Glock3422

The rule book is very clear that weighted base pads are not legal. It defines weighted as weighing more than an ounce over factory. A base pad that weighs .9 ounce over factory is not going to be the same material and is not going to duplicate the factory part. The book does not limit the base pad rule to any division(s). Simple application of what is already in the book would clearly make a base pad change legal, as long as it does not weigh more than the factory part by more than an ounce. This clarification did not exist until the 2005 version. Edited to clarify the quote and the comment.

I have had numerous problems with the primer system. Mostly, I have had to manually tweak/pull the primer slide bar just a bit further. Secondly, I have recently had a problem with the primer slide bar getting hung up moving the primer to the seating position. I have polished all the contact areas and used graphite to smooth the action. I have "adjusted" the action rod a few times with little or temporary improvement. I have checked the alignment and everything seems to be free. Oh, I replaced the cotter pin on the spent primer catcher chute with a small finish nail. The bend on the cotter pin was hanging on the pivot action of the chute. Cotter pins use soft metal and wear to a point they bind. Tweaking the slide bar to move far enough to pick up a primer is not a big problem. The slide bar getting hung up moving back to the seating position is a HUGE problem. I am concerned that excessive movement of the powder bar while fiddling with the primer parts is not conducive to safe loading. Maybe yes, maybe no. There is some friction/binding problem in the primer system and I still looking for it. Any thoughts?

I retested with a stock G21 barrel, 230 Berry's, 4.1 of Clays at 1.2475, .470 crimp, new Winchester brass using One Shot, Federal primers. Temps in the 40s. 30 rounds tested in 10 shot strings. One round in the 3rd string was way off and not considered representative. Of the remaining 29, High 764 fps, Low 723 fps, Avg 741 fps (Includes the one very slow round). Extreme spread 36, 39 and (75 with the slow round) without the slow round 31 fps. Average PF of each string 170. Of the 30 rounds- High PF 175.7 Low PF 157.9 2nd Lowest 166.2 The muzzle was not raised before each shot and the slower rounds may have been due to case volume. I shot a match with about 75 rounds and had no issues.

Yesterday I tested 4.0 Clays with Berrys 230RN in the range of 1.255 to 1.260. My first round did not make 165 (barely), the next two just made it, and the next seven were in the 170 range. I did not have my chronograph and borrowed one. I plan to retest on Wednesday with my chrono. This is was with a Glock 21. Temp was low 60s. My Hodgdon manual shows with 4.0 grs (Max Load) of Clays 230 gr LRN at 1.200 793 fps 230 gr FMJ FP at 1.200 732 fps I am thinking of either shortening the OAL, or going up .1 or .2 on the powder. The bullets feed fine. I have been using this OAL in both a Para and a Glock for quite a while. I had measured comparable Federal and PMC and found they are in the 1.26 range. My previous load did not need to make major. The Speer manual references a max OAL of 1.275 and a 230 gr TMJ test length of 1.26 Opinions?

The match is either all on Thursday, or half on Friday and half on Saturday. The information has been a little weak, but the match should be better than ever.

http://www.matchreg.com/sw/ Smith & Wesson Sports Shooting Center February 24-26, 2011 in Springfield, MA. Self squading on-line starts at Noon, Saturday 11/20.

That has to be the worst web site ever. Did they have a nephew build it?

Unfortunately, English does not seem to be the first language for those writing the rules, or the clarifications. All words mean something. They should all say what they mean. I am sure the resident Storyteller would agree. Not to be particularly snotty, sir, but words do say what they mean. Unfortunately, sometimes something that seems crystal-clear to the speaker may not be understood the same way by some listeners. In this particular case, people who push their equipment weights to within tenths of an ounce of the limit are living dangerously... as are those who chrono their reloads to just barely make PF. Jane, for whom English is her first language Sorry, but I just took notice of this. Do you really think a Glock is afraid of a scale? I just weighed my SSP gun. 27.6 oz. Feel free to round up. PF 131, on a slow day. Feel free to round down.

Unfortunately, English does not seem to be the first language for those writing the rules, or the clarifications. All words mean something. They should all say what they mean. I am sure the resident Storyteller would agree.

I am right handed and left eye dominant. My first shooting was hunting and I have always shot long guns left handed. I have always shot handguns right handed, given the option. In later years, I have needed corrective glasses to read. My left eye is corrected for the front sight of my handgun. The right eye has a very slight correction for distance. This works great for handgun and fine for shotgun. Iron sights on an AR complicate things a bit, but I can shoot them without too much trouble. The front sight is just the wrong distance after the correction for handgun. I am moving toward optics on the AR for competitive reasons given my eye sight. I would probably shoot irons better with no correction, since my distance vision is fine for all purposes. The issue arises between the near and mid-distance for me. I can and do shoot long guns right handed/right eyed, but it is more difficult. I need to close my dominant (left) eye or be shooting at a very close target. I practice shoulder transitions and shooting with each eye. I think I am better shooting the handgun left handed than I would otherwise be, since my left hand is very familiar with pulling the trigger. I still adjust my point of aim for the handgun to the left edge of the zero. I started doing that after practicing on a plate rack at 20 yds. I just wish I had started shooting when I had 20/15 vision in both eyes.

Bump This Saturday

You know the interesting part of this is that you are discussing a gun that does not need to fit the box and has BIG maximum weight limit. I don't understand the rules to require any limits on everyday carry or concealability for revos, since they seem to get a pass on the box and "normal/typical" weight limits. I do understand that the rules are "may I" rather than "you may not." Regarding anything in the "Enhanced or Custom" realm, the question should be weight and fitting the box. If revos don't need to fix the box, and especially if you are shooting ESR, the black letter rules should prevail. Intent is just too vague. If I am carrying, I intend to be able to neutralize every target I engage. Can you see it before I draw it? If you can, maybe I will not have to draw it. I have actually used this in real life. You don't have to draw it or handle it to expose it. On the other hand; the recent rule "clarifications" would make enhanced concealment illegal. We might need offical formula gear. That would reduce the gray area, but add to the cost. Ooops, violation of prime directive. The notion of approaching these discussions from your personal perspective dismisses anyone who would approach the problem from their personal prospective. That is, you may have a fundamental belief that you have interpreted the tablets as written. Others may differ. To be clear, you may believe that a 1911 single stack is THE ONLY proper defensive handgun. I may believe that a G-20 is THE ONLY proper defensive handgun. We have two methods of solving the problem. Neither is wrong. You can't have it both ways. You can not argue that a 1911 solves a problem better than a big ass revo, or a double stack bottom feeder. To try is just dishonest. YMMV

The internet is your friend. Oh, and free. PERMITTED Modifications (Inclusive list): 3. A slip-on grip sock and/or skateboard tape may be used. http://www.idpa.com/Documents/IDPARuleBook2005.pdf You can learn everything at once, instead of piece meal. When you join, they send you a copy for your range bag.

I don't need glasses for anything other than reading and I had lenses made for my shooting glasses to sharpen the front sight of my pistol. To be clear, my dominant eye is corrected to the front sight and my other eye is corrected (very slightly) for distance. I measured the distance from the end if my extended trigger finger to the front sight. I then told the doctor that I wanted perfect vision in my dominant eye at that distance and why. The results were astounding after years of shooting with no vision correction. I found that setup causes me some trouble with my AR and iron sights. I shoot a carbine length with iron sights, but it isn't easy for 300 yd shots. Now I have a Burris 1-4x and use my corrected lenses with no problems at all. I can shoot 3-gun very easily. Your situation will vary based on your particular needs. I use ESS protective glasses with ESS lense holders and corrective lenses behind them. http://www.esseyepro.com/ICE---Advancer-Vice-Rx-Insert_118_detail.html

It is too bad this match has been scheduled to conflict with Frank Glover's IDPA match in Oxford. If there were no conflict, there might be a larger local pool of shooters. I would have thought that Dean would have given more consideration to local conflicts. I guess not.

