92G conversion

[MrUnderwood08]

Is converting a 92FS safety to a 92G legal in production. From the manual:

• For purposes of this clause, the prohibition on

  “disabling” means that you may NOT modify an external safety mechanism in any way that affects its function as a safety per the OFM design.

 

[MrUnderwood08]

I've read through a few other threads on this subject and it seems the matter is as clear as mud and in many ways open to interpretation. I want it to be permissible but as I interpret the rulebook it would not be. Strict interpretation vs spirit of the law. It is somewhat moot though as I can work/train around the original OFM design. 

[chubs3a]

Yes.  The G conversion/option is a standard option offered by Beretta.  A few Beretta guys I know run the conversion at matches with no hiccups.

[MrUnderwood08]

I'll probably put one on my 92 FS sooner rather than later but I don't see it as a necessity. The conversion is inexpensive enough though that I can easily justify it. 

[Eric802]

It's not a necessity, for sure, but IMO it's a good idea for a competition gun.  I shoot a 92fs and I've had stages where I left the safety on after holstering at make ready, which makes that first shot a little awkward. I've also had a couple occasions where I've run the gun dry and accidentally put the safety on when I racked the slide after reload.  The G conversion is one of those things on my to-do list.

[robertg5322]

I remember either asking or seeing it somewhere from NROI that as it's a factory part, making the gun identical to an existing factory gun, it's no problem, but I can't for the life of me find where I saw it. If I was going to a major match, I might want to look for something published and definitive, but for local or club matches, nobody's going to be bothered with whether your FS marked gun has the G conversion installed. They have more important things on their minds, like finding someone to video their run...

[18111811]

  

2 minutes ago, robertg5322 said:

I remember either asking or seeing it somewhere from NROI that as it's a factory part, making the gun identical to an existing factory gun, it's no problem, but I can't for the life of me find where I saw it. If I was going to a major match, I might want to look for something published and definitive, but for local or club matches, nobody's going to be bothered with whether your FS marked gun has the G conversion installed. They have more important things on their minds, like finding someone to video their run...

 

 

covered in here 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2021 by 18111811

[robertg5322]

18 hours ago, 18111811 said:

  covered in here 

 

Thanks for finding that, not sure why I couldn't...

 

Yeah, but 22.1 still gives me pause, especially without a specific allowance for converting safety/decocker to decocker only, especially with the special conditions that specifically deal with modifications. Yeah, they're factory parts, but a safety that was once there is no longer there, and the slide still says "92FS Brigadier"

 

Sure would be nice if they published these things when the person in charge says they're allowed, for clarity if nothing else. I had the same issue with grinding down the thumb safeties on my 92X Performance to fit the box. Got an e mail reply from NROI saying it's ok to grind them down, but nothing that would be "an official, published NROI interpretation".

 

SPECIAL CONDITION 5:

UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION.

 

22.1

Disabling of any external safety or externally operated safety External and externally operated safety mechanisms must remain operable. Special Notes/Clarifications:

•

For purposes of this clause, a “trigger safety” is externally visible, and must remain operable.

•

For purposes of this clause, the prohibition on “disabling” means that you may NOT modify an external safety mechanism in any way that affects its function as a safety per the OFM design.

•

For purposes of this clause, a magazine disconnect is NOT considered a safety mechanism, and may be removed. 

•

Grip tape or grip sleeves cannot disengage a grip safety Please note that other clauses in the body of the competition rules require that a “trigger mechanism must, at all times, function safely” (5.1.4), that handguns must be “serviceable and safe” (5.1.6) and that the Range Master is the final authority on the definition of “safety” as it

pertains to the mechanism of the gun (8.1.2.4). It is the competitor’s responsibility to be able to demonstrate at any time that all factory safety mechanisms are functional,

regardless of whether they are internal or external.

[18111811]

9 minutes ago, robertg5322 said:

Thanks for finding that, not sure why I couldn't...

