Did Bill Wilson contradict the new IDPA Rulebook?

[jkelly]

I'm missing something.---gun geek

Yes, I think you are.

Is there something about these guns that will make them uncompetitive in ESP?---gun geek

Yes, you have DA guns forced to compete against SA guns.

IDPA will not allow you to shoot a single action gun in SSP, even if it meets all other requirements for that division. If SA wasn't too much of an advantage over DA then IDPA would allow SA in SSP.

I don't see that advantage diminishing in ESP.

Why would going to ESP piss off Sig and Para.---gun geek

I can't answer for Sig, Para or anybody else that was hurt by this rule. But if you took my product out of the largest IDPA division (and least competive time wise) and placed it into a smaller IDPA division (and most competive time wise) because it is a couple of ounces over your standard for that division I'd be pissed too.

"IDPA recognizes that our guns give you such an advantage [Mr. police chief, FBI man, Joe Schmo buyer]---gun geek

"Really Mr. Salesman", says Mr. police chief, "I heard that your gun was just to heavy to carry". "Mr. police chief" says the desk sgt. "Mr. Glock is on line one."

It's Bill Wilson's business and he can do what he wants, but it is these inconsistencies that have upset people.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[jkelly]

This thread has got me thinking (I'm not use to that). Is there a list of guns used by the top twenty shooters in each division at last years IDPA Nationals? I looked on the IDPA web site and just found scores and the like.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[Gun Geek]

I'm missing something.---gun geek

Yes, I think you are.

Is there something about these guns that will make them uncompetitive in ESP?---gun geek

Yes, you have DA guns forced to compete against SA guns.

IDPA will not allow you to shoot a single action gun in SSP, even if it meets all other requirements for that division. If SA wasn't too much of an advantage over DA then IDPA would allow SA in SSP.

I don't see that advantage diminishing in ESP..

Hold on, Earlier you said, in response to my statement:

With 2 shooters of equal skills, the guy driving the 1911 will usually beat the guy driving the polymer something. ---Gun Geek

That's not what I've seen, but to those at the top of the skills list it might mean something, although isn't a glock shooter one of the best around? Most of the better shooters I've seen, shoot Golcks in SSP and I was under the impression that the Glock was the gamer gun when compared to the Smith.

If you don't agree with my statement about the 1911 drivers, then how can you say that the SA's in ESP have an advantage. There are several other posts about it the driver, not the gun.

????

Why would going to ESP piss off Sig and Para.---gun geek

I can't answer for Sig, Para or anybody else that was hurt by this rule. But if you took my product out of the largest IDPA division (and least competive time wise) and placed it into a smaller IDPA division (and most competive time wise) because it is a couple of ounces over your standard for that division I'd be pissed too.

I thought this was all about $$$, not weight:

Anyway, the point I made with regard to the $2,500 Wilson Combat shooting against a $660 S&W1911 in CDP, is that some where in the extra $1840 ,that the gamers pay for the Wilson, is an advantage in function and accuracy.

"IDPA recognizes that our guns give you such an advantage [Mr. police chief, FBI man, Joe Schmo buyer]---gun geek [/QUTOE]

"Really Mr. Salesman", says Mr. police chief, "I heard that your gun was just to heavy to carry". "Mr. police chief" says the desk sgt. "Mr. Glock is on line one.".

Next pargraph:

Salesman: "Chief, IDPA drew the line where they did so they could protect the slow stuff like Glocks. My product weighs only 1oz more than the Glock and costs 25% more, but competes with guns that weigh 5 or 6 oz more and cost 400% more than the Glock. Mr. Police Chief, this info is all over the internet. How will it impact the morale and confidence of your officers when they come to understand the chioice?"

Police Chief: "Seargent, tell Mr. Glock I'm busy, and I'll call him back next week"

I don't mean to be disrespectful here. I'm just trying to cut through what I see as an emotional reaction, that when really examined doesn't hold up.

I realize that if your mind is already made up, no amount of writing be my is going to change it. Just try to get past the dislike for Bill, and think it through. If you still come to the same conclusion, then I'll respect that, and we'll still get together someday and swap lies over a beer.

[jkelly]

If you don't agree with my statement about the 1911 drivers, then how can you say that the SA's in ESP have an advantage.---Gun Geek

We were talking about SSP when I didn't agree with your statement.

Therefore the 1911 in you statement would be a DA. If you didn't mean a double action then you shoud have said so.

********************************************************************

When you asked, "Why would going to ESP piss off Sig and Para." you were refering to Round Gun Shooters quote, not mine.

But I did answer it by explaing how a DA gun is at a disavantage in the SA world of ESP, and where a gun finishes matters to the manufactor.

********************************************************************

As for the salesman and the Police Chief my thought is this: A DA will (should) lose to an SA gun. And a DA losing in ESP is at a disavantage to a Glock wining in SSP, if indeed these things matter to Police Chiefs.

********************************************************************

My statement about the $2500 Wilson Custom and my $660 was to show that advantages already exist in IDPA (in this case CDP) so two or three ounces may not be a HUGE advantage except in the top .1% of shooters (I could be wrong).

********************************************************************

I'm not suggesting the rule should be changed, I'm just pointing out the inconstancies of some IDPA rules.

I don't shoot SSP, I could (almost*) careless what the rules are for those who do. As I say, it's his game/busniess and he can do what he wants, and you'll get no problem here.

But if IDPA's actions don't match their statements then I'll point that out.

*It does bother me to see someone have to spend $400 to $600 because his current gun is an once or two over weight.

********************************************************************

No I don't think that you are disrespectfull at all and I hope you know I don't mean to be either. A beer sometime sounds good. And please don't think I dislike Mr. Wilson, I just disagree with him.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[snokid]

Look, if lighter were better, don't you think USPSA open guns would be made of as much titanium as possible?

Hmm mine is...

all the rage in ipsc open is short light guns....

Bob

[Focused]

I have a SIG P226ST

This gun is STOCK.

It does not have these ESP modifications:

Extended thumb (may be ambidextrous) and Beavertail grip safeties.

Extended magazine release (button may not be oversize in diameter or protrude more than .2” out from the frame).

Full length guide rod manufactured of material that is no heavier than common steel.

Hammer and other trigger action parts to enhance trigger pull (includes the use of over travel stop).

Beveled magazine well and add-on well extensions.

Why is my P226ST illegal in SSP because it is not "practical" but it is OK in ESP? If the weight is legal for ESP, then it should be legal for SSP. The FEATURES that make a gun ENHANCED should determine the division. The P226ST I have is unmodified, therefore it is STOCK, as in Stock Service Pistol.

[waktasz]

Weight is a feature and they determined it is enough of an advantage that it requires you to be in ESP.

A friend of mine said it best...when the 226ST came out everyone was saying how great it was and that it barely had any recoil in its 9mm version because of its weight...now that IDPA made a weight cutoff everyone is going back and saying the weight isn't an advantage at all because they still want to go in SSP.

[GmanCdp]

what about team Beretta and thier 92 Steel 1@ 41.1 oz.....saw them shoot at the nationals last year,and after a stage ,i was asking one of their shooters how he liked it?? he said it was A big difference from shooting the regular 92...he then cleared it with the SO on that stage and let me handle it,,felt real good,except I'm left handed and my right thumb was rubbing the trigger bar....

[Duane Thomas]

Salesman: "Chief, IDPA drew the line where they did so they could protect the slow stuff like Glocks. My product weighs only 1oz more than the Glock

Well, I hope the police chief knows enough to call BS on the salesman. If his gun only weighed one ounce more than a Glock, it would still be legal in SSP. For instance, a Glock 17 with empty magazine in place weighs only 25 ounces. A SIG P226ST, on the other hand, weighs 42 ounces. That's over a pound heavier.