It seems the rule addendum has recorded the first victim. The East Coast Championship seemed to modify stages to conform to the new window (is really a door) approach, a stage that was intended to be shot through "cell" bars added the use of retreating to cover, and the definition of "shooting position" became an issue. Several stages adopted the view that if you had to move your foot to get there, it was a new shooting postion and could be assessed a cover procedural. I mean, just one foot. Pieing a corner presented multiple opportunities to receive cover procedurals. This "shooting position" problem in a typical IDPA format now provides the opportunity to receive a procedural on each target. Now, this may not be the intent, but that is what the words have been read to mean. That interpretation is not unreasonable. I believe it is wrong, but not unreasonable. I guess the next addendum will define "shooting position." Or maybe the next revision will assess a penalty for each shot, like another practical shooting sport. Oh, my next vest will have pockets on both sides for 32 round mags. These changes have accomplished nothing other than throwing the sport into turmoil for no good reason. Local issues with stage design regarding cover need to be addressed by the AC and not outsourced to the rule book. Stiffeners in the vest are sound realistic tactical issues. Grabbing a hand full of vest on your way to the gun is dangerous everywhere. "Stiffeners" tend to reduce the gun print on the concealment. Efficient gear is good gear. There is no equipment race in vests. Ok, there are those who have a custom made vest with huge pockets, but they are ineffective and a waste of effort. Much ado about nothing. Who would want to outlaw custom vests? I can think of more than a few who would not. I expect there were fewer than six individuals who had input into these changes and that can hardly be expected to reflect the views of the membership, the member clubs, major match directors or the vast majority of ACs.

That is MUCH better than a fault line. How about busted cover gets you water. Really busted cover gets you red dye. Fully exposed gets you red dye and cat urine.

Using "IDPA" like rules, a DQ is not warranted since the gun wasn't loaded. I have DQed a shooter for dropping a loaded gun. A PE is not sufficient to address a holster that is not able to retain a handgun. An FTDR addresses the severity of "losing" an unloaded gun during a COF and offsets any advantage that may have been gained by not having to go back for it. Just a thought.

Did you help your AC draft the rule? Just askin. I don't know what kind of problem you are trying to fix, but it can't be as bad as the problem you have created.

Of all the rule "clarifications" this one seems to have caused the most confusion. Even people to seem to have had input, don't understand the wording. The rule book was very clear in regard to the use of cover. If there was cover available, it had to be used for shooting and reloading. The additional words are contrary to the existing rule, and unclear as to intent. I know what has been said on the unofficial/official forum, but it is unofficial opinion expressed by people who seem to have a firm point of view. I could not be more confused by the clarification if it was in Chinese. IDPA has outsourced responsibility at their peril. The "official" rule clarification board is outdated and in conflict with current views. It really needs to be cleaned up. The commonly expressed view of what was intended effectively prevents a course designer from utilizing any scenario that requires a competitor to enter a doorway or venture down a hall. If true, IDPA is about to become very boring. I expect if this view is ultimately ratified, we will be shooting an odd version of PPC. I wouldn't want to be a Match Director with a major event coming up.

The following modifications are NOT ALLOWED on any shotgun. A. No Bi-pods B. No Laser aiming devices. C. No compensators. D. No speedloaders or detachable box magazines.

First, the rulebook is only 82 pages and most of it has nothing to do with stage design. There are firm rules regarding cover, and reloads. There are also more than a few SOs who should take 20 minutes to reread the rulebook and try a little harder to understand it. The rulebook does not address if a target is neutralized. That can only be determined once it is scored. What the rulebook says is that you may not leave cover with an unloaded gun. Having attended and worked the S&W match, I think the shooter was confused about a number of things including what she was doing that caused the procedural and what was being said to her. She did say she was new at this. Stages should be designed and run under the guidance provided by the rulebook. As long as the stages and their operation conform to the guidance in the book, they should be fine. The problem I have observed is either designs that violate the guidance in the book or their operation under "local rules." Believe me, a match you see in one area of the country could be very different than another part of the country. There is one area where you can expect to see IDPA run as "IPSC Lite." That is not a criticism of either but a recognition that some areas do not apply the rules of the game. I think that has been pretty well covered in other threads and probably causes more problems than any other aspect of IDPA. There are several aspects of the current book that could use some work, but the concepts of stage design are pretty clear. Personal interpretation and preference muddies the water and harms the sport.

New shooters require extra consideration. A match director should not be burdened by someone who may show up with less than a 9mm/.38 and expect to shoot. This may not be a big deal for your local match, but when you regularly expect over well over 60 shooters, you should not be burdened by a 22. If IDPA wants to include .22 in BUG, it can die a quiet death. If IDPA is really about concealed, self-defense, then a 22 does not have a place in it.

I know someone who did it while practicing one day. He doesn't limp anymore, but I understand it still hurts sometimes. There is a very real danger of either your clothes or your holster putting enough force on the trigger while holstering for it to go bang. I cringe everytime I see someone slam their gun into the holster. Holstering the gun is about the most dangerous thing we do.

People This just isn't that complicated.