Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Dustcover length...


Chris Jordan

Recommended Posts

O.K, all I''m sure that I'm beating a dead horse but...

I just saw Beretta's new 92/96 vertec (with acc. rail)

I've looked at Springfields' Mil Spec Operator and TRP Operator( with acc. rail)

I've owned many new style framed glocks (with acc. rail)

and I've got to know...

Are these guns sporting "long or heavy dustcovers"? If so are they illegal for IDPA? I know the glocks are legal!

So that being the case, why can't I shoot my SVI with an extended dust cover? Opps, I mean acc. rail! Jeez, I'll get the frame cut for a light and put a bushing barrel in and everything!!!

Sorry, had to vent. But seroiusly, does anyone think I have a prayer if I was to petition to IDPA's powers that be?

Thanks for the info and listening to my ranting!

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that most of the new Smith and Wesson autos come with light rails mounted to the guns dust covers and those pistols are legal for IDPA! Their going to have to address this issue because it doesn't seem fair that SSP guns are allowed  this modification but CDP and ESP are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee most of the mentioned sidearms seem to have the "long dust covers" made of plastic or light metal alloy. Yet the STI/SV and 1911's seem to have a heavy steel weight out front to reduce recoil. IDPA has addressed this, you just may not like the answer, no heavy dust covers:)

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Rant Mode On]

I'm really tired of hearing that IDPA rules are formulated in such a manner as to give Bill Wilson more sales.  It's true, Wilson doesn't appear to offer any heavy dustcover 1911s.  But he is not exactly alone in that corner of the market.  Colt, Springfield, Para, Kimber, Charles Daly, Les Baer, and yes even STI and SVI manufacture 1911s without wide, heavy dustcovers.  Of course there's an equipment race in IDPA also, however the philosophy is still to offer a game where $2000.-, high capacity, widebody raceguns offer the smallest possible advantage over their singlestack counterparts.  The idea was to make the game about shooting skill, not the equipment you could afford.  (And before someone else feels compelled to bring it up, the game was also designed to promote some peoples ideas of reasonable tactics in a gunfight; if you want to bring that up, start a different thread!)  Bill Wilson didn't found IDPA on his own, and he doesn't control the board.  If you don't like the rules, and I think that some of them are downright dopey, then play another game.  I'm all for the diversity of the shooting sports, and I'll show up to shoot any IDPA or IPSC match within driving range.  I'm happy to play both of those games and any others I discover.

[Rant Mode Off]

Happy trigger time, shoot more, it's good for the economy,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I apologize for the continuation of thread drift. Sorry folks.

Nik- Good rant, even if it was aimed squarely at me. ;) I think everybody has a right to an opinion, including me.

Although Bill doesn't have absolute control over the IDPA board, he does have a large degree of influence. You are right, there is an equipment race in IDPA.  It's just different.  You can easily sink $2000+ into an IDPA legal 1911. Does the extra money buy you something? Yes, it often buys accuracy. IDPA is an accuracy oriented game. Although you can play the game with a $600 dollar gun, there can be an advantage to the $2000 gun. As usual, it all depends on the shooter.

I think your comment "If you don't like the rules, and I think that some of them are downright dopey, then play another game." is interesting. It bothers me that you think it's OK for you to question the rules, but if I do, I should stop playing the game. First, I have played both games. Although I prefer IPSC, I will continue to shoot IDPA. It allows me to learn a few things I may not otherwise learn in IPSC. But, that doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't question the motives, rules and etc. of IDPA. Heck, I even question IPSC rules. If people didn't question the rules, it would be difficult to make positive change. I will continue to play both games & question the rules.

Peace and happy shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News Flash! WILSONS new 2002 catalog has a new 1911 pistol in it with a quote" light mount integral with the frames dust cover." This pistols frame is all steel and will no doubt be IDPA legal in CDP class. I think weapon mounted lights(surefire or M3's) for night stages won't be to far away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Storm,

If it seemed that my rant was squarely aimed at you, I apologize.  I've just heard the topic beaten to death at local matches....

What I meant to say on the rules thing, wasn't that no one should question the rules.  I think questioning and discussion is good; I'm just irked at the range lawyers who pop up at too many matches and seem to want to spend more time arguing the rules than just shooting the match.  There seem to be people shooting matches who can't seem to let the shooting dictate the outcome, some of them have to argue (often arcane and inapplicable) rules to affect their standing.  

I may be in the minority here, but my attitude has really shifted this year.  I no longer care where I place in the match, as long as I had fun shooting and as long as I learned something.  

Wow, as I'm writing this I'm realizing that I'm on the edge of another rant..... must go meditate and practice tolerance.... I may pick this up tomorrow after some sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A local IDPA club does something similar.  They have an "Experimental" category where they throw everything not IDPA legal.  This has been everything from Open guns to Race Glocks in the past.  Scores are separated and everybody is happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest copy of SWAT magazine shows a photo of a new Caspian Pistol with a frame that has a standard length dust cover but light / accessory rails machined into it.

Do you think this modification would be allowed in CDP or ESP class?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...