Slide and frame don't match is this legal in USPSA?

[Nik Habicht]

It's not that we can't bump them - it's that not everyone has the background and knowledge to make it consistently enforced at all levels of matches.

Hence the beauty of the third-party appeal.....

I've known of competitors who spotted someone else breaking a rule that influenced competitive equity -- and those competitors either asked a CRO on the next stage to investigate, or brought the matter to the RM's attention....

[Pelican82]

This is fascinating. Because the slide and frame on a G17, G22, G34 and G35 are all interchangeable. You can even swap mags in between each. I am not advocating breaking the rules, but I don't think the frame is marked anywhere what kind of caliber or model Glock it belongs to.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Pelican82

[Chuck Anderson]

No the frame on a Glock is not marked. But again, and I don't know how many times this needs to be said, the rules are not written for Production-Glock Division. If they were we'd have a 300 page rule book, and it would still be wrong. If you want to roll the dice and cheat (which is what knowingly violating the rules is) that's a decision you will have to make. And yes I know the above poster is not advocating it. You may get away with it at a local match, you may get away with it at Nationals. Or you may be caught at either location. The rule is clear. You can't change the caliber or barrel length on a gun. The frame is the gun. If you violate it, hello Open. If you knowingly violate it and there is evidence to that point, goodbye from the match. I'm talking telling someone that you know your gun is illegal but you're gonna shoot it anyway.

Production is meant to be exactly that, Production. Not making someone buy three different guns to swap parts out from to have the ultimate, Sevigny/Vogel beating super gun. If you don't like the Production rules there are 5 other Divisions you can shoot in.

[beltjones]

Production is meant to be exactly that, Production. Not making someone buy three different guns to swap parts out from to have the ultimate, Sevigny/Vogel beating super gun. If you don't like the Production rules there are 5 other Divisions you can shoot in.

I agree, except that in many cases it provides no competitive advantage. In your example, I don't see how swapping identical parts would create a super gun. Not to mention the fact that it's perfectly legal to swap parts on the same model gun, such as swapping OEM G34 slides on G34 frames. So either swapping identical parts won't create a super gun, or creating super guns is already legal because you can already swap parts between like models. In either case your argument doesn't quite add up.

I think the "slippery slope" notion that adding a "no competitive advantage" addendum will somehow create a 300 page rule book is a bit exaggerated. And we already have arbitration committees that decide on issues of competitive advantage all the time, so it's not like we'd be asking them to perform some super human feat of Solomon-like wisdom.

I love Production division - it's my division of choice - and I think careful examination of the rules is critical in order to protect it from becoming Limited Minor Division. In fact, in many ways I think it has moved too far away from the intention of the division, what with all of the internal modifications that can be done. Those internal modifications with aftermarket parts actually can provide a competitive advantage and are in the direction of creating a "super gun." Swapping identical OEM pieces of plastic, not so much. It's strange that one is legal and the other isn't. That's all.

Edited March 4, 2011 by beltjones

[Skydiver]

I think the "slippery slope" notion that adding a "no competitive advantage" addendum will somehow create a 300 page rule book is a bit silly. And we already have arbitration committees that decide on issues of competitive advantage all the time, so it's not like we'd be asking them to perform some super human feat of Solomon-like wisdom.

As I read the rules, there can be no arbitration committee involved in the bump to open nor appealing that move:

6.2.5.1 However, if a competitor fails to satisfy the equipment or other requirements of a declared Division during a course of fire, the competitor will be placed in Open Division, if available, otherwise the competitor will shoot the match for no score.

6.2.5.2 A competitor who is classified or reclassified as above must be notified as soon as possible. The Range Master's decision on these matters is final.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Skydiver

[GrumpyOne]

Let me get this straight. USPSA rules say it's illegal (against the rules) to put a G34 slide on a G35 frame, or vice versa, or any other number of possible combinations in the Glock family. Correct? If you do so (willingly, and with knowledge aforehand), and get caught, you forfeit your match. Correct?

Simple solution.....Don't do it. It's unethical and against the rules. The rules are ther for a reason. If it's ok to break this one just because it can't be proven, where does it stop? Someone, somewhere, will find another way to break another rule, and so on and so forth, until the entire rule book is but a shell of it's former self (or it weighs 35 lbs and cost $150 to publish!). It diminishes the sport, making even production division a weapons race (maybe not so much as it concerns Glocks), but if you give an inch....someone will take a mile, and once that genie is out of the bottle, it's damn hard to put back in...

