Production review

[HoMiE]

So using CZ75 mags in an SP01 is a no-go since the CZ75 mags are shorter, and thus, not "dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun"?

Good thing I procrastinated on that Brownell's order.

3/09 INTERPRETATION - EXTERNAL parts: components which are externally visible may ONLY be replaced with OEM parts which are offered on the specific model of gun, another approved gun from the same manufacturer except as specifically clarified below...

Since the CZ 75 is another approved gun, I think it should be OK to use the CZ 75 mags in an SP01.

Homie,

specifically addressed in the FAQ --- which is part of the official ruling:

18) What provisions of this interpretation apply to magazines? May I modify my magazines?

ANSWER: In general, NO. All existing rules and rulings remain in effect for magazines. While there are no specified limits on magazine length, an existing ruling requires that the gun must fit in the box with a magazine inserted, and that all magazines (whether OEM or aftermarket) must be “dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun”. Adding aftermarket base pads, adding or removing material from base pads or adding grip-tape would all be considered external modifications and are not allowed. Springs and followers, for purposes of this ruling, would be considered “internal parts” and may be modified or replaced without restrictions.

So no --- you can't use magazines from another approved model. No using Glock 17 mags in a Glock 19 or 26....

FAQ #18 says may I modify my magazine? Not modifying the magazine, just using another mag from an already approved model which is dimensionally the same which exception to the OFM basepad. We are not talking aftermarket specialty basepads like dawson or arredondo, but OFM basepad. I think this would also affect M&P shooters who are switching the compact basepads on fullsize frame mags, it is still OFM pads, so what's the big deal.

[Nik Habicht]

I think we may be going in circles here but that is part of my point. The CZ's were approved for Production with these different features so safety cannot be the reason to no allow the removal of a FPB. Too many guns cannot/do not have a FPB. I can buy one tomorrow that does not have a FPB option and be ok for Production. The only difference to my current pistol is the Shadow stamp on the slide.

Yup, the CZs were approved for use in production, some with a FPB, some without. The point you're missing though is that CZ decided whether or not a FPB was required for safe operation of a particular model, not USPSA. USPSA's position is that firearm's safety (in terms of design) is the manufacturer's responsibility. I'm not a firearms engineer --- I believe that you believe that the only difference between your current pistol and the Shadow is the stamp on the slide; I'm not willing to assume that that's really correct though, unless CZ is willing to state it. (Even if they were --- that would quickly become unmanageable....)

To go from getting ready for the season to, uh oh now I am no longer legal, is frustrating to be sure.

I get that 100% and I'm truly sorry.

[Nik Habicht]

Good morning all,

I have a couple more mag questions/observations. In addition to a wonderful FPB, my SP-01 was delivered with 10 round mags. In the first picture below you will see 2 groups of 3 mags. The groups from left to right show a mag that was shipped with a plain old CZ-75B, one that was shipped with the SP-01, and a Mec-Gar 10 rounder. The second picture shows the CZ mag and the Meg-Gar mag back to back.

I can see no difference in the CZ mags. Right now I think I could use either CZ mag in the "New" production division. The Mec-Gar may be a different story due to the filled in base pad. They are pretty much the same height. Opinions?

Later,

Chuck

(Damn, it is hard to get good pics of black stuff!)

Yup, it's hard to get shots of Black objects --- the only other thing equally hard is white objects.....

Seriously --- that sounds like something that needs to be addressed by the Board. I'm thinking that the box could simply be the litmus test --- if it fits it should be good to go. After all we do have a capacity restriction....

[Nik Habicht]

8.3.7.1 would just have to change "pull the trigger" to "disengage the trigger sears" (a much more accurate description of what is required anyway) or some similar wording. We are doing it now with mag safety enabled guns already and the RO's still manage it so it can't be that difficult.

I'm sorry for the drift --- but what exactly are you folks doing for mag safety enabled guns?

[Nik Habicht]

OK, let me paraphrase Nik.

Bottom line here is the BOD is not willing to put in writing that you can disable a safety. They don't (reasonably so) want to assume that risk.

This only applies to production because it is the only division that is so stringent with modifications that they need to list the approved ones.

The rule book does not address individual safeties in any other way, so the "assumed" safety issue with pinned grip safeties/deactivated series 80 type safeties rest with the competitor and/or the RO and RM if aware of the issue.

If the BOD is not willing to put in writing then you can disable a safety then what is this?

"n For purposes of this clause, a magazine-disconnect is not considered a safety mechanism, and may be removed."

From what I can read every Division except Open has expressly authorized and prohibited features/modifications listed in appendix D.

8.1.2.4 specifically mentions a safety and only mentions the "primary visible safety lever" be engaged to Make Ready so I do believe it's mentioned.

8.1.2.4 refers back to other rules that deal with the proper ready condition of a firearm with the hammer cocked. For those purposes, primary safety is defined --- in other words it would not be o.k. to holster or place on a table a 1911, with the safety lever in the fire position, because there exists a functional second safety --- the grip safety.....

Noting in 8.1.2.4 suggests that deactivating a grip safety is either legal or authorized.....

[Nik Habicht]

FAQ #18 says may I modify my magazine? Not modifying the magazine, just using another mag from an already approved model which is dimensionally the same which exception to the OFM basepad. We are not talking aftermarket specialty basepads like dawson or arredondo, but OFM basepad. I think this would also affect M&P shooters who are switching the compact basepads on fullsize frame mags, it is still OFM pads, so what's the big deal.

Here's the relevant sentence from FAQ 18, emphasis mine:

While there are no specified limits on magazine length, an existing ruling requires that the gun must fit in the box with a magazine inserted, and that all magazines (whether OEM or aftermarket) must be “dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun”

That would seem to state pretty clearly that you may not use a Glock 17 mag in a Glock 19 for instance --- because it's not "dimensionally the same" as the original mag for the G19. That is, I believe, the way that NROI has been teaching this point from the Production Equipment Rules for the last several years....

[HoMiE]

FAQ #18 says may I modify my magazine? Not modifying the magazine, just using another mag from an already approved model which is dimensionally the same which exception to the OFM basepad. We are not talking aftermarket specialty basepads like dawson or arredondo, but OFM basepad. I think this would also affect M&P shooters who are switching the compact basepads on fullsize frame mags, it is still OFM pads, so what's the big deal.

Here's the relevant sentence from FAQ 18, emphasis mine:

While there are no specified limits on magazine length, an existing ruling requires that the gun must fit in the box with a magazine inserted, and that all magazines (whether OEM or aftermarket) must be “dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun”

That would seem to state pretty clearly that you may not use a Glock 17 mag in a Glock 19 for instance --- because it's not "dimensionally the same" as the original mag for the G19. That is, I believe, the way that NROI has been teaching this point from the Production Equipment Rules for the last several years....

I get that a G17 mag is not the same as a G19 mag. But to say that the factory CZ mag is not the same dimensionally as the mecgar mag? 10-round limit, where's the competitive advantage? The only advantage is I get to buy more practice ammo becasue the mecgar's are half the price of factory mags.

[Nik Habicht]

FAQ #18 says may I modify my magazine? Not modifying the magazine, just using another mag from an already approved model which is dimensionally the same which exception to the OFM basepad. We are not talking aftermarket specialty basepads like dawson or arredondo, but OFM basepad. I think this would also affect M&P shooters who are switching the compact basepads on fullsize frame mags, it is still OFM pads, so what's the big deal.

Here's the relevant sentence from FAQ 18, emphasis mine:

While there are no specified limits on magazine length, an existing ruling requires that the gun must fit in the box with a magazine inserted, and that all magazines (whether OEM or aftermarket) must be “dimensionally the same as the original magazine for that model of gun”

That would seem to state pretty clearly that you may not use a Glock 17 mag in a Glock 19 for instance --- because it's not "dimensionally the same" as the original mag for the G19. That is, I believe, the way that NROI has been teaching this point from the Production Equipment Rules for the last several years....

I get that a G17 mag is not the same as a G19 mag. But to say that the factory CZ mag is not the same dimensionally as the mecgar mag? 10-round limit, where's the competitive advantage? The only advantage is I get to buy more practice ammo becasue the mecgar's are half the price of factory mags.

I'm on the same page --- I don't think mag length matters at all, as long as there's a round cap. Want to shoot a G-26 with a G-18 mag? Knock yourself out.....

I just wanted to clarify the rule/reiterate that to the best of my knowledge, this is how NROI has been teaching it....

[eerw]

on mags..you would think that the box, the weight limit and the 10rnd max would take care of any magazine issue..if meets those three..it should be good.

[Morphire]

8.3.7.1 would just have to change "pull the trigger" to "disengage the trigger sears" (a much more accurate description of what is required anyway) or some similar wording. We are doing it now with mag safety enabled guns already and the RO's still manage it so it can't be that difficult.

I'm sorry for the drift --- but what exactly are you folks doing for mag safety enabled guns?

They show us an empty chamber and then show us an empty mag and insert it. They then close the slide and hammer down. Eject the mag and the holster. Is that what you're asking?

[Morphire]

The rule book does not address individual safeties in any other way, so the "assumed" safety issue with pinned grip safeties/deactivated series 80 type safeties rest with the competitor and/or the RO and RM if aware of the issue.

8.1.2.4 specifically mentions a safety and only mentions the "primary visible safety lever" be engaged to Make Ready so I do believe it's mentioned.

8.1.2.4 refers back to other rules that deal with the proper ready condition of a firearm with the hammer cocked. For those purposes, primary safety is defined --- in other words it would not be o.k. to holster or place on a table a 1911, with the safety lever in the fire position, because there exists a functional second safety --- the grip safety.....

Noting in 8.1.2.4 suggests that deactivating a grip safety is either legal or authorized.....

All I was showing was that the rule book does mention safeties and even goes so far as to separate a primary safety from the rest.

[Morphire]

Well with all the discussion of safeties I thought it would be interesting to see what NROI/USPSA used as a definition for determining what is a "safety". I have heard many arguments that a mag safety isn't a "real" safety. It would seem this definition is different from how some manufacturer's define a safety even. So instead of me trying to say that this is a safety or that isn't, can the NROI/BOG come up with a definition of what a safety is and then we just apply that safety definition to anything on the gun and then use that to determine what is and isn't a safety?

How 'bout it. Can you come up with a safety definition that covers all the safeties you want to keep and doesn't eliminate the ones you say we can get rid of?

The most basic safety definition I can come up with is that when engaged, it keeps a loaded gun from going bang when you pull the trigger (active) or drop the gun (passive). Am I missing anything?

[Nik Habicht]

8.3.7.1 would just have to change "pull the trigger" to "disengage the trigger sears" (a much more accurate description of what is required anyway) or some similar wording. We are doing it now with mag safety enabled guns already and the RO's still manage it so it can't be that difficult.

I'm sorry for the drift --- but what exactly are you folks doing for mag safety enabled guns?

They show us an empty chamber and then show us an empty mag and insert it. They then close the slide and hammer down. Eject the mag and the holster. Is that what you're asking?

Yeah --- I wasn't sure what you meant by manage......

[Gary Stevens]

Well with all the discussion of safeties I thought it would be interesting to see what NROI/USPSA used as a definition for determining what is a "safety". I have heard many arguments that a mag safety isn't a "real" safety. It would seem this definition is different from how some manufacturer's define a safety even. So instead of me trying to say that this is a safety or that isn't, can the NROI/BOG come up with a definition of what a safety is and then we just apply that safety definition to anything on the gun and then use that to determine what is and isn't a safety?

How 'bout it. Can you come up with a safety definition that covers all the safeties you want to keep and doesn't eliminate the ones you say we can get rid of?

The most basic safety definition I can come up with is that when engaged, it keeps a loaded gun from going bang when you pull the trigger (active) or drop the gun (passive). Am I missing anything?

BOG???

Board of Guys???

Bunch of Guys???

Board Old Guys??? I think I like this one.

