New IDPA Rulebook 7 May

[RWF]

Personally I enjoy getting out and shooting IDPA, just to send some rounds down range if nothing else.

 

Whom ever dreams up some of these scenarios and stages must be having a relapse from their college experimental days...

 

Actual scenario from memory: You and your small child are at the park sitting at a picnic table (the child is represented by a heavy doll). When several armed bad guys approach you and demand your money and valuable.

 

You are to grab your gun out of your man-purse on the picnic table, grab your kid (doll) and put two rounds strong hand only in the torso of each bad guy. You are not to drop the kid, you are to use the kid as a shield, shower him / her with hot brass, use kid as a chest rig / body armor and blow his / her ear drums out?

 

I laughed so hard at the stage description when being read I got the hiccups. Guess it could happen, but certainly not the man-purse thing :rofl: 

+1 just having fun putting rounds down range! now do not forget its based on real life, like the time at a major you are riding your bike and can not stop pedeling til you shot all the bad guys. yes it was a real bike with the rear wheel off the ground. it was different

Edited May 8, 2013 by RWF

[Guest wickedwanda]

round dumping, what a laugh. I just point and pull the trigger til no bullets are left. FEELS GOOD!

[2Alpha]

Note, they did not say round dumping was legal.  They are simply silent about the issue.  I believe one could still receive an FTDR (look at the rationale for giving an FTDR), if not a PE on general principle.

[nb forrest]

[quote name="El Guapo" post="966544" timestamp="1367946086"] I've personally never round dumped[/quote] Me neither...

[deerslayer]

On the other hand, R 9.1 and R 9.2 appear to describe the dreaded static reload requirement that was rumored.  This is apparently the trade-off for dumping the round-dumping rule.  Supposedly, the point of requiring flat-footed reloads is to reduce or discourage round dumping.  I think the actual result will be a boost in USPSA membership.  DMark will probably like it, though. 

[DMark]

OK, I'm still reviewing this draft, but this on page 13 looks to be the answer to my input about target engagements.

 

 

R4.2. Tactical Sequence: A method of target engagement. For Tactical Sequence, all targets must be

engaged with one round each before being engaged again. In the case of three (3) targets requiring two (2)

rounds each, all targets must be engaged with one round to each target BEFORE reengaging the targets with

another round in any order (1-1-2-1-1). Tactical Sequence may not be used for targets farther than 10 yards.

Tactical Sequence may not be combined with Tactical Priority (near to far or from cover) on the same

targets. Tactical sequence is only required when it is specified in the stage description. Make up shots must

come after each target has been engaged with at least one round.

 

 

I trust that everybody designing COFs will take note that Tactical Sequence is ONLY REQUIRED when it is specified in the description.  The paragraph above was the way it was written in the draft review back in 2003 - 2004.  Somehow when the 2005 rulebook came out the paragraph was broken up between COF Rules and the Glossary and the wording in Red was missing. 

 

 

[Spiffy]

Note, they did not say round dumping was legal.  They are simply silent about the issue.  I believe one could still receive an FTDR (look at the rationale for giving an FTDR), if not a PE on general principle.

 

Ted was talking about this on the IDPA board. If the MD is in the no round dumping camp he can put FTFRs on what he feels are round dumpers. 

[DMark]

On the other hand, R 9.1 and R 9.2 appear to describe the dreaded static reload requirement that was rumored.  This is apparently the trade-off for dumping the round-dumping rule.  Supposedly, the point of requiring flat-footed reloads is to reduce or discourage round dumping.  I think the actual result will be a boost in USPSA membership.  DMark will probably like it, though. 

 

Yea..., I sort of like those. 

 

However, not too sure about the next rule and the sentence highlight in Red.  This goes against all know immediate action drills that I am aware of.  You clear a malfunction as soon as you realize it.  By this rule if the shooter notes a failure to go into battery after departing a shooting position, he or she must wait until they reach the next position and then must attempt to fire and then clear the malfunction.  Worst, I can see some shooters trying to back-up to the departed position.  

 

R9.3. A firearm is deemed loaded when the magazine is fully seated and the slide is fully forward or the

revolver cylinder is closed. If the shooter “drops” the slide prior to leaving a position of cover, and the slide

fails to go fully forward into battery, this shall be considered a malfunction. No penalty shall be assessed as

long as the shooter attempts to fire the firearm at the next shooting position. If the shooter attempts to

correct the problem while moving to the next shooting position or before attempting to fire the firearm, then

a procedural, for leaving cover with an empty weapon, will be assessed.

[RWF]

it is just a game and not real traing.

