What would YOU do to improve IDPA?

[JFD]

Doesn't the difference in recoil support the validity of major/minor scoring?

Big difference between 125 PF load and a 165 PF load. My 131 PF .38 Super ESP 1911 shoots a heck of a lot softer than my 171 PF .45 L-10 1911. It definitely impacts my performance.

[Duane Thomas]

Doesn't the difference in recoil support the validity of major/minor scoring?

Well, without derailing this discussion from its topic of "How to Improve IDPA," I'd say it depends on whether you're looking at it as rewarding the ability to control a more heavily recoiling gun, or measuring the amount of incapacitation effect the round(s) would have on target. IDPA has chosen to go the latter route. I don't have a problem with that.

Big difference between 125 PF load and a 165 PF load.

Well...yes and no. I shot a 1911 .45 auto for years at my local IDPA club. Not to sound like a complete egomaniac, but the bald truth is I usually won the match, not just in CDP but with the best score of all divisions, beating even those folks with their oh-so-much-more-controllable 130 pf ammo in ESP and SSP. Yeah, I downloaded to 170 pf. But y'know what, one time I found I didn't have any of my "easily controllable" .45 loads for an IDPA match I wanted to shoot, so I grabbed a few boxes of factory hardball and headed out the door. I won the match. About a week ago I shot my first match with my Glock 34 and 130 pf ammo. I won the match. And it's not like I totally anhillihated the competition because the 9mm was generating lighter recoil than the .45 I shot for years, it was about what I normally win by. After your skill level hits a certain point, recoil differences just aren't that important. I mean, yeah, they're important, but not as much as a lot of people want to believe.

So that's the "no" part of "yes and no." The "yes" part is that, at a lower skill level, yeah, an extra 40 points pf does make a difference. I'm not blind to that.

[Joe D]

I agree that the recoil factor does not come into play as much at the Master level, but it certainly does in the lower classes. I recall going to an IDPA match and forgetting my 138 pf .40 loads. Had to stop by Walmart and purchase some factory ammo. It felt like at least a 175 pf load. Still won the match, just had to work a little harder.

[Mark Perez]

Dump the Classifier.

In it's place , adopt the Lewis Sysytem for all matches including Nationals.

Maintain the divisions (SSP/CDP/ESP/SSR) , competing in a heads-up format respectively.

Instead of classes A/B/C/D -(because that would be to much like the other sport) , use Gold/Silver/Bronze/Copper.

No need to worry about sandbaggers or maintaining a national data base.The problem takes care of itself.

Until that day,

Mark

[JFD]

Duane

I don't see a big difference in my performance with my 153 PF .38 Super ESP loads versus my 171 PF .45 auto L-10 loads. However I do have a 125 PF popper calibration load that feels like shooting a .22 RF compared to the .45 auto. Figured if I wanted to set the gun up to actually cycle the stuff I might have an ideal "gamer" load. Never did it though.

Shows what I know about IDPA and/or USPSA. I always figured major/minor was about recoil - nothing more.

I once shot my S&W 1006 in SSP with full power Norma 200 grain 10mm loads Gots lots of attention to say the least. My splits were not too good...

I'll end the thread drift now - Sorry.

[kurtm]

I only shot 1 IDPA match, and here is why. I showed up that morning with all the requiered and legal gear, because that is what I carry ( 1911). I noticed that the match director was a guy that I had some problems with in the past. No big deal I figure we can all be adults....wrong! He made sure to R.O. me EVERY stage, I had more failure to do right penalties, time wise, than it took me to drive to the match. It got so bad that even some of the other guys at the match were saying hey that isn't right, but as the MD his word went! Thank goodness the first one is free!

Drop the FTDR, it is WAY to capricious.

I would say drop the Tacticle reload. This to me was always supposed to be an "administrative reload" not to be proformed when direct threats were present. The car stage someone mentioned is a great example of that 3 targets on one side 4 on the other, and being requiered to do a "tac" load. Who in thier right mind would duck back behind cover, loosing complete visual track of the remaining targets, to do a "tac" load. ( by the way we call those no win situationes, if 6 people are "active" on you, you aren't going to win! )

I like the target, and I like the accuracy forced by it, Just don't try to stylize it too much by mandating just exactly how it has to be engaged. In my own opinion any 1 centered head shot should be cause for 0 seconds added. Double shots to the head are really kind of ludicrus. The example of being penalised for 3 shots in the head, when 2 were requiered in the body is just plain crazy.

