Full length dust cover in ESP

[jam-man]

Heck, switching to 147 grain bullets from 115 would make a few oz's difference.

Can you explain this to me? Guess my math is weak.

147-115= 32 grains

32grains x 18 rounds = 576

576 grains converted to oz = 1.33 Oz

I suppose if you wanted to be real techincal then you would make out the differenc in the wieight of the powder etc.

The point I was tring to make was elimanting several weapons due to few ozs didn't make any common sense. But, I understand the line must be drawn some where. Just wish they would have left it drawn and not redrew it.

[jam-man]

Does anyone know the logic behind the rule change concerning a empty mag in the gun? Maybe I would feel better about it if I understood the logic behind it. It juse seems a convient way to elimnate a lot of ESP guns that would go head to head with 9mm 1911's.

It's for the same reason that weighted grips are illegal. Extra heavy magazine components, extra weight can be a competitive advantage. The only problem is that the rules aren't specific enough. They don't specify that each and every magazine used in the match must comply.

ETA: By the way, there are plenty of 1911's with otherwise legal modifications that don't make weight due to the manufacturer deviating from mil spec in frame and slide design. It doesn't matter which game you play, you can whine about the rules til you're blue in the face to no avail. It's much simpler to just live with them and make the best of them.

I came to the same conclusion that they were tring to elimante some heavy factory mags. Just seems the unfournate asspect is it elimante some guns doing this. The rule concerning mags seems fairly straight forward so, I guess I still must scratch my head a little.

I agree with your last statment, it just sucks to have to buy $50.00 grips and $35 10 round mags to shave a few ozs. But like you stated simpler to live with rules and let it go.

I will say that overall I agree with most of IDPA's rules and am thankful it exsist.

[HoMiE]

Heck, switching to 147 grain bullets from 115 would make a few oz's difference.

Can you explain this to me? Guess my math is weak.

147-115= 32 grains

32grains x 18 rounds = 576

576 grains converted to oz = 1.33 Oz

I suppose if you wanted to be real techincal then you would make out the differenc in the wieight of the powder etc.

The point I was tring to make was elimanting several weapons due to few ozs didn't make any common sense. But, I understand the line must be drawn some where. Just wish they would have left it drawn and not redrew it.

Only problem is 10 rounds is the max you can load in IDPA so the weight difference is even less, like 0.7 oz.

I think you should just weigh the gun, why make people have to go buy new mags or a new gun just to play a game.

[jam-man]

Heck, switching to 147 grain bullets from 115 would make a few oz's difference.

Can you explain this to me? Guess my math is weak.

147-115= 32 grains

32grains x 18 rounds = 576

576 grains converted to oz = 1.33 Oz

I suppose if you wanted to be real techincal then you would make out the differenc in the wieight of the powder etc.

The point I was tring to make was elimanting several weapons due to few ozs didn't make any common sense. But, I understand the line must be drawn some where. Just wish they would have left it drawn and not redrew it.

Only problem is 10 rounds is the max you can load in IDPA so the weight difference is even less, like 0.7 oz.

I think you should just weigh the gun, why make people have to go buy new mags or a new gun just to play a game.

I was speaking of weight of my carry gun, I do carry 18 rounds. I was just trying to make the point that just changing the type of ammo could had weight to the gun. And I shoot IDPA with what I carry.

I have weighted my SP 01 it will not make weight without spending around extra $120. If the money was well spent, i.e. improvement to the gun it would be fine. However, purchasing 10 round mags are a real waste of money.

Oh, well no use in crying of spilled milk. I choice to shoot and support IDPA, so I will accept the rules and move on. Maybe no new rule requirements in the future will eliminate possible new shooters and also eliminate excellent carry guns. Adding the 2.5 to 3 oz before really eliminated some high end guns in the ESP division, however something tells me the weight requirement will stay were it will stay now.

[kgunz11]

When IDPA participation suffers they will rethink things, but I don't think you have to worry about that happening anytime in the near future.

As I said before, they are so anti equipment race they may wind up cutting their own finger. I bought an STI Eagle with a bushing bbl. JUST to shoot IDPA, but there are none close to me (within a 3 hour drive).

[sirveyr]

Heck, switching to 147 grain bullets from 115 would make a few oz's difference.

Can you explain this to me? Guess my math is weak.

10 rounds of 115 vs. 147 is a 0.73 oz difference. I think

[kdmoore]

The problem with the argument "a few ounces doesn't matter" is this: you can add weight a few ounces at a time all the way up to a ton. If you are going to control weight, you've got to draw a line somewhere.

Personally, I'd let weight float. Set it at the weight of the heaviest production service gun + an ounce or two for a buffer. Review this every year and publish that number.

The real answer to this "problem" is to nip the equipment race mentalitiy in the butt. Publish the top shooters running pistols that are a few ounces apart from the weight of a glock all the way up to the heavy 226ST. The scores won't be significantly different.

It absolutely cracks me up that people think a little weight here and there is going to make them champions

Edited August 16, 2008 by kdmoore

[smokshwn]

The "equipment race" comes up in every sport I have ever participated in. It is at best a sorry arguement and rarely ever proves to be true.

That is the very reason for the second quote in my sig line. Of all folks, it came from Col. Cooper.....yes that Col. Cooper.

Edited August 17, 2008 by Duane Thomas

[AikiDale]

IMHO, STOCK SERVICE PISTOL should be just that. Right out of the box completely stock. Sights, springs, trigger, everything should remain completely stock as it is an issued weapon by any local, state, or federal department. It's a STOCK SERVICE PISTOL after all right?

Keep It Simple Stupid.

Gotta ask: Does that principle apply to Stock Car racing as well? Just go down to the local dealership and pick up a factory stock car for the next NASCAR event?

[steel1212]

It doesn't matter which game you play, you can whine about the rules til you're blue in the face to no avail. It's much simpler to just live with them and make the best of them.

+1

I whine about this and that all the time, know what I do....suck it up and shoot the sport with in the rules and call it day and enjoy myself while doing it.

For the guys that say "why do I have to buy another gun just to shoot IDPA", you bought a gun to shoot limited didn't you? You can buy a 500$ Glock and shoot IDPA if you wish. Borrow a gun, most people will loan you one.

For the guys that say "it says no carbon or stainless FLDC" do you really want to shoot a ti or aluminum framed gun for very long and how many have one of those for a limited gun so they only need one gun to use?

If all you have is a edge, politly ask the MD if you can shoot it for no score, keep you score sheet an compare you scores to the rest of the field when the scores are put up. If others complain just tell them I'm not shooting for score and show them the score sheet with "shooting for no score" written across it and proceed to beat the snot out of them on that stage. If you want to be serious about it then be serious about it and get a legal gun that fits the rules like the rest of us did.

Just my Opinions.

[Jim Watson]

I follow the rules on the range, debate and quibble on the Internet. Two entirely different events.

[jam-man]

The problem with the argument "a few ounces doesn't matter" is this: you can add weight a few ounces at a time all the way up to a ton. If you are going to control weight, you've got to draw a line somewhere.

Personally, I'd let weight float. Set it at the weight of the heaviest production service gun + an ounce or two for a buffer. Review this every year and publish that number.

The real answer to this "problem" is to nip the equipment race mentalitiy in the butt. Publish the top shooters running pistols that are a few ounces apart from the weight of a glock all the way up to the heavy 226ST. The scores won't be significantly different.

It absolutely cracks me up that people think a little weight here and there is going to make them champions

+1 agee with you on almost everything. Like I said before I know IDPA had to draw the line somewhere. The bad part is the line was redrawn (not drawn) and when it was redrawn it elimanted some really nice weapons that were used then by long time competiors.

I still don't get the logic behind the rule change, was their a company making heavy mags? Or did the board just not think enough shooters used the weapons that would be elimanted? Or did they want to get rid of these weapons?

Does anyone know why the rule was added that a empty mag had to be weighted with the gun?

[Steve J]

I follow the rules on the range, debate and quibble on the Internet. Two entirely different events.

I follow the rules on the range and sometimes cut people some slack. I'm dogmatic about them and inflexible on the internet.

[USCSBarney]

I tried getting a response from IDPA on this quite a while back and got no reply either via email or phone calls.

I have an STI Tactical 4.15 in 9mm. Love it in non-USPSA 3 Gun matches. From the rules as I read them, it is illegal in ESP due to the "full length dust cover" but if it were the 5.0 with a bushing barrel, then it would be fine. Just not with the same frame and shorter slide. The bull barrel is OK but not the dust cover. On and on we go.

I am actually thinking about selling it and buying the 5.0 version with a bushing barrel for the 3 Gun and as a back up for my ESP gun. I will be the first one to say that there needs to be an overhaul of the rules to spell it out better but am also an advocate of makeing the rules more simple and eaiser. I understand the weight and box limits. I understand not wanting to encourage the "race gun" mentality. I agree with the trying to keep things as equal as possible idea, I just think it goes a bit too far.

[Jim Watson]

Cut about half an inch off the dust cover, maybe?

I don't know that RR@HQ would approve but it would pass MY inspection.

[Sestock]

Allowing competitors to modify frames would also violate one of the guiding principals of IDPA which is to not permit highly modified (read expensive) racey guns. If they were permitted, eventually someone would come up with a modification that was so successful it would become required to be competitive. The basic idea is that competitors use guns that are commonly available, and something that would be practical, and readily available. (I don't think it is unreasonable that that includes relatively affordable.) I know that a shortened STI would be a modification that duplicates a factory issued gun, but allowing that exception would be a slippery slope. People would soon be arguing that some other modification wasn't really that much of a departure.

