Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Is it time for a little rule adjustment.


Recommended Posts

There are 3 guns, Beretta 92x, Sig X5 Legion, and CZ Shadow 2 that are factory stock, non “race guns” but don’t meet weight requirements. Isn’t it time to adjust the rules enough to let these stock guns in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we’re honest about it, there’s nothing stock nor production about these guns.

 

They were custom designed to squeeze just within the rules of specific divisions in USPSA/IPSC. They are *absolutely* race guns... they’re just built for the stock-ish division instead of Open.
 

<Devil’s Advocate>
 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nathanb said:

I agree with MM. The same would be said for th Walther steel frame q5 


Definitely. (And this is coming from a Walther guy.)

 

Personally, if king for a day, I’d set the production and SSP weight limits to whatever lets a  Beretta 92FS or a factory CZ-75B play, but which ruled out the heavyweight guns with rails... including the original Shadow.

 

So that, you know, actual guns people carried on duty or might wear concealed were closer to the upper end of the choices in these divisions.

 

Want to shoot a heavy race gun? Excellent. We have ESP in one sport, and Limited/Open in the other. 😁

 

 

Edited by MemphisMechanic
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. Just shared an opinion as you did. BTW, if we went back in time as you said, no internal trigger mods either cause I ain’t carrying a glock with a sub 3 pound trigger. 😳

Also a Q5SF shooter.👍

Edited by johes
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...
On 1/29/2020 at 8:07 AM, MemphisMechanic said:


Definitely. (And this is coming from a Walther guy.)

 

Personally, if king for a day, I’d set the production and SSP weight limits to whatever lets a  Beretta 92FS or a factory CZ-75B play, but which ruled out the heavyweight guns with rails... including the original Shadow.

 

So that, you know, actual guns people carried on duty or might wear concealed were closer to the upper end of the choices in these divisions.

 

Want to shoot a heavy race gun? Excellent. We have ESP in one sport, and Limited/Open in the other. 😁

 

 

who shoots any of their carry guns in IDPA?

It is a game and people have their competition gear and their carry gear, closest thing to real carry guns is BUG and even those are gamed.

Even in ESP and Carry Optics a Shadow 2 is too heavy even if you don't add a mag well, why shouldn't they be legal in IDPA, other than an arbitrary weight limit in the rule book?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 7:07 AM, MemphisMechanic said:

Want to shoot a heavy race gun? Excellent. We have ESP in one sport, and Limited/Open in the other.

 

Yes, and you can call a 59 oz gun "production" in one of them, too.

 

A friend and I played it straight at a "concealable gun" outlaw match; entering with a LC9s and a G43 in a sea of 4" rooneyguns.  But we had fun.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ssp stands for stock service pistol. Just for fun let's say ssp guns can only be ones issued to entities greater than 2k issued guns.

 

Is the gun used in an official capacity and by more than 2k people? You're in. Hahaha

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Ssp stands for stock service pistol. Just for fun let's say ssp guns can only be ones issued to entities greater than 2k issued guns.

 

Is the gun used in an official capacity and by more than 2k people? You're in. Hahaha

So basically removing the weight limit and relying on the production numbers requirement.  I could understand that actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zincwarrior said:

So basically removing the weight limit and relying on the production numbers requirement.  I could understand that actually.

 

I read that as meaning a firearm in service by Military or Leo and more then 2k units. You know, "Service Pistol". His mention of official capacity is what made me think that.

 

 In which case are there more then 2k Shadow 2's in "service"? Or Glock 34's for that matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I say go for it,,, I kinda like the new USPSA 59oz ( basically no weight limit rule)

Especially in a game that allows mousefart ammo..  I am sure that 4 lb gun will be a super duper advantage on a typical IDPA stage running 125 pf ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I read that as meaning a firearm in service by Military or Leo and more then 2k units. You know, "Service Pistol". His mention of official capacity is what made me think that.

 

 In which case are there more then 2k Shadow 2's in "service"? Or Glock 34's for that matter. 

Many departments have Glock 34s on their permitted firearms lists. CZs might be more of an issue.

On the flipside our department pistols have flashlights. 😉

 

To be clear, I am not a proponent of any change.  Just because one division is more popular than another division, does not mean that division has to change. PCC and revolvers are examples.

Edited by Zincwarrior
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zincwarrior said:

So basically removing the weight limit and relying on the production numbers requirement.  I could understand that actually.

 

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I read that as meaning a firearm in service by Military or Leo and more then 2k units. You know, "Service Pistol". His mention of official capacity is what made me think that.

