Beveling magwell for production gun?

[thompsoncustom]

Was wondering if I could add a bevel to the inside of my magwell on my CZ 75 shadow. Unlike my sp-01 shadow it does not have any bevel to it at all.

 

So whats the ruling on this legal for production or not?

[B_RAD]

Yes. As long as you don't add/change the outside edges. 

 

I think flaring is the word I've heard used from DNORI. 

 

You cant flare the outside edges.  

 

 

[SlvrDragon50]

Someone did it over on CZ Firearms.

[MemphisMechanic]

You can do it. I did it to my Tanfo. 

 

My conversation with DNROI is located right here:

 

...you better believe I got the official OK before grinding on the frame of a $900 gun!

[SlvrDragon50]

Oh wait, that's the thread. Mixed it up.

[IHAVEGAS]

I would like to see a written clarification in an official Uspsa document.

My nroi told me no last year, and pointed to the "unless specificaly allowed" verbiage.

Per research by others here , Troy M's answer is yes.

If you get called on it at a match, it is your responsibility to supply an official ruling and I do not think an email from Troy means diddly as far as being official.

In my area, some and probably most cro's think it is ok but some do not. 

[sfinney]

This again.

 

An internal modification is defined as not being visible when the gun is in battery. In battery would implied loaded and mag inserted. With a mag inserted you can't see the magwell bevel or not. So in my mind a magwell bevel is an internal modification.

 

Just my opinion.

[IHAVEGAS]

26 minutes ago, sfinney said:

This again.

 

An internal modification is defined as not being visible when the gun is in battery. In battery would implied loaded and mag inserted. With a mag inserted you can't see the magwell bevel or not. So in my mind a magwell bevel is an internal modification.

 

Just my opinion.

 

I agree with you entirely.

My only heartburn is that this is (possibly was, have not talked with him since ro class in September 2016) not the opinion of my well known NROI and it is not the opinion of one of  the persons that is a local CRO fairly often. 

The local guy says at his match it is a bump to open based on his understanding of exactly how the rules are written. It would just be a lot cleaner if we had something concrete rather than rules wording that is subject to interpretation and an email which is not official. 

[Peplow530]

I know in IDPA it is not allowed in SSP rules. I am not 100% sure on USPSA production, but it seems to me I've looked into it at one time and it was a no go.

[bsand]

The longitudinal (front-to-back) dimension of the opening may be more than 1/4” greater than the corresponding dimension of a magazine. External flaring remains PROHIBITED.

From the appendix sections for production.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[SCTaylor]

This is a dead horse.  You can hog out the inside of the magwell in USPSA production as long as the external shape/form does not change.  Several of us have a written response from DNROI stating this, however, as IHAVEGAS stated, a formal ruling will definitively answer this question.

 

 

Now, can someone get with DNROI to publish a ruling? 

[IHAVEGAS]

48 minutes ago, SCTaylor said:

 

Now, can someone get with DNROI to publish a ruling? 

 

Hopefully before I get bumped to open by one of my favorite cro's or the RMI/NROI instructor that taught my r.o. class last year  . 

 

When I have asked the question elsewhere I have been told that discussions here, and emails, don't effect the rules. Since I sat in a class where all the students were told that hogging out the inside of a magwell was not allowed then I suspect there are a lot of r.o.'s who believe that way. 

 

To be clear I personally would prefer it if the interpretation noted on this thread is correct. Not trying to rile or argue. 

[Yardbird]

How can this be legal if paint inside the mag opening was ruled illegal?

 

[IHAVEGAS]

13 minutes ago, Yardbird said:

How can this be legal if paint inside the mag opening was ruled illegal?

 

 

Too much logic will make you crazy when it comes to the rules of any game.

 

But that is an interesting question. 

[jeffm_norcal]

Paint inside the mag well is illegal? In production?

[Yardbird]

Yup, illegal in production.

[IHAVEGAS]

7 hours ago, jeffm_norcal said:

Paint inside the mag well is illegal? In production?

 

https://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=47

 

No paint that could serve as a reloading aid (or pasters for that matter, a friend got busted from ss to open at a level 2 match because a paster was on the magwell) . 

 

As long as what you do is uniform ,i.e. provides no competitive advantage, rule 21.2a appendix d4 tells me you can do as you wish.

