Legal to paint the inside of the magwell?

[vluc]

When new shooters come out they often shoot production (provided they bring enough mags). From now on the guy bringing his Glock 19 with white out in the mag opening (that doesn't necessarily even provide an advantage) has to shoot Open while I with my G34 with Sevigny sights, grip plug, grip tape, franken-trigger, and steel guide rod shoot "production."

That would be confusing if it was anywhere near accurate. Fortunately it's not. You're hypothetical shooter with the G19 would just shoot Lim 10, or Limited, or remove the little dab of white out till he got home again. The only way he would be in Open is if he was bumped from Production because someone didn't let him know about his illegal gun.

SFinney. You make the argument that we're driving people away with oppressive impossible to understand rules and we should let people have these minor modifications. We do, in almost every other Division. Production is the only one this mark is not allowed in. I would make the argument that many more people have come to USPSA exactly because there is a division for stock or nearly stock guns.

There was no official vote by the BOD on this ruling. I didn't agree with it, but the rules are actually pretty clear cut. You're changing the finish for a competetive advantage. Which is specifically prohibited. As much as I wanted it to go the other way, I can't really argue that it's ever been legal to do in Production. I did ask John to issue the ruling because of the seeming amount of confusion regarding the rule. This is not a rule change or even really a clarification. It's specifically stated in the rules you can't do it.

For the grip tape crowd, I brought this up and the answer was basically good luck. I really doubt there would be any advantage to doing so. If you put it on the outside of the gun well you really can't see it. If you put in the magwell...who am I kidding, who would be dumb enough to put skateboard tape in their magwell? I've got a hard enough time getting them in the gun without making the opening smaller and stickier.

Thanks, Chuck. Glad an AD jumped in.

[Chuck Anderson]

That would be confusing if it was anywhere near accurate. Fortunately it's not. You're hypothetical shooter with the G19 would just shoot Lim 10, or Limited, or remove the little dab of white out till he got home again. The only way he would be in Open is if he was bumped from Production because someone didn't let him know about his illegal gun.

Ok, he would shoot L10 or Limited minor, if someone noticed the paint in time. If not, it's off to Open for him. And when they do tell him he's in Limited or L10 due to his white out, the question is likely to be "why?" The answer of course is, "No one knows. We don't understand the rule, but we have to abide by it." Assuming those at the top have an interest in growing the sport, is that the message that new shooters are supposed to be getting?

I mean, I can explain the other rules of Production even if I don't agree with them, but with this one I'm at a loss.

Because the rules say you can refinish the gun, but not for a competetive advantage. Why are you adding the dot if not for competetive advantage? To make you slower? Of course not. Production is a division where you really can spend a lot of money on the gun, although it's clearly not needed. It's intended to be as few modifications as possible. Yes, many things have gotten through over the years and the rules reflect that. The BOD in 2009 really made an effort to clean up the language in Production and did a pretty good job. Wanting it to be different doesn't make it so. If you want to add a dot, shoot a different division.

[Skydiver]

For the grip tape crowd, I brought this up and the answer was basically good luck. I really doubt there would be any advantage to doing so. If you put it on the outside of the gun well you really can't see it. If you put in the magwell...who am I kidding, who would be dumb enough to put skateboard tape in their magwell? I've got a hard enough time getting them in the gun without making the opening smaller and stickier.

Playing devil's advocate here: Assuming that picture in Appendix E4 includes the inside surfaces of the gun's grips, who said that the grip tape had to rough? Glue on part of 3M page marker (http://www.post-it.c...Products/Flags/) for the inside surfaces of the magwell.

• For semi-automatic Production guns, grip tape, grip sleeves, checkering, stippling or other texture may only be applied in the areas shown in appendix E4. Glue and grit is considered the same as stippling.

Texture only refers to the feel of a surface. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/texture). A texture can be rough or smooth. Although as shooters, we automatically tend to think rough grips. We also think of smooth triggers, and some people do prefer to have smooth front and/or backtraps.

In all seriousness, though, thanks for standing up for shooters and trying to appeal the ruling. Thanks, Chuck.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Skydiver

[Singlestack]

That would be confusing if it was anywhere near accurate. Fortunately it's not. You're hypothetical shooter with the G19 would just shoot Lim 10, or Limited, or remove the little dab of white out till he got home again. The only way he would be in Open is if he was bumped from Production because someone didn't let him know about his illegal gun.

