IDPA rule changes

Glenn E. Meyer · November 3, 2014, 07:44 PM

1. Bye bye to the moronic flat footed reload ban

2. NO more ESR

3. Two new divisions being contemplated:

a. Lasers on guns
b. Compact SSP like division for guns like the Glock 19.

Huh? How is that compact?

MrBorland · November 3, 2014, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

3. Two new divisions being contemplated:

I read it as ONE new division, with that division either being laser/optics or compact carry pistol.

Too bad ESR's no more.

Jim Watson · November 3, 2014, 08:22 PM

Agree that Compact should start with G26.

If they do it right (i.e. MY way) they will roll ESR and SSR into a single revolver division but keep separate power floors for the mostly .45 clipguns and the mostly .38 speedloader guns.

Lasers are a red herring, of little value on a daylight range. The real innovation is slide mounted optics which would be a real advantage. I forsee a major arms race if that comes in.
One guy suggested a complete rework of the Divisions, bigbore, smallbore, compact, optics, and revolver. I doubt they will consider it, but it makes sense to me, the action type distinction between SSP and ESP is not much difference.

MrBorland · November 4, 2014, 07:09 AM

My prediction is that the new division will be the laser/optics. Real-world utility aside, that division would be far more popular than a compact division - something any sanctioning body can't ignore.

As far as revolvers, it's not clear to me whether they want to streamline the revolver divisions or just get rid of moons entirely. They may roll ESR into SSR for a single division, with original power factors for moons vs speedloaders. But if they did that, why not make room for 8-shot revolvers to play fairly? They're popular, and no less relevant than a 6-shot .45acp built on the same frame. My bet is that JM's getting ready to retire, so IDPA has little interest in making any further accommodations for moonclipped guns.

motorhead0922 · November 4, 2014, 09:54 AM

To me, IDPA is supposed to be about using guns that we actually carry. I know, lots of people carry 1911's. But more people carry compacts or subcompacts. So, I left a suggestion last month advocating a real BUG classification, as did other folks.

I agree that a 19 is not a compact. Compact is G26, Shield, etc. I think the BUG designation is currently 3.2" barrel or less. That should do. G19 has a 4" barrel.

Lasers? Okay; folks carry those. But optics? That's not a carry gun.

RickB · November 4, 2014, 12:35 PM

For every optically-sighted carry gun, I suspect there are tens of thousands of compact, iron-sighted pistols, so the latter is certainly more relevant in a defensive-oriented sport.
The divisions definitely need an overhaul. When SSP was a division for DA/SA and DAO guns, there was a reason for it to be separate from cocked 'n' locked SA pistols, but with striker-fired guns, guns with 3# triggers (and no manual safeties . . .), dominating SSP, action type is no longer the defining feature that it used to be.
All striker-fired guns should have been put in ESP, not SSP, if action type is still a determining factor.
It will be interesting to see what they do with the reloads. I, for one, would not want a return to the previous, "I can't see any threats, so I'm covered" approach that was coming to dominate. Now that cover appears to be a place (you can't leave this spot with an empty gun), rather than a state of mind, the concept of "continuous cover" can gain traction.
Moving from one end of a wall to the opposite end of that wall, is not the same as moving from one wall to another wall. If everyone can agree on that, good things should follow.

motorhead0922 · November 4, 2014, 03:47 PM

Those of you who received the eBlast from IDPA, don't overlook the survey link, where you can vote for one of the two proposed divisions.

Chris Christian · November 6, 2014, 11:36 AM

I certainly agree with RickB that compact carry guns are far more prevalent among CCW folks than guns with an optical sight. I would think that a CCP Division with a barrel length of 3-inch for revos and 3.80-inch for autos would be a good thing. Set the PF for what a .380 ACP can generate from a 3.80 inch barrel... make .380 ACP the minimum caliber... and limit capacity (LAMR & Reload) to 6 rounds with enough loading devices allowed to be carried to allow a shooter a 24 round total (like revos have now). That would let autos & revos compete in the CCP Division on more or less equal footing.

Jim Watson · November 6, 2014, 02:32 PM

My thought exactly.
A 3.8" barrel will let me shoot my Kahr CW9 and keep out the Glock 19s.

