Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

SIG 320 SSP Grip Texturing?


Tokarev

Recommended Posts

Technically it's referred to as a "grip frame" in IDPA rules and to me frame means serialized. As the 320 has a readily available "grip module" it seems to skirt the rules. But I don't shoot IDPA so who am I to answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDPA has admitted that it's readily replaceable but split hairs by saying it's not a "grip part" since it's the entire grip. 

Based on that stippling is not allowed in SSP. Grip tape can still be used. 

This ruling was made at a National level match after the affected shooter had used the same grip to shoot in SSP at several other major matches where it was ruled as legal. 

Edited by alma
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Based on that stippling is not allowed in SSP. Grip tape can still be used. 




That makes about zero sense.

Thanks for the replies. I guess even without any sort of grip enhancer the 320 will be a good choice for SSP. At least the trigger seems to be quite workable right out of the box.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to agree with IDPA, I have to this time. 

It's a shame they had to DQ that young shooter, but he got bad advice.  It is what any other manufacturer would consider a frame. 

It was modified to give the shooter an advantage over un-stippled frames and it's nothing but using semantics to get past a rule's intent. 

That intent was to create a level playing field in that class...and If it didn't provide an advantage, then why stipple it in the first place.

 

I could make a pistol and call what others would consider a barrel, the "thing a bullet goes through" and not a barrel. 

I guess if I do that from the manufacturer, I could have a "bull thing the bullet goes through" because it isn't a barrel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to agree with IDPA, I have to this time. 
It's a shame they had to DQ that young shooter, but he got bad advice.  It is what any other manufacturer would consider a frame. 
It was modified to give the shooter an advantage over un-stippled frames and it's nothing but using semantics to get past a rule's intent. 
That intent was to create a level playing field in that class...and If it didn't provide an advantage, then why stipple it in the first place.
 
I could make a pistol and call what others would consider a barrel, the "thing a bullet goes through" and not a barrel. 
I guess if I do that from the manufacturer, I could have a "bull thing the bullet goes through" because it isn't a barrel?


So why allow grip tape?



Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not up on my founders intent lore but from my understanding, grip tape is allowed because it isn't a permanent modification.  I'm assuming they were trying to exclude custom gun-smithing from SSP, and grip tape is something that anyone can do (and many do) to their standard firearm. Stippling is permanent.  I'm assuming that it must be significantly better than grip tape or so many people wouldn't be pushing so hard for it.  They would just use the tape.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current rules say that grip tape or texturing is allowed to grip panels or readily replaceable parts. I assume this means a S&W M&P backstrap can be taped or textured along sides and back. Similarly I'd bet that the HK P30 side and back panels can be modified.

I can understand the reasoning behind trying to differentiate between SSP and ESP but I think IDPA will have to change the rules for SSP soon. SIG, Ruger and Beretta are all making modular frames that can be easily replaced. More will likely follow.

And where does the SIG X frame module fit into all this? It has a pretty decent mag well right out of the box. Will it not be legal for SSP?

Interesting times are ahead...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just use tape on the area traditionally considered the "grip" on a pistol and you'll be fine in ssp.
 
Not on the frame, not on the trigger guard, not on the dust cover.


Too open to interpretation. I'll just shoot the gun as shipped from SIG.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, robport said:

I hate to agree with IDPA, I have to this time. 

It's a shame they had to DQ that young shooter, but he got bad advice.  It is what any other manufacturer would consider a frame. 

It was modified to give the shooter an advantage over un-stippled frames and it's nothing but using semantics to get past a rule's intent. 

That intent was to create a level playing field in that class...and If it didn't provide an advantage, then why stipple it in the first place.

 

I could make a pistol and call what others would consider a barrel, the "thing a bullet goes through" and not a barrel. 

I guess if I do that from the manufacturer, I could have a "bull thing the bullet goes through" because it isn't a barrel?

 

He got "bad advice" from the individual responsible for equipment checks at a major sanctioned IDPA match that he attended. He got the all clear before even showing up. IDPA apparently  reserves the right to change its mind and will usually not back down to a more sensible ruling once they flub one. 

The P320 entire grip module can be bought for as little as $35, so that sounds pretty readily replaceable to me. 

If it was a Smith and Wesson or a Wilson Combat then the ruling would have likely gone in favor of the shooter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at Equip check the moment he was told his gun wasn't in compliance. As someone who also shoots a gun that was made illegal two days before Nationals I felt his pain. Also, never trust anyone ever. I can't tell you how many times at IDPA Nats equipment check I've heard the song, "But at this previous big match I was allowed XYZ and it was legal!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, alma said:

 

He got "bad advice" from the individual responsible for equipment checks at a major sanctioned IDPA match that he attended. He got the all clear before even showing up. IDPA apparently  reserves the right to change its mind and will usually not back down to a more sensible ruling once they flub one. 

The P320 entire grip module can be bought for as little as $35, so that sounds pretty readily replaceable to me. 

