Springfield XD Forum banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

125 Posts
I just got done reading that over on SIGforum. I gotta say that it's nice to hear something about this. Especially so soon.

I did take issue with a couple of things. Most notably this:
"Stock Service Pistol Weight Limit: First, I’m not aware of any “carry” pistols that have been eliminated for IDPA competition. There may be a few that are over the SSP weight limit, but any pistol that could reasonably be considered a “carry” gun can still be used in ESP. Let’s face it, if it’s over the ESP weight limit, you wouldn’t carry it all day concealed anyway".
Look pal, I'm 6'2" and 280 lbs. I'll carry whatever the hell I want and if it's over "your" weight limit, than that's too damn bad! You have a problem with someone else puttin' the smackdown with a Sig?!

As well as this:
"I noticed something interesting in the majority of the negative mail we have received at HQ. The message is all about “I” and “ME”, not what’s best for IDPA or the shooting sports in general."
Last time I looked, it's the "I's" and "ME's" that shoot this sport, as well as pay the +-$400,000 every year to your organization. :wink:

Anyway, we'll see what gets changed and what doesn't. :roll:

875 Posts
IDPA History:

Bill Wilson the TERRIBLE!

I have been working to promote the shooting sports since 1979, when I worked closely with
Jeff Cooper to promote the then new practical shooting sport of IPSC as Jeff’s Midwest
representative. I went on to be an area coordinator and eventually sat on the USPSA BoD for
numerous years (along with IDPA BoD member John Sayle). I was the primary push behind
the USPSA “Limited” category and authored most of the original rules in a failed attempt to
bring some “Practical” back into “Practical Shooting”.

Eventually, John and I realized our vision of “Practical Shooting” was never going to be
regained within IPSC. None of my expenses were ever paid for by USPSA/IPSC and my
salary was $0.00. At that point, I was still sure there was major interest in a shooting sport that
allowed shooters to compete with the gear they actually carried on the street daily.
In 1996, I conned John Sayle, Ken Hackathorn, Walt Rauch, Dick Thomas and Larry Vickers
into working with me to form a new shooting organization to officiate a brand new shooting
sport. It was I who went to Petersen Publishing (who then published GUNS & AMMO,
HANDGUNS, PETERSEN’S HUNTING, etc.) and Smith & Wesson with hat in hand begging
for assistance in funding the start of this new sport. With the help of funds from Petersen’s,
S&W and Wilson Combat, IDPA was officially launched in October after a landmark meeting in
Marietta, Ohio. As the other original BoD members will attest, I was the author of the majority
of the original rule book which is a trend that has continued to this day.

Since 1996, I have spent a tremendous amount of my time, effort and money to promote IDPA.
I expose myself daily to liability by being affiliated with the administration of IDPA, and yes,
IDPA has paid some of my expenses in recent years. But, my salary has remained at $0.00.
Recently, I have been rewarded by being called everything in the book and accused of almost
everything except child molestation! My only interest is in the promotion of the shooting sports,
while doing my best to keep IDPA as true as possible to its original founding “Purpose”. If
IDPA was created for my personal financial gain, I sure made a piss poor business decision. If
all the time, effort and money I’ve invested into IDPA had been put into my business ventures,
I’m sure I could have made some serious $s.

I have been accused on numerous occasions lately of not understanding the original intent of
IDPA. Hell, I was there and did that!!! If anyone understands the original purpose and
principles of IDPA I do!!!! By the way, I suggest that all the members unhappy with the new
rules read the “Purpose” and “Principles” sections and please try to UNDERSTAND them. If
the new rules don’t move us closer to the original “Purpose” and “Principles” of IDPA, tell me
why? If someone else had all the answers, why didn’t they start IDPA? Why don’t they take
over so I won’t be having all the fun????

I noticed something interesting in the majority of the negative mail we have received at HQ.
The message is all about “I” and “ME”, not what’s best for IDPA or the shooting sports in
general. While the constructive mail we have received has been about improving “our sport”
and “the shooting sports”. Hmm!

Just for the record, the new rule book was not just something arbitrarily written by me. It was
the collaboration of past and present BoD members, three former Nationals match directors,
numerous SO/CSOs and Joe average member. Amid all the IDPA bashing, we have actually
received quite a bit of praise for the new rule book. I think these people understand the
original purpose and principles and actually have read the book for themselves with an open
mind and didn’t jump to a lot of unfounded conclusions. I have also noticed that a lot of these
comments were from members with low membership numbers and people who are actually
running matches. Maybe experience has something to do with it? Sure there are some
mistakes in the new book, but don’t worry, they are all being pointed out to us and the
appropriate corrections will be made.