Remember anytime the timer beeps it's a game! KURTM

[Chris Rhines]

First off, I shoot both IDPA and IPSC, and enjoy the heck out of both.

That said, I agree with the previous posters - most of the rule changes proposed in this thread would make it too much like "IPSC-lite." The reason that I shoot IDPA is that it is different from IPSC - if it became more similar I would probably give it up.

- Chris

[Wakal]

But is IDPA different for the sake of being different, or different to be better?

I suspect...different just to be different. IDPA was spun off the real gun game by malcontents unable to complete on a level playing field, and thus...the FTDR was born!

That one rule, more than any others, keeps IDPA from being fun. The knowledge, like Kurt found out, that one person can just arbitrarily decide that you are NOT going to win the match, is enough to keep my interest lackluster, at best.

I prefer to be the one person who keeps me from winning the match, thanks (and so far so good ).

AlexI'manIDPASOsodon'tstart"ifyouonlytriedit"stuffWakal

[rmills]

First off, I shoot both IDPA and IPSC, and enjoy the heck out of both.

That said, I agree with the previous posters - most of the rule changes proposed in this thread would make it too much like "IPSC-lite."  The reason that I shoot IDPA is that it is different from IPSC - if it became more similar I would probably give it up.

- Chris

Right on Chris!

The rules themselves stand on their own. They are simple and need not be changed. The only thing I would ask to be changed is the way HQ handles the rules clarifications. When more verbage is needed to clarify an existing rule, then HQ should send out an official update to each member to be added to their rulebook.

The previous poster who stated something to the effect that IDPA was created for those who can't compete in USPSA is ridiculous.

Everyone should read Hackathorn's pages in this issue of the Tactical Journal (mine came today). He hits the nail on the head with a big hammer in regards to his comments about IDPA not becoming "a grand national organization where creating celebrities was the goal".

For those who mistakenly believe that Bill Wilson created IDPA to sell more Wilson pistols, take a look at the equipment survey for the Nationals, most competitors used a Glock. A very small percentage used Wilson 1911's. Over 50% of the pistols used were non-1911.

In regards to Power Factor, I agree with Duane 100%, there is no need for Major/Minor scoring. The playing field is leveled in SSP and ESP divisions in regards to equipment, only shooting skills prevail, not the ability to tune one's pistol to reduce recoil from shooting a major load.

Michael Bane, as I was watching shooting Gallery the other evening, the instructor at the tactical shooting school that was featured clearly did tactical reloads while clearing several rooms. Why did you not correct him on his poor technique? Just curious.

Keep IDPA as it is. Don't let it become just another "USPSA like" competition.

[BigDave]

Keep IDPA as it is. Don't let it become just another "USPSA like" competition.

Roy,

What are the other "USPSA like" competitions you refer to? Please name them.

Dave

[Nik Habicht]

Lets try to keep this on topic. The topic is: "What would YOU do to improve IDPA?, Title says it all........"

I'll interpret Chris's and Roy's posts to mean that they'd advocate leaving it as it is today --- no improvement necessary. Anyone else with specific suggestions for Mark?

[BigDave]

In regards to Power Factor, I agree with Duane 100%, there is no need for Major/Minor scoring. The playing field is leveled in SSP and ESP divisions in regards to equipment, only shooting skills prevail, not the ability to tune one's pistol to reduce recoil from shooting a major load.

I disagree, only the physical ability to manage recoil relative to PF prevails. If it was about shooting only, we'd all be shooting 22 rimfires.

Why, exactly, is tuning a gun that shoots 165 PF ammo made to feel like shooting 125 PF ammo a bad thing? I don't understand. I'm not suggesting that a 5" 1911 with a 7 port comp, an Aimpoint tube and 170 mm magazines is realistic concealed carry option, but isn't the point for the shooter to be able to deliver multiple rounds of full charge ammo on target as accurately and quickly as possible?

[Sterling White]

I shot in a 3g idpa match today and have to say that I was a little bit worried about the AK-type shotguns.....until I saw how unruly they kick and how awful they are to reload! These guys are serious about their shotguns - didn't know that you could side saddle 2 / 8 round mags together but it was done. I'm not sure if it would make the sport better if these guns were classified in open or not but there is potential to have some fast reloads providing someone spends the time to tweak and learn the skill with these guns.

I load off the belt from a speed stripper usually 4 rounds - TB style - and the fastest guy using mags was 1 maybe 2 seconds faster on a long field course. It was intersting!

Here's another idea to make the sport better...have three boxes (IDPA Box) - small, medium, and large. This would refer to the frame size of a gun and would allow for the larger 1911 style pistols.

Another idea...integrate more stages to be more IPSC style!

[shaughn leayme]

Full power ammunition requirement and the ability to shoot the course of fire the way I determine it should be done (safety always coming first) not being told how and why. FTDR should be dropped.

No walk thru's, this way you have to think your way thru the problem, no auto piloting the course based on your walk thru.

If it is your carry weapon and you can show proof (reasonable , on your permit, etc) then you should be able to compete with it, a friend has a 1911 with an added on light rail (carbon steel) and a streamlight 6 light in a pouch on his belt and this is his regular carry gun, but if he were to want to compete at anything but the local levels his 1911 would not be allowed, because he has a bull barrel and a weight (light rail) attached to his dust cover

Many of the things I think that could be done or should be done have already been brought up by other posters and I am not going to post them all over again.

IDPA has room for improvement...to evolve...if you will and it could become even better.

[Chris Rhines]

I'll interpret Chris's and Roy's posts to mean that they'd advocate leaving it as it is today --- no improvement necessary...

*sputter, sputter*

I stopped short of offering specific suggestions, being fairly new to the sport and likely unqualified to have an opinion. But since you asked...

I'd drop the tactical reload. Obvious reasons.

I'd eliminate the holster list, and replace it ith a blanket prohibition on race-type holsters. I'd also allow pocket holsters for BUG matches - can't think of a reason not to.

I'd keep the FTDR.

My biggest complaint about IDPA is the lack of responsiveness of the HQ. Unfortunately, I don't know if there's a simple rule change that can fix this problem.

- Chris

[vincent]

Here are a few suggestions that I can think of off the top of my head:

-Create an online list of all official interpretations or ammendments to the current version of the IDPA rulebook that is available to all IDPA members. Each interpretation or ammendment will also be printed in a designated section of the Tactical Journal. Each ammendment will have an official start date listed online and in the Tactical Journal article in which it is shown. This start date will be at least one month after the latest expected delivery date of the Tactical Journal in which the update will be printed.

-Allow elbow pads and knee pads.

-Remove the "at least one knee down" restriction on low cover.

-Allow a competitor to reload a completely empty weapon at any time (no cover restriction). An empty weapon being defined as no loaded rounds in the chamber, magazine, or cylinder.

-Allow a competitor to access a spare magazine, speedloader, or moonclip at any time the competitor is not shooting (no cover restriction).

-Allow ANY type of reload (including slide down reloads) behind cover using the current interpretation of cover.

-Drop the FTDR. Any offense that is totally unacceptable to the sport should be a DQ and these offenses should be clearly and completely defined in the rulebook.

-Drop any reference to "round dumping" for Vickers Count stages. Any stage where a specific round count is desired must be shot Limited Vickers.

-Since the cover garment is another piece of the competitors gear that is equally as important as the holster, a set of guidelines should be created for cover garments and approved modifications.

Edited to add:

-Add the requirement to weigh a competitor's bullet as part of the official chronograph procedure.

-Increase the procedural penalty to 5 seconds.

-Increase the non-threat hit penalty to 10 seconds.

Edited November 29, 2004 by vincent

[ryucasta]

I would like to see some clarification of existing rules for example what makes an infraction a procedural vs an FTDR

Excerpt from LGB Competition Rule # 18

"A reload with a round still in the chamber (slide down) and abandoning any magazine, will result in a three (3) second procedural penalty, or possibly a twenty (20) second FTDR penalty

[MBaneACP]

Tactical (or administrative) reloads still have and always have had a very SPECIFIC use. As I was taught back in the day, during a lull in the action, usually defined as no more hostile targets visible at a specific position, you top off the gun before moving forward. The reload is performed behind cover either as a speed reload with the magazine (partially charged or not) retained...the method I was encouraged to use...or what we think of as a more "traditional" tactical reload...both magazines at the gun, with the spent magazine retained.

The idea was that you would not move forward without a fully charged gun, and since moving forward (go, no/go, in what time frame, etc.) was your decision to make, it wasn't a particularly big issue.

This works fine in simulations (and in the real world). Where it breaks down is in a MATCH situation. In a stage, by definition, there is NO "lull in the action." YOU ARE BEING TIMED, and you will be "judged" on how fast you complete the exercise.

