Glock3422

Why fix it? The new format is broke.

Sure, so long as they aren't "weighted" (2 oz heavier than stock) and fit in the box. Actually, Weighted Grips are those more than 2 oz over stock. Weighted Magazines are those more than 1 oz over stock.

For use in ESP, I disagree. From rulebook regarding SSP: Permitted-6. Internal accuracy may be worked to include replacement of barrel with one of factory configuration and original caliber. Excluded-6. A barrel of another caliber that is not offered in the original factory model. From rulebook regarding ESP: Permitted-3. Internal accuracy work (includes: replacement of the barrel with one of factory configuration, the use of Accu-Rails, the use of Briley Bushings). Excluded-? No mention of barrel or caliber. Exactly. The rule book clearly permits changing caliber in ESP. If Berryville wants to change, clarify, or reconsider their language, they need to start posting that information on the IDPA web site and not by email to individuals. Those personal rulings violate the stability of equipment rules premise on Page 11- Stability of Firearm Criteria Rule This rule applies to firearms only; specifically any rule change that would disallow a firearm previously approved for IDPA competition. Firearm criteria changes will only be reviewed every two (2) years. Any firearm criteria changes will go into effect twelve (12) months after approval.

Neither is IDPA legal.

The funniest part is that it is specifically permitted by the rules for ESP (now except for Glocks). I can see the next rule book growing considerably to address specific guns and situations. Clarity would be nice, consistency would be better. It is odd that Berryville would outsource rule making to the individual manufacturers. So much for stability of the rules when a manufacturer's sales or legal department can cause a shift. There would seem to be quite a few now illegal guns based on recent developments. Nationals should prove interesting.

Your contribution begs the question of "Why?" If you no longer shoot IDPA, why do you care what is or is not required by IDPA? More pot stirring.

If the leveling of the playing field and consistency across the world are the primary considerations, sticky spray is not the best place to start.

+1000 Half the people worried about this don't shoot the game. Half the people worried about this would like to proscribe the flavor of Kool-Aid served at Nationals in Tulsa. The third half are rolling their eyes and wondering, "Don't these people have anything of substance to concern them?" Sticky Spray? Puleeese. The straw man side issues thrown into the pot to cause a circular motion just feed the intellectual dishonesty. If someone beats you with sticky spray, you need to take up checkers.

Plausible maybe, but it's still impractical and doesn't really follow the intent of IDPA. Many competitors only come with three magazines. I believe firmly that the intent of the rule book is for a scenario stage to be a single 18-round string, and as others have indicated that is the norm in practice. If you want to exceed that in a multiple string standard exercise that's fine, but it's usually limited to once per match. I am looking forward to the "Steve J Practical Shooting Sport," but the rules of IDPA don't support the interpretations recently provided by "Steve J" on at least two web site forums. Please don't misunderstand my words. I don't know Steve J. I don't know anyone who either claims to be, or knows Steve J. I also don't know anyone who believes the opinions presented by Steve J to be supported by the rules. This isn't a criticism of Steve J, it is an observation on his stated interpretation of the rules. I, like others, would simply like to see a well reasoned explanation, supported by the rule book. Thanks.

You're assuming that the decision is rational . . . that's your first mistake . . . Your first mistake is playing the game of the uninformed. IDPA shooters are trying to have a reasoned discussion about the rules. Your sig line betrays your bias, but thanks for stopping by. IDPA has a rule book and it exploded to 82 pages of large print in April 2005. You should read it sometime. It only takes about 30 minutes. Now, can anyone who has actually read the rule book point out the rationale for the conversion prohibition in ESP?

Could someone direct me to the rationale in the rules for prohibiting: A-Putting a 9mm barrel in a G-22 for use in ESP. B-Putting a 9mm slide on a G-22 for use in ESP. I know what was reported from a conversation, but it doesn't seem to be supported by the rules. Thanks

Permitted Modifications: SSP- 6. Internal accuracy may be worked to include replacement of barrel with one of factory configuration and original caliber. ESP- 3. Internal accuracy work (includes: replacement of the barrel with one of factory configuration, the use of Accu-Rails, the use of Briley Bushings). CDP- 3. Internal accuracy work (includes: replacement of the barrel with one of factory configuration, the use of Accu-Rails, the use of Briley Bushings). A comparison of the SSP and ESP rules make it clear that an ESP gun does not have to be its factory caliber. Obviously a CDP gun must be .45 ACP, but the rules do not require it started as .45 ACP.

