scandog Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Jake, isn't this fun? It seems we are all in agreement or almost. HQ needs to make a ruling. I think we also agree they won't. It is also clear this rule book needs work. None of us seem to know exactly what "extended" is. I was always told full length was not legal. It seems STI agrees. Don't attack, but this is the complaint I hear most about IDPA. The rule book needs work, HQ will not post definitions where everyone can see them and each club ends up running their won game. You would think Bill W. would want to keep his 10,000 members happy. That is a big part of his travel budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 How is it that the MRI Baby Eagle, complete with full-length steel dustcover, is legal enough to be used as an example of an appropriate SSP gun in the rulebook, and the CZ-97B is allowed, and yet STI/SV long dustcovers are not? They might as well just go to a list if they're going to be that inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 You would think Bill W. would want to keep his 10,000 members happy. That is a big part of his travel budget. Scan, You want Joyce's participation in the forum yet you take pot shots at BW with posts like this. Counter productive at best. It's tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scandog Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 MAYO, I think Joyce left a long time ago, too bad. It was nice to hear from someone at HQ. Now for my so called shot at Bill W., it wasn't intended that way. You are much to sensative. I simply stated a fact. There are, according to Joyce, over 10,000 members. If we decide we are tired of waiting for HQ to get their act together and stop renewing our memberships, who's pocket does that effect. Bill makes a lot of money off IDPA and we just keep giving it to him without getting much in return. It is a fun sport, but we spend way too much money to Bill to get ignored this way. At 350,000 per year, we should be able to at least get a new rule book. Oh, I didn't include club membership, advertising, target royalties,..... That is a lot of money isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Scandog I'm with you all the way. At SOME point, you just have to call it like you see it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyce Wilson Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Hi Guys, I didn't leave, I've just been really busy working on stuff like the new rule book. In fact, Dru and I were here until midnight Monday night reviewing the nearly final draft. We have absolutely, intentionally drug our feet on this for several reasons. One, we still have members to take care of daily. And two, most importantly, we want to do this right once and for all. That's not to say that there won't be revisions in the future, we just don't want to have to make the sweeping changes in format, etc. as we're doing now. You will see answers to your questions on holsters, rail guns, extended dust covers, etc. I'm not going to make those decisions public at this point as I want it to be final and accepted by the Board first. Yes, we move slowly on policy decisions. We like to gather enough information to make an informed decision. I will not make a decision without considering the long term ramifications of that decision on the sport. In the reorganization of the rule book, we've looked over all the e-mails, letters and general suggestions we've received. We've also discussed these issues at length with the Area Coordinators and the Nationals Match Directors. We wanted input from the people out there. One thing that we've found is that generally there's not much wrong with the rule book except for clarifications of some issues and reorganization for readability. We're pushing really hard to have it in print and out to the clubs, etc. by the end of March. Yes, that's a little later than we wanted to get it out, but like I said before - we're pretty busy right now. As far as pot shots at Bill, yes, I'm pretty sensitive about that. Not thin skinned, but sensitive. He's put lots of time, effort and his own money into this sport that contrarily to popular belief, was not developed to further the gun sales of Wilson Combat. Otherwise why would there be a stock service or revolver division. Or ESP for that matter. Yea, we make some .38 supers, I shoot one. And now we're making some 9's - basically after everyone else did and in response to customer requests. Sorry I'm so long winded and you may not see me back on the boards for a while. I have an organization to run and lots of things to get done. I don't know if I know any of you ( since no one on this board uses real names besides me), but I hope to get to meet all of you sometime. Joyce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer-lock Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Thank you Joyce, I hope everyone can get back on topic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Geek Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 Joyce: Thanks very much for your attention to the forum in general and my question in particular. Also thanks for letting us know that this issue will be covered in the new rules -roughly end of march. Much as I hate to wait on anything I can accept that. I would agree with your statement that the rules are pretty good as they stand, and clarification should be the focus. As far as the shots at Bill (or anyone else) - that's just some people talkn'. I don't care if he did start the sport to further sales of his handguns, as you said, the sport accomadates just about every modern handgun, so big deal. It is OK with me that a guy with a good product sets up a forum for the use and sale of that product, many great things are done for personal gain as well as contribution to a cuase. I said it before and I'll say it again, I think you guys have most (99.99%) of this very right, so just keep pluggin' Moderator - let's lock this one and put it in the archives. Thanks Geek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew_Mink Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Speaking of potshots, please remove any and all potshots at the other shooting sports. IDPA doesn't need to include them in the rulebook just to demean another sport. It seems unprofessional and childish. The other sports do not demean IDPA in their rulebooks. And before you ask me what they are: ...The great failure of IPSC to remain practical has been the total failure to correct course design... ...ONE THING I DON’T LIKE ABOUT USPSA COURSES ARE ALL THE SHOOTING BOXES. DO IDPA COURSES UTILIZE THESE?... ...No IPSC style speed re-loads (slide down with a round remaining in the chamber) are permitted in IDPA