MikeyG23

Ain't technology grand

Comp Tac I'll be surprised if you don't have what you order within a week.

I thought about going the custom route but have decided aginst it for now. About all I want is a basic gun with FO front sight which is like a $39.00 option. Hard chrome and all the bells and whistles can come later. Remember as a recovering Glock shooter this is going to be like going from a pickup to a limo anyway

Okay guys, the new gun bug has been in full rage at my house and thanks to a couple of forum members and the classifieds I've got enough $$ to afford a new gun. I'm looking at an STI Eagle in .40 with a bushing barrel since I shoot IDPA and want to shoot USPSA Limited as well. The question is what am I sacrificing with a 5", short frame gun for limited ? As I look through the forums here I see that Benny Hill's Fat Free guns are pretty popular as are the Brazos guns with lightened slides. Is the "trend" towards lighter guns since PF has dropped to 165 ?? I know everything is a compromise but I really want one gun I can shoot both sports with and the Eagle looks to be a good compromise. While .40 may not be the perfect IDPA caliber it's certainly competitive and a standard frame gun may have a bit more flip than say an Edge all in all it looks like a good compromise. Am I overlooking anything ?? Comments Please !!

I received an e-mail from Greg at Comp Tac and as promised here is his reply. It's kind of long but proves once again that Greg and Comp Tac are #1 in customer service and that they support the shooting sports. I've chosen not to paraphrase or edit since the words are Greg's and not mine: Hey Mike! Great to hear from you. Thanks for sending me the link. We have had a lot of calls on the subject of the new rules and of course we are all speculating on what they are actually going to be. Maybe if I hammer this out I can forward it to folks as an attachment. They will regret they asked! I am a member of IDPA and get to shoot a real match now and then. I recognize that we do get some of our business from IDPA but frankly that is not why we make holsters and other gear. I am by no means going to ignore our IDPA friends though. I don't think other makers will either. The only product in our line made for "competition" is the "Beltfeed" mag pouch. A Production class IPSC shooter and I came up with it. Since then I have made some for some SWAT guys. Who knew? It is refreshing to see the different points the members on the Brian's forum are bringing up. Txaggie mentioned that what is legal as far as IDPA on one person might not be on another if the rumored changes are going to be the way it goes. Just where the belt line migrates to (or disappears to) as we get older (err...uhaa.. bigger) affects the camber angle of anything we mount on our belt. More grist for the rumor mill. The amount of gap between the paddle and the body of the holster changes from pistol to pistol too. Because of the takedown lever and other structures on the XD pistols the space looks even bigger than on say a 1911. The Locking Paddle was designed to get the most stability possible and still be an easy on, easy off proposition. This was not lost on IDPA competitors judging by the equipment survey at the nationals this year. The part of every Comp-tac Locking Paddle that goes over the belt has been formed on the same jig for years. It is the same jig that the holster we sent to the IDPA holster committee was made from. I have had people ask for more "offset" and because I did not submit it to IDPA that way we have to let them know it most likely not going to be legal for IDPA competition. One customer said "What is IDPA and what does that have to do with me being fat"? I have been told that the mag pouch must cover fifty percent of the magazine under the new rules that don't exist yet... I'm not sure why. I have seen magazines fall out at matches. Sort of a built in penalty. When I designed our mag pouch way back when, I looked at the shortest, most common magazine we were likely to encounter. I took the G26/27 and balanced the coverage with amount of exposure for optimum grip and it had to have the ability for the end user to adjust the tension. By the fifty percent standard, all is good unless you carry a G17/22 length mag and want to shoot a IDPA match. You might be okay depending on how the magazines are going to be measured...No big deal. Comp-tac will tool up and make a mag pouch specifically for IDPA competition. It won't be the one I will wear on my way home. I'm lucky that way. I got started shooting competitive pistol in USPSA. I'm a life member. Shot one match in the last 4 years. I recently got a copy of the new IPSC/USPSA rule book. Ugh. Nowhere does it say you can't bring an attorney with you. There is nothing wrong with that. It's just not for me. Your personal reason for going to an IDPA match is not the same as every one else that shows up. To me the new rules (that don't exist... yet... or not) are not going to effect what is important about the IDPA experience, and that is the shooter that will never go to a big match. But, they are there working their pistols with us. Who is going to tell somebody that shows up at a Thursday night match "your holster would be legal if your belt was bigger. You don't get to shoot tonight. Here's some target pasters". Not gun'na happen. He might have to start from low ready but he shoots if I have any say. Where I like to shoot, the most contentious part of the evening is deciding where we are going to eat afterwards. When we accept hard earned money for our products we recognize a responsibility to support its intended purpose. If I didn't shoot IDPA I would be less inclined to set up a program to modify existing holsters if necessary for competition. For the record, I would rather sell a new holster to our previous customers because they have a new pistol, not because it has been ruled out by some competition they want to partake in. I can't imagine the "year to take effect" thing would change. When requested we will do what is necessary to provide IDPA legal gear. We will certainly set up a program to modify existing holsters at a minimal cost. Save your money for something important, ammo. Rules have changed in the past though. No more mandatory "reload at the gun" comes to mind. I did hear lots of discussion between competitors about the subject and it changed. Most of us went rah rah! It didn't cost anybody a dime. I did notice on Brian's Forum nobody is saying rah rah. We are talking money now and I don't blame them one bit. I would like to know if I am sending out a holster to someone and they intend to use it for IDPA it will be legal next year. Depending on their build, their belt etc. Well Mike, now you know why I don't post on the forums. If you don't have a headache by now you should know I do. I learned in my brief Investigator career, "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear". I just wrote my version of War and Peace on something we haven't seen yet! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and please let the folks know that Comp-tac will not leave them hanging. I'll see that what ever is service that is practicable is available. Best to you and yours, Gregg and the gang. Feel free to post this but if you do, expect to barred from the forum for being a bore.

