Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!
Sign in to follow this  
rowdyb

ipsc spring change

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, race1911 said:

ahhh...you sound correct Rowdy, I never thought of 18.4 like that before..... now that you mention it the way it is written without a comma after springs would make "spring asemblies" perfectly legal (ie aftermarket springs and guide rods).....hopefully Schutzenmeister will get an appropriate answer and clear all of this up

yeah, re reading it as it is written with springs pluralized and assemblies being plural and the and with no comma I really feel it could be read as including both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Good news (mostly)

 

As I promised I sought an official answer and have received one.  I spoke at length with the President of IROA (Dino Evangelineos) on the phone yesterday.  His answers to me were after consultation with the Executive Committee of IPSC … Hence, this is about as official as it gets.

 

Dino posted his response to my inquiry on an official forum.  I will quote it here:

 

Quote

 

If the competitor wants to decrease or increase the spring strength I am sure that Glock has them in stock.

If he is talking to re-place it with the DPM System the answer is No, I presume we are talking about production Division

 

As a set.

 

I'll grant you, a little cryptic.  I'll break down the essence of my conversation with him which should clarify what we discussed:

 

1 - Clearly, if the replacement springs are from Glock for that model firearm, they're good to go.  He's convinced Glock makes and can provide springs of greater or lessor strength.  I will leave that to each of you to explore and verify.

 

2 - If the spring-guide-rod assembly is aftermarket and is substantially the same as the original (but perhaps of a different strength), that should be good to go as well.  The defining factors in this case seemed to be 1 guide rod, one spring.  (I'll make this more clear in a minute.)

 

3 - What will not be acceptable for PD (or CO, by extension) is a system like the one DPM is marketing.  (Link provided below.)  Basically, this is a system where there are multiple springs included when the original design used only one spring.  (Note:  Such springs are OK in Open or Standard, but will not be allowed in PD or CO as aftermarket replacement items.)

 

https://www.dpmsystems.com/mechanical-recoil-reduction-system

 

A couple of ground rules here, please:

 

- I am the messenger, not the message!

- You asked for an official answer; that is what I sought and this is what I got.

- As the RM for this years US IPSC Nationals, what you see above is what I am obligated to enforce … should the question arise.

 

I hope this is helpful, but please don't try to split hairs on it … I have too few on top of my head to spare!

 

Cheers!

 

p.s. ... Although we are talking Glock in this example the same logic applies to all other makes of guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly it only confuses it more for me. As to 1. Glock does not sell springs separately or or different weights in the stock unit for a gen5 gun in the USA. 2. The stock gen5 assembly is of more than one spring. One guide rod, one spring isn't a direct correlation to what is stock on a gen5 gun. It is one guide rod with two springs, riveted together for the original design.

 

I want to remove the stock recoil assembly and its  effective 17lb recoil spring weight and replace it with a system with a 13lb spring.

 

For reference this is a stock gen5 recoil assembly https://www.glockstore.com/Gen-5-Glock-OEM-Recoil-Spring-Assembly

 

If I'm reading this correctly I could do this, because it is the exact same type of system, even though the rod is of different material?? (but I don't want to as it is the same spring weight) https://www.glockstore.com/GEN-5-Tungsten-Guide-Rod

 

But I could not do this (which is much closer to what I want to do) http://jagerproducts.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=35&products_id=115&zenid=0isvmcdcrkqk1cl1drq0nvno90

Edited by rowdyb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - Clearly, if the replacement springs are from Glock for that model firearm, they're good to go.  He's convinced Glock makes and can provide springs of greater or lessor strength.  I will leave that to each of you to explore and verify. In the USA Glock does not sell springs of greater or lessor strength. At all. So I do not have a factory, oem option.

 

2 - If the spring-guide-rod assembly is aftermarket and is substantially the same as the original (but perhaps of a different strength), that should be good to go as well.  The defining factors in this case seemed to be 1 guide rod, one spring.  (I'll make this more clear in a minute.) The stock system is of a dual spring design. So an aftermarket one would have to be of the same dual spring design? But in all cases that is of a rod material of different than oem. The assembly looks the same and very often uses stock springs but the rod becomes stainless steel or tungsten instead of plastic. But very substantially looks like a stock set up.

