rgkeller Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Eliminate the length and restrict the rounds to 20/21 and 28/29. Will save everyone a bunch of money and make the process simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Eliminate the length and restrict the rounds to 20/21 and 28/29. Will save everyone a bunch of money and make the process simple. And will special clickers or other counting tools be given to RO's to help them count shots fired during a dynamic CoF? Remember that a timer is only required to record the time of the last shot fired, not keep track of splits or shots fired. Edited July 7, 2012 by Skydiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 RO's can use the same clickers they use for Production. Maybe we can have EGW make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Here is how they do it at the highest level(World Shoot), a $3 tape measure. Reminds me of NASA spending millions to develop a pen that could be used in space while the Russians used pencils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLM Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Eliminate the length and restrict the rounds to 20/21 and 28/29. Will save everyone a bunch of money and make the process simple. And that would save those of us with 30/31 round easily gauge legal mags money how? IMO, no capacity limits. Just set an easy to implement measuring procedure, be it "push as hard as you can" or it "has to fall in", whatever. I don't care but this is USPSA, not IPSC. Going backwards doesn't help anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 All the children who will be shooting in the future will save money. Do it for the children. BTW, if "push the mag into the gauge" is permitted, then the rule has to be rewritten. When is the next handgun rules revision scheduled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 It would be interesting to know just how accurate you could be with a tape measure. My guess is that USPSA invented the gage because the tape measure wasn't that accurate, and led to different people getting different readings. I would hate to have to count rounds fired for limited and open shooters, but if that's what USPSA decides, I guess I'll figure out a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 OK...I thought this would be out by now, must be waiting on the meeting minutes to get approved. I am tired of waiting, and I am sure you are too. This is not the exact wording, and it isn't finalized, but as I loosely recall...the basic points from the BOD meeting were that: - Mags would have to sit in the gauge freely (no pressing and compressing them in) - The follower doesn't count, it can be depressed into the mag so it doesn't sit proud. - For mags that have a profile that doesn't fit into the relief cuts for the basepads (like glock mags with +10's)...they don't just fail, they can be measured too. (I'd use a gauge and just turn it a bit, but one could use a ruler.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 OK...I thought this would be out by now, must be waiting on the meeting minutes to get approved. I am tired of waiting, and I am sure you are too. This is not the exact wording, and it isn't finalized, but as I loosely recall...the basic points from the BOD meeting were that: - Mags would have to sit in the gauge freely (no pressing and compressing them in) - The follower doesn't count, it can be depressed into the mag so it doesn't sit proud. - For mags that have a profile that doesn't fit into the relief cuts for the basepads (like glock mags with +10's)...they don't just fail, they can be measured too. (I'd use a gauge and just turn it a bit, but one could use a ruler.) Would the back of the mag need to sit flush against the two pads to pass muster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Would the back of the mag need to sit flush against the two pads to pass muster? That is the current idea. If there might be issues with that please bring them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I think that somebody noted within this 7 page discussion that not all magazines maybe "square" eg. Some maybe slightly twisted. (Probably like their owners. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcic Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Would the back of the mag need to sit flush against the two pads to pass muster? That is the current idea. If there might be issues with that please bring them up. Mags tubes not being square is the biggest issue. I have one that without a basepad and significant free room and not touching the top or bottom edge of the gauge that does not site flush against the two pads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 not all magazines maybe "square" eg. Some maybe slightly twisted. +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrawandDuck Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Pictures of one of my 170 mags that fits well within the gauge but does not set flush with either of the pads....Legal or Not legal? At a recent state match they first stated it was NOT legal as it did not sit flush on the pads and I pointed out the gap between the gauge and feed lips and that he was incorrect as the mag was well within the length limit....he finally passed it.... Edited July 18, 2012 by DrawandDuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Pictures of one of my 170 mags that fits well within the gauge but does not set flush with either of the pads....Legal or Not legal? At a recent state match they first stated it was NOT legal as it did not sit flush on the pads and I pointed out the gap between the gauge and feed lips and that he was incorrect as the mag was well within the length limit....he finally passed it.... Legal. Troy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeg1005 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 (edited) Pictures of one of my 170 mags that fits well within the gauge but does not set flush with either of the pads....Legal or Not legal? At a recent state match they first stated it was NOT legal as it did not sit flush on the pads and I pointed out the gap between the