Not that I know of but I wish he would. I know that I've been tempted to call him. Note: I just e-mailed Greg the link to this thread and asked for his comments.

They're a local caster here in the D/FW area. Several guys I shoot with have used them with no complaints.

IDPA HQ seems to be more concerned with THEIR definition of "Tactical" and "Suitable for everyday carry" than they are what people are actually carrying. While I don't use my Comp Tac Locking Paddle for an everyday carry rig I have done it in the past and will most likely do it again. If I have to replace holsters for both my IDPA guns I had just as well, and maybe just as soon, replace them with a CR Speed rig and trade my IDPA guns for a limited gun. If any of this information is true, and I have no reason to believe that at least some of it is, then I may go away from IDPA and start shooting USPSA. This is not what I want to do but if I'm forced to spend more $$ due to an arbitrary equipment ruling then I may well do just that. I don't know about any of you but I do not personally know anyone that has been consulted about any rule rewrites. It may be BW's sport but I can and will vote with my money elsewhere if that is what it takes. FWIW, I called IDPA HQ yesterday to renew my memebrship and asked about the new rule book. They stated that they were trying for a release around the first of the year but there was nothing definite about that as yet. HQ is out of touch with at least a portion of the membership. I realize that IDPA or for that matter any other shooting sport cannot be all things to all people but IMHO they are more concerned with dictating doctrine than they are with promoting a shooting sport.

Truer words never spoken. I could most likely get by with a "race" holster but other guys I shoot with are going to have a problem. If this comes to pass we're going to be stuck with another subjective BS rule...........

I like that Now how do we get IDPA to listen? I think Rhino may be onto something with the lamp idea IDPA has become less than responsive to the shooters. To me that is a sad situation and short of a total reorganization or as was suggested in another thread form a new organization I don't know how to get it back on track. I personally am waiting (as I'm sure everyone else is) on the new rule book before I decide if I want to continue with IDPA or go exclusively USPSA. I've been an IDPA member since mid 1997 and would hate to leave the sport but I can't abide the subjectivity of the rules and the inconsistencies in rule interpretation and enforcement.

OOPS ! I should have read a little further down as Vincent has the same reservation that I do. Do away with the "significant advantage" verbage and allow multiple procedurals for the same infraction, maintain the procedural at 3 seconds since multiples are allowed, and go with it.

The only problem I see with this approach is how do you define "significant competitive advantage" ? It leaves too much subjectivity to the SO and / or MD. Other than that it looks workable. I'm not trying to be difficult or confrontational. I write procedures and proposals for a living and I know that anything that is left to interpretation can be, and often is, interpreted wrong irregardless of what the original intent was.

Since both of my duty flashlights were payed for out of my pocket bean counters don't figure into it..... Seriously, Streamlights are great if for no other reason than almost anyone can purchase spare parts and replace them themselves without having to rely on customer support. We rebuild one at my department every couple of months.

So what would you propose in place of it? Drop it, forget about it, let it go. Procedurals are sufficient. If a shooter gets dinged enough times they will either quit doing whatever it is that gets them dinged or move on. If they are cheating to gain a competitive advantage enough PE's will eventually eliminate whatever real or perceived competitive advantage they are hoping to gain.

There IS a reason you see LEO's with Streamlights and not Surefires and Maglites....

The FTDR is the most bullsh*t penalty in IDPA. It has no objective criteria, it's all subjective and, therefore, open to individual interpretation and potential abuse. (Rant mode OFF)

Take a look at my post in the "What Would You Do" thread. I believe that the only way IDPA will become totally responsive to the "members" wishes and/or needs is for it to have an elected rather than selected BOD. I appreciate what Bill Wilson has done but I think that it's time for a change. FWIW, I don't have the answer, I just have the question at this point....

Several things come to mind: Get rid of the choreography. Set a course of fire and let the shooters solve the problem applying (evenly and fairly) all IDPA rules. Quit telling shooters they have to perform a tac load here and any IDPA legal reload there. Let the shooter figure it out and penalize him if he violates the rules. Get an elected rather than selected BOD. I realize this is Bill's game and I personally think we all owe him our gratitude for getting it started but it's time for the game to mature and the only way I see that happening is for the membership to have active voice in what goes on and how things are done. I don't think this will ever happen but IMHO it's the only way the sport will ever properly mature. The knee pad rule needs to be done away with. I've got bad knees as do several of the guys I shoot with. How is making us risk further damage "leveling" the playing field or giving us a competitive advantage? Revise the rules so that they are objective rather that subjective. Get rid of the FTDR for the same reason. Have a procedure for dealing with SO's who make repeated, arbitrary, bad calls on penalties. I recently went through an SO class and the one thing that was stressed was that all doubt should go to the shooter. Sadly, I see this isn't always the case. Of all the ideas I have put forth here I believe the one thing that could bring about the most positive change is for the BOD to be elected. They would be much more in tune with the membership if they came from the membership. I don't have an answer as to how to do this without unfairly cutting Bill out both morally and financially but it's something to consider.

Take a look at page 23, looks like Sevigny and Julie Goloski. I must have way too much time on my hands......

Hackathorn's article was one of the few that he's written that I, personally, agree with. He usually comes down on the "tactical" side of the fence but in the article finally reaches the conclusion that many of us have, that if you keep score it's a game. The equipment stats from Nationals were interesting too, Comp Tac has finally beat out Blade Tech as the #1 holster !!

Pretty easy goals for me in '05 1) Classify Expert in ESP 2) Shoot 2 sanctioned matches 3) Go to Nationals I've been in (and out) of IDPA since 1997 and have yet to make nationals, hopefully 2005 is the year !!

Try The Wilderness, as in Wilderness Instructor belts. Seems like they make something that is a "chest" holster.

I personally prefer the "solve the problem" stages over the choreographed stages that are common place in IDPA. To me the ideal stage is start here and finish there, all IDPA rules apply. It's a shame there aren't more of those type stages....

Saw "Ray" last weekend with my wife and I'm considering seeing it again this weekend. If Jamie Foxx doesn't get an Academy award for this something is wrong. He has Ray Charles' mannerisms and speech down cold, it's almost spooky. Well worth the price of admission.

Mystic River & House of Sand and Fog. I saw both of these in one weekend and thought I needed Prozac.........