[oldcolt]

I am just curious. Anyone have any idea as to the rationale behind not allowing Bull barrels on 5" guns for IDPA. Springfield has come out with a TRP Operator in this configuration as well as Dawson Tactical. Both of these weapons are intended for "tactical" use so why doesn't IDPA allow them?

------------------

 

[Ricky T]

I think because no one really carry a 1911 with bull barrel or long dust cover. I'm talking about everyday concealed carry for most folks. There may be some out there who pack those type of guns but they're the exception. As far as I know, the 1911 that the "D" boys and MEUSOC use don't have bull barrel nor long dust cover. You can't get any more "tactical" than the D boys, the NFL champ of special ops.

 

[kbear38S]

Originally posted by oldcolt:
Anyone have any idea as to the rationale behind not allowing Bull barrels on 5" guns for IDPA

Careful observers will note that IDPA equipment rules closely follow Wilson's product line. Companies other than Wilson Combat were becoming very successful in selling bull barrels and guns with bull barrels and long dust cover frames. Draw your own conclusions.


[This message has been edited by kbear38S (edited 08-21-2001).]

 

[Howardk]

Maybe because Bill Wilson doesn't make a gov't 1911 with a bull barrel. If Wilson Combat made this gun I bet the rules would change. I've never been crazy about IDPA defining which gun someone "should" carry. Plenty of people carry a ported Champion although it's not IDPA legal.

 

[Jim Watson]

Actually, he does. See his catalog for the Tactical Elite.
The rules were written five or more years ago, when bull barrels (and porting) were not available on production line models. I think the rules could reasonably be updated periodically to reflect what is available over the counter, but I do not consider that the rules were set up to promote Wilson products. You don't see many Wilson Glocks, do you?

 

[John Forsyth]

Originally posted by Howardk:
Maybe because Bill Wilson doesn't make a gov't 1911 with a bull barrel....

But he does, it's called the Tactical Elite. It has a 5in heavy tapered cone barrel. You can use a heavy barrel in IDPA, it just has to be 4.2in or less in length.

With respect to ported pistols;

from the IDPA Rule book (green),
WHY CAN'T I USE MY FACTORY PORTED PISTOL? One of the things the founders of IDPA hoped to accomplish is to create a practical shooting discipline that would not turn into an equipment race. Porting of a pistol barrel does enhance recoil control (granted increased muzzle flash is an unwanted byproduct) and thus could offer a competitive advantage. If ported barrels were allowed, then it would be a "necessary modification" to be competitive, thus increasing the cost of admission substantially. We do realize that a "ported" Springfield or Para ultra compact does not offer a competitive advantage over a non-ported full size pistol. However, once we open the door, where will it end? The present BoD has discussed this issue at length and has no plans to allow ported barrels for IDPA competition.

I do not agree with all the rules, but I do follow them, same as some of the laws in the country.

PS: Jim, you and I were typing at the same time. You just hit enter faster than I.

------------------
John

"And by the way, Mr. Speaker, The Second Amendment is not for killing ducks and leaving Huey and Dewey and Louie without an aunt and uncle. It is for hunting politicians like (in) Grozney and in 1776, when they take your independence away".
Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995

[This message has been edited by John Forsyth (edited 08-21-2001).]

 

[mn2deep]

Originally posted by oldcolt:
I am just curious. Anyone have any idea as to the rationale behind not allowing Bull barrels on 5" guns for IDPA. Springfield has come out with a TRP Operator in this configuration as well as Dawson Tactical. Both of these weapons are intended for "tactical" use so why doesn't IDPA allow them?

The extra weight of the bull barrel gives the shooter an instant recoil advantage over someone that does not have one. You start allowing them and then the guys without will start crying, wanting heavy Tungsten guide rods to make up the difference. The non 1911 guys will cry foul, screaming "what about us?". So they get tungsten guide rods and everyone is happy....until some other equipment inovation hits the factorys and the process starts all over. The rules are to keep this from happening, and keep us all from having to by full bore race guns in the end, just to remain competetive.


Just my 2 cents
Mike

 

[oldcolt]

Ricky T,
I think that it is unfair to compare the civilian sector to the military. I can't just reach into my closet and deploy a CAR-16, MP-5, or some other sub-machinegun if a tactical situation were to arise in my home. I am sure that the soldiers in the Delta Force would much prefer this type weapon to the 45 if the situation warranted. At least thats what all of the SOCOM guys I ever talked with revealed to me.

------------------

 

[vincent]

The "what Wilson sells" line is so tired!! I've shot a lot of IDPA and there are very few if any Wilson guns at most matches. IDPA is helping out Glock, Beretta, and Kimber a lot more than Wilson.

IMHO, the reason to keep out bull barrel guns, long dust covers, ghost rings, and a lot of other stuff has nothing to do with what people carry. Carry what you want and if your local club will allow it - shoot what you want - just NOT for score/awards. A local club here shoots by the IDPA rulebook with AR-15's. You can do what you want - you just can't officially call it IDPA or win any IDPA trophies unless you follow the rules.

I think it boils down to supporting the first Priciple of IDPA: "To create a level playing field for all competitors to test the skill and ability of the individual, not their equipment or gamesmanship." Another important line from the rulebook is "IDPA will NEVER be an equipment race; IDPA is about shooting, not equipment." IDPA will HAVE TO limit the equipment usable in IDPA competition if it doesn't want to turn into more of an equipment race than it is already. Beretta Elite II's, Glock 34/35, full size 1911's with mag wells - I know few people who carry these pistols. They shoot with them to win competitions!

Currently IDPA is very similar to what IPSC was in the early days. IPSC chose to not place many limits on equipment and has turned into a different sport - not worse just different. Since many of IDPA's founders were part of the early IPSC crowd, I think they are trying to keep history from repeating itself. We already have IPSC and its a good sport. IDPA is different from IPSC and if it wants to remain so it will have to have plenty of equipment restrictions and stick by those restrictions.

Shoot an IPSC Open gun and you may understand - .38 Super double-stack 1911, 26+ rounds per magazine, compensated with optics and you will see that equipment can make a big difference in both speed and accuracy. Where do you draw the line? For the game I want to shoot, I think IDPA is drawing it in pretty close to the right place.

[This message has been edited by vincent (edited 08-21-2001).]

 

[AKM]

Here is the take of a newbie who is about to shoot his first IDPA match this evening...

I would never have decided to start shooting IDPA if the rules allowed (and therefore mandated) extensive modifications to the guns. If I wanted to have a completely impractical competition-only race gun, I would shoot IPSC.

------------------
No Second Place Winner

 

[kbear38S]

Originally posted by AKM:
Here is the take of a newbie who is about to shoot his first IDPA match this evening...

I would never have decided to start shooting IDPA if the rules allowed (and therefore mandated) extensive modifications to the guns.

And the newbie has yet to learn that the same people will win that matches regardless of the equipment they use. It's not the hardware that makes winners, it's the software, the shooter.

 

[AKM]

Originally posted by kbear38S:
And the newbie has yet to learn that the same people will win that matches regardless of the equipment they use. It's not the hardware that makes winners, it's the software, the shooter.

Then it sounds like the oldbies should stop bitching about the rules and just get out there and shoot. And don't even try to hand me that bravo sierra about the equipment doesn't make any difference. Yes, a good shooter will beat a poor shooter regardless of equipment, but with equal shooters, it makes a difference.

It wasn't my intention to jump into the never-ending pissing contest about the rules in IDPA, but just to point out that many people aren't willing to invest in competition-only equipment.

As far as who wins, you assume I define winning as having the lowest score. Well everybody wins if their goal is to improve their shooting skill and have some fun doing it. For those who only care about getting the lowest score, have at it. I don't choose to define myself by other peoples actions.

------------------
No Second Place Winner

 

[Ricky T]

oldcolt,
I was trying to say that if the special ops folks who can carry any backup sidearms and not having to worry about keeping them concealed choose to carry 1911s in regular configuration, then those of us civilians who do have to worry about keeping the blasters hidden should take that hint. I think pistols with long dust cover and bull barrel are more cumbersome than standard guns.
For those who said that Wilson won't let bull barrels and long dust covers because Wilson don't sell them, all you have to do is check their catalog.

 

[oldcolt]

Ricky T,
While I agree with you that most would opt for a standard configuration 1911 there is a reason for it. It has been proven in combat through 2 World Wars as well as Korea, and Viet-Nam. The Bull barrel 1911 has not been round that long but it may be a sign of things to come. Many, including the IDPA feel that the bull barrel gives an unfair advantage when paired against standard configuration 1911's. I think there might be come credibility to their claim. The bull barrel guns are by no means race guns. Yes, they soften the recoil due to the added weight. They still fire the 45 ACP round and are essentially a stock gun
otherwise. On the other hand, there are those who would find the additional weight a hinderance. Only the time sheets would tell.

