RickB

Is there any reason why the faction that likes 18-round stages, couldn't instead put two, 9-round stages in a single shooting bay, with a tac load in between? Or take a 4-target scenario, and require four hits per? There is not necessarily a conflict between "realistic" and high round counts. I get enough 30-round stages on Sundays (clubs in our USPSA Section shoot on Sunday), that I like, and want, short, "sneaky" stages at an IDPA match. That doesn't mean there can't have been lots of shooting, when the day is done. Having a side stage after the match, for those who want to shoot more rounds to justify the drive and the fee, is another way to get the round count up. We usually have a BUG, rifle, or shotgun side stage, every month, in addition to the six-stage pistol match.

Aaron - Contact Jon Gilbert and/or Dan Michels, from NWPPA. If you need email addys, let me know. Those two guys ran the prize tables at our '02-'05 matches. Talk nice to Dan, and he may even give you our contact list. Rick

When I was "Vice President In Charge of Match Production" for an ISPC club, I (we) would often spend five-to-six hours at the range, the day before a match, setting up stages so that they could be shot freestyle. Now, when I'm MDing an IDPA match, we show up two hours before the shooting starts, to set up the stages. What a lot of IPSC-oriented shooters seem to miss about IDPA, is that the stages are scenario-driven, so they HAVE to be shot in a certain way. If the scenario says, "You are approached by an armed assailant, THEN one of his buddies jumps in", you can't, for obvious reasons, engage T2 before T1. Because that's the case, you have the scenario, rather than vision barriers, dictating the sequence of events. It's really great, from the perspective of the MD, RM, SO, stage designer, etc., as you don't have to worry about rounds being fired from unanticipated angles, or shooters moving in unanticipated directions, etc. For the shooter, there's still the not-insignificant problem of actually executing.

I shot Precision bullets through a Schuemann barrel (.45 Classic), for about three years. Every 1000-1500 rounds, I'd run a dry bore brush through it, 10-15 strokes, and the barrel would be sparkly clean. Masterblasters leave a little more gunk, but for the price, I can do a bit of cleaning. I've switched back to Precision (at least until Masterblasters get back up to speed), and they shoot just as clean in my current Kart barrel as they did in the Schuemann; next to no residue, even after 1000 rounds. Buddies have had less success with them, in terms of residue.

When I started my reloading, about ten years ago, I took that approach. I measured 8-10 different commercial and G.I. rounds, and they averaged .473". I had a bunch of feed failures, and after showing the rounds to my "gunsmith", he suggested a tighter crimp. I've been using .470" ever since, with no regrets.

I might ding the guy for being dumb enough to talk about it. As already mentioned, it is all but impossible to enforce dumping, when it is at odds with Vickers scoring. The only time I was actually about to ding a guy for it, was when he engaged three targets, at less than seven yards, with three each. As he was performing a slidelock reload, I caught the eye of the scorekeeper, and was gesturing for a penalty, when the shooter engaged the remaining targets with three each. I couldn't very well ding the guy for wanting to put an insurance shot on everything. If he had put two-each on every target, after three-each on the initial array, then an argument for dumping could be made, but the three extra shots would just about balance the reload time, so what's the point? I like the idea of no dumping, in principle, but just don't see how to enforce it.

Crusher's got it right. Ammo is carried behind the body centerline, on the weak side, except revolvers may have two loaders immediately in front of the holster, instead. Another fun thread, with two or three swipes at IDPA before anyone really answers the question. Let it go. Really. It's OK.

Wow, I'm amazed a how many posts there were, in a thread concerning revolvers in IPSC, before someone would find a way to bash IDPA. Marvelous. I like the part about the "angst" within the sport, over the new rules. We increased our match attendance in '05, by about 25% over '04. The angst was truly felt by few, and most have stopped whining, so why bring it up now? We don't get many revo shooters in our Section, but as someone correctly pointed out, what harm do they do? It's not like MDs sweat about revo-friendly CoFs; as a buddy put it, "Revo shooters are used to getting f-ed-with". They don't complain about 9-shot arrays, so why should I complain about their having fun? L10 was not intended as a single stack division, and while it is dominated by single stacks, has the perceived need for a Limited division loading only ten rounds, gone away? Are there folks in Cali, NJ, Hawaii, etc., who couldn't get hi-cap mags ten years ago, but who can now get them? Aren't they the people for whom L10 was intended? That someone decided to design 10-round mags for single stacks was just fortunate for shooters who don't have (or want . . .) a hi-cap race gun. I shot "Limited 8" for a few years, and would shoot Limited with 10-round mags, if that's where the sport goes. Rolling L10 into Production would take care of the "need" for a separate single stack division (if you ignore the folks for whom the division was intended), and allowing 8-shot revos in Production would be fun, too. How about instead of getting rid of Revo or L10, we get rid of Limited? Since everyone can get 10-round mags, let's have everyone shoot 10s. Keep Revo and Production.

One of two Colt '91A1s; stainless, stockish Super, or stock-looking much much worked-over .45. Blade-Tech or Kramer IWB, and Blocker or El Paso pouches.

6 weeks is typical, in my experience.

Who says it's not an approved target? As Flex stated, the plates are the targets. The holder or stand their on is immaterial. And, if what you say happens, it's still REF and a reshoot. Troy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Interesting. We've had a number of instances of t-star stages being thrown out, because the holder or stand was determined to present an unequal test of skill. A lot of the grumbling included, "It's not approved, anyway . . ." Thanks

The IDPA classifier is meant to be practiced. It contains most of the skills that are used in IDPA shooting (if string one of stage three was replaced with more shooting from seven yards - perhaps moving laterally - it would be a better test of IDPA skill. Why have 1/3 of the total rounds fired from 15-20 yards, when it's rare to shoot more than a handful of rounds at those ranges?). Very much unlike IPSC classifiers, which really test little of the wide range of skills necessary to do well at IPSC matches. I'd say 90% of the classifiers I've shot have tested only my ability to stand flat-footed and hose targets at 7-10 yards, which is hardly representative of what is faced in the typical field course. Virtually every classifier could be improved - in the interest of classifiers reflecting a test of overall skill - by doing nothing but adding a second shooting box.

I've found that classification doesn't necessarily mean much. I've been a Sharpshooter for four years, and even as my USPSA classification rose to 80%, I still couldn't get within ten seconds of IDPA Expert. I know guys who are IDPA Experts, and they can't get within 10% of A class; works both ways.

A lot of what you brought up, concerning poor course design, and SOs who seem to take pride in penalizing people, is also covered in the rule book. Stages should be designed so that they are not confusing, and the SO is supposed to facilitate the shooter's having a good time! Tie goes to the runner, and all that. SOs are not there to "catch" people screwing up; they should be doing their best to help the shooter understand what is expected of him, and then give him the benefit of the doubt (when doubt exists . . .) on scoring and other issues. One of the things that I've really come to enjoy about IDPA, is the non-adversarial relationship that can exist between shooter and SO; that is one of the ways in which IDPA (should) differ from IPSC, and it's spelled out in the rule book. I don't think of the IDPA SO as cop, so much as a lifeguard. Good course design alleviates a lot of the problems.

There really are no "guidelines", as to what constitutes a personal walkthrough. We'd always banned airgunning at our club matches, under the no-walk throughs rule, but some folks thought airgunning was OK, since it wasn't specifically addressed in the rule book (you were aware of the no airgunning rule, which just came out this Spring, but weren't aware of the "rehearsal rule", which has been around for years?). At our club, where we host a monthly club match, and where the last four state championships have been held, we cover personal walkthroughs during the shooters meeting; we decided the least we can do is tell the shooters how the rule will be interpreted. It certainly shouldn't be left up to individual SOs to determine for themselves. Essentially, you cannot mime the movements of a stage, while at that stage (our club's interpretation, arrived at with help from, and full approval of our Area Coordinator). If you want go to the safe area, going through the stage mentally, that's fine. But, don't stand at the front of the stage, moving back and forth, while alternating the sweeping-back of the covering garment, signifying when you will draw and/or reload. Also, if you are helping tape, don't linger at barricades and other pieces of cover (unless there are holes in them . . .). We've even warned, only half-jokingly, against shooters pointing at targets. I have never applied a procedural for airgunning or personal walkthroughs, preferring instead to just keep after shooters to not do it. I have warned a shooter, the same shooter, two or three times at a match, but have never dinged them, as I think the value of the "mime" walkthrough is limited, and by the time most shooters have watched, and/or taped for, two or three other shooters, they've seen everything, anyway. At a sanctioned match, a shooter should expect to get dinged, perhaps without warning.

This should probably be in the IDPA rules forum?

Since a Texas Star isn't an approved target, how would that rule apply? If a plate is hit, and dislodged from its mount, but doesn't fall to the ground, what's the call?

You'd run into that in any sport in which the officials don't read the rule book. As long as the P14 makes weight and fits in the box, it's legal in ESP and CDP.

Our range supports IDPA, USPSA, and Cowboy Action. One guy had the brilliant idea of holding a charity match, with stages set up by members of each group, and shot by all using the gear of choice. I didn't hear a peep out of anyone, concerning who was doing it right, or how ridiculous some rule or "tactic" was, because everyone was, at some point, a fish out of water. It was a lot of fun, and a good way to get shooters together, from different disciplines, without any of the baggage that can accompany changing disciplines. I'm President of the local IDPA club, and have MD'd four state championships; I'm also the shooters rep for the Northwest Section of USPSA (Area 1), and have been shooting IPSC for eight years. At every opportunity, I try to attract shooters to both sports. Some like both, some stick to one only, but I have not seen much "not welcome here" behavior from either group. I will hear the occasional, "When the buzzer goes off, why would I want to go run and hide?" from the ISPC guys, and the IDPA folks will wonder how "practical" is an Open gun and 150 rounds on the belt, but it doesn't seem to be mean-spirited or dismissive, in either case. I think there is a bit of "that's not the way we do it" whenever someone who's really good at one sport brings their skill set to the other, but again, I see it more as "he'll learn . . ." than "cheater" (or "wanker", as the case may be).

I want to clarify; "we don't let" means "the course description prevents". If we have a stage with rooms and walls, we designate certain areas as appropriate for reloading, and some as not appropriate. Walls can be vision barriers and walls can be cover.

We, including our AC, have done a lot of thinking on it. I suppose it's one of those dreaded attempts to inject the "T-word" into a game. If I am exposed through 360 degrees, head-to-toe, as I would be standing in a hall or in the middle of a room, I am not behind cover. We're trying our best to not make a travesty of the sport of defensive pistol shooting.

We have this come up whenever we have "house clearing" stages; if I'm standing in the hall, and can see no threats, am I not "behind cover"? I say no, because, well, you are standing in the hall, where any and every threat can "see" you. A mix of rules and "tactics" perhaps, but we don't let anyone reload unless they are in a "room" that they've already cleared, and are also clear of the doorway. Similarly, if you are 30 feet uprange of a wall, and there is a target on the other side, that you can't see, are you behind cover? Technically, since you can't see any threats, and there's a wall between you and the threats, you are behind cover, but if I'm thirty feet from cover, and there's someone else on the other side, five feet away from it, I'd say I'm out in the open, and HE'S behind cover.

Ditto putting the minimum required number of rounds downrange before moving to the next target. If the course description says three each, in tactical priority, then you could not shoot one each, then come back to them. Tactical Sequence does not apply unless it is specified in the course description. I had a debate on "engaging" steel with a number of SOI and ACs, because I didn't like the idea of a shooter fulfilling the requirement of engaging steel merely by firing a round at it. If you "engage" a popper and leave it standing, you can then re-engage it at any time you like, without fear of a cover call while engaging something else, and without fear of penalty for engaging out of sequence. It's assumed that paper is hit when it's "engaged", and apparently steel must be treated the same way. We had a stage at our last match, with a drop-turner and a target that moved on a track, each activated by a separate popper downrage of a barricade. If you shot it right-to-left, you had to shoot both poppers before moving to the paper, since neither paper target was available until activated, and you couldn't bypass a steel target to get to the paper (or could you? If you shot at it, apparently it's OK to leave it standing and go on to the paper, even though you are exposed to the threat steel target that you engaged and missed). If shot around the left side, the shooter could engage the left-most steel, wait for the turner, then the right steel, then wait for the mover. The better shooters shot both steel, went to the turner, then still got the mover before it disappeared behind hard cover, regardless of which side of the barricade they shot around. How is the SO to determine whether or not Tactical Priority has been observed, if the shooter must only shoot at steel to satisfy having engaged it?

I'm shooting a Delta Elite.

I've had great function from factory Colt and Metalform 8-rounders. Nary a problem. Chip McCormick 9-rounders have been nothing but trouble. On reloads, the top round tends to squirt out, and up into the magwell. Also, a baseplate came off just pulling the mag from a pouch. I have no experience with other brands or capacities.