[EkuJustice]

The problem with the glock, is there is no model on the frame of the gun. When I had the frame of my glock 19 crack I had to send it back to glock to have it replaced. At the time I needed the 9mm upper and couldn't be with out it and they wanted a whole gun. It was shipped back with the 23 slide and guts. They documented the gun as a 23 based on the slide that was sitting on the gun not a 19 converted to 23.

[GrumpyOne]

The problem with the glock, is there is no model on the frame of the gun. When I had the frame of my glock 19 crack I had to send it back to glock to have it replaced. At the time I needed the 9mm upper and couldn't be with out it and they wanted a whole gun. It was shipped back with the 23 slide and guts. They documented the gun as a 23 based on the slide that was sitting on the gun not a 19 converted to 23.

But, if you had the 23 lower, then swap them back. Put the 19 slide back on the replacement frame, and the 23 slide back on the 23 frame. I, myself, would not consider that "cheating" or even swapping frames for that matter. You did what needed to be done to get a new frame for your 19, when you got the new frame, you put the 19 slide back on it. You know it is a 19 frame, with a 19 slide, and can shoot with a clear head...The numbers (hopefully!) would match up on the 23, while they wouldn't match on the 19...

[mhs]

I've purchased most of my Glocks used, and in all honesty don't know if they are in a "shipped-from-the-factory" configuration. I haven't checked for matching serial numbers on frame and slide, and don't plan to do so. I'll be astounded if a match official tells me that I don't have matching numbers, and that I need to prove that I am in compliance with the rules. I wouldn't be able to prove that, but I'm not losing sleep over it. If my negligance in checking my serial numbers causes me to be bumped to open, I'm OK with it.

[Skydiver]

ok how about an shadow upper on an sp-01?

Well... seems to comply with D4 21.3: same caliber, same barrel length. Based on these pics, the slide contour looks the same as well:

CZ 75 Shadow vs. CZ SP-01

Unfortunately, the CZ 75 Shadow isn't in the Production list so I don't think you can take parts off it....

If the CZ SP-01 Shadow Custom is the same as the gun listed in the production gun list as "CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow"

then you may have a chance... if you can parse what D4 21.6 says.

D4 21.6 already seems to help you out by saying barrels are external parts subject to 21.4. Since 21.4 talks about grips, it's probably a typo that was meant to refer to 21.3, but who knows unless there is a ruling or clarification.

Personally, my reading of 21.6 is that you can make a frankengun, but only composed of minor external and internal parts. I wouldn't consider the slide and barrel as minor parts.

[aztecdriver]

I've purchased most of my Glocks used, and in all honesty don't know if they are in a "shipped-from-the-factory" configuration. I haven't checked for matching serial numbers on frame and slide, and don't plan to do so. I'll be astounded if a match official tells me that I don't have matching numbers, and that I need to prove that I am in compliance with the rules. I wouldn't be able to prove that, but I'm not losing sleep over it. If my negligance in checking my serial numbers causes me to be bumped to open, I'm OK with it.

Didn't we already establish that serial numbers is NOT enough criteria to claim a non-factory configuration?

[beltjones]

Didn't we already establish that serial numbers is NOT enough criteria to claim a non-factory configuration?

Yes. Except that other people are saying one needs to carry around documentation to prove the mismatched serial numbers are the result of a frame replacement or some other legal justification. Since people in this sport aren't innocent until proven guilty, I suppose it would be up to the MD to make the decision on whether to move a shooter to Open - with no hope of an arbitration. It's a legitimate cause for concern.

[Skydiver]

Consider the case when somebody has an aftermarket slide and/or barrel. There's a very low probability that the serial numbers from 3 different manufacturers are going to match up.

This is the way the current rule reads for Production:

Appendix D4.21 Authorized modifications (Strictly limited to these items and their stated guidelines)

Please note that, during a match, a shooter may be required to demonstrate that their gun is in compliance with Division rules by identifying a specific rules clause or published interpretation which authorizes any disputed modification. 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.

The rule doesn't single out anybody with swapped component. The rule applies equally to somebody who has a bone stock gun straight from the manufacturer. The shooter still has to demonstrate that their gun is in compliance. (A Chrono Officer who decides to be a stickler for this rule probably won't be very popular, much like the RO who calls every Production and SS shooter who unloads and shows clear and stashes the mag in their front pocket. The latter though is a discussion for another thread.)