If I am getting ready to, say, move down a hallway in a simulation, I'll reload the gun before I start moving, and I'll pocket the magazine (mags with bullets in rite front pocket; empty mag in back pocket) because I RISK NOTHING by the action and, who knows, maybe the extra rounds will come in handy. I am behind cover with no known hostiles in front of me, and I am under no time pressure to move forward.

If I am in (as the Colonel is fond of saying) Situation Black, under fire, my only objective is to keep the gun charged as fast as humanly possible, using a technique that is built on fundamental, major muscle group movements that can be accomplished without visual reference because Mr. Primate (i.e., me) will be suffering from all sorts of chemical-driven changes that makes any other types of action virtually impossible.

By specifying the use of a "tactical" reload or a convoluted "reload with retention" instead of a much faster--and safer--speed reload, you've now substituted a wrench for a hammer on the flawed logic that "they're both tools, so either one works."

And, no, IDPA's "taking the tactical reload off the clock," as HQ is wont to do, is actually WORSE, because it "teaches" the IDPA practitioner that there is no situation in which a speedy reload is important. THAT fails the sanity test!

There's a reason there are hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers and Sawz-Alls in a toolbox.

mb

PS: Not everybody agrees with me, either!!!!!!!!!!!

[rmills]

In regards to Power Factor, I agree with Duane 100%, there is no need for Major/Minor scoring. The playing field is leveled in SSP and ESP divisions in regards to equipment, only shooting skills prevail, not the ability to tune one's pistol to reduce recoil from shooting a major load.

I disagree, only the physical ability to manage recoil relative to PF prevails. If it was about shooting only, we'd all be shooting 22 rimfires.

Why, exactly, is tuning a gun that shoots 165 PF ammo made to feel like shooting 125 PF ammo a bad thing? I don't understand. I'm not suggesting that a 5" 1911 with a 7 port comp, an Aimpoint tube and 170 mm magazines is realistic concealed carry option, but isn't the point for the shooter to be able to deliver multiple rounds of full charge ammo on target as accurately and quickly as possible?

Why go thru all of the trouble of adding Major/Minor scoring with all of the work and complexity involved to integrate it into our sport and then go about tuning a 165PF pistol to shoot like a .22? Why????????

Let's not attempt to fix something that is not broken.

[BigDave]

Why go thru all of the trouble of adding Major/Minor scoring with all of the work and complexity involved to integrate it into our sport and then go about tuning a 165PF pistol to shoot like a .22? Why????????

That's an interesting question. I hadn't considered it in that light. But, does 165 PF feel the same in all guns? It could be said that there is an advantage in terms of felt recoil in a Glock vs. a 1911. I think you make a really good argument, Roy, but I don't know how far you can go with it. But, I think with well thought out gun guidelines, you can limit how much feel can be put into or taken out of any gun.

I think an interesting concept might be something like the ATA does. When you go to shoot a State, Regional or The Grand, your entry fee includes your ammo and everone shoots the same thing (at least that is how it was explained). Take ammo out of the equation.

[tightloop]

Just throw my name behind Vincent's post, that about sums it up for me..

[geezer-lock]

Improve IDPA

There are two levels of improvement that need to be addressed: short term and long term.

Short term

The BOD should provide guidance to the membership in the form of a frequently updated document maintained in the Rule Book section of the web site. This document would have the answers to all of the significant questions that have been put fourth regarding things like “air-gunning”, use of knee pads or spikes and other equipment issues, including the latest update to the approved holster and handgun division lists. This document should be presented as an addendum to the rulebook and treated as such by the membership. To be consistent, items should be given a implementation date. The initial addendum might have an implementation date to cover the entire document, then subsequent additions to the document could have an implementation date of say, 30-60 days out for each covered instance.

I think such a simple device would stop all the current bickering about some of the “rulings” that have been made by MD’s or SO’s. It would also act as an FAQ for the membership prior to a major match.

Long term

Incorporate the addendum into the rule book on an annual basis. Solicit input from the membership about what needs to be removed or added to the rulebook for reissue every two years. This can be done in simple web surveys that create databases of information in a useable format.

Make the update of rulebook a priority item with a deadline. The organization is evolving and some course correction is necessary. Don’t expect to get it right the first time and be willing to make the changes when the membership makes the call.

What to change?

IDPA is clearly different from other shooting games in several respects. Features such as the required use of cover (with the implied target order), limited number of rounds available, restricted movement, limits on the use of penalty targets and total shots in a COF are almost all unique to IDPA.

My feeling is that you should not demand a change unless you have a constructive and logical replacement available. I might add that you should also be attentive to the reasoning for wanting the change. Here I go:

The change: Drop the FTDR rule.

It is my observation that most of the silliness I have heard of in IDPA develops from the mistaken belief that an MD or SO can apply a “rule” for a procedural using the club of “or possibly a FTDR”. The thought process is something like this: “We are pretty sure that what you did is a violation of the spirit of IDPA and warrants a FTDR but we are going to call it (insert the violation of your choice) and give you a 3 second procedural”.

I think that FTDR is simply another, less clearly stated way of saying “unsportsmanlike conduct” and further I believe that applying unsportsmanlike conduct standards is a job for a committee not an individual.

The replacement: Higher values for procedurals or allow multiple procedurals.

I have also considered a tiered level of penalties where a “moving violation” would cost you more in points. Create an arbitration committee at every match using local talent and one or two outsiders.

The change: Disallow “mandatory reloads” of any kind.

Most mandatory reloads are incorporated into a CoF as a way to level the playing field for single stacks and revolvers. I don’t think the type of reload (tactical, retention or speed) is an issue and should not be a part of what makes IDPA unique.

The replacement: Good course design and a clear understanding that everybody is shooting in a division for a reason. Let the shooter decide what works best using the guideline that you must reload behind cover if available and you must be loaded before moving.

The change: Drop the anti-IPSC/USPSA rhetoric (including the gaming rants) from the rulebook. A no-brainer.

The replacement: None needed

The change: Drop the approved holster list. Why take on this huge task of trying to name all of the allowed rigs?

The replacement: A prohibited holsters list (which already exists but needs updating from time to time).

The change: Re-organization of the rule book. I’m certainly not alone in thinking that it is difficult to work with details that are sprinkled throughout the book. All of the CoF requirements should be in a single bulleted list.

The replacement: This is just good editing and will better serve the membership.

Wilson et al have done a praiseworthy job in putting this thing together. None of these suggestions should cause any consternation at any level. I am certain I will continue to shoot IDPA even if no changes are made in the short term. I am also certain that things need attention if the sport is to thrive.

I stated earlier that I thought it was incumbent on anyone offering criticisms to also make positive suggestions for corrective action. I want to further suggest that if we want all this work done we should be willing to help. My day job involves network, data and web management. I will donate my time and resources to create and manage a web workspace where we can create and share documents that can be used in the revision of the rule book and the maintenance of the “addendum” that I suggested earlier. When do we start?

David Cross

A12838

“geezer-lock”

[Bob Hostetter]

The tactical or adminstrative reload is not nor will it every be a viable technique in the real world. Its place is in the same arena as chamber checking a firearm to ensure it loaded. It something you do prior to going into service or after an event that required you to discharge your firearm has been completed.

Anytime you are actively involved in engaging a target (or badguy) or even just holding someone or some area at gunpoint, a reload should be done in a manner that accomplishes this as quickly as possible. Why would you willing do something that increases the time your weapon is either out of service or extremely limited in effectiveness by a factor of 2 or 3 (or more in some cases) when there is another option.

In the arena of competition there is no lull in the action, and any action is preceeded and followed by emptying and holstering your weapon. By eliminating the reload from the clock as recommended by some, you are effectively teaching people to disregard the need to quickly reload their weapons. For a sport marketed as a training excerise for the real world you are doing a big disservice to your members.

Anytime someone tells you that they can teach you the tactic's you need to survive in the real world you should be careful. Tactic's should be thought of as a list of options and techniques you have studied and practiced thereby making them available to you under stress. In a real world situation requiring the use of force things are extremely fiuld and dynamic, and never follow a predictable course. You must be able to think on your feet and react as things change and try to stay a step ahead of the other guy.

The more IDPA limit's the ability of the competitor to think for themselves, preventing them from reacting instintively, instead requiring them to follow precise instructions, the greater the disservice they do to the competitor. Therein lies the flaw in IDPA..............

[Duane Thomas]

Instead of classes A/B/C/D -(because that would be to much like the other sport) , use Gold/Silver/Bronze/Copper.

IDPA already has classes: Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert and Master.

[Mayonaise]

Duane, of course there is not a Major PF for ESP and SSP. Why do you think most shoot a 128-130 PF?

Joe, it's like that because they know you gamers are too cheap to buy more powder.