Magazine Base Pad Modification

[PEC-Memphis]

For SSP is it legal to remove material from the basepad?

Here's the reason, the front of the S&W M&P basepads extend more than 1/2" on front of the magazine body, for comparison a Glock basepad extends ~0.07".

The extended front creates two (2) problems (for me anyway), (1) it is very easy to dislodge the 3rd magazine while removing the 2nd magazine during reloads and (2) the magazine does not index parallel to the forefinger because the basepad "pushes" the base of the magazine away from the hand.

Thanks

[eerw]

If you need to replace them with the compact mag basepad. it doesn't extend as much. they are pretty cheap.

[Duane Thomas]

Here's a comparison pic:

http://img.photobuck...tbasesMP007.jpg

To answer your question, no, it's not legal to begin grinding on the existent magazine baseplate. You are not allowed to make any external changes to the gun, other than sights and grip tape, in SSP. However you are allowed to switch a factory part that came on the gun for a different factory part off a similar gun. Like you can take the extended mag release button normally found on a semi-longslide "Practical/Tactical" Glock 34 and put it on a Glock 26 compact, even though - to my knowledge anyway - the G26 has never been supplied that way from the factory. You take a low profile Glock 17 mag button and slide release and replace the extended controls on the Glock 34 - and so forth. I can't see putting the low profile baseplate off an M&P Compact's mag on the full-sized gun's mag as being any different.

BTW, these parts do interchange, the Compact baseplate will just slip and snap into place on your full-length mags. That's a nice feature - and one HELL of a lot easier and less time consuming than trying to reshape and resize what's already there.

[Merlin Orr]

Magazine modifications are not addressed in the rule book as far as I can find. In SSP there is an Inclusive list of modifications that can be performed but it appears limited to your pistol and does not show anything regarding mags.

IMO the mod you are talking about is not a competitive advantage and does not (to me) conflict with the IDPA philosophy and "should" be OK.

I would run it up the flagpole and see if it draws fire from above....

.02 on this one.

[Duane Thomas]

In SSP there is an Inclusive list of modifications that can be performed but it appears limited to your pistol and does not show anything regarding mags.

The magazine is part of the gun. (If it wasn't, would we require the magazine be in place when going through "gun" weighing procedures?) If a particular modification is not on the Inclusive List of Permitted Modifications (i.e. if it's not on the list you can't do it) then it's not legal. Really no need to get clarification from above, this is pretty straightforward.

[Merlin Orr]

Probably right......

But I would ask anyway. The mag issue is not addressed on the Inclusive List on either ESP or CDP but after market mag bases are allowed with no problems.

[Duane Thomas]

If it's not on the Inclusive List of Permitted Modifications in SSP, it's not legal in SSP.Why "ask anyway"? It's already spelled out, in unambiguous language, in the Rule Book.

[Merlin Orr]

While I recognize your shooting ability and your writing skills.....

Per my previous post, written after reading the rules - again, the Inclusive list does not address mags on any of the guns.

[Duane Thomas]

Okay. I see your point. Running it up the flagpole and seeing if anyone salutes might not be the worst idea in the world after all. I should have said, "This is my read on the rules, does anyone have a different read?" instead of what I did, in fact, say.

[PEC-Memphis]

In SSP there is an Inclusive list of modifications that can be performed but it appears limited to your pistol and does not show anything regarding mags.

The magazine is part of the gun. (If it wasn't, would we require the magazine be in place when going through "gun" weighing procedures?) If a particular modification is not on the Inclusive List of Permitted Modifications (i.e. if it's not on the list you can't do it) then it's not legal. Really no need to get clarification from above, this is pretty straightforward.

I have some of the compact ones on order. I've been waiting about 2 weeks for them from S&W - and yes they are pretty cheap from S&W, $1 ea, +$6 shipping for any (reasonable) number you order.

It may not be as clear cut as you believe. For example, non-weighted grip plugs are allowed in SSP. It is not an original part of the gun - and I have an earlier ruling that these can be modified.

I also have a ruling from IDPA that the M&P palm swell can be stippled since it is not an integral part of the gun and can be restored to original condition by replacement of the palm swell, unlike a < Gen 4 Glock, where stippling/reductions are not legal in SSP because it is a modification of the gun itself.

Edited December 12, 2010 by PEC-Memphis

[Steve Koski]

Quoting Robert Ray in this thread:

http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/6618?page=2

"...Aftermarket magazines are legal in SSP as long as they duplicate the factory part. You can place a compact magazine base plate on a full sized magazine as long as it will fit without alteration.

The other questions of replacing a plastic plate with a metal one, grinding down a lip, or placing a rubber pad on the bottom will be answered shortly.

