W_Buck Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share Posted April 3, 2015 If it is truly an April fool's prank it's pretty epic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 My concern is the wording of approved gun. Since the gun in question is not an approved gun I would say no it is not ok. thanks gary for chiming in. Knowing the intent of the rule (and that's about what I thought the intent would/should be) makes all the difference. I think I now see what troy meant. the wording is somewhat ambiguous. Extend has two meanings; to stick out, or to lengthen. Does 'extend only the length' mean that the replacement only extends (sticks out) as far as the stock one? or does it mean the replacement only extends (lengthens) the distance it sticks out, but doesn't change the surface area. If I understand what Troy is saying, and I think it makes sense, what the rule would mean is: 1. you can use an oem mag release from ANY gun if it doesn't stick out further than stock (extends ONLY the length of the stock one). 2. you can use an oem mag release from any APPROVED gun, even if it sticks out further or has greater surface area. In which case, no, you can't use the mag release from a tac sport, since it's not a production gun, but you could if it didn't stick out any further than stock. OTOH, all the glockodiles CAN use their mag releases that come off another approved production gun. I think that makes sense and should bring peace and love to the benosverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkreutz Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 If it is truly an April fool's prank it's pretty epic... You might email him again (not on April 1 this time). When I originally suggested contacting NROI I knew that the answers here would be varied (including my opinion). Like I said, "I'd want to have it in writing from NROI before I showed up at a major with that modification". Maybe not, but why take the chance, you were obviously concerned with this initially. (another reason I shoot open, I don't worry about things like this. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Can I replace the extended magazine release on my SP01 Shadow with a magazine release from a CZ Tactical Sport? Looking a the rule book it states: "Any other components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OFM 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 OFM parts include (but are not limited to): magazine releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers." Now the CZ Tactical is single action only and therefore not on the approved production gun list, however in the special notes section there is this statement: "A factory/OFM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides a larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OFM part available on an approved model of gun." Since the CZ Tactical Sport magazine release is an OFM part, manufactured by CZ UB/USA, and it only extends the length of the magazine release it seems that this modification would be legal. What are some are some of your thoughts? Here we go again with the arguments about the meanings of individual words. At the top of 21.6 it says that a replacement mag release (which is an externally visible part) must be an OFM part from the same model of gun or another approved gun (i.e., Production List gun) from the SAME manufacturer. This is the basic part of the rule. Like most USPSA rules, this rule is "nested", with this part being superordinate and other rules that follow being clarifications or for specific situations. So the clarification (in the Special Notes/Clarifications section) is that if the replacement part is a mag release, a factory/OFM part can be used if it "extends only the length of the magazine release", which means the same as "Only extends the length of the magazine release", meaning that the only thing it does is to make the mag release longer. That's standard English (although it could perhaps have been stated with a bit more clarity). It *doesn't* say "a factory/OFM magazine release from the same manufacturer, another manufacturer, or a non-approved model of gun". Approved status was already covered above. Aftermarket mag releases aren't mentioned either, so they aren't approved. The next sentence addresses mag releases that have a larger surface area, such as paddles or buttons. These can be used if they're OFM parts from approved (i.e., Production List) guns. So it seems clear that we can use a mag release from another gun - which is from the same manufacturer and is on the Production list - if it is longer than the one on our gun and/or has a paddle or button. That would eliminate the CZ TS, but there are other approved models of CZs that have an extended mag release. Edited April 3, 2015 by teros135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 ^^^ that is the best write up of how I read the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 ^^^ that is the best write up of how I read the rules.Yup! Teros is clearly a morning person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W_Buck Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share Posted April 3, 2015 A lot of good points have been made. Regardless NROI has already said it's a no go for production, so that's the end of it. I guess the big question now is NROI's reasoning of why it's not legal. Either way I won't be using the part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 slight drift here D 21 says you have to show a rule or ruling that whatever you are doing is legal, and D21.1 - D21.7 lists allowed modifications, so why do we still have D22 and its subsequent list of specifically prohibited modifications? if its not in D21 then its not legal already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bikerburgess Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 A lot of good points have been made. Regardless NROI has already said it's a no go for production, so that's the end of it. I guess the big question now is NROI's reasoning of why it's not legal. Either way I won't be using the part. It may be the end of what you were planing to do, and I think that most here think that is the correct call. Unfortunately the logic stream the DNROI used puts thousands of other guns into a area of doubt as to how the rules will be enforced in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) "That's not what the rule says. It's basically saying that the replacement magazine release can only be as long, and not longer, than the one being replaced. It doesn't say that it can "extend" as in, "make longer" the magazine release. It says it can only be as long as the magazine release being replaced. The difference is in where the word "only" is. While the rule is pretty badly written, it still prohibits extended magazine releases. Even the second one is not very good, but could be taken to mean that an extended magazine release could be used." That makes no sense at all. It doesn't say "the replacement magazine release can only be as long, and not longer", it says it can extend only the length of the release. And "it's basically saying" and "could be taken to mean" aren't decisive statements, they're "maybe's". A lot of good points have been made. Regardless NROI has already said it's a no go for production, so that's the end of it. I guess the big question now is NROI's reasoning of why it's not legal. Either way I won't be using the part. ...It may be the end of what you were planing to do, and I think that most here think that is the correct call. Unfortunately the logic stream the DNROI used puts thousands of other guns into a area of doubt as to how the rules will be enforced in the future. No, we've gone around