If it was a Smith and Wesson or a Wilson Combat then the ruling would have likely gone in favor of the shooter. 

It's a poorly written rule. It specifically mentions grip panels and back straps so I assume those are the only areas they want modified, but didn't say it that way.

 

They should modify it to any part of the frame below the slide and behind the trigger guard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all of the different IDPA changes I'm honestly surprised as many folks put up with it as do.

whoever it was that got $c&e#ed by IDPA I feel for them.  I bet they're not looking to go back to Nat's and that's not good for the shooting sports.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all of the different IDPA changes I'm honestly surprised as many folks put up with it as do.
whoever it was that got $c&e#ed by IDPA I feel for them.  I bet they're not looking to go back to Nat's and that's not good for the shooting sports.
 
 


Especially if the mods had previously been used/approved at other matches.

I emailed HQ last week in search of a written answer one way or another. Still waiting..

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I". may answer your question. 

 

8.2.1.3 SSP Excluded Modifications (Non-Inclusive list):
A. Externally visible modifications other than those listed in the Permitted Modifications section.
B. Aftermarket or visibly modified magazine releases, slide stops, safety levers, de-cocking levers, and hammers.
C. Robar-style grip reduction.
D. Add-on magazine well opening.
E. Slide inserts to accommodate a different recoil assembly design.
F. A barrel that uses a different cartridge that is not offered in the original factory model.
G. Customization of the slide by adding front cocking serrations, tri-top, carry melts, and high power cuts.
H. Compensated/ported firearms with non-compensated/ported barrels installed.
I. Checkering or stippling on non-readily replaceable parts of the grip frame.
J. Aftermarket slides.
K. Removing material from the magazine well opening.
L. Aftermarket grip tang extensions or beavertails.
M. Disabling the slide stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not since the entire frame shell can be replaced without tools in about a minute. And at a cost of about $40.

 

"Stippling and texturing may be performed on readily replaceable parts of the grip frame such as replaceable

back straps and replaceable grip panels."

 

Granted the 320 doesn't have back straps or grip panels but it is designed not to use these parts.

 

Maybe the rule should have been written to say "only" rather than "such as."

 

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2017 at 6:23 PM, jcc7x7 said:

With all of the different IDPA changes I'm honestly surprised as many folks put up with it as do.

whoever it was that got $c&e#ed by IDPA I feel for them.  I bet they're not looking to go back to Nat's and that's not good for the shooting sports.

 

 

 

14 hours ago, Tokarev said:

 


Especially if the mods had previously been used/approved at other matches.

I emailed HQ last week in search of a written answer one way or another. Still waiting..

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 

 

 

1 hour ago, robport said:

"I". may answer your question. 

Lover of IDPA I don't want your explanation

Simply stating inconsistency is bad for the shooting sports.

Unfortunately IDPA has a long and storied history of INCONSISTENCY, which is surprising for a privately owned organization

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On March 14, 2017 at 2:12 AM, alma said:

IDPA apparently  reserves the right to change its mind

 

Sanctioned match officials are not the same as organization officials. This is like a someone okaying a new-to-market mod at a regional match equipment check, but then NROI later announces the mod is not legal.  

 

That at being said, I do agree that the sport has a tried-and-true history of inconsistency. IMO, this is one of the problems with it being a privately owned entity. The membership is not entitled to having a say in any of the decision making process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we remove any and all tampering with SSP pistols? Not exactly Stock when you start modifying things.

 

You want to enhance your pistol? There's a division made just for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i could get used to that. whatever gun you shoot has to be ENTIRELY stock in ssp. zero changes or additions. That would be very very interesting.....


How would you disallow certain factory guns from being used? S&W VTAC and SIG Legion guns? Or would these be allowed in SSP as long as they don't have tungsten guide rods or some other mods that are specifically against the rules? What about more aggressive factory texturing? Maybe no fiber optic sights allowed?

Not disagreeing with you as it would seem logical that SSP would be a stock gun division.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would actually change a lot of the guns people preferred.

 

I know I wouldn't have been too excited to pick up a Lim Pro with a  10# DA and a 4# SA if I had to shoot it as is. The M&P 2.0 would actually look more appealing with its improved STOCK trigger. Guns like the Walther Q5 would skyrocket in popularity.

 

Then when you're ready to make the change to ESP, drop the go fast parts in there and add a magwell. Boom done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would actually change a lot of the guns people preferred.
 
I know I wouldn't have been too excited to pick up a Lim Pro with a  10# DA and a 4# SA if I had to shoot it as is. The M&P 2.0 would actually look more appealing with its improved STOCK trigger. Guns like the Walther Q5 would skyrocket in popularity.
 
Then when you're ready to make the change to ESP, drop the go fast parts in there and add a magwell. Boom done. 


Would it? I assume Glock would still be preferred especially if the intent is to shoot SSP for awhile and then mod the gun for ESP.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...