Max Distance From Inner Side Of Belt: Handguns 1 5/8", Magazines

[Religious Shooter]

Can someone please explain this:

Title: Equipment measuring 2

Date of Motion: 12/02/06 02:01 PM

Closed: 12/05/06 12:00 AM

Submitted by: Area8

Seconded by: President

Status: Posted

Result: Passed

Motion: "Area 8 moves to amend Item 10 in Appendix D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6 to read: ""Max. distance of handgun and mags/speed loaders from inner side of belt -- Handgun 1 5/8"" - Mags 1"" """

Area1: Yes

Area2: Yes

Area3: No

Area4: Yes

Area5: Yes

Area6: Yes

Area7: Yes, Rollcall Requested

Area8: Yes

President: Yes

From what it looks like they are getting rid of the 50mm rule (1.97").

For which Divisions? Appendix D1, D2, etc. is for IPSC and D6 is for USPSA Open in the 2004 15th edition of the rulebook.

They will require us to have handguns 1 5/8" and mags 1" from "inner side of belt." About 1/2" closer for handguns and almost 1" closer for mags.

Why don't they just leave it alone? I mean I can see if it's for Production only. But Open and Limited too?

Edited December 27, 2006 by Religious Shooter

[LPatterson]

This looks like the on line meeting minutes for the projected 2008 rule book which should be coming out shortly. The difference in the dimension is where it is measured from, inside of the belt versus the torso. In my case that probably adds room since my stomach Dunlapped over my belt. Looking at the 2004 rule book, it has the same distance requirement in D1 thru D10 so there is already a requirement for Open & Limited. Wait until the rule book is available on USPSA.org then combine all your questions/recommendations for your Area Director.

[sslav]

Can someone please explain this:

They will require us to have handguns 1 5/8" and mags 1" from "inner side of belt." About 1/2" closer for handguns and almost 1" closer for mags.

Why don't they just leave it alone? I mean I can see if it's for Production only. But Open and Limited too?

I measured my Bladetech DOH on my CR Speed belt and it does not make it. The belt alone is over 1/4#

[DaG]

Can someone please explain this:

Title: Equipment measuring 2

Date of Motion: 12/02/06 02:01 PM

Closed: 12/05/06 12:00 AM

Submitted by: Area8

Seconded by: President

Status: Posted

Result: Passed

Motion: "Area 8 moves to amend Item 10 in Appendix D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, and D6 to read: ""Max. distance of handgun and mags/speed loaders from inner side of belt -- Handgun 1 5/8"" - Mags 1"" """

Area1: Yes

Area2: Yes

Area3: No

Area4: Yes

Area5: Yes

Area6: Yes

Area7: Yes, Rollcall Requested

Area8: Yes

President: Yes

From what it looks like they are getting rid of the 50mm rule (1.97").

For which Divisions? Appendix D1, D2, etc. is for IPSC and D6 is for USPSA Open in the 2004 15th edition of the rulebook.

They will require us to have handguns 1 5/8" and mags 1" from "inner side of belt." About 1/2" closer for handguns and almost 1" closer for mags.

Why don't they just leave it alone? I mean I can see if it's for Production only. But Open and Limited too?

[/quot

++1

A 50 mm rule for open,lim.,prod. and lim. 10, and totally different rule for SS. What are they trying to accomplish by doing this? The only thing that would make sense is to entice the IDPA crowd. There is a earlier post with pics that shows a CR mag pouch with a SS mag in it and it is veerrryyy close to the measurement. From the sound of the rule they are trying to get rid of the DOH and any "race type" mag pouch. Sounds like they only want high and tight holsters and mag poches that hugh the body.

DaG

[vluc]

Ought to be good for the manufacturers. Might be a passel of folks buying new toys....

[Jim Norman]

Good and bad here. measure for the inside of the belt is a good thing. Not subjective as to "Dunlap" and easily measured at home on the kitchen table. Lay the belt down, stand a ruller next to the equipment in question sna it either makes it or it doesn't.

Bad thing to me would be that the current measurements might be tossed out. What was wrong with 2 inches? the overlay was an easy field check for both shooters and Staff. Now we have to actually measure.

What problem did we solve with this new rule?

Which by the way should be the NUMBER ONE QUESTION that any proposed rule should have asked of it's proponents. What will this rule fix? Why do we need it? Think of all the BS that would be avoided in life if this were applied across the board.

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

My old style, ca. 2001 Blade-Tech DOH on a Safariland outer belt makes it, but modern three piece production DOHs apparently don't. So, shooters who bought their gear years ago get a pass, while newer shooters get hosed?

[LPatterson]

Good and bad here. measure for the inside of the belt is a good thing. Not subjective as to "Dunlap" and easily measured at home on the kitchen table. Lay the belt down, stand a ruller next to the equipment in question sna it either makes it or it doesn't.

Bad thing to me would be that the current measurements might be tossed out. What was wrong with 2 inches? the overlay was an easy field check for both shooters and Staff. Now we have to actually measure.

What problem did we solve with this new rule?