 

Yeah, but 22.1 still gives me pause, especially without a specific allowance for converting safety/decocker to decocker only, especially with the special conditions that specifically deal with modifications. Yeah, they're factory parts, but a safety that was once there is no longer there, and the slide still says "92FS Brigadier"

 

Sure would be nice if they published these things when the person in charge says they're allowed, for clarity if nothing else. I had the same issue with grinding down the thumb safeties on my 92X Performance to fit the box. Got an e mail reply from NROI saying it's ok to grind them down, but nothing that would be "an official, published NROI interpretation".

 

SPECIAL CONDITION 5:

UNLESS a modification is SPECIFICALLY authorized in the rules or SPECIFICALLY authorized in an official, published NROI interpretation, it is considered a PROHIBITED MODIFICATION.

 

22.1

Disabling of any external safety or externally operated safety External and externally operated safety mechanisms must remain operable. Special Notes/Clarifications:

•

For purposes of this clause, a “trigger safety” is externally visible, and must remain operable.

•

For purposes of this clause, the prohibition on “disabling” means that you may NOT modify an external safety mechanism in any way that affects its function as a safety per the OFM design.

•

For purposes of this clause, a magazine disconnect is NOT considered a safety mechanism, and may be removed. 

•

Grip tape or grip sleeves cannot disengage a grip safety Please note that other clauses in the body of the competition rules require that a “trigger mechanism must, at all times, function safely” (5.1.4), that handguns must be “serviceable and safe” (5.1.6) and that the Range Master is the final authority on the definition of “safety” as it

pertains to the mechanism of the gun (8.1.2.4). It is the competitor’s responsibility to be able to demonstrate at any time that all factory safety mechanisms are functional,

regardless of whether they are internal or external.

I was with you 100% on that interpretation and had a CRO at a level 2 tell me the same thing after citing the same as you poste.  I'm going off of that email from Troy as it being GTG.  

[MrUnderwood08]

I previously read the thread with Troys email. 

 

He states:

"It's in the rulebook.  Small parts, internal parts, etc., can be swapped providing that the swap doesn't render the gun ineligible for the division."

 

Sounds like a non answer answer... he does not actually say that the specific alteration is allowed in production. Changing to a G safety is affectively disabling the OFM intended safety mechanism for that firearm which is against the rules in Production and may render the gun ineligible. Hence this thread. I'm still going to do it since it's what I want and I don't believe that most match directors/RO's are going to bust me on it unless they are sticklers.  

[robertg5322]

5 minutes ago, MrUnderwood08 said:

I previously read the thread with Troys email. 

 

He states:

"It's in the rulebook.  Small parts, internal parts, etc., can be swapped providing that the swap doesn't render the gun ineligible for the division."

 

Sounds like a non answer answer... he does not actually say that the specific alteration is allowed in production. Changing to a G safety is affectively disabling the OFM intended safety mechanism for that firearm which is against the rules in Production and may render the gun ineligible. Hence this thread. I'm still going to do it since it's what I want and I don't believe that most match directors/RO's are going to bust me on it unless they are sticklers.  

 

My 92FS Brigadier is also modified to be a G, but I don't shoot major matches, so I'm not worried about being called on it.

 

Not sure why they're so hesitant to make official, published rulings or interpretations on these things, they seem to agree that the modification is not problematic, but won't make it official.

 

And it's not an "option" on the gun, it's a whole different slide. The G decocker conversion kit for the FS slides isn't the same internal parts as the G decocker unit on G slides. It is however made and sold by Beretta, so it probably could be considered an OEM part. Probably...

[MrUnderwood08]

Noticed your location. Small world. 

[robertg5322]

7 hours ago, MrUnderwood08 said:

Noticed your location. Small world. 

Yeah, we met building stages two weeks ago, thanks for the help.

[CraigS]

On 8/4/2021 at 1:45 AM, robertg5322 said:

....And it's not an "option" on the gun, it's a whole different slide. The G decocker conversion kit for the FS slides isn't the same internal parts as the G decocker unit on G slides. It is however made and sold by Beretta, so it probably could be considered an OEM part. Probably...

Not quite correct. Before the M9A3 came out you would be correct. The G was a different slide than the Fs. The technical difference between the two is the angle of the drilling for the right hand plunger/spring. However, the M9A3 in G form has the exact same parts as the G conversion kit. I know because I ordered my M9A3 in G form and waited a long time to get it. I was afraid at the time that the G kit might never appear and I had no interest in an M9A3 in fs form.  

[robertg5322]

9 hours ago, CraigS said:

Not quite correct. Before the M9A3 came out you would be correct. The G was a different slide than the Fs. The technical difference between the two is the angle of the drilling for the right hand plunger/spring. However, the M9A3 in G form has the exact same parts as the G conversion kit. I know because I ordered my M9A3 in G form and waited a long time to get it. I was afraid at the time that the G kit might never appear and I had no interest in an M9A3 in fs form.  

But the slide still says 92FS, and it has no safety, so an overly exuberant inspection at a match could be trouble.

 

That said, I haven't heard of it being an issue, so maybe my worries are unwarranted. Or not. 

[CraigS]

12 hours ago, robertg5322 said:

But the slide still says 92FS, and it has no safety, so an overly exuberant inspection at a match could be trouble.

 

That said, I haven't heard of it being an issue, so maybe my worries are unwarranted. Or not. 

Yes I see your point. That would surely suck if they interpret that rule to mean you can't do the conversion. I am pretty sure that the Elite LTT and the M9A3 have each passed the 2000 guns produced rule so, if they allow them, they should allow the conversion. But I agree, as in many areas of life, you can be screwed by an overly zealous official. I only shoot local level IDPA matches but my M9A1 has had the conversion installed for 4 years now.

[robertg5322]

11 hours ago, CraigS said:

Yes I see your point. That would surely suck if they interpret that rule to mean you can't do the conversion. I am pretty sure that the Elite LTT and the M9A3 have each passed the 2000 guns produced rule so, if they allow them, they should allow the conversion. But I agree, as in many areas of life, you can be screwed by an overly zealous official. I only shoot local level IDPA matches but my M9A1 has had the conversion installed for 4 years now.

Yeah, same here, the only even remotely big matches I shoot are the ones we have at our range here (Prescott AZ), so I'm not too worried about it. 

 

Still, USPSA should address the issue officially. It's one of the reasons why we pay dues. 

[CraigS]

"Still, USPSA should address the issue officially. It's one of the reasons why we pay dues."

I agree. Back in the day, when rules were found only in printed materials, updates got to be a real pain. I retired from being an auto tech w/ a Virginia safety inspector license. Va handled updates by printing new pages w/ very obvious markings saying this new Page 28 should replace Pg 28 dated xx/.yyyy . Now, w/ everything on a website, USPSA and IDPA should slowly but surely work toward a complete set of rules for each gun. They could do updates quarterly and put out a list of changes. We could look through that list to see if any changes would apply to us. Yes, it would be a lot of work and the complete rule book would end up quite thick, but going to a match not knowing if you are legal is ridiculous. And that legality being determined by one person in say, Virginia, while leaving an open question for the rest of the US is also ridiculous. I could see having the current rule book for general rules, and a supplement for each brand of pistol working out well. IE at each quarter, you and I would look at the list for changes to the Beretta section and also look for changes to the Production section. 

[robertg5322]

6 hours ago, CraigS said:

"Still, USPSA should address the issue officially. It's one of the reasons why we pay dues."

I agree. Back in the day, when rules were found only in printed materials, updates got to be a real pain. I retired from being an auto tech w/ a Virginia safety inspector license. Va handled updates by printing new pages w/ very obvious markings saying this new Page 28 should replace Pg 28 dated xx/.yyyy . Now, w/ everything on a website, USPSA and IDPA should slowly but surely work toward a complete set of rules for each gun. They could do updates quarterly and put out a list of changes. We could look through that list to see if any changes would apply to us. Yes, it would be a lot of work and the complete rule book would end up quite thick, but going to a match not knowing if you are legal is ridiculous. And that legality being determined by one person in say, Virginia, while leaving an open question for the rest of the US is also ridiculous. I could see having the current rule book for general rules, and a supplement for each brand of pistol working out well. IE at each quarter, you and I would look at the list for changes to the Beretta section and also look for changes to the Production section. 

An easier (for USPSA) solution would be to have an indexed, searchable, online library of NROI decisions, and anytime an issue is decided by NROI or any of its representatives based on an e mail/phone call/text/online submitted question, have it included in this library.