BayouSlide Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Curtis, will with the gauge handle a magazine whose angle from feed lips to magazine back measures more than 165 degrees? (Not that there's a magazine that is designed like that, yet.) Based on the pictures, I don't think it can. Perhaps not, but then we'd inevitably need a new gauge that would account for such an extreme if and when a mag with such an extreme angle is developed. All I can vouch for is that it works like a champ for all the mags I have on hand, i.e. STI, SVI and Glock, and looks more than capable of handling any other that I've seen. Curtis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirveyr Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 I'm thinking that the EGW gauge costs less than a magazine and it might be a good idea to have one. I'm sure it sucks to go from Limited to Open, but it wouldn't be any more fun to go from Open to no score if your 170mm mags were too long. Same should be said if you shoot production and have added parts to your gun. You should own a scale. I understand this thread is about the procedure, but if more shooters took an interest in following the rules and being responsible for their own gear this might have already been figured out. I shot a local match yesterday and this thread was a hot topic between stages, especially after my friend produced his brand new EGW gauge. Many people, not just Glock w/ Arredondo (+5)shooters, were shocked to find out that they should be shooting Open... Many, if not most of the Arredondo mags that were inserted did not pass, again, depending on the amount of force applied. If the "grippy stuff" on the bottom of the mag was removed, I believe that they would fit. I was shooting Glock w/ Taylor Freelance (+5) and they fit with plenty of room to spare, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L2450 Posted September 13, 2010 Share Posted September 13, 2010 Let's try having this written into the procedure: In addition to using the gauge, a trigger pull scale shall be used to pull/settle the magazine into the gauge. If the force needed exceeds 1.5 lbs to pull the magazine into position, the magazine shall be deemed oversized. This procedure will be done with the magazine and gauge in a horizontal position with the back of the magazine facing towards the ground to give the shooter the benefit of using the magazine's own body weight supply additional force for settling into the gauge. Of course, that procedure above still doesn't account for the rule book saying measure on thing, but the gauge not only measures that thing, but also measures the feedlip angle. Curtis, will with the gauge handle a magazine whose angle from feed lips to magazine back measures more than 165 degrees? (Not that there's a magazine that is designed like that, yet.) Based on the pictures, I don't think it can. Yep, then we'll need a spec trigger pull gauge, that will have to be certified annually, and the one used at major matches will be a different color than those available to us. Analog or digital? And the exact spot the gauge will be placed on the magazine will not be defined anywhere in the rule book. The mag should fit in the gauge without any force being applied. Bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nwb01 Posted September 14, 2010 Author Share Posted September 14, 2010 Let's try having this written into the procedure: In addition to using the gauge, a trigger pull scale shall be used to pull/settle the magazine into the gauge. If the force needed exceeds 1.5 lbs to pull the magazine into position, the magazine shall be deemed oversized. This procedure will be done with the magazine and gauge in a horizontal position with the back of the magazine facing towards the ground to give the shooter the benefit of using the magazine's own body weight supply additional force for settling into the gauge. Of course, that procedure above still doesn't account for the rule book saying measure on thing, but the gauge not only measures that thing, but also measures the feedlip angle. Curtis, will with the gauge handle a magazine whose angle from feed lips to magazine back measures more than 165 degrees? (Not that there's a magazine that is designed like that, yet.) Based on the pictures, I don't think it can. Yep, then we'll need a spec trigger pull gauge, that will have to be certified annually, and the one used at major matches will be a different color than those available to us. Analog or digital? And the exact spot the gauge will be placed on the magazine will not be defined anywhere in the rule book. The mag should fit in the gauge without any force being applied. Bud Bud, Where does it say that in the RULE BOOK ??? Is there a NROI addendum stating this ? Just curious........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted September 14, 2010 Share Posted September 14, 2010 I am going to close this until there is something further on it. (Does somebody have a question in to NROI? The BOD?) We are kinda treading on going back and forth about what happened at a specific match. You all have done a good job keeping this fairly non-specific, but we are starting to beat the same horse. CLOSED for now (let a Moderator know if there is something new). Kyle F. Forum Administrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Back up. (Opened) How should the procedure be written? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Just random thoughts right now: 1) Mention that there is an official measurement gauge. 2) Note what color the official gauge is (as opposed to the one sold to the general public). 3) Provide alternate procedures should an official gauge not exist: fall back to a general public issued gauge, then fall back to calipers. 