Double standards...

RSS
Email

Author	Comment
drewbing	Double standards...	Lead	[-]
Posts: 67 (02/18/09 10:32:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None I think this is one of my biggest pet peaves with IDPA, Here is my example. ESP Slide lightening is an excluded mod. And So are Full Length Dust covers... So Why is the Glock 34/35 legal and not the Box Stock CZ SP01? Both are factory models, both are separate from the models on which they are based. Seems to me that if one is legal then so should the other. However that isn't the case. Both have so called "competition only modifications" but yet one (glock) is allowed... Yes, yes I know that if one does the right things to get the SP01 to lose weight and make SSP weight, it can be shot in ESP, but that isn't the point. If one does not do those things, it isn't legal. The interesting thing here is that the SSP exception can't even be argued for the glock, as slide lightening is not allowed in that division either... Clearly this is a case of HQ declaring one gun legal despite the rules... Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA
Steve Koski		#1	[-]
Posts: 496 (02/18/09 11:22:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I guess no system is absolutely perfect from every perspective. Remind me about the CZSP01 issue. How is this the same/different from the Glock 34/35? Thanks, Koski Last Edited By: Steve Koski 02/18/09 11:25:26. Edited 1 times.
drewbing		#2	[-]
Posts: 68 (02/18/09 12:59:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve, The SP01 is too heavy for SSP in it's box stock trim, And it has been ruled to have a FLDC which excludes it from ESP. The comparison to the Glock is that the 34/35 clearly has a slide cutout, and slide lightening is illegal in both SSP and ESP, except for apparently in the case of the Glock 34/35. Both(all three actually) guns are Factory stock guns and are regular production models. For whatever reason, one gets an exception to a "modification" rule while the other does not. And in reality, neither gun has a modification, rather it is a factory feature. The SP01 can be used in IDPA if you have the gun customized to make SSP weight. and then it uses the SSP guns can shoot ESP exception. It just seems like some guns are more equal than others when it comes to HQ and the rulings that they issue. Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA
Steve J		#3	[-]
Posts: 126 (02/18/09 15:03:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Slide lightening is a modification and is by definition something that is done to the gun after it has been manufactured and sold to the user. If it comes from the factory with a hole standard on every gun, it is not slide lightening. Full length dust covers are legal if they are polymer, aluminum or other lighter than steel / non steel material. Check it out. EXCLUDED Modifications (NON-Inclusive list): 1. Full length dust covers of carbon or stainless steel. Steve J A17557
rvb		#4	[-]
Posts: 13 (02/18/09 16:51:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The problem is and always will be the word "modified." Would be much simpler if they just said what is and isn't allowed, factory or not. Steve just demonstrated the contradiction... a "factory" light slide is not "modified" and deemed legal but a "factory" longer dust cover is "modified" if's made of steel??? -rvb Ryan V. B. IDPA: A14058 USPSA: TY56060
Steve J		#5	[-]
Posts: 128 (02/18/09 19:05:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve J A17557
blsextonjr		#6	[-]
Posts: 9 (02/18/09 21:46:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	How about a CZ Phantom in Polymer? Not the answer you were looking for, but could be a reallistic alternative.
drewbing		#7	[-]
Posts: 69 (02/19/09 08:44:04) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I can agree to an extent that a FLDC would be a competition only modification whether it is factory or not, but so is a slide cutout. The thing with the SP01 is that it doesn't have a FLDC it has a full length accessory rail. And even though we don't allow attachments to those rails in our sport, it is a totally practical thing to have on a combat or defensive pistol. Especially one that would be a choice for home defense with a light attached. The point is not that a polymer frame model is available or not. The point is to demonstrate the double standard that is created when rules are waived for one model of a gun. The bottom line is that there are some rules and declarations that HQ have made that make little to no sense. As some people have said rules are rules.... It's too bad that they aren't enforced equally. Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA
Steve Koski		#8	[-]
Posts: 500 (02/19/09 09:02:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The slide holes aren't a mod, as the gun comes that way from the factory. Get over it already. Similarly, the FLDC isn't a mod since it comes that way from the factory. However, HQ seems to treat the "Excluded Modifications" list as an "Excluded Features" list for both ESP and CDP. If it's on that list, it's not allowed, even if the gun came that way from the factory. If they changed that one word it would be crystal clear. Koski
drewbing		#9	[-]
Posts: 70 (02/19/09 09:26:34) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve, I'm not following your logic... Slide lightening is an exclude "mod" or feature in both SSP, ESP and CDP. I assume that what your opinion is that despite the hole in the slide, that doesn't constitute slide lightening... Well, my opinion is that the SP01 doesn't have a FLDC, it has a light rail... It's all semantics... But any reasonable person can see that one was selected to be legal, while the other was not. You probably can't accept that, and that's fine. BTW and example of a gun that DOES have a FLDC is the CZ97. Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA
SL1		#10	[-]
Posts: 49 (02/19/09 12:14:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I hope the new rules can get over some of these excluded "modifications" or features now that they are becoming available in stock models. If not, then at least we should all be thankful that IDPA was not developed earlier in our history. If it had been, we would probably be debating whether Hornady "lock'n'load" sabots are legal for IDPA reloads during a string with out flintlock single-shot pistols. All the other improvements in firearms technology would probably still be illegal. Steve L.
CChristian		#11	[-]
