Henning p320 mag extensions

[Rich406]

I’ve been looking at the +2 mag extensions for the p320 by Henning. And I’m curious if anyone has had an issue with them passing equipment check. The extension is shaped in such a way that only the back portion of the mag fits in the gauge. This works because the gauge only measures the back portion. The front half of the extension has some ridges that are clearly too long to fit, if the gauge measured the entire bottom of the base pad.

 

See attached pic.

 

opinions or experiences?

[Sinister4]

They offer 2 types  "pass for sure" and "really really close" , in the ones Ive installed  both types passed on the official egw gauge   very nice basepad

 

Never saw a issue with the ribs but you can order the plain silver pads and if you want machine them back a tad

Edited October 24, 2022 by Sinister4

[Rich406]

1 minute ago, Sinister4 said:

They offer 2 types  "pass for sure" and "really really close" , in the ones Ive installed  both types passed on the egw gauge   very nice basepad

Right, but I’ve been to majors, including at least 1 area match where they used a gauge that covered the entire bottom of  the base. These extensions definitely would not pass those gauges. Seems like an easy arbitration, but also a huge hassle.

[Sinister4]

3 minutes ago, Rich406 said:

Right, but I’ve been to majors, including at least 1 area match where they used a gauge that covered the entire bottom of  the base. These extensions definitely would not pass those gauges. Seems like an easy arbitration, but also a huge hassle.

  Ah  point well taken there, but it clearly shows in the rules the official gauge and how the mag is to be measured, be a good argument tho,  If your coming around Hamilton bring them over and i`ll mill the ribs down to fit, ezpz 

[Sinister4]

OK measured it   it does clear the rib as made by .0005 inch on the "sure to fit " base

Edited October 24, 2022 by Sinister4

[Rich406]

They definitely do not fit in a springer gauge, I know it’s not the official gauge, but like I’ve said I’ve seen them used at majors. 

[Rich406]

Here are some pics that illustrate my point. Notice how it doesn’t fit into the springer gauge that measures the entire baseplate. But it does fit the egw gauge because the egw only measures half of the baseplate. If the egw measured the entire base plate it wouldn’t fit. IMO the magazine isn’t fully under 141.25mm.

[Sinister4]

the measurement that matters is the one shown in appendix E, however you raise a good point  Id just mill the bases .001 and be done with it

Edited October 24, 2022 by Sinister4

[Unibrain]

15 hours ago, Sinister4 said:

the measurement that matters is the one shown in appendix E, however you raise a good point  Id just mill the bases .001 and be done with it

And Appendix E says, "The primary magazine measuring device shall be the EGW mag gauge"

[rowdyb]

And they should change the word primary to only. Primary implies there is an acceptable secondary. 

Edited October 25, 2022 by rowdyb

[ddc]

"The gauge width extends to infinity."

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Some words in the rules are so arbitrary. 
“here’s a list of approved gauges ! 
how hard is that.

And if companies want to make gauges, they send the to nroi for approval. 
I wish some of the rules guys would have had experience racing cars or motorcycles. Drag or road course. 

[Bakerjd]

So with the P320 and having been to 10+ majors where they checked mags I have found that not all EGW gauges are made to an exacting measurement. All of my mags passed at matches and failed at other matches within weeks of each other. So I started measuring different EGW gauges and found they are in fact different. The crux of the issue with the P320 and the gauge is the very back of the feed lips. The angle is not good for maximizing length in the EGW gauge. 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Minus a offset issues in the machining process 

I can’t image that the gauges would be off more then a couple thousands either way. 
This might be more of a mag body issue then a gauge issue. 
could be wrong. 

[Sinister4]

Really can`t understand they did not just use " magazine shall hold no more than 23 rounds of 9mm"   bam done deal  length means nothing then  you walk over, they cram 24 in there your done. Having build spec motors for comp and SS for decades its always best to make tech as simple as possible with zero room for debate.

