BeeVee Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Fellow shooters I thought I would throw my two cents in regarding the gun weight. I was not at the Smith match, but I would have been DQ'd too because I own a completely Stainless Sig P226 Elite 9mm. I forgot all about consulting the rule book when I bought it because I was focused on getting a gun to replace my ancient Beretta 92F to continue shooting in SSP. I was in Factoryville PA when another shooter questioned me about the weight, so I checked things out. The gun comes in at 46.5 ounces (with empty mag) which I know violates the rule, but I contend that the rule should be changed. Not because of my personal involvement, but because the gun is still a stock DA/SA and should be acceptable in at least one of the divisions. I don't know for sure, but I'll bet the weight of the accessory rail is what puts it over the edge. Please post your opinion on getting the rule changed so I and others can continue participating in sanctioned matches or until I can afford a new gun. Trust me....anyone that has seen me shoot knows that the extra couple of ounces is NOT giving me any edge. Haha!! Bill V A07134 MD for Tioga County Sportsmen's Association - in Owego NY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 (edited) Now I'll be the first to agree that IDPA has some rule book issues but the weight line has to be drawn somewhere. If you read the Purpose of IDPA at the front of the book I see no way that a 46 oz gun realistically meets that purpose. Using your "Its a Stock" gun I could show up with a 6" steel Para that goes around 50 oz. Edited February 28, 2009 by Joe4d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwb01 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Post your concerns for rule changes HERE. A central location for all wanted changes to be kept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeVee Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 Now I'll be the first to agree that IDPA has some rule book issues but the weight line has to be drawn somewhere. If you read the Purpose of IDPA at the front of the book I see no way that a 46 oz gun realistically meets that purpose. Using your "Its a Stock" gun I could show up with a 6" steel Para that goes around 50 oz. Joe, You make a good point. I'm sure this makes for a well debated issue. The thing of it is.....if you put the Sig P226 in blued next to the Stainless it is the same gun, to the best of my knowledge. Both of which would fit in the box. I am only offering as an observation that maybe the weight limits could be adjusted since what has really changed is that many guns have an accessory rail which adds a couple of ounces to the weight of the gun, but the gun isn't really any different. We could probably debate it to death, but it will be one for the "powers that be" to decide. Even if they eased up on the weight requirement for ESP, currently 43oz., I'd switch divisions and hey, if they decide to do nothing, it's their game, I'll just shoot monthly matches, and no sanctioned matches, with no hard feelings on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The debate on weight is really only a debate in the CDP division. It's a "Custom" division shooters should be allowed more. Also the majority of the intended guns for the division either dont make weight or just squeak by. If you had a basically stock 1911 and later found out it weighed 41.5 oz (and many do) I could support you. But SSP was a division created for what most people feel is a stock pistol with the biggest sellers being either polymer framed or light alloy framed. A random grab of any normal issue carry gun or police service pistol will result in a gun that's fully compliant with SSP rules. A shooter would really have to try to find one that wasnt. Now dont take this the wrong way but let me hold a mirror up to your comments, "I didnt check the rule book before I bought" " I now want the rule changed" 7.5 oz's isnt just a hair over and it isnt caused by just a light rail. With lots and lots of 26-32 oz guns out there that drastic of a weight change also violates the hole "No arms race" policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickB Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I suspect CDP limit will be raised to 43 ounces, but I doubt anything will be done in SSP. Personally, I'd support lowering the limits in ESP and CDP, but that's me. Who adds weight to a carry gun? An all-steel 1911 is about a heavy as a realistic service pistol gets, and a Combat Commander is certainly more realistic. I'd rather not carry anything heavier than a Lightweight Commander, and the CDP limit is already 15 ounces more than a Lightweight weighs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 The thing of it is.....if you put the Sig P226 in blued next to the Stainless it is the same gun, to the best of my knowledge. Well, except for the little fact that one of them weighs about 20 ounces more than the other. I can't claim a magic pipeline into the thought processes of IDPA HQ, but I would hazard a guess the reasoning behind the weight limit in SSP is that they saw IDPA match guns beginning to go the way of PPC, with specialized pieces so godawfully heavy they're useless for anything but shooting their particular sport/match. NOT what the sport was ever meant to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boats Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Weight being one of the primary advantages gun to gun, If you have a heavy gun I need one to compete. That's why almost any competition has a weight rule. Boats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock3422 Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I don't agree that a heavy gun has an advantage over a lighter one. Certainly a heavy gun will offset recoil, but it also transitions and comes to point slower. Additionally, where a gun carries the weight matters a lot. Give me a light gun with a high percentage of the weight in the frame. The problem is that light guns take the weight out of the frame, not the slide. That said, IDPA needs to address weight issues more consistently. I would propose a 43 oz limit for all semi-auto divisions. Secondly, a rationale has to be expressed for why a 50 oz revolver is more "carry" friendly weapon than another weight for gun with more available rounds. I don't get it. If 50 oz is good for a six shooter, it should be good for all divisions. I wouldn't carry or compete with a 50 oz gun, but why should anyone be prevented from trying? My ESP Glock is 29 oz. Thirdly, if I have a 29 oz ESP Glock that fits the box, why shouldn't I be able to use my surplus 14 oz on a magwell if I think that makes my gun more competitive or assists my shooting? Finally, if I am building a ESP or CDP gun I should be able to meet weight limits and criteria however I choose within the rules. If I want to build a CDP Glock 21 with a "tactical" length slide and cut the top out of it like a G-34/35, why not? ESP/CDP are Custom divisions. Glock has already cut the top out of two of the most widely sold guns in the world. I am not talking about SSP, I am talking about having a slide custom manufactured to my specifications. I want the top cut out because it is the best way to reduce weight, maintain strength, and allow the use of stock springs for reliability. I am entirely serious about this. Require that a gun fit the box. Specify the maximum weight. Allow competitors to fit those two criteria however they want. If you go beyond that, imply intent