PHolsted Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 With all due respect too Robert & Ted how can a ruling on this matter be left too their interpretation of the rules? Do either of these men have the ability too make and/or change IDPA rules? Why can't someone walk over to Mr. Wilson's office and ask what his ruling is, he wrote the rule book. How can a competitor go to a match and decision is up too each MD's interpretation if legal? Seems very simple too me, go ask the man who owns IDPA, his interpretation is the only one that counts.ShootemGood, Robert Walker I dont believe I heard any one here say that Ted make a ruling on this matter. However I believe that Robert can and has. The only problem with his rulings are they were made on a case by case decision. As it has been said here and many others places and at this match it would be Great if these rulings were posted on an official site at IDPA then added to the rule book when it is updated. So to answer the OP Per the existing current rule book is the Recoil Master legal? If you go to STI's website (http://www.stiguns.com/docs/RecoilMaster.html) the argument could be made that this device enables the shooter to return the gun back to point of aim quicker thus making this a useful tool for self defense use. At the same time you could also argue this is a competition item and if one started allowing it others may think they would need this to be competitive and thus making an equipment race. I think we all know that that would not fall under the purpose of IDPA. As I can find no reference to the Recoil Master being a Guide Rod but more of a system used to control and reduce recoil I as a MD would rule this a competition device using the following from the rule book. Appendix ONE - Equipment A. Firearms, 1. Non-IDPA Legal Modifications for all Divisions "IDPA founders hoped to create a practical shooting discipline that will not turn into an equipment race. Pistol barrel porting does enhance recoil control (granted increased muzzle flash is an unwanted byproduct) and thus could offer a competitive advantage. " I believe this is an example for MD's to use when considering these types of questions. Is this the best way? Maybe not but IDPA was founded on common sense but as this is a game that we all play and continues to grow each year maybe it is time to take the guess work out and have a rule book that is black and white. just my .02! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootemGood Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 Post #42 referred to Robert & Ted. I would imagine any rule change goes across Mr. Wilson's desk for stamp of approval. If question about Recoil Master has been going for awhile, why can't we get an official ruling rather than depending on 2nd-3rd hand information off of internet forum? ShootemGood, Robert Walker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm52 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 As I posted earlier, I was at this match, as a spectator, where this question and thread began. I was surrounded by strangers that were willing to answer all of my redundant and stupid questions. I had a great time and thought that getting involved again in shooting sports would be great fun. I'm retired, old and joined this forum since I have time and a renewed interest in shooting and handloading. Although I wasn't aware of the call the MD made or would understand it if I was, the time I spent at the match was entertaining, informative (for me) and a blast. I appreciate and understand rules and also fully understand judgement calls or 'rulings'. A ruling was made, based upon the interpretation of the rules. If the shooter in question took issue, I'm sure there is an avenue that he/she could pursue to have ruling overturned or get concurrance. IF the Recoil Master is allowed or disallowed, what is to prevent the same discourse when a question arises about new and improved gizmo®, that isn't included or excluded in the rule book? Is the goal to make a rule book burdened with addendums and updates that cover each and every new or existing mod or to allow a ruling by the RO, SO or MD based upon their knowledge, understanding and reference to the official Rule Book? Perhaps being entirely new here and to the sport there is something I am missing or again don't understand. There appears to be a lot of postings 'yes it is'...'no it isn't" going on for the sake of merely saying it. Again, it may just be my novice observation. I am fighting the urge to purchase a XD or M&P to just go out and have fun, not concerning myself with ever placing above the bottom. But with the thought that I might purchase a used pistol that had been used for Production or 'stock' and it being disqualified by having some whiz bang device inside, makes the fight a bit easier. It is no wonder that I have only shot revolvers. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 (edited) I completely understand and support your revolver perspective Steve. I think you'll find IDPA is a great place for revolver shooters. Welcome -and glad you enjoyed yourself. Thanks to the match staff wherever you were for making it a positive experience for you. There is no arbitration process with an IDPA MD locally, regionally or Nationally. I shoot USPSA, ICORE and IDPA and I see discrepancies in all sports at a local level. No one is any "better or worse" than any other - though some are more vocal. Since you're new by your own admission and basing your judgment on a very small data set, I'll give you my "not new" perspective: The vast majority of IDPA shooters - <99% in my experience - employ a completely functional, successful and tested strategy of not bringing MDs to a "page 55 ultimatum" decision point. Here's why and how most of these conflict points arise: Some sports are designed to promote and reward a liberal "if it is not specifically prohibited it is allowed" equipment strategy. The IDPA rule book uses the opposite position, a more conservative "if it is not specifically permitted it is not allowed" equipment strategy. You can imagine the potential conflict when shooters from one discipline cross over to another and expect things the be the same in both sports. It isn't, and it doesn't have to be in my opinion. You just need to know where you are at any given time and not expect everywhere to be like "home". The inclusive lists are defining in my "not new" perspective - and this particular issue has been discussed and decided in the past. I predict those that are bargaining for salvation may get a lethal dose - if I might turn a Dylan quote. Best Regards - and I hope to see you at the Nationals shooting that revolver (SSR?), Craig Edited March 11, 2009 by Bones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T Bacus Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Here's why and how most of these