1911 Rail Guns in IDPA

[Gun Geek]

You guys have probably noted there is a new crop of 1911 rail guns that have come out over the last few years. By "rail gun" I mean that they have a picatinny rail sculpted into the dust cover for attaching your favorite piece of hi-tech gear. A discussion has come up in our club about whether these are legal for IDPA use. The theory is that they are too heavy and they have an extended dust cover.

I think the latest is from Sig and is called a "GSR". I was reading today in the NRA rag about it and noticed that it weighs 41.6oz with an empty mag. I went and looked a Sig's site, and they say 39.2oz w/o the mag. That also puts the wieght of a mag at 2.4oz. The LGB puts a weight limit in CDP of 41.0 oz unloaded. Doing the subtraction, a gun w/o a mag must weigh less than 38.5oz

Then I got to thinking about several other guns on the market (Kimber TLE/RL, Springfield, etc). and looked them up. There are lots that give their unloaded weight around 38 -39 oz. In fact most of Wilson's fullsize offerings are in this range.

I also found that the rails caused the dust covers to be slightly longer.

The LGB says no extended dust covers. When I did some research on this board, I saw that guns had been weighed at matches with the mag. So, the questions are:

1) Do you weigh the gun with an empty mag? The implication of this is enormous! (even Wilson only has 1 model (KZ-45) that would safely make weight). 1/2oz is the weight of a base pad on a mag, or an ambi saftey, etc.

2) Are the rails considered extended dust covers?

Thanks!!

Geek

[Gun Geek]

I must have really stepped in it with this question.

No response from HQ and no response here (since Monday).

Wow!

I did a little further research and found that a plastic base pad is about 0.4oz, a ambi safety adds about 0.6oz and a mag well is about 0.85oz.

That means that a typical 38oz 1911, with a magwell and ambi safety (as well as bumper pads since you have a magwell) would be over weight if you measured it with an empty mag.

What do you guys think? Is this an issue? Am I missing something? If the weight limit is this tight, should I have a scale at our sanctioned match?

[Mark Perez]

We touched on this subject in the Ernest Langdon thread.

HERE

As it looks now - the rail guns will be to heavy without some sort of "diet".

What do you guys think? Is this an issue? Am I missing something? If the weight limit is this tight, should I have a scale at our sanctioned match?

Personally , I think a chrono is more important than a scale for sanctioned matches.

Let your conscience (and the lgb) be your guide.

Mark

[Gun Geek]

Mark:

Thanks for the info.

I think this may go much further than just the rail guns. There are lots of 1911's out there that are 38 - 39 oz. These will also be classified as too heavy if my math is right.

I have sent an e-mail to HQ, so we'll see if they answer. Then there may be some splainin to do.

Already planned on a chrono.

[Mark Perez]

Gungeek

If you do decide to go with the scale , make sure everyone knows ahead of time that this will be the case , especially the ESP and CDP guys who are the only ones that have a weight limit - go figure

Until that day

Mark

[Gun Geek]

Mark:

I went and read the Ernest thread (I didn't find it in my original research).

You had posted a link to a similar discussion on the 1911 forum.

A post in that thread says:

Has anyone ever had their pistol weighed at a match? I have never seen it done nor have I heard of it happening. I know of instances where the box was used but never a scale.

Personally, I don't think most 1911 guns would make the weight limit once the ambi safety, magwell, and full length guide rod are added.

I think this gets to the heart of the matter. From my research, many fullsize 1911's won't make the cut, especially if they have some pretty typical mods. Most of the Wilson combat models won't make it.

I went and got some numbers. Kimber's site was down (I don't think they give weights for most models). Colt didn't give weights.

Wilson

Classic Super Grade 39oz

Tactical Super Grade 39oz

Tactical Elite 42oz

CQB w/rail 44oz

CQB 38oz

Protector 38oz

kz-45 31oz

Kimber

TLE/RL 38oz

Springfield

1911A1 38oz

Trophy Match 38oz

TGO I & TGOII 38oz

A mag is about 3 oz (I'm going to get this figured out, too). So there are a lot of pretty standard pistols, that will be very close.

Unfortunately, if this is the rule, then we MUST enforce it and start weighing. If we don't like it we can change it, but we shouldn't break it/bend it. It can't be sometimes bent/sometimes broken/sometimes enforced - where do we draw the line? If we wink at 42oz, then why not 50?

You guys ready to give up your full size 45's?

[Gun Geek]

Ok, Chapter 2 (it is a good thing)

First, I finally was able to download the catalog from Kimber. The TLE is given as 38oz WITH an unloaded mag. All of the weights given by Kimber are WITH a mag.

Found a postal scale on clearance at office max (somebody returned it because of problems with the battery contacts). 15 minutes with a file and soldering iron...

I have access to a TLE and a TLE/RL Here's what I found:

1) A Wilson magwell weighs 0.7oz

2) A Wilson Ambi safety adds 0.1oz

3) A Kimber mag weighs 2.4 oz

4) An Ed Brown bumper weighs 0.2oz

5) The stock TLE does indeed weigh 38oz with an unloaded mag. (confirms Kimber's data and the accuracy of my scale).

6) The TLE/RL (rail gun) tricked out with a Wilson Ambi Safety, a Wilson magwell, and an Ed Brown bumper weighs 40.2oz. It makes weight. Therefore out of the box with a mag, the RL will weigh 39.2oz

The moral of this story is that we need a little bit more data about whether published weights are with or with out magazines because it is going to make a difference. Also, it isn't automatic that rail guns don't make weight.

So, now question 2 (in the original post) - does the rail constitute an "extended dust cover"?

I will send my findings along to HQ and see what they say.

Geek

[Mark Perez]

So, now question 2 (in the original post) - does the rail constitute an "extended dust cover"?

Gungeek - thanks for the weight measurements.

the following is a cut/paste from the 1911 thread referenced above:

From a post by John Forsyth

Quote:

Originally posted by Bullitt

"Did B'ville say anything about making acceptions for pistols with rails etc. or a possible rules change in the future? "

"Nope. Strictly a weight thing. They could care less if the pistol has rails. Has to be underweight and fit in "The Box"."

If that info is still current then it looks like the rail type stuff (GSR 1911) is legal - but not the SA Operator , too heavy from the start.

[Gun Geek]

Mark:

John and I have e-mailed about this and as of 5 minutes before this post his position is the same as you cited above.

He cautioned that he may be overruled at any time, so we'll see what comes from HQ

[Mark Perez]

Why get HQ involved and give them the opportunity to reverse a 'ruling'?

I say we have a good enough reason to permit the use of the 'rail guns'.

best wishes on your match!

[Gun Geek]

Well, nice try (and it was my first reaction as well).

The problem is that the rail is the source of a dispute - one guy has said to another guy "that ain't legal, you cain't use it".

All though the weight issue has been resolved, the challenge still remains on the extended dust cover ruling.

[snokid]

It's going to be hard for idpa to allow rails and not dust covers.

Take a edge (bushing barrel) and mill some rails into the dust cover and now it's legal?

I just don't see it happening.

Bob

[Mark Perez]

It's going to be hard for idpa to allow rails and not dust covers.

Take a edge (bushing barrel) and mill some rails into the dust cover and now it's legal?

I just don't see it happening.

Bob

I don't know anyone who would ruin a perfectly good EDGE just to use it in IDPA.

edit to add:

On further reflection ,what does an EDGE (w/bushing barrel) weigh?

mp

[John Forsyth]

Just my opinion.

If the gun in question does not have a full length dust cover (Baer Monolith and Springfield Operator), makes weight, fits in "The Box", and meets all the other equipment rules, it is good to go.

[JasonK]

So how about a used to be full length dustcover SVI/STI that has been cut down to government length? If it weighs 42.99oz or less then I can use it in ESP? Like the GSR or TLE/RL this gun has a "heavy" dustcover. It's much thicker and wider than a classic GM dustcover anyway.

[Mark Perez]

So how about a used to be full length dustcover SVI/STI that has been cut down to government length?  If it weighs 42.99oz or less then I can use it in ESP?  Like the GSR or TLE/RL this gun has a "heavy" dustcover.  It's much thicker and wider than a classic GM dustcover anyway.

Don't see why not .The Eagle model has the same thickness dust cover and it is used in ESP too.

