Sig P320 Polymer80 Grip Module

[Nuncles]

I purchased a Polymer80 grip module for my Sig P320 just to see how it feels compared to the X grip and Wilson Combat.  It's probably just because it's the new "thingamabob" but I kind of like the way it feels.  It's got the "blockiness" of a Glock with a 1911 angle.  I just put it on my bedside gun, but I was wondering if it could be used in USPSA Limited or CO?  I figured production most likely be a hard NO.  I was also curious about it being legal in IDPA.  I don't shoot those often but was wondering about that as well.

 

So to sum it up, can this grip module be used in any of the divisions for USPSA and IDPA?

[BillChunn]

The only non-SigSauer P320 grip that has been authorized for USPSA competition by Troy McManus, Director of the NROI is the Wilson Combat WCP320.  So until your Polymer80 reaches a certain number of units made and DNROI approves, it cannot legally be used in any USPSA division.

 

No idea on the rules for IDPA.

 

BC

[waktasz]

2 hours ago, BillChunn said:

The only non-SigSauer P320 grip that has been authorized for USPSA competition by Troy McManus, Director of the NROI is the Wilson Combat WCP320.  So until your Polymer80 reaches a certain number of units made and DNROI approves, it cannot legally be used in any USPSA division.

 

No idea on the rules for IDPA.

 

BC

 

This is a nonsense answer. There might be a quesiton about Production and CO, but "cannot legally be used in any USPSA division" is a silly thing to say. 

Personally I think it would be fine for CO. They are a readily replaceable part and all of the following is legal, also, note what it says in bold. 

 Grip modifications such as, but not limited to, 
undercutting/smoothing the trigger guard, 
adding or removing finger grooves, or adding 
stippling, grip tape, or checkering are allowed.  
Replacement grip panels are allowed provided 
they do not extend below the butt of the gun 
to form a makeshift magwell. 

[BillChunn]

48 minutes ago, waktasz said:

 

This is a nonsense answer. There might be a quesiton about Production and CO, but "cannot legally be used in any USPSA division" is a silly thing to say. 

Personally I think it would be fine for CO. They are a readily replaceable part and all of the following is legal, also, note what it says in bold. 

 Grip modifications such as, but not limited to, 
undercutting/smoothing the trigger guard, 
adding or removing finger grooves, or adding 
stippling, grip tape, or checkering are allowed.  
Replacement grip panels are allowed provided 
they do not extend below the butt of the gun 
to form a makeshift magwell. 

Tell it to Troy....  The Wilson Combat WCP-320 is on the approved production list. 

https://uspsa.org/productionlist

 

This is the only entry for Polymer80, the PFS9 :

Wilson Combat met the USPSA requirements in August of 2020.

https://www.theoutdoorwire.com/releases/b963fbc3-0f11-4a6b-8b7c-c790d39bc5b1#:~:text=Wilson Combat and SIG SAUER,USPSA Production%2FCarry Optics classifications.

https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/wcp320-pistol-now-legal-for-idpa-and-uspsa/383284

 

There is even a thread here on Enos

https://forums.brianenos.com/topic/287562-wcp320-uspsa-approved/

 

It included this post:

 

Maybe you want to go by a different set of rules as indicated by your statement "Personally I think it would be fine for CO" but as part of a USPSA sanctioned event the rulebook will be enforced or it is no longer a sanctioned event.  

 

Personally I think we should be able to shoot full auto in PCC.  That would be a lot of fun.... point at that four target array, hold the trigger and slosh the nose of the carbine around.... But then again, there is that sticky rulebook.....

 

Let's just leave it at this:  You do what you want, the range officials will apply the appropriate penalties.

 

BC

Edited December 3, 2020 by BillChunn

[waktasz]

You clearly aren't following what I'm saying.

 

The Polymer 80 gun on the list is just that, a gun. So is the Wilson Combat 320. Those complete GUNS are legal because they are on the list. There was a question at the time about the WC model because of the flared magwell opening. 

That's not what this thread is about.

 

 

 

 

[mikeg1005]

Bill...

 

WCP-320 is a pistol.   

 

There is nothing on the production list that states P320 interchangable grips are illegal.  

[PatJones]

I thought the grip modules were just that, grips.

 

Per Appendix D4, "...Replacement grip panels are allowed provided they do not extend below the butt of the gun to form a make-shift magwell."

[mikeg1005]

32 minutes ago, BillChunn said:

Tell it to Troy....  The Wilson Combat WCP-320 is on the approved production list. 

https://uspsa.org/productionlist

 

This is the only entry for Polymer80, the PFS9 :

 

 

PFS9 is a pistol.. not a grip.   

 

[BillChunn]

24 minutes ago, waktasz said:

You clearly aren't following what I'm saying.

 

How about we CLEARLY go to the source?  E-mail sent to DNROI. 

 

Troy,

Wilson Combat makes the WCP-320 pistol and it is on the approved gun list.  The frame can be purchased separately and was ruled as acceptable as a P320 replacement.

Is that the same for all Sig Sauer P320 frame manufacturers?  Gray Guns, Polymer80 etc. or must they be approved by DNROI?

 

Will post answer when received.

 

BC

[mikeg1005]

Glad to see you didn't actually ask the specific question of "Is changing out the P320 grip on any P320 with a non-SIG/factory grip allowed in all divisions".

 

[BillChunn]

2 minutes ago, mikeg1005 said:

Glad to see you didn't actually ask the specific question of "Is changing out the P320 grip on any P320 with a non-SIG/factory grip allowed in all divisions".