conflict points arise: Some sports are designed to promote and reward a liberal "if it is not specifically prohibited it is allowed" equipment strategy. The IDPA rule book uses the opposite position, a more conservative "if it is not specifically permitted it is not allowed" equipment strategy. You can imagine the potential conflict when shooters from one discipline cross over to another and expect things the be the same in both sports. It isn't, and it doesn't have to be in my opinion. You just need to know where you are at any given time and not expect everywhere to be like "home".Craig An as accurate description of the differences between IDPA and USPSA as I've ever read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggieMM Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Personal opinion time, but I think MDs using clarifications they've discovered here and over at ted's place are simply allowing the inaction of HQ to properly disseminate information to continue. I think if folks make a decision to simply go by the most current rulebook, and ignore second-hand information until it is properly posted (whether that be the IDPA website, tactical journal, whatever they decide and inform the membership of), then HQ will be forced to take corrective action if they want those issues enforced the way they have decided. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm52 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Here's why and how most of these conflict points arise: Some sports are designed to promote and reward a liberal "if it is not specifically prohibited it is allowed" equipment strategy. The IDPA rule book uses the opposite position, a more conservative "if it is not specifically permitted it is not allowed" equipment strategy. You can imagine the potential conflict when shooters from one discipline cross over to another and expect things the be the same in both sports. It isn't, and it doesn't have to be in my opinion. You just need to know where you are at any given time and not expect everywhere to be like "home".The inclusive lists are defining in my "not new" perspective - and this particular issue has been discussed and decided in the past. I predict those that are bargaining for salvation may get a lethal dose - if I might turn a Dylan quote. Best Regards - and I hope to see you at the Nationals shooting that revolver (SSR?), Craig Craig: The light bulb turned on, although still burning dimly! Thank you for the reply and explanation. I understood IDPA's goal of not permiting competition only equipment. In your closing about SSR? I immediatly thought the acronym stood for Stainless Steel Ruger instead of Stock Service Revolver, thus eliminating all of my current handguns. Thanks again, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry cazes Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Here's why and how most of these conflict points arise: Some sports are designed to promote and reward a liberal "if it is not specifically prohibited it is allowed" equipment strategy. The IDPA rule book uses the opposite position, a more conservative "if it is not specifically permitted it is not allowed" equipment strategy. You can imagine the potential conflict when shooters from one discipline cross over to another and expect things the be the same in both sports. It isn't, and it doesn't have to be in my opinion. You just need to know where you are at any given time and not expect everywhere to be like "home".Craig An as accurate description of the differences between IDPA and USPSA as I've ever read. Accurate although incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detonics Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Gentleman, In regards to the question as to whether the STI Recoil Master is legal or not, the answer is no. This particular system was deemed a "competition only devise" over 4 years ago. I am not sure where this info may have been posted at the time as it was before I came to work here. Am pretty certain that if you mention that you want a particular model for IDPA competition that the great folks at STI will put a standard guide rod in your new blaster. They are a great company and very helpful. I do know that IDPA has not and will not start a list with the legality of every new gizmo that comes along. That list would quickly become useless do to the innumerable small changes that manufactures are constantly making to their products. This is why IDPA no longer has an approved holster list but instead a list of criteria that holsters must meet. Maybe a new parts criteria would be in order here but I would not start looking for a list. I do know that a number of people have asked for a rule clarification listing on the IDPA website and to that I can only say that although we do not have that at this time, the future brings many changes. Luckily there have been several people that offered reasonable and thoughtful requests devoid of the chest beating and the "stupid HQ" type references. I hope that this answers your questions. If you have a specific question please feel free to send it directly to me at HQ. That email once again is robert at idpa.com. Robert Ray IDPA HQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkeeler Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adweisbe Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Heresay follows. If I recall correctly STI sells some guns with the recoil master to some foreign military organization (Finland? Iceland?). I cannot recall the details. If true that would go a ways towards debunking the competition only argument. If they called it a feeding spring instead of a recoil spring (like they should) I doubt we would be having this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Well, now the question has been answered. HQ does respond. Now the conflict can end. Pretty cool, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AggieMM Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) I do know that a number of people have asked for a rule clarification listing on the IDPA website and to that I can only say that although we do not have that at this time, the future brings many changes. Luckily there have been several people that offered reasonable and thoughtful requests devoid of the chest beating and the "stupid HQ" type references. Thank you Robert for responding. I hope that IDPA HQ will make this (rule clarification section) a priority, as it would really help minimize the confusion. Thanks. Ryan Edited March 12, 2009 by AggieMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 On that note, since the OP's question has now been been answered, I think I'm going to lock this one down so it can end with the clarification from IDPA HQ. If anyone has anything substantive to add, PM me and I'll consider reopening it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts