jlweems
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by jlweems
-
-
Jlweems
I'm thinking you may have missed what I was trying to point out. Yes there is a very real difference on a two way range. My point is that I would hope that any shooting sport would encourage LEO participation. Trigger time helps all.
I didn't miss that point, and I should have addressed it. I get irked when I see/hear competitive shooters bringing up the combat accuracy thing, and the broad brush of "vast majority barely qualified" needled me some too as that isn't my first hand experience. Don't misunderstand me, I think true firearms proficiency among those on the job is lacking.
-
Yeah. You will need a screw kit but it just slides in he existing base.
Lee
My 586 has the old style ramp with the red insert that can't be replaced without milling. Would this blade work okay with that front sight?
-
Wow! I've read though this whole thread. I would like to make a small point or two. Regardless, of the perceived "gaming" by LEOs, I guess I'm missing something. The fact is most LEOs are NOT GUN FOLKS. The vast majority can barely qualify with their weapons. Historically, in a real fight their hit ratio runs about 20 percent. Why do I make this point? I would hope that the "spirit" of the rule is to encourage participation by LEOs. If there are LEOs trying to use some perceived advantage, that should be easily identified by their performance. Act accordingly. If there was ever a group of people who needed practice its LEOs. It has been my experience that very few LEOs go to competitions. I would think that fostering that would be a healthy thing for all. And yes, that user name of mine has a practical application.
"Vast majority" is a bit of a generalization for barely qualifying. I am a certified firearms instructor in my state and have trained officers with many agencies and have taught at the regional academy as well. The number that barely qualify is nowhere near approaching "vast majority" in my first person experience. However, there is a very big gap between qualifying and actually being proficient with a firearm.
As for line of duty shootings, it isn't as easy as running through a known course of fire where the decision to shoot or not has already been made and you only get a few points deducted or time added for shooting a non-threat, and nobody kills you on the range or in a shooting competition.
If I appear a little touchy on this particular line of discussion it's because this issue is hitting really close to home lately. One of our guys was involved in a shooting last month in which the suspect had taken two hostages and shot one of them, and tomorrow I will attend the funeral of an officer from a neighboring agency that was murdered sparking a four day manhunt for his killer. Another officer is still in critical condition in the hospital. The motive for the killing was revenge. The brother of the murder in this case was killed in a shootout with police a few years ago in which he tried to murder an officer but wasn't up to the task. The suspect was in prison for armed robbery. He vowed revenge and ambushed the two officers involved in Tuesday;s shooting. Our guys, including our deputy involved in the shooting last month, were in on the capture last night. Oh yeah, our guy ended it with one shot from 55 yards. I beat him two weeks later in a GSSF match by 25 seconds. I guess he just stinks as a shooter.
The real world and the range are two completely different places. I'm willing to wager that the scores of even the best competitive shooters would drop exponentially if life and death decisions were on the line.
The main problem in peace officer training is that it is geared towards qualifying and the lowest common denominator. This is why I have instituted a new policy going into effect with this year's qualifications. Those that shoot below 85% (state standard is 80%) will go through remedial training. Those that shoot above 85% will start being put through training to push their skill level.
Also, those personnel that shoot above a 95% are eligible to shoot on the SO's dime at several different competitions in an effort to encourage all personnel to shoot better and to reward those that put in the time to develop and maintain their skills.
-
Just to make sure I understand, this is a replacement blade that goes into the existing sight base?
-
So everybody loves the G34 and I'm senselessly flailing a deceased horse carcass saying anything about it being less than awesome, but the bottom line it was designed for competition. It has slide lightening cuts and it's a travesty that it recieved an exemption to this prohibition in IDPA. I don't find it to be practical to allow anything that's "legal" for IDPA to be passed off as a duty weapon. I think it oughta be something realistic and official when we call it a duty weapon. Allowing "whatever I decide to carry" gives the impression of manuevering for an advantage. The way I have seen a particular setup it might as well have had plastic handcuffs and mint breath spray on a CR speed belt. I think its pushing the rules when you happen to choose something that is different than the issue weapon and modify your duty gear to be faster than issue or change components out completely...it's not the same.
I thank everyone for the expressions of their opinions. Sadly, my opinion has not changed about this being other than right, proper, or sportsmanlike. I respect the design for its inherent shootability and will surely have to pick one up when I wear out my 19 which seems quite a task.
Passed off?? It's (actually the G35 but same thing for this conversation) the issued weapon for the Kentucky State Police. Maybe you should contact the KSP Commissioner and tell him that his agency isn't issuing a legitimate duty weapon.
While you are at it, you can contact the Chief of the Warner Robins (GA) PD and tell him his agency's SRT is issuing a passed off duty weapon.
I sent a message to my contact with Glock in hopes of getting a full list of agencies for you to contact.
Here's one for you, if it isn't a legitimate duty weapon, why does Safariland offer so many different models of duty holster for it?