 

 In which case are there more then 2k Shadow 2's in "service"? Or Glock 34's for that matter. 

 

 

I think it makes sense, and it's a good approach, but it'll probably just wind up being a different sort of dancing around the rules. I know some departments in Texas had STI/Staccato carry guns - can I now bring a 2011 to play in SSP? Or hell - the 1911? I'm pretty sure it meets the "issued to military or LEO requirement" by just a bit, lol.

 

I'm a proponent of upping the weight a bit. I think USPSA's 59 oz limit is excessive, but I'm also pretty annoyed that most partial-railed 1911's won't make it under weight for SS/CDP/ESP without milling or dropping in lightweight parts (especially the 9mm's). I know IDPA is/was meant to be the "realistic" sport that's played with carry gear but PCC basically threw that out the window. It's a sport and the rules can always be adjusted.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zincwarrior said:

So basically removing the weight limit and relying on the production numbers requirement.  I could understand that actually.

no, the pistol has to be or have been used by a sizeable military or law enforcement group. if it hasn't, it can't be in ssp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I read that as meaning a firearm in service by Military or Leo and more then 2k units. You know, "Service Pistol". His mention of official capacity is what made me think that.

 

 In which case are there more then 2k Shadow 2's in "service"? Or Glock 34's for that matter. 

me writing a post at work... poor ability to convey my point. i meant it has or had to be used by a mil or leo group and for that group to have issued or used more than 2 thousand of the pistols.

 

not just on the ok to carry list, but at least 2k actually on member's hips at one time or another. of course verification of this would be problematic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, matteekay said:

I think it makes sense, and it's a good approach, but it'll probably just wind up being a different sort of dancing around the rules. I know some departments in Texas had STI/Staccato carry guns - can I now bring a 2011 to play in SSP? Or hell - the 1911? I'm pretty sure it meets the "issued to military or LEO requirement" by just a bit, lol.

thus why i said 2 thousand of the pistols actually used. that rules out most small town departments doing something goofy. and i meant it along with the modification rules already inherit in ssp.  it was just some blue sky thinking, not something i'm married to or really would push for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

me writing a post at work... poor ability to convey my point. i meant it has or had to be used by a mil or leo group and for that group to have issued or used more than 2 thousand of the pistols.

 

not just on the ok to carry list, but at least 2k actually on member's hips at one time or another. of course verification of this would be problematic.

 

That's kind of where I thought you were trying to go with it. It's reasonable. 

 

I think the issue is there are a lot of people who want some kind of production division that is a reasonable production division. But for some reason everything kind of mutates into race guns. I bet even cowboy action has the same problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

thus why i said 2 thousand of the pistols actually used. that rules out most small town departments doing something goofy. and i meant it along with the modification rules already inherit in ssp.  it was just some blue sky thinking, not something i'm married to or really would push for.

 

Totally get it. Probably a little more complicated than necessary (you'll just wind up with a USPS Production-approved list) but definitely a reasonable way to approach it. I lean towards thinking this isn't really a problem, or, if it is, just increase the weight limit a little. We're still not allowed to run frame weights so there's only so much weight you'd be able to tack on to a lighter gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2020 at 8:07 AM, MemphisMechanic said:

Personally, if king for a day, I’d set the production and SSP weight limits to whatever lets a  Beretta 92FS or a factory CZ-75B play, but which ruled out the heavyweight guns with rails... including the original Shadow.

 

I agree.  35 - 37 ounces will let any service pistol into the game while keeping the heavyweights out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

me writing a post at work... poor ability to convey my point. i meant it has or had to be used by a mil or leo group and for that group to have issued or used more than 2 thousand of the pistols.

 

not just on the ok to carry list, but at least 2k actually on member's hips at one time or another. of course verification of this would be problematic.

 

That's unenforceable

 

@MemphisMechanic has the absolute best solution.  Set the weight where it will let 95% of the service pistols in the world in and be done.

 

A simple scale ensures objective compliance.

 

Done

Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed! i remember a time when it was mildly tricky to get an SP01 down to ssp legal weight. I don't think there is anything wrong with IDPA's gun rules or holster rules to be honest. I'd just leave them as is. Crazy I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rowdyb said:

agreed! i remember a time when it was mildly tricky to get an SP01 down to ssp legal weight. I don't think there is anything wrong with IDPA's gun rules or holster rules to be honest. I'd just leave them as is. Crazy I know.

Can definitely agree on that. It seems to work in that at local competitions there are still many Glock/M&P types present.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...