The requirements doesn't seem particularly tough: Point to rule 21.3 allowing the slide and barrel change. Note to the Chrono officer and/or the RM that you are shooting a particular model which is in the approved gun list. Next show specs for that model known to shoot a particular caliber through a barrel with a particular length, and perhaps have a picture of what a stock gun looks like. Show that the attached slide and barrel comply with 21.3.

[Chuck Anderson]

That's exactly right. There is no requirement that you walk around with a signed letter or authorization from your manufacturer showing that the serial numbers match. You just have to have a slide and barrel that was available on the gun in a Production legal format. If you have a Gen 3 Glock frame with a Gen 3 Glock 17 slide and barrel, regardless of what the serial numbers say, I can't imagine a circumstance where you wouldn't be just fine. Now if you go around bragging to your squad that you picked up this awesome Glock 22 as police trade in and just dropped your top end onto it from your Gen 1 Glock 17 because it had a better grip...well that would be a problem.

As far as competetive advantage, I believe the BOD's previous to me have worked very hard to eliminate that phrasing from anything to do with USPSA because it is just a truly ambigous phrase. How do you define competetive equity. Does it have to be substantial, minor, who is the judge of it? Is it based on the frame you have or what is available? If I take a Gen 3 RTF2 frame and put it under my G34 slide I believe that is an improvement (which is why I would do it in the first place), not legal. How about if I take a Gen 3 22 Frame and put it under a G34 slide. It's certainly an improvement over the 22 (just about anything is, man I hated that gun) but it's not an improvement over a legal gun on the production list already.

Just how prevalent is this "issue" anyway. Is there a band of roving RO's that are inspecting serial numbers on guns against the master list from Glock and bumping people to Open?

[RePete]

That's exactly right. There is no requirement that you walk around with a signed letter or authorization from your manufacturer showing that the serial numbers match. You just have to have a slide and barrel that was available on the gun in a Production legal format. If you have a Gen 3 Glock frame with a Gen 3 Glock 17 slide and barrel, regardless of what the serial numbers say, I can't imagine a circumstance where you wouldn't be just fine. Now if you go around bragging to your squad that you picked up this awesome Glock 22 as police trade in and just dropped your top end onto it from your Gen 1 Glock 17 because it had a better grip...well that would be a problem.

As far as competetive advantage, I believe the BOD's previous to me have worked very hard to eliminate that phrasing from anything to do with USPSA because it is just a truly ambigous phrase. How do you define competetive equity. Does it have to be substantial, minor, who is the judge of it? Is it based on the frame you have or what is available? If I take a Gen 3 RTF2 frame and put it under my G34 slide I believe that is an improvement (which is why I would do it in the first place), not legal. How about if I take a Gen 3 22 Frame and put it under a G34 slide. It's certainly an improvement over the 22 (just about anything is, man I hated that gun) but it's not an improvement over a legal gun on the production list already.

Just how prevalent is this "issue" anyway. Is there a band of roving RO's that are inspecting serial numbers on guns against the master list from Glock and bumping people to Open?[/b]

Who knows? Who really cares? Who is going to be doing this kind of checking?

Not me.

The only sure way of knowing what frame is what caliber is from the manufactures production list and letters stating a frame change.

I like to think that we are generally an honest bunch just trying to get along.

I think that it's time to put this to reat.

[beltjones]

That's exactly right. There is no requirement that you walk around with a signed letter or authorization from your manufacturer showing that the serial numbers match. You just have to have a slide and barrel that was available on the gun in a Production legal format. If you have a Gen 3 Glock frame with a Gen 3 Glock 17 slide and barrel, regardless of what the serial numbers say, I can't imagine a circumstance where you wouldn't be just fine. Now if you go around bragging to your squad that you picked up this awesome Glock 22 as police trade in and just dropped your top end onto it from your Gen 1 Glock 17 because it had a better grip...well that would be a problem.

As far as competetive advantage, I believe the BOD's previous to me have worked very hard to eliminate that phrasing from anything to do with USPSA because it is just a truly ambigous phrase. How do you define competetive equity. Does it have to be substantial, minor, who is the judge of it? Is it based on the frame you have or what is available? If I take a Gen 3 RTF2 frame and put it under my G34 slide I believe that is an improvement (which is why I would do it in the first place), not legal. How about if I take a Gen 3 22 Frame and put it under a G34 slide. It's certainly an improvement over the 22 (just about anything is, man I hated that gun) but it's not an improvement over a legal gun on the production list already.

Just how prevalent is this "issue" anyway. Is there a band of roving RO's that are inspecting serial numbers on guns against the master list from Glock and bumping people to Open?

Well that's certainly a pragmatic approach.

