Prov1x Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Note: threads merged here. A friend of mine and I were out practicing the other day and I noticed that he had beveled or shaved down the inside of his magwell on his M&P pro 9mm. I asked him if it was legal and he said yes it was but I was thinking otherwise. Whats the verdict on a modification like that to a production gun? Edited May 18, 2012 by Flexmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Miles Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Read the rulebook. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Read the rulebook. Pat Specifically, Appendix D4, 22.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smo11 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 As long is it doesn't alter the grip and have any external flaring it would be legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pensfan Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 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. So one is free to bevel the inside of the magwell on the front and back, but not the sides, correct? Excuse my kindergarten reading comprehension, just wanting to double check if that is the rule. haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Read the rulebook. Pat Or try a search. Admin Edit: Thanks for the link Scott. I merged the threads together. Edited May 18, 2012 by Flexmoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppa Bear Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 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. So one is free to bevel the inside of the magwell on the front and back, but not the sides, correct? Excuse my kindergarten reading comprehension, just wanting to double check if that is the rule. haha Most grips do not have much room if any side to side. You might get an extra 1/8" if you are careful. Front to back you generally have a good bit of extra room to play with. An example would be a Glock where it is possible to fill in the hole at the rear of the grip with epoxy and then after it hardens bevel it into a much larger opening. Some guns have more material to hog off than others so they tried to standardize maximum dimension changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Threads merged. Please try to search for an ongoing topic, before starting a new thread. Thanks - Admin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 From Amidon's article in the latest issue of Front Sight: "Side beveling is not in the rules, and therefore not allowed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnut Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 Hmmm this appears to different than what Corey was told... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
remoandiris Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 From Amidon's article in the latest issue of Front Sight: "Side beveling is not in the rules, and therefore not allowed." So if the rules don't address something, that something is not permitted. At least that is how I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Hmmm this appears to different than what Corey was told... and leads me to the email I sent to John this morning I don't want to Post John's email with out his permission but It says something to the effect "front to back including the sides" Then he publishes what he did in front sight. Its one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Stevens Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Hmmm this appears to different than what Corey was told... and leads me to the email I sent to John this morning I don't want to Post John's email with out his permission but It says something to the effect "front to back including the sides" Then he publishes what he did in front sight. Its one or the other. Someone cue the Jeopardy theme song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Any updates to the confusion on this? Any rulings on the internal side beveling? there a lot of guns running out there with360 degree beveling. what about if a similar model has the beveling from factroy? Ie if SP-01 has a bevel - would other CZ 75s be allowed to have one to? Please don't say do a search. Or read the book.... I have. Looking for latest discussion - you know like you do in forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneelingatlas Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 (edited) See Appendix D4 22.4: front to back beveling up to a quarter inch is permitted. Edited August 18, 2013 by kneelingatlas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 (edited) Lets talk English, and grammer. Yes read that. It says beveling front to back over 1/4 is permitted, doesn''t it ? Not that it has to be under 1/4" ? And by not mentioning side to side at all, it is either saying that side beveling up to 1/4" is permitted since they had to specifically allow front to back to exceed 1/4"? Or are we going with since it does not mention side to side beveling it is not allowed because it is expressly not spelled out as being allowed? According to others in this thread Amidon has already contradicted himself a few times on this, who wrote the riule originally and what did they mean it really say? I always though it was intended to allow 360 beveling up to 1/4" greater than width of mag, and the rule is written to specifically allow the front to back beveling to exceed 1/4" to acomadate locks with the speed funnels some were running? And in any case does it make any sense that if 1 version of a Shadow (or other make) comes factory with beveling, why could not open up the magwell to match the factory option dimensions? Oh, wait, I know..... Ask Amidon. Yup if we keep asking often enoufgh he will contradict himself again to fit our argument Edited August 18, 2013 by sfinney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 As long as we are quoting rules , 21.1 says you can do internal mods, for polishing,function,reliability,etc...... As long as they are not visible when gun is in battery. I'd argue magwell beveling improves function, or at min is heavy polishing, AND IS NOT VISIBLE when a gun is in battery (if you assume that would be with a mag in place.) so is not external in appearance when the gun is loaded, in battery, and ready to fire. Per existing NROI ruling, any “internal” modifica- tions 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Yes, I'm bored today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 As long as we are quoting rules , 21.1 says you can do internal mods, for polishing,function,reliability,etc...... As long as they are not visible when gun is in battery. I'd argue magwell beveling improves function, or at min is heavy polishing, AND IS NOT VISIBLE when a gun is in battery (if you assume that would be with a mag in place.) so is not external in appearance when the gun is loaded, in battery, and ready to fire. Per existing NROI ruling, any “internal” modifica- tions 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 You might lose that argument with the RM however...... Arbitration's not an option.... When pushing to the boundaries, you run a risk -- is the benefit worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 No It's not worth it. I' m not advocating we cheat or push boundaries, just stating I think its criminal our rule book needs so much"interpreting" and there is only one person who you can ask for clarifications, and he has reversed himself on numerous occasions depending on who asks the question. I'll comply with the latest blurb as per Amidon and not bevel the sides. Just curious why there would be a specification that magwell beveling CAN exceed 1/4 inch front to back? Is there or was there anything saying it could not exceed 1/4" in any other dimension? Why the need for the language saying it could exceed 1/4" one direction without any explanation about the other direction? Just unclear, bad grammar IMHO . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 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 themagwell. The lateral width of the well may not bemore than 1/4" wider than the lateral width of themagazine. Where is this language from? If it was part of D4 22.4 it would make the rest of that statement in the current rules have more context and make more sense. Was a sentence deleted from an old rule book, but the clarification remained? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 As long is it doesn't alter the grip and have any external flaring it would be legalAnd the lateral side to side measurement is less than 1/4" greater than the width of magazine, and longitudinal length CAN be over 1/4". That would be my interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 (edited) Man it would be so nice if john just said all the way around or just the sides lol. I mean the email I got last year said all the way around. Front sight says no just sides. Edited August 18, 2013 by steel1212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve RA Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Personally, I think as the years go by, there are too many rules. Each year it seems everyone forgets the KISS principle and has to add more rules. I think a primary rule - #1 should be - if a rule is added, one must be deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 I'd be in favor of out of the box is "Production". But that horse left the barn a long time ago.. Buried Bomars, aftermarket slides and barrels, triggers so light and massaged they out shine limited guns. Yup kinda hard to undo all that. How many "open" division production guns are floating around right now from misunderstanding this rule I wonder? (Letter in hand from j.a. or not) 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