markm Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 P99shooter, please re-read in rule "E". Gotcha. OK. So, that side is fully enclosed, but not the forward facing side. Where does it say that it has to? BTW Merlin, nice picts. FROM IDPA: Magazine carrier must: A. Be designed for concealed carry and suitable for all day continuous wear. (subjective, yet CRSpeed does meet these criteria) B. Be worn on a standard belt of no more than 1 ¾” width that must pass through the belt loops on the shooter’s pants.(CRSpeed meets criteria) C. Hold the magazine with enough tension to allow it to be turned upside down and retain a fully loaded magazine. (CRSpeed meets criteria) D. Cover 2” of the magazine as measured from the top of the cartridge rim down the back flat of the magazine tube. (CRSpeed meets criteria) E. Cover the entire front face of the portion of the magazine inside the carrier. The front face is defined as the side of the tube away from the shooter’s body.(CRSeed meets criteria) F. Hold the magazine within 10 degrees of vertical (80-100° to the ground) position on the belt, no substantial forward or rear cant.(CRSpeed meets criteria) G. Be worn in a belt location that will position the front edge of the carrier behind the centerline of the body. (CRSpeed meets criteria) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 (edited) E. Cover the entire front face of the portion of the magazine inside the carrier. The front face is defined as the side of the tube away from the shooter’s body.(CRSeed meets criteria) Ahhhh... I am not understanding how this criteria is met. Does the U shaped cut out count to the negative here? Is it meaning the side of the mag must be covered if the mag orients the bullets toward the shooters front? Edited January 3, 2008 by Merlin Orr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markm Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Merlin by definition, the "front" of the carrier is the opposite side of the belt attachment. That would be the opposite side of the mag carrier in your first picture where the tape is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDean Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 You guys are kidding, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 You guys are kidding, right? I sure hope they are....I think most people would agree that the FRONT of the carrier (by IDPA definitions) is the same side where the tension adjustment screw is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 (edited) Safariland did everyone a disservice by categorizing their catalog. The 773 mag holder is listed in their catalog under "Competition Gear". By Safarilands own description as Competition Gear, it would not be allowed at an IDPA competition where I was the MD. I got my latest Front Sight magazine tonight (finally!!!) on page 30 is an advertisement for Dawson Fiber Optic sights....it says that the sights were designed by World Class Grand Master shooters (I'm guessing they must be competitors!!!) and to order the sights....you are instructed to go to www.COMPETITIONSHOOTERS.com! A website for COMPETITION shooters!!! To buy COMPETITON shooting equipment! Using your example above that anything that is cataloged as "competition" is not legal....would make the Dawson fiber optic sight.....illegal? On page 31 there is an Redding advertisement for COMPETITION seating dies for handgun cartridges.... Edited January 3, 2008 by SteveZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Steve, Are you suggesting that words like "competition" and "tactical" may just be clever marketing??? Whatever is the wolrd coming to...lol How is a guys supposed to evaluate something if he can't trust the marketing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 You guys are kidding, right? Not commenting on anything except the wording of the rule...? If the wording prohibits it - I wanna know where it is said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwb01 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 As a regular IDPA shooter I find these "grey" areas all the time within the rule book. Not all the rules are black and white any many of them are subjective to the MD. We can discuss all of this until the cows come home but HQ will have the final answer regardless of how the rule is interpreted by any of us. I look forward to a revised rule book that addresses this area as well as others with more clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveZ Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Steve, Are you suggesting that words like "competition" and "tactical" may just be clever marketing??? Whatever is the wolrd coming to...lol Yes...yes, why yes I am! Seems that simply attaching the wrong word to a product can be the death nail regardless of any other attributes. I'm expecting Dawson fiber optic sights and Redding seating dies to now be deemed illegal simply because of a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdmoore Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Competition equipment can be ok, competition only equipment is not (as per first page of rule book). We've all seen the holsters and optics that are intended. I would have included compensators, but I think one of the guys