It's a game. It has rules. In some sense all the rules are somewhat arbitrary, but some are more arbitrary than others.

No real difference between a custom 2011 and 1911 in price. I see a lot of $2000++ 1911 shooting matches.

[uscbigdawg]

In the 1911/STI/SV can't play debate, I guess I have two questions. If the long dustcover is a prohibited "modification", is it a modification if it comes from the factory? After all, Ed Brown makes a long dustcover 1911 (or used to) called the Monolith.

Second, why is a long dustcover pistol less "practical"? When I lived in AZ, my carry gun was a STI Edge in 40. Why? It held 20+1 of 40 and shot factory ammo great. Nothing like 21 rounds of Cor-Bon. Too, I know for a fact that many SF operators were testing STI Tactical pistols. To further clarify, those in and around Ft. Bragg. Would their use of it no also be considered a little "practical"? I can't confirm if they were ever used on mission however.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Rich

[Steve J]

Les Baer, not Ed Brown makes the Monolith, and it's not about practicality, it's about muzzle weighting and a perceived competitive advantage.

Steel full length dust covers are illegal in ESP and CDP. It's the rule. Deal with it.

[kgunz11]

In the 1911/STI/SV can't play debate, I guess I have two questions. If the long dustcover is a prohibited "modification", is it a modification if it comes from the factory? After all, Ed Brown makes a long dustcover 1911 (or used to) called the Monolith.

Second, why is a long dustcover pistol less "practical"? When I lived in AZ, my carry gun was a STI Edge in 40. Why? It held 20+1 of 40 and shot factory ammo great. Nothing like 21 rounds of Cor-Bon. Too, I know for a fact that many SF operators were testing STI Tactical pistols. To further clarify, those in and around Ft. Bragg. Would their use of it no also be considered a little "practical"? I can't confirm if they were ever used on mission however.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Rich

Some of the SF guys had the STI Tactical 5.0's when I was at Blackwater. They seemed to be VERY happy with their square range performance but were concerned about what would happen to such a tight gun when it got mud and dirt in it. I'd say the Tactical 5.0 is as practical as any gun I've seen when it comes to fighting for your life.

[uscbigdawg]

Les Baer, not Ed Brown makes the Monolith, and it's not about practicality, it's about muzzle weighting and a perceived competitive advantage.

Steel full length dust covers are illegal in ESP and CDP. It's the rule. Deal with it.

I guess it goes back to you guys (IDPA) complaining that the rules are poorly written because as far as I can tell it's listed as a banned modification. As for dealing with it. I do...by not playing IDPA.

Bobby - I agree with their findings. My concern had less to do with how tight the pistol is but rather the internal parts themselves. On my Edge, for carry, it was pretty stock other than replacing the trigger group with better quality parts and replacing the sights with a set of Novaks. It was a carry gun after all.

Just goes to show that intent of what to use in a REAL fight and what to use in a game are two different things.

Rich

[Duane Thomas]

Guys, let's cool the "real world fight versus match" stuff. It has no place here.

[Jim Watson]

IDPA sometimes uses different definitions, perhaps it is an Arkansas thing.

In this case "modification" means "different in overall appearance from a 1911". This is the basis for disallowing not only the Monolith and Edge (if equipped with a bushing barrel), but also the CZ97. It does not mean "altered from factory configuration."

There was a lot of debate on magazine carrier specifications in the drafting of the 2005 rules. We said the stability of rules clause meant that we did not have to replace our magazine carriers for a year after the design specs went in. Lo and behold we now find that "equipment" meant "gun" and only gun and the new verbiage is a stability of firearm criteria rule.

[Joe4d]

Well IDPA was about civilian carry guns then they create a set of divisions no carry gun is competitive in.

I say scrap all three divisions, replace them with, D.R's TSA divisions.

Full size, current box, current ESP max weight.

Compact, Current box 1 inch shorter, say 36 oz weight.

Sub compact, current box 1 inch shorter and 1 inch shorter up and down, and 32 0z limit,

fits box makes weight run it. your ten mile long trigger pull and reset cant run with my Para boo hoo cry me a river, ESP and SSP guns pretty much run neck and neck anyway, and this would give an actual venue for people to be competitive in actual defensive guns, "oh I always carry a 42oz single stack steel 9mm" yeh right.

[uscbigdawg]

...fits box makes weight run it..."oh I always carry a 42oz single stack steel 9mm" yeh right.

Now that's just funny right there.

Rich

[Joe D]

Here's how the rules work - IDPA guns have to be blessed by Robert Ray. USPSA has an encyclopedia to handle all the "Range Lawyers". There is probably some happy medium between both.

I won't even go into the USPSA mess, but here is an example of "Robert Rayisms". A Lone Wolf stainless steel slide for a Glock is not legal in IDPA due to front cocking serrations. OTOH one can tri top, scallop or whittle away the slide of a STI/SVI 2011 and still be legal in ESP/CDP.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Joe D