This discussion only applies to SSP as in ESP or CDP you are good as long as you do not run over 1 oz of the factory standard weight.

Robert Ray"

Edited December 12, 2010 by Steve Koski

[Glock3422]

Quoting Robert Ray in this thread:

http://idpaforum.yuku.com/topic/6618?page=2

"...Aftermarket magazines are legal in SSP as long as they duplicate the factory part. You can place a compact magazine base plate on a full sized magazine as long as it will fit without alteration.

The other questions of replacing a plastic plate with a metal one, grinding down a lip, or placing a rubber pad on the bottom will be answered shortly.

This discussion only applies to SSP as in ESP or CDP you are good as long as you do not run over 1 oz of the factory standard weight.

Robert Ray"

The rule book is very clear that weighted base pads are not legal. It defines weighted as weighing more than an ounce over factory. A base pad that weighs .9 ounce over factory is not going to be the same material and is not going to duplicate the factory part. The book does not limit the base pad rule to any division(s).

Simple application of what is already in the book would clearly make a base pad change legal, as long as it does not weigh more than the factory part by more than an ounce. This clarification did not exist until the 2005 version.

Edited to clarify the quote and the comment.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Glock3422

[Duane Thomas]

Steve,

Cool. Thanks for the definitive answer.

[Steve Koski]

Robert Ray hasn't replied to that thread to say whether this other stuff is legal in SSP:

"The other questions of replacing a plastic plate with a metal one, grinding down a lip, or placing a rubber pad on the bottom will be answered shortly."

Jury is still out here.

[Jim Watson]

Merlin says:

"the Inclusive list does not address mags on any of the guns."

RR and Steve say:

"Robert Ray hasn't replied to that thread to say whether this other stuff is legal in SSP:

"The other questions of replacing a plastic plate with a metal one, grinding down a lip, or placing a rubber pad on the bottom will be answered shortly."

Jury is still out here."

Which I find interesting.

Prior editions of the rule book - the latest being the 2001-2005 Green Book - explained what "Inclusive" meant:

"INCLUSIVE list of permitted modifications: (If it's not on this list, it can't be

used in Defensive Pistol competition.)"

Magazine floorplate alterations are not on the INCLUSIVE list, so by the then definition, you may not mess with them.

The 2005 book does not define INCLUSIVE so are we to assume that INCLUSIVE does not mean ALL inclusive any more?

Horrors! I just discovered that some of my magazines have rubber pads. I haven't competed with the offending gun for about 12 years. Has the statute of limitations expired?

Edited December 12, 2010 by Jim Watson

[Steve Koski]

Yes. Sacrifice a couple goats and sin no more.

Koski

[Glock3422]

Steve,

Cool. Thanks for the definitive answer.

Robert Ray hasn't replied to that thread to say whether this other stuff is legal in SSP:

"The other questions of replacing a plastic plate with a metal one, grinding down a lip, or placing a rubber pad on the bottom will be answered shortly."

Jury is still out here.

Merlin says:

"the Inclusive list does not address mags on any of the guns."

RR and Steve say:

"Robert Ray hasn't replied to that thread to say whether this other stuff is legal in SSP:

"The other questions of replacing a plastic plate with a metal one, grinding down a lip, or placing a rubber pad on the bottom will be answered shortly."

Jury is still out here."

Which I find interesting.

Prior editions of the rule book - the latest being the 2001-2005 Green Book - explained what "Inclusive" meant:

"INCLUSIVE list of permitted modifications: (If it's not on this list, it can't be

used in Defensive Pistol competition.)"

Magazine floorplate alterations are not on the INCLUSIVE list, so by the then definition, you may not mess with them.

The 2005 book does not define INCLUSIVE so are we to assume that INCLUSIVE does not mean ALL inclusive any more?

Horrors! I just discovered that some of my magazines have rubber pads. I haven't competed with the offending gun for about 12 years. Has the statute of limitations expired?

Yes. Sacrifice a couple goats and sin no more.

Koski

I feel a need to reiterate my comment that was accidentially buried in a quote.

The rule book is very clear that weighted base pads are not legal. It defines weighted as weighing more than an ounce over factory. A base pad that weighs .9 ounce over factory is not going to be the same material and is not going to duplicate the factory part. The book does not limit the base pad rule to any division(s).

Simple application of what is already in the book would clearly make a base pad change legal, as long as it does not weigh more than the factory part by more than an ounce. This clarification did not exist until the 2005 version.

I can only add that a magazine is not a gun. It is an accessory. A G17 mag fits in a G19. It is used in conjunction with a gun, much as a speed loader or moon clip would be. The rules require that the gun be weighed with an empty magazine, but does not require a factory magazine. Detachable back straps and presumably other non-permanent parts can be modified for texture and appearance. A magazine is barely external and its constraints are defined by the volume of the gun that holds it and the original magazine +1 ounce. How you get there should be up to your own choice, much as how you stiple your detachable back strap.

