Buzzdraw

It's been 20 years since we've done plaques for tier 1 IDPA. The sharp competitor looks first at how they did within their division before looking at overall placement. They totally ignore PCC unless that's what they shoot.

A long-term core concept in IDPA is to encourage use of existing self defense firearms. Definitely NOT to encourage an equipment race like the one that damaged IPSC shooters in the early to middle 1980's. Ones newly built then were likely obsolete when delivered from the gunsmith. To counteract this, Single Stack and L10 came in as well as Limited. IDPA is stumping its toe with CCP changes disenfranchising those with the single stack 1911 type carry guns. It's been done twice now in recent years. Looking at revolver, if it is opened up to 8 rounders it will kill the use of millions of 6 shot revolvers out there. The typical self defense revolver is not one of the scarce 7 or 8 rounders but one of the plentiful less expensive 6 shot ones. Changing rules to favor the newly manufactured guns of any sort may make industry partners smile but will make those with existing quality self defense guns frown. CO may be on the ascendancy but let's not grease the skids unnecessarily just to please industry partners.

Like maybe it should have included or referenced all the CDP legal mod's and listed the CDP disallowed mods?

Shooters in IDPA compete only with others in the same Division, not with all shooters regardless of Division. I don't think the mag cap changes in RB 2022 are any attempt to put divisions on an equal playing field with other divisions. A few SSP guns out there have a mag capacity of less than 15 rounds. The new 15 round rule makes some auto pistols, mainly 40 S&W, non-competitive for SSP. Should SSP cap expansion have stopped at 12-13 maybe?

It's about the gun not the stage. ESP was created for the .38 Super 1911 when the sport started. It's a 10 round gun. CO follows ESP in all aspects except it has an optic. The 10 round cap is there to not render it non-competitive.

I abhor stages that are SO traps. Ditto for stages that the MD or course designer gleefully hope to pin a whole slew of PE's on shooters. Neither are in the spirit of good sportsmanship and fellowship, prime IDPA original tenants.

With the current rules interpretation explanation system IDPA is more likely to have the tribal rules continue. That's versus a online Q & A system backed up by a single source for rules interpretation. An example of this is the "stowing" rule that got out of hand for consistent interpretation for 2-3 years; should not have happened. Once tribalism starts, often with good but mistaken intentions, it's difficult to revert. I agree with those who suggest that all matches, including basic club matches, be run by the rulebook. Makes it so much simpler. For those that want to run outlaw matches I say fine, but be clear that it is an outlaw match and not an IDPA match.

What originally attracted me to IDPA over 20 years ago was the application of its stated purpose; self defense shooting in real world situations. That required stage props and required shooter operations not directly related to launching bullets downrange. Today's IDPA is all about the bullet launch, nothing much else. Stages have become blah. RB 2022 will make them more blah I venture.

That's for USPSA under their Rule 3.3. IDPA does not have a directly analogous rule. The Board of Directors for our "big club" carefully considered AIWB and rejected that holster position for safety reasons. It's hard to argue against their stance when it was absolute DQ level safety dogma in IDPA for many years.

Looks to me that in 2022 v.1 which will be coming along in a couple days that the steel calibration breaks need to be at 95 pf if BUG is allowed and 105 pf for all the rest. Also appears that a better definition of "legal partial target" should be forthcoming. To make things simple, perhaps only certain partials, closely defined, should be permitted. Would hinder some course designer creativeness but would also remove considerable shooter frustration too. The dropped mag rule being empty of ammo ties back into the rule allowing disabling of slide locks. We always checked any suspect magazine on the ground before so that's not new. The new rule makes it more necessary to inspect the mags on the ground. Thinking outside the box, why don't we simply allow the shooter to leave mags on the ground without penalty, partly full or not. No requirement to pick up partly full before last shot. Makes things much simpler for the SO and shooter. If the shooter runs out of ammo on his person before he finishes the stage it's a self correcting problem due to scoring for misses and penalties. Even a SSP shooter, with 15 in his mags, could get into" not enough bullets" trouble when a malfunction or two happened and too liberal sprinkling of the ground with part full mags occurred.

Unfortunately it will make the SO's job a little more complicated as they will have to check each suspect dropped mag for being devoid of ammo or still populated status.

Looks like a "bug" in RB 2022. Either CCP needs to go to 125 pf or steel calibration dropped to 105 pf for non-BUG matches.

Metal plate is drop in. A little tweaking required to get it in just the right place then done. Just email Dillon what you need and why; likely they will send them no cost via USPS.

