so, I'll try to be good and keep my mouth shut and shoot by the rules. Here's a first,,, no procedurals, no non-threats, no failure to engage and only 1 hit in the down 3 for the 12 stage NC Champ match this weekend, guess I'll stick with it for awhile longer John IDPA doesn't have a Failure to Engage.

John I thought you were done with IDPA. Oh, that's right June. Never mind.

With the expected rule book revision this summer, I would avoid getting too experimental right now. The aluminium frame would be much safer than the steel. Depending on how the definition of Full Length Dust Cover changes or doesn't, you could find yourself with a gun you can't use in IDPA. I have my doubts that the steel gun would be legal now, and if it is considered a full length dust cover, it needs to make SSP weight. I have felt a steel frame gun and thought it was much too heavy to transition quickly. I like the fit of the slide to the frame, but still too heavy. There really is no reason to shoot a 9mm or 40 cal with anything other than a polymer frame, if you are reloading for IDPA. A friend of mine put one together using a Glock slide and is selling the frame, if he can. I toyed with the idea myself and couldn't find a reason to go ahead. Good luck.

That's just silly logic --- since the 21T slides are manufactured that way, are longer than a standard 21 slide, and weigh more..... I'm shocked that the 34/5 slides skated past, because they're certainly lightened too -- they'd weigh much more if they didn't have that opening in the top.... I don't disagree, but that has been asked and answered. Although, it was before the LWD G21 extended slide was available. My take on ESP and CDP is that they are Custom divisions intended for anything that fits within the rules of size and weight. Neither has a production requirement. I can understand the reluctance to allow cut out slides that are not available on the production units. The G34/35 slides are on stock production guns that otherwise meet all criteria for size and weight.

The cut out top on a G20 or 21 slide is considered slide lightening by IDPA. The cut out on a G34 or 35 is the same as the factory slide. It does not matter that the LWD slide is of equal or greater weight than the original. You could have a longer slide without the cut out. It has been asked and answered several times. There might be hope in the rule book expected in the summer, but I wouldn't bet on it.

That said, I know in my heart that this proposal falls on the deaf ears of most here. Which will never be satisfied with IDPA until it is morfed into another shooting sport entirely. We should just use the rules of another shooting sport, but with vests. But then vests would be made optional in short order. Serously though, I am so thankful that the members do not get to vote on the rules. The founders were very wise in that regard, or we would have already morfed into another shooting sport. kr Actually the members, potential members and former members do get a vote. They do it when they join, renew, show up, or don't. The SOs get a vote when they consistently refuse to elevate round dumping over benefit of the doubt. That other sport already exists and in fact pre-existed IDPA. We all know what it is, where it is, and how to get there. I enjoy both, but I only belong to IDPA. The rule book has been changed, what, four times? There are frequent "semi-official clarifications." The rules were not handed down on stone tablets. Just because a rule is, doesn't mean it should continue to be. Even the Constitution can be changed. The founders (board members) now number two. Neither seem to be particularly active in the sport. Just because a change seems to be popular, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Straw man arguments are popular, but not particularly effective. The basis of the sport is concealed carry, not shot limits. There would be no quicker way to kill a popular sport than to institute a penalty for extra shots on a Vickers stage. We would have Limited Vickers, and Penalized Vickers.