Zero advantage if the mag holds the same number of rounds but is .062 longer or shorter

Edited October 27, 2022 by Sinister4

[rowdyb]

"But RO's would have to count!" type of whining is why. The same lame excuse for 15 rounds in Prod. Counting is too hard.

[RJH]

141.25 is fine. If the shooter is on the edge, that's on them. If you want to be real sure, buy your own mag gauge. Throw it in your range bag and if it fails at Chrono show them how they fit your egw gauge.  I would hate to know that we just came up with an arbitrary number like 24 in the mag, and then you have a ham handed ro stuffing your mags with 24 once the springs had settled and bumping you to open

 

Production should be fill them up, not some arbitrary number. An arbitrary number was fine back when production was invented in the Brady Bill days, but it's past it's use by date now.

[Boomstick303]

Not sure how Mag Gages are NOT the most efficient way to verify mags and why you would ever need to change that.

[Sinister4]

17 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

Not sure how Mag Gages are NOT the most efficient way to verify mags and why you would ever need to change that.

They would be IF it said the only gauge to be used is the EGW,  (and I do carry one in my bag) 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

If , if magazine production becomes so sloppy that the rear end of the feed lips curl up and hit the gauge and this happens across the board with the manufacturing of mags it’s and easy fix to the gauge without changing and important dimensions or without allowing anymore gaming for mag capacity. 
but you could always just slightly file to corners also. 
and if they curl up to bad send it back to the factory for a replacement. 
 

[rowdyb]

16 hours ago, RJH said:

Production should be fill them up

That's how ipsc prod was originally. A d then manufacturers started a mag capacity war for that size gun haha. So now they have 15.

And if I recall correctly,  idpa had ssp before uspsa had prod, so they already had a 10 round example to look at.

BTW, I donhave an egw gauge and sometimes take it to matches. Very informative for some.....

[Rich406]

So after looking at all the info, I have 2 sticking points. 
 

First, the rule book does not state that the EGW gauge is the only acceptable gauge. They way I read it is, the egw gauge is preferred, but not required.  Since these mag extensions fit the EGW, but not other style gauges, that’s a problem.

 

Also, the rules state that the gauge width extends to infinity. I know what I consider the width. But this is also left open to interpretation. One man’s width, could be another man’s height or length….

 

The entire problem is, you could show up at a major with these extensions and have a chance at being bumped to open, depending on how the RM reads the rule book. 
 

things like measurements should leave no room for interpretation. 

[RJH]

31 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

That's how ipsc prod was originally. A d then manufacturers started a mag capacity war for that size gun haha. So now they have 15.

And if I recall correctly,  idpa had ssp before uspsa had prod, so they already had a 10 round example to look at.

BTW, I donhave an egw gauge and sometimes take it to matches. Very informative for some.....

 

I've always heard about the capacity war and it being a big deal, but in reality it's not. I didn't think about this till the other day when a better shooter happened to bring it up, but if in production the difference is 17 rounds tonight 19 rounds or something along those lines, it's really no different than limited where right now some 140 mags only get 19 and some of them through magic can hold 22. Since anywhere from 17 to 19, or 19 to 22 is still over two eight round arrays, with rounds to give, the issue matters less than most people want to think. 

 

Another point he brought up was just if you had  the mag in the gun, and fit in the box it would be legal. Something like a Glock 17 with a plus 2 could very well fit in the same box as a Beretta 92, or a tangfolio. Now the capacity wars are really nothing to worry about. Everybody would end up around 18 or 19 rounds, maybe 20 if they put a grams follower. I actually thought this was the best idea of all of them that I've heard

 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

Again they need people with experience with wording rules. Unless they’re trying to be vague on purpose. 
 

[Superkaratemonkeyfighter]

We’ll bring the egw gauge and if there using A  different companies gauge you can present them with the “preferred “ gauge. I guess the can refuse to use it but then that would draw the question why ? Why refuse the “ preferred gauge !
Is there a definition for preferred in the rulebook ? It’s ridiculous that it would come to that point but..