MattBurkett Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 After my initial knee jerk reaction to the new rule book, the following has come to light. The idea was to make the holster areas significantly easier to administrate for match directors. This is of course going to cause some issues. They said they are doing the best they can and here is some additional info for you guys. Just got off the phone with IDPA HQ and learned the following information: 1. Paddle holsters are not defacto illegal. See D. Pouch Style covers paddles. 2. Kydex, plastic, leather, etc are considered normal holster making materials. 3. Magtubes are measuring the tube from front edge of the tube to the top of the front edge. The Comp-tac locking paddle that I enjoy so much may or may not be legal under the new rules when finalized. We will have to wait and find out. New revisions to the rule book will be posted in the next few weeks. Then there will be time to time to contact IDPA about concerns and then any mods maybe made and final rule book will be printed. They are working on it, if you have a question please call them like I did. So let them know what you think about how to make the changes more understandable. Please email info@idpa.com with your ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Forsyth Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Matt, I'd appreciate it very much if you would post this over at the 1911Forum. Thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBurkett Posted January 12, 2005 Author Share Posted January 12, 2005 No problemo. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Good Job Matt! A rational and sensible approach to addressing your concerns. I hope it rubs off on some folks. If not? WGAF? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gun Geek Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 Thanks for the work Matt. As I've said in another post somewhere, I think IDPA's attempt to refocus things on the "D" by requiring use of appropriate gear is the right move. At several state matches I've seen holsters that looked more like stuff the gunfighters in the old west wore - the gun had to be 6" from the shooter's body. And, we cannot forget the uproar about the DQ because of a holster at the the Ohio match. There's a reason people do this - it is faster. But faster's not the whole point of this sport. That is IPSC/USPSA, which I also shoot and love. I just hope they don't go overboard with it and create a barrier. As we've thrashed about on this board, the IDPA organization instituted the rule change in a very clumsy manner. Let's hope they have learned from the mistakes and will do better. Per Matt's suggestion, I'm sending an e-mail similar to this to HQ. Matt thanks again for the sharing the info and showing some leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyG23 Posted January 12, 2005 Share Posted January 12, 2005 I just submitted my 3rd e-mail to HQ on this. Still hoping for a reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chico Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Here is a reply from Blade-Tech: January 11, 2005 Subject: IDPA Equipment Rule Change Reference: Blade-Tech Industries Holsters and Magpouches To Whom It May Concern: According to the 2005 IDPA rulebook; Blade-Tech IDPA Belt and Tek-Lok holsters fall under the “POUCH” holsters. Stated in the 1-D (page 29) “pouch style holster” Blade-Tech Industries holster do meet the criteria stated on page 29. “QUOTE” from the current rulebook. This design features a “pouch” that holds the handgun and usually has a separate back piece attached to the back of the “pouch” which attaches to the holster to the belt. This “back piece” can either be a belt tunnel, belt slots on either side of the pouch, or a paddle that slides inside the pants. Blade-Tech holsters are not designed/ and are not marketed as “competition” equipment. The Paddle, and the Tek-Lok holsters or “POUCHES” are cant adjustable for a “3 position” cant. However or holsters are FIXED in one position only! Meaning you cannot rotate or pivot from a fixed position manually. In order for a Holster to be transitioned from a straight cant to a “FBI” cant or a muzzle rearward cant you physically have to remove the “Back piece” from the holster, reposition and lock down the attaching hardware. Blade-Tech Industries “IWB”, “IDPA belt holster”, “Paddle holster”, and magpouches meet and exceed the criteria stated in the current rule book. Blade-Tech holsters and magpouches are utilized by Ken Hackathorn. In a recent conversation with Ken Hackathorn, Ken mentioned that there should be no problem with Blade-Tech holsters according to the new rules. Blade-Tech holsters listed above meet the demands of every day real world application; which is used by Elite Military units, Undercover Law enforcement Agents, Officers, Instructors, Civilians, and IDPA/USPSA competitors. Regards, Tim Wegner President, CEO Blade-Tech Industries www.blade-tech.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyce Wilson Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 IDPA Headquarters has posted a clarification document on the website. Please visit to view the document. Thank you, Joyce Wilson, Director International Defensive Pistol Association Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestock Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Here is the link: http://idpa.com/Rulebook_comments.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midvalleyshooter Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Dear Joyce and Bill, I am impressed with your calm and reasonable response to all the internet forum posts related to the new IDPA rule book. With all change comes some degree of friction. Many of the posts were by well meaning folks. But some of the posts were personal and stepped over the line of good sense. The best advice I ever got on that sort is this, "Just shine em on", and I offer the same advice to you Your open invitation to rational suggestions on the rules is great. You will recieve mine along with my membership renewal. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Good to hear. This is a big step in the right direction. -Vincent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firewalker Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Good job posting clarification Bill and Joyce , many shooters were concerned at how the new rules would affect us. We now have official responces from HQ. Frederick Haring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Joyce, Thanks! Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkps1 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 I now feel much better about the whole rulebook mess. My $$ will be in the mail for dues. I would like to thank Bill for the comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Glad a response was made. Coincidence or not, takes a well-known name (who can get through to them) to generate a response while other "members" can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyG23 Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Joyce & Bill, The comments and clarifications are appreciated. Let's get all this behind and start shooting again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ducati Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Thanks for the response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryfox Posted January 15, 2005 Share Posted January 15, 2005 Seems to me like bill and joyce are trying to do the right thing for the sport. This makes me feel abetter about it after reading all this banter on the internet. I'll still play and by the new rules as long as they stay reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Goloski Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Yeah, but Bill, you could have done a much better job of it. When you and your buddies got together and formed IDPA and set yourselves up as IPDA "Kings", you gave yourselves the ultimate authority to make and break the rules (with no responsibility to anyone but yourselves). You then asked the competitive shooters of the world to put their money on the line and "buy" into your endeavor. You basically asked us to trust that you would to the best and right things for both the sport and for us, the non-voting shareholders to your kingdom. Trust is an earned commodity. Let's see how you have done..... CDP. When this game started, CDP included the 10mm. It was a perfect place for it and a great place for those of us who owned Delta Elites, etc. to use them at the power factor they were designed to be used. Then, for no apparent nor good reason, you changed the rules. People who went out and bought them to compete in CDP got screwed. If they shot them at major PF in ESP, they were under a huge handicap and if they loaded them down to the powder puff loads used in ESP--Why bother? Do the think these people have much trust in your judgement? SSR. A few years back you ran an article in the "Tactical Journal" (I believe written by Hackathorn) that said "the best setup for SSR is a 5" M625 with Moon Clips". Many people, including myself, went out and bought one specifically for SSR competition. Then, a few years later, for no apparent nor good reason, you decided that we couldn't use them any more--that they had to have 4" or shorter barrels. So, many of us, myself included, sent our guns in to our gunsmiths and had a perfectly good 5" barrel taken off and installed a less satisfactory 4" barrel just so that we could continue to play your game. Then, a year or so later, you change the rules again and for no apparent nor good reason, you create an new division and you put our six shooters into a division with 8+ shooters and in one fell swoop, you make them uncompetitive. I laughed at your statement that "the softer recoil of the 45's versus the extra 2 rounds of 8 shooters is a wash" until I realized that you were serious. If there is one thing that we all learned when the hi capacity craze hit, it was that any extra shots constitute a huge advantage. All it would take is two 16 round stages in a match to completely take the sixguns out of the picture. Do you think the guys and gals affected by this decision have much trust for you? Holsters, mag pouches, speedloaders carriers. In one simple edict, you have forced many of us to have to go out and purchase new equipment just so we can play your game. Stuff that has been legal for years and stuff we use routinely to carry is no longer legal--for no apparent nor good reason. Are we supposed to trust that you won't change your mind a year from now and make all the new stuff illegal? The other problem with your new holster rule is that it opens up a new can of worms for the IDPA Range Nazis (and we have nore than our fair share of them) to closely scrutinize every shooter who comes to the line. I can just see some nitwit getting down on his knees to peek through a shooter holster loop to see if he can see a speck of daylight. Don't laugh. I would bet it has already happened. There are many good things about the new rule book, but you have really shot yourself in the foot over the above issues. If you were advised to take these steps, then perhaps you should look to someone else for advice. Over the years you have failed to earn our trust and we are going to rag on you for it. And you know Bill......you deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Reading the "offical" comment, it says that the "intent" of the stability of rules was meant only for firearms. However, this does not square with how the "rule" is written in the rule book: Stability of Equipment RulesEquipment rule changes will only be reviewed every two (2) years. Any equipment rule changes will go into effect twelve (12) months after approval. But, as IDPA has been known for, "intent" is whatever HQ or the SO says it is. There is no objectivity in IDPA. So, I guess you're being consistent in that respect - basically making the "rules" up as you go along and changing them to suit your wims (or to CYA). -David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Pete, Sing it brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDave Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Thanks for your words, Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBurkett Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 Revised edition up until the 24th for comments - so let THEM know what you want changed. http://idpa.com/rule_info.htm Thanks, Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer-lock Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 IDPA headquarters has published a revised rule book in response to the many questions raised by the membership since the new book was posted on January 6, 2005. They are taking your constructive comments and/or requested changes until January 24, 2005. The additional changes (if any) will be posted as a final draft on January 26, 2005 and will take effect on April 15, 2005. This is the perfect opportunity to make your views known. Don’t pass it up. Please e-mail your comments and requests to: info@idpa.com Or send your postal mail to: The International Defensive Pistol Association 2232 CR 719 Berryville, AR 72616 Or call/fax: (870) 545-3886 Fax: (870) 545-3894 geezer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdmoore Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 This is the perfect opportunity to make your views known. Don’t pass it up. Amen Geezer. My first question to those who bash the political system is "did you vote?" My first question to those who complain about rules now OR later (including me ) will be "did you email" Very positive turn this has taken, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts