Draft rule book is posted

[Chuck D]

...they make 9 and 10 round 40 caliber magazines and no one said you HAVE to use power pull loads. Besides you can only load 8 rounds in a magazine in CDP if 40 caliber pistols are included so the round count issue is moot.

With all due respect...My posts have clearly stated my position on the issue. It's only my opinion, not worth very much actually in the overall scheme of things. I believe that CDP should be a 45acp only division. If you disagree fine..I respect that but trying to change my mind is a fruitless effort....

Feel free to contact IDPA on the matter and make your concerns known. Who knows what may happen....

Edited May 14, 2013 by Chuck D

[lee blackman]

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.

USPSA is a different game. I'm trying to state the fact that the law enforcement, tactical, and carry communities aren't fairly represented by IDPA. A sport who's founding principles are supposed to be more "real life" defense oriented... No one carries or issues SSR's anymore....

[red headed stranger]

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.

Indeed, and the 38 super is the caliber of choice for the 1911 in those counties that disallow "military" cartridges.

Moreover, though the .40 may be considered a "gamer cartridge" by some, it is an extremely popular DEFENSIVE (you know, the D in IDPA and CDP) cartridge, as well as one of the most issued, if not the most issued duty round by US agencies. Furthermore, a.40S&W loaded at 165PF does not constitute a competitive advantage over the 165PF .45ACP.

"Honoring" a cartridge is the domain of museums and books. Not for a game with IDPA's fundamental principals.

Edited May 14, 2013 by red headed stranger

[ktm300]

Feel free to contact IDPA on the matter and make your concerns known. Who knows what may happen....

Multiple people have added it to the comments on the draft rule book.

As IDPA is a non elected BOD and president they can do what they want. I have seen it put "its their way or the highway". I think that type of organization gets stale over time. I think this new rule book shows the signs of the organization getting stale. Just my opinion.

[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.

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.

Evidentally my use is the word scared was spot on. Your scared that if they allow other calibers into the division .45 will be phased out of the division. I can understand that. I know in USPSA that in SS probably at least half if not more use a .45. I personally think that the .45 will still dominate the division by at least half in CDP as well. Hell I'm having a 1911 built to show my love of the gun and it's 100 year anniversary guess what caliber it will be in....45.

The thing is there is no division in IDPA for normal power .40 ammo to play in. Sure I shoot major .40 8+1 in ESP and win matches on the local level but I wouldn't dream isms doing that at a major in master class.

As for what calibers do I think should be allowed in CDP. Anything .400 and up. You might stipulate that .357 sig to be included as it's based off the .40 case. 9mm major for one thing isn't fun in a not comped gun in my opinion and secondly it's at max and even above. Combine that with unsupported chambers and your asking for issues for people that don't know any better.

[red headed stranger]

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?"

I would term it unnatural or illogical given the current nomenclature of divisions.

[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.

Evidentally my use is the word scared was spot on. Your scared that if they allow other calibers into the division .45 will be phased out of the division. I can understand that. I know in USPSA that in SS probably at least half if not more use a .45. I personally think that the .45 will still dominate the division by at least half in CDP as well. Hell I'm having a 1911 built to show my love of the gun and it's 100 year anniversary guess what caliber it will be in....45.

The thing is there is no division in IDPA for normal power .40 ammo to play in. Sure I shoot major .40 8+1 in ESP and win matches on the local level but I wouldn't dream isms doing that at a major in master class.

As for what calibers do I think should be allowed in CDP. Anything .400 and up. You might stipulate that .357 sig to be included as it's based off the .40 case. 9mm major for one thing isn't fun in a not comped gun in my opinion and secondly it's at max and even above. Combine that with unsupported chambers and your asking for issues for people that don't know any better.

..you say scared...I'd use the term concerned.

I do understand and respect your point of view though...

[Chuck D]

Feel free to contact IDPA on the matter and make your concerns known. Who knows what may happen....

Multiple people have added it to the comments on the draft rule book.

As IDPA is a non elected BOD and president they can do what they want. I have seen it put "its their way or the highway". I think that type of organization gets stale over time. I think this new rule book shows the signs of the organization getting stale. Just my opinion.

...membership increases, standing room only at the majority of the major matches.

we're back to badmouthing the organization because they won't give you what you want...nice.

"Stale" doesn't apply....

[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.

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.

As for what calibers do I think should be allowed in CDP. Anything .400 and up. You might stipulate that .357 sig to be included as it's based off the .40 case. 9mm major for one thing isn't fun in a not comped gun in my opinion and secondly it's at max and even above. Combine that with unsupported chambers and your asking for issues for people that don't know any better.

OK, so you agree that lines should be drawn (.400 and up) but you're just not in favor of where they chose to draw them. Fair enough.

[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.

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.

As for what calibers do I think should be allowed in CDP. Anything .400 and up. You might stipulate that .357 sig to be included as it's based off the .40 case. 9mm major for one thing isn't fun in a not comped gun in my opinion and secondly it's at max and even above. Combine that with unsupported chambers and your asking for issues for people that don't know any better.

OK, so you agree that lines should be drawn (.400 and up) but you're just not in favor of where they chose to draw them. Fair enough.

