freeidaho

There is no requirement for the equipment to be hidden with hands at sides. I'd bet these shooters pass the scare crow test. There is absolutely no upside for these vests to be illegal. It would make the shooter and the sponsors look bad, and there is no competitive advantage to be gained.

8.1.2 Magazine Loading 8.1.2.1 All magazines must be loaded to division capacity at the start signal throughout the match except in the following cases: 8.1.2.2 If a magazine is used that holds less than division capacity, the shooter will load all magazines to the capacity of the lowest magazine throughout the match. 8.1.3 Division Capacity 8.1.3.1 SSP – 10 rounds 8.1.3.2 ESP – 10 rounds 8.1.3.3 CDP – 8 rounds 8.1.3.4 CCP – 8 rounds 8.1.3.5 REV – 6 rounds 8.1.3.6 BUG – 6 rounds total 8.1.3.7 NFC – 10 rounds 8.1.3.7 In SSP, ESP, CCP, and CDP, and semi-auto BUG the shooter will also start with one round in the chamber, unless the CoF description requires otherwise. Other than using the 8.1.3.7 number twice it seems clear to me.

8.8.2 Cleats Cleated shoes may be worn so long as the cleats are made entirely from a rubber compound that you can push your fingernail into. No hard plastic or metal cleats are permitted.

8.2.7. Not For Competition 8.2.7.1. IDPA encourages shooters to practice their gun handling skills with commonly carried firearms. Many everyday carry firearms do not fit into the 5 competition divisions. 8.2.7.2. IDPA allows clubs to add a “Not for Competition” scoring division for Tier 1 matches only. This allows calibers smaller than 9mm, carry optics, and other pistols which do not fit into the 5 competition divisions to participate in local club matches. 8.2.7.3. All other IDPA equipment rules apply for holsters and loading device holders as well as their placement on the body. Match Directors also have the option to allow junior shooters with .22 rimfire firearms to begin strings at low ready in lieu of requiring a holster. 8.2.7.4. All IDPA membership rules apply. 8.2.7.5. Clubs are not required to implement this provision, and Match Directors are allowed discretion with implementation so that match quality remains high.

Bill I sure hope that was info@yahoo.com . kr

I suspect it is all about the resume. Vogel's sponsors or anyone in the shooting industry would not care if he added 2014 Idaho State IDPA ESP Champion to his trophy wall or resume. If we want to see him, we would need to pay for one of his classes to be held locally. Not a bad idea though. We do get to see many of the big dogs for the MGM Iron Man 3-gun and MGM Man on Man competition, both held at Parma. kr

You nailed it. kr

Actually IDPA licenses several makers of "official" IDPA targets. A buyer of targets can use them for whatever they want to. Matches, practice, bottom of bird cage, making a dog house... whatever. kr

Bill, Relax. Every time a new rulebook comes out or the sun comes up, people predict the demise of IDPA. It is the one true constant in life and it has been happening since the late 90's. Yet club matches are trying to figure out how to deal with record number of shooters in many locations. SO classes are full. Lots of SOs didn't recerity because they wanted to take the new class, and there is new blood wanting to be SOs all the time. Many sanctioned matches fill up within a couple weeks of registration opening, and the match is three months away. Many have demanded another day be opened up at the Winter Nats, and most recently the BUG Nats. In 2005 some highly creative people started up a couple of different IDPA-like shooting sports, but "better." None exist today. They died a lonely death without tears. So relax. Some get an odd sense of joy at hacking against IDPA. Ya kinda got to let them, or they get real nasty. And I have the PMs saved to prove it. Be safe, have fun, shoot straight, do it quickly, reload, and repeat... kr

Happy New Year, I think you mostly got it now. I think two things are still off a bit You wrote: I think there are a lot of people that end up as Sharpshooters or Experts and they don't belong there. I'm a data driven person, if you couldn't tell, so I'd like to see this data please. Or maybe this is unsubstantiated opinion, which means one can say anything and not have any data. When I go to USPSA, 3-gun, and IDPA matches I see some people that can not shoot up to their classification on any given month. I don't interpolate that into the thought that the classification systems are flawed. It is just the way things work. Not everyone shoots their best scores every outing, no matter their sport. Some shooters are pretty steady range session to range session, and some are up and down all over the place. It is the human condition. And each sport has a way or two that shooters can cherry pick their classifier results. Some do, some don't. You wrote: It's impossible for everyone to be 95+%. Not to belabor the point, but actually it is not impossible. Take three shooters as the entire database. Hightest scored 100, second highest scored 99, third highest scored 98. All make GM. No matter how many shooters there are, if they shoot between 100 and 95, they all make GM. I know it is a hypothetical point, but lets be accurate, if not forthcoming. We agree, that it doesn't much matter to either of us. Each sport has ways to nudge a classification up or down artificially by keeping only the best scores, or keeping only the worst scores, and that doesn't even include just throwing a few shots. The big talk right now is the new female GM is not a real GM. How can that happen with a classification system that is so complicated it has to be computerized and held up to be perfect in every way? Dunno. BTW: This thread is open on the IDPAforum, here and the Doodie project. Lots of good stuff written in each venue. Check out GlockToGo's post on Doodie. One last thought. Practice makes way more difference on one's classification than does any of the common classification systems. If one is worried about their classification, I'd recommend practice. If one is worried about the classification of others, there is no solution for that. kr

