Draft rule book is posted

[Chills1994]

It may be a .45acp division but why? Sorry but "that's the way we have always done it" is a terrible excuse for doing something. I agree this was a "no brainer" change they dropped the ball on.

FWIW CDP hasn't "always" been 45 acp only. Around 2001 they made it 45 acp only, around the same time they made SSR barrels 4" max instead of 5".

I thought it was with the 2005 rulebook revision that the switch was made from 5 inch barrels to 4 inch barrels for wheelguns. I think it was at the same time that the one and only revolver division was split into two separate divisions.

[Chills1994]

From the rulebook:

"With that in mind, and

keeping the shooters' best interests in mind, IDPA's founders established equipment requirements that remain

based on commonly available firearms and gear allowing individuals the opportunity to compete with minimal

investment."

Again from the rulebook:

"Provide separate divisions for equipment and classifications for shooters, such that firearms with similar

characteristics are grouped together "

Basing a division on the cartridge seems to go against what the rule book says they are going to do.

I understand keeping 9mm out of a high power division as it was never meant to run that hard. .40 and 10mm both are well within spec at 165000.

I just don't understand how a game based around self defense ignores one of the most popular modern self defense cartridges. Yes you can shoot it in ESP but you get no credit for the higher power factor so most people shoot powder puff loads. Should I download my carry .40 so I can shoot a game that is about self defense? Seems pretty counter productive.

By the way:

"CPD has been designed to be a 45acp division" = "That's the way we have always done it"

There is no major/minor in IDPA. You either make the minimum power factor or you go home so there is no "credit" to be had.

Pfffttttt..... meh!

We all here know what we mean....a distinction without much difference. We know there is no major vs. minor scoring, and that just coincidentally IDPA set the same power factor cutoffs as USPSA.

[Chuck D]

From the rulebook:

"With that in mind, and

keeping the shooters' best interests in mind, IDPA's founders established equipment requirements that remain

based on commonly available firearms and gear allowing individuals the opportunity to compete with minimal

investment."

Again from the rulebook:

"Provide separate divisions for equipment and classifications for shooters, such that firearms with similar

characteristics are grouped together "

Basing a division on the cartridge seems to go against what the rule book says they are going to do.

I understand keeping 9mm out of a high power division as it was never meant to run that hard. .40 and 10mm both are well within spec at 165000.

I just don't understand how a game based around self defense ignores one of the most popular modern self defense cartridges. Yes you can shoot it in ESP but you get no credit for the higher power factor so most people shoot powder puff loads. Should I download my carry .40 so I can shoot a game that is about self defense? Seems pretty counter productive.

By the way:

"CPD has been designed to be a 45acp division" = "That's the way we have always done it"

There is no major/minor in IDPA. You either make the minimum power factor or you go home so there is no "credit" to be had.

Pfffttttt..... meh!

We all here know what we mean....a distinction without much difference. We know there is no major vs. minor scoring, and that just coincidentally IDPA set the same power factor cutoffs as USPSA.

So...if we can both agree that there's no major/minor in IDPA maybe instead of making an accusation regarding who borrowed the power factor floors from who maybe you can shed some light on the so called "credit" the poster was referring to ?

Giving the fact that there is almost nothing more divisive then rules changes, is it THAT tough to admit that the new draft rulebook won't be for everyone but the majority of IDPA members support it ? Other than the caliber restrictions for CDP, reloading before movement while behind cover, and the issue of fault lines the book is rather functional ?

Edited May 13, 2013 by Chuck D

[ktm300]

So...if we can both agree that there's no major/minor in IDPA maybe instead of making an accusation regarding who borrowed the power factor floors from who maybe you can shed some light on the so called "credit" the poster was referring to ?

Giving the fact that there is almost nothing more divisive then rules changes, is it THAT tough to admit that the new draft rulebook won't be for everyone but the majority of IDPA members support it ? Other than the caliber restrictions for CDP, reloading before movement while behind cover, and the issue of fault lines the book is rather functional ?

