Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
BobRockefeller

Replacing SIG Grip Modules?

Recommended Posts

I have a SIG P320-M17 with a DeltaPoint Pro that I intend on shooting in IDPA CO. That pistol is SSP legal and so should be just fine in CO.

 

But if I want to replace the stock grip module (a standard carry grip module) with a full-size XGRIP like the XFIVE, would that be SSP legal without the magwell extension? With the magwell, would it be ESP legal (and so CO legal, too)?

 

The root question, I suppose, is whether or not swapping a standard grip for an XGRIP is still legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factory Sig parts should fall under oem rules, as long as the xfive is legal any part from the xfive should be permitted. It’s not a permanent modification outside the spectrum of production class as far as I see it. You can change grips on cz/tanfo/beretta etc so it should be treated as such for the 320 series


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 7:16 AM, theblacklabel18 said:

Factory Sig parts should fall under oem rules, as long as the xfive is legal any part from the xfive should be permitted. It’s not a permanent modification outside the spectrum of production class as far as I see it. You can change grips on cz/tanfo/beretta etc so it should be treated as such for the 320 series.

 

And that's part of the question. Grips (often called grip panels) on metal guns are a replaceable part of the lower. For SIGs, it's the grip module, which is the entire lower. Although replaceable, a lower is not a grip panel.

 

Factory OEM rules seem limited to magazine releases, slide stops, safety levers, de-cocking levers, hammers, and triggers (8.2.1.2 C). Frames (the lower) may be replaced with identical frames from the same manufacturer (8.2.1.2 E) which may preclude swapping the original grip frame for an XGRIP.

 

I have a question in to my AC to see if I can get an official IDPA ruling. SIG P320 modular components were not anticipated by the rules, as I read them. When I get an answer, I'll post it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IDPA has previously ruled the P320 module as a frame and not a grip. That being said, you should be fine for CO since as that division uses the more lenient ESP rule set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BillR1 said:

IDPA has previously ruled the P320 module as a frame and not a grip. That being said, you should be fine for CO since as that division uses the more lenient ESP rule set.

 

Do you have a reference for that IDPA ruling? I need to get that in my notes.

 

The ESP rules don't seem to allow swapping grip frames, either. At least I don't see anything in 8.2.2.2 that I could use for a justification. 8.2.2.2 B refers to grips (grip panels), again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a response from my AC saying that swapping grip modules before (not during) a match is SSP permissible. So putting an x-series grip module on my P320-M17 still allows it in SSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BobRockefeller said:

I received a response from my AC saying that swapping grip modules before (not during) a match is SSP permissible. So putting an x-series grip module on my P320-M17 still allows it in SSP.

 

What are the odds that some other AC will rule differently?

 

High, I bet.

 

IDPA needs to issue official rulings and then incorporate them into the next rulebook revision (which should be at least annually).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, elguapo said:

What are the odds that some other AC will rule differently?

 

I don't know how well the ACs communicate between themselves on rules and interpretations. Mine seemed to know about the controversy over stippling the grip module (disallowed in SSP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, BobRockefeller said:

 

I don't know how well the ACs communicate between themselves on rules and interpretations. Mine seemed to know about the controversy over stippling the grip module (disallowed in SSP).

 

That was a sarcastic dig at IDPA's lack of consistency in rule interpretations, which apparently is still a thing since there's no published list of rulings like the one you're discussing.

 

In any event, rulings such as yours should be made by a central body and not by however many different dudes coordinate the areas.

Edited by elguapo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...