Ok, he would shoot L10 or Limited minor, if someone noticed the paint in time. If not, it's off to Open for him. And when they do tell him he's in Limited or L10 due to his white out, the question is likely to be "why?" The answer of course is, "No one knows. We don't understand the rule, but we have to abide by it." Assuming those at the top have an interest in growing the sport, is that the message that new shooters are supposed to be getting?

I mean, I can explain the other rules of Production even if I don't agree with them, but with this one I'm at a loss.

1) Nobody is going to bump a brand new shooter to Open

2) You are among the minority of people that do not understand the rule, and that is just because you don't agree with it.

3) If you think it is going to bother a brand new shooter that he can't paint the inside of his magwell, your wrong. A new shooter has so many other things to worry about that would way down the list.

4) What part of not changing the finish for a competitive advantage do you not understand? If it is not a competitive advantage, why are you so upset about it?

[sfinney]

Most people arguing this issue are not upset about this particular ruling, just the continued rolling out of arbitrary "rulings" in general... this is allowed, this is not. And many things, like many permanent exterior mods are allowed, but should not be by letter of the law (or rule). But silly little things (like a dot of finger nail polish) are not.

[jar]

4) What part of not changing the finish for a competitive advantage do you not understand? If it is not a competitive advantage, why are you so upset about it?

I completely understand and agree with the ruling *as based on the current rules*. I also think the rule is dumb.

[Skydiver]

I mean, I can explain the other rules of Production even if I don't agree with them, but with this one I'm at a loss.

Hm. To me this one makes perfect sense. Why would you put a dot on the gun where you could see it? Answer: to provide a competitive advantage.

Now, if you were to ask me why some magwell-work (visible in the same way) is now legal in Production, I wouldn't be able to explain that one...

The magwell work is only legal as long as it only affects the front to back opening size and is a "modification". (See D4 22.4) I think that the paint in the magwell falls under "refinishing" and there are rules about competitive advantage. (See D4 21.1a).

As I'd previously posted, though, there's nothing in the rules that says that fiberglass or epoxy used for that magwell work has to be black or match the color of the frame, nor is there a rule that says the legal plastic plugs have to match the color of the frame. Well, no rules other than good aesthetics or your sense of sportsmanship.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Skydiver

[beltjones]

1) Nobody is going to bump a brand new shooter to Open

2) You are among the minority of people that do not understand the rule, and that is just because you don't agree with it.

3) If you think it is going to bother a brand new shooter that he can't paint the inside of his magwell, your wrong. A new shooter has so many other things to worry about that would way down the list.

4) What part of not changing the finish for a competitive advantage do you not understand? If it is not a competitive advantage, why are you so upset about it?

1) Are you saying the rules are different for Level 1 matches?

2) I understand the rule, what I don't understand is how a dot is refinishing for a competitive advantage, but stippling is not. It seems to me that either way you end up with a different finish on the gun that results in "improved" performance (though I don't care to speculate the extent to which performance is improved).

3) The "benefit" of having the paint or not would not impact a new shooter, I agree with you there. However, it's not the benefit I'm debating here, it's the rationale. It doesn't make sense.

4) I don't understand the part about stippling being perfectly ok, but a spec of paint is not. Both are "refinishing" by any definition. Again, for the record, I've never painted or otherwise marked my magwells. I honestly don't think there is a benefit to it. But that doesn't mean that outlawing it makes any sense given how the rest of the rules work, especially the allowance for stippling.

[Chuck Anderson]

Because stippling is specifically allowed in the rulebook. Refinishing for a competetive advantage is specifically disallowed. The rule was probably not originally intended to prohibit a dab of nailpolish but rather to allow people to have their guns refinished so they looked pretty and still be legal. What they didn't want to have happen was some super finish that would provide a competetive advantage, like someone refinishing their slide with 120 grit and saying it's just a refinish. There had to be a line and this just happened to be where it ended up. You don't understand because you don't want to and you do want to argue about it.

[driver8M3]

let's face it...a lot of the production rules and rulings are inconsistent. so it would have been just as easy for amidon to issue a ruling here that said a bit of paint inside the magwell, while probably done in the name of a competitive advantage, is specifically allowed.