 

So e-mail Troy:  DNROI@uspsa.org 

 

BC

[waktasz]

The problem with these types of emails to Troy is that already you are using incorrect nomenclature to describe your question, then Troy may or may not read into that correctly, and we get 5 different rulings that everyone thinks is right. I'm sure he will parse your email correctly, but the part in question is a grip module, not a frame. 

[mikeg1005]

Just now, BillChunn said:

So e-mail Troy:  DNROI@uspsa.org 

 

BC

 

Why? It says in the rulebook that grip modifications are allowed in production.... 

[BillChunn]

2 minutes ago, waktasz said:

The problem with these types of emails to Troy is that already you are using incorrect nomenclature to describe your question, then Troy may or may not read into that correctly, and we get 5 different rulings that everyone thinks is right. I'm sure he will parse your email correctly, but the part in question is a grip module, not a frame. 

 

Please inform us of the number of e-mail correspondences you have had with Mr. McManus that used the correct nomenclature.

 

1 minute ago, mikeg1005 said:

 

Why? It says in the rulebook that grip modifications are allowed in production.... 

 

Obviously both of you can do a much better job of creating a question using the English language than I could possibly attempt.  The question remains why won't you do it? 

 

Until DNROI answers my e-mail, I'm done with this pissing contest.

 

BC

[waktasz]

One, that I can remember. It had to do with palm swell grips back when the production rules said grips had to be the same profile.

Not sure if you know this, but the rulebook has changed since then. 

[mikeg1005]

2 minutes ago, BillChunn said:

Obviously both of you can do a much better job of creating a question using the English language than I could possibly attempt.  The question remains why won't you do it? 

 

Until DNROI answers my e-mail, I'm done with this pissing contest.

 

BC

 

Because I'm not going to email Troy asking if the rules in the rulebook are legal when I already know they are?

 

 

[BillChunn]

I stand corrected.

 

Troy McManus

Thu 12/3/2020 5:44 PM

 

 

 

To: Bill Chunn

 

I really hate answering questions to settle arguments on any forum, because heaven forfend that someone might be wrong on the internet.

 

The grip may be exchanged with another manufacturer's grip, since the fire control module is the firearm in this case, as long as it remains otherwise compliant with Production or CO rules, i.e., no magwell, no thumb rest built into or bolted onto the grip/grip frame, and the gun makes weight and fits the box.  Modular firearms are just that--modular, and grip modifications within the rules, as long as the gun remains compliant with the division rules, are allowed.  That includes changing the grip module to another brand.

 

Troy

 

—

Troy McManus

Director, National Range Officers Institute

https://nroi.org

https://uspsa.org/

https://steelchallenge.com/

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery".  Thomas Jefferson

Audemus jura nostra defendere

Edited December 5, 2020 by BillChunn

[Nuncles]

While I appreciate all of the responses, I did by no means intend it to become a heated debate.  The P320's modularity has always been one of it's main appeals to me, but I'm sure it has become a PITA for Troy.  When the Legion came out we addressed using that grip module with a 320 FS.  At that time, Troy said that it was OK for CO, but not production due to making the gun overweight.  At the time, the idea was that they were basing the firearm model by what was marked on the slide.  If the slide did not say Legion or X5 (forgot which one) that they had to go by the weight of the FS as regulated by the rulebook.  In my opinion, this is one the reasons for the recent decision to implement maximum weight increases.  I remember at the time having a debate about this with our local "range lawyer" as we called him.  I told him it that changing the grip module was no different than changing the grip panels on his CZ.  His stance was that it did not specifically state grip modules in the rulebook and was thus not allowed.  I told him that the DNROI said it was OK.  His reply was that Troy did not overrule the rulebook.  My analogy was that if we were in a court of law with no precedence, and the judge made a verdict, then that verdict would be in place until overturned by another court.  So here we are a year later still debating the same issues in regards to what is allowed and not allowed regarding the Sig P320 and it's modularity as it relates to USPSA and/or IDPA.  Sometimes I think it would have been easier if I would have just chosen the CZ for my competition platform .

 

BillChunn, thanks for taking the time to contact Troy.  He is the Range Master at the majority of Level II and III matches that I attend, so if I would decide to use the grip module and it's questioned, at least I know his stance on the matter.

[Nuncles]

Also, I remember when the Wilson Combat grip module came out and the WCP320 was added to the allowed list.  The gun was allowed but it's grip module on another FCU was was not.  This is what waktasz was referring to.  Everyone I discussed this with thought it didn't make sense.  At the time I was told that Troy was re-evaluating it.  I'm glad they made decision allowing Sig Owners to utilize it's modularity design.  

[waktasz]

I'm rich!

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by waktasz

[echotango]

[mikeg1005]

So to confirm, the rule book is correct. 

 

[SGT_Schultz]

6 hours ago, mikeg1005 said:

So to confirm, the rule book is correct. 

 

 

Yep, imagine that.

 

Like you, I'd hate to see us become like IDPA where everyone has to get a clarification for everything in the book even if it's crystal clear.

[Nuncles]

13 hours ago, SGT_Schultz said:

 

Yep, imagine that.

 

Like you, I'd hate to see us become like IDPA where everyone has to get a clarification for everything in the book even if it's crystal clear.

Which rule number in particular is it under in case I need to clarify to someone?

[BillChunn]

Appendix D4 - Production Division

21.4 - Grips

 

Appendix D7 - Carry Optics Division

21.4 - Grips