Yeah I'm not saying that .40 is the end all be all I just want a place to shoot my perfered caliber for major power factor. At The same time if somebody wants to shoot a 10mm or .45 gap I think they should be allowed to do so as well.

[bikerburgess]

E3.1. Ammunition Power

The goal is to compete with commonly available ammunition. The minimum power factors are:

• SSP - 125

• ESP - 125

• CDP - 165

• ESR - 165

• SSR - 105

Factory specs for Winchester white box ammo

9mm 115fmj= 136pf

357sig 125fmj= 168pf

40sw 180fmj= 183pf

45ACP 230fmj= 192pf

[bikerburgess]

looking at the above numbers with our current division requirements other than SSR why are or PF's so low? I believe IPSC originally set its PF's at 125 and 175 so shorter barreled guns would be able to make it with factory ammo. Our rules allow for using a division maximum size pistol to test PF so you would think we would set the limits closer to what 5" guns actually shoot with factory ammo. more like 130 and 185

Mike

[jmorris]

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

Can you ask one, or all of them what the reason was behind them wanting flat foot reloads?

[ktm300]

we're back to badmouthing the organization because they won't give you what you want...nice.

"Stale" doesn't apply....

If we can't speak our minds without people saying we are badmouthing an organization what kind of message is that? My opinion is valid even if we don't agree. I don't agree the .45acp need protection but I do agree that it is your opinion and you are entitled to have it. Good organizations get better by people saying whats on their minds if the organization listens.

Look at the poll, only 75 responses and not scientific in any way but it is running 95% saying the new rule book is "a little better" or "not much better at all".

I was in the "a little better" camp. There is some good stuff in there. They just had a chance to modernize the rule book and dropped the ball. Of a lot of things that were talked about in length they fixed a few and left a lot of it messed up. 18 months of work and there are numerous spelling errors. At least they could proof read the thing. Again my opinion which just like yours, I am entitled to it.

[hkguy]

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.

USPSA is a different game. I'm trying to state the fact that the law enforcement, tactical, and carry communities aren't fairly represented by IDPA. A sport who's founding principles are supposed to be more "real life" defense oriented... No one carries or issues SSR's anymore....

Not entirely true. you are correct in that most do not standard issue revolvers any more, but i some states armed security is restricted to revolvers. there still is a place for SSR and ESR. Since the BOD changed the min PF for SSR, the number of SSR shooters has gone up dramatically and i feel it will continue to do so once the ammo shortage is over.

looking at the above numbers with our current division requirements other than SSR why are or PF's so low? I believe IPSC originally set its PF's at 125 and 175 so shorter barreled guns would be able to make it with factory ammo. Our rules allow for using a division maximum size pistol to test PF so you would think we would set the limits closer to what 5" guns actually shoot with factory ammo. more like 130 and 185

Mike

you only mentioned one brand of commercial ammo, this does not account for the numerous other factory offerings that any given shooter could bring to the match. you do not account for the velocity variation between different manufactures. we would not want another SSR type ammo restriction were a select few commercial loads made PF prior to them lowering the min PF to 105.

Personally i would rather see that the ammo make PF in the gun being shot that day, either it makes it or it does not. Obviously full size/duty guns would have an slight advantage in this respect but it still lets you run what you got.

now for my take on the rule book and a little rant of sorts

Im in the "its a little better camp" but i did not expect a drastically different set of rules. i'm glad to see that XDm concern was addressed and changed so shooters can shoot SSP and i am also welcome the newly proposed safety rules. My club has had a 3 strikes rule on the books for two years (summer matches average 110+ shooters) now and im glad to see the BOD get serious and make safety a priority.

I find all this well my .40 should be in CDP because it easily makes PF quite laughable, By this logic that power factor is suitable justification for adding a caliber to a division, a slightly modified Coonan .357 should be deemed worthy to shoot CDP because factory remington SJHP ammo comes in at 195 PF, easily making CDP PF. /scarcasm

IDPA is an action shooting sport created with the mindset that we will compete against one another with "real life scenarios", that is scenarios that you might face out in the real world. This is still a game at its core. Many of the CoF's that i am asked to compete in and shoot completely contradict what i would do should i find my self in a life or death situation. I am not using my typical carry gun, ammunition, holster and neither are 90+% of the shooters who play this game. There are some that do, but a majority do not. Honestly, just play the game by the given set of rules or move on, its just a GAME.

There are plenty here that want to can SSR, the division i shoot but you don't see me shedding a tear because some don't see any valid purpose in a revolver division (as indicated earlier in my post). There are always going to be some guns that are not allowed to play and excluded from certain divisions, you see that plenty in other action shooting disciplines.

[steel1212]

Hkguy give me one logical reason why CDP should not allow other calibers?

[jmorris]

Because if 45 guys have to sort their brass by what primer size they use they should have their own division. I am glad they are allowing 45 gap back in ESR though.

[RammerJammer]

Because if 45 guys have to sort their brass by what primer size they use they should have their own division. I am glad they are allowing 45 gap back in ESR though.

Haha.. I can agree to that, you have converted me. I am now a supporter of .45 only CDP because that really does suck.

