It may be a fool’s errand but for what it’s worth, I submitted the following to IDPA via their rules comment section (accessible to any IDPA member who is logged in to IDPA.com). If enough of us ask for it, perhaps the rule will get some new consideration.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
I submitted a couple, and I received an email that someone answered at least one but I can’t see the response. My gripes are required IDPA memberships for “Tier 1” matches or you average local match and their continued prohibition of red dot sights despite many in the self defense community advocating them.
AIWB would be cool too.
I’m now a member for the first time since 2007 in order to put in a request for AIWB. With the elimination of the round dumping rule, if AIWB were allowed, I’d probably never shoot USPSA again.
JD — Membership has been required after the first match for many years. IDPA doesn’t collect any of the match fee at local matches. USPSA, in contrast, gets $3/member per match. So to generate enough revenue to stay in business IDPA could either (a) raise membership price for the people who are already paying or (b) require everyone to be a member.
As for MRDS, I wouldn’t mind at all if IDPA created a new division for them. Allowing them in any of the current divisions, though, would create a new (and expensive) equipment race due to the perceived benefit.
I agree with Todd on the MRDS bumping into it’s own division.
The issue with MRDS is an interesting one though. On one hand IDPA was founded (as I understand it) to be “practical” as to what a regular guy would carry/use/shoot and avoid the equipment race issue. On the other hand, “some” do actually carry/use/shoot things like MRDS so although sort of fringe for now it might become “normal” at some point. I think creating a separate division would be a way around those issues.
Vol — That same comment was made about lasers in the late 90s and many of the same people who are claimed as MRDS advocates are/were laser advocates back then. I’d be willing to bet there are easily 100x more people with lasers on their CCW pistols than MRDS. Lasers are still illegal.
Again I’m not against having a MRDS division. I just don’t see it happening. Also given the new detailed rules on target size/distance at matches, the place where MRDS really have an advantage (low% targets at medium and long range) are going to be pretty rare in IDPA.
Red dots are becoming more common place on carry guns so I really do think they should allow red dots on guns but I also agree with Todd that doing so should put you in a different division.
That said I think it should be restricted to slide mounted optics. The big old rail attached to the frame that people use for Cmores in USPSA isn’t exactly carry equipment.
I would like to add that I have seriously considered how viable it would be to get my Glock 26 altered so I could put an RMR on it.
I’ve been toting my P30 with a Delta Point for a while now, it’s very advantageous if you ask me. A separate division for optics is what I proposed. The tech is here and there are now some factory offerings such as the M&P CORE, FN, and aftermarket Glock slides etc.
As for the IDPA dues, I understand the funding of it, but a majority of the guys that shoot at our clubs out here will never go to a state match. For their $65 a year they get a copy of the rule book and a magazine that most won’t even read.
Always rubbed me the wrong way and I would not be one to turn a shooter away from a local match just because he’s not an IDPA member. I’ve got memberships coming out of my ears. NRA member, range member(multiple), IDPA member…etc.
SOs, MDs, and serious competitors, sure join the club. Guy that maybe shoots 5 matches a year at the local level and places 18th out of 30, that guy can use that $65 a year on something else like ammo or gas.
I submitted a suggestion that the penalty for a point down be one full second instead of one half second. I got a response likewise but cannot see it.
Lets be honest, the only way IDPA is ever going to allow optics is honestly if membership gets low enough that they have to do it to stay in business.
Personally in my opinion increasingly IDPA has become the old curmudgeon. If IPSC hadn’t established the principle of freestyle shooting, IDPA would probably dictate what type of shooting techniques would be allowed. Because you wouldn’t want a technique race.
IDPA uses the idea of an equipment race whenever there is a change that the IDPA leadership doesn’t like. If the idea is tactically sound, and a ton of people are using them to be faster more accurate shooters that is a clue.
Honestly I’ve decided to give up my IDPA membership when it expires in a few months.
I have never done any competitions for the sole reason that I couldn’t use my carry gear. If IDPA allows AIWB, then I’ll find a local club.
Nephrology,
I contacted IDPA through the site support feature and the email that went out was a poorly written generic reply to let people know their submission when through, it’s now been re-worded to better indicate exactly what it is.
“An IDPA Administrator will look into your opinions for further consideration.
As a member of IDPA, you may log in and review members’ rules submissions, read the IDPA rulebook and much more. To log into the website to start competing, please visit the IDPA Member Site.
If you have any issues with the site, please visit our Support Site.
Thank you.
IDPA”
I wrote to IDPA 10 years ago about creating subdivisions in their classes that would allow people that carried compact pistols to compete against each other rather that compete against people shooting full size guns. For example a Glock 26 shooters not competing against Glock 34 shooters. I did not receive a reply for 4 months. I called IDPA and was told the exec board only meets once a year and probably would not even consider the idea. I let my membership lapse and have not given them any money since then. My local club still takes my match fees and lets me shoot IDPA when I want to.
Its just my opinion, but I would be be surprised if a head on campaign to get AIWB legalized for IDPA was not just ignored. AMHIK OTOH, were someone to assemble a group of women shooters, who often have issues with conventional holsters either not being friendly to female anatomy or drop offset rigs not being particularly concealable, it might just open the door a little more, assuming that the new allowance for crossing the body while drawing or holstering that was more or less “borrowed” from USPSA.