Draft rule book is posted

[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.

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.

...questions asked and answered several times. Good luck on your attempt to get the rule changed. Feel free to PM me if you seek additional clarification or discussion.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Chuck D

[bigdawgbeav]

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.

And that's when we get rid of the revolver divisions, right Ted?

[lee blackman]

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.

And that's when we get rid of the revolver divisions, right Ted?

I have no revolver shooters at my club, none.... There are no departments that issue revolvers anywhere anymore. I can understand keeping a single revolver division just for the guys who are die hard. Kinda like USPSA, they are just that good, they need to be forced to reload every six shots, otherwise they'd constantly be taking high overall... But there is no need for two revolver divisions....

I mean any reasoning for a second revolver division, go ahead and make another for single actions so the cowboy shooters can carry over. Then why not another for rimfire revolvers, because there are plenty of little old ladies sporting the 22lr revolver for a home defense weapon... Its just not practical anymore to have two. It barely was in 1997....

Ok sarcasm asside, really one revolver division, SSP, ESP, and just get rid of CDP all together... Make ESP allow for major or minor. Then go ahead and make a carry optic/ported division. Just make the box small enough to keep out the race guns Mr. Wilson hates so much cause he obviously can't build one, and allow the ported Glocks people actually carry with the RMR sights they also actually carry... Then if you wanna go play tacticool space commado with your uber leet S&W M&P CORE pistol, you can do so. Because we all know that we are going that way anyway.

[Racinready300ex]

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.

And that's when we get rid of the revolver divisions, right Ted?

I have no revolver shooters at my club, none.... There are no departments that issue revolvers anywhere anymore. I can understand keeping a single revolver division just for the guys who are die hard. Kinda like USPSA, they are just that good, they need to be forced to reload every six shots, otherwise they'd constantly be taking high overall... But there is no need for two revolver divisions....

I mean any reasoning for a second revolver division, go ahead and make another for single actions so the cowboy shooters can carry over. Then why not another for rimfire revolvers, because there are plenty of little old ladies sporting the 22lr revolver for a home defense weapon... Its just not practical anymore to have two. It barely was in 1997....

Ok sarcasm asside, really one revolver division, SSP, ESP, and just get rid of CDP all together... Make ESP allow for major or minor. Then go ahead and make a carry optic/ported division. Just make the box small enough to keep out the race guns Mr. Wilson hates so much cause he obviously can't build one, and allow the ported Glocks people actually carry with the RMR sights they also actually carry... Then if you wanna go play tacticool space commado with your uber leet S&W M&P CORE pistol, you can do so. Because we all know that we are going that way anyway.

Perhaps you can call these new divisions open, limited, and production?

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

[ktm300]

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.

And that's when we get rid of the revolver divisions, right Ted?

I have no revolver shooters at my club, none.... There are no departments that issue revolvers anywhere anymore. I can understand keeping a single revolver division just for the guys who are die hard. Kinda like USPSA, they are just that good, they need to be forced to reload every six shots, otherwise they'd constantly be taking high overall... But there is no need for two revolver divisions....

I mean any reasoning for a second revolver division, go ahead and make another for single actions so the cowboy shooters can carry over. Then why not another for rimfire revolvers, because there are plenty of little old ladies sporting the 22lr revolver for a home defense weapon... Its just not practical anymore to have two. It barely was in 1997....

Ok sarcasm asside, really one revolver division, SSP, ESP, and just get rid of CDP all together... Make ESP allow for major or minor. Then go ahead and make a carry optic/ported division. Just make the box small enough to keep out the race guns Mr. Wilson hates so much cause he obviously can't build one, and allow the ported Glocks people actually carry with the RMR sights they also actually carry... Then if you wanna go play tacticool space commado with your uber leet S&W M&P CORE pistol, you can do so. Because we all know that we are going that way anyway.

Perhaps you can call these new divisions open, limited, and production?

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

Sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards USPSA. It's a good game, IDPA is a good game. They both have their place.

[Racinready300ex]

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.

And that's when we get rid of the revolver divisions, right Ted?

I have no revolver shooters at my club, none.... There are no departments that issue revolvers anywhere anymore. I can understand keeping a single revolver division just for the guys who are die hard. Kinda like USPSA, they are just that good, they need to be forced to reload every six shots, otherwise they'd constantly be taking high overall... But there is no need for two revolver divisions....

I mean any reasoning for a second revolver division, go ahead and make another for single actions so the cowboy shooters can carry over. Then why not another for rimfire revolvers, because there are plenty of little old ladies sporting the 22lr revolver for a home defense weapon... Its just not practical anymore to have two. It barely was in 1997....

Ok sarcasm asside, really one revolver division, SSP, ESP, and just get rid of CDP all together... Make ESP allow for major or minor. Then go ahead and make a carry optic/ported division. Just make the box small enough to keep out the race guns Mr. Wilson hates so much cause he obviously can't build one, and allow the ported Glocks people actually carry with the RMR sights they also actually carry... Then if you wanna go play tacticool space commado with your uber leet S&W M&P CORE pistol, you can do so. Because we all know that we are going that way anyway.

