jkrispies Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I'm considering shooting a little IDPA next year and looking at the various equipment rules. I'm curious... The max barrel length for Compact Carry Pistol Division is 4.10". The barrel for a Commander (or, at least one made by Bar-Sto) is 4.285" for a bushing barrel and 4.2" for a bull. If I built a Commander and crowned the barrel so that the internal dimensions were at (or under) 4.10", would that qualify the gun for Compact Carry Pistol, or for rule implementation does the barrel measurement have to be drawn off the exterior of the barrel? Thanks, J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v1911 Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I'd hold off an any equipment purchases until the new rule book comes out. There may or may not be some changes. Either way, they will effect the choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racknrider Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 There is a potential change to the height restriction in CCP which others have posted that will disallow commanders. Waiting until the 2017 rule book is finalized before making a purchase is sage advice. There are potentially quite a few guns that may go the way of the 5" revolver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted November 21, 2016 Author Share Posted November 21, 2016 Copy that. I did find it odd that the compact guns were allowed to fit in the same box as the full size guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 I saw a picture of a rock stock Commander JUST fitting the CCP Box. Mine with King's sights won't go. Look at the draft 2017 rules where the specs are changed while you are planning, but don't buy until they are finalized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertbank Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 My Commander won't make the new height limit. I think the change is a purpose decision to prevent the Commander size guns out of CCP. I really believe HQ is struggling with what they want this division to be. If it is for guns folks actually carry in the US and they are trying to accommodate our 4.2" barrel limitation then I think HQ should let the Commanders in, They could deal with ESP Division later. ESP and CCP Divisions are mirror images of each other in terms of the tyoe of guns allowed. Playing with the width and height of the guns seems to me to be a no win situation and just upsets the membership. I would not buy a specific gun for this Division until the dust finally settles. Take Care Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v1911 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 But we don't know when the dust will settle. Those that invested in a BUG gun are probably furious of the 3rd version of this insignificant division. It's a novelty division no one shoots except for special matches yet they're modifying requirements, again. Who knows how many refinements CCP will experience before they leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GmanCdp Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 With the current rules my new commander is fine but with the proposed rules rules,I'm .075 to high.... Point zero.. .075 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted November 25, 2016 Author Share Posted November 25, 2016 6 hours ago, GmanCdp said: With the current rules my new commander is fine but with the proposed rules rules,I'm .075 to high.... Point zero.. .075 Can you grind your base pads to make it fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rowdyb Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 it's an external measurement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lnxgeek Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Seems like even the Springfiled EMP 4 will be out, due to the height requirement. Longer barrel but smaller height than before? I am not sure what they were trying to bring into the division ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted December 1, 2016 Author Share Posted December 1, 2016 Is there a link to the newly proposed rules that I could follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racknrider Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 7 hours ago, jkrispies said: Is there a link to the newly proposed rules that I could follow? http://www.idpa.com/misc/Rulebook 2017.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted December 1, 2016 Author Share Posted December 1, 2016 Thanks! I'll look it over this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 Look it over today. They are accepting and allegedly reading comments until Saturday. If you are a member. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckstur Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I can't see a full 1911 grip fitting into the intent of CCP since the grip is the hardest part to conceal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 12 hours ago, Jim Watson said: Look it over today. They are accepting and allegedly reading comments until Saturday. If you are a member. Not a current member-- need to renew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 3 hours ago, chuckstur said: I can't see a full 1911 grip fitting into the intent of CCP since the grip is the hardest part to conceal. I haven't read the newky proposed rules yet, but my intent is to build a bobtail commander. Frankly, I'm going to build it anyway, but my thought was to look at the CCP rules, and if I could get the gun to qualify for the division while still satisfying myself with what I wanted to build regardless, then why not? I'm not sure that it's going to pan out as a workable plan, though. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racknrider Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 6 hours ago, jkrispies said: I haven't read the newky proposed rules yet, but my intent is to build a bobtail commander. Frankly, I'm going to build it anyway, but my thought was to look at the CCP rules, and if I could get the gun to qualify for the division while still satisfying myself with what I wanted to build regardless, then why not? I'm not sure that it's going to pan out as a workable plan, though. We'll see. Maybe build a commander slide on an officer frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 1 hour ago, racknrider said: Maybe build a commander slide on an officer frame. That's crossed my mind. S&A makes a neat little magwell/mainspring housing for the officer. However, I'm building a Single Stack right now that I'm probably going to tri-top. I believe that will lower the slide height slightly. Without having looked at the rules at all yet, I'm curious what the connander hieght might be with a tri-top, maybe a bomar type sight, and no magwell, all of which I'd consider building into this carry gun, regardless. It might just squeeze in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwayne Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 22 hours ago, Jim Watson said: Look it over today. They are accepting and allegedly reading comments until Saturday. If you are a member. The key words there are: allegedly reading comments Wonder why they didn't want to do it like the last time where everyone could see the suggestions????? That said, it is not all bad,,,,shot the new classifier last night at a indoor range and beat my prior one shot a couple months ago by 20 seconds,,,,,,,,,,,,,,18 less shots required, so very little difference!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckstur Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 1 hour ago, jkrispies said: That's crossed my mind. S&A makes a neat little magwell/mainspring housing for the officer. However, I'm building a Single Stack right now that I'm probably going to tri-top. I believe that will lower the slide height slightly. Without having looked at the rules at all yet, I'm curious what the connander hieght might be with a tri-top, maybe a bomar type sight, and no magwell, all of which I'd consider building into this carry gun, regardless. It might just squeeze in. Commander slide on an alloy Officers frame sounds great. I bought an STI VIP for CCW, just so I could use my (USPSA) long-loaded 40s. Flush magazines will be required if they don't change the Y axis. 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