Which by the way should be the NUMBER ONE QUESTION that any proposed rule should have asked of it's proponents. What will this rule fix? Why do we need it? Think of all the BS that would be avoided in life if this were applied across the board.

Jim

I hate rules as much as anyone else, but some things need to be quantified or they will be abused. Should we have an inch & five eights or 50 MM's? One was measured from the torso, the other is measured fro the inside of the belt. To me a measurement from the belt sounds more accurate because it is not subjective to my Dunlap.

Here in Montana we had a reasonable & proper speed limit after the national speed limit ended. Then the State Police gave a guy a couple of tickets for going 120 MPH on back country 2 lane roads and he took the Police to court because he claimed to be a proffessional race car driver (drove late models stocks on a dirt track). It got to the state supreme court (lower case on purpose) where the tickets were over turned because reason and proper was subjective. Montana now has a numbered speed limit.

So the NUMBER ONE ANSWER is, as stupid as some rules sound they are written because someone did what the rules are trying to prevent. Sorta like having a dropped & offset holster with a gun 3 inches below the belt and offset as much. Stupid is as stupid does.

[vluc]

Which belt, inner or outer?

[DaG]

How will the membership get to voice their opinions on the PROPOSED (wink wink nod nod) rule changes? IMHO, USPSA should send out voting ballots with all the current and proposed changes. It sounds like the proposals will be posted on USPSA but no mention on how to voice your opinion....LET THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE!

DAG

[Vlad]

Well .. which belt? Outter, inner, or the normal belt that keeps my pants up under the first two? I measured my CZ75 in my 3 piece DOH and to the inside of the outter belt it makes it, just. It measured 40mm, to the 41.275mm perscribed by the new rule. The CZ is a fairly slim gun and if it makes it, I would say most other guns should too, unless the DOH shape is wildly different for different designs. If I had to measure to the inner belt or to my normal belt then it won't make it.

Edited December 26, 2006 by Vlad

[vluc]

I need a visual for this one, kind of like the Appendix F in the rulebook that shows where Production equipment can and can't be.

[Jim Norman]

Ah, another conundrum.

Which Belt?

The inner belt or the belt on which your gear actually hangs? That is the question.

If it were up to me, and by rights, it should be, I would say it is the belt upon which the equipment is hung. With the following proviso. That belt must be attached to the inner belt and said inner belt must be worn through the loops on your pants. Further I would set an upper limit of 3/16" for the thickness of said inner belt. (Or what ever the thickest inner belt currently marketed is, This by buying and measuring a C-R Speed, Rescomp, a Safariland, any other commonly used belts. I would further allow in my measurements some amount of leeway over the current models to allow for variance in the product. The sole purpose of this whole exercise to being to prevent a "GameBoy" from developing a 3/4 inch thick inner belt.

OR

We could simply state that the measurement is from the inner belt of a two part combination belt which would be a whole lot simpler.

But then what fun would we have writing all these long dissertations on belts and other esoteric rules.

Jim

[TxD]

Ah, another conundrum.

Which Belt?

The inner belt or the belt on which your gear actually hangs? That is the question.

If it were up to me, and by rights, it should be, I would say it is the belt upon which the equipment is hung. With the following proviso. That belt must be attached to the inner belt and said inner belt must be worn through the loops on your pants. Further I would set an upper limit of 3/16" for the thickness of said inner belt. (Or what ever the thickest inner belt currently marketed is, This by buying and measuring a C-R Speed, Rescomp, a Safariland, any other commonly used belts. I would further allow in my measurements some amount of leeway over the current models to allow for variance in the product. The sole purpose of this whole exercise to being to prevent a "GameBoy" from developing a 3/4 inch thick inner belt.

OR

We could simply state that the measurement is from the inner belt of a two part combination belt which would be a whole lot simpler.

But then what fun would we have writing all these long dissertations on belts and other esoteric rules.

Jim

And then you have to check for light between.........What?????

Oh yeah, thats those other guys.

You know. The guys with all those funky holster rules.

[sslav]

Well .. which belt? Outter, inner, or the normal belt that keeps my pants up under the first two? I measured my CZ75 in my 3 piece DOH and to the inside of the outter belt it makes it, just. It measured 40mm, to the 41.275mm perscribed by the new rule. The CZ is a fairly slim gun and if it makes it, I would say most other guns should too, unless the DOH shape is wildly different for different designs. If I had to measure to the inner belt or to my normal belt then it won't make it.

I measured from the inside of the waistband of my pants with the gear on. It is not a tough problem to solve though, a washer on the center bottom screw between the tech-lock and the holster should cant the grip of the gun enough towards the belt to make the measurement. I'll try it out tonight.

[Nik Habicht]

When I was reading the minutes, I noticed another amendment that specified measured from the inside of the belt, and stipulated that the measurement could be conducted on or off the body ----- so I'm pretty sure they had the outer belt in mind.....

[sslav]

Well .. which belt? Outter, inner, or the normal belt that keeps my pants up under the first two? I measured my CZ75 in my 3 piece DOH and to the inside of the outter belt it makes it, just. It measured 40mm, to the 41.275mm perscribed by the new rule. The CZ is a fairly slim gun and if it makes it, I would say most other guns should too, unless the DOH shape is wildly different for different designs. If I had to measure to the inner belt or to my normal belt then it won't make it.