 

3 - What will not be acceptable for PD (or CO, by extension) is a system like the one DPM is marketing.  (Link provided below.)  Basically, this is a system where there are multiple springs included when the original design used only one spring.  (Note:  Such springs are OK in Open or Standard, but will not be allowed in PD or CO as aftermarket replacement items.) The original design uses multiple springs. With this in mind a non-oem one would also then have to use multiple springs. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

I am the messenger, not the message!

- You asked for an official answer; that is what I sought and this is what I got.

- As the RM for this years US IPSC Nationals, what you see above is what I am obligated to enforce … should the question arise.

Thank you for taking the time to ask. While I don't feel his answer was very cogent, or specific enough for me to make a decision I really do appreciate you reaching out to both myself and IPSC to get as much of a reply as you could. Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowdy … Bad Dog … My head hurts!  (I hope you're laughing with me!)

 

I'll do some more follow-up based on what you've provided me.  (Remember - I'm not a gunsmith and I do not own a Glock!)  I do understand your question and I think you've brought up some good points.  I'll do what I can to get some answers.  Forgive me for what follows here, but please remember the axiom that especially in PD it is up to the shooter to PROVE anything he has done to the gun is permissible … I am not required to disprove it.

 

Yeah, I know … From your point of view that sucks.  But I really am trying to help here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Schutzenmeister said:

trying to help here!

You are helping and I see and read it all from you with a smile and positive intentions. No worries on my end. I made my platform choice and have to live with its positives and negatives. It's the ambiguity of some of this that bugs is all.  Plus I don't want to cheat or travel half way across the US, trying to earn an individual WS slot and not pass equipment inspection for Prod.

 

On gen5 glocks if you want to change the recoil spring weight you HAVE to change the rod, thus the assembly.

 

Like the verbiage I pointed out earlier about how it is pluralized and written with an and and no comma. To me that reads as both spring and trigger assemblies. The assembly of either.  Not springs alone only and separately trigger assemblies.

Edited by rowdyb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update ...

 

I've had 2 or 3 phone conversations with the President of IROA plus several emails on this topic.  He has forwarded the information to the Rules Committee Chairman and the Production Directors for their assessment.  We are awaiting their response.

 

I would love to have access to the "instant answer switch," but as you all know, that doesn't exist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2019 at 7:35 AM, Schutzenmeister said:

Just an update ...

 

I've had 2 or 3 phone conversations with the President of IROA plus several emails on this topic.  He has forwarded the information to the Rules Committee Chairman and the Production Directors for their assessment.  We are awaiting their response.

 

I would love to have access to the "instant answer switch," but as you all know, that doesn't exist!

I must have written a super good email then if it can't be answered definitively, quickly. They better hurry up as our match is 5 weeks away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rowdyb I know you want to compete with a legal gun but this saga with what’s legal and not legal in PD has been going on since the start of the division.

The new rules were meant to clear things up but unfortunately the intent vs execution for messed up.

Most people I know run of an “intent” interpretation of the rules and know that in reality it is highly unlikely that they are going to be asked to disassemble their guns at gun check...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK … We're getting too close to the match for me to allow this to simmer any further.  For the purposes of the 2019 US IPSC Nationals, this is what I intend to follow:

 

- The rules say you may replace springs in PD.  All the discussion of comma placement and such in the rule is linguistic BS.  I'm not going to try to analyze things at that level for fear of Sr. Mary Euthanasia rising from the grave, ruler in hand, to do even more damage to my knuckles!  If, as in the case of a Glock, it is necessary to replace the guide rod in order to replace the spring, so be it.

 

- I have requested better guidance from IPSC on the matter.  The ONLY definitive answer I have received is that the DPM spring system (see previous postings) is a no-go.  Whether I personally agree with that or not is not the issue … I am the messenger here!

 

- This guide (https://www.ipsc.org/pdf/IPSC Handgun Equipment Check Handbook - Jan 2019 edition.pdf) is what we are required to use while inspecting guns during the match.  It does not require disassembly of the gun during inspection.  (It also does not prohibit it, if we have reason to look inside …)  My instructions to the crew doing the inspections will be along the lines of "Follow the rules and the Equipment Check Handbook."  They will call me if there are any questions during their inspections.

