jkelly Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Why would you want to filter out competition guns from IDPA? Isn't IPDA a competitive sport?---Sestock I don't want to filter out the competition geared guns. I'm pointing out that there are advantages inherent in current IDPA policy, and that IDPA is unlikely to address some of them as they would hurt the rule makers. Personally, I like shooting against guns that cost 3 or 4 times as much as my carry grade 1911. If the rules are fair and you can afford a high end gun, good for you. What does bother me is that the new SSP weight rules seems to put guns carried by some LEO departments into ESP, and that's not fair. An extreme example would be, Joe Police Officer shows up at an IDPA shoot in full police gear and has to shoot in ESP because he shoots a Para LDA. Not to mention the cost to Joe Average Shooter who now has to spend $400 to $600 or more for a gun they can shoot in SSP. Respectfully, jkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtis108 Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Did BW contradict the new rule book? At this point who cares. The rules are final. I don't think IDPA was broke so why fix it. Yes there were some poorly written rules and things not clearly stated, but we all learned to deal with it. As far as the weight limits in SSP, like I said It wasn't broke, now some people may not agree. I think if two equally skilled shooters fire two different guns and the shooter with the heavy gun wins, then the shooter who lost should improve his skills. Not his equipment. I say look at the top guys. TGO for example would smoke me with a titanium snub nose. Now that has nothing to do with equipment, it's cause he's faster than me. Some people might say, "I'm not in the class with TGO." I say It's my fault, I haven't worked hard enough. I don't think equipment plays as big a role as most believe. It has to be reliable and accurate enough for IDPA other than that it's preferance. That's my beef with the holster/ mag pouch rules. I have to buy new equipment cause BW thinks my rig is too gamey. SGT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I'm pointing out that there are advantages inherent in current IDPA policy, and that IDPA is unlikely to address some of them as they would hurt the rule makers. How do you figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Everbody says it's BW's sport. But its not his it's ours. No, it's his. He started it, he owns it. The fact he lets us play with it (for the munificent sum of 35 bucks a year) doesn't mean we own it. That's like the guy who rents a car from Hertz thinking he owns the company. Maybe IDPA needs and elected board or rules commision. Can I tell you how unlikely that is? Customers don't get to "elect" a board or rules commission to a sole ownership business they happen to patronize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock2234 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 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. No, functionally the Glock is a single action gun. By designation, it is a "Safe Action" gun. By definition, it is in the same class as a double action gun. The notion that the trigger moves a part fractionally to the rear before releasing it is insignificant. If it does not go Boom, you can not pull the trigger again. What has been done is either changing a definition, or splitting a hair. Take your pick. The overreaction on some of these things is disappointing. I don't believe that BW changed the rules to get rich. I am convinced that BW changed the rules because some whiners who couldn't win with a handicap cornered him, bitching and moaning until he got tired of hearing it. If he had solicited input before the initial change, he wouldn't have made such a mess of things. If a 50 oz. revolver is a carry gun, 50 oz. looks like a good limit for SSP, ESP and CDP. For people who ought to know better, discounting the opinions of others, simply because they don't agree with you is eithr naive or dishonest. Some people hold opinions because they believe in their analysis of the available facts. Some people hold opinions by convenience. IDPA screwed up with the SSP limit, putting revolvers in two divisions, and the light in the tunnel rule. Full disclosure-I shoot Glocks, I own Paras, I don't shoot revolvers, and my holsters are legal. I don't really have a dog in the fight. These rule changes are just stupid. But as long as BW changed the rules->Full-Full disclosure-I bought a Dillion press to load Para .45 cal. for ESP at 125 pf. Why didn't BW stop the reloading equipment race by instituting caliber specific power factors? He could have saved me a $1,000. Oh well, new hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I'm pointing out that there are advantages inherent in current IDPA policy, and that IDPA is unlikely to address some of them as they would hurt the rule makers.--jkHow do you figure?--DT The advantage inherent in the current IDPA policy (in this case) would be allowing $2500 or more custom competition guns to shoot against carry grade 1911s such as the $660 S&W1911. There has to be and advantage in function and accuracy somewhere in the $1840 difference, or they would not be worth the price (and I think they are). Removing all guns over that cost $1000 or more would remove most, if not all of the Wilson Combat 1911 line from IDPA competition. That would hurt Wilson Combat sales not only for guns but also for related equipment. The lost of Wilson Combat's associsation with IDPA as a high end competition/carry gun would also hurt sales (or so I think). Mind you, I not suggesting that this rule be adopted, rather just the opposite. I think Mr. Wilson (and Mrs Wilson) have done the shooting public a HUGE favor with his efforts in Wilson Combat and IDPA. Respectfully, jkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 No, functionally the Glock is a single action gun. By designation, it is a "Safe Action" gun. By definition, it is in the same class as a double action gun. The notion that the trigger moves a part fractionally to the rear before releasing it is insignificant. If it does not go Boom, you can not pull the trigger again.What has been done is either changing a definition, or splitting a hair. Take your pick. Sigh. It's not splitting a hair, it's a matter of basic and long-standing technical definition. The term "double action" has always meant that pulling the trigger causes the hammer/strker to do two things: travel to the rear and then release to go forward. A second strike capability has absolutely nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 Removing all guns over that cost $1000 or more would remove most, if not all of the Wilson Combat 1911 line from IDPA competition. And that means that Bill Wilson wouldn't have been able to sell the entire two Wilson 1911s that were used at the last IDPA Nationals. A vast part of the 1911's appeal is that it's the ultimate kit gun. You can have it your way with this gun. The odds and mods required to get the gun "just so" however spell money. You either buy a top-end gun that's set up just the way you like it, or you buy a solid basic gun then throw money at a pistolsmith. Remove that possibility, you remove much of the attraction of the gun. And just how, pray tell, are we to tell whether or not a gun, and its mods, actually cost more than the magic $1,000 mark? The idea is a total non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 And that means that Bill Wilson wouldn't have been able to sell the entire two Wilson 1911s that were used at the last IDPA Nationals.--DT I remember you using that example before and thinking that it was just a little misleading in that it only addressed a single match and not IDPA inclusively. So no, that means that Bill Wilson wouldn't have been able to sell the entire number of Wilson 1911s (maybe not the entire number) that were used in all of IDPA. I don't think this is a small number of guns, considering that Wilson Combat is a small producer. And just how, pray tell, are we to tell whether or not a gun, and its mods, actually cost more than the magic $1,000 mark? The idea is a total non-starter. You could use the manufactures Suggested Retail Price. But as I said in the post that you've quoted from above, "Mind you, I not suggesting that this rule be adopted, rather just the opposite." Remember this was an example I used to show the advantges inherent in current IDPA policy. It was not a rule change suggestion. Respectfully, jkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 That's good. Every suggestion to implement a price cap in practical pistol shooting has always foundered on the shoals of reality. It's totally unenforceable, and, when you get right down to it, something very few people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangram Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Duane Thomas,Mar 17 2005, 06:28 PM]And that means that Bill Wilson wouldn't have been able to sell the entire two Wilson 1911s that were used at the last IDPA Nationals. 21 Wilson pistols Little Rock '04. Or did I missunderstand 2 Wilson 1911s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Tangram, You did not missunderstand. I did. Your are correct, I was wrong. Paging through the pages of the relevant Tactical Journal reveals there were indeed 21 Wilson 1911s at the 2004 IDPA Nationals. When I "saw" - or thought I saw - that numeral 2 next to Wilson guns in that issue it stuck in my mind because I found it so surprising. Seems like this gunwriter needs reading - or at least memory - lessions. Thanks for setting me straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 The term "double action" has always meant that pulling the trigger causes the hammer/strker to do two things: travel to the rear and then release to go forward.--- Duane Thomas Funny --- that how I remember first learning the difference between single action and double action when reading an article on REVOLVERS by Elmer Keith or Skeeter Skelton in the early 80s. Back then I was finding lots of old gun books at the used book store --- I wish I'd kept them...