JeeDee Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 OK guy's an IPSC rule question : One of our guy's come back from the worldshoot telling that there were several shooters using .40 magazines in there 9mm Para Ordnance in Production division. He says it was allowed. And they now had 20 or 21 shots available. As a NROI/IROA member I told him that according to appendix E artikel J only original magazines which were standard supplied with the gun were allowed (or aftermarked with the same dimensions). He states that if it was allowed during the WS that it shoud also be valid localy. In my book a no go. What 's your opinion on this. (Edited by JeeDee at 4:45 pm on Jan. 12, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 I would think it's a *go*, but one that requires application of common sense! *Aftermarket* mags with the same length are allowed, even if (!) they have higher capacity (only dimension is relevant). The same should apply to the original mfctr's mags. The .40 mags are identical in dimension. But really, this hinges on the definition of *aftermarket*. Are the same mfctr's mags for a different caliber *aftermarket???? --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Are aftermarket mags legal in Production? Then it seems like the ticket would be STI-for-Para tubes-- much pointyer for faster reloads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 The STI-Para doesn't give you as many rounds. It isn't generally worth the trade off off the rounds verus the easier reload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 It would be in US Production, where you only get 10.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeeDee Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Guy's, We are not talking about "aftermarket" but using original .40 Para Ordn. magazines in a 9mm Para Ord. in Production (IPSC only) Normally this can only be done by modifying the magazines (bending) to get the right dimensions. And what about this (from the IPSC FAQ) 14. I have found that there are after market magazines available for my approved Production Division pistol. These magazines have the same external dimensions as the original factory magazines but they sometimes hold more rounds. Can I use these magazines in Production Division? Yes, you may use any after market magazines that have the same dimensions as the original factory units. The reference to magazines in Appendix E, Production Division, j) prohibits the use of extended "high capacity" and "extra capacity" magazines produced by the pistol manufacturer So even if you see the .40 as aftermarket it wouldn't be allowed, would it? (Edited by JeeDee at 4:15 am on Jan. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 the rules (not the FAQ) speak about "length", not "dimensions"! Therefore the FAQ refers to extended base pads or longer mags. I suggest that you e-mail Doug Lewis of IROA with your question, it is a gray area. He was very helpful in answering my questions. Btw. I have tried this out and do "not" get one more round in! --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeeDee Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Vince, What do you think? Or is it something for your commitee? btw thanks Detlef for your input. (Edited by JeeDee at 8:46 am on Jan. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Firstly I must say that if anybody who attended WSXIII was unhappy about another competitor allegedly being in breach of a division or another rule, the correct time and place is to lodge a protest was with the Range Master at WSXIII, not 3 months later at home. If the RM rejects the appeal, then the complainants have a final recourse by submitting a protest to Arbitration. I was there, every day, I sat on every Arbitration and I believe I'm aware of all other incidents where a matter was resolved prior to the lodgement of a formal protest. I don't recall any complaints concerning the subject issue. If there is any doubt about this matter, I can easily check with the RM. Anyway, back to the question. My ruling is that using Para 40cal magazines in a Para 9mm gun is illegal under IPSC Production Division. I refer you to Point 21 of Appendix E (Production Division), which states: "21. Modifications or replacement of internal or external components (including magazines) which are not offered by the original manufacturer for the approved handgun are prohibited" Para does not offer 40cal magazines for use in their (approved) 9mm guns. "Aftermarket" magazines (which means any brand except Para) which "match the external dimensions" of Para 9mm mags (i.e. they are have identical LxWxH) are acceptable. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 PS: David. IPSC Production Division will be reviewed and discussed in Orlando next month by the Handgun Rules Committee, because a number of minor issues have arisen, but I don't want bother you guys with the details. But don't worry David, because your Region is being capably represented by Kees, who has been a valuable and constructive contributor to our work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeeDee Posted January 13, 2003 Author Share Posted January 13, 2003 Vince, Thanks. I agree they should have complained at the WSXIII and not here, but the reason for my question is that they THINK it was legal. The rule is clear to me and I agree with the way you put it but the guy's now realise that what they saw or heard about is in fact not allowed and that's frustrating. And I already gave Kees some issues to think about so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 proves that I need to update the rule book by which I go: IPSC Prod Div. in the latest release off ipsc.org looks significantly different from IPSC Prod Div. in Appendix E of the 14th ed. book distributed by USPSA. "Length" was replaced by "Dimensions", and then I think Vince's call is clearly correct (at least the lip & groove "dimensions" would be different between 9 and 40), irrespective of what "aftermarket" means. --Detlef (Edited by Detlef at 5:09 pm on Jan. 13, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 The IPSC rules quoted in the USPSA "14th Edition 2001" are indeed the old IPSC rules. There were numerous changes adopted at the GA in South Africa and these took effect on 1 January 2003. For the avoidance of doubt, the current IPSC Rulebook is called: "14th Edition - September 2002" and it is available for download from the IPSC website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 David, I'm curious. Who told your guys about the 40cal/9mm magazine swap being "legal" at WSXIII? Is it an unverified rumour from another competitor, or did a Range Official actually make a ruling or remark? I'm not looking for blood but, if it was a bad call, I'd like to dispel it before it takes on a life of it's own. Contact me privately if you prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 vince, how would a RO or anyone else tell the difference between the 9mm and .40 magazine? inventory check list at registration? lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 14, 2003 Share Posted January 14, 2003 Hi Lynn, Yes, at WSXIII, every competitor had to go to a special registration stand to have their gun and all magazines checked for compliance with their declared division before starting the match. I didn't have a chance to personally monitor the activities at the stand closely, but Team Hong Kong told me they were getting kinda worried about a cavity check! Of course there's no guarantee that someone who passes an equipment check won't switch mags for the actual match or the RO failed to notice the error. Doo-doo happens. This is why I alluded to our "honour system" in another thread, but some people apparently think I'm an idiot for suggesting the concept. Anyway, unless competitors are happy about having their equipment thoroughly checked at every stage, I think the best we can do is follow the current system but possibly do more random checks. This way we'll keep one group happy and be accused of being Range Nazis by another group, and I guess this will be Standard and Production competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeeDee Posted January 14, 2003 Author Share Posted January 14, 2003 Vince, I asked one of the guy's who was at the WSXIII. No real edvidence; No RO who sanctioned it. Just the "story" that one of the Italian guy's shooting Para Ord (came in third, I think) was using .40 mags. It is like you said, possible that he slipped through so. Let's keep the rules clear and our time will come. I'am anxious to see what the new PD rules will be after Orlando. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 15, 2003 Share Posted January 15, 2003 Thanks David. As I suspected, there was no evidence, just an unsubtantiated rumour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 How can anyone tell the difference between the mags since they aren't marked? Para does make a 9mm mag for the P18-9 which happens to be the same length as the 40 mags, so what's the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 JeeDee, I suspect someone gave you wrong informations. Italian Production team, Paolo Brocanelli (2nd), Giovanni Zuccolo (4th), Stefano Iacomini (6th) and Mario Piccioni (22nd) all shot Tanfoglio guns, this one for preciseness. As far as I know, nobody here in Italy shoots Para LDA in Prod Division, because (due to the change rate) they are too expensive, at least double to triple the price of the above Tanfoglio for Prod. I suspect this was some sort of rumor coming (as usual) from less than sporting people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 Scooter, Do Para make a 40 cal version of the P18-9? If they do, are you saying the 40 cal mags are identical to the 9mm mages, feed lips and all? Judging from this chart, they have different model numbers for their other mags, so I guess all Para mages must be marked somehow. And we're talking about dimensions (LxBxH) not just the length. (Edited by Vince Pinto at 3:04 am on Jan. 16, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 None of my Para mags have any markings, hi-cap or 10 round mags. The only markings on the mag is "Made in Canada". If you have no measuring instruements or other mags to compare with, it would be hard to figure out what caliber they are for. The fullsize Para's (P14-45, P16-40, and P18-9) all use the same size mag. It's the same frame with a different top end. So by using the 40 mag with 9mm, you don't really gain an advantage over the 9mm mag. The only thing is the 9mm mag are next to non-existant in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 disagree: In the US they are called (and sold as) *38 super* magazines. They work without change with 9 Para. Para's 38/9 magazines are different from the 40s in the feed lip dimension, and (unconfirmed) in the groove depths. The latter, I think, is the whole point of contention: with the shallower groove you can supposedly fit more 9mm rds in the 40 mag than in the 9 mag. I have *not* observed that (can fit 19 rds in both, with factory plastic base pads, factory springs and factory followers). So I really have no idea where that reported "advantage" even comes from... Maybe TeamGE can help us out here, but I was told the grooves are there to prevent side-by-side jamming of rounds in the double-stack magazines. if the grooves are indeed different in depth, I would expect the 9mm rds in the 40 mags to be more prone to this condition and therefore not suitable for use in IPSC. --Detlef (Edited by Detlef at 2:14 pm on Jan. 16, 2003) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeeDee Posted January 16, 2003 Author Share Posted January 16, 2003 Skywalker, You're right. Rumours, nothing more, by shooters who probably were looking for some kind of an excuse, I'am sorry to say. I think Detlef is right about his assumption. This is more or less about the feed lip dimensions. But if Detlef is not even sure about the advantage (after trying them out) and Vince already stated that it isn't allowed I am inclined not to spent more time on this. I was just trying to find out if rules had changed or being applied differently or that there was some kind of jurisprudence. Thanks anyway guy's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted January 16, 2003 Share Posted January 16, 2003 I agree time is better spent on other things improving your score. Unfortunately, this also applies to much of the time spent here --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now