Glock Extended Mag Release In CO...

[Sarge]

6 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

You could easily prove your point by providing the official ruling that says your aftermarket mag release is legal....

 

you know, since the current rule book SPECIFICALLY says it is ILLEGAL. 

 

I mean seriously, are you just choosing to ignore that part of the rule book? 

 

I never ignore the rule book. Or DNROI

[Ssanders224]

13 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I never ignore the rule book. Or DNROI

 

So feel free to share...

Where is this “approval” that is in direct conflict with the current rule book posted?

 

If it is not, or you can’t produce it, then again, you’d be in direct violation of the rules if you use your springer mag release at a match.  

[Ssanders224]

Again... 

I’d like to know how you get around this phrase in the Production appendix;

 

“Examples of external components

which may only be replaced with

OFM parts include (but are no

t limited to): magazine

releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and

triggers.“

[Sarge]

11 hours ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

So feel free to share...

Where is this “approval” that is in direct conflict with the current rule book posted?

 

If it is not, or you can’t produce it, then again, you’d be in direct violation of the rules if you use your springer mag release at a match.  

Do you have any idea how many guys are carrying emails in their range bags from DNROI? Very very few decisions actually make it to the BOD to become an official ruling. We have beaten that horse many times on these very forums.

  This mag release is one of the least important issues I see with the rules. When you can take batteries out of a flashlight and now call it something other than a flashlight .........

[Ssanders224]

16 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Do you have any idea how many guys are carrying emails in their range bags from DNROI? Very very few decisions actually make it to the BOD to become an official ruling. We have beaten that horse many times on these very forums.

  This mag release is one of the least important issues I see with the rules. When you can take batteries out of a flashlight and now call it something other than a flashlight .........

Again... Sorry Sarge... you are mistaken. 

If you have been competing with that magazine release, you have been competing outside of USPSA rules, period.  So, basically you were cheating, you just got away with it. 

Just for clarification, here is a current response from Troy on the matter:

 

"No, it's not legal for CO or Production.  Springer takes some liberties with an opinion that John gave him years ago, and it's a constant struggle with his products.  He gets away with it for some items because they are not colored differently from the factory original and they don't get noticed.  This is one of the main problems with Production division, and one that I'm working with the President and the board on a fix for.  However, right now, aftermarket parts of that type are not legal.

 

You can swap another Glock magazine release from any other approved model--some are longer than others--that's perfectly legal.  
 

Regards,
 

Troy"

[Ssanders224]

Using a part that is not legal, is using a part that is not legal.

I don't care if its a flash light, mag release, hammer, etc... Doesn't matter.  In your own words, "you never ignore the rule book".  Well, you did.  

[HoMiE]

Silly to be arguing about a part that really doesn’t make a difference. Most gun owners like to trick out to personalize their guns. I see no advantage if you stick to the OFM dimensions and if my memory serves me at one point there was option to buy extended release for XDs from springfield. Production and especially Carry Option is not a box factory division so I don’t get why so many people are outbto bump people into Open for illegal parts. 

[Ssanders224]

12 hours ago, Sarge said:

Exactly! When DNROI “approves” it’s “approved”.

 

Is a private email an "official published NROI interpretation"?  I'm going to say no. 

So again, the rule book is fairly clear. 

 

UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or

SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it

is coidered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION.

 

[Ssanders224]

5 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

Silly to be arguing about a part that really doesn’t make a difference. Most gun owners like to trick out to personalize their guns. I see no advantage if you stick to the OFM dimensions and if my memory serves me at one point there was option to buy extended release for XDs from springfield. Production and especially Carry Option is not a box factory division so I don’t get why so many people are outbto bump people into Open for illegal parts. 

 

I'ts not about advantage.  It's about rules. 

[Sarge]

5 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

Is a private email an "official published NROI interpretation"?  I'm going to say no. 

 

 

 

And I agree with you 1000%. And like I said, there are dozens if not hundreds of UNOFFICIAL rules interpretations out there compared to a handful of OFFICIAL versions. Apparently DNROI feels this is fine so why shouldn't I, or anybody else, feel they have approval to use a part that has been approved?

[HoMiE]

5 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

I'ts not about advantage.  It's about rules. 

USPSA should be about the shooting and not about what mag release you have on your gun. The rules should not so complicated that everybody has a tech inspection or every piece of equipment scrutinized. 

[Ssanders224]

1 minute ago, HoMiE said:

USPSA should be about the shooting and not about what mag release you have on your gun. The rules should not so complicated that everybody has a tech inspection or every piece of equipment scrutinized. 

 

You are exactly right.  And in regards to this issue, the rules are not complicated at all, and that is my point. 

 

The rule book clearly says, and has for some time, THAT YOU CANNOT USE AN AFTERMARKET MAGAZINE RELEASE IN PRODUCTION.  However, some people (companies) flexed that rule to their favor, and in return, competitors have been competing with illegal parts. 

[Ssanders224]

5 minutes ago, Sarge said:

And I agree with you 1000%. And like I said, there are dozens if not hundreds of UNOFFICIAL rules interpretations out there compared to a handful of OFFICIAL versions. Apparently DNROI feels this is fine so why shouldn't I, or anybody else, feel they have approval to use a part that has been approved?

 

Post your personal approval maybe?  

 

Because as far as the current DNROI is concerned,  no aftermarket magazine releases are approved, public or otherwise. 

 

[MVPFc]

1 minute ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

You are exactly right.  And in regards to this issue, the rules are not complicated at all, and that is my point. 