I for one, as an IDPA MD, will continue to do my best to follow the course design criteria in the 2017.3 Rulebook and whatever most current Match Admin guide comes down the pike. In the rulebook, Sec. 1.2.3, there is a discussion of CoF principles. Many of the actions banned in M-9.1.1 were in contravention of these principles. A few of the actions banned taught competitors potentially usable skills, such as how to shoot one handed while holding an object. On the other hand, carrying a glass full of water while moving and not loosing water from it while shooting is not a skill for which I see any real utility. In 1.1 it is encouraged to test the skills of shooters that could be used to survive life threatening encounters. There can be a lot of testing packed into a 12-18 round CoF, more than in a CoF of lesser round count. I am in agreement with the max allowed distance of 20 yards to target allowed in scenario stages. Also with the rule that 75% of all shots required must be not greater than 15 yards. M-9.1.1 is going to make MD's and set-up crews work a bit harder to keep CoF legal as well as relevant and fun. It can be done. Maybe removing all the potentially controversial possibilities from IDPA is necessary. Many SO's prefer to call "cover" from a shooter's use of a fault line. Same for not having to judge "movement". Makes it easier to focus on safety.

Methinks a flared mouth mag pouch would be considered as "competition only" and not suitable for everyday use. See Rule 8.6.2.A. Remember that "stow" does NOT mean that mags picked up off a table or the ground, potentially for use later on in the stage, have to go into a mag pouch.

The no concealment required update for 5 X 5, as well as others (math logic for REV NV, penalty area, target height) have not yet hit the official HQ site. At this point they are on an AC's site, IDPA.Tech.

The Rulebook states the National HQ data base is the official classifications base. No real purpose for a printed M/S card other than to please those individuals who just like to feel real paper or plastic and don't trust electronic data not to fail. Still you'd think HQ could either not send the cards in the mail at all or, if they do, get the information correct. Personally I'd rather see the money spent on sport development.

I received my 2nd attempt classification card from HQ over the weekend; it's wrong. One of the classifications is incorrect even though it's been correct on the HQ website since 2006. My CSO status is not listed on the card even though that's also on the HQ website. Check your new cards carefully when you receive them.

The concept of pieing around cover with multiple targets is to limit the competitor's potential to be a casualty (IDPA "casualty cost" is a 3 sec PE) from competitor-aimed-at bullets sent by the "evil doers" AKA the threat targets. If parts of the competitor's body are unnecessarily exposed then, in a real world tactical sense, the competitor is at unneeded risk of being put out of action. It goes back to the original premises of IDPA. To some extent multiple threat targets being engaged from a single POC could simulate the threat(s) being on the move. Could also simulate simple multiple threats.

From Rulebook 01/01/2017 If I read 9.3 of correctly the following could occur. Shooter holds following classifications SSP-EX, ESP-EX, CCP-SS, CDP-SS. Competitor shoots the Classifier with a CDP gun and makes SS; result is no change. Same no change if shoots with CCP and makes SS. However if shoots a Classifier with a SSP or ESP AND makes EX then ALL FOUR go to EX.

You might want to look into replacing the plastic mag bases with metal ones. Metal should be thinner and might solve the fit issue. No, I don't know if HK makes such an animal. They might for military or other extra hard use purposes. Remember that same mag also fits the P30.

It's my opinion that certain IDPA stages can be considered training, either self defense, law enforcement or another. Other IDPA stages are more clearly a test of skills which often leads to an increase in those skills.

It's commonly taught in law enforcement to keep the ENTIRE 100% of your body below the waist under cover. A shot-up toe may well put the good guy out of commission. Makes sense for self-defense too, the genesis of IDPA.

From a match administration chasing all the mags on the ground before someone else in the squad picks them up may be a problem. I'm thinking possibly IronArcher means 3 sec per loaded mag dislodged all the way to the ground from a carry condition? What that rule's genesis is a means to penalize those who use ammo carry devices which don't properly retain; i.e. likely "speed" loose and not tight enough for all day carry.

Typical tactical training stresses keeping ALL your lower extremities under cover from unengaged targets. From a safety officer standpoint determining 100% of lower is relatively easy. Determining 50% of the above is a tougher but we seem to regularly do it without controversy. One thought on leaving "good" mags behind containing ammo is that it would be a self correcting situation. Shooters would penalize themselves by running out of ammo before finishing a COF. Don't know if the concept has ever been tested.