Posts: 108 (02/19/09 12:17:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Just a thought... but as far as language definitions go... wouldn't a "modification" be something a shooter did to the gun after he bought it... but a "model feature" would be what the gun came off the assembly line from the factory with? I'm not defending the Rule Book as written, because as I've noted before the language could use some tweaking. But, if you can buy a factory gun over-the-counter, and that gun's intended purpose if self-defense/duty use, I see no reason why it couldn't be used in IDPA. If a shooter decides to "modify" a factory gun, then I could see the logic in having excluded modifications. It's a can of worms, but a factory stock gun should... IMHO... should be allowed to compete. Chris Christian
Steve Koski		#12	[-]
Posts: 501 (02/19/09 13:15:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	drewbing wrote: Steve, I'm not following your logic... Slide lightening is an exclude "mod" or feature in both SSP, ESP and CDP. I assume that what your opinion is that despite the hole in the slide, that doesn't constitute slide lightening... Well, my opinion is that the SP01 doesn't have a FLDC, it has a light rail... It's all semantics... But any reasonable person can see that one was selected to be legal, while the other was not. You probably can't accept that, and that's fine. BTW and example of a gun that DOES have a FLDC is the CZ97. Drew, I now think I fully follow your logic, and I agree. Koski
Mark Mayo		#13	[-]
Posts: 271 (02/24/09 10:02:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Drew, I'm afraid that you are fighting the losing battle of semantics. The Glock 34/35 was designed and built as a factory gun, legal for competition in IDPA. The lightened slide of that model is legal because it's a stock from the factory. It's designed that way on purpose so that the gun will actually function properly. It wouldn't cycle reliably without the slide cut. The fact that the SP01 uses a steel frame and has a full length light rail made of steel seals it's fate for IDPA. The real issue is that Glock had IDPA in mind when it designed the gun 10 years ago. CZ obviously did not factor IDPA into their design. Glock 1, CZ 0 It just gives too much of an advantage over your peers in the division. One cannot deny the fact that the extra weight of a steel light rail that extends the full length of the slide gives an advantage in recoil management over all the guns currently competing in IDPA. Allowing it contradicts the spirit of fairness and fuels the equipment race that IDPA is designed to restrict. It's a cool gun, no doubt. But obviously CZ didn't design it with IDPA in mind. mayonaise1959.blogspot.com Last Edited By: Mark Mayo 02/24/09 10:22:35. Edited 2 times.
RobMoore		#14	[-]
Posts: 231 (02/24/09 10:35:46) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Mark, so you're saying a gun designed with competition in mind is more in line with the "spirit of IDPA" than one designed primarily as a duty/defense weapon?
Steve Koski		#15	[-]
Posts: 520 (02/24/09 23:23:25) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Marks is saying that a light weight Glock that weighs the same as G22s issued to 50% of the US police force doesn't seem like a "competition only" gun, but an overweight CZ with a steel FLDC does seem like a competition only gun. Makes sense to me. Drew is saying that slide lightening and steel dust covers are both unallowed "modifications" in ESP. HQ uses the word "modifications" as if it meant "features" and in this cases has decided to allow the G34/35 cutouts and disallow the FLDC on the CZ. This does seem like HQ is playing favorites, and choosing to interpret the word "modifications" differently in the two cases. Koski
freeidaho		#16	[-]
Posts: 2786 (02/24/09 23:43:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Steve, Almost. HQ used the word modification to mean modification based on 1996 or 1997 pistols, when the rule was first penned. Light rails and full length dust covers were modifications back then. The verbiage has not changed much since then, which may lead to this whole thread. Since the word modification is still in there in 2009, it sometimes means modification and sometimes it means feature. FLDCs are mostly features today, hardly anyone takes the time to add one to a pistol any more, they are readily available over the counter. In the case of the slide cut-outs on the G34 and G35, they are not modifications from a stock gun. Just like the Beretta also doesn't have slide lightening, it is just made that way so that it works properly. Lightening, by definition means modification from stock. The SP01 misses SSP because of the weight, and it misses ESP because it has a disallowed feature, the FLDC made of steel or stainless. There are lots of guns in the situation. There are no Desert Eagles in IDPA, no Tec-9s, or S&W500s, etc. That is the way it is when a rule draws a line in the sand. Some things are on one side of the line, some things are on the other. This does not make the line incorrect. It is a just a line that defines the sport. We might just as well ask "Why are there only 11 players on the field? It should be 12 for football, Damnit! ! ! And why an odd number of innings in baseball, that is weird. Ken Reed Last Edited By: freeidaho 02/25/09 00:14:52. Edited 4 times.
Steve Koski		#17	[-]
Posts: 523 (02/25/09 00:15:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Good background Ken. It explains why "modifications" is sometimes interpreted this way, and sometimes that way. There is some history there... Take care, koski
drewbing		#18	[-]
Posts: 71 (02/25/09 08:11:42) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	RobMoore wrote: Mark, so you're saying a gun designed with competition in mind is more in line with the "spirit of IDPA" than one designed primarily as a duty/defense weapon? +1 I hadn't even thought of this, but if you look at Glock's own website, the 34/35 is listed under competition... Drew Bingaman A23026 KSA IDPA
Steve Koski		#19	[-]
Posts: 528 (02/26/09 01:56:45) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yeah, and some STI guns say "Tactical" right on the slide!!! Koski
SL1		#20	[-]
Posts: 50 (02/26/09 09:30:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Another area that IDPA "rules" on is confusing me in this regard. There is a big issue made of guide rods. My P-229 came from the factory with a solid rod. I did not realize that any others came with different rods until I read in the Sig Forum about a guy who wanted to replace his hollow guide rod with a solid one. It turns out that Sig has shipped both over the years. So, which one is the "modification?!" I don't know. And, who is getting an advantage? It isn't even clear to me that IDPA HQ has decided whether it is an advantge to lighten or heavy-up the front of a pistol. I still feel like we would be restricted to flintlooks with WOODEN ramrods if IDPA had been invented earlier in our history. Steve L.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Double standards...

Double standards...

Quick Reply