 

I absolutely HATE that I'm using this quote, but it fits here:  "Don't ask; Don't tell"  (with regards to the topic at hand.)  Replacement of springs is authorized … That's clear in the rules.  Unless the shooter gives me a reason to actually instruct him to disassemble his gun for us to see inside, I have no reason to go there.  (And yes … It's been a long standing principle in IPSC that if we need to see the inside of a PD gun to determine compliance we can instruct the shooter to open it up.  This HAS been done in the past where the inspector had reason to believe something inside the gun had been altered.  As it is now permissible to change the springs, I'm not sure what the reason would be for me to want to open it up … So don't volunteer one!)

 

IF I receive official direction from IPSC that is at odds with the above, I will post it here ASAP.  (Remember … IF is a pretty BIG word!  I do not anticipate this.)  I cannot confirm nor deny what Matt1 said above … The above is about as clear as I can be short of sticking my anatomy in a sausage grinder!  (so to speak …)

 

Mike Carraher, IROA RM

RM for the 2019 US IPSC Nationals

 

(Rowdyb:  PM sent.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good day. 

May i know the Official Statement of IROA regarding the change of Guide Rod and Recoil Spring on Glock for Prod Division?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite having officially requested one, I've never received an answer nor have I seen one posted.  Hence, I continue to operate based on my post from June 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Mike

What's your opinion on the AM grip modules (Wilson Combat) and (Polymer 80) for the Sig  320 series, Are any of them ok to use in IPSC Prod ++ divisions in your opinion and what about the factory stippled X series module.

 

Thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry

 

In truth, I haven't been following this issue.  Please remember:  I'm just one RM.  I have no authority to officially speak for IPSC or IROA nor to establish policy.  Clearly, Sig has created a new paradigm with their concepts!

 

Have you considered posting this question to the IROA Academy?  That forum is exclusively for IPSC/IROA and may draw more informed responses than just mine.  I'll look at it and let you know what I think, but I'm not sure what the official response would likely be.  (Give me a couple of days!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done so Mike and got the usual  🦗,  I was just after your thoughts no official perspective taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acknowledgement to Terry ... Sorry!  I found your posting there sometime AFTER I posted here.  I've replied on that site and will also post my response here:

 

OK ... First and foremost:  Remember, I am just one RM.  I have no authority to make official policy for or on behalf of IROA and/or IPSC.  What follows are my thoughts on the topic.

 

The history of PD (to include the current PDO and PDOL variants) is one of extreme restrictions.  If you remember asking VP questions on the GV about PD to the tune of "Can I ...?" the answer was almost always a swift NO!  (Enough with the initials?)  The impetus of the division was to by a "Production" gun (as listed on the IPSC approved list), take it out of the box, go to the match and shoot it.  A lot has happened since those early days of PD.  Manufactures have come up with better and better PD guns (at ever increasing $$$), added various options and interchangeable parts which we allow to be substituted, and now we have a MUCH more complicated situation with respect to what is and is not allowed in PD.

 

I shall limit my thoughts at the moment to Terry Docherty's postings from this past July 21st ... "Sig Sauer has a grip module from their "pro shop" that is a factory part that has been sent to a gunsmith they use and has been stippled and sold by the proshop."

Before I go any further, let's list the applicable portions of the rules ... just to save everyone having to look them up:

  Quote

 

17.    Original parts and components offered by the OFM as standard equipment, or as an option, for a specific model handgun on the IPSC approved handgun list are permitted, subject to the following:

17.1  Modifications to them, other than minor detailing (the removal of burrs and/or adjustments unavoidably required in order to fit replacement OFM parts or components), are prohibited. Other prohibited modifications include those which facilitate faster reloading (e.g. racking or cocking handles, flared, enlarged and/or add-on magwells, etc.), and/or adding stippling. Changing the original color and/or finish of a handgun, and/or adding stripes or other embellishments is permitted.

17.2  Magazines [Not what we're looking at here ...]

17.3  Sights [Not what we're looking at here ...]

18.    Aftermarket parts, components and accessories are prohibited, except as follows:

18.1  Aftermarket magazines [Not what we're looking at here ...]

18.2  Aftermarket open sights [Not what we're looking at here ...]

18.3  Aftermarket grip panels which match the profile and contours of the OFM standard or optional grip panels for the approved handgun and/or the application of tape on grips (see Appendix E3a) are permitted. However, rubber sleeves are prohibited.

18.4  Aftermarket springs [Not what we're looking at here ...]

 

I've noted the portions I think applicable in red.  Now here's where it gets sticky ... and I will admit I'm going to take a "conservative" approach in my response and stick with a traditional "NO!" approach.  (Sorry ...)