[Gun Geek]

Salesman: "Chief, IDPA drew the line where they did so they could protect the slow stuff like Glocks. My product weighs only 1oz more than the Glock

Well, I hope the police chief knows enough to call BS on the salesman. If his gun only weighed one ounce more than a Glock, it would still be legal in SSP. For instance, a Glock 17 with empty magazine in place weighs only 25 ounces. A SIG P226ST, on the other hand, weighs 42 ounces. That's over a pound heavier.

Details, details!!!

This was meant to be "Any" salesman - Sig & Para were named, but it could be the rep for any gun tossed out of SSP.

This fictional conversation was meant to expose a problem with the thinking that it was bad press for the manufacturer if over 1oz, a gun gets kicked to ESP.

Weight is a feature and they determined it is enough of an advantage that it requires you to be in ESP.

A friend of mine said it best...when the 226ST came out everyone was saying how great it was and that it barely had any recoil in its 9mm version because of its weight...now that IDPA made a weight cutoff everyone is going back and saying the weight isn't an advantage at all because they still want to go in SSP. ---waktasz

Thats what I'm talk'n bout!!!

[jkelly]

now that IDPA made a weight cutoff everyone is going back and saying the weight isn't an advantage at all because they still want to go in SSP. ---

Or they just don't want to shot against ESP guns with Stock Service Pistols, such as guns that are actually carried by law enforcement, like the Para LDAs.

The question seems to be who is going to get scr*wed the Plastic guys or the Steel guys. If you can divide the smallest Division to be fair, why can't you can divide the largest. I mean if being fair to your members is your goal, I would think both of these divisions would have many more shooters then SSR and ESR combined.

SSP-Stock Service Plastic, Double action guns that weigh less then 30 oz.

SSS-Stock service Steel, Double Action guns that weigh more the 30 oz.

Hmmn, similar actions with similar weights shooting against each other.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[Duane Thomas]

Details, details!!!

This was meant to be "Any" salesman - Sig & Para were named, but it could be the rep for any gun tossed out of SSP.

This fictional conversation was meant to expose a problem with the thinking that it was bad press for the manufacturer if over 1oz, a gun gets kicked to ESP.

But if the salesman is saying his company's guns were kicked out of SSP because they were "only one ounce heavier than a Glock," whatever company he's representing, he's lying. That's not an insignificant detail.

[Duane Thomas]

Any time you set a limit/guideline on anything, you're going to open yourself up to criticism. IDPA HQ decided to set the weight limit for SSP at 39 ounces unloaded. And now they're being criticized by some. Big surprise there. But the only other option is to set no guideline at all. And that way leads to the IDPA equivalent of PPC revolvers. Great guns for competition - but who in their right mind would ever carry one of the heavy honkin' things?

[Ted Murphy]

FWIW, I doubt many LE agencies (if any) would base their decisions on a pistol purchase on its appropriateness, success, or legality in any shooting sport.

I have been peripherally involved with a few LE agencies working on adopting a new gun (mostly by working on the range they were testing them on) and the criteria seems to revolve more around:

Cost and/or buyback deal or other incentives

Perceived Liability issues

Personal Preferences/Bias of the decision makers and lastly,

CDI factor.

Heck, look at the ads in the gun rags. You rarely see team Sig or team glock on the adds, it's always some guy in lots of black nylon and velcro with a fritz helmet on his head kicking a door in.

I often wonder how much of the market share for the major gun companies competitive shooters are.

Ted

[jkelly]

But the only other option is to set no guideline at all. ---Duane Thomas

No, they could have set different guide lines which kept DA pistols separate from SA pistols.

As it stands now, IDPA believes that the 25 oz Glock is competitive with the 39oz Smith. If IDPA set the weight limit to say 30 to 35 oz for SSP and created another Division for the steel (heavy) SSP type guns with a limit of perhaps 45 oz, you'd have two Divisions that would be much more competitive (fair) then what we now know in SSP and ESP.