OK so there is no major or minor but some divisions have different power factors. It is an advantage to shoot the lowest power factor (with some room for chrono differences) that you can shoot legally. So yes I did not word my objection to downloading .40 to as not to be at a disadvantage in ESP correctly.

So again, in a different way,

Can we agree that .40 S&W is a very common defensive cartridge that in common off the shelf loads (Winchester White Box) makes well over the power factor needed for ESP? Because of this for someone to shoot their self defense gun in IDPA and be on a level field they have to download their ammo and modify their gun to run low power factor loads. Why in an organization that says its all about self defense that this common self defense load is excluded from the only semi-auto division that uses the 165 power factor?

I would also like to understand your assertion that "but the majority of IDPA members support it" when there are over 700 requests for rule changes on the IDPA web site. A quick look will show you several looking for .40 in a division that uses the 165 power factor. The first request is number 26.

Respectfully IDPA and the Tiger Teams missed a chance to create divisions that made sense and did what was simple instead. SSP is a good division definition, ESP, and CDP not so much. Why ESP and CDP are not used to separate semi-auto firearms by common power factor escapes me and so far I have heard nothing that leads me away from "that's the way we have always done it". It is not an accusation, just and observation.

Chuck, I respect the time you have put into this effort and understand that when people question that work it is upsetting. The idea behind the update to the rule book seemed to be "lets get a rule book that works" and in a lot of areas where small common sense changes could have been made they were not made. Please take the time to consider both sides of the change requests as there are a lot of good ones on the IDPA web site.

Edited May 13, 2013 by ktm300

[jmorris]

I would also like to understand your assertion that "but the majority of IDPA members support it" when there are over 700 requests for rule changes on the IDPA web site.

While I do not support all of the new rules and one of the requests for change I made, "over 700" is not close to a majority.

[ktm300]

If you look at that number of responses and the number of members yes 700 is only about 3.5% but on most things very few people will take the time to read the new rules and then take more time to work up a request for change. I think with the fact that over 700 requests have been made there is a possibility that the statement "the majority of IDPA members support it" is not true. I would like to know what that statement is based on. As it is, I think it is just a guess on his part.

In most things political 1 person responding is assumed to be a multiple of the people in the group.

My guess is that there is not a strong majority that supports the new rules and I have some facts to base that on.

[BillR1]

My guess is that the majority of members will continue to support IDPA and will gladly play by whatever rules/changes the BOD deems necessary.

[Chuck D]

I would also like to understand your assertion that "but the majority of IDPA members support it" when there are over 700 requests for rule changes on the IDPA web site.

While I do not support all of the new rules and one of the requests for change I made, "over 700" is not close to a majority.

Exactly....and I'm not a member of any of the Tiger Teams.

[Jim Watson]

The overall majority of members will float along and learn new rules one P.E. at a time.

I daresay the majority of interested and attentive members are finding some fault in the draft and hope it will be re-revised if the TT and management are following the comments.

[ktm300]

My guess is that the majority of members will continue to support IDPA and will gladly play by whatever rules/changes the BOD deems necessary.

I think your guess is correct but that doesn't make me want to give up on getting it as good as it can be. IDPA seems to have the same attitude by having a way for members to make comments on the new rule book. A significant number of suggestions are being made, I hope IDPA listens.

[Chuck D]

If you look at that number of responses and the number of members yes 700 is only about 3.5% but on most things very few people will take the time to read the new rules and then take more time to work up a request for change. I think with the fact that over 700 requests have been made there is a possibility that the statement "the majority of IDPA members support it" is not true. I would like to know what that statement is based on. As it is, I think it is just a guess on his part.

In most things political 1 person responding is assumed to be a multiple of the people in the group.

My guess is that there is not a strong majority that supports the new rules and I have some facts to base that on.

The draft rulebook isn't "political" in any way shape or form. The misrepresentation of the facts of the matter continue.

" 700 " requests for changes is no where near "the majority" and only a portion of those 700 requests are for changes in CDP caliber choices.

