teros135 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, B_RAD said: That's kinda what I was implying. Memphis asked DNROI. Troy responded. Memphis altered his magwell and will take that email with him. He may get a "stubborn" RO who interprets the rule another way and will not accept an email. Gotcha. Although it's not a "stubborn" RO who won't accept the email, it's one who's following the rules. ( If you take changes with the rules, you may get bit.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, teros135 said: Although it's not a "stubborn" RO who won't accept the email, it's one who's following the rules. Makes me nervous when I keep agreeing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, teros135 said: Gotcha. Although it's not a "stubborn" RO who won't accept the email, it's one who's following the rules. ( If you take changes with the rules, you may get bit.) Yeah. Maybe stubborn is the wrong word. Edited March 10, 2017 by B_RAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teros135 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, IHAVEGAS said: Makes me nervous when I keep agreeing with you. Me, too. Excuse me, I'm going to have to go take a valium now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Sent to DNROI moments ago. If I hear back I will post. Hi, Scuttlebutt on internet forums indicates that Troy M. has stated via email that production gun mag openings may be altered as desired, so long as exterior dimensions are not changed. The official rules are interpreted by many to dictate that this type of change is not specifically authorized and therefore is not allowed. I would like to request that an official clarification be considered. Thank you! Edited March 10, 2017 by IHAVEGAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Be great if they do. IHAVEGAS - help me out here. I'm new to USPSA. What's the problem with the current rule as you see it? The 1/4" working? Seems like, to me, the mag well can be altered as long as no external flaring is present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Just now, B_RAD said: What's the problem with the current rule as you see it? Confusion. Some read it one way and some another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsand Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Confusion. Some read it one way and some another. Pretty hard to see how someone would think it's says no more than 1/4" when there is no 'no' in the clause. 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. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Pretty hard to see how someone would think it's says no more than 1/4" when there is no 'no' in the clause. 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. Sent from my Pixel using TapatalkI opened up my internal magwell on my Sig 320RX that I'm going to use in CO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EngineerEli Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Nice thing with the sig though is if they say no, you can just switch back to a stock grip module. Its a different story for a steel framed gun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Nice thing with the sig though is if they say no, you can just switch back to a stock grip module. Its a different story for a steel framed gun...Yep, but I got the idea from somewhere that was doing them per the USPSA rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Can't believe Sig didn't bevel the dang mag well! I shot a friends 320 and liked it except for the mag well. You'd think when designing a new gun it'd be easy to implement? I guess it was just cheaper to not do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCTaylor Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Reading comprehension is your friend, so is reading the entire rule set you are questioning. IMO here is the nail the coffin of assumption: " UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION." USPSA Competition Handgun Rules - February 2014, page 85. A) Opening the magwell is not expressly approved and 'B) Emails from DNROI are not "an official, published NROI interpretation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCTaylor Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, B_RAD said: Can't believe Sig didn't bevel the dang mag well! I shot a friends 320 and liked it except for the mag well. You'd think when designing a new gun it'd be easy to implement? I guess it was just cheaper to not do it? 320 was the gun for a gov't contract. Not a competition gun. Look at Team Sig; what happened about the same time Sig "somehow" learned which way the gov't contract was going to end? They got 86'd. My tin foil hat explanation only, no idea what/how/why anything really went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, SCTaylor said: 320 was the gun for a gov't contract. Not a competition gun. Look at Team Sig; what happened about the same time Sig "somehow" learned which way the gov't contract was going to end? They got 86'd. My tin foil hat explanation only, no idea what/how/why anything really went down. I thought the same thing. Just saying, why not kill two birds with one stone. Know what I mean? Nobody is gonna complain it's to easy to do reloads! Edited March 10, 2017 by B_RAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B_RAD Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, SCTaylor said: Reading comprehension is your friend, so is reading the entire rule set you are questioning. IMO here is the nail the coffin of assumption: " UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION." USPSA Competition Handgun Rules - February 2014, page 85. A) Opening the magwell is not expressly approved and 'B) Emails from DNROI are not "an official, published NROI interpretation". While