RickB

I ordered some 30-round mags on Monday, and everything was out of stock, even the stuff that the website indicated was in stock. Since I was going to have to wait anyway, I called and asked to change my (back) order to the mags I really wanted. They apologized, and hoped my order would be filled this week, and that they're shipping 500-1000, 30-round mags a day.

Old thread resurrected.... Never tried SPS, but I have had good luck with ACT-MAG, although those are P14.45 only. After the springs wear in, they hold 14 (when new the springs would not compress to hold more than 12). The Dawson extended bases fit, but I have not run the combo in a match. ACT are made in Italy. Lee I also bought some ACT-Mags, mostly as spare tubes for my older Para mags. The former appear to be of good quality, and a dimensional match for the Paras. I have Grams pads and followers on/in my Paras, and two of the pads have small cracks in them, so it is good news that Grams is going to reintroduce Para pads.

This is a rule I don't get. You can flat top a slide or tri-top it--which will remove far more metal that the above pictured slide. Doesn't make any sense. I think, as much as anything, it reduces the "impression" that the gun has been lightened. It may seem sort of silly, to someone who might massage every part on a gun used in competition, but a lot of IDPA equipment rules are intended to ensure that things look stock, even if they aren't (that is, can't be readily confirmed as stock). Reduces any perception that a modification is "needed" to improve performance. There's no way to tell if some mods have been made, such as internal lightening (or removing of "safety" devices . . .), but it is possible to police external lightening performed on a standard, round-top slide. I'd like to see a weight and dimension rule, and let the shooter decide how they get there, but HQ keeps forgetting to ask me.

Sorry. I believe that is old and out of date information. I believe that was in the old rule book. No where in the 2005 rule book does the phrase "good faith effort" or good faith attempt" appear. What it does say is: 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. Bill apparently changed his mind; you are correct. There is no longer a reference to "good faith" attempts to stow a mag. Stow it, or else.

Sorry. I believe that is old and out of date information. I believe that was in the old rule book. No where in the 2005 rule book does the phrase "good faith effort" or good faith attempt" appear. What it does say is: 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. This is from the semi-official SO class syllabus that we were using two years ago: "The rulebook is a little ambiguous on this rule, so for your benefit, I verified it with Bill Wilson, even though I knew the rule. With only two exceptions, if a shooter’s gun, including the chamber, is not empty, the shooter must always retain the magazine or live rounds during a reload, period. The only two exceptions are for loaded magazines dropped during malfunction clearances or when a shooter makes an honest attempt to retain a magazine, but it falls from their pocket or pouch when they move to a new position of cover. This is the only time the honest attempt clause applies. It does not apply to simply dropping a magazine or missing a pocket." If that language did not make it into the official SO syllabus, which I don't have handy, then I'll concede.

FWIW, you do get an "oops" allowance if, during a Tactical Reload, while attempting to stow a partially-loaded mag on-the-move to another position (such as on string two of stage three of the classifier, while moving from the barricade to the barrel), that mag falls to the ground. A good-faith effort is required. Other than that, no approved reload concludes with a loaded mag still on the ground, and you can't fire a shot until the reload is completed.

It is actually illustrated in the Safety Officer class materials, as part of the test. I have never seen it on the range, though.

You get to use three mags during the course of fire. The rules say you can have two on the belt OR two in a pocket ("in lieu" meaning instead-of), and that doesn't mean you can have mags in both places and pick 'n' choose as long as you don't use more than two. If you come to the line with two mags in pouches on your belt, and you draw a mag from your pocket during the course of fire, you earn a PE. That said, if you have a barney mag in your pocket at the start signal, I am not going to ding you for violating the cited rule, if you don't touch it or lose it during the CoF. One of the SO's responsibilities is to ensure the shooter has a good time, and how much fun is it to fish for a single round to top off a mag?

Gaming is a state of mind; you're either in compliance or you're not.

The stage briefing and/or CoF description is what tells you. You didn't quote the first thing I said... "So, unless specified otherwise in the course description, ...." So does that mean we are in agreement on at least this issue that the RULES say nothing about having to pie low cover if you can shoot over it? -rvb Unless otherwise specified, targets are engaged in Tactical Priority. If a procedure says, "engage x-y-z using low cover", without further elaboration, and the cover is 3 feet tall, then I'd say you need to ask the MD if they expect you to pie around, or if shooting over is allowed. The procedure should specify, as otherwise you could expect to have an option. Either way, keep at least one knee down, and keep both knees behind cover!

If you are shooting around cover, high or low, you must pie. If you are shooting over cover, you can't pie, but you still must use Tactical Priority (near-to-far, in this case) unless Tac Sequence is specified. The rule book says 100% of the lower body must be covered by vertical cover, and for low cover, one knee on the ground. Any cover that is being pied is "vertical" cover, whether you are kneeling or not, and you can't expose your lower body - on the side you are shooting around - when using vertical cover. The language seems clear enough, and I can't see how it could be construed to mean that the requirement for keeping the lower body covered is waived because your knee is down? I generally ignore whatever is going on on the other side. That is, you could use a 2x4 as vertical cover, as I'm only concerned with that line created by the edge of the cover that's between the gun and the target.

Is someone contending that as long as "low cover" is specified, it's OK to have your legs hanging out? I've never seen, nor heard of "100% of lower body" being waived because it's "low cover".

Do folks find it common to get a procedural or procedurals at every match? That is, the requirements of the CoFs or the understanding of the rules is sufficiently vague, for some or all concerned, that there's an expectation of getting dinged?

We had a "non-denominational" single stack match at our range, because there's both an IDPA club and a USPSA club in residence, and I wanted to attract as many shooters as possible. I modified Vickers scoring, so that major was worth .3 second per point, and minor .5 second per point, and had everyone, regardless of whether they were classified in USPSA Single Stack, or IDPA ESP or CDP, shoot in a single division for overall standings. There was some headscratching, but nobody complained. Afterwards, I explained it this way: USPSA's hit-factor scoring is essentially points-per-second. The target has the same points value for each scoring zone as IDPA, and the shooter must discover the best ratio of time to points, to get the best score. The shooter must do the same in IDPA, but the penalty for each point dropped is so much greater, that the shooter is generally compelled to shoot somewhat slower/more-accurately in order to attain the best score. Here's an example: The El Presidente is shot in both IDPA and USPSA, and while they differ a bit, everyone knows the El Prez. Using hit-factor scoring, two shooters might post scores like this: T1: Four Alphas (down zero), T2: Two Alphas, two Charlies (down two), and T3: Three Alphas, one Delta (down three), in a time of five seconds flat. Score: 55 points in five seconds = hit factor of 11.0. Shooter two gets all Alphas (down zero) on all targets, in six seconds. Score: 60 points in six seconds = hit factor of 10.0 Shooter one wins. Using Vickers scoring, shooter one's score is 7.5 seconds, while shooter two's score is 6.0 seconds; shooter two wins, and by a much larger margin. Using the scoring system in place for Sunday's match, shooter one would have a score of 6.5 seconds, while shooter two would still have a score of 6.0. Shooter two wins again, but the margin is smaller, as the scoring system tips the balance back toward speed. So, which is more important in the "real world", speed or accuracy? Both USPSA/IPSC and IDPA subscribe to the theory of "DVC": Speed, Power and Accuracy as the three equally-important legs of a tripod. Which scoing system strikes the best balance?

Isn't any gun without restrike capability actually single action? If you have to cycle the slide to reset the trigger, it's single action, right?

Don't be too quick to buy 10-round, rather than 9-round mags. Most IDPA stages have only paper targets, engaged two-each, and starting with 9+1 can actually confer advantages compared to 10+1.

Heinie rear, Dawson .010" front. I haven't adjusted the sight in seven years, so don't see adjustable rear as a must, or even a plus on a carry/IDPA gun.

A classifier match takes longer to run than a typical, six-stage match, so there's no way we would try to run the classifier plus additional stages on a single match day.

Duane - I think the results of this poll are close to being the inverse of the actual numbers across all IDPA members. I'd bet Marksmen and Sharpshooters make up three-fourths of all shooters. And, the number of Masters is less than half the number of Experts. I've been running classifiers for almost nine years, sometimes thirty or forty shooters a year, and I still have yet to see anyone shoot a Master score. I've seen lots of Sharpshooters shoot Marksman scores, though.

We have reflective triangles, like you see for traffic warnings, with small, red LEDs mounted on them, that we use for muzzle safe points, and we try to have red filters on cheap G.I. flashlights for general illumination; only the shooter is allowed white light. I hook the red light on my hip pocket, so that when I'm downrange, everyone uprange can see me down there. Night shoots are a lot of fun, and very . . . illuminating. We set up at 4:00, then as it gets darker, we shoot three or four stages, two or three times each, to get the full low-to-no light effect, finishing up about 9:00. We can do this only in the Winter, due to range hours, so it's usually cold and rainy, as well as dark.

I was really addressing the "several procedurals for cover"; you should get one procedural for each type of infraction, regardless of how many instances. If there were three positions of cover on a scenario CoF, and you failed to use cover on all of them, it would still be just one procedural, or one FTDR.

No matter how many times you failed to use cover, only one penalty should be assessed; PE or FTDR. Neutralization is a matter of scoring, not of engagement. You can't fire one round at everything, and then charge the targets; you have to use cover any time you are engaging.

Your outrage is admirable, but how would a line on the ground help matters?

Co-hosted by Northwest Practical Pistol Association (nwppa-idpa.com) and Renton Fish & Game Club (rfgc.org) 14 stages, 135 rounds minimum. $50 match fee includes lunch, and a random-draw prize table. Must have current IDPA membership, and be classified in the division in which you will compete. Match website, including entry form: http://northwestsection.org/waidpac08/

I did a little surfing, and 773s appear to be marketed for competition and duty use, rather than carry. They look awfully bulky for carry, regardless.