on Hero's had one on his pistola >;p ++++++++++++ IMO, comments on fo sights are out of place in this thread. Sights mention no restriction on competition status. They are specifically allowed to be changed. Here's the books definition .... Sights: Only conventional notch and post type sights are permitted for IDPA competition. Sights may include tritium inserts, fiber optic inserts, white dots, etc. ++++++++++++++ A poster asked ~"What's the big deal?" Folks that shoot both places like to reuse as much equipment as they can (familiarity and cost factors). +++++++++++++ As for the wording, sure it's not clearest, and likely not the term that most would have chosen, but the definition is there in black and white. Robert, if you are taking suggestions for revisions, maybe renaming the "front" to the "outboard side" , "outward facing surface" ... or something a bit descriptive would help? Personally, I understand that MD's can read between the lines to interpret the spirit, but these remind me a lot of the 5.11 vest than me and a cazillion others use ..... +++++++++++++++++ So, After thinking about this, I'd vote legal, but without a HQ ruling I doubt that the understanding will be universally consistent. +++++++++++++++ Lastly, I don't think asking a spokesperson about design intent is the right way to answer the question, nor is what section a web designer chose to list the product in. I think the statement is more to provide rationale for finding a holster unacceptable. i.e. when we get a ruling on this, it will likely either include something like "holder is readily usable for concealed carry...." or " .... holder appears to be designed primarily for competition and would not be used in typical carry scenarios..." All IMHO, YMMV etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeidaho Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 (edited) Ain't it amazing, One fellow out of all the posters here, has actually tried to use these mag pouches for all day carry. He wrote that they were not acceptable to him, and listed the reasons. Amazing because apparently no one else has actually tried it. Amazing because no one seems to care that this well known, trusted fellow found them unacceptable and stopped using them. Yet most everyone else is making the case that they are perfect for CC, and therefore for IDPA. Make me go hmmmmmm. kr Edited January 4, 2008 by freeidaho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmorris Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 IIRC there was an LEO that used them at the MVSA regional last year or the year before (also in front of centerline). He claimed it was part of his “duty gear” and was allowed to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Ain't it amazing, One fellow out of all the posters here, has actually tried to use these mag pouches for all day carry. He wrote that they were not acceptable to him, and listed the reasons. Amazing because apparently no one else has actually tried it. Amazing because no one seems to care that this well known, trusted fellow found them unacceptable and stopped using them. Yet most everyone else is making the case that they are perfect for CC, and therefore for IDPA. Make me go hmmmmmm. kr KR I guess I must have missed that post...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p99shooter Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I think that he is talking about Duane's earlier post, which was a comment about the Safariland 771 holders, not the CR Speed holders. Although, since the CR's are also partially open in the front, one would think they would have the same type of problem that Duane mentioned when carrying inside a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Ain't it amazing, One fellow out of all the posters here, has actually tried to use these mag pouches for all day carry. He wrote that they were not acceptable to him, and listed the reasons. Amazing because apparently no one else has actually tried it. Amazing because no one seems to care that this well known, trusted fellow found them unacceptable and stopped using them. Yet most everyone else is making the case that they are perfect for CC, and therefore for IDPA. Make me go hmmmmmm. kr Your assumptions are based only on what was posted. I am the original poster of the thread and I have and do use them for CCW "successfully". Albeit only 1 mag. I have a gut, so when I wear them they actually fit almost flush with my body. Shouldn't we base the requirement of what actually fit's the individual wearing them? Because with my Bladetech pouches, they actually dig into my side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeidaho Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Oops, My mistake. I read Duane's post several days ago, and remembered incorrectly that it was about the CR magazine pouches. Sorry for the trip into the weeds. Still seems like the number of people wearing CRs for concealed carry is very small. One guy so far on this forum, if I remember the thread completely. Never-the-less, Robert Ray is on the case, and a ruling will be forthcoming..... kr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristotle Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 Here's the irony of it