[Chuck Anderson]

let's face it...a lot of the production rules and rulings are inconsistent. so it would have been just as easy for amidon to issue a ruling here that said a bit of paint inside the magwell, while probably done in the name of a competitive advantage, is specifically allowed.

Some of the rules seem inconsistent, I guess, but they are the rules. It may seem inconsistent with the spirit of Production to allow milling of slides for sights. It's not okay to mill lightening cuts in the slide. That's the rule. It was done that way so some platforms wouldn't have competetive advantages over another. Stippling of the grips is the same way. It was done to create equality between the Glock, with non interchangeable grip panels, and say a Sig Sauer. I could get stippled grips for the Sig as aftermarket grips. Allowing stippling gave some measure of equality. The rules for Production were revamped two years ago with the specific intent of making it as easy as possible to know what you can do to the gun and what you can't and to make those rules more easily enforcable. Gun in box, gun on scale, look at gun. We didn't want to get into IPSC level rules where you might have to completely disassemble a gun to find out if it's legal.

Read the rule regarding refinishing the gun and tell me this ruling is wrong. You can argue the rule may be inconsistent with what you think Production should be but the ruling is dead on with the rule.

[Vlad]

Oh for gods sakes.... I never painted the inside of my magwell but this is a very silly thing and the BOD should have really applied logic not advanced rule reading skills.

Look, EVERYTHING we do we do for a competitive advantage. We wear expensive sunglasses, cleats, fancy no-torque belts, high speed low drag holsters, etc. I've seen shooters wearing over $1000 worth of gear that is not the gun to gain the smallest competitive advantage. We can replace barrels, trigger, sights, grips, slides and make production guns cost as much as limited guns and still be "legal" but a dab of paint for we have currency denominations low enough to represent its cost somehow is a huge competitive advantage.

It is a ridiculous argument. I know that when you lock any 8-10 people in a room and you get them focused on a set of rules they tend to lose some perspective, so I don't blame anyone in particular for it, but the end result is institutionalized silliness. In the context of USPSA "competitive advantage" is about as useful as "sporting purpose". It is a phrase to be dragged out when someone wants to ban something but can't think of a reason why.

I am production shooter. I couldn't care less if anyone else paints their mag well. You will be hard pressed to find a production shooter who will care that someone else has painted theirs.

All I want from the BOD is to STOP MESSING WITH PRODUCTION. Just stop it. No new rules, no new interpretations, let the shooters friking shoot. Wait a few years and see if there is a problem. Do we even have production shooters on BOD, I honestly don't know.

[sfinney]

Exterior mods that grant a competitve advantage, that ARE specifically allowed under current rules/rulings:

You can mill your slide to competely different sight cut (and run buried Bomars if you like)

You can stipple your grip, or coat it in epoxy and grit - permanent mods

Extended mag releases on XDs

Various external "Custom Shop" parts

"Internal" beveling of magwells (including filling in with foreign material and reshaping the funnel (even if you can all of that work from the outside, with mag inserted)

I'm sure I'm missing some others....

My point is that every single "exception" to the no external mods rule, do in fact grant competitive advantages over the stock configuration. So the confusing part is why have some things been allowed? And what rational is used to decide what gets favored treatment and what does not? Its just very inconsistent. We should run it like IPSC, no mods. Then there would be no reason for all of these interpretations. THAT'S Production.

[Chuck Anderson]

Oh for gods sakes.... I never painted the inside of my magwell but this is a very silly thing and the BOD should have really applied logic not advanced rule reading skills.

Look, EVERYTHING we do we do for a competitive advantage. We wear expensive sunglasses, cleats, fancy no-torque belts, high speed low drag holsters, etc. I've seen shooters wearing over $1000 worth of gear that is not the gun to gain the smallest competitive advantage. We can replace barrels, trigger, sights, grips, slides and make production guns cost as much as limited guns and still be "legal" but a dab of paint for we have currency denominations low enough to represent its cost somehow is a huge competitive advantage.

It is a ridiculous argument. I know that when you lock any 8-10 people in a room and you get them focused on a set of rules they tend to lose some perspective, so I don't blame anyone in particular for it, but the end result is institutionalized silliness. In the context of USPSA "competitive advantage" is about as useful as "sporting purpose". It is a phrase to be dragged out when someone wants to ban something but can't think of a reason why.

