3/4" To Frame Or Thumb Safety

[IronEqualizer]

The rule states the holster must hold the firearm so that an object of 3/4" width cannot pass between the shooter's body and the inside of the firearm. Is the inside of the firearm the frame or can it be the thumb safety? My thumb safety is about 1/4" wide so it does make a difference.

[RePete]

Read page 33 of the rule book.

Item I. Must hold the firearm positioned on the body so an object of 3/4" width cannot pass between the shooter's body and the inside of the firearm when the shooter is standing staight and upright.2

At the bottom of page 34 are the superscript numbers.

2. From the outside of the belt to the inside of the backpiece and/or backside of the holster.

My take on that is from the ouside of the belt to the frame of the firearm. See pics on page 35. They are talking about the belt loop on the holster and nothing else. Which is what prohibited the Uncle Mikes kydex holster, belt loop too deep.

[IronEqualizer]

So since my Uncle Mike's paddle holster has no belt loops does that make it legal? I searched and found several who say it is legal. But I would definitely like to make sure before I take an illegal holster to my SO class next weekend.

Edited February 16, 2007 by IronEqualizer

[Headshot45]

the UM paddle holster meets rule requirements....the belt model doesn't

Frank

[Chills1994]

Yeah, I used to shoot w/ the UM belt loop holsters, then that "dreaded light tunnel" rule came out. I bought UM paddle holsters to replace them.

That's what I shot at one major match and I got a hard look from the MD. The gun was still kinda sticking out. I don't know if it was my belt or my love handles (or lack thereof), but the MD was trying to get a 3/4" diameter dowel between the gun and me. He called the Assistant MD over and luckily he okay'ed it.

(Then I had to fall in line to get my gun weighed.)

My point is: just because it is a paddle it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to get the gun close enough to your body.

Your Love Handles May Vary, though (YLHMV).

[tacted]

Your Love Handles May Vary, though (YLHMV).

Ain't it the truth !!

[dirtypool40]

jeez a rule that's not well defined? That's just odd.

[COF]

Unless you're wearing hiphuggers, regardless of the size of your love handles, there shouldn't be any reason the paddle holster wouldn't be legal - unless you've been practicing your deputy dog stance - leaning on the gun

[sjz]

There was a thread on holster requirements a month ago. I also was trying to determine if my Fobus holster was OK or not.

After a lot of conflicting responses I sent IDPA an email (below) and no one has ever replied to me. I personally found the rules, vague, contardictory and subjective.

***********************************************

My email to IDPA : 1-25-07

I just started shooting IDPA and am confused as to the holster requirements. I have received conflicting opinions from people that shoot IDPA.

I have a Fobus for my Glock 17 and am simply trying to determine if it is OK for IDPA.

First of all, the Fobus has two ways to mount on a belt. One set of slots is offset +- 1/4" from the back of the holster. The other inner slot is outside the holster but right up against the back of the holster.

The wording of the rules is confusing. Section F. says, "you can have no offset backpieces and/or belt slots."

Then proceeds to show two holster pictures both with offset belt slots one being legal and the other not being legal. The bigger offset being not legal.

In my opinion, any belt loop that is mounted outside the holster is by function and design, "offset."

If I mount the belt through the slot closest to my body I think I pass the “daylight rule”

Yet another rule says:

"I. Must hold the firearm positioned on the body so an object of ¾”width cannot pass between the shooter’s body and the inside of the firearm when the shooter is standing straight and upright."

This seems like a very subjective and difficult rule when you consider that clothes alone can easily have .75” of play in them. One person told me that as long as any part of the firearm was within .75” it was OK, and another person thought that no part of the firearm could allow an object of .75” to pass through. This seems rather absurd because I know that I could easily slide a .75” wood dowel through anyone’s firearm and body.

Any advice or interpretation would be appreciated.

****************************************

[Singlestack Wonder]

jeez a rule that's not well defined? That's just odd.

It is well defined. Read the rule book.

[Duane Thomas]

This seems rather absurd because I know that I could easily slide a .75” wood dowel through anyone’s firearm and body.

Without touching the gun or the body.

[sjz]

This seems rather absurd because I know that I could easily slide a .75” wood dowel through anyone’s firearm and body.

Without touching the gun or the body.

Is the "Without touching the gun or the body." your interpretation ? Please let me know if I am missing some official rules interpretations.

The rule says:

I. Must hold the firearm positioned on the body so an object of

¾”width cannot pass between the shooter’s body and the inside

of the firearm when the shooter is standing straight and

upright.²

² NOTE: Female shooters are exempt from this test.

I have had other RO's offer their own interpration of the above which is different than what you think it means, hence my original comments on the rule.

[Duane Thomas]

So what is your interpretation?

This seems rather absurd because I know that I could easily slide a .75” wood dowel through anyone’s firearm and body.