November 3, 2014, 07:44 PM	#1
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	IDPA rule changes 1. Bye bye to the moronic flat footed reload ban 2. NO more ESR 3. Two new divisions being contemplated: a. Lasers on guns b. Compact SSP like division for guns like the Glock 19. Huh? How is that compact? __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

November 4, 2014, 09:54 AM	#5
motorhead0922 Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 635	To me, IDPA is supposed to be about using guns that we actually carry. I know, lots of people carry 1911's. But more people carry compacts or subcompacts. So, I left a suggestion last month advocating a real BUG classification, as did other folks. I agree that a 19 is not a compact. Compact is G26, Shield, etc. I think the BUG designation is currently 3.2" barrel or less. That should do. G19 has a 4" barrel. Lasers? Okay; folks carry those. But optics? That's not a carry gun. __________________ SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty.

November 4, 2014, 03:47 PM	#7
motorhead0922 Senior Member Join Date: October 30, 2010 Location: Missouri Posts: 635	Those of you who received the eBlast from IDPA, don't overlook the survey link, where you can vote for one of the two proposed divisions. __________________ SAF, ACLDN, IDPA, handgunlaw.us My AmazonSmile benefits SAF I'd rather be carried by 6 than caged by 12. 2020: It's pronounced twenty twenty.

November 3, 2014, 08:22 PM	#3
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	Agree that Compact should start with G26. If they do it right (i.e. MY way) they will roll ESR and SSR into a single revolver division but keep separate power floors for the mostly .45 clipguns and the mostly .38 speedloader guns. Lasers are a red herring, of little value on a daylight range. The real innovation is slide mounted optics which would be a real advantage. I forsee a major arms race if that comes in. One guy suggested a complete rework of the Divisions, bigbore, smallbore, compact, optics, and revolver. I doubt they will consider it, but it makes sense to me, the action type distinction between SSP and ESP is not much difference.

November 4, 2014, 07:09 AM	#4
MrBorland Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2007 Location: NC Posts: 2,614	My prediction is that the new division will be the laser/optics. Real-world utility aside, that division would be far more popular than a compact division - something any sanctioning body can't ignore. As far as revolvers, it's not clear to me whether they want to streamline the revolver divisions or just get rid of moons entirely. They may roll ESR into SSR for a single division, with original power factors for moons vs speedloaders. But if they did that, why not make room for 8-shot revolvers to play fairly? They're popular, and no less relevant than a 6-shot .45acp built on the same frame. My bet is that JM's getting ready to retire, so IDPA has little interest in making any further accommodations for moonclipped guns.

November 4, 2014, 12:35 PM	#6
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	For every optically-sighted carry gun, I suspect there are tens of thousands of compact, iron-sighted pistols, so the latter is certainly more relevant in a defensive-oriented sport. The divisions definitely need an overhaul. When SSP was a division for DA/SA and DAO guns, there was a reason for it to be separate from cocked 'n' locked SA pistols, but with striker-fired guns, guns with 3# triggers (and no manual safeties . . .), dominating SSP, action type is no longer the defining feature that it used to be. All striker-fired guns should have been put in ESP, not SSP, if action type is still a determining factor. It will be interesting to see what they do with the reloads. I, for one, would not want a return to the previous, "I can't see any threats, so I'm covered" approach that was coming to dominate. Now that cover appears to be a place (you can't leave this spot with an empty gun), rather than a state of mind, the concept of "continuous cover" can gain traction. Moving from one end of a wall to the opposite end of that wall, is not the same as moving from one wall to another wall. If everyone can agree on that, good things should follow.

November 6, 2014, 11:36 AM	#8
Chris Christian Junior Member Join Date: February 28, 2014 Posts: 13	I certainly agree with RickB that compact carry guns are far more prevalent among CCW folks than guns with an optical sight. I would think that a CCP Division with a barrel length of 3-inch for revos and 3.80-inch for autos would be a good thing. Set the PF for what a .380 ACP can generate from a 3.80 inch barrel... make .380 ACP the minimum caliber... and limit capacity (LAMR & Reload) to 6 rounds with enough loading devices allowed to be carried to allow a shooter a 24 round total (like revos have now). That would let autos & revos compete in the CCP Division on more or less equal footing.

November 6, 2014, 02:32 PM	#9
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,543	My thought exactly. A 3.8" barrel will let me shoot my Kahr CW9 and keep out the Glock 19s.