I am production shooter. I couldn't care less if anyone else paints their mag well. You will be hard pressed to find a production shooter who will care that someone else has painted theirs.

All I want from the BOD is to STOP MESSING WITH PRODUCTION. Just stop it. No new rules, no new interpretations, let the shooters friking shoot. Wait a few years and see if there is a problem. Do we even have production shooters on BOD, I honestly don't know.

Nope, no Production shooters on the BOD. Well, I've been shooting Production since 2005 but clearly I don't count in your book. Phil Strader is on the Gold Team representing the US at the World Shoot in Production, but I guess he doesn't count either. The BOD didn't mess with Production with this ruling. It's enforcing the rules that have been there for years. (easily 2009, and if memory serves the comp advantage has been part of the refinishing allowance since it was added)

[Chuck Anderson]

Exterior mods that grant a competitve advantage, that ARE specifically allowed under current rules/rulings:

You can mill your slide to competely different sight cut (and run buried Bomars if you like)

You can stipple your grip, or coat it in epoxy and grit - permanent mods

Extended mag releases on XDs

Various external "Custom Shop" parts

"Internal" beveling of magwells (including filling in with foreign material and reshaping the funnel (even if you can all of that work from the outside, with mag inserted)

I'm sure I'm missing some others....

My point is that every single "exception" to the no external mods rule, do in fact grant competitive advantages over the stock configuration. So the confusing part is why have some things been allowed? And what rational is used to decide what gets favored treatment and what does not? Its just very inconsistent. We should run it like IPSC, no mods. Then there would be no reason for all of these interpretations. THAT'S Production.

I'm betting money you've never shot an IPSC match in Production to make that statement.

[sfinney]

I don't think the "you don't agree with my viewpoint, so you must be to stupid to understand" tone is helping what I was hoping could be a more positive discussion.

[sfinney]

I'm betting money you've never shot an IPSC match in Production to make that statement.

Which part? All of it? The last sentance?

[Skydiver]

I know some people who remove burrs, smooth out, and polish the insides of their magwells (me included). This sounds like refinishing to me.

The question is the refinishing for competitive advantage or simply cosmetic?

So applying the same rhetoric of "why put a spot a paint, but not for competitive advantage?", "why polish the insides of the magwell?"

I personally did it for reliability and function because one of my mags kept hanging up, and felt it was legal to do back in 2007. (See 2004 Rule book: Appendix D4, 19.1 which allows minor detailing).

Unfortunately with the current rulebook, D4 21.1 only allows for polishing for reliability and function internally. The recent ruling seems to indicate that the magwell is not considered internal, and D4.22 excludes any other modification not specifically listed or interpreted.

I hope somebody can point me to a rule or interpretation that allows this, otherwise I have a gun that an now Production illegal.

[Vlad]

It was a question Chuck, I don't keep track of everyones favorite guns, I didn't know that is why I asked, so don't take it so personally.

As someone who only shoots production I can say that as far as I'm concerned every time the production rules have been touched in any way they have been made worse. I'm not the only who thinks that.

People were putting paint on their mag wells 10 year ago when I started. In production. At major matches. No one gave a hoot. I guess the BOD should be proud for solving a non-problem. As it has always been explained to me by area directors and other such folks the reasons behind limits on production was so new shooters wouldn't feel like they had to spend big bucks. But now we allow such extensive modifications as to make that a laughable argument and then we say that a dot of paint that some NEW shooters put on their guns long before they get to their first match is somehow a problem.

I hear you, I understand what the rule says, and I agree that the rule says what you say it says. It doesn't make it a smart rule, a good rule, a new shooter friendly rule, or any damn sense at all. Choosing to interpret it they way the BOD/NROI have chosen is absurd, at least in my opinion. What I'm really curious is if any match director will chose to enforce it and look like an absolute a_-hole to his shooters, or just let the shooter know and inform them they might want to use a different gun a major match.

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm betting money you've never shot an IPSC match in Production to make that statement.

Which part? All of it? The last sentance?

Yes, without getting into an IPSC vs. USPSA debate they have way more issues enforcing the rules and dealing with the myriad of issues that arise from their rules. Speaking as someone who has shot IPSC as well as USPSA Production, I didn't see a single out of the box gun at either event.

[sfinney]

I'm betting money you've never shot an IPSC match in Production to make that statement.

Which part? All of it? The last sentance?

Yes, without getting into an IPSC vs. USPSA debate they have way more issues enforcing the rules and dealing with the myriad of issues that arise from their rules. Speaking as someone who has shot IPSC as well as USPSA Production, I didn't see a single out of the box gun at either event.

Ok, granted.

But the ideal of having a Division where you bring a stock gun, are only allowed to change the sights, and grips (or add grip tape), nothing else, - maybe be on the list, or fits the box, whatever else - sounds appealing. Bur Reality sets in and our horse has left the barn, so all grumbling aside, we just have to make the best of the rules we have. I'm done ranting now

[Chuck Anderson]

It was a question Chuck, I don't keep track of everyones favorite guns, I didn't know that is why I asked, so don't take it so personally.

As someone who only shoots production I can say that as far as I'm concerned every time the production rules have been touched in any way they have been made worse. I'm not the only who thinks that.

People were putting paint on their mag wells 10 year ago when I started. In production. At major matches. No one gave a hoot. I guess the BOD should be proud for solving a non-problem. As it has always been explained to me by area directors and other such folks the reasons behind limits on production was so new shooters wouldn't feel like they had to spend big bucks. But now we allow such extensive modifications as to make that a laughable argument and then we say that a dot of paint that some NEW shooters put on their guns long before they get to their first match is somehow a problem.

I hear you, I understand what the rule says, and I agree that the rule says what you say it says. It doesn't make it a smart rule, a good rule, a new shooter friendly rule, or any damn sense at all. Choosing to interpret it they way the BOD/NROI have chosen is absurd, at least in my opinion. What I'm really curious is if any match director will chose to enforce it and look like an absolute a_-hole to his shooters, or just let the shooter know and inform them they might want to use a different gun a major match.

I would be extremely disappointed in any MD who took that approach. That's why two shooters from my section were bumped to Open at Nationals a couple years back because they had grip plugs in. Enforcement of the rules at local matches would have saved them a lot of heartache. People were doing a lot of things that weren't intended under the Production rules for a lot of years. That's why the new set kicked in a couple years ago. Hoping to clarify things and make it very clear what people can and can't do to their guns. The rule regarding refinishing has been on the books a long time. So what is it you want the BOD to do. Change the rule, since we only seem to screw it up every time we do? Issue a ruling from NROI that is contrary to what the rule says and cause more confusion? Someone asked the question, I asked the BOD/DNROI for clarification. When the answer wasn't what I expected I asked John to make a ruling on it so it would be out there for everyone. Would you rather have a CRO at Nationals decide to read the rule book and bump a bunch of people to Open for it?

[beltjones]

Because stippling is specifically allowed in the rulebook. Refinishing for a competetive advantage is specifically disallowed. The rule was probably not originally intended to prohibit a dab of nailpolish but rather to allow people to have their guns refinished so they looked pretty and still be legal. What they didn't want to have happen was some super finish that would provide a competetive advantage, like someone refinishing their slide with 120 grit and saying it's just a refinish. There had to be a line and this just happened to be where it ended up. You don't understand because you don't want to and you do want to argue about it.

I think it's time to lock this one down. If I responded to you with the tone above I would easily have been warned if not banned.

I really appreciate any area director who has the time and patience to come here and answer to the members of USPSA. However, the point is not to debate whether it's in the rule book or not, it's to debate whether it's a good application of the rules or not. I sincerely apologize if you think I just want to belabor this point for the fun of it. I do not. I simply think this is a bad application of what is otherwise a rule that makes sense.

[racerba]

Just P R A C T I C E - R E L O A D S

Can't practice...it would be a competitive advantage...and following the precedence of this and other rulings, NO you cannot practice to gain competitive advantage.

[Vlad]

BTW I should clarify something thats clear to me, but no to everyone else. Most of my anger at this kind of ruling come from the fact that I have to explain it to new shooters. On any given month I give 1 to 4 new shooter orientations for anywhere up to 20 people a month. When I have to explain production to them is kinda embarrassing, I do get some incredulous looks when I explain what you can do to the gun and still be legal and then I explain what you can't do to it so I can get the truly WTF looks. Whatever the intent of Production was, I have no idea what it is anymore.