Glock3422

They also weighed the gun. http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/VAIDPA/

I am really glad to see some application of sense and not just common. I have always been disappointed in defining anything "we didn't think of" as not permitted. This is particularly disappointing in the area of Custom Defensive Pistol and Enhanced Service Pistol. Neither have a production requirement. Why wouldn't an individual be permitted to build their hot rod with less than x cubic inches/litres and less/more than y ounces/kilos as long as it fit the box? This isn't SSP and it isn't Production. I'm not sure why a sport would limit itself to a weapon where the patent expired long ago and then claimed it as a standard, with exceptions described by vague and undefined terms. It really does pervert the word "Custom" and limits "Enhanced" beyond the represented intent. Certainly, all sorts of enhancements could be perceived as "competition" modifications. Life is a competition. All gun fights are competitions. None of our guns are suitable to "hunting." Beyond subsistance hunting, where is a shooting persuit that isn't competition? OK, what about daily concealed carry? I don't see a recoil system or any other reliability feature as a competition only item. Limiting a universe to 1911, or any of its' current variants ignores and stifles progress. Mr. Browning was a revolutionary. I doubt he would support anything that would retard innovation. I have heard for some years that the Recoil Master is not permitted by IDPA. Yet, IDPA has never taken a position on a recoil system that has been around for quite a while. If IDPA wants to limit CDP or any other division to the original 1911, it is their option and their call. When they chose to describe a weapon as .45 cal., 41 oz. or less, single, double, or safe-action; they have opened the door wide to imagination and ingenuity. Handguns evolved to polymer frames a long time ago. Materials and methods have improved and it is time to recognize it. We should not define ourselves by 100 year old technology. Cowboy action shooting is available to those so inclined. After the player has walked through the door, it is a little late, and not honest, to disallow the use of their equipment because you didn't think of it first and you don't like the color of their method of applying your published rules. It is time that IDPA take a more objective approach to the rules of the game. They owe it to the competitors who might travel to other areas and officials charged with enforcing those rules to be clear and specific. Intent is subjective, open to interpretation, and a very slippery slope, on both sides of the hill.

Registration is now open.

I don't agree that a heavy gun has an advantage over a lighter one. Certainly a heavy gun will offset recoil, but it also transitions and comes to point slower. Additionally, where a gun carries the weight matters a lot. Give me a light gun with a high percentage of the weight in the frame. The problem is that light guns take the weight out of the frame, not the slide. That said, IDPA needs to address weight issues more consistently. I would propose a 43 oz limit for all semi-auto divisions. Secondly, a rationale has to be expressed for why a 50 oz revolver is more "carry" friendly weapon than another weight for gun with more available rounds. I don't get it. If 50 oz is good for a six shooter, it should be good for all divisions. I wouldn't carry or compete with a 50 oz gun, but why should anyone be prevented from trying? My ESP Glock is 29 oz. Thirdly, if I have a 29 oz ESP Glock that fits the box, why shouldn't I be able to use my surplus 14 oz on a magwell if I think that makes my gun more competitive or assists my shooting? Finally, if I am building a ESP or CDP gun I should be able to meet weight limits and criteria however I choose within the rules. If I want to build a CDP Glock 21 with a "tactical" length slide and cut the top out of it like a G-34/35, why not? ESP/CDP are Custom divisions. Glock has already cut the top out of two of the most widely sold guns in the world. I am not talking about SSP, I am talking about having a slide custom manufactured to my specifications. I want the top cut out because it is the best way to reduce weight, maintain strength, and allow the use of stock springs for reliability. I am entirely serious about this. Require that a gun fit the box. Specify the maximum weight. Allow competitors to fit those two criteria however they want. If you go beyond that, imply intent and evil purpose, you take away the custom aspect of ESP and CDP. The slide lightening "rule" is so subjective as to be counter productive and as clear as reading tea leaves. IDPA needs to get away from suggestions and subjectivity. If I want to shoot a Glock 19 with a lead magwell, who should care? BTW, I don't shoot a revolver, but power factor for them is crazy.

I have always told new shooters that the most dangerous thing we do is holstering and drawing the gun. Suffice to say that we all need to make certain that there is nothing in the trigger guard when holstering and that we always decock or use the thumb safety, if available.

I've been researching the Pro Ears ProMags, Peltor Tactical Pros and the MSA Sordins for a while now, and I think the Pro Ear ProMag Golds seem to be the best out there (1.5ms attack time, 33 NRR, DLSC Compression, etc... plus a 5-yr warranty). My buddy just picked up a pair of the MSA Sordin Supreme Pros, so I'll check them out this weekend and compare them to the Pro Ears and advise my impressions... I just bought the Pro Ears Gold and used them at S&W last week. I had been using Peltor 6-S and realized they were inadequate for four days indoors as an SO. As it was, I still had to double plug but found them comfortable for all day wear and very effective in a concrete bay. The foam plugs added the little extra for short barrels and factory loads. They are expensive, but worth it. I just wish I hadn't forgotten the wires for my iPod.

