Glock Extended Mag Release In CO...

[Ssanders224]

18 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

 

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. 

 I can't say it any better than wtturn already has...

 

But your position is extremely short sighted, and disruptive to the competitive equality of our sport.  

[JAFO]

21 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

 

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. 

 

The reality is that most RO's will never even notice if it's the same color as an OFM release.  To your point, you can't really get much competitive advantage as long as the button size stays the same. 

 

But this extends beyond releases.  Does a lighter, skeletonized hammer with the same shape as factory offer an advantage?  Maybe, but that's now allowed by ruling where the release is specifically not.  You run up against that statement in App D4:

UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION.

 

It's getting harder to reconcile that statement with all the things that are now "allowed", especially when CO got thrown under the Production rules umbrella.  It used to be that if someone wanted to deck out their Glock with all of the newest aftermarket/tactical parts, they got some mag extensions, shot Limited minor, and had fun.  Now with CO, you have optics-equipped guns that don't even come close to Production modification rules, but with a dot they can't shoot Limited and they don't want to shoot Open.

[BritinUSA]

So where did this statement come from ?

 

 

[Ssanders224]

9 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

So where did this statement come from ?

 

 

Idk? Loose interpretations of the rules? The rule book did then, and does now strictly prohibit aftermarket magazine releases in production, regardless of size or shape. 

If a DNROI gave Springer a go-ahead 10 years ago, it has little bearing on the current situation.   Unless that DNROI published a ruling (no ones been able to produce one), or amended the rule book (he didn't)... then you have to adhere to the rules and NROI opinions we have now.  Which are very clear. 

[Sarge]

Here is just one comment from DNROI that I found:

 

Magazine releases in Production Division
USPSA
There have been a lot of questions lately regarding extended magazine releases in Production Division. Here's a little information that will hopefully clear up some of the confusion. For some reason, this exact wording did not make the 2014 rules set. I've introduced a ruling to clarify this information, and it will be added to the online version of the Handgun rules as soon as possible. The key wording here concerns aftermarket parts. The part can only make the magazine release button longer, not wider, unless it's an OFM (Original Firearm Manufacturer — changed from OEM in 2012 or so) part available on some other approved model. There are several aftermarket suppliers that have magazine releases that are identical to the OFM magazine release, only longer. These are approved for use in Production Division.

From the 2009 interpretations and rulings: An external part which extends only the length of the magazine-release button is specifically allowed in section 21.6 of the 2009 interpretation, whether the part is OEM or aftermarket. If the part provides a larger surface area (a big head, a button, a paddle, etc.)...

[Sarge]

This is so entertaining. I would call it free entertainment but I did pay for internet service so it doesn't qualify. I have been called a cheater at least twice and deemed unfit to be a Section Coordinator over a legal mag release on my XDM that, I HAVE NEVER FIRED IN A MATCH. 

[Steve RA]

[Ssanders224]

10 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Here is just one comment from DNROI that I found:

 

Magazine releases in Production Division
USPSA
There have been a lot of questions lately regarding extended magazine releases in Production Division. Here's a little information that will hopefully clear up some of the confusion. For some reason, this exact wording did not make the 2014 rules set. I've introduced a ruling to clarify this information, and it will be added to the online version of the Handgun rules as soon as possible. The key wording here concerns aftermarket parts. The part can only make the magazine release button longer, not wider, unless it's an OFM (Original Firearm Manufacturer — changed from OEM in 2012 or so) part available on some other approved model. There are several aftermarket suppliers that have magazine releases that are identical to the OFM magazine release, only longer. These are approved for use in Production Division.

From the 2009 interpretations and rulings: An external part which extends only the length of the magazine-release button is specifically allowed in section 21.6 of the 2009 interpretation, whether the part is OEM or aftermarket. If the part provides a larger surface area (a big head, a button, a paddle, etc.)...

Where was that posted?  

 

I assume its from the prior DNROI... so at best... and this is what my point was from the beginning,  the rules when it comes to stuff like this is a big mess. 
Say whatever you want, but under the CURRENT rules, and the most recent DNROI opinion, your magazine release is illegal. 

[JAFO]

33 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

So where did this statement come from ?

 

 

I don't know, but if he introduced a ruling in 2015, it's not on the Rulings page and it's not in the latest electronic version of the rulebook.  Was it published in Front Sight?

[Sarge]

13 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

Where was that posted?  

 

I assume its from the prior DNROI... so at best... and this is what my point was from the beginning,  the rules when it comes to stuff like this is a big mess. 
Say whatever you want, but under the CURRENT rules, and the most recent DNROI opinion, your magazine release is illegal. 

It's from 2015. Since a past BOD member posted here that he recommended the allowance of extended mag releases to current DNROI, my guess is it has been overlooked. And technically a shooter can do whatever they want to a production gun. They just can't use it in Production.

[Ssanders224]

11 minutes ago, JAFO said:

 

I don't know, but if he introduced a ruling in 2015, it's not on the Rulings page and it's not in the latest electronic version of the rulebook.  Was it published in Front Sight?

 

This is my point.

It seems as though it was never handled or published correctly... which means it’s not in affect. 

 

What so hard about adhearing to the rules currently in place?  If they update, or publish something official a month from now, a year from now, etc... great. 

But the rules we have now are just that. 

[Ssanders224]

3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

It's from 2015. Since a past BOD member posted here that he recommended the allowance of extended mag releases to current DNROI, my guess is it has been overlooked. And technically a shooter can do whatever they want to a production gun. They just can't use it in Production.

 

Again, my point. 

It was overlooked.  It is not currently a rule, or an official ruling.  They could certainly fix it, and make it official. 

 

But for now, your mag release is illegal (for production). 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Ssanders224

[JAFO]

3 minutes ago, Sarge said:

And technically a shooter can do whatever they want to a production gun. They just can't use it in Production.

 

[Gary Stevens]

My post was and is still true. I never addressed the aftermarket/ofm issue. Troy was not DNROI when I was on the BOD.  My XD has an extended magazine release. It was removed from the gun, welded up and recut to extend it farther outward.

 

Modifications  of this type were specifically approved by the BOG.

 

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Gary Stevens

[Shadyscott999]

Is a slide with no site cuts legal in CO?  

[wtturn]

20 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

My post was and is still true. I never addressed the aftermarket/ofm issue. Troy was not DNROI when I was on the BOD.  My XD has an extended magazine release. It was removed from the gun, welded up and recut to extend it farther outward.

 

Modifications  of this type were specifically approved by the BOG.

 

 

 

Please "[Identify]  a specific rules clause or published interpretation which authorizes any disputed modification." as required by appendix D4.21.   "If the shooter cannot identify an authorizing rules-clause or published interpretation, the RM shall rule that the modification is PROHIBITED for Production use and shall move the shooter to Open Division."

 

D4.22  "Please note that the absence of an item in the list of modifications and features prohibited MAY NOT be construed to mean a modification is allowed. A modification is only allowed in Production Division if there is a rules clause or interpretation which specifically declares that it is allowed in the Division."

 

11.8.3  "All  official  USPSA  interpretations  of  the  rulebook  published  on  the USPSA  website  (www.uspsa.org) will be deemed to be precedents and will  be  applied  to  all  USPSA  matches  commencing  on  or  after  7  days  from  the  date  of  publication.  All  such  interpretations  are  subject  to  ratification  or  modification  at  a  regular  or  special  meeting  of  the  USPSA Board of Directors."

 

A secondhand email from DNROI on the forum does not constitute a published interpretation.

Edited January 12, 2018 by wtturn

[Ssanders224]

13 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

My post was and is still true. I never addressed the aftermarket/ofm issue. Troy was not DNROI when I was on the BOD.  My XD has an extended magazine release. It was removed from the gun, welded up and recut to extend it farther outward.

 

Modifications  of this type were specifically approved by the BOG.

 

 

 

Thanks for the reply, 

But where under the current rules does it allow this?  Is there an official publication? 

 

I for the life of me can’t find where there is currently anything published that would allow me to weld an extension on my Prodictjon mag release, OR use an aftermarket. 

[Gary Stevens]

21.6 allows a OFM mag release to be extended. Internal modifications are allowed. OFM mag release was extended by internal modifications therefore legal.

 

 

[wtturn]

2 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

21.6 allows a OFM mag release to be extended. Internal modifications are allowed. OFM mag release was extended by internal modifications therefore legal.

 

 

 

None of the mods are visible externally?  Not what I had pictured in my head originally but sounds totally legal now that I understand what your modification entailed.

[Ssanders224]

6 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

21.6 allows a OFM mag release to be extended. Internal modifications are allowed. OFM mag release was extended by internal modifications therefore legal.

 

 

 

Does your mag release protrude further from the gun after modification? 

 

If not, then weld away I guess... but Idk what the point would be unless it’s the actual function or mag retention. 

 

Doesn’t seem to apply though. 

And 21.6 reads as... you can use an extended factory/OFM realease.  Not that you can EXTEND a factory release. 

[Gary Stevens]

Yes it extends farther outward. I tell you what was approved by the BOD as I was one of the votes. It was approved on my suggestion. Yet you apparently don't believe me. What I am trying to explain is the thought process that went into a one sentence statement in the rulebook. Most of this is called legislative intent. Unfortunately, or maybe not, we don't publish reams of discussions and legislative/rule intent. We mostly rely on those who helped to craft a particular rule.

[Ssanders224]

10 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

Yes it extends farther outward. I tell you what was approved by the BOD as I was one of the votes. It was approved on my suggestion. Yet you apparently don't believe me. What I am trying to explain is the thought process that went into a one sentence statement in the rulebook. Most of this is called legislative intent. Unfortunately, or maybe not, we don't publish reams of discussions and legislative/rule intent. We mostly rely on those who helped to craft a particular rule.

 

No, I’m with you... I understand what you mean, and I believe you.

 

So I can take my Glock magazine release and modify it so that it protrudes outward further? 

 

[Gary Stevens]

If you modify it internally. In a Glock though it is probably easier to purchase a Glock 34/35 mag release.

[Ssanders224]

8 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:

If you modify it internally. In a Glock though it is probably easier to purchase a Glock 34/35 mag release.

 

But as to internal modifications, the rule book states:

 

“Per existing NROI ruling, any “internal” modifications which result in a visible change to the external

appearance of the

gun when it is in battery REMAIN

PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the

plain language herein.”

 

So if the internal  modification changes the external dimensions of the mag release, I could definitely see it being prohibited. 

Easily enforceable? No.  Pretty tough to catch. 

[Gary Stevens]

I've been in this sport for almost 40 years and have watched and participated in its evolution. Much of how the rules are applied comes from conversations between DNROI and the RMI corps. The result of these conversations are not incorporated into specific rules in the rule book. Call them Standard Operating Procedures, if you will.

 

i remember being instructed at Nationals to forbid loaded sight pictures. When I asked what rule I should reference, I was told by the MD "because I said so".

 

I also remember, as Sarge does, that if the aftermarket part was the same as OFM it was considered ok. 

 

Everytime  a new rulebook is printed I find things that were in the book that are no longer in the book.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by Gary Stevens