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

"barber Pole" - Production Legal?

Recommended Posts

Hello all-

In Production Division is it legal to paint a "barber pole," or some other bright color, or to put an orange sticker, on the inside of the magazine well for a visual reference while reloading?

I know it is legal in other divisions. However, is this an "external" modification, an "internal" modification [inside of mag well], or the addition of grip tape?

I put a little bright green sticky on the inside of the mag well of my carry gun and like it. It gives me something to look for/at on each reload, and helps me to ensure that I actually look where the mag is going as opposed to doing it by feel. I'd like to do the same on my production guns, if I can stay out of open.

Thanks,

-br

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously not the final arbitrater of such things, but I can't see that as an external modification. I'd allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been doing it for years with no issue. Of course, the way things are going in production, I may beat someone who feels that it was the reason why, and it will be banned....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

custom finishes are legal right? :) no color restrictions I can think of. Or any reason for one.. if it gets restricteed i may tattoo something on the bottom of my hand in defiance :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I sure think it's legal. But, I might be the one guilty of making the "Barber Pole" well known?

Not sure where I got the idea...I'm sure it wasn't my original idea to put a visual cue there. I know I did do the barber pole thing after I didn't like the looks of a single color...and recalled those yellow and black [contrasting] marker poles at gas stations and factories and such. Turned out as red and white (barber pole) because I started with red finger nail polish that was handy (thanks Jenny), then thought white would contrast with that well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--- it's where I got the idea from about 4 years ago (first Ohio mudbowl)....not Jenny, but Flex....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I read/saw it here first in one of Flex's old posts. I had some sticky labels and cut a round one into pie-piece shapes and stuck a piece in each of my glock mag wells. I really like it, but did not want to find out after the fact that I had "cheated."

Thanks for the responses. I think I will email Troy to get his perspective.

-br

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw one A-class shooter insert his index finger into the mag well with the magazine while attempting to slam the magazine into the gun. Result: another non-bullet-related shooting injury!

So, in the interest of safety, I think painting the gun to better see where to insert the magazine should be allowed.

BTW, the shooter's main concerns were the time wasted and making sure all blood was wiped off the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is legal for everyone but you Brian. :P

Edited by SA Friday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t appears that this is no longer the case.  Ran a shooter at A8 on Saturday (carry optics) who had a streak of white-out in the magwell area.  Stated it was to aid in reloading.  Asked him if it was legal and he stated he did not know, and neither dd I for sure.  So since Troy was also at the match, i tracked him down and asked him about that for CO and Production.  He stated that they don't care about that anymore.

 

LOL, told Flexmoney I was putting his barber pole back in my guns....

 

Don't take that as an official ruling, but from his lips to God's ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression from a discussion here many years ago that it was not allowed due to it being considered a competitive advantage, rather than a cosmetic finish.  Considering the language is still in the newly reformatted App D4, I don't know why it would be allowed now...

 

21.2a

Slide and Frame Refinishing

Cosmetically enhancing the finish of a slide and/or frame is ALLOWED in Production Division, provided that the finish provides no competitive advantage, and subject to the existing constraints on refinishing (cosmetic only, no competitive advantage.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2006 at 5:24 PM, richardschennberg said:

I saw one A-class shooter insert his index finger into the mag well with the magazine while attempting to slam the magazine into the gun

 

I've done that once or twice with my open gun and 170mm mags. Let's just say with the extra 30mm of leverage, it hurts even more :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCTaylor said:

@JAFO because Troy said so! He's the Czar of rules. 

 

Well, the Official Rulings would seem to indicate that you can't do it...

 

Cosmetic finishes revisited

×

Created:
Mar 24, 2011
Effective:
Apr 23, 2014
Rule:
Appendix D4 Item
Applies to:
Pistol
Ruling Authority:
DNROI
Status:
Released

Question:
Can I paint a dot or arrow inside the magwell of my production handgun for a reference point and paint an arrow or stripes on my slide to help with alignment?

Ruling:
No, a competitor may not paint dots, stripes or anything to help them reload or align sights quicker, cosmetic finishes only as per 21.2a "this clause is now interpreted to specifically allow refinishing the frame as well as the slide, subject to the existing constraints on refinishing (cosmetic only, no competitive advantage). Item 22 also goes on to say that the absence of an item in the list of prohibited modifications may not be construed to mean a modification is allowed. A modification is only allowed in Production Division if there is a rules clause or interpretation which specifically declares that it is allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are injecting logic, into a conversation where it does not belong. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JAFO said:

I was under the impression from a discussion here many years ago that it was not allowed due to it being considered a competitive advantage, rather than a cosmetic finish.  Considering the language is still in the newly reformatted App D4, I don't know why it would be allowed now...

 

21.2a

Slide and Frame Refinishing

Cosmetically enhancing the finish of a slide and/or frame is ALLOWED in Production Division, provided that the finish provides no competitive advantage, and subject to the existing constraints on refinishing (cosmetic only, no competitive advantage.)

 

I was as well, but since drilling holes in a carry optic slide is now okay as it is cosmetic and doesn't change the weight of the slide (you've got to be fng kidding me), who the hell knows anymore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is this for Carry Optics, so while CO must play by most of the production rules, they did not address this in that division.  So apparently competitive advantage is not addressed at all.

 

21.2a  Slide & Frame refinishing

 

Cosmetically enhancing the finish of a slide or frame is ALLOWED in Carry Optics Division.

Stippling on the frame to provide texture or additional grip surface is specifically allowed.

 

 

Asking my AD for more clarification.

 

 

And we have it:   Actually that is only for the finish.... the mag well can be marked internally now  And it is for both divisions..

Edited by vluc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, vluc said:

Asking my AD for more clarification.

 

 

And we have it:   Actually that is only for the finish.... the mag well can be marked internally now  And it is for both divisions..

 

I'd then politely suggest that they remove the "Cosmetic finishes revisited" ruling from the website, since it EXPLICITLY forbids it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Kyle said, until they reference a ruling or a rule....

 

I know Troy did not seem bothered about it at a Level 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the aftermarket hammer thing all over again - allowing something before the rules have been amended to allow it. 

 

Both the latest revision of App D4 and the published ruling above do not allow changes to the frame finish that give competitive advantage.  If they were planning on allowing it along with all the other changes to Production, they forgot.  But until they remove the ruling and amend the appendix - again (and how about allowing replacement of OEM decocking levers from other approved guns, while you're at it), you can't just ignore the ruleset that everyone is using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JAFO said:

This is the aftermarket hammer thing all over again - allowing something before the rules have been amended to allow it. 

 

Both the latest revision of App D4 and the published ruling above do not allow changes to the frame finish that give competitive advantage.  If they were planning on allowing it along with all the other changes to Production, they forgot.  But until they remove the ruling and amend the appendix - again (and how about allowing replacement of OEM decocking levers from other approved guns, while you're at it), you can't just ignore the ruleset that everyone is using.

Yep, this is absurd. Literally less than one half of one percent of USPSA membership is aware of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad part is that this kid made it through about 10 stages before he got to me. Some stages manned by decent cro's and RM wanna be's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vluc said:

Sad part is that this kid made it through about 10 stages before he got to me. Some stages manned by decent cro's and RM wanna be's.

Yeah, but in forum years, you're older than dirt, Vince.  ?  How many of us are left that even remember this thread, from it's origination?  I still remember seeing a picture of the barber pole  - I think the frame was lying in Kyle's window, along with a Pact Mk. IV timer.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JAFO said:

This is the aftermarket hammer thing all over again - allowing something before the rules have been amended to allow it. 

 

Both the latest revision of App D4 and the published ruling above do not allow changes to the frame finish that give competitive advantage.  If they were planning on allowing it along with all the other changes to Production, they forgot.  But until they remove the ruling and amend the appendix - again (and how about allowing replacement of OEM decocking levers from other approved guns, while you're at it), you can't just ignore the ruleset that everyone is using.

 

Yep.

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...