Wow, we spend a lot of time worrying about nothing.

Full disclosure-

I have lost more than one Glock magazine because it either did not seat or the base pad came off the magazine during a COF. To me, adding a metal base pad is a reliability issue. My factory base pad magazines actually come out faster and better. That is probably because I only use them for special occasions.

SSP is the most restrictive division and yet allows a detachable part to be physically modified. A magazine is a replacible part and there is a rule to limit its modification.

Let's move one.

[Duane Thomas]

I can only add that a magazine is not a gun. It is an accessory.

It's not an accessory. It's a necessary part of the gun, if you want to fire it as anything more than a single shot, yes? The analogy of comparing a magazine to a speedloader is a bit flawed - the big difference is that you don't have to have a speedloader to make a revolver fire more than one round, i.e. to work as it's intended.

[PEC-Memphis]

Aftermarket, non-OEM, barrels are also allowed in SSP as long as they are the same caliber as the original gun - if I recall correctly. And I don't remember any specific requirements for who makes the barrel, ie. you could make your own as long as it was determined that it was safe. The barrel is also externally visible.

Some magazine baseplates are also part of the grip, some more so than others. So are you going to argue the finer point of allowing owner modification of baseplates which are part of the grip vs. those which are less of a part of the grip.

[Steve Koski]

I have lost more than one Glock magazine because it either did not seat or the base pad came off the magazine during a COF.

Sure, happens all the time with all kinds of guns.

I have lost more than one Glock magazine because it either did not seat or the base pad came off the magazine during a COF.

I've only seen this with extended or aftermarket base plates (in Glock land). Stock flat base plates are stone cold reliable.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Steve Koski

[Glock3422]

I have lost more than one Glock magazine because it either did not seat or the base pad came off the magazine during a COF.

I've only seen this with extended or aftermarket base plates (in Glock land). Stock flat base plates are stone cold reliable.

It must have been my imagination.

[Steve Koski]

You'll notice that there's not a huge market for stock configuration Glock mag baseplates. My guess is this is because the stock ones work. But upgrade away if you feel it'll increase your reliability. Just do it in ESP.

[Glock3422]

You'll notice that there's not a huge market for stock configuration Glock mag baseplates. My guess is this is because the stock ones work. But upgrade away if you feel it'll increase your reliability. Just do it in ESP.

I'll wait until Bill returns Robert's call.

In the meanwhile, you could explain the purpose and application of the "weighted magazine" definition.

Weighted Magazine: Any magazine that weighs more than one

(1) ounce over the weight of a factory standard magazine for the

specific pistol in question.

A pistol is a pistol and a magazine is a magazine. A magazine is not a pistol and is not a modification to a pistol. The point of SSP rules seems to keep the gun within the constraints of an issued weapon. That intent still allows changing the sights and internal work. In the case of a Glock, it allows Glock parts that were not originally on the gun.

Is a magazine that was not made by Para not allowed in an SSP Para LDA?

Never mind.

[Duane Thomas]

I guess the next time I buy a car I won't care if it doesn't have an engine. After all, an engine is not a car, and a car is not an engine.(Thank you, tautology.) Oh wait, an engine is a part of a car that you have to have if it's going to work as intended? I think I understand. That would be kind of like....a magazine in an auto pistol, right?

In any event, this is all kind of arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. According to the IDPA Rule Book, a magazine is indeed a part of the gun since is has to be inserted into the gun during the gun weighing procedure, yes?

[Glock3422]

I guess the next time I buy a car I won't care if it doesn't have an engine. After all, an engine is not a car, and a car is not an engine.(Thank you, tautology.) Oh wait, an engine is a part of a car that you have to have if it's going to work as intended? I think I understand. That would be kind of like....a magazine in an auto pistol, right?

In any event, this is all kind of arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. According to the IDPA Rule Book, a magazine is indeed a part of the gun since is has to be inserted into the gun during the gun weighing procedure, yes?

Reference please?

And could you cross reference the magazine weight issue?

And, if you really don't care or have information to offer, why bother? It matters to some of us.

Belittling the discussion adds nothing to the exchange of ideas.

This is the point at which you close the discussion.

Edit to add-

The lack of clarity in the IDPA rule book is a matter of continuing disagreement. The now "Official" IDPA Forum has done nothing to clarify anything. We are discussing here, an issue that was raised with the 2005 revision of the rule book. Unofficial opinions restricting a five year old clarification should not be a matter dismissed with such a condecsending attitude by a forum member and certainly not by a moderator.

Somebody call Brian.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Glock3422