Just an FYI. I just read in the 2012 Rule Clarifications on the IDPA Forum posted today that the GFA is not going to be allowed in SSP, only in ESP.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk
Just an FYI. I just read in the 2012 Rule Clarifications on the IDPA Forum posted today that the GFA is not going to be allowed in SSP, only in ESP.
Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk
What I found interesting was that the ruling was based on "no factory beavertail extensions are available" for Glocks, which is uh...not true. The Gen 4 Glock has a beavertail extension.
If the rules guys can't even manage to find that with Google...
I don't see how it's not legal, it doesn't replace anything. Maybe replacing the pin with the longer one required for the GFA? IDPA hurts my fucking head sometimes.
I gave up on IDPA a while back due to the ridiculous rule book.
IPSC has a lot of rules, but at least the majority make sense.
IDPA has jumped the shark imo.
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
-- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --
Has anyone seen the Glock beavertail on a gun or for sale outside of SHOT? Could be they consider them different enough, or don't want to consider it until the factory beavertail is readily available (which it might be, I just havent' seen one)
The beavertail I was shown at SHOT 2012 had to be obtained from the pocket of a high up executive. I was told it was the only one in the US at that time.Originally Posted by JeffJ
When I give private lessons, if I need to demo, I use the student's gun. That way they don't think I'm using a tricked out SCCY to be able to shoot well.
They had one on a floor model at the show as well.
Posted about one shown by a Glock rep in Feb, so probably more than a few now out there.
It is supposed to be newly introduced as just a different back strap. Since Glocks part is basically the same as the Grip force, I can't see that rule making any sense now, let alone on six or nine months when everyone is pushing them OEM.
This points to my continued disappointment with IDPA. I value the testing aspects as much as the competitive side, and this kind of lack of logic definitely hurts transferability of findings. In the fight to avoid gaming, they are losing sight of what simulation is about.
And as folks that may have read my prior threadwill note, I am not a gfa user. But I see the reason a lot of folks transitioning from other platforms use them.
One more reason that I would like to see wildcat rule sets like kstg gain traction. I don't know what the tiger team process may bring, but showing other ways to balance gamer pressures with simulation fidelity has to count for something.
It was legal then it wasn't......
When you have rules addendums on an Internet forum I guess this happens.
The SSP/ESP is messed up IMO - it could be a lot simplier is they just said no external after market modifications in SSP but they didn't they chose this other way to go where everything that hits the market is supposed to be individually inspected to see if it is "close enough" to a factory part. So now there are all these aftermarket widgets that people get attached to and pester each other and IDPA with - it's really really close to factory so I should be able to use it in SSP - my take is, if it's sooo close to factory, then use the factory part.
The ruling on the Vickers mag release is a lot like this - yes it is very close to a factory part, but most people who've used one consider it to be much better (which I think means that it's enhanced)
Reply With Quote