and evil purpose, you take away the custom aspect of ESP and CDP. The slide lightening "rule" is so subjective as to be counter productive and as clear as reading tea leaves. IDPA needs to get away from suggestions and subjectivity. If I want to shoot a Glock 19 with a lead magwell, who should care? BTW, I don't shoot a revolver, but power factor for them is crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 You're not allowed to do those things because one of the central premises of IDPA is to compete with reasonably stock guns. Which is why there are very definite limits to what you can and can't do in CDP and ESP, and even stricter limits in SSP. The founders of IDPA all came to the new sport with 20 or so years experience in IPSC/USPSA, they saw what an enrestrained equipment race had done to that sport, and, with great foresight and wisdom, I think, set up their rules to shortstop that ever happening in IDPA. "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them," and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boats Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Heavy shooting higher scores than light is a general rule, will agree it's how the weight is distributed that's key. One rule is firm and will always stand, when weights are allowed to increase everybody shooting guns that made the old limit need a new one. Thus fueling the equipment race, Have been there and done that in other shooting sports. Would hope IDPA leaves it alone rather than make most of us obsolete just so somebody can use his pet blaster Boats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobMoore Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 If someone considers themselves obsolete because their old gun weighs 3 oz less than the new max, its their own fault for the bad perception, and they have nobody else to blame but themselves for their need to buy a new gun. Glock shooters haven't ever felt obsolete, and they weigh a good bit under the max weight. They don't seem to have a problem winning championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 (edited) I suspect CDP limit will be raised to 43 ounces, but I doubt anything will be done in SSP. Personally, I'd support lowering the limits in ESP and CDP, but that's me. Who adds weight to a carry gun? An all-steel 1911 is about a heavy as a realistic service pistol gets, and a Combat Commander is certainly more realistic. I'd rather not carry anything heavier than a Lightweight Commander, and the CDP limit is already 15 ounces more than a Lightweight weighs. Lowering ESP and CDP? I would say about 25% of from the factory guns won't make the 41oz CDP limit. My stock Springer with some TI small parts, and the factory FLGR was over weight. I had to add a plastic MSH and eventually went to an aluminum one with a magwell. I seriously doubt my 100% stock TRP would make weight as it sits and I carry it all the time. ESP is the same way, when you fill up a .45 barrel with more metal for a .355 hole it gains weight. If you want to shoot your light weight commander by all means do so but don't change the rules so its even harder for the rest of us to play as it already is. As for a gun that is 7oz over weight I would have to agree with Joe on this one, your way over not just a .5 over. For your gun to make it would be a drastic change and IDPA won't/shouldn't go that far. Edited March 3, 2009 by steel1212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokshwn Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 I never could figure out why a 50oz. revolver was not too heavy but an auto over 43oz was ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickB Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Lowering ESP and CDP? I would say about 25% of from the factory guns won't make the 41oz CDP limit. My stock Springer with some TI small parts, and the factory FLGR was over weight. I had to add a plastic MSH and eventually went to an aluminum one with a magwell. I seriously doubt my 100% stock TRP would make weight as it sits and I carry it all the time. ESP is the same way, when you fill up a .45 barrel with more metal for a .355 hole it gains weight. If you want to shoot your light weight commander by all means do so but don't change the rules so its even harder for the rest of us to play as it already is. The 25% that don't make weight are the same as those that do, but with a bunch of weight-adding stuff on them. That is, there's not some non-1911 gun that everybody wants to use, but nobody can, because it's too heavy. People want their 1911s, with four ounces of weight added, to be legal. If you want to carry a 45 ounce pistol, by all means do so, but don't change the rules so they no longer reflect the principles of the sport. The heaviest factory pistol I've seen on a scale was a TRP, and if that one gun model can't be used because it's too heavy, I don't think the sport, or Springfield's bottom line, is going to suffer. If you raise the weight limit, so that every weight-adding part is legal, everyone will "need" every weight-adding part. Weight = $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeidaho Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 The weight rules are just fine as they are. I hope they do not change anything. I ran a steel P14-45 with adjustable sights for a long time in CDP and it made weight. I'd say that is an already generous weight limit. kr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bacus Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why do so many people have trouble understanding that the IDPA equipment rules are not about practicality they are about preventing an equipment race, real or percived. USPSA is for people who like to take gun design to the limits, IDPA is not. Both games are fun, but stop trying to turn IDPA into USPSA lite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobMoore Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why do so many people have trouble understanding that the IDPA equipment rules are not about practicality ..... Paragraph 2 in the rulebook "The founders developed the sport so that practical gear and practical guns may be used competitively." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 This is not the place for any sort of IPSC/USPSA versus IDPA debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry cazes Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Why do so many people have trouble understanding that the IDPA equipment rules are not about practicality they are about preventing an equipment race, real or percived. USPSA is for people who like to take gun design to the limits, IDPA is not. Both games are fun, but stop trying to turn IDPA into USPSA lite. Well, based on this statement sounds like the intent is IDPA = Anti-USPSA. Shouldn't it be about practicality first and then agendas second, third, etc? Based on my understanding of the thread, I really don't think anyone here is trying to make IDPA into USPSA lite. They are just trying to figure out why some of the rules dont fit the stated mission of the sport and what can be done to improve them. I for one think weigth limits are not practicle since we all have different capabilities and tolerances for carry. How do you set a limit that makes sense for everyone? It might be better to concentrate more effort to limiting the types of modifications that can be done to stock guns only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I must not have made myself clear. Closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts