Consistent application of the rules?

[beltjones]

http://www.brianenos...6

Note: that link now goes to a dead thread, as the Opening Poster was in violation of the forum rules on advertising.

The part in question was a replacement trigger pin. - Admin.

- Admin.

Check out that thread. The consensus was that even though the part looked like a great idea, it wouldn't be legal for Production because the trigger pin is externally visible.

However, apparently in an email Mr. Amidon says it's legal because it doesn't provide a competitive advantage.

Can anyone make sense of that for me? I can't use a Vickers mag catch in my glock, but this is legal? Paint in the magwell is illegal, but an externally visible aftermarket trigger pin is ok?

And again, when I pressed on why using a Glock 17 frame on a 34 slide is illegal - considering it provides NO competitive advantage - I was told that NROI is trying to get away from mentioning competitive advantage, and trying to simply go by the letter of the rule. Yet in this case we have an interpretation that is completely contradictory to that ethos.

Does the application of the rules for Production division seem very inconsistent to anyone else?

[Skydiver]

Until it's an NROI ruling it's just an opinion.

The shooter still needs to show evidence that the mod is legal at chrono/inspection station. He can't say "Amidon said it was okay." The shooter still needs to point to a specific rule or ruling allowing the change.

[Skydiver]

On re-reading that other thread, this is what Torogi wrote:

It is legal. I just asked John (Amidon). Showed him a stock/OEM pin and CGW's pin. He said no problem, even if it (ends) shows externally, doesn't enhance the guns' performance a bit.

Going back to topic.. Mine is on order=) Keep the innovation going!!

We never see how the question was phrase, nor JA's actual response. All we have is the hearsay that it "doesn't enhance the guns' performance a bit." At no point are the words "competitive advantage" used.

On the flip side, I just saw on the Glockstore these replacement trigger, trigger block, and ejector housing pins. If the CZ pins are legal, it should follow that these are legal as well: http://glockstore.com/pgroup_descrip/7_Custom+Parts+%26amp%3B+Accessories/7868_Titanium+Pin+Kit/?return=%3ftpl%3Dindex%26category_id%3D7%26%26%26page%3D3%26nothumbs%3D%26filter_1%3D%26filter_2%3D%26filter_3%3D%26filter_4%3D

[eerw]

I think right now at best, it's an opinion.

the part could be challenged at the inspection/chrono and as the rules state it is on the shooter to prove that the modification is legal.

Rules state that aftermarket parts are OK inside the gun and on magazine basedpads ( as long as they fit the box) and OEM parts are legal on the outside of the gun as long as they are on another Production list approved gun.

[Torogi]

Exact reply from JA was

"Looks like a factory upgrade and no difference in performance. See no issues with this as most of this is internal, the ends of the pins that do show have nothing to do with enhancing performance."

I showed him a picture of stock OEM trigger pin and CGW trigger pin. I pointed out that one of CZ's weakness is the TRS breaking (i did break 2 since 3 months ago) and its a pain re-using OEM trigger pin.

I would say about competitive advantage as to none. But im not in a position to say that. CGW trigger pin do not modify the trigger travel or play at all, its just that its easier to punch it out and re-use it.

I see the point of comparing the pins to other questioned parts to glocks. Pins are there to hold a part AFAIK. A vickers mag catch is extended, illegal. So is extended mag release on a SP-01, illegal. Although standard in SP-01 shadow. painting a magwell can enhance reloading (to some maybe) so it was deemed illegal.

I was told that frame defines the gun. so no switching. It applies to CZs too.

Going back to topic, I cant imagine a pin to be of any competitive advantage. Again, this is all my opinion. I am not an RO. I know we have odd rules, but still, it has a spirit of why it is there. So I asked JA and got a favorable response.

[ima45dv8]

Going back to topic, I cant imagine a pin to be of any competitive advantage.

Me, either.

It seems more of a maintenance issue than a performance issue.

[spanky]

Exact reply from JA was

"Looks like a factory upgrade and no difference in performance. See no issues with this as most of this is internal, the ends of the pins that do show have nothing to do with enhancing performance."

I showed him a picture of stock OEM trigger pin and CGW trigger pin. I pointed out that one of CZ's weakness is the TRS breaking (i did break 2 since 3 months ago) and its a pain re-using OEM trigger pin.

I would say about competitive advantage as to none. But im not in a position to say that. CGW trigger pin do not modify the trigger travel or play at all, its just that its easier to punch it out and re-use it.

I see the point of comparing the pins to other questioned parts to glocks. Pins are there to hold a part AFAIK. A vickers mag catch is extended, illegal. So is extended mag release on a SP-01, illegal. Although standard in SP-01 shadow. painting a magwell can enhance reloading (to some maybe) so it was deemed illegal.

