Thomas H

Getting a lot of that done early, right away, would be a good thing.

I actually like a number of the changes, many of which I think will be very helpful for the shooter. Or at least don't take anything away from the fun, and give shooters more choices. (Seeing if 15 rounds actually makes much of a difference to this sport, letting people finally carry AIWB, getting rid of the stupid "there is a round in the gun, so you have to retain a completely empty magazine because we say so!" rule, as examples.) Many of the ones that I think are either poor choices or poor wording....tend to mostly be making things much harder on stage designers and SOs. I think they are making it much harder for people to design good, fun, interesting stages to shoot, and therefore people will occasionally start to contrive ridiculous things, which is not a good direction to go. (Though there are others like the grip module thing and the ESP "now nothing is legal even though the opposite was meant" wording that makes me wonder why no one hired a decent procedural writer. There are people who literally get paid to write clear instructions, and it is definitely a skillset that this rulebook needs!)

That's my point---you can't use hardcover to make partials that require tight shots. And putting a non-threat in front of it creates a VERY different target presentation. This makes the new rulebook significantly different from the old one with regard to what kinds of target presentations we can make in scenario stages. (And it doesn't make much sense to me, since it isn't like the bad guys can't be well-hidden behind cover. I wonder what the justification for the new "no more than half of the target" limit was?)

I also see that scenario stages can't have headshot-only targets any more. 4.12.1.3. Stationary or moving cardboard targets with cut away or black hard cover painted on them covering no more than half of one side for scenario stages. These targets should be part of the scenario description and appropriate for the stage. (Bold emphasis added by me.) Matter of fact, "half of one side" in a horizontal fashion still leaves the top six inches of the body's down zero zone (and every thing above it) as a shootable area, if the hardcover is on the bottom half. (If it is on the top half, that's going to be a rough target with only the bottom 2 inches of the down zero zone showing...) Matter of fact, don't zebra targets cover more than 1/2 of the target with hardcover? So if the targets here were IDPA targets, only the ones with diagonal HC would be legal?

The thing I find amusing is what IDPA meant to have in its new ruleset for ESP... (as we know from many communications making it clear) ....isn't what the new ruleset actually SAYS. The new appendix for ESP literally doesn't allow ANYTHING other than what is allowed for all divisions. (The permitted modifications list equates to 8.1.6 and 8.1.7.). And its "non-inclusive" list of excluded features is "trigger shoes." IDPA has always been about "if we don't say you CAN do it, then you CAN'T." And now....ESP has fewer allowed modifications than SSP. Far fewer! Even better, since CCP and CO depend on the ESP ruleset for allowed modifications, it basically means that CCP and CO divisions don't allow hardly any modifications any more either. (Note: I know that isn't what they MEANT, and so it isn't what people will do---but it is what the rulebook says.) For all the other divisions, it makes it clear what is "inclusive" and what is "non-inclusive" --- but for ESP it just says "Permitted modifications: 8.1.6 and 8.1.7" and nothing further. By that wording, ESP is about as stock as it can be. (Which again, I realize it the opposite of what they meant.)

We much prefer to run our matches according to the rules, whether we are pleased about a particular rule or not. Given one of the major issues many people have with IDPA (major continuing issues, unfortunately) is that many local IDPA clubs act as if they can use their own local rule sets, we'd rather not be one of those. So we'll follow the rules. I happen to agree with Racinready300ex when he said: "It's a throwing out the baby with the bath water kind of thing." I also agree with his statement of: "There were certainly MD's setting up stages to get people and trick them into PE's." ...I just think that like normal for large organizations, instead of fixing the problem few, they instead limited the entire sport.

Yes. Exactly this sort of thing. The stage forces people to think instead of just move and shoot, requires them to take attention away from the shoot targets periodically (which is pretty realistic), requires them to manually operate other things than the gun (which is pretty realistic)...and does it in such a way that there is no subjective nature to the procedure, so there is no question regarding procedural penalties---they either did it or they didn't. That used to be fine. It made for interesting stages. The new ruleset seems to have taken that away.