Ultimately I agree with you on quite a few things. As long as the rule is the rule, I think everyone should adhere to it. There's no room in my world for people who break rules just because they don't like them or think they're bad rules. However, I think it's always a good exercise to debate these kinds of things at the "local" level in order to create something of a decision market, which then the higher-ups can use to guide policy.

Anyway, at least from my end this debate has run its course. Thanks for the exchange of ideas, fellas.

Edited March 4, 2011 by beltjones

[Walküre]

ok how about an shadow upper on an sp-01?

Well... seems to comply with D4 21.3: same caliber, same barrel length. Based on these pics, the slide contour looks the same as well:

CZ 75 Shadow vs. CZ SP-01

Unfortunately, the CZ 75 Shadow isn't in the Production list so I don't think you can take parts off it....

If the CZ SP-01 Shadow Custom is the same as the gun listed in the production gun list as "CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow"

then you may have a chance... if you can parse what D4 21.6 says.

D4 21.6 already seems to help you out by saying barrels are external parts subject to 21.4. Since 21.4 talks about grips, it's probably a typo that was meant to refer to 21.3, but who knows unless there is a ruling or clarification.

Personally, my reading of 21.6 is that you can make a frankengun, but only composed of minor external and internal parts. I wouldn't consider the slide and barrel as minor parts.

The CZ 75 Shadow is not yet Production-eligible. The original CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow is. The former is built off of a 75B-type short-dustcover frame, while the latter is built off of the SP-01 full-length-railed-dustcover frame. (From here on out in this post, when I say "Shadow", I am referring only to the original SP-01 Shadow, not the new short-dustcover 75 Shadow.)

I would argue that swapping a Shadow slide onto a standard SP-01 is NOT Production-legal. The Shadow lacks the firing pin block (and associated slide cuts) and uses a different means of retaining the firing pin, which causes external differences. While minor components are allowed to be exchanged between any Production-approved models, slides have to match the actual gun.

The problem is that this is very hard to enforce - as with Glocks, the frames of CZs are not marked with anything identifying the original model or caliber. Determining that the frame isn't appropriate for the slide can be impossible, or nearly so. (I seem to recall seeing a post somewhere that actually showed evidence that the Shadow's frame is subtly different from a standard SP-01, so it may be technically possible to differentiate the two, but it would require detailed knowledge, and likely a set of calibers or the like.)

This presents an interesting case to consider for those advocating allowing slide/frame swaps between Production-eligible models providing that the swap does not result in competitive advantage. The end result in the standard-versus-Shadow case is two pistols that outwardly and inwardly appear identical - even though one of them original had a firing pin block mechanism while the other didn't. So, is it "competitive advantage" for the person who has a original FPB-equipped standard SP-01 to swap to a FPB-less Shadow upper (with matching minor internal components)? The lack of a FPB allows for more trigger work to be done (lighter, with a shorter reset), which is definitely something affording advantage. But the person shooting the factory Shadow to begin with already had this advantage available. So since it was already "available" in a certain sense, did the standard SP-01 shooter really gain an advantage or not?

This can go on and on. Production is fine the way it is. Allowing more and more parts swaps just starts either (a) turning it into Limited-10 or ( making a huge tangled mess of rules with all sorts of special exemptions that nobody can figure out clearly.

I say there is no need for a change in this case - if you want to shoot model X, shoot model X. If you want to shoot model Y, shoot model Y. If you want to use the frame from model X with the slide from model Y, then shoot in Limited, L-10, or Open.

[nickatnite]

Production is meant to be exactly that, Production. Not making someone buy three different guns to swap parts out from to have the ultimate, Sevigny/Vogel beating super gun. If you don't like the Production rules there are 5 other Divisions you can shoot in.

I agree, except that in many cases it provides no competitive advantage. In your example, I don't see how swapping identical parts would create a super gun. Not to mention the fact that it's perfectly legal to swap parts on the same model gun, such as swapping OEM G34 slides on G34 frames. So either swapping identical parts won't create a super gun, or creating super guns is already legal because you can already swap parts between like models. In either case your argument doesn't quite add up.

I think the "slippery slope" notion that adding a "no competitive advantage" addendum will somehow create a 300 page rule book is a bit exaggerated. And we already have arbitration committees that decide on issues of competitive advantage all the time, so it's not like we'd be asking them to perform some super human feat of Solomon-like wisdom.