an email isn't official, DNROI has already given their interpretation. It's legal. Though, reading the rules is somewhat confusing. If D22.4 was under D21 (allowed modifications) it'd be more clear. They listed it under the section for prohibited mods and features. But it's worded weird. To me at least. Edited March 10, 2017 by B_RAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garmil Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, SCTaylor said: Reading comprehension is your friend, so is reading the entire rule set you are questioning. IMO here is the nail the coffin of assumption: " UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION." USPSA Competition Handgun Rules - February 2014, page 85. A) Opening the magwell is not expressly approved and 'B) Emails from DNROI are not "an official, published NROI interpretation". The interpretation is the inside of the magwell is internal so 21.1 makes it legal as I read it. Edited March 10, 2017 by Garmil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCTaylor Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Eh it's clear as crystal to me, not 100% legal. What hangs me are the two items I noted above, especially the "official, published interpretation". What is the definition of "published"? It is hard to say an email reply to one specific person is published as it is not available to the general public. I live in a world of construction contracting where the most stringent language in contracts, plans, or specifications govern. And the most stringent in this case, is "not specifically authorized". Not worth the risk of bumping to open or ruining a frame. Do what you want, I really don't care. Edited March 10, 2017 by SCTaylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garmil Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The magwell portion could be written much more clearly that's definitely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsand Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Reading comprehension is your friend, so is reading the entire rule set you are questioning. IMO here is the nail the coffin of assumption: " UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION." USPSA Competition Handgun Rules - February 2014, page 85. A) Opening the magwell is not expressly approved and 'B) Emails from DNROI are not "an official, published NROI interpretation".But the appendix says you can have greater than 1/4" magwell opened up front to back. So If you left the sides factory, but opened up front to back would that be legal? As its following the appendix. Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCTaylor Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 BSand - I would assume yes. You know what "assume" actually means, right? Haha. Seriously though, I am not willing to mess with the magwell. Just not worth the risk to class division bump or cost. To each their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quack Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alma Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 16 hours ago, B_RAD said: I thought the same thing. Just saying, why not kill two birds with one stone. Know what I mean? Nobody is gonna complain it's to easy to do reloads! I think having a big magwell was just not on the radar of the engineers when the P320 was first designed. Based on design requirements and feedback from the former Team SIG you will notice that the new P320 X5'a magwell is pretty massive even without the additional external bolt on magwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHAVEGAS Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 On 3/10/2017 at 9:58 AM, IHAVEGAS said: Sent to DNROI moments ago. If I hear back I will post. Hi, Scuttlebutt on internet forums indicates that Troy M. has stated via email that production gun mag openings may be altered as desired, so long as exterior dimensions are not changed. The official rules are interpreted by many to dictate that this type of change is not specifically authorized and therefore is not allowed. I would like to request that an official clarification be considered. Thank you! So far I have not heard a peep back on this. Probably the official channel is flooded with emails and 19 days is not unusually long for a response time? Anyway if anyone has updates on an official ruling that would stand up according to the rule book, I'd love to take advantage of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 I still argue the inside of the magwell is an internal modification - not visible when the gun is in battery (in battery means loaded, breach closed, ready to fire by every definition I've seen). Kind of hard to be "in battery" if you did not insert a mag to load a round. Thus with a mag inserted many of these beveling jobs would not be visible. Not visible when in battery, internal mod, and the other language prohibiting external mods or specifically authorized mods does not apply. If they want to change the definition of what they intended by "in battery", or want to clarify that to not mean with mag inserted, they should change the rules. 21.1 Internal throating and polishing to improve accuracy, reliability and function. Because internal modifications are currently very difficult to enforce, NROI now deems that this clause means “INTERNAL modifications which do NOT conflict with other clauses of this appendix are NOW ALLOWED. Special Notes/Clarifications: • See 21.3 for specifics with regard to slides. • See 21.4 for specifics with regard to barrels. • ALL factory safety mechanisms, whether internal or external, must remain functional. • See 22.2 for specifics on external safeties. • 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. 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