Given IDPA's version of hit factor --- a point should be made up if it can be accomplished in less than 0.5 seconds, all -3 zone hits need to be made up --- I fire at least one makeup shot per stage, sometimes 2-3. They're frequently out of the first mag --- but not always. Unless you're plugged into my brain, I think you'd have a tough time calling that for certain..... Of course, if you're comfortable with assessing 20 second penalties on a hunch, more power to you..... Up until now, that wasn't the impression I had of you.... Nik, My point is that when one travels around with a squad, after a hand full of stages, the dumpers mark themselves clearly and surely. I know this isn't good news for them to hear. But if in most or many stages there is a makeup shot "needed" right before a reload, even when it is not the most difficult shot in the stage, it leaves an impression. kr PS: I'm beginning to like the 1/2 second penalty for any shot over the minimum per target, just so this 10 year round dumping issue would die. So to be clear, your definition of round dumping is firing an extra shot right before the reload? New thought- Wouldn't your proposal penalize Novices and Marksman to a greater degree? The person with the 1 second plus splits is already at a pretty heavy disadvantage for feeling the need for an extra shot. If someone feels the need to fire seven extra shots, they would have been better off being called for round dumping. Would you give them 1/2 second for the first six and just a flat 3 seconds if they went to seven or over? As an SO, I wouldn't want the additional duty of having to count rounds for every shooter in case they fire an extra one. I know, most timers will tell you how many rounds. The problem is that I can't read with my shooting glasses and most of the newer displays are just too small for anything except time. The problem with the rule is that it is the most subjective rule in the book by a long shot. Those who dump rounds well are not called on it and those who dump rounds badly are called on it, sometimes. We have had examples cited of squads being warned and the seventh shooter gets penalized. How is that fair? Even a cover call has a fairly objective definition. There is simply no good purpose to the rule for all the reasons discussed. The only thing to support the rule is that it exists. You can offset any perceived benefit of round dumping with stage design. We ran two stages last night that had about 8 feet of lateral movement behind cover. Targets were shot from both ends of the wall. Some Tac(RWR) loaded and some fired extra rounds. Generally, the Tac load was faster and improved acuracy. Practice can improve the Tac load to the clear winner. Probably the best argument against the round dumping rule is the infrequency of its use. If the SOs don't want to use it, why leave it in the book? It is time that HQ listen to the clear vote against this one by the people who have to enforce it. You can't fire them for not calling it and it would be a very rare match director who wouldn't overturn it. Shooter-"I thought I pulled a shot."

Really? A get out of jail card for 1/2 second. Can I have two? I don't know about where you shoot, but 1/2 second on top of 25 - 35 yard shots, tight target placement, non-threats, moving targets, and the potential for any target to turn into a failure to neutralize is a bargain.

If it's a good "system," then why not apply it everywhere? Just ask pf? Just ask gun weight? Just ask gear location under the cover garment? Just ask if gun fits the box? Just ask if the shooter stayed behind cover? Perhaps we should apply the "system" at the state level... traffic cops just ask how fast you were going? ... Actually, it's worse than that; the questions would really be, "did you intend to make pf," "did you intend for your gun to make weight," "did you intend to stay behind cover," etc. Your point is taken that the question can and should be asked. That might catch that small over-lapping subset of cheaters who don't lie about it. But if that's the only means of enforcement, then my opinion is that it's not a very valid rule. I do think it's the system's problem. -rvb Let's take the burden off of the SO and just hand out a survey form that all shooters must fill out. "Did you dump any rounds during this match?" "Which stages?" Shooter turns it in and scoring does the rest. We all stay friends.

Duane I answered your question. What is your response? By the way, I asked this question (In good fun) of a poster on this thread at S&W. His smiling response was, "I made up a 3." Of course. It was probably his only 3 of the match. Let's just get rid of the rule. Tactic in life or tactic at a match, who cares? If I know I need to load soon, I am going to make sure that cardboard has it's head down while I reload.

Exactly.

I have asked the question. Although, when I have asked it, it was in good fun. I saw quite a few rounds dumped today, but I wasn't the SO today. I saw more than a few opportune insurance rounds at S&W. I think it is a completely unenforceable rule when taken in conjunction with the "benefit of the doubt" premise of IDPA. To me, benefit of the doubt is the overriding consideration and makes round dumping moot. Don't ask, don't tell. When I look at a COF, I will often consider the best location for an insurance round. I don't always follow the plan, if I feel it isn't necessary. Today, I didn't fire an extra round (partially due to this thread). I had a down five on a distant target and have learned my lesson. Follow the plan. The rule puts the "honest" competitor at a disadvantage. The presumption is that round dumping creates an advantage. It doesn't matter if it really does or not. Those who would say that there is no advantage should not be opposed to removing the rule. Those who believe there is an advantage, would probably favor leveling the playing field. It is an awful rule.

The round dumping rule is an area of subjectivity that really needs to be eliminated from the book. A guy shooting .45 semi wad cutters has a much better idea of where his hits are than a guy shooting a 9mm. Eye sight, distance, caliber, and ability are all factors in guessing if someone is round dumping. If competitors could always call their shots, there would never be a failure to neutralize. The change to requiring a down 1 or better on a target changed the way competitors addressed the issue of distant, moving or obscured targets.

And if it doesn't hold, all you have is an uncaptured plastic guide rod. Just like the original guide rods.

Is there a way to remove the stock spring from the stock guide rod without damaging it? Does that end piece just pull out and can be snapped back in with the new spring? As always, unload and clear the gun. Lock the slide to the rear and using plyers, side cutters, etc., grab the button so you can pull it straight off. I like needle nose plyers that can get behind the button from the side to pop it off. Once it is off, release the slide to forward, and remove the slide from the gun. Carefully remove the now uncaptured guide rod and spring. Replace the old spring with the new one and put it back in the gun. Replace the slide on the gun and lock it back. Replace the button. Done.

IDPA does not have a failure to engage however, it would be a procedural error for not firing the required number of rounds in the COF. FTDR? No.

The problem now for revolver shooters is that the question was asked through the "unofficial" source. That question asked here was ill advised and only gathered really unofficial speculation. It is kind of like the tree falling in the woods if there is no one to hear it. Now, when someone actually calls the official source, that is a different matter. You had better be prepared for the question to be taken seriously. Lesson - Be careful what you ask for. There are a number of questions that should not be asked. It looks like that was one of them.

Henceforth, I think this should be referred to as the "Ken" rule. Since he asked the question "officially", he should be recognized for his efforts. I forgot- The timing of this should make the Indoor Nationals MUCH more interesting.

Direct from - "Unofficial repository for rule clarifications folks have received from HQ" http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/5824 Answer: After perusing the Smith & Wesson website, I find that the lock literature is under the Safety subheading. After Talking with XX, I still feel that the integral lock is still considered a Safety Device. As such, the lock can not be disabled. Thank you, Robert Ray International Defensive Pistol Association This does not bode well for the long awaited and "highly anticipated" rule book revision.

This is from another forum and posted at 5pm this evening- JAN 30 match info: Sign In at 800 am Look for four stages , three will use ALL three guns...slugs out 80 yards on one stage , and one shotgun only stage 15 target hoses fest... We will have 300 yard rifle plate for bonus only, but there will be a bunch of plates from 100-200 yards. There will be one side match with a cash payout...$5.00 per run ....it will be a handgun shotgun speed shoot involving four clays and four pieces of steel...the side match will take place after the regular match... Approximate round count= 75-85 handgun, 35 shotgun shot, 5 shotgun slugs, and 50-60 rifle. Side match is 4 handgun and 4 shotgun shot (if you don’t miss)…Always bring extra ammo if you have a re shoot or range failure. We will hold 6 matches and one TPC match at DPRC in 2010. We will run a match to match point system which will have prize and or cash rewards at the December match. The points run the entire year. Here are the dates for the 2010 DPRC 3 gun matches Jan 30 Mar 13 May 29 July 31 Sept 11 Oct 30 (TPC police and military match) Dec 11 year end 3 gun championship match I plan to be there.

Well, there is nothing right. The Gray (light blue) area occupies too much space. The colors, spacing and fonts are a sea of GRAY. Even the "white" is GRAY. The layout is the biggest problem. I really can't get past it to navigate. The lack of definition between the pinned items and the current content is probably the one specific I can think of. Look, feel and navigation is, ugggggh.