I was told that frame defines the gun. so no switching. It applies to CZs too.

Going back to topic, I cant imagine a pin to be of any competitive advantage. Again, this is all my opinion. I am not an RO. I know we have odd rules, but still, it has a spirit of why it is there. So I asked JA and got a favorable response.

Actually the Vickers mag release is shorter than the factory G34/35 release.

[beltjones]

I don't think the pin creates a competitive advantage either, and if it's easier to use, great. I'll probably buy one for my CZ.

However, the rule is, if the part is externally visible it's not legal.

Let me go ahead and quote Appendix D4 21.1. "Per existing NROI ruling, any “internal” modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein."

Are the pins an internal modification? Check. Are they externally visible? Check. Let's see, what's the next word? "Prohibited."

21.6 covers the rest, and as I read through it I don't see pins mentioned.

Hopefully the CZ custom shop will incorporate this pin into one of the approved custom shop guns, and then it will be good to go (and the manufacturer of the pins will sell more of them...).

For any other reason why anyone would think this is legal, please point to me where in the rule book the words "maintenance issue" or "difference in performance" are mentioned.

[Sarge]

Well, I had a whole paragraph written and my finger on the "add reply" button when I realized I did not want the thread closed nor do I want more unwelcome PM's from the mods.

BUT:

I think any questions forwarded to Mr Amidon should at the very least be bounced off the rest of the committee before an opinion is rendered. As a matter of fact I think it would be a good idea to actually make a ruling on a subject instead of offering an opinion.

I can understand why people take his opinions as gospel. He is a very prominent figure in a very prominent organization. If somebody walked up to him at a match and asked him a question and he gave them an answer one would be inclined to go with whatever he told them.

It makes perfect sense to view his opinions as official based on his position.

[ima45dv8]

I don't think the pin creates a competitive advantage either, and if it's easier to use, great. I'll probably buy one for my CZ.

However, the rule is, if the part is externally visible it's not legal.

Let me go ahead and quote Appendix D4 21.1. "Per existing NROI ruling, any "internal" modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein."

Are the pins an internal modification? Check. Are they externally visible? Check. Let's see, what's the next word? "Prohibited."

21.6 covers the rest, and as I read through it I don't see pins mentioned.

Hopefully the CZ custom shop will incorporate this pin into one of the approved custom shop guns, and then it will be good to go (and the manufacturer of the pins will sell more of them...).

For any other reason why anyone would think this is legal, please point to me where in the rule book the words "maintenance issue" or "difference in performance" are mentioned.

I didn't say I thought solid pins would be legal as presented. I did say I think it's more of a maintenance issue than a competitive advantage. Neither suggests rules-compliance.

I do wish CZ would offer the solid tool-steel pins. I hate roll pins.

[Skydiver]

I don't think the pin creates a competitive advantage either, and if it's easier to use, great. I'll probably buy one for my CZ.

However, the rule is, if the part is externally visible it's not legal.

Let me go ahead and quote Appendix D4 21.1. "Per existing NROI ruling, any "internal" modifications which result in a visible change to the external appearance of the gun when it is in battery REMAIN PROHIBITED unless specifically allowed by the plain language herein."

Are the pins an internal modification? Check. Are they externally visible? Check. Let's see, what's the next word? "Prohibited."

21.6 covers the rest, and as I read through it I don't see pins mentioned.

Hopefully the CZ custom shop will incorporate this pin into one of the approved custom shop guns, and then it will be good to go (and the manufacturer of the pins will sell more of them...).

For any other reason why anyone would think this is legal, please point to me where in the rule book the words "maintenance issue" or "difference in performance" are mentioned.

I didn't say I thought solid pins would be legal as presented. I did say I think it's more of a maintenance issue than a competitive advantage. Neither suggests rules-compliance.

I do wish CZ would offer the solid tool-steel pins. I hate roll pins.

I'm with you you on that. It's a pain in the a** dealing with those roll pins. If there is ruling that makes them legal, I'm all over replacing the ones on my CZ.

[CZinSC]

I see the point of comparing the pins to other questioned parts to glocks. Pins are there to hold a part AFAIK. A vickers mag catch is extended, illegal. So is extended mag release on a SP-01, illegal. Although standard in SP-01 shadow. painting a magwell can enhance reloading (to some maybe) so it was deemed illegal.

With all due respect, I think you're wrong here. Am I reading the rule incorrectly?

21.6 Exchange of minor EXTERNAL components

Sights, firing pins, firing pin retainers, extractors and ejectors MAY be replaced with OEM or aftermarket parts.

Any other components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OEM parts which are offered on the specific model of gun or another approved gun from the same manufacturer except as specifically clarified below. Examples of external components which may only be replaced with OEM parts include (but are not limited to): magazine releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers.

Special Notes/Clarifications:

• Barrels are considered “external parts” and are subject to specific restrictions in 21.4 and associated rulings.

• A factory/OEM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OEM part available on an approved model of gun.

• Externally-visible parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OEM parts” if the customshop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns.

The mag release from CZ Custom is an OEM part, and does in fact come stock on the Shadow, and it only adds length, not surface area. It's my understanding that this is a legal modification.

[Torogi]

I see the point of comparing the pins to other questioned parts to glocks. Pins are there to hold a part AFAIK. A vickers mag catch is extended, illegal. So is extended mag release on a SP-01, illegal. Although standard in SP-01 shadow. painting a magwell can enhance reloading (to some maybe) so it was deemed illegal.

With all due respect, I think you're wrong here. Am I reading the rule incorrectly?

21.6 Exchange of minor EXTERNAL components

Sights, firing pins, firing pin retainers, extractors and ejectors MAY be replaced with OEM or aftermarket parts.

Any other components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OEM parts which are offered on the specific model of gun or another approved gun from the same manufacturer except as specifically clarified below. Examples of external components which may only be replaced with OEM parts include (but are not limited to): magazine releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers.

Special Notes/Clarifications:

• Barrels are considered “external parts” and are subject to specific restrictions in 21.4 and associated rulings.

• A factory/OEM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OEM part available on an approved model of gun.

• Externally-visible parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OEM parts” if the customshop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns.

The mag release from CZ Custom is an OEM part, and does in fact come stock on the Shadow, and it only adds length, not surface area. It's my understanding that this is a legal modification.

If this is the case I stand corrected then. I based my assumption from a thread reply from Angus.

[DonovanM]

Pins aside, I completely agree with the basis of the topic. I can't fathom the confusion of ideas that led to Glock grip plugs being legalized. Externally visible modification, yes. Competitive advantage, yes. WTF?

Especially when, at the same time, I can't install an extended magazine release on my gun simply because the company who made it doesn't care enough to put one on their "USPSA" model. Meanwhile, everyone running almost any other kind of gun can have one so perhaps they don't have to flip the gun in their hand to reach the damn thing like I do. The only thing I get is an extended slide stop. Which is useless.

A minor set of quibbles, but it sure seems like Glock buyers are getting the long end of the stick in this equation.

Edited August 30, 2011 by DonovanM

[GeorgeInNePa]

Well, I had a whole paragraph written and my finger on the "add reply" button when I realized I did not want the thread closed nor do I want more unwelcome PM's from the mods.

BUT:

I think any questions forwarded to Mr Amidon should at the very least be bounced off the rest of the committee before an opinion is rendered. As a matter of fact I think it would be a good idea to actually make a ruling on a subject instead of offering an opinion.

I can understand why people take his opinions as gospel. He is a very prominent figure in a very prominent organization. If somebody walked up to him at a match and asked him a question and he gave them an answer one would be inclined to go with whatever he told them.

It makes perfect sense to view his opinions as official based on his position.

When you ask him a question, face to face, he'll tell you not to say "John said so". He'll help you with the applicable rules to quote when talking with the RO/CRO/RM...

[Steven Cline]

Well...

???? Do we want something akin to, "In the Production Division, the only legal firearms are factory original un-modified guns. No aftermarket accessories or additions, and all repairs or replacement parts must have been completed by the manufacture." ???

As soon as you think a little grip tape here or a better quality pin there isn't a big deal then you have started the equipment race. Be honest; if "it" didn't matter, you wouldn't do "it." You replace the suspect pin for a competitive advantage (it won't break in a match and knock you out of the running). You add skater tape to get a better hold on the gun either in reality or in your head.

[Schutzenmeister]

Well...

???? Do we want something akin to, "In the Production Division, the only legal firearms are factory original un-modified guns. No aftermarket accessories or additions, and all repairs or replacement parts must have been completed by the manufacture." ???

As soon as you think a little grip tape here or a better quality pin there isn't a big deal then you have started the equipment race. Be honest; if "it" didn't matter, you wouldn't do "it." You replace the suspect pin for a competitive advantage (it won't break in a match and knock you out of the running). You add skater tape to get a better hold on the gun either in reality or in your head.

That is substantially (though perhaps not quite 100%) the position internationally under IPSC Production rules.

I see +++ and --- in each ...