Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > Smith & Wesson General Topics > Smith & Wesson Competitive Shooting
o

Notices

Smith & Wesson Competitive Shooting All aspects of competitive shooting using Smith and Wesson Firearms. Including: IPSC, IDPA, Silhouette, Bullseye.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-08-2017, 11:22 AM
Pizza Bob's Avatar
Pizza Bob Pizza Bob is online now
SWCA Member
IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 2,727
Likes: 383
Liked 5,553 Times in 1,498 Posts
Default IDPA Rules Conflict

With the introduction of a new Performance Center 686 (see this thread: Couple of new models), a conflict within the IDPA Revolver Division rules has occurred.

Under the revolver permitted modifications, for both SSR and ESR subdivisions, rule 8.2.6.5, E states: Cylinder latches may be changed to another factory offering from the firearm manufacturer.

Under Enhanced Revolver Additional Permitted Modifications, 8.2.6.6, A it states: Cylinder latches may be modified or replaced, but may not protrude past the frame in any direction and may not be thicker than 3 /8" as measured from the side plate of the frame.

This presents a conflict because the new revolver referenced above, which would compete in SSR subdivision, comes from the factory with an extended cylinder release (Hogue-style) that falls outside the parameters defined in 8.2.6.6, A.

So are they allowed in an as delivered SSR gun and/or an ESR gun with the latch changed to “another factory offering”?

Adios,

Pizza Bob
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-08-2017, 12:03 PM
OKFC05 OKFC05 is offline
Member
IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 8,158
Likes: 3,605
Liked 5,199 Times in 2,172 Posts
Default

Once again, the manufacturer has gotten ahead of the IDPA definition of "Stock."
I would not rush to get one of these versions for IDPA unless you have a use for it in another discipline. I remember when IDPA decided against the ParaOrd LDAs with the tiny built-in plastic magwell after they had been out for over a year.
__________________
Science plus Art
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:56 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,710
Likes: 3,527
Liked 12,557 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza Bob View Post
With the introduction of a new Performance Center 686 (see this thread: Couple of new models), a conflict within the IDPA Revolver Division rules has occurred.

Under the revolver permitted modifications, for both SSR and ESR subdivisions, rule 8.2.6.5, E states: Cylinder latches may be changed to another factory offering from the firearm manufacturer.

Under Enhanced Revolver Additional Permitted Modifications, 8.2.6.6, A it states: Cylinder latches may be modified or replaced, but may not protrude past the frame in any direction and may not be thicker than 3 /8" as measured from the side plate of the frame.

This presents a conflict because the new revolver referenced above, which would compete in SSR subdivision, comes from the factory with an extended cylinder release (Hogue-style) that falls outside the parameters defined in 8.2.6.6, A.

So are they allowed in an as delivered SSR gun and/or an ESR gun with the latch changed to “another factory offering”?
IDPA is not very good at rule making.

Rule 1 in rule making is never create a situation where a third party determines what's legal with language like that bolded in red above.

Rule 2 is that if you have a "stock class" or "production class" it means exactly, that - stock off the shelf pistols designed and produced for common carry and duty use.

This would and should specifically exclude performance center guns designed and built specifically for competition. They are "enhanced" by definition and have no business in a stock or production class.

Rule 3 is that if you have restrictive language that pertains to a a more permissive class, that same restriction, at a minimum, must apply to all of the more restrictive classes. In other words, the bolded yellow language above applies to the less restrictive enhanced class, and as such MUST also apply to the more restrictive stock class as well,

Rule 4 is that is there is any perceived conflict, the rule with the specific dimensional language MUST be the controlling rule. That would still prevent any conflict, even if S&W or someone else starts putting an enormous cylinder latch on their standard every day revolvers.

----

The problem is that the rules inevitably are written or influenced by active competitive shooters with their own agendas, and biases, so things they like or that they do not perceive as a threat are included and things they don't like or perceive as a competitive threat are excluded.

Variations of this occur in rule making all then time, sometimes with specific rules being designed to marginalize certain things. One of the best examples of this is the Aresti system used for scoring aerobatic competitions. When it was developed, it was developed around what was at the time the pre-eminent aerobatic aircraft in the world - the Bucker Jungmeister. The things it did well were given low point values, and the things it did not do well were given high point values. The end result is that within 10 years it was no where near competitive, as other planes (notably the Pitts Special) were designed to do the higher point maneuvers quite well.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 11-09-2017, 12:47 PM
Thomas15 Thomas15 is offline
Member
IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE PA
Posts: 264
Likes: 75
Liked 150 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Have to disagree with all due respect...

Rule #2 is all very nice but do you think that someone like JM or JL is using "as is" stock off the shelf standard or pro series revolvers in revolver class? The answer is of course no. A new S&W Performance Center revo comes standard with a 14-15 pound trigger, I know because I have two late model PC revos. JL has let me shoot his IDPA revo and it's not a 14 pound trigger I can tell you that.

The S&W PC firearms are in general "production" or "stock" they just cost more and have better fit and finish. If you want to buy a PC gun for USPSA for example, you might be advised to compare several at the gun counter to find the best example. I currently have a 929 PC at a pistol smith for action work. He is going to true the untrue cylinder for me. This is not a handcrafted, hand fit meat eater by any stretch of the imagination.

But getting back to the OP question, I think he has a good point, a lot of gun makers use 3rd party hardware on their production guns. So if Hogue is making the cylinder latch for a S&W PC gun as standard, according to the IDPA rule book a competitor should be able to take that release and install it on a standard 686 and be legal. Of all of the dumb rules IDPA has the cylinder latch issue is a standout.

Another that makes no sense is the requirement to shoot major pf for moon clip guns. Any revo can be cut for moons but making major with a 686 to satisfy the major pf so that you can use moons is silly and does nothing but make revo shooters look elsewhere for competition.

A long standing question to ponder is who would use a Glock 34 as a daily carry gun? And is not that gun designed as a target/competition gun? And yet it is legal in SSP.

I'm done venting. Have a great day everyone.
__________________
NRA Pistol & Reloading Instr.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #5  
Old 11-09-2017, 04:28 PM
TomkinsSP's Avatar
TomkinsSP TomkinsSP is offline
Member
IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict  
Join Date: May 2017
Location: E of America's Great Lake
Posts: 2,774
Likes: 1,416
Liked 4,377 Times in 1,654 Posts
Default

Not restricted to firearms. See the Wayne Gretsky era elimination of 4 on 4 in the NHL, or all the SCOTUS rulings affecting R.M.Nixon which were subsequently overturned.
__________________
Certified Curmudgeon
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-02-2017, 12:29 PM
JamesArthur60's Avatar
JamesArthur60 JamesArthur60 is offline
US Veteran
IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict IDPA Rules Conflict  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,333
Likes: 139
Liked 311 Times in 124 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BB57 View Post
IDPA is not very good at rule making.


----

The problem is that the rules inevitably are written or influenced by active competitive shooters with their own agendas, and biases, so things they like or that they do not perceive as a threat are included and things they don't like or perceive as a competitive threat are excluded.
I've been shooting IDPA for years and that is the best description of the rules I've ever read.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how to deal with the aftermath of an armed conflict? mikejax23 Concealed Carry & Self Defense 11 12-25-2013 01:13 AM
load data conflict straight stick Reloading 14 09-23-2013 02:34 AM
Korean Conflict or something? Tam 3 The Lounge 40 08-08-2013 10:52 PM
Help! Date conflict, maybe JP@AK S&W Hand Ejectors: 1896 to 1961 12 02-17-2012 05:49 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)