Steve Koski Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 You're right, I've never seen that. He wouldn't shoot the stage I was SO'ing without a legal gun. The rule book doesn't mention allowing duty weapons even once. It has an exception for holsters, and use of concealment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Yes you're right about the length. Now about the slide lightening cut and fiberoptic sights.... Glock 34s are legal, so what's the problem? Not only that, they're quite concealable, granted you really want to. Overall the G34 is almost exactly the same size as a 1911 Government Model, albeit slightly thicker. If I can carry and conceal a 1911, which I did for years, I can carry and conceal a Glock 34. (I say that as someone who's just coming off about five years doing exactly that on a daily basis.) The major difference being, of course, that the Glock is just one whole helluva lot lighter. As to the fiber optic sights, well, I don't like 'em, but they're also legal. Where's the problem with people using legal equipment? How is it "pushing the rules" when what a person is doing is, actually, well within the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankfan79 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 You're right, I've never seen that. He wouldn't shoot the stage I was SO'ing without a legal gun. The rule book doesn't mention allowing duty weapons even once. It has an exception for holsters, and use of concealment. Techincally his gun IS IDPA legal. Just the fact I have never a department issue such nice "duty weapons". Duane, I carry a G34 daily. Get the right holster and it's not that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Wow. Talk about budget busters. Maybe they got a group discount. Buy 10, get 1 free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlweems Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited March 26, 2011 by jlweems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Duane,I carry a G34 daily. Get the right holster and it's not that bad. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 You're right, I've never seen that. He wouldn't shoot the stage I was SO'ing without a legal gun. The rule book doesn't mention allowing duty weapons even once. It has an exception for holsters, and use of concealment. Eagle should be a legal gun provided it's a bushing model. I believe the spirit of the rules to mean duty gear to include duty weapons...to encourage proficiency with same. Another gun just isn't the same. Yes you're right about the length. Now about the slide lightening cut and fiberoptic sights.... Glock 34s are legal, so what's the problem? Not only that, they're quite concealable, granted you really want to. Overall the G34 is almost exactly the same size as a 1911 Government Model, albeit slightly thicker. If I can carry and conceal a 1911, which I did for years, I can carry and conceal a Glock 34. (I say that as someone who's just coming off about five years doing exactly that on a daily basis.) The major difference being, of course, that the Glock is just one whole helluva lot lighter. As to the fiber optic sights, well, I don't like 'em, but they're also legal. Where's the problem with people using legal equipment? How is it "pushing the rules" when what a person is doing is, actually, well within the rules? Duane, 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankfan79 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 So you think he should shoot with standard Glock sights. Maybe even a NY trigger spring? Level 3 blackhawk serpa holster? How about a thumb snap? That would suck....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlweems Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) 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? Edited March 27, 2011 by jlweems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcic Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. The "slide lightning cut" is so that the slide weighs the same as the 17 so that it can use the same recoil system as all the other full size Glocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2147 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited March 27, 2011 by 2147 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlweems Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2147 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlweems Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I can't see the 34 and 35 as anything more than competition guns, Why not? You are aware they're just a Glock 17/22 with a slide and barrel a whopping 0.83" longer, right? Yes you're right about the length. Now about the slide lightening cut and fiberoptic sights....I realize the one item has been clarified as ok , but it does stand as a singular manufacturer's exception to the rule. The gun I am talking about is straight tricked out for production. Seeing as the firearm approval guy can approve whatever they want a clause needs to be put in the rules for department issued duty gear. Perhaps a letterheaded statement by a department official is in order to keep folks a little more true to the spirit. It gets sticky when you have a competitor ask you why officer A is shooting a G34 while officer B is shooting something else and they are both from the same PD. I know of one department that issued a Beretta 92, but allowed officers to carry a wide variety of firearms if they could pass their qualification with all of the distances doubled, in the allotted time, with the required points.... That department had some officers carrying 1911s, others Smiths, Glocks were an option.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 I am going to institute a timeout here. Please reread the Forum Guidelines. This competition oriented web site is very much not the place for a discussion of "real-wold shooting versus competition," "the two-way range," etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts