[pwrtool45]

Page 18 of the rule book specifically states that "Disconnection or disabling of any safety device on any gun" is not permitted.

However, the S&W M&P is available both with and without as a factory option. The "factory option" logic is what permits the extended slide stops and magazine release to be used on Glocks in SSP division (page 20). Does this logic extend to disabling the magazine disconnect on pistols that are available from the factory without a disconnect?

[kmbr45]

pwrtool45, on Feb 17 2009, 08:57 AM, said:

Page 18 of the rule book specifically states that "Disconnection or disabling of any safety device on any gun" is not permitted.

However, the S&W M&P is available both with and without as a factory option. The "factory option" logic is what permits the extended slide stops and magazine release to be used on Glocks in SSP division (page 20). Does this logic extend to disabling the magazine disconnect on pistols that are available from the factory without a disconnect?

The "Factory Option" logic does not extend to disabling safeties. Pg. 18 lists "Non-IDPA Legal Modifications for ALL Divisions"...item "E: Disconnection or disabling of any safety device on any gun." Even if you can get the firearm without the safety from the factory, if your gun came with it and you disable it, you will be in violation.

I feel your pain, I would love to remove the magazine disconnect from my HiPower for competition, but it's not happening.

Daniel, IDPA SO

This post has been edited by kmbr45: 17 February 2009 - 08:12 AM

[lugnut]

Since it's a very common option for this gun (I've seen plenty of M&Ps without the mag disconnect) I can't see how an SO could possibly find a violation in this situation.

[kmbr45]

lugnut, on Feb 17 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

Since it's a very common option for this gun (I've seen plenty of M&Ps without the mag disconnect) I can't see how an SO could possibly find a violation in this situation.

The M&Ps without the mag disconnect have the lawyer warning on the right side of the slide. Although I have never verified it, I would assume M&Ps with the disconnect do not have this language on the slide. I am both an SO and a M&P shooter, so I would notice this type of detail and would make note of the shooter's procedure when holstering after completing the COF.

Bottom line is get one without the safety or if your state requires it, shoot one and determine if you can live with the trigger the way it is and if you can't pick another firearm.

Daniel

[Carlos]

We all seem to agree that there is no logic to this rule. Rather, it is a case of "the rules are the rules - period."

So be it.

It is also unlikely that most SOs will check for such a trivial "infraction" - particularly since it adds NO competitive advantage.

And becaus it adds no competitive advantage, our fellow competitors should not be concerned with your gun's factory configuration except in ONE instance:

-invoking this rule against a competitor in order to have his gun DQ'd and thereby improve YOUR standing in the scores.

I would personally have a big ethical problem with someone doing something that low (IMHO), but as I stated, that currently appears to be covered by "the rules are the rules."

Perhaps it is time to adjust the rules?

[lugnut]

kmbr45, on Feb 17 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

lugnut, on Feb 17 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

Since it's a very common option for this gun (I've seen plenty of M&Ps without the mag disconnect) I can't see how an SO could possibly find a violation in this situation.

The M&Ps without the mag disconnect have the lawyer warning on the right side of the slide. Although I have never verified it, I would assume M&Ps with the disconnect do not have this language on the slide. I am both an SO and a M&P shooter, so I would notice this type of detail and would make note of the shooter's procedure when holstering after completing the COF.

Bottom line is get one without the safety or if your state requires it, shoot one and determine if you can live with the trigger the way it is and if you can't pick another firearm.

Daniel

Yeah- but what if someone says: yeah mine doesn't have a mag disconnect but I have a different slide that doesn't have that warning? Or what if the slide was refinished?

I'm all for supporting rules... but only ones that are REALLY enforceable and make sense.

FWIW I have one without the mag disconnect from the factory- yes it does have the language on the slide. I would not DQ someone that didn't have a slide with this language. I'm much more concerned with muzzle and finger positions.

This post has been edited by lugnut: 17 February 2009 - 09:21 AM

[Filishooter]

kmbr45, on Feb 17 2009, 10:05 AM, said:

lugnut, on Feb 17 2009, 10:29 AM, said:

Since it's a very common option for this gun (I've seen plenty of M&Ps without the mag disconnect) I can't see how an SO could possibly find a violation in this situation.

The M&Ps without the mag disconnect have the lawyer warning on the right side of the slide. Although I have never verified it, I would assume M&Ps with the disconnect do not have this language on the slide. I am both an SO and a M&P shooter, so I would notice this type of detail and would make note of the shooter's procedure when holstering after completing the COF.

