lugnut Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) I'm not seeing anything wrong with doing this in ESP.... that's my interpretation and I'll stick with it. Edited January 9, 2010 by lugnut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'm not seeing anything wrong with doing this in ESP.... that's my interpretation and I'll stick with it. Basically when it comes down to it ask the MD of your match. If he says yes, then your fine, if no then not. Same would be for a major match. If you ask before hand then you should be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Well, I think it is kind of silly, too. I have long been in favor of allowing more "customizing" and "enchancement" for CDP and ESP (and less modification from Stock in SSP.) But I am not the Obama Rules Czar. If you want an official interpretation, ask RR. Otherwise it is an almost invisible change and unlikely to be caught unless they start doing serious technical inspection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glock3422 Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 The rules for each Division have a heading:"PERMITTED Modifications (Inclusive list):" Earlier editions of the rules defined "inclusive" to mean "If it is not on this list it cannot be used in Defensive Pistol competition." I don't know why they dropped that line, but they did not drop the word "inclusive" and doubt HQ would interpret it any differently now. Change of slide is not on the permitted list, therefore it is not permitted. If you don't believe me, call Robert Ray. If you don't like his call, so solly. For use in ESP, I disagree. From rulebook regarding SSP: Permitted-6. Internal accuracy may be worked to include replacement of barrel with one of factory configuration and original caliber. Excluded-6. A barrel of another caliber that is not offered in the original factory model. From rulebook regarding ESP: Permitted-3. Internal accuracy work (includes: replacement of the barrel with one of factory configuration, the use of Accu-Rails, the use of Briley Bushings). Excluded-? No mention of barrel or caliber. Exactly. The rule book clearly permits changing caliber in ESP. If Berryville wants to change, clarify, or reconsider their language, they need to start posting that information on the IDPA web site and not by email to individuals. Those personal rulings violate the stability of equipment rules premise on Page 11- Stability of Firearm Criteria Rule This rule applies to firearms only; specifically any rule change that would disallow a firearm previously approved for IDPA competition. Firearm criteria changes will only be reviewed every two (2) years. Any firearm criteria changes will go into effect twelve (12) months after approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I believe that the justification of barring caliber conversion barrels even in ESP was that a Glock .40 barrel is of slightly larger O.D. than a 9mm barrel, so a 9mm conversion barrel constitutes a nonstandard bull barrel and is therefore not of "factory configuration." But I can't find an official policy statment on that so as Jeff Cooper said, you may do as you think best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Z Sr Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Not a Glock man, but what what I've seen at most IDPA matches most of the shooters and RO/SO's are great people, if you shoot the Glock well enough to win or beat one of the local hero's, the rule book seems to come out real quick. Shoot safe, have fun and maybe you won't get caught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Bell Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 But I can't find an official policy statment on that ... That right there would be so easy to fix. It is getting to be a broken record, but I just don't understand why IDPA hasn't done so. They have a website and a publication to document rulings, clarifications, etc. On topic I have seen the email posted somewhere from Robert Ray stating that this isn't allowed. As a match director or SO how am I supposed to equitably enforce rules that not all competitors have access to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 But I can't find an official policy statment on that ... That right there would be so easy to fix. It is getting to be a broken record, but I just don't understand why IDPA hasn't done so. They have a website and a publication to document rulings, clarifications, etc. On topic I have seen the email posted somewhere from Robert Ray stating that this isn't allowed. As a match director or SO how am I supposed to equitably enforce rules that not all competitors have access to? Agreed. I think that's why most MDs, SOs will always give the benefit of the doubt to the shooter. I can't tell you how many times I've heard SOs want to give PEs or state other similar violations per this discussion only to back off when asked where it says that in the rule book.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Watson Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 On topic I have seen the email posted somewhere from Robert Ray stating that this isn't allowed. As a match director or SO how am I supposed to equitably enforce rules that not all competitors have access to? Agreed. I can handle the rules even though I will not use some of them when I get around to organizing MSA (My Shooting Association) IF I KNOW THEM. With a print periodical and a website I think it would be reasonable to publish official rule interpretations and policy decisions and not leave us guessing and hunting for individual posts and e-mails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Christian Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 +1 to the above last handful of posts. There are many gray areas in the Rule Book, and you can't fault a competitor who has one in his hand and points out the "This is what the Rule Book says". Every IDPA member has access to the Rule Book. Not all have access to "interpretive rulings" delivered via forum or email. The very vast majority of the MDs I have met will give the shooter every benefit of the doubt (it says that right in the Rule Book). Until the Rule Book is re-written in a more clear manner (and I'm not certain that's totally possible given advancements in equipment, custom work, and plain old shooter "inventiveness) the MDs are going to have to use some commonsense... and virtually all of them do, in my experience. IMHO, if you can't find in the Rule Book where the answer is "No" .. then the answer should be "Yes". Chris Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmorris Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 So, if you really want to be safe just get a CCF race frame and a then you can put any slide and or barrel combination on it that you want at anytime you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pro2AInPA Posted January 10, 2010 Author Share Posted January 10, 2010 So, if you really want to be safe just get a CCF race frame and a then you can put any slide and or barrel combination on it that you want at anytime you want. CCF race frames are IDPA legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Christian Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 If that is legal under the Rule Book I would say Yes. If it's not, I would say No. You have to have a base line standard somewhere. And, at the moment, the Rule Book is the only base line standard that is available to all dues paying members. Given that they have paid their annual dues, and are members in good standing, they should have a readily available base line to tell them what is legal and what is not. If the Rule Book lacks... then re-write it. Chris Christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midvalleyshooter Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 So say my G35 frame is damaged beyond repair. I send it to Glock for repair and they install a new frame. The numbers don't match any longer. But the gun is legal, right? So whats the diff with Lugnuts gun? This sort of discussion reminds me of Jack Nicholson's great scene from Five Easy Pieces. The man only wants some toast! Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 (edited) So say my G35 frame is damaged beyond repair. I send it to Glock for repair and they install a new frame. The numbers don't match any longer. But the gun is legal, right?So whats the diff with Lugnuts gun? This sort of discussion reminds me of Jack Nicholson's great scene from Five Easy Pieces. The man only wants some toast! Keith Just in case I show up at a match.. I want everyone to know the uppers/lowers on all my Glock match. I was just trying to make a point. I love that scene! Edited January 11, 2010 by lugnut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 (edited) Keith - that can and does happen; Glock/Smyrna sends out guns with non-matching numbers. That being the case, the rule seems totally unenforceable. I don't even see how it serves the goal of avoiding an equipment race either. Just my $.02. Edited January 11, 2010 by Steve Koski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmorris Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 CCF race frames are IDPA legal? Why would they not be? The OP is talking about ESP in the first place, with the magwell and all. How could a full custom SV be ok but a full custom CCF not be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I find this post so hilarious. Everyone said it was illegal until I gave my interpretation of the rule book, and now the forum totally changes direction. All I have further to say about the legality of this firearm in IDPA is, "If it ain't, it oughta be." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 This post has descended into complaining about the IDPA Rule Book. That is not what the IDPA Rules forum is for. We even have a post stating that, helpfully pinned to the top of the first page in the IDPA forum Please read it, and follow it in the future. Actually here's a link to make it easy: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=91622 Thanks. This topic is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts