40cal to 9mm Conversion barrels for Production

[Flexmoney]

What does "significant advantage" have to do with it?

[Sean Gaines]

What does "significant advantage" have to do with it?

Well isn't that the reason, its not allowed? Flex, you shoot alot of production(?), what would it hurt to allow competitors to use a reduced caliber conversion barrel in production? A law, with no reasoning behind it, doesn't make sense to me. If there was a good reason, for not allowing it. I would probably think differently, but I don't see one.

[sperman]

In the article you mention from Amidon, he lists a specific model that would be an advantage. (I'm not a glock guy, so I don't know all the numbers.) He talks about a large frame glock made in .45 and 10mm. I imagine putting a 9mm barrel in that gun could be an advantage from a weight stand point, and from ergonomics if it fits your hand better.

I'm with Nik. Let's leave production alone.

[Sean Gaines]

In the article you mention from Amidon, he lists a specific model that would be an advantage. (I'm not a glock guy, so I don't know all the numbers.) He talks about a large frame glock made in .45 and 10mm. I imagine putting a 9mm barrel in that gun could be an advantage from a weight stand point, and from ergonomics if it fits your hand better.

I'm with Nik. Let's leave production alone.

The thing is weight is a personal preference and not an advantage to the shooter, some people like heavy guns, some like light ones. If someone where to do that, great! Maybe glock will look at it and want to make one, where you don't have to frankenstein it together. if it works on the playing field, that only helps out with innovation. But it my eyes there is still not advantage, since some people have large hands and small hands, and maybe they would like the .45 frame because it has a bigger grip because the gun will fit their hand better. Also, I believe skateboard tape on the frame/slide is also a silly rule.

[Flexmoney]

What does "significant advantage" have to do with it?

Well isn't that the reason, its not allowed?

I don't think so. I don't think it is allowed, because it's not a gun configuration that is "produced" by the factory.

I've asked the same question as you, but even simpler... My question was using a 40 chambered barrel in a Glock20 (10mm), which is not allowed in Production either.

Flex, you shoot alot of production(?), what would it hurt to allow competitors to use a reduced caliber conversion barrel in production? A law, with no reasoning behind it, doesn't make sense to me. If there was a good reason, for not allowing it. I would probably think differently, but I don't see one.

It's a bull barrel. Do you really think that replacement bull barrels ought to be in a "Production" division???

And, it wouldn't just be 40-9, it would be 45-9.

[Skydiver]

For Production I think it makes sense. For Limited, it's ridiculous. You can put any barrel you want in a 2011 but you can't run a conversion barrel in a Glock?

+1.

As for Limited, I believe you can put any barrel you want, as long as it is the same length:

Appendix D2.21 Authorized modifications

• Replacement barrels – provided they are the same length as original factory standard.

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around what's written in the May/June Front Sight page 5 when Amidon mentions the barrel conversion not being legal for Limited.

Is it because a Glock in .40 with a 9mm barrel has never been submitted for approval for by DNROI? Or is it because there have not been over 500 G-22s/G-35s and over 500 40 to 9mm conversion barrels?

[Sean Gaines]

I cant do all this quote thing, but here goes;

Flex:Good Point! I wouldn't want to see a .45 to 9mm conversion, and that is what will happen. I understand that it would not be in its original form. But at the same time, we allow fiber optic sights, different triggers, other aftermarket barrels,all forms of different guide rods,lighter strikers, that takes the gun from its original design. So my point is, you either stay production and shoot a bone stock gun, or allow changes to be made to the gun. I am not sure if is the sig 226, with the interchangable barrels is on the approved list, but it allows a user to switch from 40cal to .357sig, and they sell it that way.If its on the approved list, then essentially a person could be doing what we are having this discussion about.

sky: Not sure if the 500 rule applies there.

[splashdown]

Sean,

So you feel that 40-9 is OK, but 45-9 is way out of line? As I said before, you have to draw the line somewhere, and it has been drawn for quite some time. Aftermarket barrels are OK as long as they are the same length and caliber as the factory barrel. Also, there's no sense in questioning fiber optic front sights and trigger jobs at this point. We have mods that are allowed and mods that are not. If you want to suggest that USPSA considers allowing conversion barrels, talk to your AD.

I'm not going to comment on the Limited div 500 parts rule. I'm just glad it's going away.

Edited May 6, 2012 by splashdown

[Sean Gaines]

Sean,

So you feel that 40-9 is OK, but 45-9 is way out of line? As I said before, you have to draw the line somewhere, and it has been drawn for quite some time. Aftermarket barrels are OK as long as they are the same length and caliber as the factory barrel. Also, there's no sense in questioning fiber optic front sights and trigger jobs at this point. We have mods that are allowed and mods that are not. If you want to suggest that USPSA considers allowing conversion barrels, talk to your AD.

I'm not going to comment on the Limited div 500 parts rule. I'm just glad it's going away.

No I am saying 45-9mm would be ok, I just personally wouldn't like it, as far as weight and looks! : p, But I am with the "as long as the barrel is the same legnth as original, and doesn't require alteration to the slide" Thats were I would draw the line.