I see no evidence that is true. Anyway, why would you want to? If you've got a Glock 34, you've already got a "G17" lower. We don't need to be "clarified" on things that are common sense, right? Let's say I have a G-17 that is SSP legal. Let's also say I have a G-34 that has had the frame modified that competes in USPSA Limited, L-10 and IDPA ESP. Now let's say I want to try a G-34 in SSP. I have an SSP legal frame and an SSP legal slide. They just didn't get mated at the factory. I own an SSP G-34 and an ESP G-34, they do have different sights. One has a modified frame and one doesn't. If I can't put a G-34 slide on a G-17 frame, I probably can't put my ESP fiber optic slide on my SSP night sight frame by the same logic. Or can I?

The match will be 16 stages and just over 200 rounds, plus two side match stages. The grave awaits and the new range cars have been washed. Yep, washed.

The Hardware: Sig P220 Stainless Elite with SRT, short trigger and improvised overtravel stop. No other mods (except cosmetic--trigger guard hook and tac rail have both been surgically removed). So... You might want to check the weight of that gun with an empty mag against the CDP limit.

There are still slots available.

I have. I hear it all the time. However you've calculated it, I think your software is the best thing since Curt Nichols. Craig Damned by faint praise.

The problem you are describing is the difference between the classifier and the match. The classifier is a set series of strings, with no concealment required, no particular athletic ability, no particular problem solving ability and an emphasis of accuracy over speed with penalties for extra rounds. Matches have variable COFs, require concealment, reward athletic ability, reward problem solving ability, reward accuracy, reward speed, and allow you to shoot until you are happy. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The classifier is over emphasized from a match perspective and matches are under emphasized from a classification perspective. The requirement to shoot an annual classifier wastes more time and ammo than warranted for the minimal impact on active shooters. The real test is major matches. If you are beaten at a major match, it is because someone else shot better than you did on that particular day. It has nothing to do with the classifier. You could require weekly classifiers and have the same result.

Squads are filling up and the South Carolina match this weekend will spur registrations. If you want to shoot the best IDPA match in the country, you had better get your application in soon.

So John, I know that you are not advocating cheating. But, are you advocating a lack of awareness or a novel interpretation of the rules? Most after market barrels are shiney and proud. They look nothing like "factory configuration" uh, original. And your advice to the competitor traveling great distances, at significant expense, is to "Let the tech inspectors do their job?" Let us know how that works out for you. YMMV.

I agree with all of that. The problem is in the rules. I had thought that replacing a barrel with one not identical to the original was prohibited in SSP. It seems the rules require all divisions maintain a barrel identical to the original manufacturer. That interpretation makes no sense when you consider ESP and CDP to be Custom guns. There comes the rub. An interpretation that is consistent with the language in the rules would seem to eliminate land and groove barrels from Glocks and other polygon barrels. Or, the language in the rules mean nothing. Presumably, the words were written for a reason and with a purpose. The question first occurred to me at the S&W Indoor Nationals. I noticed an Glock SSP shooter with a replacement barrel. All Glock replacement barrels I am familiar with are land and groove, not polygon. So what do we do? Do we ignore all replacement barrels, use "founders intent," or prohibit all "replacement barrels."

"Factory Configuration" is an interesting term. Does anyone really know what it means? SSP you can replace the barrel with one of factory configuration but not change caliber. ESP and CDP you can replace the barrel with one of factory configuration without mention of caliber change. Presumably you could put a Glock .45 ACP barrel in a Glock 20. But what is a "Factory Configuration" if it doesn't refer to caliber, porting, etc. Does it have to be of the same material, use the same rifling, be the same length? If I build a "Glock" on a CCF race frame that meets all of the rule book criteria, do I have to use a Glock barrel? The question is interesting because words are supposed to have meaning, but this meaning certainly isn't clear. It seems this may be another example of intentionally vague wording to prevent mischief the authors feel unable to anticipate. I'm sure someone out there can explain it to me and provide a reference.

I'm guessing Rivanna. You can hear Adam over everyone.

Just where is that sort of gun handling funny? I know it is Virginia, but where exactly? Cowboy.

I don't see anything that calls for "the benefit of the doubt" in the way the gun was handled in the box or on the hanging scale. That demonstrated a lack of respect for the gun, the property of another, and may well show a DQ offense by the guy holding the box. On the other hand, the gun fit the box and to suggest an "FTDR just on principle" runs counter to the notion (in the rule book) that the shooter gets the benefit of the doubt. If you don't want to shoot a gun that MEETS all of the rules, then don't use one. I have seen enough inaccurate boxes and only one that was 100% correct every time, under all conditions. The rules are subjective enough. The gun handling by match officials was irresponsible. Arbitrary penalties or the attitude that would suggest them are detrimental to the future of IDPA. Very shortly, this could into a X versus Y debate.