gauge and feed lips and that he was incorrect as the mag was well within the length limit....he finally passed it.... Something needs to be done to address this. Someone could in theory push their mags out at those two points where the vertical pads are.. which would cause them to not sit flush, but sit higher in the guage(allowing for them to be longer) and claim that it is a "deformed tube". Yours is a pretty clear example of where its obvious that you would fit if it was flush... but on some 140mm mags it really doesn't take much to make a mag fit vs. not fitting. Mike. Edited July 18, 2012 by mikeg1005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Another reason why the gauge was a bad idea. Remember that the intent of the uniform gauge was to make measuring mags EASIER and UNIFORM If we have to write a six paragraph instruction with pictures on using the gauge properly, then we have deviated from the original point of the gauge in the first place. Use a ruler. And dump the extra 1.25mm while we are at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gng4life Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I am really not in favor of the "no-compression" part of the rule but I think I see the logic behind it. It just seems like if you can push it in and it works, we should allow it. With the "play" that is involved with the basepads and tube lips, this would help. Has anyone suggested doing away with the gauge and making a box for mags? It has worked for some divisions for guns so why can't it work for mags? You drop it in the box and if it fits, it's good to go. This would also help with polymer mags and the +10 extensions. Sorry if someone already said this but I didn't see it yet. What does everyone think of a box instead of a gauge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Any restriction on which direction the mag has to go into the box? Does it have to be square or parallel to an edge? My opposition to the box idea, admittedly, is currently knee-jerk. The current rule is based on there being a maximum length from the back of the feedlip to the imaginary point in where a line coinciding with the back of the magazine intersects with the bottom plane of the base pad. So therefore the method or tool used to measure the mag should measure JUST the length dimension, and just that length and not any other dimensions like width, depth, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeg1005 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 What does everyone think of a box instead of a gauge? How will you account for feed lips? The idea of measuring the back is becuase that is the most "true" length for all mags. Feed lips must fit in the box and that means anyone running (for example) a Glock mag, can stick a bigger extension on it than an STI mag and still fit becuase of the STI follower/feed lip design. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 And while on the topic of feedlips... as I had asked in the past, apparently it is an acceptable practice to grind down the back of the feedlips to be able to fit into the gauge. Apparently grinding the basepad results in the basepad breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Bobby...who tunes a lot of mags..sent me a message that the weight of the mag, acting on the lever that is the mag body, will raise the mag off the pads. He suggests we flip flop, and put the mag on a table, then put the gauge on top of the mag. Kyle, As someone with extensive use and proper application of a the EGW mag gauge, the BoD thought process is flawed. With STI/SVI style magazines with Dawson base pads, the magazine will NOT sit freely within the gauge and touch both pads no matter how legal it is. Gravity is the law that dictates this. The weight of the base pad causes the feed lip end of the magazine to rise and not touch. To make it easy for everyone, lay the mag down on a table and see if the gauge will fit on top of the mag and touch both pads. That way, the force applied will be equal across the country. I don't there's anyone in practical shooting that has used the EGW manufactured mag gauge more than I have. There's a way it can be done fair and equitably for everyone, but laying the mag in the gauge isn't it. Thanks, Bobby thanks Bobby, I will add that to the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) OK...I thought this would be out by now, must be waiting on the meeting minutes to get approved. I am tired of waiting, and I am sure you are too. This is not the exact wording, and it isn't finalized, but as I loosely recall...the basic points from the BOD meeting were that: - Mags would have to sit in the gauge freely (no pressing and compressing them in) - The follower doesn't count, it can be depressed into the mag so it doesn't sit proud. - For mags that have a profile that doesn't fit into the relief cuts for the basepads (like glock mags with +10's)...they don't just fail, they can be measured too. (I'd use a gauge and just turn it a bit, but one could use a ruler.) Here is the wording from the BOD minutes. oops. Quoted wrong rule. Edited August 6, 2012 by sperman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 From BOD minutes. Language for review: The primary magazine measuring device shall be the EGW mag gauge. A magazine should conform to the length limit as well as the gauge to comply with the rules. The gauge extends to infinity. No curved, collapsible, extendable, or similar types of magazines will be allowed. If a base pad does not conform to the configuration of the gauge, a ruler may be used to measure the overall length as pictured in Appendix E1. The magazine shall be placed into the gauge without any force or depression. It must lie so that the back of the magazine is flush against the gauge. The follower may be depressed to ensure proper fit. If the magazine fit or procedure is questioned, the RM call will be final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAB33 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Bobby has it right BOD have it wrong. Lay the gauge on the mag not the mag in the gauge. 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