The 500 rule, was not one of my favirote either. Thats also a great topic!

I am sure that there are quite a few people, who don't shoot production and shoot glock in limited, would like to see this rule ammended, so if they decide to start shooting production, all they have to do is buy a barrel. When i first started shooting, i shot a glock in limited, with no reloads, and would have love to just be able to buy a barrel to shoot production, but instead I bought a glock 34.

[splashdown]

I think your original question has been answered. (paraphrased: Why not a conversion barrel? What advantage would there be?)

Are we done discussing it? We know the rule, we know why (bull barrel). What else is there to discuss? This ain't burger king (can't have it your way).

Petition your AD if you want to see a change. I don't care either way. I'll just play by the current rules.

[motosapiens]

What advantage do you get using an aftermarket conversion barrel?? I noticed in the latest front sight magazine that John Amidon, said that its a no no for a production shooter to be able to put a 40 to 9mm conversion barrel in a .40cal. I have known about this rule, but reading it made me think, why does it really matter? What advantage does the shooter gain?

To me it seems that if you bought a 40cal glock for defensive purposes, and that is the only gun that you have, and you want to get into the sport, on a shoe string budget, all you would have to do is buy a conversion barrel for let say $150, and now he can shoot the game without buying alot of gear. Instead of having to buy a new gun, all the mags and accessories that go with the gun. I feel that this rule, has no effect on how the shooter perfoms in the match, and I feel this rule should be striken from the rule books. Thoughts anyone??

Instead of all that, why not just shoot the .40? Lots of people these days even say that .40 Minor is even easier to shoot than 9mm. Since you are talking about a conversion barrel for 9mm, you must be talking about production---so why change anything about your gun?

Why is there any need for a conversion in the first place?

I realize you are setting up a hypothetical reason for using a conversion barrel, but "why do it in the first place" is what immediately occurred to me.

I agree you could just shoot .40cal, it cost a little more. But the rub is there is a law against you taking a 40 cal glock, and turning it into a 9mm for $150 bucks and shooting production with it. Its not a "legal" gun. i just think its a silly rule.

If you are shooting factory ammo, then yes, it costs more but if you are reloading, the cost difference is negligible (.14/round vs .12 round), and it would take a lotta lotta rounds to pay for a $150 barrel.

I agree that the rule seems pretty silly, and in particular it seems like certain type of shooter (who perhaps carries a .40, doesn't reload, and simply wants to practice and improve without breaking the bank) would be discouraged by the rule.

Edited May 7, 2012 by motosapiens

[Skydiver]

If you are shooting factory ammo, then yes, it costs more but if you are reloading, the cost difference is negligible (.14/round vs .12 round), and it would take a lotta lotta rounds to pay for a $150 barrel.

I agree that the rule seems pretty silly, and in particular it seems like certain type of shooter (who perhaps carries a .40, doesn't reload, and simply wants to practice and improve without breaking the bank) would be discouraged by the rule.

You have some valid points.

On the flip side, though, is that somebody who carries a .40 would probably also be loading the mags up to full capacity, and not just have 10 in the mag. If they wanted to practice with how they usually carry, they may want to load up the 9mm mag to the same number of rounds they typically carry. They would then be playing in Limited division rather than Production.

[Flexmoney]

I Flex:Good Point! I wouldn't want to see a .45 to 9mm conversion, and that is what will happen.

Right.

I understand that it would not be in its original form.

Right.

But at the same time, we allow fiber optic sights, different triggers, other aftermarket barrels,all forms of different guide rods,lighter strikers, that takes the gun from its original design. So my point is, you either stay production and shoot a bone stock gun, or allow changes to be made to the gun. ...

The good 'ol argument that , "X is allowed. So, Y should be allowed too!".

What about Z...and Z1...and Z2...?

[Sean Gaines]

Sean: But at the same time, we allow fiber optic sights, different triggers, other aftermarket barrels,all forms of different guide rods,lighter strikers, that takes the gun from its original design. So my point is, you either stay production and shoot a bone stock gun, or allow changes to be made to the gun.

Flex:The good 'ol argument that , "X is allowed. So, Y should be allowed too!".

What about Z...and Z1...and Z2...?

Sean:

yep!!

I respect your point! But as many others have said, "the conversion rule" is a silly one. The rules are there to keep the good guys honest, and the bad guys from taking advantage. Since this rule will not effect the results of a match, it should be allowed. Unless there is a strong argument as to why it should not be allowed, and just because it looks ugly, is not a good argument or reason to disallow it.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Sean Gaines

[Flexmoney]

Since this rule will not effect the results of a match, it should be allowed.

Well, that is your opinion.

A 45 barrel converted to 9mm is a bull barrel. Bull barrels dampen recoil. That is why there are bull barrels made for guns.

And, before you make that argument again for gun weight and transitions... In Production, the gun would have to be close to the stock weight. To get there, folks would hog out weight in the slide, internally. (Which, I don't think should be allowed, but it has been.)

Whether you personally prefer a bull barrel or not, that is going to vary from person to person. But, it is still a bull barrel. And, it would be "custom", for sure.