-
I'm issued a Glock 18C and a Kimber Tactical HD Entry II (typically carry a G38 though), and our SRT guys carry Kimber TLE/RL IIs.
Again though, in my reading of the rules, I read it as the duty gear exception applies to the gear and not the firearm. My issued G18C has ghost ring sights on it, and they are clearly not IDPA legal. I don't believe the rules would allow me to use it for IDPA with those sights.
The preceeding exchange illustrates beautifully the differing perceptions of law enforcement duty gear from competitor to competitor. The SO needs a leg to stand on here when it gets out of hand. This either needs serious definition and/or the placement of duty gear users into a separate category/restriction to local matches. It has become clear, to me atleast, that duty gear can be specialized to provide a more positive result in competition than was intended by the spirit of the rules.I will agree that the rule could be easily clarified, but I disagree with the notion that there are wide perceptions about what is and isn't duty gear, at least on the part of peace officers. Sure, you might have some gamers try to sneak something by, but to peace officers in general duty gears means the gear used when in uniform. Gear that plain clothes officers would normally use isn't called duty gear by people on the job.
-
Nope. I wrote "for uniform duty". SRT/SWAT members wear a uniform. Unless an agency is strictly an investigative agency, even the investigators have uniforms and duty gear to wear with it when their assignment calls for it.
Are you taking the position that because I often wear a Comp-tac paddle when at work that I could show up and shoot a match without wearing concealment because I wear that holster on duty?
-
"Duty gear" in the on the job jargon typically means the actual duty belt worn for uniform duty, and I think that is what the spirit of the rule intends. I don't think that it means that an investigator can show up the latest kydex wonder paddle holster and shoot the match without wearing concealment.
-
Am I missing something here? LEO can use their duty rigs for IDPA...this means their holsters, belts, mag carriers, etc INSTEAD of the IDPA approved HOLSTER, MAG CARRIER, BELTS and COVER.
When and where did this mean that the gun, magazine, etc would change from IDPA approved?
With the same logic as previously mentioned about getting a gun "in" because someone can get a letter from their mommy, the same could happen with the mag capacity. "My mommy gave me a letter and said that because I have Hi-Caps, I don't have to only load 10, I can use 17....OK?"
The LEO gear has always been that they can use their holster gear and no cover vs the "normal" IDPA gear and cover.
Again, did I miss a new rule change or interpretation?
Thanks
Garry
I don't think you are missing anything. Nothing in the rules says you can use a firearm that doesn't otherwise meet the rules. It simply states that military folks and peace officers can use duty gear rather than concealment gear. My actual issued duty pistol is not legal for IDPA, but I have other firearms that I carry on duty that are legal.
-
I have a 586 that I plan to qualify with ASAP and carry on duty some, but I will also use this pistol in SSR. For formal occasions, I will carry either a nickel 22-4 in .45 ACP or 66 (no dash). Earlier this week, I traded into a model 28-2, which also seems highly appropriate for such duty.
-
As I said, there are agencies that issue the G34/35 as a standard issue duty weapons or as tactical team weapons. I know several individuals that carry them on duty. I have the plain clothes gear to carry my G34, but I haven't picked up a duty gear holster for it yet. That's next on the list.
I'm a gun guy. I like to qualify on numerous pistols each year. On a daily basis, I carry a Glock 38, but sometimes I carry other pistols depending upon what I am doing. For formal occasions where Class A is called for, I maintain a set of duty gear and carry a revolver simply because I personally think that a revolver offers more class than any bottom feeder.
-
I'm not going to spend the money on something like an STI when I can shoot a $400 to the extent of my ability.
Our SRT guys carry Kimbers. I tried to get them to switch over to either G34s or G35s, but they wanted to stick with Kimbers. I qualified with the 34 with full intention of using it on duty.
-
A 34 isn't cheating. I qualified with my 34 this year, and since I do the firearms approvals, I approved myself to carry it.
I think the Kentucky State Police carry the G35. I know of an agency in GA that issues the G34 to some officers, and I think one of the big agencies in TX also issues the G35. I'm sure there are plenty of others.
-
No, security guards don't have arrest powers in my state. They are regulated through the Secretary of State's office rather than POST. They get a whopping 24 hours of firearms training including the classroom portion, and outside of their actual job assignment, they can't carry on their armed guard license. Unless the law has changed, the armed guard doesn't even get to keep their own "blue card". The company holds it, and if the officer changes employment, they have to apply for a new "blue card" through their new company. There was legislation put forward to allow the guard to actually own their own "blue card", but I'm not sure of its status.
Also, if you read all of my other posts, you will see that I am supportive of armed guards being allowed to shoot in their gear. However, such is contrary to the rule as it was explained to me.
-
As I said, I don't disagree with your premise that you should be able to compete with your work gear, but, and no offense intended here, security guards aren't peace officers. Security guards aren't law enforcement officers.
