IDPA 2017 Rulebook dramatically changes BUG size/weight limits

[lh1]

It looks like the Walther PPS might have problems. Only the 6 round magazine fits the height requirement, not the 7 or 8 round magazines. Also not sure the weight requirement will make it.

[Abraham]

What a bureaucratic mess.

How about shooting what you have...?

[BHill]

What a bureaucratic mess.

How about shooting what you have...?

I agree it's a mess. IDPA needs to stop changing their rules as one would change an undergarment.

However shooting what you have in a competition only works if you aren't worried about truly competing. The reason for different divisions is competitive equity. J frame just ain't cutting it against a SVI custom. I do agree that the little edges gear can get you don't outweigh fundamentals and practice but when in a race everything matters.

[xring]

I think they are drawing a distinction between a compact carry gun like my Kahr CW9 and a Back Up Gun BUG to encourage the use of truly small guns in this division. They do seem to change rule from time to time like when they allowed Springfield XD to compete with Glocks and M&Ps. Any rule that negatively affects someone will make them unhappy. I Know I shoot My CW9 a lot better than I shoot a friends CM9 and difference is only magazine and barrel length.

[DanD]

The IDPA 2017 Rulebook has been updated again and is now version 2017.2. Here is the link to the IDPA Rulebook version 2017.2:
http://members.idpa.com/Content/Rules/4sig5pxx.mr1.pdf

[TonyZ]

An older friend of mine recently purchased a FN FNSc (3.6in barrel) just for IDPA Bug, and now he cannot use it. I hate to suspect some sort of politics, but Sig, FN, and all the previously mentioned guns are squeezed out without notice in just 2 years, yet no Glocks (which I also own among others). I am surly not going to compete in a class that could eliminate what I am shooting at any time, with no regard for my investment in time and money.

Thank you,
Tony

[Soccerdad1995]

I like the idea of IDPA being "shoot what you carry". But unfortunately this directly conflicts with the notion of a level playing field. A person who has $5,000 to spend on a CC gun and set-up will be at an advantage over the person who has $500 to spend. If both of them compete with what they carry, then they will not be on a level playing field. This is no different than any other sport like golf, skiing, fishing, cycling, etc. When I shot my first IDPA match with my Glock 19 I was amazed at the speed with which other guys were completing double taps, etc. Then I switched guns and was no longer as amazed. This led to me also changing my EDC gun.

As far as BUG's I think the revised rules are a move in the right direction. Personally, I don't consider a Glock 26 to be a BUG. For me a BUG is something like a Kel-Tec P3AT or maybe a Kahr PM9. Anything much bigger than that might be the only gun I am carrying at the time, which might make it a "small / light carry" gun, but by definition it would not be a BUG. If IDPA wanted to make this even more realistic, they could reduce the size of this category even more and require that you need to carry your BUG in either a pocket or ankle holster while also carrying an unloaded full size gun on your hip. But whatever they do, they need to stop changing the rules. Decide what you want to do and stick with it. Don't make competitors constantly invest in new guns and holsters for a sport that is supposed to be fair to those who do not have unlimited funds.

And don't get me started on the PCC division . I can see someone having a small carbine available at home or in their vehicle, but I am at a loss to understand why that same person would want to limit their options to only "pistol" calibers (and let's just ignore the fact that a lot of "pistols" fire .223 and 7.62 rounds when we define the term "pistol caliber").

Others may disagree of course.

[CleverNickname]

And don't get me started on the PCC division . I can see someone having a small carbine available at home or in their vehicle, but I am at a loss to understand why that same person would want to limit their options to only "pistol" calibers (and let's just ignore the fact that a lot of "pistols" fire .223 and 7.62 rounds when we define the term "pistol caliber").

Rifle rounds don't work very well against steel at the short-ish distances generally encountered in pistol matches.

[Soccerdad1995]

And don't get me started on the PCC division . I can see someone having a small carbine available at home or in their vehicle, but I am at a loss to understand why that same person would want to limit their options to only "pistol" calibers (and let's just ignore the fact that a lot of "pistols" fire .223 and 7.62 rounds when we define the term "pistol caliber").

Rifle rounds don't work very well against steel at the short-ish distances generally encountered in pistol matches.

Thanks. I didn't know that it was a safety issue driving the limitation, but that makes sense. Maybe they could change the name to something other than "pistol caliber" for anal folks like me

How about "limited caliber carbine"?

[CleverNickname]

Those guns have been called pistol caliber carbines for years, before PCC division was a thing in either IDPA or USPSA. I don't care what IDPA calls it, but calling it "limited caliber carbine" wouldn't really work for USPSA, because "limited" would imply it has something to do with Limited division, when it doesn't.