The problem with that, compared to what we now have (and, I'll note, what was in the match admin rules earlier) is that the PDF you linked specifically talks about how the preferred way is to let the action expose scoring targets, using as an example "opening a window when a baby is set down on the stomp box"... ....but the current rule means that you can dump the baby, and just step on the stomp box. It isn't a shooting action, therefore you can't be penalized for it, even though you didn't remotely do what the WSB said you had to do. (And that PDF's "last resort-but-legal" version was that you can tell the shooter what to do, but not how to do it--but if it doesn't get done, there is a PE. But the current ruleset doesn't allow that.) The currrent ruleset says you can't give any penalties for non-shooting actions. If you are "supposed" to activate a mover (or do anything else) in a certain way according to a WSB---you don't have to do it that way. You can't be penalized for not following the WSB as long as your shooting actions following the rest of the rulebook. THAT'S the part I think will be an issue.

Previous rule set literally used as an example of an allowed procedural penalty "The qualifier must be of a pass/fail determinant and the quantifiable condition must be in the CoF. e.g., the briefcase must be set down inside blue barrel." This is new.

Question I do have, though---the summary says "Non-shooting actions can not be penalized" and then gives a specific example of: "carrying an object." And the new rulebook says (5: Penalty Rules): "While a procedure may suggest a way to complete a string, the instructions are limited to following rulebook Sections 3 and Section 5 in their guidance with regard to penalizing shooters. After the start signal, penalties for non-shooting actions may not be issued to competitors for their performance on a stage." So, stages like "must use Object A to (picked up at the beginning) to activate Target B (later in the stage)" now won't work, because the person can just ignore the object and activate Target B with their hand and not get penalized, because that is a non-shooting action? Similarly, stages that say "must keep Object A in hand" (for example, simulating carrying something like a child while moving) won't work because the shooter just now drop the object (the child! :O) without penalty because that is a non-shooting action...? There used to be a "failure to follow the stage procedures" type of penalty---but that no longer exists? Am I reading that correctly? That seems like it'll take away a lot of situational things that often occur in stages in IDPA.

My favorite is that we no longer have to retain an empty magazine just because there was a round still in the gun! "3.4.6 Shooters may not perform a reload which results in a loading device with ammo being left behind. This is commonly known as a “speed reload”, and will result in a Procedural Error penalty being issued." I wonder if 3.4.6 (and the way it is worded) means that a revolver that DOESN'T use moonclips can dump and reload even if they haven't shot all 6 rounds? After all, no moonclip holds any rounds after it is used, and "loose rounds" are NOT "in a loading device." Standard revos don't have to retain loose rounds any more? And yes, there are a LOT of little (and not-so-little) changes in this update. A lot to look through!

Some good answers so far, IMO. My opinion (so feel free to ignore it): Much of it is going to be highly subjective. That being said, I think that one thing that seems to make a measurable difference for rimfire rifle shooters is a combination of where the rifle balances, and how much weight is ahead of that balance point on the muzzle end of the gun. If the center of balance is really, really close to where the dot is, AND there isn't significant weight on the muzzle end, the exact overall weight isn't that important, as long as the rifle as a whole doesn't weigh 15 pounds or anything. One of the reasons people adjust a lot of stuff on their gun, IMO, is based on the fact that people put their dots in all sorts of places. For example, I like a really short stock with the dot close to me. I have friends who have that stock extended all the way, and the dot is significantly away from their eyes. However, in both cases, we have ended up with rifles fiddled with such that the center of balance is about where the dot is on the gun, and the muzzle end itself doesn't have much weight to it. Our gun weights are different, but the speed at which we can snap the gun to the next target, and the stability of the muzzle (making a stable sight picture) is about the same---even though our guns are completely different lengths, with the dot in very different places. My BET would be that no matter your configuration, anyone at A or higher in rimfire rifles can balance their rifle really close to where there dot is, and the muzzle end is pretty light. And even if they weren't thinking about that when they built it, it eventually came together to work best that way. If the balance is on the stock-end of the dot, the muzzle is going to be entirely too flightly. If the balance is forward of the dot, the shooter will have more difficulty stopping it correctly on transitions (and have slightly slower starts, too). In all cases, if the muzzle-end has added weight, starting-stopping transitions will be slower. For pistols, though---wow, that's all over the place. For RFPO, I like a really light gun. For RFPI, I use a Ruger Mark II Target model with the long bull barrel, so it doesn't move AT ALL like my RFPI gun. And it weighs a ton more. And yet, I had no trouble making GM in both of them---matter of fact, I'm 9th on the "Top 20" list in RFPI. (Hm. Thinking on it, it IS true that I've never tried RFPO with a heavier gun. I have a Mark III with a shorter bull barrel and a decent trigger that I could throw a dot on....wonder what that would do to my times?) For _pistols_ (in rimfire at least), I think that weight only matters for personal idiosyncrasies (again, as long as the pistol doesn't weigh 10 pounds, or on the other end of the spectrum, isn't 14" long with a feather-light front end), and what is far more important is having a good trigger. I'd be interested to hear from people where their rimfire rifle balances (how close to where their dot is places), and how much (if any) weight there is on the muzzle end.

Didn't the post on March 3rd say that the 82.1% of people who answered "yes" were correct? Or were you talking about a different question? https://nroi.org/q-of-month-results/up-in-the-air/

Registration for the ICORE Midwest Regional match is now open! https://practiscore.com/2022-icore-midwest-regional/register Saturday, June 18th at the Eastern Nebraska Gun Club near Louisville, NE. GPS coordinates to range gate: 41.00204290757441, -96.10426437301344 12 stages (two of which are classifiers) plus chrono. $100, payable online at registration Hope to see you there!

How often I clean them depends on which gun I'm using. Glock? Before local matches if I remember I'll wipe the feed ramp and snake the barrel. About a week before a major I'll pull it apart and fully clean it, then go shoot at least 100 rounds through it at the range, then wipe the feed ramp and snake the barrel. But that's it. Single Stack gun? Clean the stupid freakin' thing between every match or any longer practice sessions. Revolver? Um....wipe under the star every once in awhile? Maybe remember to snake it and brush the chambers in the cylinder once in awhile if I happen to recall that it has been awhile? PCC? Copious amounts of oil on the bolt, and let it run. After the filth has built up enough (but hasn't made any difference to how it runs, it is just getting messy to run it) I'll pull the basics apart, fill it full of CLP, spray it all out (with a brush here and there), add more oil and shoot 50 rounds through it before taking it to the next match. Mostly, other than adding oil, I just shoot it. Other than 1911s and 2011s, most guns out there just don't need to be cleaned that much. As long as the chamber is clear and the feed ramp is smooth, they'll run.

Well, one way to look at it is this: If you make M in ISR right now with a 85% classification score, you'll have the 20th highest classification among ALL shooters who are classified in ISR. If you make GM at 95%, you'll be tied for 7th. ...in other words, there aren't many GMs and Ms, and of those, many apparently aren't shooting it any more. (Of the 26 GMs and Ms in ISR, 9 of them have classification percentages that have dropped down under their classification level.) For OSR, making 85% M gets you 30th overall in the division, and making GM gets you 10th place. https://scsa.org/top20 I'll be interested to see the overall numbers that Zach posts---I'm curious how many people shot ISR and OSR in the last year. Especially at major matches.

Anyone who is saying that as a "concern" must either 1) not know anything about what A3 shooters think of Sherwyn, or 2) are deliberately making up something just to create other reasons for people to emotionally react without facts. Or does Sherwyn running unoppposed mean that literally, no one bothered to run because the vast majority of people in A3 liked Sherwyn as AD, agreed in general with his voting decisions, and he would have won overwhelmingly against anyone else who ran against him? People in A3 actually know the answer to that question. Matter of fact, the first time Sherwyn was thinking about retiring from the AD position, several people floated the idea of running. When he decided to run for one more cycle, those folks said "Ok, nope, I was only gonna run if Sherwyn wasn't running again." (And then later only ran once Sherwyn DID decide to not run again.) Literally, anyone who is talking about how Sherwyn was unopposed at his last election as a "concern" has to be doing it in an attempt to create problems where there is none, as the reality is the literal opposite of the nonsense they are making up. Rather like a lot of what is being said in various "arguments" in places (including here) -- lots of the emotional content that is coming around doesn't seem to match the facts of the actual situation. It is always instructive to carefully look at who continually pushes to create emotional arguments using loaded language to convince people, I'll note.

So your solution is "let's not add new members"? That seems to be completely fixing the wrong problem. (Not to mention, in the situation you are discussing, it is a self-fixing problem, literally.) For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone's solution to "we are filling matches incredibly quickly" would include the words "we have too many new shooters wanting to come to matches." "Learn to think." Hm.

What worries me is that there is no commentary there on the answers/results to the questions about whether or not AIWB should have a set of safety rules all on its own. I would strongly bet that the members said "NO!" to the idea of AIWB-only safety rules.....but since that wasn't reported (nothing about that question was reported) it worries me that IDPA might decide to add some anyway.

What other ammo have you tried? While Mini Mags are excellent, and run well in most guns, that isn't the same as saying "this is the best ammo to use." Have you tried AR-Tactical? Or Eley? Do those do the same thing? The fix might be as simple as trying another ammunition type. (There have already been a lot of good hardware comments, too.) I'll note: Did you put together your own rifles? (Or did a professional do it for you?) How did you set the internals? (And by that, I mean "how do you know you put it together with the precision needed of finicky .22s? ) Literally something as little as having the barrel rotated a tiny bit can make a huge difference in reliability.

"...to be calibrated" means something specific. If the RM doesn't make available a gun/ammo combination that has been shown to make the appropriate power factor for calibration check purposes, this just doesn't work out. The RM can't just say "hey, make sure those fall." If the RM arranges this, the arrangement still needs to follow all the rules.

I agree--it probably isn't being done. I'll note that when I was on our match committee, calibration (including initial calibration prior to competitors shooting a stage) using a gun/ammo combination that consistently chronoed 118-119 PF was done. Now....hm. Well. Things change. I am astonished that an RM for a major didn't do initial calibration. I'd be.....UNHAPPY....llama's situation had happened to me. Probably in a vocal fashion.

Yikes. I can't think of a major I've ever worked where the RM _didn't_ check all the steel every day before anyone shot it for score. I'm sorry to hear that you've had that happen to you.

It is interesting that you say the above since your earlier posts are still available for everyone to read, and we can clearly see that you indeed thought I and my club ran them. And can also clearly see that "asking questions about them" is not what you were doing. As for what I "just seem really hung up on," that's probably because you kept saying things about it that were incorrect. Literally, everything said was a response to YOUR incorrect commentary. If you didn't care about it, why did you keep bringing it up? As people have pointed out, PASA had a dark house that they used in numerous major matches, including Nats. And it was complete darkness most of the time, versus "the light is a little low" which again, people have pointed out. As for whether IDPA should start allowing WMLs, that rather depends on whether or not IDPA is going to with the "people are supposed to be using their carry gear" principle, or instead from the "this is easier on the sport" point of view. Given that they aren't allowing AIWB carry and ARE allowing PCC in a sport that literally says "every day carry," it seems pretty obvious that barring something significant happening, they'll stick with the "easier on the sport" route.

Did the RM not check the calibration on the steel prior to staff starting to shoot the stage? How in the world could the RM have missed all of that?!