competition... ...Unlike USPSA which charges affiliated clubs a MISSION COUNT fee ($2.00) for every match entry at the club level... Constantly comparing IDPA to USPSA is a distraction. Why the comparisons? I think IDPA should be able to stand on its own without the USPSA slander in its rulebook. Instead of comparing, just state the rule. That's what the rulebook is for anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightloop Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Mrs. Wilson Thanks for the reply. Most of the folks here are intuitive enough to understand most of the things you want to get done. What we cannot understand is the almost total lack of information flow out to the shooters who participate in your sport, when there are questions concerning rules interpretation, or the stance of HQ on any number of things, which to this point in the operation have been left to the local MD's and mostly absent AC's. It would not only help to promote your sport but also provide a sense of "well being" to all the shooters who, question the conflicting or nonexistant answers in the LGB, or the staunch supporters of almost everything you do, say or imply who are many times left swinging in the wind, with no support from HQ; if you had someone on the "inside" who, like Vince Pinto on this forum gives the real answers to all questions which come up. Lack of information, speculation, and innuendo are what is hurting IDPA, along with the perceived, "it's my game and it you don't like it you can go home", attitude we receive when asking for clarification or assistance on some illogical mandate or rule. We are not simply anonymous forum lurkers who can't wait to bash IDPA. We are real people with real questions who want and need information if we are to endorse and shoot the sport and feel as though our questions, wants, and needs are being addressed, without being dictated to. I am sorry this is so long but your interaction here lends credibility and legitimacy to your sport because this is the only opportunity MOST of us have to speak to someone REALLY on the inside of IDPA, and we must avail ourselves of every opportunity to investigate and try to understand where the sport is going, and how. Since, as I said earlier, information is so seldom forthcoming from HQ on ANY topic, you can understand the urgency with which you receive the messages penned in good faith by the posters here. We appreciate your interaction here more than anyone to date has conveyed, and are truly really trying to understand the logic and rationale employed by HQ at IDPA. Help us to understand and we will help you by continued support of your sport and fewer hot topic pot shots at Bill, the HQ staff or the BoD. Yours truly, David L. Winkler Former IDPA shooter, AO5602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyce Wilson Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Two posts in one day - I must not have anything else to do Seriously, it's not that we try to ignore the boards. Although there have been some boards in the past that I have become so frustrated with that I just quit posting to and watching for obvious reasons. I have to be really, really careful about what I do post. We're trying really hard to establish lines of communications. I know that some of the Area Coordinators are not as responsive to shooters as they need to be. Unfortunately there are only so many hours in the days and too many projects. But we are working on that also. I think that I could spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week trying to fix all the problems. But then I wouldn't have any time to shoot . The new rule book will have all references to other shooting sports removed. When the original book was done by Bill, it was shortly after he was completely snubbed by USPSA. This was after he had been a founding member of that organization and had devoted a lot of time, effort and money to that also. So you may be able to see why he was disheartened by that. As far as answering questions and making decisions that could affect policies of the sport on these boards. I won't do that. Shoot, I can't even interject personal opinion without someone thinking it's now a rule. We're going to try to standardize on making the clarifications (when necessary) on the website. That creates it's own set of problems since not everyone has web access (I know it's the 20th century, but I just got a letter from a member complaining about not knowing when matches are because the club was only e-mailing). It would be great if we had e-mail addresses for the entire membership, then when a clarification occurred, we could simply e-mail it. But we don't. And trying to mail out clarifications would be an overwhelming burden in terms of manpower and cost. So bear with us. Remember, we're still only 7 years old and still going through some growing pains. Joyce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonK Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 If IDPA would set up a mailing list and make the announcement on the IDPA website I'm sure that you would get 90+% of the members on it. Granted that is going to be a bit of a logistical challenge but once it's set up it would be virtually no maintenance. Then when some clarification on rules or announcement needs to be made you could send it by e-mail to nearly every member. If there were some statement to pass it along in the respective members club then even the few without internet access would also get the updates. I'm certain that at least several members in each IDPA club have internet access. Thank you for your participation on this forum. If you could make the time to continue observing and participating on this forum I know we all would appreciate it. Jason Knowles A14914 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer-lock Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 John ForsythIf 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. I think that would pretty much cover most situations. A more relevant question here is how much thrashing around are you going to do for a tiny fraction of possible competitors? At the club level for a weekly/monthly match what is at stake? Even if it is your annual sanctioned match with a great prize table, what is at stake? Is there a real “unfair advantage” involved? I expect that there are only a few instances every year where you could point to the outcome and say “they won because of illegal equipment”. I doubt that it happens very often at all in regional, state or national matches. I say that because most of the folks I have shot with over the last 25 years are pretty upright, play by the rules types. There is a shooter meeting at every match I have ever entered. Ask questions, raise issues before the first hammer goes down. Be especially vocal about things that you think are “grey” areas. Is every CDP/ESP gun going to be weighed? Is every gun going to be boxed? What do you guys define as a sight picture? Where are the muzzle points? Your fellow shooters will thank you for clearing the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Hi Joyce, This is the forum I frequent more than any other. As a rule everybody is polite. People WILL speak their mind however. Thanks for your work on the rulebook. My opinion is that Bill and company got it almost right the first time. As time passed we saw that some things need clarified. Therefore questions need answered clearly so we all know what is correct. I am looking forward to the new book. Do we know what color it will be? Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snokid Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Thank you Joyce for taking time out of your busy day to read these posts. Rule clarifications could easily be handled in the tactical journal every paid member get's that 4 times a year. I'm sure that there are a few questions that come up over and over again, and that would do a lot to curb the calls on those. Bob Gubbins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 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. It's always been my understanding that Unloaded Weight included an empty magazine. This is, after all, a part of the gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Don't attack, but this is the complaint I hear most about IDPA. The rule book needs work, HQ will not post definitions where everyone can see them and each club ends up running their won game. No offense, guys, but this all seems a bit much ado about nothing. Maybe HQ figures that determining whether or not a 1911 has an extended dustcover is a matter of one quick look with decent eyesight? If it has a normal scalloped slide, and the dustcover extends beyond the rear edge of the scallop, it's extended. If it doesn't, it's not. It's pretty straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 How is it that the MRI Baby Eagle, complete with full-length steel dustcover, is legal enough to be used as an example of an appropriate SSP gun in the rulebook, and the CZ-97B is allowed, and yet STI/SV long dustcovers are not?They might as well just go to a list if they're going to be that inconsistent. Because "no extended dustcover" is not a rule in SSP, only in CDP and ESP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Where are the muzzle points? I don't understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scandog Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Joyce, Thanks for the update. I think we all agree fourms are not the place for HQ to define rules. As you stated, not all members have computers and internet access. That said, I agree with Snokid. You have a mailing list for every member. They all get a copy of the tactical journal. Rule clarifications listed in that should be fair for everyone. Just a little food for thought. If the tactical journal had a little info on IDPA as an organization, and the status of items like the rule book, the "bashing" would not be near as bad as it may seem today. Right now it is as much frustration as anything else. We also have a website that gets updated from time to time with match info. To have a section telling us what is going on would not be much work. Locally I probably stand up for IDPA more than most. The past lack of communication has mad it difficult. I hope this is the start of a change for the better. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer-lock Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Duane, Unfortunately the spell checker is not also an omitted word checker. I should have written: “What are the muzzle safe points” geezer-lock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Geek Posted March 11, 2004 Author Share Posted March 11, 2004 No offense, guys, but this all seems a bit much ado about nothing. Maybe HQ figures that determining whether or not a 1911 has an extended dustcover is a matter of one quick look with decent eyesight? If it has a normal scalloped slide, and the dustcover extends beyond the rear edge of the scallop, it's extended. If it doesn't, it's not. It's pretty straightforward. Duane: I don't think it is that simple. I just checked out a bunch of STIs and SVIs on line and they have several models that don't have a scalloped slide. These all have fulllength dust covers. This seems to indicate, along with a good look at my own stash of various 1911s that the scallop is not functional - probably a cosmetic and weight reduction issue. It looks like it would be a simple matter of just cutting the slide or the dust cover in a slightly different way to meet a cosmetic requirement. You can bet someone will do it. Another way to put it - would a gun that makes weight but has a 1/2" (instead of the typical 1 1/2") scallop still be considered to not have an extended dustcover just because the scallop and dust cover meet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Burwell Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 Unfortunately I did not keep the email to copy and paste here, but I recently emailed HQ about a gun I was building. I started with an SVI extended dust cover I was planning on cutting the dust cover off on an angle to match the cocking serrations. I told HQ the top of the dust cover would end up being 1/8 in longer than standard but the bottom of the dustcover would be of standard length. I asked if this would be OK. Dru's response... no way!! "if we let you go over by 1/8in someone else will want to go over by 1/4in." So, I don't think the idea of anything shorter than full length is going to fly. The thing that burns me is the variance between manufactures dust covers is more than the 1/8in Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Geek Posted March 11, 2004 Author Share Posted March 11, 2004 Well, I was wrong. I said somebody will do it. Someone already did it. danial97: what did you end up doing? That actually sounds like an interesting looking gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Burwell Posted March 11, 2004 Share Posted March 11, 2004 I didn't cut it yet. I figured I'd leave it long until I go to a major match then cut like I wanted to. I don't think anyone would say anything and if they do I will just argue it is the same length as brand X. I think springfields are the longest but one of these days I will get down to the local dealer to measure all the brands. I'll post a pic of my gun when I finish the cocking serrations, Should be next week. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now