If the SSP weight rule was created to be fair to some of the SSP shooters, then this change would be fair to more perhaps all (almost) of the shooters.

Would you still have criticism, sure! But it won't be based on "my gun's muzzle flips more then that gun's" or "that guns's action is faster then my gun's".

Respectfully,

jkelly

[glock-cop]

Everbody says it's BW's sport. But its not his it's ours. If people stopped sending in dues and sent a letter stating that it was because of the new rules, he would change the rules. I feel that the sport was not broken so why fix it. No matter what you do there will be a gamer gun or equipment to use in a division. Now that moon clips rule the SSR division they changed it.

.

Maybe IDPA needs and elected board or rules commision. Why not allow hi-caps in ESP and SSP now that they are out there for everbody. Why? Because the glock 17/34 would not have to reload with 18 round courses of fire. They should change the rules, but they won't.

.

What do they do with our money anyway? They don't pay writers, or the president.

.

Just some thoughts.

Ed

[COF]

Great guns for competition - but who in their right mind would ever carry one of the heavy honkin' things?

The only problem I see with that, Duane, is the logic doesn't transfer across the divisions. If the gun is too heavy for SSP then it should be too heavy for ESP. I understand that one is called "Stock" Service and one is called "Enhanced" Service but the real defining line between them has always been DA vs SA, not the weight of the gun.

I'm sure the lack of a defined weight for SSP led to the heavier guns being developed and created a need to create limits. Regardless of how we dress it up, it's an arbitrary standard and not everyone is going to be happy with it. Guess we're just going to have to talk Para into a commander length 9/40 LDA. I think the new designation should be SSP - Bantamweight division and SSP - Heavyweight division

It's ironic that the leading gun in SSR was banished twice - once because of it's standard 5" barrel and then again because of it's gamey feeding method. Yet the leading gun/s in SSP, Glock 34/35 were made to just fit the IDPA box, but their barrel lengths were never described as "unconcealable" and now that there are other guns competitive to them in SSP, a new weight limit eliminates them.

Grist for the mill

Jerry

[Duane Thomas]

As it stands now, IDPA believes that the 25 oz Glock is competitive with the 39oz Smith.

That's because it is, if the results of every IDPA Nationals ever held are any indication.

[Duane Thomas]

No, they could have set different guide lines which kept DA pistols separate from SA pistols.

They did - in 1997. It's called SSP (DA, DAO, Safe Action) and CDP/ESP (SA). Yes, I know that any gun that's legal in SSP can be fired in CDP/ESP, depending on caliber. But how many people would want to?

[Duane Thomas]

It's ironic that the leading gun in SSR was banished twice - once because of it's standard 5" barrel and then again because of it's gamey feeding method.

Barrel length in SSR being set at 4" was an example of IDPA HQ responding to the complaints of the members. As to the moon clip loading, it was "banished," if you want to call it that, because SSR had become the one division in IDPA that, most of all, had become an equipment race where you absolutely had to have a particular gun, one so big and heavy that very, very few people carry one concealed, to be competitive. And I have to admit, I find the concept that IDPA was somehow unfair to the moon guns by creating an entirely new division for those who love them to compete in a bit of a stretch.

Yet the leading gun/s in SSP, Glock 34/35 were made to just fit the IDPA box, but their barrel lengths were never described as "unconcealable"

That's because they're not. The G34/35 were intended from the ground up to be Glocks the same size as a 5" Government Model. And there are thousands of people (probably tens of thousands) carrying that gun concealed. I did it myself for years, and recently switched over to a G34 for daily concealed carry. My rationale was, "If I can conceal a Government Model, I can conceal a Glock 34. It'll just be a lot lighter."

Have you compared the overall lengths of a Government Model or G34/G35 to a 5" barreled N-frame? The revolver is one HELL of a lot bigger. Do we know anyone who carries a 5" M625 concealed? I'm not saying there might not be someone out there doing it, but I think we can all agree the people running these guns in IDPA were not carrying them concealed.

and now that there are other guns competitive to them in SSP, a new weight limit eliminates them.

