Magazine Measuring Procedure

[nwb01]

Just returned from a level II match where they measured magazine length at the Chrono stage. No big deal, since I am using Glock 15 round mags with Arredondo plus 5 extensions that are specifically built for USPSA Limited. I hand over my magazine and the RO promptly tells me the magazine is too long and asked for another magazine. I return to bag and hand him an identical magazine and I get the same response from the RO. The RO asks another RO to check and he concurs the findings, the range master is called. Once the RM arrives, he checks the mags and concurs with the other RO's. Welcome to OPEN !!!!!

I am having a huge WTF moment, I cannot understand how these do not fit the gauge. I inspect the gauge and find it to be the "Official" EGW gauge. I ask the RO to show me how they are too long. He sets the mag in the gauge and shows me how he can see light between the gauge and magazine. Due to this, he says they are too long, and makes a comment about the feed lips being too high or something. So, at the point on back of the mag where the feed lips start need to be flush with the gauge ?? This makes sense, it would be the shortest dimensions of the mag. However, if I take a Glock mag and put a straight edge up the back on the tube, I can still see some light at the corner of the mag/feed lips. The mag isn't true and would not be parallel with the machined gauge. Wouldn't it better check be to see if the mag had movement in the gauge when tight against the machined surface ??

Appendix E1 shows nothing using the gauge for measurement. The only documentation I can find is THIS. However, the NROI ruling does not say or show how the magazine is place in the gauge or what the criteria is for measurement.

Does anybody have any official info on how the measurement is to be performed ??

Has anybody run into this with the same magazine configuration ??

What would you do in this situation ??

Thanks in advance,

Nick (still in disbelief)

[FLL1911]

Unless your magazine is perfectly flat and square (I think most magazines aren't), only a small part of the mag actually is touching the base of the mag gauge. I tried 6 STI mags, all clearly shorter than 140mm and 2 SPS exactly 141mm, and only a very narrow part of the mag touches the base of the gauge – if you do not pay attention, it looks like they are not even touching the gauge. I had to double check it.

The bottom part of the mag lips is not supposed to touch the gauge. There is an indentation cut in this area. The gauge surface where the mag rests looks like this:

 \                                                                         |
  \_____----------_______________________________-----------               |
                                                            |______________|

I thought that the procedure was self evident, but I just realize that if you do not pay attention, it could lead you to an incorrect reading.

Have you tried to check it again with a mag gauge?

[Schutzenmeister]

Nick

Not having been present to actually see what you describe, and lacking a clear, HD photo of the mag in the guage, it's difficult (if not impossible) to second guess the match staff on this forum. Sorry ...

In the "What would you do ...?" arena: 6.2.5, and more specifically 6.2.5.1 and 6.2.5.2 state this is the RMs call. If he makes the call that your equipment is not in compliance, then you go to OD and that decision is final. (i.e., It cannot be appealed through arbritration. See the opening sentence of 11.1.2.)

In the rhelm of your statement: "No big deal, since I am using Glock 15 round mags with [brand name] plus 5 extensions that are specifically built for USPSA Limited." Such statements are what is generally referred to as puffery; in this case, a statement to entice you to buy a product. It is generally believed by the manufacturer to be true, and I am certain he made every reasonable effort to so engineer it. Nevertheless, as you witnessed in your case, it proved not to be within specifications.

My best advice comes from our 40th President ... Trust, but verify. If you are going to push the limits, it is wise to verify the measurements BEFORE the match begins. Only in this way can you have reasonable assurance that YOUR setup should meet specifications.

I suspect this is not the answer you really wanted to hear, but I'm afraid it's the best I have to offer.

[Nik Habicht]

Mike,

I'm thinking it's not that simple. There's no mention of the gauge in the current rulebook. There's no mention in the book that NROI interpretations issued on prior rulebooks are still binding. Given that the gauge was introduced in 2000, I find it appalling that it -- and its use -- are not documented in the rulebook.

Furthermore, if one reads the entire text of the interpretation, dealing with mag gauges, one finds this interesting tidbit:

Discussion: The new gauge will be available for shooters to purchase directly from EGW. The gauge used by USPSA Match Officials will be differentiated by color.

Is my gauge -- bought from USPSA HQ -- official enough to move a shooter to open? Do I need access to one of the "differentiated by color" gauges issued to the Area Directors? How do we know that my gauge matches the tolerances of the "differentiated by color" gauges?

[nwb01]

Nick

Not having been present to actually see what you describe, and lacking a clear, HD photo of the mag in the guage, it's difficult (if not impossible) to second guess the match staff on this forum. Sorry ...

In the "What would you do ...?" arena: 6.2.5, and more specifically 6.2.5.1 and 6.2.5.2 state this is the RMs call. If he makes the call that your equipment is not in compliance, then you go to OD and that decision is final. (i.e., It cannot be appealed through arbritration. See the opening sentence of 11.1.2.)

In the rhelm of your statement: "No big deal, since I am using Glock 15 round mags with [brand name] plus 5 extensions that are specifically built for USPSA Limited." Such statements are what is generally referred to as puffery; in this case, a statement to entice you to buy a product. It is generally believed by the manufacturer to be true, and I am certain he made every reasonable effort to so engineer it. Nevertheless, as you witnessed in your case, it proved not to be within specifications.

My best advice comes from our 40th President ... Trust, but verify. If you are going to push the limits, it is wise to verify the measurements BEFORE the match begins. Only in this way can you have reasonable assurance that YOUR setup should meet specifications.

I suspect this is not the answer you really wanted to hear, but I'm afraid it's the best I have to offer.

Yes, I am ultimately responsible to ensure my equipment is 100% legal.

Mike,

I'm thinking it's not that simple. There's no mention of the gauge in the current rulebook. There's no mention in the book that NROI interpretations issued on prior rulebooks are still binding. Given that the gauge was introduced in 2000, I find it appalling that it -- and its use -- are not documented in the rulebook.

Furthermore, if one reads the entire text of the interpretation, dealing with mag gauges, one finds this interesting tidbit:

Discussion: The new gauge will be available for shooters to purchase directly from EGW. The gauge used by USPSA Match Officials will be differentiated by color.

Is my gauge -- bought from USPSA HQ -- official enough to move a shooter to open? Do I need access to one of the "differentiated by color" gauges issued to the Area Directors? How do we know that my gauge matches the tolerances of the "differentiated by color" gauges?

EXACTLY ! Where is it defined how to properly use the gauge ??? Without definition, how can an official make a ruling and be able to back it up with rule book ?

I will try to post some pictures today of my mags in the "official" gauge.......although it may not be the correct color !

[Jadeslade]

I use those same mags and extensions. Along with at least a thousand other shooters.They fit. Something not right here.

[nwb01]

I use those same mags and extensions. Along with at least a thousand other shooters.They fit. Something not right here.

BINGO !

[vluc]

The WPA Sectional put single stack in the box, measured mags and weighed production guns. I believe this should be done absolutely at Area matches, and we chose to do it at our Sectional. We also verified and highlighted equipment placement for production and single stack shooters. This should be done at local matches by RO's, and it appears to not be on a consistent basis. We simply chose to do it at our sectional.

I cannot tell you how many production shooters at my stage(s) were not in compliance with equipment location. In fact, had several ask me why I wanted them to point out hip bones. When I told them why, I got the "you have to be kidding me" look.

We could get into a hair-splitting contest for things like this or the procedure for shooting through the chrono. How long do you wait between shots? The rulebook does not say. Can that make a difference - hot barrel versus cooling barrel? I don't know, but I don't want to see a micro-management of such things.

Several people left production for open, one for having a gun 2 ounces over the max limit due to a Tungsten Guide Rod. Still boils down to the earlier comment about Trust - but verify.

Edited September 6, 2010 by vluc

[Chris Keen]

Still doesn't answer what went wrong here. This particular procedure leaves WAAAAY too much room for individual interpretation.

Edit to add: This needs to be clarified in the USPSA rule book. It's simply too subjective to use a gauge to measure something that could negatively affect the outcome of a shooters match, yet there are no clear instructions or steps outlined in the rule book explaining how to go about making that call.

Edited September 6, 2010 by Chris Keen

[vluc]

I will check with Alan Meek, A8 Director as mag gauge and single stack box were provided to the RM and MD by him.

[mhs]

There's no mention in the book that NROI interpretations issued on prior rulebooks are still binding.

True, but it specifically says that those interpretations published on the website are:

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."

From the uspsa.org link to the rules page: "The rulings contain rulings issued by NROI which are specifically applicable to the current rule book."

From the rulings page: "All NROI rulings applicable to the current rulebook appear on this site."

[Nik Habicht]

Sure. Except that some of those interpretations were issued prior to the last set of production rules revisions, still appear on the website, are covered by those statements, and yet are contradicted by the the current version of Appendix D4.

Shooters and range staff deserve slightly better. If the rulebook is amended, is it too much to ask that either the language from the interpretations is included or that the interpretations are revisited in light of the new rules, and effectively republished on the website?

[G-ManBart]

I bought a gauge for our club back in NM and checked all my mags. I thought that if the basepad was touching (even contact with the part of the gauge it sits on) and the back of the mag body was also touching the two raised pads, the mag was legal. If those two spots are making even contact, the feed lips have to be clear, or just kissing the top of the gauge. If those two spots aren't making contact, the feed lips aren't clearing the top of the gauge. ?????

Edited September 6, 2010 by G-ManBart

[NickJ]

I figured that if the back of the magazine is flat against the raised part of the gauge, it was good. Funny, isn't it, that there isn't a depiction of the gauge in the rule book.

[mhs]

Sure. Except that some of those interpretations were issued prior to the last set of production rules revisions, still appear on the website, are covered by those statements, and yet are contradicted by the the current version of Appendix D4.

Shooters and range staff deserve slightly better. If the rulebook is amended, is it too much to ask that either the language from the interpretations is included or that the interpretations are revisited in light of the new rules, and effectively republished on the website?

Regardless of contradictions, the current rulebook acknowledges the final authority of the published NROI interpretations.

I think shooters and range staff deserve much better. A new rulebook should incorporate all applicable interpretations, and the interpretations page should be cleared.