 

 

[teros135]

1 hour ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

https://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-NROI-ruling-details.php?indx=47

 

No paint that could serve as a reloading aid (or pasters for that matter, a friend got busted from ss to open at a level 2 match because a paster was on the magwell) . 

 

As long as what you do is uniform ,i.e. provides no competitive advantage, rule 21.2a appendix d4 tells me you can do as you wish.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what "uniform" means in this context,.  The rule says we can refinish the frame and slide, "subject to the existing constraints on refinishing (cosmetic only, no competitive advantage)" (D4/21.2) and the NROI ruling above says no paint etc. in the magwell ("No, a competitor may not paint dots, stripes or anything to help them reload or align sights quicker, cosmetic finishes only as per 21.2a..."). 

 

That sounds pretty clear.  In Production it's not "you can do as you wish", it says "unless a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION".  (The caps are in the rule - guess they wanted to be clear about this .)

[EngineerEli]

Clear as mud.... I'm holding off on the files and my stock II frame for a while.

 

Flaring the inside of the magwell would certainly be a competitive advantage if you're trying to relate this to the paint in the magwell to aid in reloading. Also, the wording below has always had me scratching my head... it really sounds like a typo that should read "NO more than 1/4" greater" what would that mean anyway, why would it be stated, that wording implies that anything less than 1/4" would be prohibited...

 

"The longitudinal (front-to-back) dimension of the opening may be more than 1/4” greater than the corresponding dimension of a magazine. External flaring remains PROHIBITED." - From the appendix sections for production.

[teros135]

Yeah, I've always wondered about that myself.  The wording seems awkward.

 

I've just left my Shadow alone (although the SP01 Shadow has a flared magwell - could we flare the Shadow magwell to match it on the basis of the SP01 being on the Prod list?)

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by teros135

[B_RAD]

DNROI specifically said the sevigny speedwell is legal.  Google that. 

 

 

 

As always, you could always get someone at equipment check that gives you a problem. I wonder if a screen shot from the email Memphis provided would be enough?

Edited March 10, 2017 by B_RAD

[teros135]

11 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

DNROI specifically said the sevigny speedwell is legal.  Google that. 

 

 

 

As always, you could always get someone at equipment check that gives you a problem. I wonder if a screen shot from the email Memphis provided would be enough?

 

Where is the NROI ruling that allows the Sevigny Speedway (not speedwell)?  It has to be either in the rule book, as an NROI ruling on the USPSA.org site, or published in Front Sight. 

 

Emails don't do it, they're more like advise (although some say you can print them out and take them to a match - but you may still have to argue your way into it.) 

[IHAVEGAS]

I asked my r.o. class instructor today (he had told me it was a no no previously). 

 

"The instructors must follow the rulebook and current rulings?Sorry if my following the rulebook caused confusion. ?"

Edited March 10, 2017 by IHAVEGAS
clarification ()

[IHAVEGAS]

8 minutes ago, teros135 said:

It has to be either in the rule book, as an NROI ruling on the USPSA.org site, or published in Front Sight. 

 

Emails don't do it, they're more like advise (although some say you can print them out and take them to a match - but you may still have to argue your way into it.) 

 

That is what I was taught. I believe it is clear to TM that beveling is ok, but I know people who are going to require something official in order to change how they read what is written. 

 

To be clear, am really anxious to fire up the dremel so I hope a universal/official ruling is made. 

[B_RAD]

24 minutes ago, teros135 said:

 

Where is the NROI ruling that allows the Sevigny Speedway (not speedwell)?  It has to be either in the rule book, as an NROI ruling on the USPSA.org site, or published in Front Sight. 

 

Emails don't do it, they're more like advise (although some say you can print them out and take them to a match - but you may still have to argue your way into it.) 

That's kinda what I was implying. Memphis asked DNROI. Troy responded.  Memphis altered his magwell and will take that email with him. He may get a "stubborn" RO who interprets the rule another way and will not accept an email. 

 

I was just giving an example of what's legal (speedway) per a specific example given by Troy. 

 

 

I feel like USPSA is better at communicating rules with their RO's then say another sport. So, I'd hope this really wouldn't be an issue. 

 

 

To me it's pretty clear that beveling the mag well opening is legal. I even felt that way before hearing Troy's response. For me the only question is the 1/4" wording. Can the front to back beveled more than 1/4"?

Edited March 10, 2017 by B_RAD