Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizza Bob
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.