Sac Law Man Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I currently use the Safarland 560 holster. Initially I was using the smaller spacers until I lost one at a match..Now I am using the 1/4 spacers provoded with the holster. I thought I read a post that mentioned a shooter getting DQ'd for using similar spacers..are they legal, illegal, or does it depend on the holster? I searched through the rule book and didn't find any mention of this specific topic. The 1/4 spacers are used for no other reason than, they are the only ones I have...Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Perez Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 IMO - Yes , you can use them. As long as it doesn't make the holster into something like the off-set model from blade-tech , I think it would be alright. Following is from the holster section - sounds like you are using the original factory equipment that's providded with the rig. (There is no longer any mention on the holster 'freeze' status on the IDPA website. ) HOLSTERS AND AMMUNITION CARRIERS MAY NOT BE MODIFIED AND THEY MUST BE USED IN THEIR ORIGINAL FACTORY CONDITION FOR IDPA COMPETITION. Of course I'm just offering an opinion using simple common sense - IDPA may have a different point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Nesbitt Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 A shooter was DQed at the Ohio State IDPA Championship for using spacers on his Safariland 560 holster. I guess it puts the holster too far from the body. I don't have any other details. Bill Nesbitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I asked Dru Robbins this past thursday and she said (rather quickly I might add) that no, you cannot use them. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sac Law Man Posted July 20, 2004 Author Share Posted July 20, 2004 Thanks for the replies, I'll err on the side of caution and see if I can sand them down or get new ones from safariland.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I sold my 560 because I didn't want to get stuck w/ it if it doesn't make the next approved holster list. Which should be interesting since it's the same holster Safariland makes for Wilson (Adjuster). Good holster but the bearing wheel took the blue off the dust cover of my Kimber. I switched to the Alessie DOJ and am much happier. I still have a 561 for my G17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moneypenny Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 Bob Vogel was DQ'd from the OH match for having those spacers in, it made the but of his STI stand out from his body about an inch, he is very skinny anyway. He did not know this was illegal nor did I... I won't spew conspiracy theories. BUT the rationale given was that they were "for women only" the MD was adamantly sure that those little spacers were MARKED that way from the factory. .... i don't recall any such markings but maybe i missed it. they are not legal. the 560 or belt variation are excellent IDPA holsters the fear of them being "canted" up to what a possilble 5 degrees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjobart Posted July 21, 2004 Share Posted July 21, 2004 I heard that he was DQ'ed more than an hour after the match was completed. How long after a match is completed can someone be DQ'ed in IDPA for a minor equipment violation (maybe it was not even a violation). Isn't it up to the SO's to catch minor equipment violations while running a shooter and request a correction before a DQ is levied? Some matches also have an equipment check before the shooting starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmills Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 I personally did not attend the match but have spoken with many people who did. Based on comments from those who attended , this match was not the well run match that we saw last year. There were a lot of "shooter traps" as well as non-experienced SO's. The DQ was very questionable. Based on Bob being DQ'ed more than an hour after the match indicates that the SO's WERE NOT checking competitor's equipment at the various stages. If one SO did check Bob's holster and did not find it illegal and allowed him to continue, then by all rights he should not have been DQ'ed, UNLESS that SO(s) was not qualified to work at a State Championship. In IDPA, doesn't the benefit of the doubt always go to the shooter?It was only after someone in the same division complained (Bob finished 2nd in ESP behind Ernest Langdon) that the action was taken. Sour grapes? This issue comes down to poor match management and non-experienced SO's. There should be some secondary SO classes available. The one day SO class we currently have are good for teaching the basic rule book but in no way prepares an individual to deal with all of the possible things that can happen during stage runs. USPSA RO classes are longer in length and before an individual can RO at a major match, they have to work as an Assistant RO at major matches under the supervision of an experienced RO. While in the RANT mode, is IDPA HQ and the President, ever going to be answerable to the membership? The current vs. new rule book issue needs to be resolved. While IDPA got off to a great start years ago, will issues such as the one at the Ohio State match, the new rule book fiasco, and the lack of response from HQ and the president, continue to erode at the membership? RANT mode off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moneypenny Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 Glad i wasn't the only one who thought a couple of stages were TOTAL procedural traps that requried more dancing skills than shooting skills. i thought the match ran well but feel a few things could have been made better. i have often wondered who it was that complained just so i don't walk buy him with legal gear and have to be put through a circus battery of hoops like bob was, there was a complete check of his gun, (all but disassembly and weighing) and critique of his gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moneypenny Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 fogot in my ranting. just call safariland and tell them you need a set of stock spacers! those won't be legal if they are ANY thicker than stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEPAKevin Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 FWIW, I used the 560 and the belt adapter with no spacers and it fit snug enough against the body to use for daily ccw. My problem with the rig was that it would not work reliably with a gun with a light rail so I got one of Ernest Langdon's holsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 While in the RANT mode, is IDPA HQ and the President, ever going to be answerable to the membership? Never. They set it up so they did not have to answer. I do not see them changing it anytime soon. They saw the current organization of the sport as a simple solution to eliminating shooters voting themselves sillier and sillier equipment rules. Now weather they are right or wrong is debatable, but that is how they see things and also, how they are. Shooters know that this is the way things are, and are free to join or not. Ted 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