I measured from the inside of the waistband of my pants with the gear on. It is not a tough problem to solve though, a washer on the center bottom screw between the tech-lock and the holster should cant the grip of the gun enough towards the belt to make the measurement. I'll try it out tonight.

Can't get it into 1.5" no matter what I do. I can get it to 1.75 as measured from the inside of the tek-lock to the rearmost point of the frame. If I measure from the inside of the waistband it is at or slightly above 2". It is not just the thickness of the inside belt, there is also slight gap between the inner belt and the tec-lock caused by the square edges of the tek-lock. Maybe the belt loop attachment could work better. But as of right now it would not be legal.

[Religious Shooter]

I don't think the BOD members are fat enough.

If they were they would realize how f'd up the new rule would be to fat people.

By measuring from the torso the distance for mags and gun from either a fat person or a skinny person is the same.

By requiring it to be measured from the inside of the belt AND further reducing the measurement penalizes fat people.

It sounds funny (to me) but... I'm serious.

How many people do you see who have their "Dunlops" flow over their belts? We have to realize that if we change from the torso and start using the inner belt in the measuring the distance some fat people will now not be able to place the mag holders in certain positions without creating great discomfort. It may even become an impossibility for some.

It's kind of weird that the BOD introduced 6.4.3 at the same time:

6.4.3 No person may be barred from participating in a USPSA match based on gender, race, religion or occupation.

How about putting fat people in 6.4.3?

Give fat people a break and rescind the amendment.

[Vlad]

It may be that the teklocks make the problem worse. My DOH is made of 3 parts but the the belt part is really slim. The droped hanger can be removed and the holster attached straight to the belt part.

[sslav]

It may be that the teklocks make the problem worse. My DOH is made of 3 parts but the the belt part is really slim. The droped hanger can be removed and the holster attached straight to the belt part.

Tek-lock is deffinitely a problem. Just switched to the belt loop and it is really close to making 1 5/8 to the inside of the inner belt. Just a hair over - less than 1/8. But does 3/8th of an inch really make that much of a difference? I can't tell the difference on the draw.

Edited December 27, 2006 by sslav

[open17]

What problem did we solve with this new rule?

Which by the way should be the NUMBER ONE QUESTION that any proposed rule should have asked of it's proponents. What will this rule fix? Why do we need it? Think of all the BS that would be avoided in life if this were applied across the board.

Jim

Amen. From the local PTA to the US Congress--why is it that people on a BOD/committee/whatever feel like they have to DO SOMETHING to justify their

existence? If it ain't broke don't mess with it. And yes, I've been on a bunch of

them, and am currently a Section Board member at the club rep level. I'm not

being critical of the USPSA BOD. I think they are some of the best cat herders

I've ever seen--but I do question the reasoning behind some of the rule changes.

Should be lively over at the USPSA forums once the proposed changes are posted

for comment

[GeorgeInNePa]

What problem did we solve with this new rule?

Which by the way should be the NUMBER ONE QUESTION that any proposed rule should have asked of it's proponents. What will this rule fix? Why do we need it? Think of all the BS that would be avoided in life if this were applied across the board.

Jim

Amen. From the local PTA to the US Congress--why is it that people on a BOD/committee/whatever feel like they have to DO SOMETHING to justify their

existence? If it ain't broke don't mess with it. And yes, I've been on a bunch of

them, and am currently a Section Board member at the club rep level. I'm not

being critical of the USPSA BOD. I think they are some of the best cat herders

I've ever seen--but I do question the reasoning behind some of the rule changes.

Should be lively over at the USPSA forums once the proposed changes are posted

for comment

Yep, many of us intend to voice our opinion. Both on the web and with letters.

[sturmruger]

I am going to call my Area Director and talk to him about all of these rule changes. I wish they would leave everything the same as it is now.

[BritinUSA]

The rule must be reffering to the inner surface of the belt to which the holster/mag puches are attached. They cannot be referring to the INNER belt (as in the two belt system most of us use). The reason is that not all shooters use two belts (inner and outer).

I don't see a problem with the mag/pouches/speedloaders but I would like to see clarification on this. They talk about the gun and not the holster but they mention both mags AND pouches.

1 5/8" is not much room between the belt and the gun, what part of the gun are they referring to ? Is it the slide, the frame, the butt or any part of the gun. What about the slide racker, does that count ? They really need to clarify more specifically what they are talking about.

I will respond to the rules committee once the draft rules are posted.

[vluc]

Is the measurement a direct/straight measurement on a horizontal plane from the belt, or is a diagonal measure from top or bottom of the belt acceptable as well? Is the thickness of the belt being measured taken into account for the total measurement or is it 1-5/8 in addition to the thickness of the belt.

See what happens when you fool with Mother Nature?

Maybe this is that equipment race they talk so much about....spend so much time trying to keep up with and understand the rules about equipment. Why can't it be as simple as the scoring...best two on paper, steel must fall to score.

Maybe we need a new "box" for all of this.

Edited December 27, 2006 by vluc