Light in the Belt Tunnel

[Duane Thomas]

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.

I think they're way ahead of ya, Mattster. Thus the portion of the rules that says:

2. From the outside of the belt to the inside of the backpiece and/or backside of the holster.

You'd think these guys were already aware where attempts to circumvent the rules were going to come from or something.

[Ted Murphy]

Shot a match in a near blizzard today, complete fun.

One fella was there who was at odds with the new rules. He used an uncle mikes but was chunky enough that even with the UM holster there was MAYBE an 1/8" gap between the gun and his side. He felt that he would be totally screwed if they maintain the "light" rule and was most unhappy with the state of things.

Ted

[smokshwn]

That's kind of been the basic arguement against the light tunnel/belt surface to backpiece rule. It outlaws holsters for us fat guys that are other wise completely compliant. I haven't found anyone who has a hard time with the 3/4" rule, just the light tunnel bit.

Craig

[joer]

So, I am still confused. I own several regular, non offset, blade tech belt holsters - not paddle. Are they still legal?

[Sam]

I'm just curious. Can anyone tell me what prompted this rule change in the first place?

I've been working very hard for the past two years to get attendance up at our "new" IDPA club. It's an uphill battle to get new people to shoot in competition in the first place. Most folks are pretty self-concious about their performance and seem to get embarassed easily. It's really a heart breaker to have to tell people that their equipment, which is generally the only thing they own, isn't legal.

If this about trying to "level the playing field", it's a huge waste of time. The people who practice the most are always going to win. It's tempting for me to continue holding IDPA matches, but eschew the holster and revolver barrel length rules. But, I won't do that. If you aren't going to follow the rules, why not play a different game?

[Gun Geek]

What prompted the change was 2 issues:

1) There were lots of guys running around with holsters that were on the list as LEGAL, but were clearly not appropriate for concealed carry use. The handle & butt of the gun would be several inches from the guy's hip. If you put a concealment garment over that sort of a rig, the gun prints and is totally obvious. However, If you haven't tried it, that space speeds up the draw measurably. It also increases the reliability of the draw - you don't reach down and grab a handful of shirt.

2) HQ says that several models were approved, then the design changed to a configuration that would not have been approved. This and the effort required to maintain the list were the reasons given for abolishing the list concept and going to the current rules.

I very much agree with the intent.

Given that, I must say that I disagree with the light in the tunnel stuff. I've tried a couple of holsters since this little fiasco, and my gear (Galco Kydex paddle) doesn't print at all. However, I am a victim of the tunnel issue. From talking to my shooting buddies, it seems as though the problem comes in when one's shape includes a bit of a spare tire around the middle. The gun rests against the love handle (no problem with the 3/4") and the top of the leg. Between those 2 points there is a gap and therefore the dreaded light in the belt tunnel.

It looks like the belt tunnel rule will get the flabby guys, but I think the 3/4" rule may get the skinny guys. Since their hip bones will likely be the farthest protrusion, these guys may see that there is more than 3/4" between their flang and the gun.

So, I am still confused. I own several regular, non offset, blade tech belt holsters - not paddle. Are they still legal?

I have seen some official stuff from HQ that says they recognize that some holsters will be illegal on some people, but not others. The reason they said they are OK with this is that this is just like real life - not every holster works on every person. So, under the current rules, it is impossible to say if a particular holster is OK or not, and HQ is fine with that. This is truly ripe for abuse.

I've sent in my comments to HQ and I hope they figure it out.

[TractorTed]

As I've noted previously about this subject, I am one of those guys that is a little lumpy around the middle, and have holsters that meet all the requirements except they have daylight syndrome. The daylight rule has to go. I have been at a couple of matches since the new rulebook fiasco started, and have not seen a single person that has a kydex/plastic holster that holds the gun more than 3/4" from the body, yet most of them have daylight syndrome. This includes not only people that are less lumpy, but many who are in very good shape. I repeat, the daylight rule is more than redundant to the 3/4" rule and must go!

[shred]

I'm still waiting for somebody to suggest clown pants and the 4-inch-wide spacerized IWB that sits far away from the body. IWB, No light, no foul.

Would wearing clown pants be "making a travesty of the sport"?

[Scooter]

I just figured out a new way to solve the thin belt syndrome. Instead of having your belt buckle centered, shift it as far to the right as possible so that the extra part of the belt tucks into the holster belt loop. That will fill up any gaps.

[COF]

While I'm sure that many of the suggestions were made here with a great deal of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek, it also shows a willingness and tendency to circumvent the rules that are precisely what these new rules are about.

Before anyone jumps up and accuses me of being a koolaid drinker, check my posts on this forum, as well as others. You'll find that I don't agree with many of the changes. However, I think we need to work to change the rules that don't make sense, rather than try to circumvent them.

Jerry

[Round_Gun_Shooter]

I'm still waiting for somebody to suggest clown pants and the 4-inch-wide spacerized IWB that sits far away from the body. IWB, No light, no foul.

Would wearing clown pants be "making a travesty of the sport"?

I was thinking of wearing my Kilt with that 3" belt.

Yours Aye,

[dcloudy777]

Shred, my first thought when I read the "all IWB holsters are legal" part of the revision was "how long until some nitwit suffs his Open IPSC rig into a pair or pants that's 8" too big?". Everytime they fix something, they raie three more question. I think the "goal" that HQ has in mind for what they think everybody should use is just going to be impossible to put into a coherant set of rules.

DanO

[smokshwn]

Cloudy,

That is the problem with equipment rules that state always or never. It depends. So rather than trying to control the design of the holster ie. belt tunnel width. Why not simply focus on function ie. not more than 3/4" away from the nearest body part? See how simple it is.

Craig

[shred]

While I'm sure that many of the suggestions were made here with a great deal of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek, it also shows a willingness and tendency to circumvent the rules that are precisely what these new rules are about.

Agreed. The point of the circumvention ideas in my case is to illustrate what's wrong with the existing rules, so that better ones can be created.

All this fooferall about belt tunnels and backpieces and ajustable-this and kydex-that is contrary to the essential question of "is it close enough to the shooter and secure enough to fit our definition of 'concealable'"?

Undoubtedly some gamer will come up with something that fits the letter but violates the spirit of the rules. The time to address that is just as soon as it happens, but not before.

[Duane Thomas]

The thing is, with 20-some-odd years experience in "combat pistol shooting" all on his lonesome, I'm pretty sure Bill Wilson, as well as the MDs, CSOs, SOs and whatnot that had input on the Rule Book, already know where the attempted circumventions are going to happen, and they've moved to close the holes before they can be exploited.

[shred]

Hmm.. given the previous couple passes at the IDPA rulebook (and the many USPSA rulebooks), I'm not sure that anybody can cover all the loopholes.

[Clay1]

Duane, real question here. Can you see a situation where the weapon is within 3/4" of the body and there is no "light in the channel rule" that would cause concern? I just see it as redundancy. I'm trying to understand why we might need both. If you see something here please speak up, I would really like to know. Thanks in advance.

[Duane Thomas]

Actually, I see it as redundant myself. Just my personal opinion (this didn't come down from Mount Sinai carved into stone tablets or anything) I do think that IDPA HQ, in coming up with a set of rules designed to close all possible loopholes, may have overdone it a tad.

[Glock2234]

I do think that IDPA HQ, in coming up with a set of rules designed to close all possible loopholes, may have overdone it a tad.

OK, the contest is now closed. It is over. We have a winner.

The Understatement of the Year has been submitted.

[dirtypool40]

who's up for the Clown Pants idea?

[TractorTed]

who's up for the Clown Pants idea?

I already wear clown pants, the problem is they're already too tight. hehehe.

Ted Picard

[Michael Brown]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but has anyone talked to HQ or the owners themselves about exactly what this will mean?

For example, I have a Blade-Tech belt (not tel-lok) holster, a Sidearmor Belt holster and a Comp-tac belt holster. All three are sized for a 1.75" belt that I wear. However all of them have a tiny pinhole of light at the bottom of the loops if you look at it from on your knees. Not the inside of the body or belt or side piece, but from where the height (not thickness) of the belt ends. The holsters are right up against my side and not only could you not fit a .75 inch item, you could not fit a .01 inch item through. It would seem to be legal but the rule says no daylight. I looked at a Safariland 5183 (which I believe is also out of production now) and is named as a holster that typifies legal IDPA pouch holsters and saw the same problem.

Is this illegal? Anyone?

I spoke to the MD for this year's second major match and he indicated that he felt this would be legal after the new rules go into effect in April.

I've sent HQ several emails but it looks like they have no intention of returning them (going on 4 weeks).

I want to simply move forward on this, but its getting real frustrating and I am refusing to buy one more holster.

Anyone with some answers is certainly appreciated.

Michael Brown

[Gun Geek]

I spoke to the MD for this year's second major match and he indicated that he felt this would be legal after the new rules go into effect in April.

This is why I think there will be quite a bit of "wait & see". The new holster rules are perfect for all sort of abuse and whining. My bet is that MDs will have to resort to the a position of zero tolerance - no light means no light. Otherwise, how much light is too much light. There's also lots of opportunity for "home cooking" if the MDs go down the "common sense path"

[Sestock]

What a chance to have a new catagory in IDPA, Equipment Nazi's.

My bet is that this rule will be minimally enforced at most local matches. MD's have a lot more to worry about on a match day, than to look and see if there is any light coming through the belt.

[TractorTed]

I'm pretty sure that I will no longer be allowed to play this game due to the fact that no matter what holster I put on my belt, my butt and gut are going to create a gap somewhere it's not allowed. Maybe they should have said "if you are shaped like this- 8 -, and you are a male, you are not allowed.

I can't wait until I see someone who drove several hours to a major match have a major meltdown because some range nazi DQs them for having a glimmer of light between the holster and the belt, should be fun...NOT! Makes me afraid to even think about going to a major that is an overnight trip.