"Anyone's"? I guess I just don't get what you're saying here. There are plenty of gun/holster/body combinations that won't give you a 3/4" gap between a person's body and their gun.

[Scooter]

You would have to interpret that as without touching the body or gun. If someone wants to be a range nazi, a 3/4" object CAN be made to pass between the gun and the body even if the shooter is using an IWB holster.

[Duane Thomas]

Exactly.

[sjz]

Exactly.

[Singlestack Wonder]

No interpretation required. If a 3/4" rod is passed between the firearm and body, it must touch both objects. If it doesn't, the holster is too far away.

[Bill Nesbitt]

No interpretation required. If a 3/4" rod is passed between the firearm and body, it must touch both objects. If it doesn't, the holster is too far away.

Exactly.

[sjz]

No interpretation required. If a 3/4" rod is passed between the firearm and body, it must touch both objects. If it doesn't, the holster is too far away.

And again, that is not what the rule says (see rule above), but your interpretation.

Your interpretation is very logical and makes sense, but it is your interpretation. I have stood on a COF and a range officer has stood there and looked at my holster and said that as long as any part of the gun is within 3/4" I am ok. Now this is his interpretation, is very logical and makes sense, but not what the rule says.

And because this specific rule is vague you have everyone applying it differently.

If you are going to have a 3/4" rule for the location of the gun in relation to the body, why in the world are there 2 more rules - the "daylight" rule and the "offset belt loop" rule.

[Scooter]

I. Must hold the firearm positioned on the body so an object of

¾”width cannot pass between the shooter’s body and the inside

of the firearm when the shooter is standing straight and

upright.²

The rule only states a 3/4" width object cannot pass between the body and the gun. One can interpret this rule as if you can fit a 3/4" object between the body and the gun, you have an illegal holster. So if you grab a 3/4" dowel and push in on the body, you can make the dowel pass between the body and the holster. The rule also doesn't define where this measurement is taken. An object can easily pass between certain areas of the gun and the body on most people. What if you have a really narrow waist but wide hips?

[sjz]

Thank You to the last 2 posts. That is all I was trying to say.

And, as far as the wide hip deal... I assume that is why "footnote 2" to this rule exempts women from meeting this 3/4" requirement. Women typically have wider hips in relation to their waist so the gun sits out further from their body.

But what if you are not a women and have a build like this... that is gender discrimination and leads me back to why I feel the holster rules need a lot of work in order to be practical.

[Dennis Sherman]

In the words of Peter Goloski, "Just another rule change for no good reason". et.al

Thank You to the last 2 posts. That is all I was trying to say.

And, as far as the wide hip deal... I assume that is why "footnote 2" to this rule exempts women from meeting this 3/4" requirement. Women typically have wider hips in relation to their waist so the gun sits out further from their body.

But what if you are not a women and have a build like this... that is gender discrimination and leads me back to why I feel the holster rules need a lot of work in order to be practical.

[Singlestack Wonder]

Such a simple rule, no interpretation required. If a 3/4" rod can pass (not touching both the pistol and body at the same time), the holster is too far away. No ambiguity here. Very well defined. Eliminates the need for specific holster rules.

This dead horse has been beaten enough................................

[Duane Thomas]

In the words of Peter Goloski, "Just another rule change for no good reason". et.al

Much or all of what I'm about to say is going to be already known by many members, so, for the sake of those who don't know the history, the rest of you please bear with me:

There actually is a very good reason for the changes to the holster rules. When IDPA first started, in the interests of keeping the rules simple and the Rule Book thin, instead of setting forth extensive rules for what sorts of holsters could and couldn't be used in IDPA, the powers-that-were decided instead to have an approved holsters list. In order to have a holster added to the list, manufacturers had to send an example to IDPA, where it was examined and given a yay or nay.

Eventually what happened was that several manufacturers had designs placed on the approved list, after which they changed the designs to make them faster - which invariably meant they rode out quite far from the body, so much so their concealment qualities were seriously compromised - but continued to sell them under the same "approved" name. To protect itself from this, IDPA HQ had no choice but to do what they'd never wanted to have to do: sit down and draft extensive, exhaustive rules for the features that holsters/spare ammo carriers to be used in IDPA could and couldn't possess.

So this was not "just another rule change for no good reason." There was actually a very good reason for it. It was also something that IDPA HQ did not want to do, and avoided until forced into it.

[freeidaho]

So this was not "just another rule change for no good reason." There was actually a very good reason for it. It was also something that IDPA HQ did not want to do, and avoided until forced into it.

Duane,

Thanks for writing this piece. I have almost written much the same thing several times today.

There is another side benefit to the holster spec versus the holster list. Many people, like me, make their own holsters to meet special needs. These holsters can now be legally used in IDPA. Additionally, under the new rules, holsters can be bought and modified, and still be legal. With the holster list, that was verboten.

Thanks again ! ! !

Ken Reed