The way it was explained to me in safety officer training was that a shooter had to be in the military or a certified peace officer with arrest powers to use duty gear.
-
I don't disagree with your basic premise that you should be allowed to compete in your work gear.
Personally, I believe that the rules should include licensed armed guards; however, that isn't what the rules state at present.
-
I need to find a good holster and moon clip holder that is IDPA legal, any suggestions?
ReadyTac makes a good IDPA holster. I use their speedloader holders, but they make moonclip holders as well. I use NM moonclip holders for USPSA and can recommend them.
I also hear good things about CompTac holsters. Looks like they make one for a 4" N-frame.
I have one of the Ready Tactical speedloader holder and one of their moonclip holders. Both are top notch, and the service from the company was top notch as well.
I have one of the Comp-tac locking paddles for an L frame. It's a good holster.
-
Okay. So who is this local guy?
-
A gun mounted light makes the frame heavier, which is/is perceived as a competitive advantage.
I understand why it is in the rules; however, in a practical sense any advantage is negated by the trouble that come along with the light.
If lights were legal, I wouldn't compete with one attached.
-
I contacted HQ about some of the issues discussed here:
I asked about mounted lights as several agencies in my area mandate weapon mounted lights and only issue duty holsters that work with the lights attached. I was told that at this point the lights would be a no go at a sanctioned match but that the issue is under consideration. As for local matches, it would be up to the match director.
I asked about the placement of ammo loading devices, specifically concerning revolvers, and was told that the shooter's duty setup would be good to go. I asked this question due to the fact that when I carry a revolver, I have all of the loading devices strong-side in front of the holster.
If the officer carries a collapsible baton, it should be on the belt. Straight batons don't have to be carried. If a belt attached carrier is used for the radio, it should also be on the belt, but the radio doesn't have to be carried in a match. If the radio is attached to the belt via a clip, then there is nothing that has to be on the belt as far as a radio is concerned.
----
Personally, I can understand why IDPA wants it to be uniform for all competitors as to the use of attached lights; however, I don't see where the light provides any competitive advantage. They cause a weapon to be more prone to malfunction, and they can sometimes hang up in the holster on the draw.
I maintain two sets of gear. One set is nylon gear with lots of gadets on it. The other set is my "class-A" set. It's all leather, and I typically carry a revolver when using this set of gear. I don't carry a lot of the ancillary items with this set of gear. Both are legitimate, complete sets of duty gear. The type of duty assignment I am pulling dictates which set of gear that I use.
-
What Koski said.
Duty rig means belt, holster, pistol plus ALL of the equipment on the belt that's worn on duty and wears body armour too. If SWAT then the helmet comes into play also.
I see nothing in the rules that mandates the wearing of body armor and helmets. Please point me to the section of the rules that specifies this.
---
For most agencies, SWAT/SRT isn't a full time assignment. My agency has personnel from three different divisions on our SRT. They only wear their SRT gear when at SRT training or on a call out. The rest of the time they were the gear relevant to their duty assignment.
-
The blue team's strategy was stupid. Go first hit the middle target so you can go either direction if you get blocked. Chris T. did screw the pooch with his one miss. If he hits that Jay is blowing darts. Oh well.
The blue team's strategy was stupid. Go first hit the middle target so you can go either direction if you get blocked. Chris T. did screw the pooch with his one miss. If he hits that Jay is blowing darts. Oh well.
yep against Kyle
If Chris had hit that throw, isn't it likely that Blue would have pulled out the win?
-
I continue to be baffled at the respective selection processes for the challenges. Last season Denny never really pulled his weight, but he skated later in the competition because the team seemed intent on getting rid of the young guy that just kept winning the challenges.
While Kyle has been good in the last few team challenges and his one elimination challenge, he has been weaker than either Daryl or Chris T overall. Jay has performed when he had to do so, but he is probably the next weakest link on the blue team.
Edit to add:
I know a lot of the folks here are USPSA folks and where pulling for Chris T, but I had to pull for the Deputy Sheriff.
-
Is there a final word on who qualifies as LEO and who does not. I see guys shooting duty gear in matches that are not currently serving as a Law Enforcement Officer. Or at least I don't think they are. Who knows they might be undercover.
Boats
Boats,
The final word is up to the Match Director, since the rule book doesn't discuss retirement issues.
However, a retired law enforcement officer is RETIRED, and no longer a law enforcement officer. If I was the MD, they would not be considered LEO and not allowed to used duty gear.
By my way of thinking: If you have arrest powers in your jurisdiction, you are a LEO. If not, then you're not a LEO.
Koski
That depends. Many retired officers still make themselves available for reserve duty. While they aren't working full time, they are still sworn and have full authority when called to assist.
Strong/Weak Hand Only
in IDPA Rules
Posted
Would a failure to do right be applicable should someone do something such using their strong hand to support their support arm/hand?