IDPA Rulebook Clarifications and Response from HQ

[smokshwn]

KD

One could argue that we should have never been on this road to begin with. If BW had polled, solicited, or followed posts in this forum for the past several months many of these problems could have been avoided. It has taken a borderline revolt to clue them in that the membership refuses "taxation without representation".

Craig

[rhino]

I think it would be better overall if we were treated like customers, which is what we are. That has yet to happen from my perspective.

[BigDave]

Very positive turn this has taken, IMO.

I agree. I'm glad to see it happen.

...however...

This necessity of this turn could have been avoided. I think that is what really chaping the hides of many.

[Caspian_45]

I can't get the revisions to come up.

Oh well. If Bill is not going to give on the light in the tunnel and 50% mag pouch issue, I will take my guns and play elsewhere. This is a deal breaker for me. I am NOT going to spend more money to buy a holster that, for all intents and purposes, conceals the same gun in the same manner, just to play HIS game.

I hoped to have been able to say that the new rule book was an improvement over the last one. But with the OBVIOUS oversights (SSR/ESR) and the new holster requirments, which outlaws nearly all my current IDPA gear.

I am very disappointed with the new rule book and Bill's reply on the IDPA page. I would have thought Bill would be more profesional in his reply.

[stryfox]

The 50% rule has changed to a 2" rule

[GRD]

Which is only marginally less idiotic. What is the point of the 2" or 50% garbage? Someone explain to me what possible purpose a rule like that serves.

- Gabe

[redmist10]

I can't get the revisions to come up.

click open the link and then refresh your browser - it took me 3 tries to get it to pop up.

[stryfox]

Which is only marginally less idiotic. What is the point of the 2" or 50% garbage? Someone explain to me what possible purpose a rule like that serves.

- Gabe

I was just pointing out the change not agreeing with it or dissagreeing with it.

[Mark Perez]

Which is only marginally less idiotic. What is the point of the 2" or 50% garbage? Someone explain to me what possible purpose a rule like that serves.

- Gabe

It's a STANDARD gabe , nothing more.

Mark

[smokshwn]

Mark,

I think what he is trying to point out is that what exactly does 2" or 50% have to do with function. One could produce a full coverage mag holder that was useless and conversely one that covers only 25% that is bulletproof. The holster rules have seemed to want to dictate holster/magpouch design rather than their use and function. If your mag pouch is concealable and secure and your holster keeps the gun in the correct position (3/4") and is concealable and secure, what difference does it make how it is designed?

Craig

[Mark Perez]

Mark,

I think what he is trying to point out is that what exactly does 2" or 50% have to do with function. One could produce a full coverage mag holder that was useless and conversely one that covers only 25% that is bulletproof. The holster rules have seemed to want to dictate holster/magpouch design rather than their use and function. If your mag pouch is concealable and secure and your holster keeps the gun in the correct position (3/4") and is concealable and secure, what difference does it make how it is designed?

Craig

What difference does it have to do wih real function ??

IDPA decided on a standard - and that's what we have to deal with.

Mark

[smokshwn]

Mark,

No we don't. This is one of the rules that has changed. First it was 50%, now it is down to 2 inches which is much more reasonable. Once the membership began making their voices heard BW et al became much more amenable to change. It is now time to ably ariticulate our points and improve the rules. There is no mandate that says what is said from on high we must follow. If that is your choice fine, however it is not the choice of many others who are looking for either clarification or another organization to shoot under.

Craig

[spd522]

My email went to IDPA HQ today and it was very lengthy.

Here is one issue I addressed that may raise a few eyebrows.

Craig-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lots of howling about the weight limitations and the fact that several guns are automatically eliminated. It almost seems like a vendetta against Para Ordnance and SIG. There is a bias in favor of the compact, alloy, and polymer frame guns. So I did some research. A few examples concerning steel frame guns according to their respective websites:

SIG P226 ST- 42.2 oz w/mag

SIG P226 S - 46.2 oz w/mag

SIG P220 ST- 41.8 oz w/mag

SIG P220 Langdon- 43.2 oz. w/mag

SIG GSR- 41.6 oz. w/mag

Para LDA full size- All are 39 oz or more w/o mag (single and double stack)

Para Hi-cap full size SA- All are 40 oz or more w/o mag

Para SSP single stack/SA- 39oz w/o mag

Beretta 92/96 Steel- 41.1 oz w/o mag

S&W 5906 - 38.3 oz w/o mag

S&W 1911- 39-41 oz w/o mag

Weights of typical parts and factory mags ( these are actual parts I have at home) weighed on a Pact digital scale:

Wilson 8rd mag w/std basepad- 2.53 oz

SprArmory factory 7 rd w/ .350 basepad- 2.63 oz.

Para Ordnance 18 rd 9mm mag w/std basepad- 3.23 oz

Para Ordnance 14 rd 45 mag w/std basepad- 3.47 oz

SIG P226 15 rd 9mm mag w/std basepad- 3.44 oz

Glock 17 10 rd mag- 3.01 oz

Ambi-safety- Wilson right side part only- .16 oz

Magwell-Ed Brown (not including ms housing) 1.05 oz.

*[ I took the cataloged weight of a Wilson Combat CQB @ 38oz., added a Wilson ambi safety @ .16 oz, EB magwell @ 1.05 oz, and a Wilson mag @ 2.53 oz and ended up at 41.74 oz. Pretty typical CDP gun but illegal according to the rules. An aluminum magwell instead of the steel EB only saved .20 oz. Gun is still overweight.]