and around on this on BE in the past. This isn't a NROI Ruling (and isn't listed on the USPSA website under NROI Rulings), it's an email put up on BE that Troy reportedly wrote, in response to somebody's question. Who's going to be following that at matches, including majors? Lots of past Production scores should be changed to Open, and lots of guns today would be illegal - except that the rule itself doesn't say that. Respectfully, I hope Troy will give this another look. Edited April 3, 2015 by teros135 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted April 6, 2015 Share Posted April 6, 2015 Can I replace the extended magazine release on my SP01 Shadow with a magazine release from a CZ Tactical Sport? Looking a the rule book it states: "Any other components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OFM 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 OFM parts include (but are not limited to): magazine releases, slide stops, thumb safeties and triggers." Now the CZ Tactical is single action only and therefore not on the approved production gun list, however in the special notes section there is this statement: "A factory/OFM magazine release which extends only the length of the magazine release may be used. A magazine release which provides a larger surface area (paddles, buttons) may only be used if it is an OFM part available on an approved model of gun." Since the CZ Tactical Sport magazine release is an OFM part, manufactured by CZ UB/USA, and it only extends the length of the magazine release it seems that this modification would be legal. What are some are some of your thoughts? Here we go again with the arguments about the meanings of individual words. At the top of 21.6 it says that a replacement mag release (which is an externally visible part) must be an OFM part from the same model of gun or another approved gun (i.e., Production List gun) from the SAME manufacturer. This is the basic part of the rule. Like most USPSA rules, this rule is "nested", with this part being superordinate and other rules that follow being clarifications or for specific situations. So the clarification (in the Special Notes/Clarifications section) is that if the replacement part is a mag release, a factory/OFM part can be used if it "extends only the length of the magazine release", which means the same as "Only extends the length of the magazine release", meaning that the only thing it does is to make the mag release longer. That's standard English (although it could perhaps have been stated with a bit more clarity). It *doesn't* say "a factory/OFM magazine release from the same manufacturer, another manufacturer, or a non-approved model of gun". Approved status was already covered above. Aftermarket mag releases aren't mentioned either, so they aren't approved. The next sentence addresses mag releases that have a larger surface area, such as paddles or buttons. These can be used if they're OFM parts from approved (i.e., Production List) guns. So it seems clear that we can use a mag release from another gun - which is from the same manufacturer and is on the Production list - if it is longer than the one on our gun and/or has a paddle or button. That would eliminate the CZ TS, but there are other approved models of CZs that have an extended mag release. Teros135, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, I disagree with your conclusion. If approved status was already all-encompassing in 21.6, it doesn't make sense that it was not mentioned in the first sentence in the clarification dealing with extended (in length only) mag releases, but then was specifically mentioned in the second sentence referring to mag releases with increased surface area. If what you say about "approved" being all-encompassing in 21.6 were true, it would make the reference to the "approved" in the second part of the clarification superfluous...which wouldn't make sense. The only way the rule and clarification seem to make sense without any superfluous language is if: 1. 21.6 is a general rule applicable to exchange of minor external components. (not limited to mag releases) 2. The second paragraph in the Special Notes/Clarifications section provides an *exception* to the general rule stated in 21.6 specifically when it comes to mag releases. 3. The first sentence of the exception allows factory/OFM mag releases from other guns without regard to whether the part came from a gun on the Approved list. 4. The second sentence of the exception adds an additional restriction for mag releases with increased surface area, requiring them to not only be from factory/OFM guns, but also only from guns on the Approved list. (presumably because a mag release with increased surface area is more "gamey?" Just a guess.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W_Buck Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 New development tonight. Got an email from Troy regarding my original magazine release question. It's really cool to see the DNROI take time to further research a rule question. Thanks again to Troy! See the email below: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Like I said... Thanks to Troy for taking the time to research this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2MoreChains Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Phew. Order has been restored to the universe! Thanks for following up, and appreciate DNROI for taking the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W_Buck Posted April 15, 2015 Author Share Posted April 15, 2015 Like I said... Thanks to Troy for taking the time to research this. Phew. Order has been restored to the universe! Thanks for following up, and appreciate DNROI for taking the time. Yes. A big thanks to Troy for the additional research on this. Looks like I get to tinker with my shadow now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapemeister Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 New development tonight. Got an email from Troy regarding my original magazine release question. It's really cool to see the DNROI take time to further research a rule question. Thanks again to Troy! See the email below: Ok, where is the letter, or e-mail? It's not showing up on my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) New development tonight. Got an email from Troy regarding my original magazine release question. It's really cool to see the DNROI take time to further research a rule question. Thanks again to Troy! See the email below: Ok, where is the letter, or e-mail? It's not showing up on my end. what, exactly is the issue? The email from Troy is quoted in your post! Using a iPhone? Edited April 20, 2015 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapemeister Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 No, using a PC at work. I haven't tried looking at it on my laptop at home. It beats me as to why I can't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 No, using a PC at work. I haven't tried looking at it on my laptop at home. It beats me as to why I can't see it. Just kidding on the iPhone. The firewall where I work is pretty good at stopping embedded images. I am guessing you will see it when you are out in the wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapemeister Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 No, using a PC at work. I haven't tried looking at it on my laptop at home. It beats me as to why I can't see it.Just kidding on the iPhone. The firewall where I work is pretty good at stopping embedded images. I am guessing you will see it when you are out in the wild.Yep, I can see it on my laptop. Forgot about our firewall at work. Thanks. 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