[dlmeadows]

I just don't like more rules. idpa has enough as it is

[Mechanic_X]

I just don't like more rules. idpa has enough as it is

Exactly. They seem so intent on not being USPSA--that they are making up foolish rules.

 

Here are three easy ones.

Wear concealment.

Shoot from cover if available. Slice the pie. The pie is sliced(no need for cover)when every target is shot at.

If you are in the open be moving--either shooting, reloading or getting to cover.(Or fixing your malfunction)

Edited May 8, 2013 by Mechanic_X

[deerslayer]

Several features of the new rulebook proposals--DQ for getting NEAR the muzzle safety point, requiring all cover points to be announced during the walk-through, some of the mindless requirements of SOs, requiring flat-footed reloads--remind me of a tv show about back alley coathanger abortions.  The difference is that this monstrosity may actually live. 

[itchytriggerfinger]

Yeah, I couldn't keep up with the rules anyways.  Guess I'll just have to shoot faster and more accurate, and take my lickings on the procedurals because I'm sure I'll miss something.  :)

[Spiffy]

They are really beating that PE and DQ for almost breaking a rule on the IDPA forum. Can't say I blame em, it's like getting a ticket for speeding finally because 3 cops clocked  you doing 69 in a 70.

[BrasilNuts]

doing 69 in a 70.

I think that would get you a public lewdness charge, not a speeding ticket.

[itchytriggerfinger]

Zzziiiinnngggg

[Mechanic_X]

I design a lot of our stages and the boundaries and safe points make my head go wonky.

And forgot about learning new commands. I'm sure it will be "Shooter Ready" for a long time. For me anyways.

 

And I just want to quote this bit of "fabulousness" again;

 

R9.1. If the shooter runs the firearm empty behind cover, the shooter may not advance in the stage (move toward the next shooting position) until the weapon is deemed loaded.

 

[gsbell]

I'm usually not at a loss for words, but this mess leaves me struggling with what to say. This took 18 months?

[DMark]

They are really beating that PE and DQ for almost breaking a rule on the IDPA forum. Can't say I blame em, it's like getting a ticket for speeding finally because 3 cops clocked  you doing 69 in a 70.

 

Yea but "they" aren't reading anything on the IDPA forum.  :ugh:

 

email from HQ....

 

"This online option will be the only channel for members to submit feedback on the rulebook. So that we may concentrate on serving our customers and working through the suggestions, Headquarters staff will not be monitoring any forums and will not accept suggestions or changes made verbally, via telephone or email. Only comments made through the website will be considered." 

 

So you have to log-in to the IDPA website to make any comments.  You'll then a nice worded "thanks for your interest and have a nice day" email saying that they have your comment or suggestion.       

[Spiffy]

I think that would get you a public lewdness charge, not a speeding ticket.

 

That's not "thinking like a Christian" as Joel Olsen says

[Spiffy]

I'm sure all the complains have made their way into the official channel for Suggestion.

 

 

 

Yea but "they" aren't reading anything on the IDPA forum.  :ugh:

 

email from HQ....

 

"This online option will be the only channel for members to submit feedback on the rulebook. So that we may concentrate on serving our customers and working through the suggestions, Headquarters staff will not be monitoring any forums and will not accept suggestions or changes made verbally, via telephone or email. Only comments made through the website will be considered." 

 

So you have to log-in to the IDPA website to make any comments.  You'll then a nice worded "thanks for your interest and have a nice day" email saying that they have your comment or suggestion.       

 

 

 

Which just strikes me as freaking odd!!! If it's the official forum for IDPA you would think HQ would at least read all the threads and take that into account. Anything else is a waste of bandwidth.   Blizzard Entertainment has community reps who read and responses to the threads. They take into consideration what happens on the forum and they also understand that is a small slice of the total membership/player base.  It's not like IDPA doesn't have the assets there in place already. Ted, Bubba, Robert Ray they all frequent the forum.

[El Guapo]

We can't just assume someone else has complained about the problems with the new rule book. Each one of us needs to express every problem we have with every rule they proposed that is stupid, it needs an overwhelming response. If that doesn't work we can start making nasty calls and emails to the AC.

[itchytriggerfinger]

Or we could just go shoot USPSA.

[Mechanic_X]

<snip>If that doesn't work we can start making nasty calls and emails to the AC.

I second this.

[DMark]

Hmmmmm....

 

Its starting to get Real Busy in the "Rules Of The Game" section of the IDPA website.  So far it appears to me that most folks are reacting to the same issues as we have on this thread.

 

I really, really don't understand the change in times with the classifier.  I can't recall ever hearing anybody think that the times needed to be change.  This change is a complete disturbance of a founding standard. 

 

I plan to submit my comments in a few days.