The Year is 2005
by
Gary W. Burris

The New Year has started off with a bang. We got a new rulebook in IDPA. Not much has changed. There have been a few clarifications, a new Enhanced Service Revolver (ESR) division was added, and there have been some changes in holster and magazine carrier requirements.

There was much heated discussion over the changes in the new rulebook. Quite a few shooters read the new rulebook and misinterpreted what was printed. IDPA President, Bill Wilson the TERRIBLE, was called everything but a “child molester” (his own statement). Bill was the architect of the rulebook. However, it was really a compilation of ideas and suggestions from many people including the rank-and-file membership. Everyone had an opportunity to review and make comments about the rulebook when it was published on the IDPA web site. There were a few mistakes in the version first published and these were quickly corrected.

I saw a draft version of the rulebook before it was published and had an opportunity to comment. I looked at it from the perspective of one that believes the IDPA needed to do something to curtail all the gaming that was slowly creeping into our sport.

After all the dust settles I believe that the new rulebook will have achieved its purpose. All those who had a hand in crafting the rulebook should be congratulated. I’m looking forward to competing under the guidelines and rules now in effect.

There are a few things that I’ve noticed while reading and trying to absorb the new IDPA rulebook. First let me say that I believe it is improved by an order of magnitude over the old rulebook. Things are easier to find and understand. Oh, sure there are some minor changes that I would like to see. But overall it is very well done.

Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to Par Time shooting. I guess I’m glad to see it go. We very rarely used this kind of scoring in local matches and it is even more rare in major competitions. It was used in the first two Arkansas State matches that I attended in Berryville. Other than that, I haven’t seen it employed in sanctioned matches.

I had some reservations about the way that targets are now scored for Failure-to-Neutralize (FTN). But after thinking about it for a while it makes perfect sense. The idea being that shots in the periphery of the target will not neutralize it. FTN still does not apply in Limited Vickers scoring or permanently disappearing targets. The old method of scoring was that you had to have at least 4 points on a target in order to neutralize the target. That infers that if you had two hits on the target in the –3 scoring area, you would be scored down 6 points, but you would have 4 points on the target. Now you have to have at least one hit in the –0 or –1 scoring ring to neutralize the target. It is now possible to have as many hits in the –3 area as you want but it will still be scored for points down (-3 x number of specified shots) and a FTN.

Here is my two cents about the new ESR division. Everyone was starting to use moon clip guns because they have an advantage of faster reload in competition. The shooters using speed loader guns were being pushed out of competition. A lot of gamer guns were starting to appear like the S&W 610 shooting 40 caliber powder puff loads. I’m sure that the speed loader guys didn’t care for this unfair competition. Therefore, it is my belief that the moon clip guns were given their own division and the minimum power factor for ammunition was raised to help offset the difference between ESR and SSR.

I compete with a S&W 625 that I had to cut an inch off of in 2002 to meet the 4” maximum barrel length rule. I’ve always used ammunition that met today’s minimum power factor so that change had no effect on me. Last week I shot the classifier and am now classified in 5 divisions. OK, so I just made ESR SS by less than a second, but I’m working on improving that.