I'm not sure if you missed the point on purpose or not. USPSA seems to always be held up as the perfect example of everything. So, why not apply Bones math experiment. Now I'm not sure you understood Bones' thought experiment. In the IDPA case, Bones started out with 100 Marksman as the only shooters in a completely isolated system and did the subsequent math. If it was not a completely isolated system, then the math doesn't work. So, just like in Bones example for IDPA, if the only shooters in the entire USPSA system are the 100 shooters with "D" class skills, there is no 20%. Their score is the 100% mark. They all make Grand Master, because their scores would be the only scores in the classification database. Their scores automatically represent 100%. This is an apples to apples comparison using the same premise. The example is an unattainable contrived situation. It means nothing for IDPA or USPSA. That is my point. If you can read clearly, I am agreeing with Bones' premise that USPSA match bumps classifiy people more accurately than do IDPA match bumps. But the math example fails for IDPA and USPSA. It means nothing for either sport. The IDPA match bump only occurs if the shooter beats 9 others in his/her classification/division or the ones above. And as you have said, people don't spend the money to go to sanctioned matches if they can't shoot. So it isn't as bad as y'all make it out to be. You seem to be advocating that hardly anyone in IDPA is properly classified. It ain't true. kr

Matt, It is Bones' math experiment using USPSA instead of IDPA. kr

Okay, lets look at that math. Lets start 100 shooters with "D" class skills in USPSA. They stay the same skill level forever. It seems to me, and I am no expert on USPSA classifiers, that they all make Grand Master in their first series of classifiers. The example is contrived. It makes no sense in the real world of IDPA or USPSA or ICORE or Autocross or Drag Racing. Ever participate in drag racing. You run against whom ever shows up. None-the-less, the point that a promotion in USPSA compares a shooter against the whole population, mostly, and in IDPA it compares the shooter against those attending a single match. One requires a whole lot of infrastructure to implement, the other requires nearly none. Two different philosophies of how to run a sport. Either way I don't see any shooters with MM skills classified as a Master or DM, which seem to be the worry of some. But not me. And I don't see the casual shooter taking home anything from the Nats or Carolina Cup, except grins. kr

Jim, et. al., Several people have submitted different / shorter classifiers, including me. I just cut strings out of the current Classifier where skills were being tested twice. I even collected a bunch of classifier raw data, and tried to put together new times for the shortened classifier, using times from actual runs of the strings I kept. But it would be a significant change to manage, either way. The problem I see with changing the classifier is one of momentum, that is the 20,000 shooters that are classified the current way. The TTs changed the Classifier times a bit this year based on real large match performance, and you should have heard the whining. Can you imagine what would happen trying to switch to a whole new classifier... no matter how good it might be? One issue we currently have is the incorrect perception about bumps. I hear it given as a flaw in the current system that someone gets a bump and can't shoot with the group they just got bumped into. But that is the same for all classification systems. When someone first makes Expert on the classifier, or "B" on the classifier, or gets bumped, there are a whole range of skills in that new group. Some are just about to bump to the next range, and those will be the winners at matches in their group. Some just got into the group, and will suck up the tail end of the scores in their new group for a while. Everyone gets promoted into a group they are not competitive in, no matter how bumps are done, or classifications are set. It is not a flaw in the current system. All systems have this problem. Given that the current shooter's classifications are roughly a bell curve with the fewest in DM and next in MA, and EX being the next smallest, and the most shooters in SS and MM, maybe we have no actual problem... except on the internet. Just a thought, kr

8.2.1.3.3. Magazine releases, slide stops, safety levers, de-cocking levers, hammers, and triggers, that are stock on one SSP legal firearm may be used on another SSP legal firearm from the same manufacturer provided they are drop in replacements. Parts in this list must come factory installed on standard production firearms. Special parts that are available installed only from a factory custom shop are not eligible in SSP. Effective 04/01/2014.

At out club with electronic scoring, we have the shooter hit the submit button as "our" version of signing the score sheet. kr

Actually I was at the town hall meeting. Joyce replied to Melissa that she would consider looking into the brace issue again. kr

Jens, As I mentioned on the IDPAforum, most competitors do not have a special category, so 1..n doesn't work. It needs to be 0..n kr

I think laser sights would still be problematic since rule 5.3 would still be in effect for the Not-For-Competition division. 5.3. Any target engaged with the use of an active laser or weapon-mounted light will incur one (1) PE for each target using an active laser or weapon-mounted light.

Howdy, You didn't say which CZ. If the CZ in question is allowed into ESP because of the SSP to ESP transfer rule, then no, you could not make it a SAO. If the CZ meets all the requirements of an ESP gun without going through the SSP to ESP rule, then yes, you can change the gun to SAO. Does that help, kr

I think the poll is a bit unclear. There are too many issues balled up in the question. Here are some of the main ones: -Did the new rulebook do a better job of describing the rules? -Is it better organized and is it easy to find what you are looking for? -Did they keep the rules that you personally liked? -Did the rules change is a way that you personally liked? I think that many are saying the new rulebook is a poor simply because they didn't get their pet rule change. Personally I expect it will get better due to the suggestions made on IDPA.com during the review period. kr

RIght now it is harder to find 22 ammo than 9mm around here. Allowing 22s means no falling steel, which isn't a big deal unless your club uses poppers to activate movers. That is a lot to give up. I guess if your club has no movers, then it isn't a big deal. Some say 380s and 25s and 22s will knock over steel, yet we have all the regular drama when 9mm doesn't knock it over. kr

Belt through the pants loops? kr

I believe this section of the rulebook covers this situation: Appendix TWO - Approved IDPA Reloads Failure to do an IDPA approved reload will result in a three (3) second procedural penalty per infraction. Failure to do the reload specified by the CoF will result in a three (3) second procedural penalty or an FTDR. Failure to properly stow a partial magazine or live ammunition after a Tactical Reload or Reload with Retention prior to firing the first shot after the reload, will incur a procedural penalty.

sbc, I am glad it is considered legal. However, if doesn't really meet the rule as written. The rule doesn't mention covering 2/3 rds of the rounds, rather 2/3rds of the circumference which it calls diameter. Confusing indeed. Thanks, kr