2022 Rulebook Released

[matteekay]

3 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

I think it's basically fit box make weight for ESP and CDP now. 

 

 

 

In ESP.

 

CDP has a rule under "Permitted Features" that states "Heavy or cone style barrels on firearms with barrel lengths of 4.25” or less."

 

[Racinready300ex]

3 minutes ago, matteekay said:

 

In ESP.

 

CDP has a rule under "Permitted Features" that states "Heavy or cone style barrels on firearms with barrel lengths of 4.25” or less."

 

 

I see that now, it's odd they left that in there. Those two always seemed to have the same basic rules. 

 

Although the way that's worded...it's under permitted features. It doesn't say a bushing barrel is a permitted feature. So could that be read to say only bull barrel guns under 4.25" are allowed in CDP?

 

I know it's not, but it could be read that way. Especially if you don't assume the division is based on a OG 1911. 

 

Also what is a Bull, vs heavy, vs cone barrel becomes the question again. I always considered them the same thing, and pre the legion's bull barrel it was accepted you couldn't have bull barrels. Then after that a bull barrel wasn't a heavy or coned barrel. So what is a bull barrel on a 1911?

 

I think I'd go with your reading a say no bull barrel in CDP, unless you consult your AC or at least the MD for the match you're attending. 

[ddc]

4 hours ago, erwos said:

I have what I assume is a dumb question, but can't figure it out: are heavy/coned barrels now universally good to go in 2022?

 

In the 2017 rulebook, 8.1.8.C specifically prohibits them in all divisions (with exceptions): "Heavy and/or cone style barrels without a barrel bushing except as allowed in ESP, CCP, BUG and CDP divisions with length restrictions."

 

In the 2022 rulebook, section 8.1.7 has eliminated this line entirely, and nothing seems to have replaced it.

 

The 2022 equipment appendix has only a single reference in section A.3.3.20, permitting "Heavy or cone style barrels on firearms with barrel lengths of 4.25” or less." This has the implication that they're prohibited elsewhere, but no such rule actually states this that I can find.

 

What am I missing here? I'd like to use my SAS II in CDP, but it has a bull barrel.

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "This has the implication that they're prohibited elsewhere..."

 

The way I read the rulebook and the equipment appendices is:

 

For CDP Heavy or cone style barrels are ok if your barrel is 4.25" or less.

For other divisions there is no such restriction.

 

This came up when the Sig X5 was originally released. It was marketed as having a "bull barrel".

IDPA ok'd it.

 

How long is the barrel on the SAS II?

 

Since there is no formal definition of what a "heavy" barrel is we are left to flail in the dark.

Is a "bull barrel" the same as a "heavy barrel"? Given the X5 situation I'd guess not but I'm just a random guy on the internet.

 

[Racinready300ex]

18 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "This has the implication that they're prohibited elsewhere..."

 

The way I read the rulebook and the equipment appendices is:

 

For CDP Heavy or cone style barrels are ok if your barrel is 4.25" or less.

For other divisions there is no such restriction.

 

This came up when the Sig X5 was originally released. It was marketed as having a "bull barrel".

IDPA ok'd it.

 

How long is the barrel on the SAS II?

 

Since there is no formal definition of what a "heavy" barrel is we are left to flail in the dark.

Is a "bull barrel" the same as a "heavy barrel"? Given the X5 situation I'd guess not but I'm just a random guy on the internet.

 

 

Pre the X5 a bull barrel was a heavy barrel. Post X5 it was just a murky mess of what the definition of is, is. 

[erwos]

23 minutes ago, ddc said:

For CDP Heavy or cone style barrels are ok if your barrel is 4.25" or less.

But it never actually says they're not OK if your barrel is > 4.25". That's the core problem with the rules as written.

 

(My gun's barrel is 5". The gun is well under the weight limit.)

[matteekay]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 consult your AC or at least the MD for the match you're attending. 

 

Yup, always this.

 

25 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

just a murky mess of what the definition of is, is. 

 

...and also this.

[ddc]

47 minutes ago, erwos said:

But it never actually says they're not OK if your barrel is > 4.25". That's the core problem with the rules as written.

 

(My gun's barrel is 5". The gun is well under the weight limit.)

 

It  is a rather bass-ackward way of writing a rule but for me the implication is that for CDP it is not ok if your barrel is > 4.25"

I don't see how else you can interpret it.

 

 

[erwos]

46 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

It  is a rather bass-ackward way of writing a rule but for me the implication is that for CDP it is not ok if your barrel is > 4.25"

I don't see how else you can interpret it.

I can interpret it as a mistake in the rulebook.

 

FWIW, I did contact the area coordinator, so we'll see what he says.

[ddc]

3 hours ago, erwos said:

I can interpret it as a mistake in the rulebook.

 

FWIW, I did contact the area coordinator, so we'll see what he says.

 

[usmc1974]

On 9/8/2022 at 2:48 PM, erwos said:

But it never actually says they're not OK if your barrel is > 4.25". That's the core problem with the rules as written.

 

(My gun's barrel is 5". The gun is well under the weight.

Shooters and posts s like this right here,  is why the rule book is 1,000 pages long.JMHO

[ddc]

On 9/8/2022 at 3:30 PM, erwos said:

I can interpret it as a mistake in the rulebook.

 

FWIW, I did contact the area coordinator, so we'll see what he says.

 

So what did your AC say about this?

[erwos]

1 hour ago, ddc said:

 

So what did your AC say about this?

Gave me the answer of "no bulls above 4.25" and ignored everything else I had to say about the problem. Which was about what I expected. IDPA really needs a rules committee to escalate rules-as-written problems to.

[ddc]

5 hours ago, erwos said:

Gave me the answer of "no bulls above 4.25" and ignored everything else I had to say about the problem. Which was about what I expected. IDPA really needs a rules committee to escalate rules-as-written problems to.

 

That would be nice.

 

Of course we've never seen even a hint that they are in the slightest way interested in doing that.

[RePete]

3 minutes ago, ddc said:

 

That would be nice.

 

Of course we've never seen even a hint that they are in the slightest way interested in doing that.

 

And they would use the same people that wrote the book in the first place!

[ddc]

2 minutes ago, RePete said:

 

And they would use the same people that wrote the book in the first place!

 

I would not be surprised. arrgghhh...