smokshwn Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I am trying to formulate my question to IDPA HQ concerning the belt tunnel requirement for holsters. My point has been that as long as the gun and holster combo satisfy the 3/4 inch maximum distance from the body, the belt tunnel requirement seems to be inconsequential. Is there something that I am missing? Thanx, Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revchuck Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Craig - My thoughts exactly. Do you have a holster that does this too, or is it just me? I've got a Wild Bill's Concealment paddle for my S&W 681 that touches my waist at two points (one of them being the butt), but has light in the tunnel. I guess it's time for another email. Let's double-team them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 See Page 31: Can have no offset backpieces and/or belt slots. The holster may not offset away from the belt and/or body. No gap is permitted in the following areas:1. From the body to the inside of the belt. 2. From the outside of the belt to the inside of the backpiece and/or backside of the holster. 3. From the outside of the backpiece to the inside of the holster. If you look through the belt slot area of the holster with it on the belt/body, you should not be able to see any daylight. If you can see through this belt tunnel area, the holster is not approved. And section I same page Must hold the firearm positioned on the body so an object of ¾”width cannot pass between the shooter’s body and the inside of the firearm when the shooter is standing straight and upright.² First part is for holster design, the 3/4" is in relation to how the firearm rides in relation to the body when in the holster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny hill Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Everyone is not built the same. What's legal on one may not be on another. It's a GAME. As long as it's concealed , let's shoot. Just because bill wilson say's it is not legal, does'nt mean I cannot wear it each day for my concealed carry & be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevepitt Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Benny, Well said! (I'm sure I'll get flamed for my reply too). Steve Pitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 Benny Steve and Rev, Thank you very much. If my holster got any closer to my gut it would never see daily carry. RGS I know what the rules state. What I am asking for is an explanation of the purpose for no light in the belt tunnel. What exactly does designing a holster with strict belt to holster relationship accomplish that the 3/4 inch rule doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 What exactly does designing a holster with strict belt to holster relationship accomplish that the 3/4 inch rule doesn't? I am guessing here but here goes: Designing a holster with a tunnell for the belt, allows offset away from the body. That covers the design part. As for the 3/4" statement, If a holster is properly designed with no excessive tunnel, it could be formed so the butt of the gun is away from the body. Best example I can give is in a duty revolver holster. The Jordan Trooper holster had very little tunnel but held the gun butt away from the body. As for the paddle style holster, If I was the stage SO I would not give it a second look, but I'm easy I think what Benny posted is the way it really is Everyone is not built the same. What's legal on one may not be on another Regards, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock2234 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 This is the problem that will cause the most heartburn. Some SOs will challenge you on the letter of the rule. Some will look for adhereance to the intent. I'm afraid where I shoot, it will depend on who shows up. That will not matter to me a great deal at a monthly match. When I travel to a major match, spend good money for an entry fee, travel costs, and time, I would really like to not be at the mercy of whoever they got to work a stage. This is just too subjective. I have seen obvious procedurals missed at the NC and VA state matches last year. I understand that they let you "fix" equipment problems at the PA match. If this rule stands, everyone should have their gear OK'ed before they shoot any stages. I know my gun is legal. I ought to be able to count on the rest without resorting to an IWB for a Glock 34. I don't even want to start on the mag pouch placement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I think that HQ can get the same results from the 3/4" rule as it does for the "no light in the channel rule". We don't need both rules. As a new SO, one rule would suit me fine. I encourage you, as I did, to write HQ and express your views. There still is some time left for evaluation. I have written twice and plan my third writing as I type this. I have a popular holster in my area, a Mach 2. The gun is tight on my overweight body but the channel makes it illegal. Now I could wear one with no channel and it sits off of the body is that more concealable? I believe the answer to be no. One measurement does it touch or doesn't it within 3/4". That's all we need not both. My opinion, and I trust many of you share it with me, but more importantly share it with HQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matto Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 At the 2003 Nationals I met Bill Wilson on one of the stages and we had a conversation about some of the fights that I had run into with some SO regarding the letter of the rules. He impressed me as being a reasonable person and was amazed at how some people were being so "anal". I think the issue with the light in the belt tunnel is part of this same problem. The revision of the rules states: "In simple terms, the back of the holster must be held tightly against the outside of the belt for proper concealed carry" This sounds reasonable and the UM holster shown in the example picture is pretty obvious in the gaps and I can see why this holster would not be allowed. The problem arises in the wording of the rule criteria. "Day light" can pass through some pretty small openings, and while I am guessing that Bill Wilson does not want this to happen, I know we will run into SOs nit picking the issue. My response the IDPA will be the suggestion to drop or reword the "day light" wording. I think they did a good job with the mag carrier issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspian_45 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Craig I am thinking along the same lines as you. If it's leass than 3/4 inch from the body what difference does light have to do with my holster? If I am to carry a gun all day I sure don't want it poking me in the ribs all day. One size does not fit all. Craig you can put my name on your email to Bill, cause I think you got the same ideas as I. I am still waiting for a reply to my email sent on the 7th. Tony Hawkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBurkett Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Umm, they aren't budging on the light tunnel issue. My comp-tac meets all the requirements except that and I sent photos to HQ. Apparently if I just use a heat gun and bend the front down so you can't see light it is okay. Then no spacer has been applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 What about if your holster would otherwise be okay, but your belt is smaller than the belt loop on the holster? You'll be able to see light throught belt tunnel? Does that mean it's verbotten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBurkett Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 "NOTE: Modification of current holsters and ammunition carriers to meet IDPA criteria is acceptable" hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I have my Milwaukee Heat gun ready to go for my Mach 2 holster and my mag holders. The holders miss the mark by .2 of an inch. Let me see while doing a reload with retension if the bad guy whips out the tape measure and ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matto Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Matt, What would you suggest for those of us who use belts with big metal studs on them? You know the kind we all where in the SF area. Day light is going to come through no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TractorTed Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I have a Fobus model GL2 for my Glocks, (a G23 I carry, and a G34 for games), a Fobus for my 1911, and a kydex for my GP-100. All 3 have the dreaded "daylight syndrome", yet all guns are held tightly to my admittedly lumpy side. I checked last week and noted that a friend had a Fobus strapped to his considerably thinner side, and found that his also had daylight syndrome, but held tightly to his side. I think that the 3/4" rule is very good and invalidates the necessity of the daylight rule. I think it is a very good possibility that some people that will not only be anal about this, but use it as a tool of punishment and reward, giving leeway to some, DQ's or penalties to others. I know the rules have changed about modifying holsters, but I don't see why I should have to for a rule that has no rational basis, nor replace equipment for the same reason. If however, I do have to "correct" my equipment to play this game, I will buy another holster of the same model, drill out the rivets holding the backpiece on, fabricate a new backpiece from kydex that will not have a gap, and insure that it will stretch the limit of the rules by placing the gun 23/32" from my fat a**, which will make it print like a flower on a mumu, but at least it will still be legal!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ted Picard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I sent off a lengthy e-mail last night on why they should drop the body/belt/holster gap rule in favor of just using the 3/4" body/gun gap. Hopefully if enough of us do it, they might see the light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock2234 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I have a Fobus model GL2 for my Glocks, (a G23 I carry, and a G34 for games), a Fobus for my 1911, and a kydex for my GP-100. All 3 have the dreaded "daylight syndrome", yet all guns are held tightly to my admittedly lumpy side. I checked last week and noted that a friend had a Fobus strapped to his considerably thinner side, and found that his also had daylight syndrome, but held tightly to his side. I think that the 3/4" rule is very good and invalidates the necessity of the daylight rule. I think it is a very good possibility that some people that will not only be anal about this, but use it as a tool of punishment and reward, giving leeway to some, DQ's or penalties to others. I know the rules have changed about modifying holsters, but I don't see why I should have to for a rule that has no rational basis, nor replace equipment for the same reason. If however, I do have to "correct" my equipment to play this game, I will buy another holster of the same model, drill out the rivets holding the backpiece on, fabricate a new backpiece from kydex that will not have a gap, and insure that it will stretch the limit of the rules by placing the gun 23/32" from my fat a**, which will make it print like a flower on a mumu, but at least it will still be legal!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ted Picard have the dreaded "daylight syndrome", yet all guns are held tightly to my admittedly lumpy side. The IDPA glossary needs to add some form of the above as, "Regulation IDPA Silhouette" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Better yet, suggest they use a nickel (0.8" or so wide and everybody has one). If you can slide it fat-wise around between the gun and you, get another holster. Pennies go right about 3/4", but many peoples fingers are fatter than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangram Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Here is an excerpt from my last post to the IDPA. Perhaps if others (as many are) wrote their own concerns to the IDPA... Holster Rule My understanding of what is being addressed in by to holster rule is to encourage that holsters are among other things concealable. This is done be getting the pistol up close to the side of the body and one of the criteria is no daylight in the belt tunnel area. Here is my concern. I am large (fat). I use a Comp-Tac locking paddle. There seems to be light coming through the belt tunnel area. However, the handle of the pistol and tip of the holster (muzzle) are in contact with my body. The holster is in close contact for the most part. If it were any closer it would dig into my side when I sit down. (In other words the holster would be unusable in normal carry circumstances without the small gap in the belt tunnel.) I'd like to see the light gap rule dropped and let the "spacing rule" take care of the closeness issue. There is no space to shove a dowel between my body and my pistol's handle with the my present set-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted January 19, 2005 Author Share Posted January 19, 2005 Thanx for the replies. That has been the jist of my email to HQ. My arguement was simply that the "spirit and intent" of the holster rule was to maintain the positioning of the gun close to the body for concealment purposes. In all instances the 3/4 inch rule accomplishes this task. The light in the tunnel rule however in no way guarantees the intended goal. The one purpose the light rule does accomplish is making many otherwise legal holsters illegal. Given this situation I asked that IDPA try not to control the design features of holsters but instead provide a rule that maintains the function of the holsters. I feel the 3/4 inch rule provides regardless of a persons body or holster type. Take care Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyG23 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 My opinion on the holster issue is pretty much the same as everyone else's here, let the 3/4" rule be the defining characteristic rather than the daylight rule. The only thing I can add is to urge everyone who has an opinion on this issue to e-mail HQ. They bowed to pressure once and seem to be actively seeking input from the membership before finalizing the rule changes. If you don't voice an opinion now don't b*tch later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COF Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The "daylight" issue was one of the items I covered in my email to them Monday. I think at best it is an arbitarary standard that someone hopes will help keep holsters in keeping with IDPA principles. At worst, it is something being forced down our throats by someone unwilling to admit that it is ridiculous and it will be subjectively enforced to varying degrees. Guess if they keep it, I'll have to build a wooden stand for shooters to stand on because I, sure as hell, am not getting down on my knees to check someone's holster for light penetration through the belt tunnel! The 3/4" standard is easily defined and used. I'm sure more than one MD out there has a few broken target stakes that happen to be 3/4" thick on the narrow side. I'll bet you could even make one up to resemble an old Brit swagger stick complete with lanyard. Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum314 Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Been lurking here for several months, but thought that this subject was very pertinent and agree with the consensus here. I sent off my letter to HQ a couple of hours ago. 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