Bottom line is get one without the safety or if your state requires it, shoot one and determine if you can live with the trigger the way it is and if you can't pick another firearm.

Daniel

And what if the competitor also had his M&P slide bead blasted or refinished? Are you really going to call someone out because they showed clear without using a barney mag while NOT have a small legal disclaimer on the slide? Then you have to decide if their gun is refinished or not. It IS legal to refinish the slide, but maybe the SO might think he did it to intentially HIDE the disclaimer because he took the mag safety out. Would it then be the catch all FTDR?!

(Lugnut beat me to it!)

This post has been edited by Filishooter: 17 February 2009 - 09:37 AM

[kmbr45]

Please don't get me wrong, I don't like the rule at all. Personally, I would like to see it exclude magazine disconnects, which are not a safety in my opinion. A rule requiring grip safeties and thumb safties be functioning I have no problem with.

Without a doubt, enforcing, even on an M&P, is difficult. If I were to notice a shooter with an M&P without the warring on the slide and without a disconnect, I would ask who or if he refinished his slide. If he had a quick and direct answer I would likely leave it at that...if he says it's the original finish we would then have further discussion on the issue.

If I were to find a competitor in violation of this rule at a club level match, I would inform him that his firearm is in violation of the rules, which he may or may not be aware of, and inform the MD of the violation. If the MD wanted to give him a DQ and send him home or simply tell him to finish the match and come next month with a firearm that is in compliance, it would make no difference to me. But if this were a major sanctioned match, I would have no issue giving someone a DQ for this violation, regardless of my opinion of the rule itself. This may seem like a double standard, but it is how I would personally approach it.

Daniel

[lugnut]

But Daniel- the point is there is no way an SO can PROVE the competitor removed anything. It's a rule that can't really be enforced- that's my point. At least in the M&P that is. I'm sure there are guns that were ONLY available with a mag disconnect... in that case it would be obvious. But hell- I don't know which ones they are either!

[kmbr45]

Lugnut,

I agree that enforcing this rule is very difficult for SOs. They (or at least I) don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of what guns do or don't have disconnects and if you don’t know how a particular gun comes from the factory you can’t enforce the rule.

But for instance, if the SO notices a competitor shooting a HiPower without a disconnect and he knows that disconnects are a fairly common feature, the SO can ask about the safety. If the shooter says that it came this way from the factory then so be it, but if he says his buddy took it out, then that is a different situation.

It’s like enforcing round dumping (not to open up another can of worms). If a shooter takes an extra shot on a series of targets and gets to reload at a more convenient position, it is very difficult to prove he/she was intentionally round dumping and not making up a shot. But if you hear someone analyzing the stage and says “Hey, if you take an extra shoot here you can reload there instead,” it is a different situation.

I am sure you would agree there are much more important things for an SO to pay attention to when running squads through a COF.

Daniel

[kaiserb]

I don't think changing the internal parts to another configuration of the M&P would be considered an infraction of the rule. The rule "No disabling safety devices" is intended to prevent people from modifying the safety device mechanically. For example pinning a beaver tail safety on a 1911 so it does not have to be engaged when the weapon is gripped.

Another example would be having an HK USP 9 in variant 1 and swapping out the parts to make the USP variant 3. Both versions of the weapon are common commercial variations and having a gunsmith change the variant does not make the weapon any more or less safe.

[atbarr]

I sent this question to Vince Pinto.

His rely:

A.T.

I don't know about IDPA, but for IPSC Production Division, we know S&W issue the M&P with and without the mag disconnect, so we don't mind either way if you have a gun with it or not. See:

http://ipsc.invision...&...ost&p=45646

Cheers,
Vince

Stay Safe,

A.T.

[kmbr45]

kaiserb, on Feb 17 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

I don't think changing the internal parts to another configuration of the M&P would be considered an infraction of the rule. The rule "No disabling safety devices" is intended to prevent people from modifying the safety device mechanically. For example pinning a beaver tail safety on a 1911 so it does not have to be engaged when the weapon is gripped.

Another example would be having an HK USP 9 in variant 1 and swapping out the parts to make the USP variant 3. Both versions of the weapon are common commercial variations and having a gunsmith change the variant does not make the weapon any more or less safe.