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 Removing all guns over that cost $1000 or more would remove most, if not all of the Wilson Combat 1911 line from IDPA competition. --- jkelly My 1911 cost me less than $500 out of the used gun counter when I bought it. I spent a couple of hundred bucks on namebrand parts and about that for what was almost a complete rebuild. Do I get to play with that gun in IDPA under a $1000.- limit? I've got less than that in it --- but it was a Colt when it was new. Does someone else who bought a new Colt in 1970 for less than $200 get to spend more on modifications than someone who buys one at current prices? I'm not trying to rain on your parade here --- just trying to point out some potential pitfalls...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 Does someone else who bought a new Colt in 1970 for less than $200 get to spend more on modifications than someone who buys one at current prices?I'm not trying to rain on your parade here --- just trying to point out some potential pitfalls......Nic Habicht Nic....Duane, Did either of you read anywhere in this thread that I avocated changing IDPA rules to limit the cost of handguns used in IDPA to <$,1000? As for shooting against heavier guns, I don't care myself. If you can afford some heavier or high end gun to shoot in my division, more power to you. It's sort of like shooting against a $2,500 Wilson Combat with my $660 S&W1911 in CDP. Of course the avantage would be mine as I'd be able to have three back up guns in my bag for the same price. Post #38Anyway, 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 Post #56My 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). Post #79 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. Post # 98 I don't want to filter out the competition geared guns. I'm pointing out that there are advantages inherent in current IDPA policy, and that IDPA is unlikely to address some of them as they would hurt the rule makers.Personally, I like shooting against guns that cost 3 or 4 times as much as my carry grade 1911. If the rules are fair and you can afford a high end gun, good for you. Post # 101 The advantage inherent in the current IDPA policy (in this case) would be allowing $2500 or more custom competition guns to shoot against carry grade 1911s such as the $660 S&W1911. There has to be and advantage in function and accuracy somewhere in the $1840 difference, or they would not be worth the price (and I think they are).Removing all guns over that cost $1000 or more would remove most, if not all of the Wilson Combat 1911 line from IDPA competition. That would hurt Wilson Combat sales not only for guns but also for related equipment. The lost of Wilson Combat's associsation with IDPA as a high end competition/carry gun would also hurt sales (or so I think). Mind you, I not suggesting that this rule be adopted, rather just the opposite. Post #106 You could use the manufactures Suggested Retail Price. But as I said in the post that you've quoted from above, "Mind you, I not suggesting that this rule be adopted, rather just the opposite."Remember this was an example I used to show the advantges inherent in current IDPA policy. It was not a rule change suggestion. Post # 109Respectfully, jdkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 There has been some downright interesing thread drift here. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkelly Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 21 Wilson pistols Little Rock '04. Or did I missunderstand 2 Wilson 1911s?---Tangram Tangram, Nice catch! I thought that 2 Wilson 1911's at the Nationls was wrong the first time I read it and also misleading in how it was used. When I read it again in this thread I really wanted to check it myself, but haven't been able find the information. Would you know where could I find the information for the guns used at the nationals and the top ten or twenty divisional finishers? Respectfully, jkelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangram Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Would you know where could I find the information for the guns used at the nationals and the top ten or twenty divisional finishers? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No help from me. The number I offered came from the _Tactical Journal_ equipment list for the nationals and gives no clue to the placement of the users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 This "2-into-21-Wilson-guns" thing is really bugging me. I'm usually pretty good at remembering facts like that. The only possible explanation I can come up with is that I confused the numbers from the S&W Winter Championships with the Nats. I can't find the appropriate issue of the Tactical Journal. Can anyone check the stats for that match tell me how many Wilson guns were at the 2004 Winter Championships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 This thread has died off...and I am going to close it to make sure it stays dead. Lets talk about the positive aspects of shooting and improving...which is why this forum exists. CLOSED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts