lugnut Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I saw one real old post on this ... about 5 years ago. Can I "cut"/"bevel" the INSIDE edge of the opening of my magwell area on my CZ Shadow for Production? I know the SP01 version (full dust cover) has this area beveled from the factory. I thought there was a more recent post that confirmed this was indeed allowed... but of course I can't find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Does this help? 22.4 Magwell opening The longitudinal (front-to-back) dimension of the opening may be more than 1/4” greater than the corresponding dimension of a magazine. External flaring remains PROHIBITED. Now that I have read that paragraph carefully did they omit the word "not" after "may"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reshoot Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 Does this help? 22.4 Magwell opening The longitudinal (front-to-back) dimension of the opening may be more than 1/4” greater than the corresponding dimension of a magazine. External flaring remains PROHIBITED. Now that I have read that paragraph carefully did they omit the word "not" after "may"? Ha! The way I read that, there is no limit on the longitudinal dimension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I had a long talk with John amidon about this. It's pretty much a 1/8 inch from the magazine allthe way around the magwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuey134 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I don't understand why beveling the magwell wouldn't be legal. 22.4 Magwell opening The longitudinal (front-to-back) dimension of theopening may be more than 1/4” greater than the corresponding dimension of a magazine. External flaring remains PROHIBITED. It says May, not May Not. In addition there's the NROI ruling on plastic plugs in glocks. Qestion: Can I now insert the plastic plug in my Glock and will it be legal for Production division? Answer: The plastic plug that fits flush with the heel of the grip is allowed, like the Jentra plug. Plugs that extend below the heel like the Scherer polymer slug plug or other similar models are not allowed. Metal, brass or the Seattle Slug plugs are not allowed either. If it's good enough for the glocks it should be good enough for all guns. In my opinion they're both internal modifications and therefore should be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As I understand D4 22.4 you can bevel inside the magwell to the front or to back, but you can't bevel towards to the sides. Post #4 above though is making me doubt my understanding of the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuey134 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As I understand D4 22.4 you can bevel inside the magwell to the front or to back, but you can't bevel towards to the sides. Post #4 above though is making me doubt my understanding of the rule. Now that I think about it, if the OP is talking about beveling the side to side width of the gun, I think it would be illegal. But if he were to bevel the front to back it seems that it would be legal. That's my interpretation anyway, which doesn't matter that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 I was talking about putting a slight "radius" all the way around the opening to get rid of the sharp edges. I guess there still seems to be some confusion about this.... not sure what to do. It sounds like Corey got the answer I was looking for though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
want2race Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I had a long talk with John amidon about this. It's pretty much a 1/8 inch from the magazine allthe way around the magwell. Reposting, as this is THE answer. 1/8" all the way around the magazine, that means 1/4 inch total. You can't go too much in the rear because of the hammer spring plug. But you can take quite a bit off the sides and front and still be under the 1/8" limit. Pics needed....Corey....LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I had a long talk with John amidon about this. It's pretty much a 1/8 inch from the magazine allthe way around the magwell. Reposting, as this is THE answer. 1/8" all the way around the magazine, that means 1/4 inch total. You can't go too much in the rear because of the hammer spring plug. But you can take quite a bit off the sides and front and still be under the 1/8" limit. Pics needed....Corey....LOL Anyone have Amidon's answer to this in writing somewhere? I plan on shooting some major USPSA match and want to have documentation with me. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Anyone have Amidon's answer to this in writing somewhere? I plan on shooting some major USPSA match and want to have documentation with me. Thanks! Would an email work for you? I hope not. If it doesn't appear in Front Sight (as a Clarification) or on USPSA.org (as a Ruling), it wouldn't really be worth much. If someone waived an email from JA at me at a match, I'd be very interested in what it said but I'd still be compelled to ask, "Where was that publically published?" **Mr. Amidon has been burned a number of times by people taking and promoting email responses as 'USPSA Gospel', when in fact they are not. Many folks have also taken to describing John's more recent replies to email questions as "Sphinx-like". I suspect the two are linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Ok, understood. Would any care to specify where this may be posted? i don't keep my Front Sight. I'll look on USPSA. Rules are rules- that I understand- but I will say sometimes they make me crazy! The SP01 has the mag wells beveled from the factory.... My std Shadow didn't and now I could have just made a cheap open gun? Great... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Well John A is the USPSA contact for this. I emailed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) I do have a email laminated in my range bag stating that I could have my 75 beveled 1/8" all the way around the opening. It's inthe rule book as such but I wanted clarification as the wording is some what lawyer like. Oh and that email is from John. You don't have to believe that but you do have to follow what the rule book states and the email just clears that up. Edited March 24, 2012 by steel1212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Appendix d4 22.4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I do have a email laminated in my range bag stating that I could have my 75 beveled 1/8" all the way around the opening. It's inthe rule book as such but I wanted clarification as the wording is some what lawyer like. Oh and that email is from John. You don't have to believe that but you do have to follow what the rule book states and the email just clears that up. HA HA Wonder where you got that idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I do have a email laminated in my range bag stating that I could have my 75 beveled 1/8" all the way around the opening. It's inthe rule book as such but I wanted clarification as the wording is some what lawyer like. Oh and that email is from John. You don't have to believe that but you do have to follow what the rule book states and the email just clears that up. HA HA Wonder where you got that idea Hmmm let me think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 (edited) Are you referring to this section as in post #2 above? Damn that's clear as mud... but I'm good with it! •No magwell attachments or external flaring of the magwell. The lateral width of the well may not be more than 1/4" wider than the lateral width of the magazine. Edited March 24, 2012 by lugnut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Are you referring to this section as in post #2 above? Damn that's clear as mud... but I'm good with it! •No magwell attachments or external flaring of the magwell. The lateral width of the well may not be more than 1/4" wider than the lateral width of the magazine. I was an airdale not a swabbie but I thought there was a difference between longitudinal and lateral. Doesn't one mean length and the other width? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Are you referring to this section as in post #2 above? Damn that's clear as mud... but I'm good with it! •No magwell attachments or external flaring of the magwell. The lateral width of the well may not be more than 1/4" wider than the lateral width of the magazine. For the record post #2 does not say that. I guess it is a typo but it is a pretty damned important typo to go left unfixed or ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Well John A is the USPSA contact for this. I emailed him. He replied with: "APPENDIX D4 - Production Division (Contd.)Special conditions: 22.4 Magwell opening The longitudinal (front-to-back) dimension of the opening may be more than 1/4" greater than the corresponding dimension of a magazine. External flaring remains PROHIBITED." Ugggh.. this also has the "typo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I had to have John spell it out for me. The email. Basically says "hey dummy all the way around". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Anyone have Amidon's answer to this in writing somewhere? I plan on shooting some major USPSA match and want to have documentation with me. Thanks! Would an email work for you? I hope not. If it doesn't appear in Front Sight (as a Clarification) or on USPSA.org (as a Ruling), it wouldn't really be worth much. I don't think Front Sight is any different from an email. 11.8.3 All official USPSA interpretations of the rulebook published on the USPSA website (www.uspsa.org) will be deemed to be precedents and will be applied to all USPSA matches commencing on or after 7 days from the date of publication. All such interpretations are subject to ratification or modification at a regular or special meeting of the USPSA Board of Directors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 I don't think Front Sight is any different from an email.] 11.8.3 All official USPSA interpretations of the rulebook published on the USPSA website (www.uspsa.org) will be deemed to be precedents and will be applied to all USPSA matches commencing on or after 7 days from the date of publication. All such interpretations are subject to ratification or modification at a regular or special meeting of the USPSA Board of Directors. I agree about the rulings published on USPSA's website, but I do think the clarifications published in Front Sight carry more weight than an email. It is, after all, the official journal of the USPSA. I was taught long ago that the rulings on the website are implemented when an actual error or discrepancy exists in a rule, or when a change is agreed by the BoD. The clarifications published in FS are intended to help bring understanding to properly worded, yet widely misunderstood rules. I believe you've also said as much in the past. Have you learned something new in your time on the Board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted March 25, 2012 Author Share Posted March 25, 2012 Well.... I don't doubt what Corey is saying in his email from John A... but I don't see the current ruling to clearly support it.... that's problem. 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