tbarker13

2% can't be right under any consideration. There must be more than that just in IDPA production not to mention a significant percentage in USPSA single stack. Hell, even GSSF, for what its worth, probably has more than 2% in 40. What is she talking about? It does seem like a strange figure. We were arguing about a few things - primarily I was seeking a better understanding of why they changed to the standing reloads, so I never really pressed her on .40 cal numbers. Maybe the MDs who responded don't have a good grasp of what their people are shooting.

I like to think of IDPA as a game that wishes it wasn't. There's just a real identity crisis within its rank and file. And I don't think anyone is necessarily right or wrong. You have members (of which I am one) who see it as a game in which you get to compete against other shooters. We want high round counts. Lots of movement. Complicated stages, etc. And we want to win. Then you have those who see it as more of a CCW type thing, where "gaming" is sort of a dirty word. They often love the low-round-count stages, etc. Right now (and maybe always), that second group is in charge. And they made it very clear - when explaining the rationale behind recent rule changes - that they want to push IDPA that direction - and are perfectly willing to lose some of the gamer-type shooters in doing so. I was pretty frustrated by this at first, particularly given how much time I've spent helping put on our local club matches. But in the end, you just sort of have to accept it. If you don't like where IDPA is headed, do something else with your shooting dollars/time. I know that's what I'm doing.

I asked Joyce Wilson about this during an email exchange last summer. I don't feel comfortable posting her entire email, but she said they surveyed every match director around the world about a bunch of issues, including the .40 cal debate. This part I will quote from Joyce: "We found that while .40 is big in foreign countries and LE, less than 2% (if I remember correctly) shoot that caliber in the US." I'm not exactly sure how that justifies the decision not to include .40 in CDP, but that was her explanation. I'm assuming she means that less than 2 percent of IDPA shooters use .40 in matches. Of course, that number might grow, if we had the option of shooting it in CDP. But as has been said. It's really just as simple as: They own the game. They make the rules. Then each of us will decide if its worth playing.

By "second season" do you mean 2015? If you mean for this year, you may already be too late. I don't know anything about Doug Jones' build times. But a lot of the top builders take a year - give or take a few months - to complete a 2011 build.

This whole argument reminds me of debates I'd see on camera forums about why Leica cameras are or aren't worth their hefty premium over competing brands. When I was shopping for my limited gun a couple years ago, I ended up going with Matt Cheely over SVI, in part because I didn't personally see the value in spending the extra $1,000-$1,500 on the SVI gun. And I'd challenge anyone to prove that the extra money buys a better competition gun. It buys other things (all custom parts, etc., unique look, peace of mind, etc). But beyond a certain point, the extra dollars spent on a gun have very little to do with making it better for our games. Still, I'm not suggesting SVI's aren't worth their price. They are awesome guns from what I've seen. And if the people who buy them are happy with their purchases, that's all we really need to know.

My problem is that I've had great dealings with SnS, Bayou and Black Bullets. The guys that run those shops are just nice people and easy to deal with. I'm reworking my loads right now, so I ordered some evaluation packs from each of them. Going to test each of them against the other and see which one my gun likes best. That will decide it for me. And I know I will be happy with whichever one of them it turns out to be.

I still use grams followers for my IDPA gun - an STI Eagle. The only downside is that they do require some modification to keep them from locking back with one round in the mag.

Have some and really like them. But I did have to do some modifications to mount them on my safariland ELS forks. I like how small and light they are.

IDPA changed that rule about it being illegal to disable the mag safety. At least they did before they came out with new rule book. To me, the two biggest drawbacks to the High-Power are the long trigger reset and the horrible magwell/mag combo. Quick reloads are going to be a challenge with that gun - unless you want to cut your frame and have a magwell welded on. But I do love high powers.

Jim Garthwaite does some nice work on High Powers.

I have one off at Metaloy right now. $275 for the entire gun. It's matte type finish. Certainly not as shiny as some I've seen.

Went with a techwell on mine. Partly because I didn't want to change the MSH.

I ended up grabbing a set of fully adjustable rear sights by Kensight for my 1911 with Novak cuts. I don't like them quite as much as the Bomar style, but they are nice. And I would hate to not have total control over the sight picture.

Guessing I have somewhere around 8k pieces of .40 brass. I probably have roughly 2k-3k of it loaded at all times. I like to rotate it through - using everything, before going back to the start and starting over. Hoping that sort of minimizes the wear on each individual piece of brass.

Can't make someone do it. At my home range, we usually have nearly 20 people available to SO at club matches, making it pretty much a non-issue. But there is a nearby range where we'll occasionally attend matches. They don't have a surplus of SOs - relying on people to volunteer as squads are forming. We may have half a dozen certified SOs in our group, but the whole reason we go there is to shoot as a group - something we don't often get to do when we are putting on our own matches. So only one or two of us will officially volunteer to SO - with the others just falling in with the squad. Kind of a long way of saying that sometimes those certified SOs may be there just to hang out with friends, etc. Hell, maybe their hung-over and just not wanting the responsibility that morning. I'd say that if you don't have enough people volunteering to SO, it's time to start working on getting training for some more SOs who will do the job.

Shot my first match almost exactly 3 years ago. Shot it with a Glock 19. These days, I pretty much just shoot an STI Eagle.

The IDPA brass seems to be shocked when competitors choose legal gear that gives them the best chance to win - versus gear that's probably more common for real life BUG or conceal carry. If they want to solve that, they need to go with something like USPSA's approved production list. Otherwise, competitors are always going to push the envelope.

There is no way I'm traveling for a major match without a backup gun. My backup cost about a third of my primary gun, but they have matching triggers, grips, magwells, etc. They don't feel exactly the same. But they are close.

Amen to that.

It's funny you would say that. Maybe the same people who would carry Glock 34s, STI Eagles and full-size 1911s. It's rare that you see people shooting true carry guns in IDPA. Certainly not the serious competitors. In fact, it's so rare that IDPA actually has a sub-category of BUG guns (and occasional matches for them) just to get people to use real carry stuff. Nah. The idea of IDPA using real world carry equipment is just that. An idea. But it's not reality. Whats wrong with carrying a full size 1911. I do nearly everyday. Did someone say there is anything wrong with carrying a full-size 1911? I certainly didn't. That entire line of discussion came about when someone questioned whether the double alpha mag pouches are appropriate for CCW. Obviously, no one can really say what is and isn't right for everyday carry - whether we are talking about guns or mag pouches. But we do have to have rules, regardless of whether they make sense from a real-life CCW standpoint.

This is all I can find. Nothing in here seems to forbid it. It could be debated about whether it is designed for conceal carry. But as people have pointed out (regarding various guns), who can really say what is and isn't designed for conceal carry? Magazine Carrier must: A. Be designed for concealed carry and suitable for all day continuous wear. B. Be worn on a standard belt of no more than 1 ¾”width that must pass through the belt loops on the shooter’s pants. C. Hold the magazine with enough tension to allow it to be turned upside down and retain a fully loaded magazine. D. Cover 2” of the magazine as measured from the top of the cartridge rim down the back flat of the magazine tube. E. Cover the entire front face of the portion of the magazine inside the carrier. The front face is defined as the side of the tube away from the shooter’s body. F. Hold the magazine within 10 degrees of vertical (80-100° to the ground) position on the belt, no substantial forward or rear cant. G. Be worn in a belt location that will position the front edge of the carrier behind the centerline of the body.

They are, unless you change out the belt attachment. I mounted a pair on tek loks. Just as close to my body as safarilands. Sounds like about the most possible expensive way to make an IDPA mag pouch. With the adjustment wheel though I can't see them as legal. Not when you have a bunch of spare tek loks. And again, just to be clear, these were earlier ruled legal by IDPA. So, really, from my perspective, the most expensive way to make an iDPA mag pouch is to buy one that's legal, have it outlawed, and then buy another one that's legal. Can you point me to where these were ruled legal? I know that one of our shooters specifically asked Robert Ray about them at nationals and was told they were fine. But I guess I'd also ask you to show me where they were illegal - before the recent ruling. The only thing that makes them illegal is the new rule that forbids mag pouches that can be adjusted without a tool. That was not in the old rule book. Or even in the new rule book for that matter. It came out of the recent update.

USPSA is no different. You could shoot Limited with whatever reasonably well tuned gun you chose for IDPA and you'd be fine. It's why I don't get that equipment race argument. I just don't see it in USPSA. Certainly you can spend money on gear in some divisions. But as you point out, anyone who spends their time and money on ammo and practice will do themselves more good. It's not the gun that makes the shooter. USPSA masters and grand masters don't get there because they spent thousands of dollars tricking out their guns. They get there because they work their asses off.

They are, unless you change out the belt attachment. I mounted a pair on tek loks. Just as close to my body as safarilands. Sounds like about the most possible expensive way to make an IDPA mag pouch. With the adjustment wheel though I can't see them as legal. Not when you have a bunch of spare tek loks. And again, just to be clear, these were earlier ruled legal by IDPA. So, really, from my perspective, the most expensive way to make an iDPA mag pouch is to buy one that's legal, have it outlawed, and then buy another one that's legal.

I think you may be correct on USPSA's production class. But I think Single Stack and Revolver have always been this way. I don't mean to pick on you, but I just see this comment about equipment races repeated a lot - to the point where I don't know if people are really thinking about it. I've seen so many competitive ESP shooters with guns that might as well be USPSA limited guns in terms of expense. They are configured a little differently, but not enough that it's a real cost savings. Someone who spends $2,000 on an ESP gun isn't going to have a problem spending $2,200 on a Limited gun. Both games offer a lower-priced way to compete, whether it's IDPA's SSP or USPSA's production division. But you can spend a hell of a lot of money in IDPA's ESP division (or CDP, for that matter) - and they've done nothing to change that. As for your theory on the adjustable mag pouches - that makes as much sense as anything I can come up with. .