I sincerely doubt the two facts are related.

[Duane Thomas]

Duane T. I remember you addressing Glock the firing pin before (I think), perhaps vs an XD-40 or something. I don't remember what you said, could you refresh my memory?

Simply that the Glock is functionally a double action gun while the XD is functionally a single action.

[Duane Thomas]

Perhaps, just to be fair, Mr. Wilson should put a $1,000 dollar limit (Retail) on the cost of guns allowed in IDPA. Noooo, I don't think that will happen.

It won't happen because the custom 1911 is the gun on which the entire sport of combat pistol shooting was built - and a large percentage of the best shooters in the world still think you can't have anything better for self-defense with a handgun.

[jkelly]

As it stands now, IDPA believes that the 25 oz Glock is competitive with the 39oz Smith.--JK

That's because it is, if the results of every IDPA Nationals ever held are any indication. --DT

Then the Glock should be as competitive with a 40 or 41 oz hand gun.

************************************************************

No, they could have set different guide lines which kept DA pistols separate from SA pistols.--JK

They did - in 1997. It's called SSP (DA, DAO, Safe Action) and CDP/ESP (SA). Yes, I know that any gun that's legal in SSP can be fired in CDP/ESP, depending on caliber. But how many people would want to?--DT

My point exactly! The new 39 oz rule moves DA guns into ESP to shoot against SA guns, which make them uncompetitive.

*************************************************************

Simply that the Glock is functinally a double action gun while the XD is functionally a single action.

No, I understood that. What I don't remember is what the Glock did to its firing pin. Someone had thought that the Glock cocked it's firing pin by recoil and should be in ESP, but that was incorrect. What does the Glock do to it's firing pin during recoil?

**************************************************************

Perhaps, just to be fair, Mr. Wilson should put a $1,000 dollar limit (Retail) on the cost of guns allowed in IDPA. Noooo, I don't think that will happen.--JK

It won't happen because the custom 1911 is the gun on which the entire sport of combat pistol shooting was built - and a large percentage of the best shooters in the world still think you can't have anything better for self-defense with a handgun.--DT

Yes I know combat shooting was built on the 1911 (in fact, I think you told me that). My point was that at $2500 (or even more expensive) custom handgun built by the likes of Mr. Wilson or S_I, will have an advantage over the $660 S&W in function and accuracy.

In that most 1911s produced today for carry would cost <$1,000 (I think) and that most high end guns are produced for competition, then filtering the competition guns out of IDPA would be reasonable (and a goal of IDPA).

And no I wouldn't expect, or want, Mr. Wilson to hurt his business. And I have no problem with shooters using $2500 or $3500 custom handguns in IDPA, I was just pointing out that "Advantage" is in the eye of the beholder.

It's Mr. Wilson's business/game and I have no problem with the rules he makes.

It's just that some rule changes seem to conflict with IDPA's Purpose or Principles, which he uses as the justification for the rule changes.

Respectfully,

jkelly

[Sestock]

Yes I know combat shooting was built on the 1911 (in fact, I think you told me that). My point was that at $2500 (or even more expensive) custom handgun built by the likes of Mr. Wilson or S_I, will have an advantage over the $660 S&W in function and accuracy.

In that most 1911s produced today for carry would cost <$1,000 (I think) and that most high end guns are produced for competition, then filtering the competition guns out of IDPA would be reasonable (and a goal of IDPA).

Why would you want to filter out competition guns from IDPA? Isn't IPDA a competitive sport?

[COF]

Duane,

I could go into a long diatribe on the unfairness of the new rulebook as it pertains to the new ESR division but it's all been said before. It boils down to instead of fixing an equipment race they simply created another one. X + Y does not always = Z in the new rulebook and Bill's remarks didn't do much to clarify or explain anything.

Jerry