humvee

I'm not sure what the rule is trying to say, but I did email Tom at customer service and he says you can replace the barrel with one from KKM, Jarvis, Federal, etc., and still be legal. I specifically asked about replacing the barrel of one of the ported 'C' models with a non-ported barrel, and he says that this too is allowed. If the gun was, in all other ways, elligible for Stock Service Pistol, it would still be elligible after the barrel replacement.

Bill Wilson was out here in Arizona for a few days this past summer, and I had an opportunity to talk with him about some of the more unpopular rules. I explained to him that, even though I supported IDPA and wanted it to prosper, my first allegiance was to my shooters. I told him that there were many cases where shooters had what I considered to be practical equipment that was not technically legal under IDPA rules (full dust-cover 1911s, full size service revolvers and fanny packs were the main items), and that I had no intention on turning them away from my matches. We discussed some options, and the one we hit upon was to hold two concurrent matches; an IDPA match, with all rules in effect, and a 'Tactical Match', with slightly loosened equipment rules. People who shoot the IDPA match will be scored based upon their division and classification, while the 'tactical shooters' will get scored separately. Both groups will shoot together, on the same courses of fire. The only difference will be the level of equipment restrictions in effect. What is allowed in the 'tactical division' is purely subjective. If I think it is practical, then it is allowed. If I don't feel it is practical, it is not allowed. Now this doesn't mean that I'm going to turn people away from my match. I have allowed people to shoot non-practical equipment (for example their USPSA Limited guns) for no score (actually I make their score available to them, but just don't post it with the rest of the results). I've done this a couple of times, mostly for USPSA shooters who want to try out IDPA, but don't have a legal gun to shoot. Although I don't necessarily agree with the implementation, I understand Wilson's (and the other BODs') concerns about preserving the integrity of IDPA. Bill Wilson seemed willing to work with me to find a solution to my problems, and I can't help but think that he would be willing to work with others as well. I think the key is to stop leveling personal attacks on him and his character. I found him to be a very friendly and reasonable person, but none of us are very sociable when we are put on the defensive.

Good question. Pros 1. Many people have weapon lights, and IDPA would be a good forum to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the various offerings. 2. Some people (although I think the number to be very small) do carry with a weapon light attached, and IDPA would be a convenient place to practice the manipulations of the light. Cons 1. Not everyone can afford a weapon light, and they offer a definite competitive advantage over a hand-held light (in most cases). Allowing them facilitates another type of equipment race. 2. I'm not certain that weapon lights are all that practical. I think (i.e. my opinion) that most weapon lights are used on 'home-defense' guns, rather than on 'carry' guns. I have an M3 light, but I carry a (more versatile) surefire light. I think that, if weapon lights are allowed, the applicable stages should be designed such that the use of the weapon light does not offer a competitive advantage over shooters using a hand-held light. For that matter, I think that low-light stages in general should be designed such that they do not REQUIRE the use of a light or of night-sights.