[scandog]

This is from the IDPA rule book in the ESP guidlines section:

NON-INCLUSIVE list of EXCLUDED modifications:

· Heavy barrels, cone barrels and/or barrel sleeves (factory or aftermarket)

· Porting of barrels

· Compensators

· Add on weights, weighted magazines, tungsten guide rods, extended dust covers

· Sights of non-standard notch and post configuration

· Extended oversize magazine release buttons

· Trigger shoes

The question is what is considered an extended dust cover. By cutting groves in the sides do we change it from a dust cover to a light rail? It still looks a lot like a dust cover.

What does extended mean?

Is that ful length? Anything longer than the origonal COLT spec?

I would say according to the current rule book the configuration in question is not legal and I would have a problem letting shooters use them at matches unless they want to shoot unclassified nor no ribbon.

If HQ wants to address this in a new version of the rule book, then maybe we might understand extended.

Maybe if someone can explain the meaning of the word "is" we might figure out the use of extended.

[Mark Perez]

I think it's pretty clear what is extended or not.

These are from STI Home Page

"Duty One"

Weight listed at 38oz. Not approved for IDPA-or anything else for that matter- by STI website data.

Note the light rail cuts.

Eagle

Weight listed at 34.5oz (in steel) and approved for IDPA w/brl bushing.

Having to check with IDPA about every single nuance get's old - let the MD make the 'command decision' and if IDPA has a problem with it , they can let us know.

[Gun Geek]

Mark/scandog:

There were 2 reasons I started this thread.

First, this stuff about rails seems to be a legitmate issue about which reasonable people can disagree (you two guys disagree). The word "extedended" has meaning in relative terms only. Problem is there is no "standard" length on which to decide what is "extended". Since I got into this issue, I have measured the dust covers on several modern full size 1911 pistols and found most of the big name guns to be 1/8 to 1/2 inch longer than a "real" 1911. I even found variations of 1/8 in different manufacturers of 1911A1s made for WWII. So, if a standard can't be easily found how can we define "extended"? This is not esoteric semantics, it is a real question. In a very strict reading of that rule, most modern 1911s would not be legal. This course would ignore the evolution of the breed. The easy solution might be to go to Browning's orginal drawings and then add some (arbitrary) amount and leave it. That's OK, but this is something the sanctioning body must do.

Second, it doesn't make sense to practice with/get used to a gun that can be used locally, but not in a sanctioned match. Who would want to show up at a match and have that MD declare their equipment not legal. In this particular situation, the nuance becomes important. We are talking about $500 - $1000 guns, travel, entry fees and time hinging on a nuance. Even for local mathces, I'd hate to travel any amount and find that the MD doesn't allow my firearm. I traveled 2 hours today for a match and would have been very disappointed if I was not allowed to use a gun because of a questionable reading of the rules. Actually what's likely to happen is that a gun would be questioned AFTER a guy wins a match. The loser(s) would insist on a strict reading of the rules and claim that the winner had an unfair advantage.

Since there is disagreement, there will be problems at matches, and people will get pissed off. This is one of the reasons we have a sanctioning body, to standardize the rules so that we know what we're getting into before we plunk down the cash and practice time. So let's let them answer the question.

Hopefully HQ will come through soon.

[Mark Perez]

Mark/scandog:

There were 2 reasons I started this thread.

First, this stuff about rails seems to be a legitmate issue about which reasonable people can disagree (you two guys disagree). The word "extedended" has meaning in relative terms only. Problem is there is no "standard" length on which to decide what is "extended". Since I got into this issue, I have measured the dust covers on several modern full size 1911 pistols and found most of the big name guns to be 1/8 to 1/2 inch longer than a "real" 1911. I even found variations of 1/8 in different manufacturers of 1911A1s made for WWII. So, if a standard can't be easily found how can we define "extended"? This is not esoteric semantics, it is a real question. In a very strict reading of that rule, most modern 1911s would not be legal. This course would ignore the evolution of the breed. The easy solution might be to go to Browning's orginal drawings and then add some (arbitrary) amount and leave it. That's OK, but this is something the sanctioning body must do.

Gungeek – to offer a counter argument ,the “real 1911” could be short by the same amount.Without a detailed blueprint ,it is all subjective.

Second, it doesn't make sense to practice with/get used to a gun that can be used locally, but not in a sanctioned match. Who would want to show up at a match and have that MD declare their equipment not legal. In this particular situation, the nuance becomes important. We are talking about $500 - $1000 guns, travel, entry fees and time hinging on a nuance. Even for local mathces, I'd hate to travel any amount and find that the MD doesn't allow my firearm. I traveled 2 hours today for a match and would have been very disappointed if I was not allowed to use a gun because of a questionable reading of the rules. Actually what's likely to happen is that a gun would be questioned AFTER a guy wins a match. The loser(s) would insist on a strict reading of the rules and claim that the winner had an unfair advantage.

1.This can be cleared prior to registration with the MD.

2.Any challenges by “the losers” would require proof as to how the gun in question has any advantage.Otherwise , it's just 'whining'.

Since there is disagreement, there will be problems at matches, and people will get pissed off. This is one of the reasons we have a sanctioning body, to standardize the rules so that we know what we're getting into before we plunk down the cash and practice time. So let's let them answer the question.

Hopefully HQ will come through soon.

Ok – all for letting them answer the question then .The problem is the defeaning silence coming from HQ..

Rant mode on:

IDPA has had plenty of time and opportunity to make public clarifications on issues which are in the grey area like this.If they don’t want to regard these concerns with the seriousness that we do , then the local level is forced to deal with it. It wouldn’t hurt to see updates posted on the website or have the AC relay the info to the locals .

I’m probably one of the biggest defenders of IDPA on this site (especially) as well as other forums – but even my patience has limits. In the lack of responsive leadership , let the MD decide.

Rant mode off:

Please let us know if you hear anything back from B’ville.

Until that day,

Mark

[Mark Perez]

BTW - my Glock 35 has an extended dust cover AND light rail ,yet it is legal in SSP and ESP.

[rmills]

Let's send Joyce an e-mail on the subject as she did invite us to previously in this forum.

[Gun Geek]

Mark:

The dialogue is great.

I think we are in basic agreement about letting HQ answer the question, this one seems to be worth answering. I'll let them have a reasonable amount of time (don't know what that is yet).

On the other items - for sake of discussion

Gungeek – to offer a counter argument ,the “real 1911” could be short by the same amount.Without a detailed blueprint ,it is all subjective.

I think this is exactly what I'm trying to say - there isn't a recognized standard therefore the meaning of the word "extended" is very unclear.

1.This can be cleared prior to registration with the MD.

True. Never really thought about it that way, but I wouldn't want to invest time energy or money in a gun that would be a "maybe".

2.Any challenges by “the losers” would require proof as to how the gun in question has any advantage.Otherwise , it's just 'whining'.

I don't think it would play that way. A loser might take a strict reading of the word "extended" and take the postition that the gun is not legal for use. With there being opinions on both side of the issue, the MD will be put in a tough position, and there will be hard feelings.

Ok – all for letting them answer the question then .The problem is the defeaning silence coming from HQ..

Rant mode on:

IDPA has had plenty of time and opportunity to make public clarifications on issues which are in the grey area like this.If they don’t want to regard these concerns with the seriousness that we do , then the local level is forced to deal with it. It wouldn’t hurt to see updates posted on the website or have the AC relay the info to the locals .

I’m probably one of the biggest defenders of IDPA on this site (especially) as well as other forums – but even my patience has limits. In the lack of responsive leadership , let the MD decide.

Rant mode off:

Please let us know if you hear anything back from B’ville.

Completely agree. I will post the results.

My goal with moving this issue forward is to better the sport/organization. I do want to say that I think IDPA HQ has done a good job in general at making this sandbox function in the first place. Nothing is perfect, so we just need to keep refining. If HQ doesn't continue to evolve the rules, the MD will make the judgement, but there will quickly be "flavors" of IDPA. That's not good.

I see posts flaming about not liking rules. That's not what this is about, and you are very unlikely to see that from me. Once I know the rule I can function within those bondaries - no complaint.

[Mark Perez]

I think we are on the same page but with slightly different perspectives - it's all good.

...With there being opinions on both side of the issue, the MD will be put in a tough position, and there will be hard feelings.

And that's what he get's the big bucks for!

Until that day

MP

[Jake Di Vita]

I thought this thread was gonna be fun when I read the title...

First thoughts: "Small projectile propelled by magnetism to incredible speeds....I can't wait to shoot plates."