As a matter of interest did they weigh down to a tenth of an ounce or did they round to the nearest ounce? Take Care Bob It is my understanding that the weights were taken in whole ounces. That is, tenths were ignored giving up to 9/10s leeway. I heard the Sig was 5 ounces over SSP.

It was to the shooter with the stainless Sig.

I believe the guns with non-functioning grip safeties were DQed because they did not function, not because they were unsafe. The rule book requires that safeties be functional. There are a lot of pinned safeties out there and many believe that the thumb safety makes the grip safety superfluous. That belief can be argued either way. That a major match stood up and required conformance with the rules should be commended. It doesn't happen often enough. Allowing a competitor to finish for no score is a reasonable compromise given the cost associated with attending a major match. Craig and crew did a great job. I agree that comments regarding the other shooter are not appropriate.

Same set up as last year because it worked really well. Many of the best stages from the last 10 years at The Range will return. 16 stages and bring 250 rounds. Frank and company are still deciding on and fine tuning stages. http://users.gloryroad.net/~idpa/

My primary IDPA gun is a G34 set up for ESP. I have another G34 that I have shot in USPSA Production. I shot the G34 in ESP exclusively until October. I then started shooting a G21 that I have been working on for ESP and CDP. My ESP/CDP Glocks have magwells. I shot the 21 in IDPA and USPSA Limited 10 Minor. I find that the transition between the 17/34 width frame and the 21 width frame takes a period of adjustment since the natural index for me is different. You need to consider if the index difference is significant to you. Dry fire can really help adjust the index between the two, but what you are most familiar with will be faster and more accurate. I am now back shooting the 34 exclusively and saving the 21 for future use. I really like the 21, it just isn't the game I want to play right now. I load for both calibers and 45 minor really is a lot more fun than factory. I am not far from major and when I go back to the 21 I plan on bumping the load.

Alternate the shooting order from stage to stage. First guy goes last on the next stage. BK And that may be fine within the squad, if they shoot the whole match as a squad. Edited to add-And the whole squad is the same division and classification. Where it really falls apart, is "the house" stage or a "blind stage" when the first guy up is at a huge disadvantage. If you can stand back and watch a squad or two shoot a stage, there are no mysteries. I shot a house stage first in my squad. Unfortunately, I had the worst position to see what was being shown. The crew was under big pressure to move shooters since those sorts of stages usually back up and strictly limited the time. That wasn't fair. I completely missed the last target since it was not visible from where I was told to stand. The next time I go to Boone, I'll risk a penalty to see the stage. It has happened too many times.

If you can't hear the striker clinking around in the channel when the gun is not cocked and you shake it, the channel is dirty. The clearer the sound the better. I use these wood shaft applicators from Brownell's. They are cheap and do a great job. http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/Pro...p;s=45840#45840

I would expect that the most common cause of light strikes is a dirty striker channel. It should be clean and dry. Second would be a old striker spring. I have used reduced striker springs in 17s, 22s and 34s with no problem in many thousands of rounds Winchester primers. Obviously any modification could reduce reliability, if it isn't done correctly. I have had to switch to Federal primers in my 21.

I called him quite a while ago looking for a special part. I left a message, as requested, with my inquiry and fully intending to buy the part. The return call I received back convinced me that if he had it, I didn't really want it. I deleted the site from my "Favorites" then. It seems he hasn't updated much in a long time. Not that it matters.

Jack Bauer is up against a terrorist who had impersonated an FBI agent and who had just shot Jack's partner. During the gunfight, she takes cover behind the interior wall of a home, made out of drywall. Without seeing her, Jack guesses that she is there and empties half a magazine through the wall, hitting her several times and ending the gunfight. IMO soft cover might do you fine if you are up against amateur thugs, but you are always better off with hard cover and you really need it if you are up against a pro. Funny, I saw that coming and knew she was toast.

The sights come with replacement red and green fiber. Personally, I like fiber rear sights to allow for aging eyes. I never "see" the rear sight and I don't look for the notch. The front sight simply finds it's place between the two rear dots. I use red front and green rear. Some think the red is too bright. I think I find it faster. I also prefer the adjustable rear sights. They allow more accurate adjustment to your view, your gun, and your load. They are larger and more expensive. You can cut an "Enos" notch in the rear of the non-fiber rear, but you can not on the fiber rear. But then, you would not need to on the fiber rear since you are not "looking" for the notch. Sorry- I would go for the wider notch if available. It will allow you to see more of the space around the target. I don't know the availability with the various configurations.

