jkelly

To answer your question, I would suggest that cover for IPDA purposes, would be everything that would allow for the "required amount of a competitor" to be hidden as viewed from the prospective of an unengaged target. Of course part of the fun of shooting IDPA is determining what the SO really wants you to do, so I’ll ask. It’s so much fun finding that out before you shoot. Good question! Respectfully, jkelly "quote stolen from a crusher post"

That’s easy, it’s because the raid was scheduled for 7:00am. If they scheduled it later then there could be morning traffic problems. Can you imagine what its like for a couple of SUV loads of fully combat decked out high speed government types carrying sub guns getting caught behind a school bus that stops every hundred yards or so, with some Darth Vader masked 8 year old firing his phaser pistol at them. It’s very embarrassing! Respectfully, jkelly

I’m thinking normally yes but he is not transporting a firearm through Massachusetts he is stopping here to shoot and can not "...lawfully possess and carry such firearm.", or so I gather. Respectfully, jkelly

As much as I would like the Bears to win, I thought the Superbowl was won two weeks ago! Respectfully, jkelly

Yeah, Gary is one of those old school, honest, no BS, stand up type of guys that are few and far between! Respectfully, jdkelly

Exactly, but without publishing the “definition” where it can be referenced by the general members there is no single guiding definition. There is only a group of SOs (and perhaps a small group at that) who have had the “definition” explained to them, if indeed there was an explanation given at all. I can’t think a worse way to disseminate rules information to a large membership then by word of mouth, or perhaps only by observation, to a small section of that membership. Back on topic I’d say yes, if the rule can’t be justified by the “book” then I'd think you are making up rules. But then again, I don’t care what rule you make up as long as you tell me upfront. Respectfully, jkelly

Yes, I suppose you could if you wanted to. I asked because I wanted to understand if you were abiding by the rules or making up your own rule(s). Dinging someone with a procedural for a rule interpreted at a single match, held perhaps 1500 miles away and for only a few hundred shooters of whom an unknown number are SOs seems unfair. Personally, for myself, I generally don’t mind when IDPA SOs create their own rules as long as they state the deviation from the Rule Book upfront. Respectfully, jkelly

I don't have my rule book handy. Does the rule book say that the Nationals are to be considered the de facto "right way" to interpret rules? Respectfully, jdkelly

I'm a linear thinker, but it took less then 3 seconds to find the answer because I started from the finish. Perhaps the 1 min time limit was for non-engineering types. Respectfully, jdkelly

It’s not a rule it’s just one of the parts of the “Purpose” of IDPA that is not written into the rules and conflicts with what is allowed by the rules. I think that’s why this thread was started. Personally I’d like to see them encode it in the rules or drop it from the stated “Purpose”. Respectfully, jkelly

If you are worried that you haven’t spent enough time with your carry gun then by all means shoot it until you feel you have. But, if you are worried that you are breaking some taboo by not shooting your carry gun in IDPA, well then that’s a dilemma. To me IDPA is a business/game/competition, nothing more, that lets me shoot guns that I might not take the time to shoot otherwise. There is just something nice about being able to select a gun to compete with based on the desire just to shoot that gun. Respectfully, jkelly

If you wear any of those vest in public you'd pretty much have to wear a gun! Respectfully, jkelly

As a short time IDPA/USPSA shooter, this thread along with the recent article on Mr. Wilson in Front Sight has been very informative and filled in much missing information in my understanding of the history of these two shooting sports. Thank you to those involved! It’s nice to know that once Mr. Wilson was an ultimate gamer and a fierce competitor. Hopefully that knowledge will remove the stigma of the “gamer” label from the IDPA lexicon. The information presented by non-IDPA partisan long-time shooters indicates that Mr. Wilson’s motivation for his bias against the equipment race and for creating IDPA seems to have been at least somewhat business based. And that should quash the idea that IDPA was created as a moral answer to the evils of USPSA. With these two barriers removed things should only get better between the two shooting games. Right? Respectfully, jkelly