------------------

 

[PK]

Originally posted by AKM:
I would never have decided to start shooting IDPA if the rules allowed (and therefore mandated) extensive modifications to the guns. If I wanted to have a completely impractical competition-only race gun, I would shoot IPSC.

I know a guy, who is currently a GM, finished top 16 at Nationals, who did all his shooting up to M class with a single stack Colt. And yet he still got beat at Nationals by Ron Avery with a single stack.

IDPA does allow a fairly extensive amount of mods to an ESP/CDP gun. I consider the Springfield full size gun I've got, that I plan on modding for CDP, to be an IPSC understudy gun so to speak. It will have a magwell, ambi safeties, 2.5-2# trigger, match bushing and possibly a match barrel down the road. Will it be a carry gun? Nope, it will be an IDPA/Limited 10 gun. It also won't be a whole lot cheaper than a full Limited race gun. Yet I might still get beat by the guy with the bone stock Norinco. But it won't be because of equipment. It will be because the Norinco guy has his head more together, has more practice, ect. So instead of worrying about whether the guy that's equal to you is gaining an advantage because his equipment is better, worry about getting to be a BETTER SHOOTER than the next guy. It's a lot more satisfying to beat the Open guys with a Limited gun than to whine about getting beat.

 

[AKM]

Originally posted by PK:
It's a lot more satisfying to beat the Open guys with a Limited gun than to whine about getting beat.

I shot my first IDPA match today. I saw guys gaming it big time and other guys who shot from real concealment with real carry guns. I am much more impressed with the second group. Sure the gamers are fun to watch, but I'll give my respect to those who shoot tactical. As such, I will try to shoot it tactical myself and that means I'll never win a match, at least not by looking at the score. But judging by whether I enjoyed myself and improved my shooting skills, I figure I'll win every time. As I said in my above post, I don't choose to define myself by the actions of others.

------------------
No Second Place Winner

 

[kbear38S]

Originally posted by oldcolt:
Many, including the IDPA feel that the bull barrel gives an unfair advantage when paired against standard configuration 1911's

And they would be wise to note that almost all of the very top IPSC Limited Division Grand Masters do not use tungsten guide rods or bull barrels. They use conventional bushing barrels and steel guide rods. Many are now lightening the slides since power factor dropped from 175 to 165 which begs the question, is a bull barrel an advantage? The very best seem to think it's a liability.

Now someone please enlighten me how an IDPAer will feel threatened by another shooter using maybe a Kimber or Para with a bull barrel but feel the least bit of anxiety shooting against another who might
be shooting a nearly $4000 top of the line, hand built Wilson gun?

 

[oldcolt]

kbear38s,
I agree with you. Why is it that a $4,000-$5,000 custom that has been tuned to the nines is perfectly acceptable (because it looks like a stock gun on the outside), yet an essentially stock gun is not allowed? The rationale seems flawed to me. That is why I asked this question in the first place.

------------------

 

[kbear38S]

Originally posted by oldcolt:
Why is it that a $4,000-$5,000 custom that has been tuned to the nines is perfectly acceptable (because it looks like a stock gun on the outside), yet an essentially stock gun is not allowed

It's no secret that there was a big falling out between Wilson and IPSC/USPSA about equipment rules right before he started IDPA. While I do not understand many of the seemingly arbitrary equipment rules, I do at least admire what the man did. I think it was an elegant solution to philosophical differences and has a nice entrepreneurial benefit. IDPA is not a game I'm interested in but I'm all for anything that gets people out shooting.

 

[PK]

Originally posted by AKM:
I am much more impressed with the second group. Sure the gamers are fun to watch, but I'll give my respect to those who shoot tactical.

I don't consider anyone at an IDPA match to be shooting "tactical" unless the targets are shooting back. Defining what is real carry gear and guns is difficult. Some people consider a Berretta .25 and excelent carry gun. I'll also bet those "gamers" could shoot just as well out of carry full concealment, ect. Learning to shoot at high speed is about vison, ballance, bio mechanics, and especially having the mind and body in tune. Not who has the best gear. I think alot of people, some gamers and some of the others put the cart before the horse. All this worrying about equipment and what is "tacticaly correct"(an extreemly abstract term, due to the fact that no two situations call for the same response, in some cases taking the time to get to cover could get you killed) is overiding the premise that it is a competition. Tuning your gear to fit you(not always the latest gee whiz stuff) is part of competion.