With roughly 22000 members...my majority statement is closer to the truth then you're willing to publicly admit.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Chuck D

[ktm300]

If you look at that number of responses and the number of members yes 700 is only about 3.5% but on most things very few people will take the time to read the new rules and then take more time to work up a request for change. I think with the fact that over 700 requests have been made there is a possibility that the statement "the majority of IDPA members support it" is not true. I would like to know what that statement is based on. As it is, I think it is just a guess on his part.

In most things political 1 person responding is assumed to be a multiple of the people in the group.

My guess is that there is not a strong majority that supports the new rules and I have some facts to base that on.

The draft rulebook isn't "political" in any way shape or form. This conversation isn't going anywhere productive.

" 700 " requests for changes is no where near "the majority" and only a portion of those 700 requests are for changes in CDP caliber choices.

With roughly 22000 members...my majority statement is closer to the truth then you're willing to publicly admit.

If you are not a member of a Tiger team how do you know: "The draft rule book isn't "political" in any way shape or form". How do you know "the majority of IDPA members support it".

Did you survey the whole organization about how they feel about the rule changes? Did you survey all the Tiger team members to find out if they felt any political pressure in the process?

Yes 723 comments on the rule book is a small percentage of the total membership but it is a lot of comments. How many of the 22k members will even read the new rule book? How many will take the time to comment?

The vast majority of members will just take the rule changes without comment. That doesn't mean they think they are correct? I don't know without gathering facts but I feel the vast majority of members don't know enough about the rule book to have a comment. Most just show up and shoot.

[bigdawgbeav]

My guess is that the majority of members will continue to support IDPA and will gladly play by whatever rules/changes the BOD deems necessary.

And some of us don't have much of a choice. There are limited USPSA matches in my area. And the ones that are close are held on a day that I work. The others are 2+ hours away. Whereas there are several IDPA clubs that operate on Sundays and are within 1 hour of my home.

Personally I would love to shoot both, but it's just not in the cards right now. That being said, I have to conform to the new rules or give up competitive shooting. I'm hoping that IDPA HQ really is listening to the suggestions and corrections before making a final ruling.

[RammerJammer]

I think there a lot of shooters out there like me who just won't be shooting IDPA anymore. I'm not going to argue about "the founders" or the spirit of the game. I like to play gun games. Im not a fan of the way things are or how they are going so I will just play other games.

[BillR1]

My guess is that the majority of members will continue to support IDPA and will gladly play by whatever rules/changes the BOD deems necessary.

And some of us don't have much of a choice. There are limited USPSA matches in my area. And the ones that are close are held on a day that I work. The others are 2+ hours away. Whereas there are several IDPA clubs that operate on Sundays and are within 1 hour of my home.

Personally I would love to shoot both, but it's just not in the cards right now. That being said, I have to conform to the new rules or give up competitive shooting. I'm hoping that IDPA HQ really is listening to the suggestions and corrections before making a final ruling.

My closest IDPA (or USPSA) club is 2 hours away. Welcome to my world.

None of these proposed changes in the rulebook are a huge deal. In ANY rulebook where "lines are drawn", there are going to be a small few that don't agree with where the lines are. They're not going to please everyone, and I'm sure they're aware of that fact. IMO they did a great job in keeping with the spirit of the sport as far as "defensive shooting".

[BillR1]

I think there a lot of shooters out there like me who just won't be shooting IDPA anymore. I'm not going to argue about "the founders" or the spirit of the game. I like to play gun games. Im not a fan of the way things are or how they are going so I will just play other games.

There may be a few, but I'm willing to bet that they won't see a significant hit in membership numbers and/or participation in events.

[motosapiens]

My guess is that the majority of members will continue to support IDPA and will gladly play by whatever rules/changes the BOD deems necessary.

This is probably true. Certainly, the new rules don't have any more 'practical' basis than the old ones, and the continued handicapping of what is by FAR the most prevalent defensive cartridge (almost every LE agency uses .40) is pretty amazing to me, but by and large it's still just a game with rules, and only a tiny fraction of people try to compete with their carry equipment anyway.

To me, the equipment rules are a source of humor, but they're not really that important. The truly important thing is to remove the subjectivity of enforcement as much as possible so that we are all playing the same game. Right now the possibility for tribal enforcement of some of the rules seems pretty great.