[mhs]

I bought a gauge for our club back in NM and checked all my mags. I thought that if the basepad was touching (even contact with the part of the gauge it sits on) and the back of the mag body was also touching the two raised pads, the mag was legal. If those two spots are making even contact, the feed lips have to be clear, or just kissing the top of the gauge. If those two spots aren't making contact, the feed lips aren't clearing the top of the gauge. ?????

From the NROI ruling, you need to consider the indexing parts of the gauge to extend to infinity, and make sure that the lips and basepad fit within the imaginary extensions.

[G-ManBart]

I bought a gauge for our club back in NM and checked all my mags. I thought that if the basepad was touching (even contact with the part of the gauge it sits on) and the back of the mag body was also touching the two raised pads, the mag was legal. If those two spots are making even contact, the feed lips have to be clear, or just kissing the top of the gauge. If those two spots aren't making contact, the feed lips aren't clearing the top of the gauge. ?????

From the NROI ruling, you need to consider the indexing parts of the gauge to extend to infinity, and make sure that the lips and basepad fit within the imaginary extensions.

Okay, that makes sense, but it would seem that if the basepad and back of the body contact the indexing pads evenly (no gaps) and the feed lips do likewise, the gap at the back of the feedlips on a Glock mag wouldn't count since the lips don't go all the way to the back of the pad. Now I'm really confused! R,

Bart

[L2450]

I use those same mags and extensions. Along with at least a thousand other shooters.They fit. Something not right here.

BINGO !

Nick,

I was the chrono officer at the Western PA Section. What I was looking for was to have the mag sit fully in the gauge and to have at least 'some contact' on both raised pads on the gauge. Yes, there could be some direction in the rulebook, but this is a fairly straightforward process. There is only one way for the magazine to fit and the raised pads on the gauge are there to remove any problems with mags that are not completely flat on the back side.

I showed you the mag in the gauge and why it was not within specification. I had the other chrono officier check the mag and he found it to be too long as well. Finally, the Range Master also checked your magazine and found it to be too long for Limited. He made the call to move you to Open Division.

Did you check all of your magazines before the match?

I have Dawson +1 and +1 S.N.L. basepads on my magazines. Only two of my SV tubes will fit the mag gauge with the +1 S.N.L. basepads installed. Mag tubes are NOT a precision part. This note is included with the Dawson basepads:

These basepads are designed to fully utilize the 140 mm USPSA magazine gauge. However, due to manufacturer's variances in magazine body lengths, thay may exceed the gauge tolerance. It is your responsibility to make sure your magazine with the +1 Plus basepad fits the USPSA magazine gauge. A small amount of material can be removed from the top of the feed lip to allow for the small tolerance differences.

The manufacturer should have included a smimilar warning in the packaging with your new basepads. And you were not the only one to comment that these basepads are USPSA legal. The basepads are legal to use, but the manufacturer would be foolish to guarantee that they were legal on any magazine tube that you choose to use them on. Perhaps the OEM purchased mag tubes from Mecgar in 2009 and then in 2010 decided to use Joe's Metal Fab down the street. Do you think the mag tubes would all be the exact same length? Trust but verify is very good advice.

Bud Connolly

Chrono Officer

2010 Western PA Section Championship

[Pat Miles]

Always good to get both sides of the story.

Pat

[driver8M3]

as i mostly shoot production i've never worried about mag length. however, i do have a couple of the arredondo extensions. it'd be great if someone could post of pic of how the mags are measured in the guage...

[nwb01]

Mr. Connolly,

This is not an attack on you, so please to take it that way. I am more interested in the process and not the person doing said process. It does not appear that this process is as straight forward as you are making it out to be. Once again, where is said process documented ??

Here are some pics:

FYI - I am not sure if this is the same magazine I handed over at the match or not.

Edited September 6, 2010 by nwb01

[SLM]

Are you or are you not thinking the mag in the picture is legal?

[BayouSlide]

FWIW, I have three G17 (17rd) mags with Arredondo +5 mags that I use for non-USPSA 3-gun matches. Two fit the gauge as is, one would definitely require minor filing on the rear feed lips to fit.

When I checked a buddy's Dawson SNL-basepad equipped STI mags before Area 4 this year, none of them fit the gauge. Rather than file the feed lips of his tuned mags, he bought Dawson basepads that fit. None of my STI tubes (one was a close maybe) fit with the SNL basepads: the Brazos tuned mag with the SNL does, just barely.

All to illustrate the point that mag bodies and basepads do vary and I know plenty of people who have never checked their equipment in the box, scale or gauge who got unpleasant surprises at the chrono stage at a major match.

Curtis

Edited September 7, 2010 by BayouSlide

[nwb01]

Are you or are you not thinking the mag in the picture is legal?

With the mag crooked in the gauge it is clearly illegal. With the mag straight in the gauge it appears to be legal due to the rumored "No daylight" criteria. With the mag sitting in the gauge with some pressure applied it appears to be very legal. However, are you allow to apply pressure when measuring or not ?? If not, show me where this is documented !!

[vluc]

A8 Director has informed me that this is in the discussion process.