... just because it looks ugly, is not a good argument or reason to disallow it.

Huh?

[bikerburgess]

I can understand the Rule making caliber changes a no go for the reasons above (bull barrel, weight) but the ruling that makes changing the cartridge without changing caliber baffles me it only really affects 10mm and 357sig pistols (and probably 1 or 2 9x21 pistols)you can still shoo them in production and if you load your own you can load to the same power factor but you have to keep buying the expensive brass.

Mike

[Sean Gaines]

Since this rule will not effect the results of a match, it should be allowed.

Well, that is your opinion.

A 45 barrel converted to 9mm is a bull barrel. Bull barrels dampen recoil. That is why there are bull barrels made for guns.

And, before you make that argument again for gun weight and transitions... In Production, the gun would have to be close to the stock weight. To get there, folks would hog out weight in the slide, internally. (Which, I don't think should be allowed, but it has been.)

Whether you personally prefer a bull barrel or not, that is going to vary from person to person. But, it is still a bull barrel. And, it would be "custom", for sure.

,

... just because it looks ugly, is not a good argument or reason to disallow it.

Huh?

lol,That would by my oppinion if they made such a barrel : )

Would you be ok with the rule if it had verbage like this

"Only .40cal to 9mm conversion barrel will be allowed,as long as the barrel is the same legnth as factory, and that there is no modifications made to the slide/frame, no hybrids or ribbed type barrels allowed."

work with me flex. lol, I would like a shooter to be able to shoot all the divisions(except ss) with one gun and a couple of barrels. I could care less if they change the rule or not. I have gun for each division, but I am thinking of the guy with limited that wants to be competitive with what he has.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Sean Gaines

[Cy Soto]

And, it wouldn't just be 40-9, it would be 45-9.

Would that even be possible to achieve? I would have though that the difference in size between the different caliber's breach-face would make using a 9mm conversion barrel in a .45 pistol an engineering impossibility.

[Nik Habicht]

work with me flex. lol, I would like a shooter to be able to shoot all the divisions(except ss) with one gun and a couple of barrels. I could care less if they change the rule or not. I have gun for each division, but I am thinking of the guy with limited that wants to be competitive with what he has.

1. The new guy's not going to be competitive -- though there are a few, rare exceptions, that's the rule.

2. I think there's word missing behind "limited"; I suspect it's gear or equipment.

3. With a very few exceptions (Browning High Power, eight-shot revolvers) there's a division in which almost any gun can be competitive, with either factory or reloaded ammo.

4. Conversion barrels and uppers won't make a gun "competitive" in other divisions. A Glock in .40 needs some sights, a 25 cent trigger job, grip tape and some extended mags to be competitive in Limited. If the shooter can't afford the difference in price between 9 and .40, he can't afford match entry fees, travel expenses, ammo to practice with, etc.

5. Want competitive gear? For open you're going to need a whole new gun, specially built for the division. For revolver, you'll need a wheel gun. Using one gun for everything just does not work -- even though I tried pretty hard to make it so for a while.

6.The membership has indicated that rules stability is important to them, especially where Production is concerned.

7. I suspect you're out of luck, beating this dead horse....

[Flexmoney]

And, it wouldn't just be 40-9, it would be 45-9.

Would that even be possible to achieve? I would have though that the difference in size between the different caliber's breach-face would make using a 9mm conversion barrel in a .45 pistol an engineering impossibility.

Sure. If it doesn't work, weld and re cut the breech face. (which should also be perfectly legal, because we allow fiber optic sights and ugly guns).

[Flexmoney]

work with me flex. lol, I would like a shooter to be able to shoot all the divisions(except ss) with one gun and a couple of barrels. I could care less if they change the rule or not. I have gun for each division, but I am thinking of the guy with limited that wants to be competitive with what he has.

I am as ...frugal...as anybody. But, ...

I want to leave the rules in Production alone as much as possible. I wish we could take some of them back that made it in.

[Cy Soto]

Sure. If it doesn't work, weld and re cut the breech face.

I see! I guess that would certainly work though it would be difficult to still call this a "Production" gun.

...Which brings us right back to the topic of "Slippery Slope"!

[Skydiver]

And, it wouldn't just be 40-9, it would be 45-9.

Would that even be possible to achieve? I would have though that the difference in size between the different caliber's breach-face would make using a 9mm conversion barrel in a .45 pistol an engineering impossibility.

Sure. If it doesn't work, weld and re cut the breech face. (which should also be perfectly legal, because we allow fiber optic sights and ugly guns).

I think the welding might be legal, but the cutting is explicitly illegal. (D4 21.2b Milling of slide — only as required to insert sights.) Unless the rear sight will be sticking out of the breach face making the gun uglier.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Skydiver

[Sean Gaines]

The only reason I bring this topic up, is since some of the limited rules will be changing. i am thinking it would be fitting to re-evaluate the rules of the other divisions to, before they print the new rule book?

to flex: glocks are already ugly, but they work!

Edited May 7, 2012 by Sean Gaines

[mpolans]

Might the .45-9mm conversion be prevented by the rule governing maximum weight?