So once an empty mag is added, and in some cases, a magwell and ambis, the weight limits are surpassed on several pistols. Most steel frame 1911 guns used in CDP are going to be illegal and apparently have been. This also forces several DA guns that should be in SSP into ESP class. Not good. And some may not be legal in any class. This is even worse. It also means the Para 9mm I shoot in ESP and the Para 45 in CDP are not legal, nor have they been even though the past rule book listed the Para by name as legal. I guess I need to find two new pistols or quit shooting IDPA if the rules aren't fixed. Same goes for a lot of IDPA shooters.

Still the behemoth "N" frames are OK and legal up to 50 oz. I’m sure they are a real popular CCW piece. Few actually carry them except maybe in bear country. And why are they legal when smaller and lighter semiautos are not? Here is the logical solution.

Get rid of weight limitations across the board. A couple of ounces makes no difference in the carry properties of a gun nor in the recoil reduction. All this rule does is piss a lot of folks off and eliminate some high quality guns from being used. Keep the rules already on the books that forbid bull barrels, tungsten guide rods, weighted grips and mags, etc. and keep it simple. As long as folks aren’t adding junk to a gun with the purpose of boosting the weight for recoil control, let folks shoot what they "carry". Otherwise, be prepared to weigh every competitor's guns at every match and turn away a lot of unhappy shooters.

[GRD]

You can't justify the existance of a standard solely by the fact that it is a standard. The point is: what is the purpose of this rule? IDPA might as well make a rule that all belts must be black in color with a shiny buckle. While it would be a standard by definition, what is the purpose of it? How would it advance the P&P? How does it help to keep carry gear in and competition gear out? What benefit does the sport derive by having a rule like that in the book? Every rule has a tradeoff: it outlaws something (be it equipment or behavior..and by 'equipment' I mean it in the accepted definition, not the IDPA definition, which apparently is 'gun'), which is going to impact somebody (or many somebodies). What benefit does the sport derive from this 'standard' in exchange for that?

This tends to cut to the chase of what is irking alot of the membership - obviously enough of the membership that HQ has been, literally, forced to take notice and do something. Why is this equipment illegal? Of course, when the standards get standardized, there will be some fringe gear that is just going to fall outside the lines. That's unavoidable. But you should at the very least be able to articulate why the rule that drew that line was necessary and why it was drawn where it was. So far, the membership does not appear to be satisfied that the lines have been drawn in the appropriate places after having been given the level of consideration that the membership feels this subject deserves.

For example, if the goal is to have concealable, non-competition mag pouches that hold the mags securely and close to the body in a concealable location (as they would have to for daily carry), how does the 2" or 50% garbage help accomplish that goal? It doesn't. It is unnecessary, beside the point and arbitrary. What angers people is that from that it follows that the rule is thoughtless and gives little to no consideration to the realities of the competitors on the ground and how they interact with the carry-gear game. Which is the real issue, isn't it.

If you're happy with what's been done, Mark, that's fine, and far be it from me to tell you shouldn't be happy with it. But don't try and tell those of us who are dissatisfied that we have no reason to be so. We most certainly do, very legitimate reasons, and, as smokshwn pointed out above, we are obviously getting results as a product of our efforts to have these rules re-examined for their impact and purpose.

- Gabe

[rhino]

With all due respect to everyone involved, when numbers like "50%" and "two inches" are arbitrarily thrown into a situation, it sounds an awful lot like they were withdrawn from someone's posterior moreso than they were the result of any sort of logical analysis.

The arbitrary and capricious nature of many of the rules is part of the problem.

[smokshwn]

Rhino,

exactly

Craig

[BigDave]

Excellent post, Gabe. You too, Rhino.

[tightloop]

you tell 'em Rhino....it is all kind of crazy...

[Mark Perez]

I think you guys are getting to wrapped around the axle over "the little sh*t".

If NBA says all competition will be conducted with a ball of certain dimensions or MLB says only bats made of specific material will be allowed - then players agree to abide by those rules if they want to play that game.

There isn't any discussion - take it or leave it.

IDPA isn't telling you what to wear on the street - it's setting a standard/criteria for equipment to play the game - that's it.

Until that day

Mark

[smokshwn]

Mark,

I will happily discontinue my discussion of "little sh*t" as soon as I receive a payment from you in the amount of $375 for replacement of 3 holster and magpouch setups. As of the first of the year they were legal and performed the same EXACT function as equipment that would comply with the current rules, however they simply do not comply with an ARBITRARY standard (light in the belt tunnel and 50% coverage). You can remit either by USPS MO or paypal (don't forget the 3%). Until then I will reserve the right to discuss legitimate issues that have arisen with the new rulebook.

As for the arrogance you display in trivializing a significant expense to another, simply because it will likely not effect you or it does not meet your significant meter, is very symbolic of the attitude from IDPA that "If you don't like it, tough". This attitude is at the very core of the current rules debate. As a matter of fact the uproar has even caused IDPA HQ to understand that not addressing the "little sh*t" will quickly lose you members. You may want to reconsider your position as well.

Craig Outzen

5635 So Goodway Dr.

Murray UT 84123

paypal acct. smokshwn31@yahoo.com

[EricW]

Closed.