JWhit

Thanks, only intent there was to highlight that IPSC has been around for a while, not that the rule was written in 1976. But thanks for the clarification and explanation as to how IPSC ultimately arrived at their current position.

IPSC (est. 1976) does not allow this practice either; however, it is more well defined in the IPSC rule book: 8.7.1 (IPSC) Competitors are prohibited from taking a sight picture and/or dry firing prior to the Start Signal. Violation will result in a warning for the first occurrence and one procedural penalty for each subsequent occurrence in the same match. Competitors may, while pointing their firearm directly at the ground in front of them, adjust electronic sights. Just looking at the history of IDPA and its intent, 8.7.1 is probably what they were going for, but IDPA just worded it poorly in their rule book. As is often the case, a little diligence and clarity when producing IDPA rule books would reduce follow-on debates and AC interventions. However, it appears as though these conversations will remain necessary so that we can ultimately have an agreed upon ruleset, based on consolidated regional interpretations. Additionally, IPSC does not allow individual walkthroughs prior to the RO stage brief. I only present this to highlight the presumptive similarities between IPSC and IDPA and reinforce an assumption that IPDA may have intended 8.7.1 as the rule. 8.7.3 (IPSC) No person is permitted to enter or move through a course of fire without the prior approval of a Range Officer assigned to that course of fire, or the Range Master. Violations will incur a warning for the first offense but may be subject to the provisions of Section 10.6 for subsequent offenses. For the record, I used to dry fire at the ground as part of my LAMR sequence but after assessing the value -- making SOs very uncomfortable with an uncommon/questionable IPDA practice vs. minimal/no impact on stage performance -- I just stopped doing it. Recommendation to IDPA: If IPSC 8.7.1 is the intent, copy/paste or replace subsequent PEs for DQ, and update the IDPA rule book.

Ok I understand what you wrote now. Was just confused with how you described it. What about if you encounter a position considered "in the open", such as shooting targets through a port less than 24" wide with no cover line? Would you have to slide lock then if a reload was necessary to complete the target engagements?

You can conduct a reload with one in the chamber while at a position of cover and engaging targets in tactical priority. Technically, you are exposed to unengaged targets while doing this, so it needs to be clarified.

# 2 is correct.

I just got an M&P 2.0 metal with a TLR 7a WML to run reliably + lock back at 108 PF. 2.6 grains TG under a 147. Fits in the CCP box with 10 round mags (shaved down) and Dawson fixed sights. Amazingly, this worked with the stock recoil spring, but I have a 13# enroute for continued testing.

IDPA M (SSP, ESP, CO) USPSA GM (PROD, CO)

SSP Excluded Modifications. A.1.1.4. Add-on magazine well opening. NO magwells allowed that can be removed and reinstalled. Factory or aftermarket. “SKU photo” doesn’t apply to this rule. Mag wells must come off. This will not shake out any other way.

I think more people will change strategy based on the empty mag/1 in chamber reload. If loaded to division capacity 10+1, a shooter can reload on an even number and finish the stage. This negates most tactical reload decisions and reduces round dumping. The SSP 15+1 will likely still result in slide lock reloads toward the end of a stage. Standards stages often have reduced load starts, so 15 won’t matter much there. SSP will have a slight advantage on low round count scenario stages, but it won’t overcome the advantage of a dot by any means. So no, won’t change strategies based on SSP 15; but if shooting ESP/CO/CCP, most definitely yes based on new reload rules.

Agree completely - IDPA, probably more that USPSA, encourages its members to attend sanctioned matches (Tier 2 +) as demonstrated by the promotion/bump system and the requirements to make DM versus GM through match performance. Therefore, it should be incumbent on the local MDs to prepare their members for higher levels of competition. That can only be achieved through strict adherence to the rules and incorporating courses of fire that replicate what member's will see at sanctioned matches. This continuity helps grow the sport and increases individual performance outcomes at sanctioned matches. If clubs don't want to follow IDPA rules, that's fine, just don't market it as such, and let the shooters know upfront it is an outlaw match in Practiscore registration.

The 10 in ESP and CO was done not to disadvantage the many SS 1911s in these divisions and presumably allow CCP type guns with dots a place to compete in CO. As you stated, it wont matter much now that you can reload at 10 with one in the pipe without penalty (in fact that may be more advantageous). These changes are great for the sport as it will greatly reduce the incessant round dumping and negate most tac-reload decisions if your speed reloads are fast enough.

A humble suggestion….remove the penalty for “round in chamber/empty mag on ground” and let shooters determine how they want to solve the COF. In effect, round dumping IS round counting, so let shooters count to conserve ammo or dump ammo, as they choose. IDPA would still differ significantly from USPSA for penalizing any ammo left on the ground. If further definition of authorized reloads are required to update the rule book….1. emergency reload (slide lock), 2. tactical reload WITH retention (round in chamber/rounds in mag), and 3. tactical reload WITHOUT retention (round in chamber/empty mag). Just a thought, to prevent wasting ammo/time on targets that a shooter has adequately engaged just to induce a slide lock in the open - all of which seems counter-tactical. For the record, there are plenty of great stage designers out there that are conscious of this situation and mitigate large round dumping scenarios, so not entirely the rule book’s fault here either.

If you want to shoot your EDC setup - just shoot USPSA Open with your CO gun or Limited with your Irons. If you start shooting IDPA a lot, human nature will prevail and you will conform to a vest or shirt anyway. They vests don't need to be starched to work well, and with all the variance in start positions (ie lying down, seated, in a simulated boat etc....), you need a garment that will constantly conceal your gun and mags prior to the start signal. There are lots of options on vests as well, such as Columbia or North Face vests that can easily function as concealment garments in the "real word" and have won plenty of major matches. In either USPSA or IDPA the draw won't win you a match anyway, so I assume you are seeking to explore the tactical priority, cover (hard leans), or accuracy focus in IDPA to supplement your training/practice. Good luck.

From my experience, it takes about 6 good months of training to become proficient with the dot if no previous dot experience. Since you are new to the sport, it will take at least this long to become relatively competitive in any division, so not an issue. I also find it easier to go back to irons from a dot. I think a dot (especially a 3 MOA) provides more feedback on trigger control and sight alignment during dry and live fire practice, which helps improve overall marksmanship. Additionally, If you are just starting USPSA, CO will typically only require one mag change per stage, making stage breakdowns a little easier. Best of luck.

I wouldn't worry about too many making GM in a day with any selection of classifiers in CO. According to President Foley we should have some valid CO HHFs soon though.

Glock MOS is a good platform, or a milled 34 slide. Optic is low to bore, which keeps the dot constantly in view with 147/130 PF and a 13 lb recoil spring. Whatever platform you choose, I believe maintaining the dot in recoil is what makes this division faster than production and justifies the higher HFs. Also, reference another thread discussing the merits of co-witness irons - they seem to help subconsciously find the dot when shooting strong/weak hand classifiers and/or executing hard leans. Others disagree, but maybe something to look into when deciding on a platform.

"Expanded stippling, contouring and texturing of the grip frame to include undercut trigger guard and grip reduction" - Carry optics rules.

My Glock 34 is milled with a Vector Venom. I do not have much offset between POA/POI, possibly because the sight-bore distance is less than a dovetail mount. I zero at 25 yds, which is virtually the same POI at 50 and strikes 1/2 inch low at 5-7 yds. I would support the aforementioned recommendation to spend some time on the dot though, especially before a major competition. It identified some habitual errors in trigger control, and follow-through that I needed to fix.