IDPA currently has nearly 12,000 members, all of whom have a slightly different vision of what
IDPA is or should be. Yet IDPA has only one original guiding “Purpose” which dictates what
IDPA is and should be in the future. John Sayle and I fought for over a decade to try to stem
IPSC’s gradual transformation from a “Practical” to an “Action” shooting sport. We failed
because it is a member and sponsor driven organization and that evolution is what their
membership and sponsors wanted. This is the primary reason that IDPA is a BoD driven
organization that solicits, values and listens to the constructive input of experienced members.
New BoD members are appointed by standing BoD members to continue the purity of the
purpose so to speak. IDPA was founded from day one for a basic purpose and on a limited
number of principles that all the BoD members believe in. We intend to keep IDPA as pure to
its original concept as possible whether it’s popular or not.

NOTE: Any reference to IPSC/USPSA is strictly for historical reference and not meant in any
way to be derogatory toward that fine shooting sport. It is no better or worse than IDPA, just
different with different goals.

Now that I’ve had my 2 cents worth and that all said, where do we go from here? Well, I still
see a bright future for IDPA because I know the concept is sound and we have a good core of
people based on all the good “constructive” comments that have come in with all the bashing
and the crap.

Believe me when I say we are listening and paying attention to the “constructive” feedback
sent into HQ and being posted on the various forums. So here’s my plan for what it’s worth!

The Plan:
We are sorting thru all the input and taking all the suggestions that do not contradict the
original “Purpose” of IDPA very serious. By early next week you will see a “Revised” version of
the rule book posted on the web site which is based on this input. Once this is posted, we
invite your “Constructive” comments that would not move the sport away from its original
“Purpose”. We will accept these comments for an additional week and then hopefully, based
on this information, post the final draft of the rule book and go to press with the hard copy
version by early February.

Correction of Mistakes, Clarifications and Clearing of Misconceptions:

New Holster Rules.
There seems to be much furor over the new holster rules. We’ve heard everything from “only
Wilson Combat holsters are allowed” to “all Kydex holsters are banned” to “paddle holsters are
not allowed”. None of this can be further from the truth.

The new holster rules were created because certain holster companies who originally
submitted products for approval, changed their holster designs after they were approved while
retaining the same model designation. Uncle Mike’s popular Kydex model is a good example
of this (the backpiece on the sample we approved had less than half the offset of the
production version). IDPA’s main mistake was not dealing with this issue earlier. In addition,
most SO/CSOs are not holster experts and do not have the required holster catalogs/samples
available to them for proper holster regulation. The holster list just became unmanageable for
match directors and safety officers to enforce as no one could possibly be familiar with all the
holster brands and models or be aware of all the changes that were made to them AFTER
original approval. In addition, after the inception of IDPA, holster companies sprouted like the
grass in the spring time so the problem was compounding.

What could be more of a “common holster making material” these days than Kydex? Where
anyone would get the idea that the new rules ban Kydex holsters is beyond me? I can’t find a
single reference to this in the rule book? Most of the holsters made of Kydex are legal. Yes,
some are legal for certain body types and not for others. It’s important to read and reread the
Purpose and Principles of the sport. That, along with the rules and a small amount of common
sense, will delineate a legal holster from an illegal holster.

Just as hard for me to believe, is the rumor that no paddle style holsters are permitted? I
simply can’t find that in the rule book! Yes all paddle holsters that meet the new holster criteria
are legal for IDPA competition. Most models will meet the criteria since they were designed for
CCW. The same is true for the Yaqui slide style holsters, which are just a variation of the
pouch style holsters.

Adjustable backpieces.
Those that allow the cant to be adjusted by the shooter while the holster is on the belt are not
allowed. Those that are adjustable by removing bolts and repositioning the backpiece are
allowed. This correction has been made to the rule book.
The ¾" measurement referenced in the new holster rules is taken from the body to the portion
of the weapon closest to the body. Modification of current holsters and ammunition carriers to meet IDPA criteria is

It is hard to understand why people are so certain that the rules were written to banish
equipment. They were rewritten to aid in officiating and stopping the use of as much
“competition only” gear as possible. Quite the opposite, the door is now open for new, small
holster makers to have their equipment used in IDPA competition. This can now be done
without the costly and timely problem of sending product to Headquarters for approval. Any
holster gear that will not meet the new holster rules would not have been very practical on the
street for everyday carry. Let’s face it, most people who really carry on the street use IWB and
Pancake style holsters for their concealability and comfort.

Mag Pouches.
Regarding changes to the rules for mag pouches, most of those products previously approved
are still legal. IDPA requires the magazine to be measured along the front from the topmost
portion of the basepad to the top of the tube itself, excluding the follower. Holster and mag
pouch manufacturers were questioned on the aspect of a coverage/retention criterion and
several of them suggested the 50% coverage as being more appropriate for equipment that is
to be used in a potentially hostile or demanding environment (ie: suitable for daily concealed
carry wear).
NOTE: Constructive suggestions have been received on the mag pouch issue and we are in
the process of reviewing this issue.
Only Wilson Combat holsters are approved.
Get real people!!!……….yes, most will be legal because they were all designed for CCW use,
not competition. Basically, all IWB and pancake style holsters, the vast majority of the
Bruce Nelson style, and lots of pouch style holsters meet the criteria just fine. This
means there are LOTS of holsters out there made of various materials in all price ranges that
will meet the new criteria. Holsters are no more than 2% of Wilson Combat business and are
more of a service for our customers than anything else. Why would I have a political agenda

Speedloader/Moon Clip Holders.
The section on speedloader/moon clip holders has an error that we simply missed where it
specifies that the full diameter of the speedloader/moon clip be covered. This is not correct
and new verbiage is being worked on. Also, several people have asked for an example of a
holder that will meet the new criteria. The Safariland model 371 “Split-Six” (available from Kroll
800-359-6912 or Motang 800-367-5900) meets the criteria and is very fast (just ask anyone
who has seen a Bill Rogers demo at the SHOT show), while being street proven. I’m sure
there will soon be numerous new ones out specifically designed to be fast and barely meet the
new criteria.