4) An illustration of caliper measurements would help. 5) Have alternate procedures in the case the back of the basepad doesn't fit into the cutout section of the gauge. (Was it Taylor Freelance that doesn't fit in the cutout?) I have no idea how the magazine length is going to be measured using calipers, without having to trace an outline of the magazine, and then measuring the outline. The alternative is to performing some some trigonometric calculation based on the measurable sides and angles - yuck! 6) Have some standard for how much pressure is needed to hold the magazine in the gauge: I suggest putting the gauge on the table, the magazine on top of the gauge, and then lining up 5 230 gn bullets along the front face of the magazine as close to the magazine lips as possible. An illustration would help. 7) Have a standard whether the back of the magazine has to touch one or both the raised areas of the gauge. 8) Copy (and perhaps clarify) the text from the NROI Ruling: "A magazine needs to conform to the length limit as well as the gauge to comply with our rules, also this means that the gauge extends to infinity, no curved magazines or other similarities." 9) Might as well explicitly outlaw telescoping magazines or telescoping base pads. 10) Have provisions for magazines which may have the correct length, but the feedlip/basepad angles prevent it from fitting in the gauge. Edited March 22, 2012 by Skydiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sin-ster Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 If you stipulate that pressure is (dis)allowed, better write it into section about the measurement box for the gun as well. I cringed at the cramming of a SS gun into one of those puppies recently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Let's try having this written into the procedure: In addition to using the gauge, a trigger pull scale shall be used to pull/settle the magazine into the gauge. If the force needed exceeds 1.5 lbs to pull the magazine into position, the magazine shall be deemed oversized. This procedure will be done with the magazine and gauge in a horizontal position with the back of the magazine facing towards the ground to give the shooter the benefit of using the magazine's own body weight supply additional force for settling into the gauge. Of course, that procedure above still doesn't account for the rule book saying measure on thing, but the gauge not only measures that thing, but also measures the feedlip angle. Curtis, will with the gauge handle a magazine whose angle from feed lips to magazine back measures more than 165 degrees? (Not that there's a magazine that is designed like that, yet.) Based on the pictures, I don't think it can. Yep, then we'll need a spec trigger pull gauge, that will have to be certified annually, and the one used at major matches will be a different color than those available to us. Analog or digital? And the exact spot the gauge will be placed on the magazine will not be defined anywhere in the rule book. Did you miss that the trigger pull requirement was removed in USPSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Let's try having this written into the procedure: In addition to using the gauge, a trigger pull scale shall be used to pull/settle the magazine into the gauge. If the force needed exceeds 1.5 lbs to pull the magazine into position, the magazine shall be deemed oversized. This procedure will be done with the magazine and gauge in a horizontal position with the back of the magazine facing towards the ground to give the shooter the benefit of using the magazine's own body weight supply additional force for settling into the gauge. Of course, that procedure above still doesn't account for the rule book saying measure on thing, but the gauge not only measures that thing, but also measures the feedlip angle. Curtis, will with the gauge handle a magazine whose angle from feed lips to magazine back measures more than 165 degrees? (Not that there's a magazine that is designed like that, yet.) Based on the pictures, I don't think it can. Yep, then we'll need a spec trigger pull gauge, that will have to be certified annually, and the one used at major matches will be a different color than those available to us. Analog or digital? And the exact spot the gauge will be placed on the magazine will not be defined anywhere in the rule book. Did you miss that the trigger pull requirement was removed in USPSA? Did you miss that the reference to a trigger pull gauge had nothing to do with triggers, but with seating magazines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 3) Provide alternate procedures should an official gauge not exist: fall back to a general public issued gauge, then fall back to calipers. How about if the official gauge doesn't exist, you use the competitors declared mag length (i.e. you don't measure it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 3) Provide alternate procedures should an official gauge not exist: fall back to a general public issued gauge, then fall back to calipers. How about if the official gauge doesn't exist, you use the competitors declared mag length (i.e. you don't measure it.) Great idea there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 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. That's very interesting to me. I wonder what else he had done to the gun. I ask because my 34 has steel sights and a tungsten rod and is 1 ounce below the max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Spitballing ideas with Skydiver. 4) An illustration of caliper measurements would help. Eliminate any confusion of using anything other than the official gauge. 5) Have alternate procedures in the case the back of the basepad doesn't fit into the cutout section of the gauge. (Was it Taylor Freelance that doesn't fit in the cutout?) I have no idea how the magazine length is going to be measured using calipers, without having to trace an outline of the magazine, and then measuring the outline. The alternative is to performing some some trigonometric calculation based on the measurable sides and angles - yuck! The gauge is the only standard. If your basepads don't fit, it is time for new basepads. There is a pretty generous cutout in the gauge for basepads. I'm surprised there are some that interfere in that area. 6) Have some standard for how much pressure is needed to hold the magazine in the gauge: I suggest putting the gauge on the table, the magazine on top of the gauge, and then lining up 5 230 gn bullets along the front face of the magazine as close to the magazine lips as possible. An illustration would help. The mag can only be inserted into the gauge by gravity. The competitor is allowed to remove the spring and follower before testing, or after failing the test. 9) Might as well explicitly outlaw telescoping magazines or telescoping base pads. Yes 10) Have provisions for magazines which may have the correct length, but the feedlip/basepad angles prevent it from fitting in the gauge. See my response to #5. How about adding something to the rulebook mandating the use of the gage at L3 and higher matches. I've never seen one used at a match. I know this would be difficult to enforce. It would be easy for the competitor to hide his non-compliant big stick when heading to chrono. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 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. That's very interesting to me. I wonder what else he had done to the gun. I ask because my 34 has steel sights and a tungsten rod and is 1 ounce below the max. 10 round mags -- which I prefer for production -- are .25 oz heavier than 17 rounds, IIRC..... Extended Tungsten rod (34 length) or short (17 length)? That could make a difference, as could the specific sights, grip tape..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 5) Have alternate procedures in the case the back of the basepad doesn't fit into the cutout section of the gauge. (Was it Taylor Freelance that doesn't fit in the cutout?) I have no idea how the magazine length is going to be measured using calipers, without having to trace an outline of the magazine, and then measuring the outline. The alternative is to performing some some trigonometric calculation based on the measurable sides and angles - yuck! The gauge is the only standard. If your basepads don't fit, it is time for new basepads. There is a pretty generous cutout in the gauge for basepads. I'm surprised there are some that interfere in that area. That pretty generous cut out was designed around the Para/Caspian/2011 basepad cutouts. One the 170 side of the gauge, there's no way that a TF +10 pad for the Glock fits -- yet the completed mag meets the length requirement. I don't think we want to punish those folks shooting platforms for which longer tubes are not a factory option.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 3) Provide alternate procedures should an official gauge not exist: fall back to a general public issued gauge, then fall back to calipers. How about if the official gauge doesn't exist, you use the competitors declared mag length (i.e. you don't measure it.) Great idea there! All the guys would be shooting for no score...as they'd confuse 5.5 inches...and call it 10 inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 5) Have alternate procedures in the case the back of the basepad doesn't fit into the cutout section of the gauge. (Was it Taylor Freelance that doesn't fit in the cutout?) I have no idea how the magazine length is going to be measured using calipers, without having to trace an outline of the magazine, and then measuring the outline. The alternative is to performing some some trigonometric calculation based on the measurable sides and angles - yuck! The gauge is the only standard. If your basepads don't fit, it is time for new basepads. There is a pretty generous cutout in the gauge for basepads. I'm surprised there are some that interfere in that area. That pretty generous cut out was designed around the Para/Caspian/2011 basepad cutouts. One the 170 side of the gauge, there's no way that a TF +10 pad for the Glock fits -- yet the completed mag meets the length requirement. I don't think we want to punish those folks shooting platforms for which longer tubes are not a factory option.... Agreed, but what do you suggest as a remedy? Is it too late to redisign the gauge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L2450 Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Spitballing ideas with Skydiver. 4) An illustration of caliper measurements would help. Eliminate any confusion of using anything other than the official gauge. 5) Have alternate procedures in the case the back of the basepad doesn't fit into the cutout section of the gauge. (Was it Taylor Freelance that doesn't fit in the cutout?) I have no idea how the magazine length is going to be measured using calipers, without having to trace an outline of the magazine, and then measuring the outline. The alternative is to performing some some trigonometric calculation based on the measurable sides and angles - yuck! The gauge is the only standard. If your basepads don't fit, it is time for new basepads. There is a pretty generous cutout in the gauge for basepads. I'm surprised there are some that interfere in that area. 6) Have some standard for how much pressure is needed to hold the magazine in the gauge: I suggest putting the gauge on the table, the magazine on top of the gauge, and then lining up 5 230 gn bullets along the front face of the magazine as close to the magazine lips as possible. An illustration would help. The mag can only be inserted into the gauge by gravity. The competitor is allowed to remove the spring and follower before testing, or after failing the test. 9) Might as well explicitly outlaw telescoping magazines or telescoping base pads. Yes 10) Have provisions for magazines which may have the correct length, but the feedlip/basepad angles prevent it from fitting in the gauge. See my response to #5. How about adding something to the rulebook mandating the use of the gage at L3 and higher matches. I've never seen one used at a match. I know this would be difficult to enforce. It would be easy for the competitor to hide his non-compliant big stick when heading to chrono. Scott, As for hiding the BIG stick, not a problem if the Range Master is walking around with a Mag Gauge in his pocket. He can measure magazines anywhere on the range. And I sse no problem with mandating mag measurements at a Level 3 and above match just like the chronograph is required. Bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 5) Have alternate procedures in the case the back of the basepad doesn't fit into the cutout section of the gauge. (Was it Taylor Freelance that doesn't fit in the cutout?) I have no idea how the magazine length is going to be measured using calipers, without having to trace an outline of the magazine, and then measuring the outline. The alternative is to performing some some trigonometric calculation based on the measurable sides and angles - yuck! The gauge is the only standard. If your basepads don't fit, it is time for new basepads. There is a pretty generous cutout in the gauge for basepads. I'm surprised there are some that interfere in that area. That pretty generous cut out was designed around the Para/Caspian/2011 basepad cutouts. One the 170 side of the gauge, there's no way that a TF +10 pad for the Glock fits -- yet the completed mag meets the length requirement. I don't think we want to punish those folks shooting platforms for which longer tubes are not a factory option.... Agreed, but what do you suggest as a remedy? Is it too late to redisign the gauge? I believe you can use the gauge -- but you can't get the Glock mags to touch the pads..... So, yes, redesigning the gauge or writing a procedure for use that takes that into account would be the only viable options.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EkuJustice Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 the TF doesnt fit the gauge because the base pad is MUCH longer that the STI lenght they based it off of. The STI has a long tube and a fairly short basepad. The TF uses a much shorter glock mag and a very long basepad for the difference. I wonder how many 140 STI mags will be too long with the grip tape etc being so common on the bottom of he mags ie dawson tape. With a SNL I dont see how it could make the gauge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The mag can only be inserted into the gauge by gravity. The competitor is allowed to remove the spring and follower before testing, or after failing the test. I would have a hard time supporting this as a standard. My normal routine is to place the mag into the gauge, wrap my hand around both and if necessary, squeeze. If that brings the magazine body into contact with the two pads, I call that good-to-go. An excerpt from the RO Creed says, "It is my duty to assist all competitors in their attempts to accomplish their goals..." If some effort on my part is needed to have a mag gauge as 'in tolerance', I'll gladly provide it. Nothing says I have to, just as nothing says anyone else has to do the same. But that's what I'll do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Just random thoughts right now: 1) Mention that there is an official measurement gauge. 2) Note what color the official gauge is (as opposed to the one sold to the general public). The "official" gauge and the one sold to the public are *exactly* the same, beside the color. They both were made at the *exact* same time, on the same machine, from the same materials. The only difference is, someone made some incantations and, out of the pile of finished gauges (before anodizing), proclaimed some of them "official" and the others ones for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Just random thoughts right now: 1) Mention that there is an official measurement gauge. 2) Note what color the official gauge is (as opposed to the one sold to the general public). The "official" gauge and the one sold to the public are *exactly* the same, beside the color. They both were made at the *exact* same time, on the same machine, from the same materials. The only difference is, someone made some incantations and, out of the pile of finished gauges (before anodizing), proclaimed some of them "official" and the others ones for sale. I agree. But the text in the NROI Ruling still says there is a color distinction. Perhaps when the measurement procedure is codified, the ruling can (should?) by deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 The mag can only be inserted into the gauge by gravity. The competitor is allowed to remove the spring and follower before testing, or after failing the test. I would have a hard time supporting this as a standard. My normal routine is to place the mag into the gauge, wrap my hand around both and if necessary, squeeze. If that brings the magazine body into contact with the two pads, I call that good-to-go. An excerpt from the RO Creed says, "It is my duty to assist all competitors in their attempts to accomplish their goals..." If some effort on my part is needed to have a mag gauge as 'in tolerance', I'll gladly provide it. Nothing says I have to, just as nothing says anyone else has to do the same. But that's what I'll do. The issue with that is...we are looking at using the IPSC wording (regarding no "accordion base pads"). If you squeeze it in, you would be allowing the base pad snug up to the mag tube. Thus, it would be shorter in the gauge than it would be in use on a stage. Thoughts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now