Malarkey Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Does anyone know why these are banned? Even when they come from the factory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Because they are common on USPSA race guns and IDPA is against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Conical and bulls are only effective against cardboard targets, not against threats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted June 26, 2015 Author Share Posted June 26, 2015 Because they are common on USPSA race guns and IDPA is against that. So are extended magazine releases... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afoulk Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 The real answer will only make you angry. The joke answer won't make you laugh as much as you'd hope. Best to just let this one go... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 You shoul email Robert Ray or Joyce @ HQ and ask them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1911 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Because Wilson Combat didn't make a 1911 with a bull barrel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted June 26, 2015 Author Share Posted June 26, 2015 I just sent this inquiry to IDPA through their site. Hello, I would like to ask a question about rule number 8.1.7.3 . Why are conical and bull barrels banned? I have a factory made gun that came with a bull barrel and I cant compete with it...that doesn't seem right. I don't see what kind of an unfair advantage I would really be getting over the guy next to me, or rather what kind of limitation the barrel would pose in a real life situation if I were to ever use my gun in a self defense situation. I would like to know the premise and origin of this rule, and why it is still in practice today. Thank You, Chase Harber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robport Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 It's none of my business but I would be interested to hear why you picked a conical or bull barrel...knowing you shoot IDPA? I'm guessing we are talking about the X-Caliber with the conical barrel? I know the x-Caliber is USPSA production legal, but the conical barrel isn't for IDPA. Is it really that much of an advantage? I just went through the IDPA SSP/ESP gun search myself and I knocked the X-Caliber and most Tanfoglios off my list because of a barrel, full length dust cover, weight or OAL. The ROI I talked to told me it was the same reason that you can't use exotic metals for the guide rod...to limit what people can do money-wise to artificially control muzzle flip (thus gaining an advantage). ...keeps the price of the arms race within some kind of limit. At some point, I'm sure someone would try putting spent uranium near the muzzle for balance...lol. ...or maybe it really is, "because Wilson Combat doesn't make one"...but I really believe that is just a derogatory urban legend used as a bullying technique with IDPA HQ in mind..or simply an over-told joke, you take your pick. ...but good luck getting an answer. I'm still waiting on an answer on a sight question from May 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted June 26, 2015 Author Share Posted June 26, 2015 I shoot USPSA mostly, but some of my friends like to do IDPA so i shoot it on occasion. I run a Shadow right now which is also my IDPA gun. The full length dust cover is legal, and with the new rules the weight isn't an issue. I just got a Stock II as my Production gun and i would like to be able to run it in IDPA. Not really a big deal since i have the shadow, but i would rather not have to alter my gear set-up every time i want to shoot IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robport Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Yeah, I really liked some of those Tanfoglios but gave up and went for another plastic gun Some guys at my club run modified Tanfoglios. I believe they are some type of higher end Frankengun made from several.models and they run them in ESP. We have a local gunsmith that works them, but I don't know what he put together to make them legal. It seems that at least one feature or dimension per model keeps them from meeting IDPA rules when stock. We have someone running an elite match every now and then and he does real well too. I believe that one is too heavy. The closest one is the limited pro, but that shows as too long for the box. With as much experience as that company has with competition, you would think they would have an IDPA legal gun, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Their focus is on IPCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Actually Wilson makes a number of different models with cone/bull barrels; even flanges. They are not eligible for IDPA, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmanCdp Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Shot the Nats with a guy running a Tango Bravo something and failed the box test. Beavertail was like 1/64 of an inch long of being legal.. He said he checked it at the club box, but had to push hard to get it in.. there is no give in the new plastic box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 It was probably a limited pro, the stock 2 is a bit shorter than that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted June 27, 2015 Author Share Posted June 27, 2015 Their focus is on IPCS. IPCS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 The rules lost all validity with the advent of the the Glock 34. That gun should never have been allowed due to the slide lightening cut. It was and along came the XDM 5.25. There are a number of rules that seem to fit the because Wilson didn't make one. There are also rules because a six division GM thought it was a good idea. He seems to like 8 shots a whole bunch...God bless him. It's just a silly game. Play or do not play, but do not expect something that logically works on the street to be considered for IDPA. They just created a different kind of arms race that is warded over less intelligently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) The rules lost all validity with the advent of the the Glock 34. That gun should never have been allowed due to the slide lightening cut. It was and along came the XDM 5.25. There are a number of rules that seem to fit the because Wilson didn't make one. There are also rules because a six division GM thought it was a good idea. He seems to like 8 shots a whole bunch...God bless him. It's just a silly game. Play or do not play, but do not expect something that logically works on the street to be considered for IDPA. They just created a different kind of arms race that is warded over less intelligently. I want to want to play....but they make it hard. I just hate changing all my gear around every time a buddy want me to go to a IDPA match with them. I've got a IDPA SO course coming up in a few weeks...maybe that will revitalize the sport for me a little....who knows....but then I have a USPSA RO course in 3 weeks :-P Edited July 1, 2015 by Malarkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 OOOOOP's ... IPSC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Halley Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) I'm not hating on you there malarkey. I am trying to save you the headache of arguing with someone who is inherently less interested in making sense than you are... They didn't listen about the locks in Smith revos and I made a very reasonable presentation as to how it was not to be used on a loaded weapon. Robert Ray gave me a bumbling response and I realized that I was wrong to try and debate with him. I got out of the mud and went for a shower and change of clothes. That is likely the same remedy for your condition. Edited July 1, 2015 by Forrest Halley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted July 1, 2015 Author Share Posted July 1, 2015 I'll have to agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScarPR Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 8.2.2.2 ESP Permitted Features and Modifications (Inclusive list): 8.2.2.2.20 Heavy or cone style barrels on firearms with barrel lengths of 4.25” (108 mm) or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Yes....but why stop at 4.2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robport Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I asked this on another thread and didn't really get an answer. In regards to 8.2.2.20, I understand what a cone style barrel is, but what is a "heavy" style? Is it an exotic material? weight limit? barrel wall thickness? ..or are they trying to say weighted towards the muzzle, like some step design or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malarkey Posted July 2, 2015 Author Share Posted July 2, 2015 Idk...ambiguous rules are frustrating. 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