I love Production division - it's my division of choice - and I think careful examination of the rules is critical in order to protect it from becoming Limited Minor Division. In fact, in many ways I think it has moved too far away from the intention of the division, what with all of the internal modifications that can be done. Those internal modifications with aftermarket parts actually can provide a competitive advantage and are in the direction of creating a "super gun." Swapping identical OEM pieces of plastic, not so much. It's strange that one is legal and the other isn't. That's all.

Belt -

See, I totally disagree. On the current set-up of a 3rd Gen or 4th Gen GLOCK, the factory finger groves hit the middle of my middle finger when I grip my G-34. Now I have several G-17's that are 2nd Gen and the grip is GREAT due to no finger grooves; however, how many 2nd Gen Glock 34's have you seen from the factory? It's an easy answer, NONE....

Glock did not start making the G-34 until the 2.5 Gen (Intro of the 3 pin system, finger grooves and NO light rail), then then the 3rd gen and up.

So, to sum up what I just said, if I took one of my 2nd gen G-17 frames and put it on my G-34 slide, it is NOT legal for production, due to the fact that that particular style was never made as a production gun for sale to the public.

Make sense?

Edited March 14, 2011 by nickatnite

[Nik Habicht]

Glock did not start making the G-34 until the 2.5 Gen (Intro of the 3 pin system, finger grooves and NO light rail), then then the 3rd gen and up.

Let's not perpetuate that myth: Glock produced plenty of G-34s on third generation frames (finger grooves and light rails) while only utilizing two pins total, one through the trigger housing, the other through the locking block and trigger.....

[nickatnite]

Glock did not start making the G-34 until the 2.5 Gen (Intro of the 3 pin system, finger grooves and NO light rail), then then the 3rd gen and up.

Let's not perpetuate that myth: Glock produced plenty of G-34s on third generation frames (finger grooves and light rails) while only utilizing two pins total, one through the trigger housing, the other through the locking block and trigger.....

But how many Glocks were built from the factory on frames with NO finger grips?

[Singlestack]

Glock did not start making the G-34 until the 2.5 Gen (Intro of the 3 pin system, finger grooves and NO light rail), then then the 3rd gen and up.

Let's not perpetuate that myth: Glock produced plenty of G-34s on third generation frames (finger grooves and light rails) while only utilizing two pins total, one through the trigger housing, the other through the locking block and trigger.....

But how many Glocks were built from the factory on frames with NO finger grips?

Many thousand G17's.

[beltjones]

Production is meant to be exactly that, Production. Not making someone buy three different guns to swap parts out from to have the ultimate, Sevigny/Vogel beating super gun. If you don't like the Production rules there are 5 other Divisions you can shoot in.

I agree, except that in many cases it provides no competitive advantage. In your example, I don't see how swapping identical parts would create a super gun. Not to mention the fact that it's perfectly legal to swap parts on the same model gun, such as swapping OEM G34 slides on G34 frames. So either swapping identical parts won't create a super gun, or creating super guns is already legal because you can already swap parts between like models. In either case your argument doesn't quite add up.

I think the "slippery slope" notion that adding a "no competitive advantage" addendum will somehow create a 300 page rule book is a bit exaggerated. And we already have arbitration committees that decide on issues of competitive advantage all the time, so it's not like we'd be asking them to perform some super human feat of Solomon-like wisdom.

I love Production division - it's my division of choice - and I think careful examination of the rules is critical in order to protect it from becoming Limited Minor Division. In fact, in many ways I think it has moved too far away from the intention of the division, what with all of the internal modifications that can be done. Those internal modifications with aftermarket parts actually can provide a competitive advantage and are in the direction of creating a "super gun." Swapping identical OEM pieces of plastic, not so much. It's strange that one is legal and the other isn't. That's all.

Belt -

See, I totally disagree. On the current set-up of a 3rd Gen or 4th Gen GLOCK, the factory finger groves hit the middle of my middle finger when I grip my G-34. Now I have several G-17's that are 2nd Gen and the grip is GREAT due to no finger grooves; however, how many 2nd Gen Glock 34's have you seen from the factory? It's an easy answer, NONE....

Glock did not start making the G-34 until the 2.5 Gen (Intro of the 3 pin system, finger grooves and NO light rail), then then the 3rd gen and up.

So, to sum up what I just said, if I took one of my 2nd gen G-17 frames and put it on my G-34 slide, it is NOT legal for production, due to the fact that that particular style was never made as a production gun for sale to the public.

Make sense?

My argument was based on the fact that the two frames are identical, while you gave a description of a frame that is markedly different. No one is arguing that we ought to mix and match any frame and slide.