I would guess that you'd stay an Expert no matter how badly you shoot in the future. I don't think that there is a penalty for not shooting a classifier within a year, which makes it pretty much just a suggestion. To me the best part of shooting IDPA was the Classifier. Respectfully, jkelly

Bones, WOW, 1st in SSR blowing away three Masters and second only to Mr. Miculek in revolvers over all. Congratulations Very, very impressive! Respectfully, jkelly

Mr. Enos If I remember correctly any OTB holster can be either legal of illegal depending on who wears it. What's legal for you might not be legal for me. I've bought three 560s (from you) for different guns because I felt they were IDPA legal on me and I've had no problems using two of them in IDPA competitions, yet. Respectfully, jkelly

Interesting, thank you. Respectfully, jkelly

Mr. Bradley, As a short time IDPA/USPSA shooter with no sense of the history involved in the two shooting sports I found your post very interesting, thank you for the insight. It would explain much that until this point I just had to guess at. By your quote below are you saying the Mr. Wilson used a non-Wilson polymer gun in competition or that Wilson Combat (or what ever Wilson Combat might have been called at the time) produced a polymer frame gun? Respectfully, jkelly

I also question the need for personal attacks as they pull us all into the gutter to often! Respectfully, jkelly

I'd agree that WWB 9mm at perhaps 130PF(?) is not a large difference from the minimun 125PF and is very close to the buffer a reloader might add to ensure they make mimimun. Respectfully, jkelly

I think we tend to base our opinions from the vantage point of where we see ourselves as opposed to the vantage point of others. For the truly elite shooters in IDPA and the almost elite Masters I would guess that the differences in recoil that we are speaking about could be negligent, although perhaps not to all. But for largest number of IDPA shooters, those that are not as accomplished, such as the Novices, the Marksmen, the Sharpshooters and perhaps most Experts, the ability to control the recoil difference between a 125PF hand-loaded .45ACP and a factory 190PF .45ACP load could be significant. The less accomplished are the people I see as being at a disadvantage to the reloaders, not the professionals, semi-professionals or want to be professionals. While I reload, and gain by doing so, I do have compassion for those who don’t or can’t. Respectfully, jkelly

Yes of course they know. But that doesn't mean that the non-loader is not at a disvantage. Absolutely and I have said as much in an earlier post in this thread. But shooting a 190PF(?) .45ACP against a 165PF or 125PF .45 ACP is also a disadvantage. As a reloader I have to use other excuses for when I lose. But noting that it is one of the oldest (excuses) in the book does not invalidate it. Respectfully, jkelly

You would have to take that up with Mr. Wilson as he makes the rules. I stated that an increase in PF would help the non-reloaders (I reload myself) and would enforce IDPA Principle number II. "Provide a level playing field for all competitors to test the skill and ability of each individual, not the equipment or GAMESMANSHIP." I think using a low PF is gamesmanship. But you are correct as a $3,500 Wilson 1911 should have an advantage over a $350 rattle box of a 1911. In that case I would guess "gamesmanship" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't care what PF we shoot but a reloader certainly has an advantage if his .45ACP is running at a 165PF in CDP or a 125PF in SSP and ESP as compared to the non-reloader running 190PF(?) "...full charge service ammunition..." as Mr. Wilson refers to in the Purpose of IDPA. My problem is not with the PF or how tricked out somebody's gun is but how arbitrarily some of the IDPA's Purpose and Principles seem to be encoded into the IDPA rules. Respectfully, jkelly

For me the debate would be: For a .45ACP, is a 125pf or even a 165pf “…full service charge ammunition…” ? As far as changing the rules, the rules in IDPA flow down hill. Personally I don’t care what PF we have to shoot, it just seems that the rules differ from both the stated “Purpose” and “Principles” of IDPA. "random rule generator"---(dirtypool40), I like that. Respectfully, jkelly

I think the only opinion that would matter would be Mr. Wilson’s. I’m only guessing that he doesn’t think of 125pf .45 ACP in SSP and ESP or even the 165pf in CDP are really representative of what the rule book refers to under “Purpose” as “…full charge service ammunition…”. Respectfully, jkelly