 

The rule book clearly says, and has for some time, THAT YOU CANNOT USE AN AFTERMARKET MAGAZINE RELEASE IN PRODUCTION.  However, some people (companies) flexed that rule to their favor, and in return, competitors have been competing with illegal parts. 

Maybe that would be a good question for a section coordinator. Wait...

[Sarge]

32 minutes ago, MVPFc said:

Maybe that would be a good question for a section coordinator. Wait...

Nice try.

[Ssanders224]

28 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Nice try.

 

Out of curiosity, will you be changing your mag release back to a factory part? Or continue to compete outside of the rules? 

 

I still have trouble understanding why someone (especially a SC) would use a part that is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in the Production appendix.  We,re not talking about a grey area, or something that needed an interpretation.... were talking about a black and white forbidden part. 

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

Out of curiosity, will you be changing your mag release back to a factory part? Or continue to compete outside of the rules? 

 

I still have trouble understanding why someone (especially a SC) would use a part that is SPECIFICALLY forbidden in the Production appendix.  We,re not talking about a grey area, or something that needed an interpretation.... were talking about a black and white forbidden part. 

I'm not changing anything.

[wtturn]

I'm not changing anything.

You gonna declare as open division, then?

[Ssanders224]

2 minutes ago, Sarge said:

I'm not changing anything.

 

How can you possibly say that? 

The current DNROI says its illegal.  The current rule book says its illegal. 

 

By using your aftermarket magazine release in Production or CO going forward... you are knowingly and willing competing outside of USPSA rules (cheating). 

[JAFO]

20 hours ago, Sarge said:

Not entirely accurate.

 

USPSA Handgun Rules, 

A factory/

OFM

magazine release which

extends only the length of the magazine

release may be used. A magazine release

which provides a

larger surface area (paddles,

buttons) may only be used if it is an OFM

part

available on an approved model of gun

 

Sarge, I will agree with you that the "other Production-approved model" part of my statement is not correct for the mag release.  I was thinking along the lines of triggers and hammers.  However, it does specifically state "factory/OFM", so if it doesn't come from the gun manufacturer (or their specialty/performance shop), then it shouldn't be legal as written.

 

As has been stated, many companies have stretched opinions over the years and incorporated statements like "approved for Production/CO Divisions" into their product descriptions.  Because of that, we've gone pretty far down the rabbit hole and there are a lot of competitors using externally visible parts that shouldn't be allowed.  I hope Troy and the BOD are able to come up with a good rewrite to address it, even if that is to open it up to any aftermarket item that is modeled after factory/OFM.  As  it is now, what is and isn't allowed for external parts is all over the place and pretty unenforceable.

 

And while they are at it, they really should remove the original caliber restriction from App4, 21.3.  There are a LOT of guns out there these days with caliber conversions available.  No need to disallow someone from running a 9mm top end on their .40S&W frame for Production, as long as the frame meets the modification restrictions.

[HoMiE]

So NROI removed older rulings where the basically say if aftermarket part is dimensionally the same as OFM it’s OK and there is a current ruling ruling where it’s ok to change hammer on a Production/Carry Optic gun but it’s not ok for a mag release. And since now we know a SC has one on a gun we are going to troll him? I see what’s going on here. 

[JAFO]

Just now, HoMiE said:

So NROI removed older rulings where the basically say if aftermarket part is dimensionally the same as OFM it’s OK and there is a current ruling ruling where it’s ok to change hammer on a Production/Carry Optic gun but it’s not ok for a mag release. And since now we know a SC has one on a gun we are going to troll him? I see what’s going on here. 

 

I don't remember a ruling that ever said that.  I know people have personal emails and verbal OK's, but I don't remember seeing a ruling on the website.

 

Personally, I think Troy should have made the hammer ruling cover all of the externally visible parts as long as they are functionally identical.  That would have made this all moot.

[HoMiE]

2 minutes ago, JAFO said:

 

I don't remember a ruling that ever said that.  I know people have personal emails and verbal OK's, but I don't remember seeing a ruling on the website.

 

Personally, I think Troy should have made the hammer ruling cover all of the externally visible parts as long as they are functionally identical.  That would have made this all moot.

 

If a part is the same thing as factory part Who cares. Like I said, USPSA does more harm than good with the infighting and keeping people away from the sport Because they put a vickers tactical mag release. 

[wtturn]

 
If a part is the same thing as factory part Who cares. Like I said, USPSA does more harm than good with the infighting and keeping people away from the sport Because they put a vickers tactical mag release. 

Well either the rules matter, or they don't.

When you have a SC who presumably should know the rules or at least have the humility to to be corrected when shown evidence, then it raises some serious alarms about fitness for that position of authority.

Aside from that, when we treat the rules as mere suggestions, you implicitly destroy competitive equity. What else is optional? Power factor? I figure 124.7 is close enough.

It's extremely shortsighted to bend the rules we don't like when the foundation of our sport is the rules.

[Ssanders224]

34 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

So NROI removed older rulings where the basically say if aftermarket part is dimensionally the same as OFM it’s OK and there is a current ruling ruling where it’s ok to change hammer on a Production/Carry Optic gun but it’s not ok for a mag release. And since now we know a SC has one on a gun we are going to troll him? I see what’s going on here. 

 

No one is trolling anyone. You, nor anyone else, here or in other conversations has produced a ruling that allowed aftermarket magazine releases.  Past or present. 

This entire conversation isn't because a mag release is a big deal, it is an illustration of the mess Production has turned into. 

There are rules.  Follow them, or don't and suffer the consequences.