Enhanced Service Revolver division.
First off, the changes to SSR and creation of ESR was at the request of the membership. HQ
has repeatedly received requests and suggestions to do something about moon clip guns and
125,000 power factor of .45 revolvers. The changes were based on discussions with several
revolver shooters (mostly EX and MA class) and CSOs, and do NOT ban any revolver of which
I am aware. Quite the contrary, new guns will be allowed. Due to the overly generous weight
limit, ESR is the least practical of all divisions, yet the gamers continue to complain?
I’m sure three mistakes in the posted rules caused a lot of these misconceptions, sorry
we goofed!

Mistake #1: ESR weight limit should be 50oz (Yes, your S&W 610 and 625 are still legal).
There was never any intention to disallow the S&W 610/625 even though I can’t imagine
anyone carrying one on a daily basis. I’ve carried a lot of 45-50oz hunting revolvers in field
holsters on a 2” belt in my day and I sure was glad to get the thing off at the end of the day.

Mistake #2: Maximum 4” barrel length as measured from the front of the cylinder to the
end of the barrel. This reference was primarily to show how a revolver barrel is measured.
Apparently some manufacturers barrels are slightly over 4”, therefore this has been
changed to 4.2”. We certainly would not disallow a revolver because its barrel is 20
thousands of an inch over 4”. Good grief people, use some of that uncommon “common

Mistake #3: Minimum caliber for ESR should read .38 caliber. The balance of the mail
seems to be over allowing 7 and 8 shot revolvers in ESR. The feeling of the revolver shooters I
have spoken with are as follows:

• A 6 shot .45 moon clip revolver recoils softer and loads faster than a 7-8 shot .38/.357,
but obviously having an extra shot from time to time is an advantage. Consensus from
top shooters seems to be that this will be a wash in competition.
• It’s accepted as fact (based on Police shootings) that a 125gr JHP at 1350FPS is a hell
of a fight stopper. What could be more practical in a revolver than one that holds 8
rounds and is faster to reload than a conventional 6 shot model? So why wouldn’t we
want to allow an 8 shot .38 super moon clip revolver?

By the way - I started my competition shooting career back in 1972 with a revolver. I shot PPC
and bowling pins (even shot my first IPSC match with one) and have classified master with
one, so I actually do know a few things about the subject.

Stock Service Pistol Weight Limit:
First, I’m not aware of any “carry” pistols that have been eliminated for IDPA competition. There may be a few that are over the SSP weight limit, but any pistol that could reasonably be considered a “carry” gun can still be used in ESP. Let’s
face it, if it’s over the ESP weight limit, you wouldn’t carry it all day concealed anyway.
Stability of Rules: Based on the original intent (I wrote it originally so I’m pretty sure I know
what the intent was), this refers to guns allowed in the various divisions. Specifically it
regarded any rule change that would disallow a firearm that had previously been allowed.
Based on this, the only rule change that might disallow any firearm that was previously
approved would be the weight limit in SSP. Weight limits in ESP and CDP have always been
with magazine included (factory specifications normally include the magazine), so this is not a
rule change, just a clarification. I am not aware of any guns that will be disallowed by the
changes in SSR/ESR, therefore all changes with the exception of the weight limit in SSP are
effective immediately and the SSP weight limit will go into effect Jan 3, 2006.
Sanctioned Match compliance: Sanctioned matches scheduled prior to April 15, 2005 will
be run using the 5/2/2001 rulebook. Clubs are urged to start using the new rulebook as soon
as possible, with full implementation by April 15, 2005. Exception: SSP weight limit will go into
effect 1/3/06.

Why has it taken so long for an “official” response to questions about the new rule book? First,
Joyce and I have been out of town a portion of the time and then my daughter has been in
town for a short visit. Family time is more important to me than IDPA. Most importantly
however, a lot of good constructive comments have been coming in and we wanted time to
sort through them. We didn’t want to subscribe to the same “KNEE JERK REACTION” that
some of the membership has.

We appreciate most of the comments that we have received as we do encourage constructive
suggestions from the membership. Obviously, we can’t make all of the changes that everyone
wants but we are trying to make changes for the good of the sport as long as they do not
contradict our original “Purpose and Principles”.
Thank you for your input and understanding.

Bill Wilson, president and the staff of IDPA HQ
1 - 3 of 3 Posts