Perhaps you can call these new divisions open, limited, and production?

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

Sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards USPSA. It's a good game, IDPA is a good game. They both have their place.

Not at all, I look forward to shooting more USPSA in the near future. I just joined.

I'm not looking to turn IDPA into USPSA though.

[motosapiens]

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't bother me at all to lose to a revolver shooter. What bothers me is limitations on COF's to accomodate revolvers when only a tiny percentage of people shoot them. But I don't really care that much.

[Racinready300ex]

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't bother me at all to lose to a revolver shooter. What bothers me is limitations on COF's to accomodate revolvers when only a tiny percentage of people shoot them. But I don't really care that much.

What limitations? I personally don't want any body to accommodate me. I don't shoot a revolver to make it easier.

The only place I can really think of limitations is not having more than 6 shots out in the open or on the move. And really having more than that seems like it wouldn't be what IDPA was intended for anyway.

[lugnut]

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't bother me at all to lose to a revolver shooter. What bothers me is limitations on COF's to accomodate revolvers when only a tiny percentage of people shoot them. But I don't really care that much.

What limitations? I personally don't want any body to accommodate me. I don't shoot a revolver to make it easier.

The only place I can really think of limitations is not having more than 6 shots out in the open or on the move. And really having more than that seems like it wouldn't be what IDPA was intended for anyway.

I don't think "accommodations" is the right way to say it. You don't want to have a paper target (2 shots) followed by a steel activator that activates 2 more paper targets (2 shots each).... tac reloads in SSR really blows.

[Racinready300ex]

Which revolver division do you get rid of? Which group do you tell you don't want them becuase there aren't enough of you? It sounds like you have a lot of resentment towards revolver shooters. Makes me think your afraid to loose to one.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't bother me at all to lose to a revolver shooter. What bothers me is limitations on COF's to accomodate revolvers when only a tiny percentage of people shoot them. But I don't really care that much.

What limitations? I personally don't want any body to accommodate me. I don't shoot a revolver to make it easier.

The only place I can really think of limitations is not having more than 6 shots out in the open or on the move. And really having more than that seems like it wouldn't be what IDPA was intended for anyway.

I don't think "accommodations" is the right way to say it. You don't want to have a paper target (2 shots) followed by a steel activator that activates 2 more paper targets (2 shots each).... tac reloads in SSR really blows.

I the last couple sactioned match's I've shot in I've seen 3 stages like that. They are okay with a revolver, tac loads don't take that long. What 1 sec longer? As long as they don't let some people round dump when others do it right. But now that RD is gone that wont matter anymore.

[steel1212]

So let me ask you this...why are you scared to let .40 in CDP? All the other divisions are multicaliber. CDP is the only one that isn't.

[Chuck D]

.... where did I post that I was "scared" of letting 40 caliber in CDP ?

Other than picking a fight...what purpose does your post serve ?

I believe IDPA is honoring the 45acp caliber in CDP...of course that's just my opinion.

I have every reason to believe you'll find fault in my reasoning and that's o.k.

I wrote an article on the subject at www.chuckdisalvo.com feel free to give it a read.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Chuck D

[steel1212]

.... where did I post that I was "scared" of letting 40 caliber in CDP ?

Other than picking a fight...what purpose does your post serve ?

I believe IDPA is honoring the 45acp caliber in CDP...of course that's just my opinion.

I have every reason to believe you'll find fault in my reasoning and that's o.k.

I wrote an article on the subject at www.chuckdisalvo.com feel free to give it a read.

I'm not trying to pick a fight in trying to get a answer as to why your so adamant that .40 shouldn't be allowed in CDP. The division was obviously set up for the 1911 so if that is the case I could at least respect division more if it was .45 and 1911 only but it's not. If you going to let a multiude of different firearm makes in the division instead of just 1911s then why not calibers that make the power factor.

[RammerJammer]

Why would you honor a caliber? Especially to the point of creating an uncomfortable exclusion. If a bullet of certain dimensions needs reverence make it the logo.

[ktm300]

OK after reading the blog at www.chuckdisalvo.com I understand your idea that the .45acp is the cartridge that started it all and deserves it's own private division. The gun that started it all doesn't get it's own private division but the caliber does. Go figure.

I don't agree with the idea, but no problem, create EDP for all the other calibers that should have been included in CDP. Pretty much anything that makes 165 PF using off the shelf ammo, so we can shoot our full power guns in a full power division instead of taking our full power guns and shooting powder puff loads in ESP. I don't carry powder puff loads so why should I shoot a defensive pistol game with them? I know I can just shoot full power loads in a division that doesn't require them, but that is just BS. No matter what you think this is a game and most people like to be as competitive as possible while playing a game. Shooting a 165 PF load in the same division as a 125 PF load is a disadvantage.

[BillR1]

.... where did I post that I was "scared" of letting 40 caliber in CDP ?

Other than picking a fight...what purpose does your post serve ?

I believe IDPA is honoring the 45acp caliber in CDP...of course that's just my opinion.

I have every reason to believe you'll find fault in my reasoning and that's o.k.

I wrote an article on the subject at www.chuckdisalvo.com feel free to give it a read.

I'm not trying to pick a fight in trying to get a answer as to why your so adamant that .40 shouldn't be allowed in CDP. The division was obviously set up for the 1911 so if that is the case I could at least respect division more if it was .45 and 1911 only but it's not. If you going to let a multiude of different firearm makes in the division instead of just 1911s then why not calibers that make the power factor.

I posed this question to another poster and never got an answer. Are you in favor of letting in any cartridge that makes major to CDP? (357Sig, 38 Super, 9 Major)

If not, where is the line drawn for you?

[RammerJammer]

Wouldnt the .50 musket ball be the round that started it all?

[Chuck D]

.... where did I post that I was "scared" of letting 40 caliber in CDP ?

Other than picking a fight...what purpose does your post serve ?

I believe IDPA is honoring the 45acp caliber in CDP...of course that's just my opinion.

I have every reason to believe you'll find fault in my reasoning and that's o.k.

I wrote an article on the subject at www.chuckdisalvo.com feel free to give it a read.

I'm not trying to pick a fight in trying to get a answer as to why your so adamant that .40 shouldn't be allowed in CDP. The division was obviously set up for the 1911 so if that is the case I could at least respect division more if it was .45 and 1911 only but it's not. If you going to let a multiude of different firearm makes in the division instead of just 1911s then why not calibers that make the power factor.

Then why the use of the word "scared" ?

I've said that I believed IDPA was honoring the 45acp cartridge in CDP. That's my opinion of course.

In my post on my blog I mentioned how the 45 has just about vanished in the hands of serious competitors in USPSA. I also mentioned that CDP in IDPA with the 45acp as the sole caliber choice not only honors the caliber that started what we call "practical pistol" but the division assures that the 45acp will continue to play a significant role in practical pistol.

I understand the concept of allowing 40 caliber in CDP from a power factor perspective and the USPSA Single Stack crossover market. I'm not ashamed to say that I believe there must me a 45 caliber only criteria in CDP for the reasons I stated above and in my blog post.

[BillR1]

OK after reading the blog at www.chuckdisalvo.com I understand your idea that the .45acp is the cartridge that started it all and deserves it's own private division. The gun that started it all doesn't get it's own private division but the caliber does. Go figure.

I don't agree with the idea, but no problem, create EDP for all the other calibers that should have been included in CDP. Pretty much anything that makes 165 PF using off the shelf ammo, so we can shoot our full power guns in a full power division instead of taking our full power guns and shooting powder puff loads in ESP. I don't carry powder puff loads so why should I shoot a defensive pistol game with them? I know I can just shoot full power loads in a division that doesn't require them, but that is just BS. No matter what you think this is a game and most people like to be as competitive as possible while playing a game. Shooting a 165 PF load in the same division as a 125 PF load is a disadvantage.

Why limit it to "off the shelf ammo"?

[Chuck D]

OK after reading the blog at www.chuckdisalvo.com I understand your idea that the .45acp is the cartridge that started it all and deserves it's own private division. The gun that started it all doesn't get it's own private division but the caliber does. Go figure.

I don't agree with the idea, but no problem, create EDP for all the other calibers that should have been included in CDP. Pretty much anything that makes 165 PF using off the shelf ammo, so we can shoot our full power guns in a full power division instead of taking our full power guns and shooting powder puff loads in ESP. I don't carry powder puff loads so why should I shoot a defensive pistol game with them? I know I can just shoot full power loads in a division that doesn't require them, but that is just BS. No matter what you think this is a game and most people like to be as competitive as possible while playing a game. Shooting a 165 PF load in the same division as a 125 PF load is a disadvantage.

You don't have to carry "powder puff" loads in ESP. Shoot whatever load you wish.

At one time it was suggested that CDP be limited to 1911 style pistols only but then the naysayers said it was a "protective move" for Wilson because he builds 1911's.

There is no need for another division. You have a place to shoot 40 caliber pistols...SSP and ESP. Fact is you don't want to, I understand that.

Communicate your concerns to IDPA HQ but I wouldn't bet my last 10 bucks on changing their mind but you never know....

[RammerJammer]

Just read your blog, interesting blog but the 30 super was developed in the 20's not as a result of USPSA and open guns.

[Chuck D]

Wouldnt the .50 musket ball be the round that started it all?

I'm not sure practical pistol started in the 1700's.

[Chuck D]

Just read your blog, interesting blog but the 30 super was developed in the 20's not as a result of USPSA and open guns.

...you mean 38 Super ?

[Chuck D]

Why would you honor a caliber? Especially to the point of creating an uncomfortable exclusion. If a bullet of certain dimensions needs reverence make it the logo.

..."uncomfortable exclusion?"

[RammerJammer]

Yes I mean 38 Super and the euncomfortable exclusion I am speaking of is those of us that would love to shoot .40 in a 1911 platform but cant unless we do it at a round disadvantage with powder puff ammo.