[RammerJammer]

To me, the equipment rules are a source of humor, but they're not really that important. The truly important thing is to remove the subjectivity of enforcement as much as possible so that we are all playing the same game. Right now the possibility for tribal enforcement of some of the rules seems pretty great.

This

[Chuck D]

If you look at that number of responses and the number of members yes 700 is only about 3.5% but on most things very few people will take the time to read the new rules and then take more time to work up a request for change. I think with the fact that over 700 requests have been made there is a possibility that the statement "the majority of IDPA members support it" is not true. I would like to know what that statement is based on. As it is, I think it is just a guess on his part.

In most things political 1 person responding is assumed to be a multiple of the people in the group.

My guess is that there is not a strong majority that supports the new rules and I have some facts to base that on.

The draft rulebook isn't "political" in any way shape or form. This conversation isn't going anywhere productive.

" 700 " requests for changes is no where near "the majority" and only a portion of those 700 requests are for changes in CDP caliber choices.

With roughly 22000 members...my majority statement is closer to the truth then you're willing to publicly admit.

If you are not a member of a Tiger team how do you know: "The draft rule book isn't "political" in any way shape or form". How do you know "the majority of IDPA members support it".

Did you survey the whole organization about how they feel about the rule changes? Did you survey all the Tiger team members to find out if they felt any political pressure in the process?

Yes 723 comments on the rule book is a small percentage of the total membership but it is a lot of comments. How many of the 22k members will even read the new rule book? How many will take the time to comment?

The vast majority of members will just take the rule changes without comment. That doesn't mean they think they are correct? I don't know without gathering facts but I feel the vast majority of members don't know enough about the rule book to have a comment. Most just show up and shoot.

I know several members of the Tiger Teams, we speak frequently.

The numbers you provide and claim to be a "majority" tell the entire story. You are the one calling 700 responses, not all of them pertaining to caliber restrictions in CDP a "majority."

Fact of the matter is you disagree with a ruling. I respect that until you start to bend the facts and skew the numbers to make a point.

There is NOTHING political about the draft rulebook or the one that precedes it. Stop making false accusations as they damage the reputations of honest hard working VOLUNTEERS and the organization they represent.

Feel free to voice your opinions to IDPA HQ. As far as i'm concerned , I've stated my position.

[motosapiens]

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks it's a good idea for IDPA to ignore the most popular defense cartridge in the country (full-power .40). I don't know that changing cdp is the right fix, but for sure the whole cdp division is just arbitrary tomfoolery anyway, and someone's personal preference. Obviously that doesn't bother me tho, because I shoot cdp, with a proper 1911, made of metal.

[BillR1]

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks it's a good idea for IDPA to ignore the most popular defense cartridge in the country (full-power .40). I don't know that changing cdp is the right fix, but for sure the whole cdp division is just arbitrary tomfoolery anyway, and someone's personal preference. Obviously that doesn't bother me tho, because I shoot cdp, with a proper 1911, made of metal.

I'm not sure how .40s are being ignored. When I shot a G35 or M&P40 Pro, I could shoot in SSP or ESP just fine. I got my first match bump in SSP shooting a G35.

My new M&P45 makes a great CDP gun!

[ktm300]

If you look at that number of responses and the number of members yes 700 is only about 3.5% but on most things very few people will take the time to read the new rules and then take more time to work up a request for change. I think with the fact that over 700 requests have been made there is a possibility that the statement "the majority of IDPA members support it" is not true. I would like to know what that statement is based on. As it is, I think it is just a guess on his part.

In most things political 1 person responding is assumed to be a multiple of the people in the group.

My guess is that there is not a strong majority that supports the new rules and I have some facts to base that on.

The draft rulebook isn't "political" in any way shape or form. This conversation isn't going anywhere productive.

" 700 " requests for changes is no where near "the majority" and only a portion of those 700 requests are for changes in CDP caliber choices.

With roughly 22000 members...my majority statement is closer to the truth then you're willing to publicly admit.

If you are not a member of a Tiger team how do you know: "The draft rule book isn't "political" in any way shape or form". How do you know "the majority of IDPA members support it".

Did you survey the whole organization about how they feel about the rule changes? Did you survey all the Tiger team members to find out if they felt any political pressure in the process?

Yes 723 comments on the rule book is a small percentage of the total membership but it is a lot of comments. How many of the 22k members will even read the new rule book? How many will take the time to comment?

The vast majority of members will just take the rule changes without comment. That doesn't mean they think they are correct? I don't know without gathering facts but I feel the vast majority of members don't know enough about the rule book to have a comment. Most just show up and shoot.

I know several members of the Tiger Teams, we speak frequently.

The numbers you provide and claim to be a "majority" tell the entire story. You are the one calling 700 responses, not all of them pertaining to caliber restrictions in CDP a "majority."

Fact of the matter is you disagree with a ruling. I respect that until you start to bend the facts and skew the numbers to make a point.

There is NOTHING political about the draft rulebook or the one that precedes it. Stop making false accusations as they damage the reputations of honest hard working VOLUNTEERS and the organization they represent.

Feel free to voice your opinions to IDPA HQ. As far as i'm concerned , I've stated my position.

I asked a simple questions and voiced an opinion. How does that = " Stop making false accusations as they damage the reputations of honest hard working VOLUNTEERS and the organization they represent. "

In my opinion most rule books have people involved and when people are involved politics follow. Not a false accusation, just my opinion.

I said nothing about the now 734 responses to the rule book being about CDP but yet you keep saying it. I said specifically the first post on CDP and caliber was number 26.

Your comment was that vast majority of members liked the new rule book and my response was that there were a significant amount of requests for change so it is possible that you are not correct. I asked you to tell me how you know that the majority like it. Is that a false accusation? You just want to dodge the question by making accusations.

I have worked on boards of other organizations in the past and have been involved with writing rule books. I think that this process was a bit flawed in the beginning as HQ did not go to the members and ask them what they wanted before they started. Now that the rule book is written they are asking for comments and I applaud that. I just hope they all don't have your attitude that anybody that disagrees with them is "making false accusations as they damage the reputations of honest hard working VOLUNTEERS and the organization they represent"

Please point out the specific thing I said that was false.

[Chuck D]

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks it's a good idea for IDPA to ignore the most popular defense cartridge in the country (full-power .40). I don't know that changing cdp is the right fix, but for sure the whole cdp division is just arbitrary tomfoolery anyway, and someone's personal preference. Obviously that doesn't bother me tho, because I shoot cdp, with a proper 1911, made of metal.

I'm not sure how .40s are being ignored. When I shot a G35 or M&P40 Pro, I could shoot in SSP or ESP just fine. I got my first match bump in SSP shooting a G35.

My new M&P45 makes a great CDP gun!

Thank you for your response...

[Chuck D]

My guess is that the majority of members will continue to support IDPA and will gladly play by whatever rules/changes the BOD deems necessary.

This is probably true. Certainly, the new rules don't have any more 'practical' basis than the old ones, and the continued handicapping of what is by FAR the most prevalent defensive cartridge (almost every LE agency uses .40) is pretty amazing to me, but by and large it's still just a game with rules, and only a tiny fraction of people try to compete with their carry equipment anyway.

To me, the equipment rules are a source of humor, but they're not really that important. The truly important thing is to remove the subjectivity of enforcement as much as possible so that we are all playing the same game. Right now the possibility for tribal enforcement of some of the rules seems pretty great.

Not "almost every LE agency uses 40." The split between 40 and 45 is just about equal. In my neck of the woods, the City police, the County Sheriffs, and 90 % of the Town and Village agencies use or have just switched to 45acp pistols, either Glock or S&W M&P's. This is trending nationwide.

40 is still a viable and popular self-defense caliber...i certainly do not dispute that and it fits in SSP and ESP.

[Ted Murphy]

I am curious what the next few years will bring. In say, five years the technology will be better and more factory guns will be available with optics. Perhaps then will be the time for an optic division.