When I became an SO, durring training we specifically discussed the issue of the magazine disconnect in the HiPower and were told that disabling it is a violation. Based on that, I would disagree with you that changing configurations from one config to another is not a violation. I agree with your example of the beaver tail safety, but the way the rule is written and what I have been told by my area coordinator the rule does encompass the mag disconnect.

atbarr, on Feb 17 2009, 01:32 PM, said:

I sent this question to Vince Pinto.

His rely:

A.T.

I don't know about IDPA, but for IPSC Production Division, we know S&W issue the M&P with and without the mag disconnect, so we don't mind either way if you have a gun with it or not. See:

http://ipsc.invision...&...ost&p=45646

Cheers,
Vince

Stay Safe,

A.T.

I'd like to hear what IDPA HQ has to say about it.

Daniel

[2kcrewcab]

Just my .02 worth, but I would say it is a violation of the rule to disconnect the internal safety.

To me the internal safety would be no different than the external safeties that are available on the XD's and M&P's. Where would you draw the line? I would think it would be a violation of the rules if you didn't engage the manual safety on a gun even if there are other models available without it. I don't see the difference. The other safety measures are also included on these models with the external safeties, so there isn't a question of whether it would be "safe" to not use it - yet, as an SO, I would certainly warn a shooter if I saw them not using the external safety, and if I caught them again, it'd probably be a procedural, and if they continued to do it, an FTDR. If you don't want to have to deal with the safety mechanisms (whether internal or external), buy one of the other models - that's why they make so many different models, to suit everyone's needs.

I can see where arguments can be made either way and that there have been many changes in firearms, etc in the last 3-4 years, so the rule book probably needs a little updating (ok, maybe a lot of updating), but until then, we gotta go by what we have.

Again, just my .02 worth.

[lugnut]

kmbr45, on Feb 17 2009, 02:03 PM, said:

I'd like to hear what IDPA HQ has to say about it.

Daniel

I'd like IDPA HQ to clear up lots of these "issues" but they don't seem to do this in any official manor that I'm aware of.

[kmbr45]

lugnut, on Feb 17 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I'd like IDPA HQ to clear up lots of these "issues" but they don't seem to do this in any official manor that I'm aware of.

Can I hear an Amen?

[Jane]

kmbr45, on Feb 17 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

lugnut, on Feb 17 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I'd like IDPA HQ to clear up lots of these "issues" but they don't seem to do this in any official manor that I'm aware of.

Can I hear an Amen?

Robert Ray from IDPA HQ made a terse comment in a similar thread a while back: http://idpaforum.yuk...ewtopic/id/1811 ... based on which one might guess that IDPA isn't going to make a ruling that you guys would like.

M&P disconnect was also argued at length in another thread on that forum: http://idpaforum.yuk...ect.html?page=1

[kmbr45]

Jane, on Feb 17 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

Robert Ray from IDPA HQ made a terse comment in a similar thread a while back: http://idpaforum.yuk...ewtopic/id/1811 ... based on which one might guess that IDPA isn't going to make a ruling that you guys would like.

M&P disconnect was also argued at length in another thread on that forum: http://idpaforum.yuk...ect.html?page=1

Jane,

Thank you for the interesting information!

Daniel

[pwrtool45]

Jane, on Feb 17 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

based on which one might guess that IDPA isn't going to make a ruling that you guys would like.

That's an understatement.

Nevertheless, thank you for the links.

This post has been edited by pwrtool45: 17 February 2009 - 02:45 PM

[Duane Thomas]

It's threads like this that led to the ruling that people love to complain about. The folks at IDPA HQ can read the Internet too, you know.

And, since the original question has long been answered, I'm shutting this one down. If anyone has anything substantive to add, shoot me a PM and I'll consider reopening it.

[Duane Thomas]

In the interests of putting a period to this topic, here is what Robert Ray of IDPA HQ had to say on the matter:

Quote

Duane,

This is an issue that does come up occasionally. Let me pose a question to those that ask why we have this rule. If they owned a company, in today's litigious society, would they advise ANYONE that is was OK to disable a feature on any product that was labeled a "safety device" even if you think it is dumb feature? Honestly, would you really open up yourself to a lawsuit that way?

That being said, I do know that some Hi-Power clones were made without a magazine disconnect and there have been some reports of factory S&Ws without the mag disconnect that do not have the disclaimer on the side. I do not ask our SOs to be engineers or memorize serial numbers. I advise our SOs that if they happen to notice a gun that they think should have a disconnect to ask the competitor about its original configuration. It it is up to the competitor to do what is right.

I hope that this helps shed some light on IDPA's position.

Robert Ray
IDPA HQ

Please feel free to post this.