[lee blackman]

I really don't see why CDP doesn't allow 10mm.... I know I can't be the only 10mm nut in here

[ktm300]

I can't see why there is not a division to shoot any caliber that in standard loads makes 165 PF with anything except .45acp.

There is no logical answer so we won't get one.

Somebody at HQ, on the BOD, or somewhere has something against a 165 PF division that isn't .45acp. I am sure they have a reason I just can't figure it out.

[ktm300]

I find all this well my .40 should be in CDP because it easily makes PF quite laughable, By this logic that power factor is suitable justification for adding a caliber to a division, a slightly modified Coonan .357 should be deemed worthy to shoot CDP because factory remington SJHP ammo comes in at 195 PF, easily making CDP PF. /scarcasm

I guess I am just stupid to think that a organization that touts that their reason to exist is self defense, not having a full power division for one of, if not, the most popular full power self defense loads.

[red headed stranger]

I find all this well my .40 should be in CDP because it easily makes PF quite laughable, By this logic that power factor is suitable justification for adding a caliber to a division, a slightly modified Coonan .357 should be deemed worthy to shoot CDP because factory remington SJHP ammo comes in at 195 PF, easily making CDP PF. /scarcasm

If you want to take the power factor argument to an absurd extreme you may be correct, but the people who are advocating other calibers are largely advocating cartridges that are available off the shelf, are in use by leos and civilians, and are supported by major firearms manufacturers.

.40S&W in particular is in common usage and is quite popular for DEFENSIVE use(the "D" in IDPA and CDP).

[thermobollocks]

The new draft rulebook is 98%on target. I agree with reloading an empty firearm before advancing, eliminating the Texas star and plate racks (fun targets to shoot but possess no practical value), the inclusion of muzzle safe zones, and CDP remaining a 45acp only division.

Not practical? Static paper is impractical. Texas stars give you motion and a degree of unpredictability.

Muzzle safe zones have always been there, but they've always (and continue to be) subject to the constraints of the course of fire, dictated by the match director.

Reloading an empty firearm before advancing is great, however not being able to "advance" from a position of cover while reloading is something else.

The claim that full-length dust covers are "competition-only" is hilarious, same for the Hogue "Big Butt" grips. The old rulebook decided that revolvers could have any kind of grips the shooter wants subject to weight constraints, but then the Hogues got too popular, so now they're "competition-only."

Beyond that, one of the big holes that I see in the new rulebook is that a discharge after "if you are finished, unload and show clear" is a DQ, not just a DQ after "pull the trigger" (S1.3). "If you are finished" is meant to be a question.

In short, after eight years free from changes, and given the complaints of the people I shoot with and talk to, I'm severely underwhelmed.

Texas Stars are fun targets..no question about it but serve no practical purpose. "Bad Guys" do not have 5 heads and rotate in a circle when attacking...

Static paper is impractical ? Every LE or civilian involved shooting has been committed by "moving" suspects ?

Static paper is a training tool and a compromise. Nobody could run a range without it. People tend to move, especially when being shot at, way more than they tend to stand still.

People also don't swing back and forth (as with swinger targets) or twirl around in a circle (as with drop-turners), but we recognize value in using them for practice, largely because it lets us overcome the limitations of static paper.

The only complaints about the Texas star that I've seen have been sour grapes from people who can't shoot them well, me included. I don't like them because they're easy. I like them because they're hard!

If full length dust cover guns didn't provide an advantage, we'd NEVER see one on a USPSA/IPSC Limited/Standard Division gun now would we...

If you carry a revolver with Hogue "big butt" grips fine...I don't see very many revo guys carrying with 'em. Kinda goes along with the long/full dust cover thing....serves a competitive advantage.

Competitive advantage and competition-only features are different things. A Glock 17 gives a competitive advantage over a Glock 26 -- all other things being equal, a person who shoots a Glock 26 well will shoot a Glock 17 better. Does anyone argue that the G17 is a competition-only gun? To denote something as a competition-only feature carries the implication that it is of no value for defensive use, while in practice IDPA seems to treat it as "things the IPSC shooters like."

You have a point with the "if you are finished" thing...I just disagree with you.

Why? If "if you are finished" isn't a question, strike that part and simply make it "unload and show clear." We already have a demarcation point for where the gun should be completely empty, and "hammer down" (now "pull the trigger") makes way more sense.

The cover/reload thing is painfully easy to understand...no advancing from positions of cover, while still behind cover, with an empty gun. Range conditions are predictable, in the real world conditions are subject to change.

I'm getting at the flat-footed part in particular, here. In what way are you better served standing still rather than moving if you remain behind cover the entire time?

Edit: Just so I don't sound like a complete whiner, I am glad that they broadened SSP's language for strikers, and codified the 180 degree rule.

Edited May 15, 2013 by thermobollocks

[eliminator]

I think the no moving while reloading is to reduce the advantage gained by round dumping.

[steel1212]

I think the no moving while reloading is to reduce the advantage gained by round dumping.

With the current rule book there is no way to manage round dumping any way. With the no movement rule all reloads will now be slide lock.