all.... Because the bladetech mag pouches dig into my sides, I use them "strictly" for "competitions only". Because for me they are "not suitable for all day wear" because of how uncomfortable they are "to me". And I am forced to use the CR speeds for CCW. I'd like to see a ruling based per individuals and use a "measurement" to body, as opposed to blacklisting the entire name brand based on it's "name". What is suitable for most, may not be suitable for all. It's actually become a "disadvantage" to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Sherman Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I hope you have some time to wait for that rule book. Do you recall the last attempt? I deal with this stuff all the time in training SO's and it could be a lot better. The main thing that bothers me is that leaving things up to MD's does not create a level playing field. Never the less, I have been in it since 99 and will continue as I like the principle of the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aircooled6racer Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Hello: What ever happened with this? Did IDPA respond about the CR Speed mag holders? Let us all know if they did. Thanks, Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I hope you have some time to wait for that rule book. The A.C.s and maybe sanctioned match M.D.s are being solicited for comments on a new edition of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 [iDPA is a shooting competition, not every day carry. No one I know uses the same gear for carry as IDPA competitions. No one I know wears a 911 vest when they carry. No one I know would retain an empty mag with one in the pipe before stuffing a new mag and continuing the situation. That being said, my CR pouches are every bit as concealable and comfortable as my "IDPA legal" BladeTech pouches. The biggest pitfall to being a "true believer" is that intent is not quantifiable, and trying to force your ideas of what is and isn't something "worthy of carrying" is pretty pointless. Can anyone say 9mm vs. .45. If there is a rule book, and the product meets the requirements stated in the book, then something is seriously wrong with the rule book or the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 No one I know uses the same gear for carry as IDPA competitions. I do. No one I know wears a 911 vest when they carry. I don't, but that's because I wear a Concealed Carry Clothiers vest. If there is a rule book, and the product meets the requirements stated in the book, then something is seriously wrong with the rule book or the game. If there is a rule book, and a product meets the requirements of the rule book, there's something wrong with the rule book or the game? How so? I'm not really tracking the logic there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loves2Shoot Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) I'm not saying that many people don't use the same/similar gear as they carry, but there are also lot of people who treat IDPA like a game, which it is. I've seen very few people who look like the average Joe on the street carrying concealed at any of the IDPA matches I've been to, they look like they belong at an IDPA match. If you have a rule book and you can't read the book to find out the rules, don't you think there might be something wrong with either the way it is written or the theory behind it? That seems quite simple to me. Saying that a piece of equipment is unsuitable for a carry because you personally would chose it is just very arrogant to me. I can see many advantages to carrying mag pouches that tilt for concealment purposes, as it is easier to get them to wrap around your body, printing less than ones that stick straight up. I could care less if CR pouches are legal or not, but I do see a problem with a set of rules that say it isn't a legal product if it was not designed with the "intension" of anything. To me I would think the designers most likely were thinking how can we make a product that is durable, flexible, and reliable, because that is the type of product they came up with. I think a shooting competition should be just that. This is approved gear, these are approved actions, these are not, but then again I'm simple that way. Edited January 17, 2008 by Loves2Shoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The people who put together the first IDPA Rule Book came to the sport with about 20 years of experience in IPSC/USPSA. They saw how an unrestrained equipment race damn near killed the sport. They realized that in order to stop IDPA from rushing right down the same path, they needed to set very strict rules for what sort of equipment was and was not legal. Yes, there will always be someone, somewhere, for whom an outlawed piece of equipment (mag pouch, etc.) might actually be better for concealed carry than anything that's legal. No rule book is perfect, you just have to do the best you can. But there is a reason for the rules to be what they are, and it's not arrogance, it's experience. BTW, this is NOT an invitation for a USPSA/IPSC vs. IDPA roast. That sort of talk is specifically against the Forum Guidelines and just will not fly. 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