 

Sig has taken their manufacturing approach to a somewhat new standard with their interchangeable "grip modules."  I will deliberately stick with their term of "module" and not refer to them as "panels, frames, or grips."  They have come up with something new which I'm not certain anyone else is using at the moment.  This complicates the discussion as far as current IPSC rules are concerned.

 

Clearly, a grip module can be substituted from one firearm to another within the rules so long as it is listed for use on an approved firearm on the IPSC list.  (Item 17, subject to the restrictions of 17.1 refers.)  However, 17.1 specifically states that the addition of stippling is prohibited.  Some of you will likely point out that Sig offers a stippled module as an option.  Before you "Ah Ha! It's a factory option!" I suggest we look at exactly what is advertised.  From Sig's web page on this item:  "P320 X-Series Carry Grip module. Custom grips, painstakingly hand-stippled for a more aggressive texture than factory feeling."

 

OK ... I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I would say the emphasized portions of Sig's own marketing (above) indicate this is a modification of a factory part and, I would opine, places it in violation of 17.1.  They take an existing module, hand it to a gunsmith, and have it "painstakingly hand stippled."  As such, I think that constitutes a prohibited modification.  It matters not who does the modification ... You, the manufacturer, or a subcontractor.  As described, it is a modification.  I admit, if this part were listed as a separately manufactured assembly my opinion might be different.  However, this is not the case.

 

The next argument falls under "aftermarket grip panels."  (18.3)  Notice the wording here is "grip panels," not "grips" or "modules."  If one looks at Sig's web page one will find both "grips" and "grip modules" listed under "parts."  Look under "grips" and you will find complete grips (similar to those on a 2011 type gun) and grip panels (similar to those on a traditional 1911.)  Here is where I am drawing a distinction:  A "grip panel" is not the same as a "grip module."  I do not take issue with a "grip panel" being stippled, so long as it matches the profile and contours of the OFM standard grip panel.  I do not believe stippling changes either of those.  It merely changes the texture.

 

As it is not possible to install "grip panels" on this firearm ... only to replace "grip modules" ... I don't believe one could substitute an AM part under 18.3 and call it legal.

 

I would welcome someone with actual authority to tell me I've over analyzed this and that I'm wrong.  Unfortunately, in the absence of such a pronouncement, I would have to say No ... I don't see how someone could put a stippled grip (of whatever description) on a modular Sig firearm and consider it PD legal.

 

 

Cheers ... Comments and/or rebuttals are welcome.  Please remember, I stated this as my opinion.  It is NOT an official IPSC/IROA position!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may add to the recoil spring gk g5 issue, I can cut the springs without disassembly of the rod, lowering their weight. I can do it until I got my preferred weight and still reliable of course. Is this a violation of the rules? I dont shoot pd now, just an idea.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, BoyGlock said:

If I may add to the recoil spring gk g5 issue, I can cut the springs without disassembly of the rod, lowering their weight. I can do it until I got my preferred weight and still reliable of course. Is this a violation of the rules? I dont shoot pd now, just an idea.  

 

Reminder ... We're talking IPSC rules at the moment.  USPSA handles this differently.

 

STRICTLY speaking, what you propose would be in violation of #17.  (Paraphrased) Substitution with OFM parts is OK but modifications to them are prohibited.  (See 17 and 17.1 from a few posts ago.)  So technically - No, you cannot modify an OFM part.

 

HOWEVER ...  18.4 (I didn't quote all of it, but you can look it up if you wish.) allows for the substitution of AM springs and trigger assemblies.  Who's to say that some entrepreneurial individual can't buy up a box of Glock spring assemblies, modify them and sell them as AM parts?  Clearly there are numerous true AM assemblies out there that make their own rod/spring assemblies for Glock (and other firearms) in various strengths.

 

Under older rules, a few years ago, this answer was easy:  Not only No, but HELL NO!  Unfortunately, it's a little more complex today.

 

I'm going to fall back on the same advice I gave RowdyB back on June 17, 2019 ... It's kind of long, so I won't reprint it.  Just scroll up about 9 posts or so!

 

Cheers

Edited by Schutzenmeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up. Think it will be more into this...

6 hours ago, Schutzenmeister said:

Who's to say that some entrepreneurial individual can't buy up a box of Glock spring assemblies, modify them and sell them as AM parts? 

And ask none so prove none to the RM 😊

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...