I did it on a G-34 and with the addition of a magwell, it gave my large hand somewhere to go. Since I am shooting IDPA ESP, it isn't a factor. I used the same mod on a G-22 years ago just to let the grip get a little higher and reduce my Glock callus. I have other unmodified Glocks that take some adjusting to.

I suspect that the Brownell's language should have been- Only the stainless frame should be installed on Model 31, 31C & 37. The 17, 22, 34 & 35 frames are identical. The caliber is changed by the ejector and upper. I understand why they may not recommend the aluminum with a .357 sig, but I don't understand Model 37 unless there is some other difference. The CCF web site clarifies this point. http://www.ccfraceframes.com/options.php Also, the price is going up 7/30 to the Brownell's price. If you want to save some real money, buy one through the site soon. Note that the frame does NOT have finger grooves, for better or worse.

I have been in touch with NHO several times since January. Tom does not have G-21 magwells to ship. He says he is having trouble getting them made. I will continue to stay in contact in the hopes that he will have what I am looking for. I bought a Glockmeister. It does not fit. It can not be made to fit since it is the angle of the magwell to the bottom of the gun that is wrong. The rear is tight to the frame and the front is dropped down. Secondly, it will not fit the IDPA box in width. It is not off by much and it can be "fixed," but the fit problem is unacceptable. Based on a recommendation by ryucasta, I have been nearly stalking NHO. I hope it pays off soon.

The rule book is very clear in what it says, it is not clear in what it means from a lack of definition. I subscribe to the "if you shot at it, it doesn't count for being exposed." The pieing the corner analogy is perfect since it is clearly allowed by the rules and should lend some clarity to the intent within the context of reloading. The book also says you do not have to duck back with your torso to execute a reload. You can maintain your 50% of the upper body exposure to the current threat target while reloading. The points down and the FTN is the reward for inaccuracy, not a PE. If you could never be exposed to a target, you could never move from P1 to P2. By extension of these rule based concepts, you should be able to reload while moving from P1 to P2 if you are not exposed to targets which have not yet been engaged. RobMoore- Most recently at the Maryland State match I was squadded with Donnie Burton and Scott Warren. I can remember at least 2 of the stages one or both of them asked the SO about tac-loading in what some people would consider "the open" or crossing a doorway. The answer was yes, so long as all visible threats had been engaged and they were moving behind cover from the remaining threats. You were treated to quite a show. Having taken classes with Scott, and having watched he and Donnie shoot quite a few times, it is really worth the price of admission. Having said that, I saw Donnie cross a doorway while reloading at SC this year. He got a PE and said, "OK." He thanked the SOs for their work and moved on. The best practice is to ask the SO if you want to clarify the rule for that stage. You really don't want to surprise the umpire. The last statement before LAMR is, "Do you understand the course of fire?" The other point that lacks clarity is the availability of cover. Perhaps something along the line of- If there is cover in the direction of travel, you must go to it to reload, unless there are targets on the way that must be engaged before you get there. If there is no cover in the direction of travel, you may reload without retreating. I don't want to argue, just add clarity where there is none. Personally, I can't think of any situation in life or the game where an empty, slide locked gun, with an empty magazine is going to do you any good at all. You should at a very minimum be allowed to dump the empty on the way to whatever "available" cover means. The rule is really designed to discourage round dumping. Its effectiveness in that respect is another topic.

Jeff wasn't there. I heard he has been busy with a new endeavor. The SC match in Greenville was much better than two years ago. I didn't shoot it last year in Anderson. This year SC was a very good match. Two years ago it was a one day match, held over two days. This year, it was a solid one day match that flowed very well. Next year it is back in Anderson.

Which is why the correct standard is "Engaged." Depending on the distance, caliber and eye sight, it gets way too argumentative. They are only neutralized if they are knocked down. A down 6 or more and an FTN is enough of a penalty without stacking a PE.

Recently, more often than not, if the visible targets have been engaged, you can move and do anything. If you would not receive a procedural for being exposed to a target, you can reload. YMMV. Unfortunately, the very restrictive interpretations of the last couple years have caused confusion and placed competitors from different parts of the country at a disadvantage in other areas. Finally, the current book did little to clarify the areas that needed it and created new areas requiring interpretation. It really comes down to the individual stage and asking what the SO wants.

Beats quoting rules. How so? Explaining the rules of the game does more than handing out penalties, DQs, or dismissively walking away. It assumes the shooter does not understand the ramifications of what he wants to do and gives him options. It also informs the shooter that there are rules to cover the situation. What would you suggest? How would it benefit the shooter? How would it benefit the sport?