[Flexmoney]

The magazine disconnect safety...it is obvious and clear that it is spelled out that removing such is legal. And good riddance. There is no reason to continue on with that one unless you just want to argue a bit.

The Mec-gar mags for the CZ...I can't tell those apart from factory by just looking. Seem fine...unless they stick out further and would allow more material to grab when ripping them out when those CZ's jam up?

G17 mags in a G19...that is ease to tell. Clearly different.

Didn't CZ make a 19 round mag of some sort? Does that stick out ?

[eerw]

Didn't CZ make a 19 round mag of some sort? Does that stick out ?

yeah... it does..

I think what people want to know if they can use the cheaper MecGar mag ( 16nd, that doesn't stick out ) in the SP01.. The SP01 ships with 19rnd mags or 10rnd flush fit mags

[SA Friday]

Didn't CZ make a 19 round mag of some sort? Does that stick out ?

yeah... it does..

I think what people want to know if they can use the cheaper MecGar mag ( 16nd, that doesn't stick out ) in the SP01.. The SP01 ships with 19rnd mags or 10rnd flush fit mags

Been shooting USPSA for three years now, above average gun nut, but not a CZ guy. Hell, I wouldn't even know the difference looking at the three different mags much less which one comes with which. I sure do hope the NROI makes this CZ mag thing a non-issue.

[eerw]

Didn't CZ make a 19 round mag of some sort? Does that stick out ?

yeah... it does..

I think what people want to know if they can use the cheaper MecGar mag ( 16nd, that doesn't stick out ) in the SP01.. The SP01 ships with 19rnd mags or 10rnd flush fit mags

Been shooting USPSA for three years now, above average gun nut, but not a CZ guy. Hell, I wouldn't even know the difference looking at the three different mags much less which one comes with which. I sure do hope the NROI makes this CZ mag thing a non-issue.

I can see where it would make difference in IPSC production with mag capacity..

but with USPSA..we got fit the box, weight of gun and empty mag and 10rnd capacity.. I really hope that takes care of any mag issue

[Gary Stevens]

I have suggested that we let the box be the determining factor in the magazine issue. We will have to see where that one lands, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I am afraid we are asking our RO types to make decisions that will have to be made with micrometers, etc. There is no way any RO can be knowledgeable about every potential magazine that might show up in any particular Production Division gun, IMO.

Manufacturers are notorious for changing horses in mid-stream based on a better or perhaps cheaper product. This leads to a variety of the same item being in circulation and can cause a huge problem with an organization such as ours.

[Flexmoney]

I can't think of a problem with the box. They'd have to be OK with a G19 using G17 mags. No biggie. It will just give something to grab ahold of when the skin on the palm gets pinched in there during a reload.

[SA Friday]

I can't think of a problem with the box. They'd have to be OK with a G19 using G17 mags. No biggie. It will just give something to grab ahold of when the skin on the palm gets pinched in there during a reload.

True..... True.

[ciscoip]

Well with all the discussion of safeties I thought it would be interesting to see what NROI/USPSA used as a definition for determining what is a "safety". I have heard many arguments that a mag safety isn't a "real" safety. It would seem this definition is different from how some manufacturer's define a safety even. So instead of me trying to say that this is a safety or that isn't, can the NROI/BOG come up with a definition of what a safety is and then we just apply that safety definition to anything on the gun and then use that to determine what is and isn't a safety?

How 'bout it. Can you come up with a safety definition that covers all the safeties you want to keep and doesn't eliminate the ones you say we can get rid of?

The most basic safety definition I can come up with is that when engaged, it keeps a loaded gun from going bang when you pull the trigger (active) or drop the gun (passive). Am I missing anything?

Since the issue of USPSA's possible liability in a civil suit has been raised, I think it's probably less relevant what USPSA/NROI think is a safety, and more relevant what a jury of laypersons listening to hired expert witnesses might believe is a safety.

[Morphire]

The magazine disconnect safety...it is obvious and clear that it is spelled out that removing such is legal. And good riddance. There is no reason to continue on with that one unless you just want to argue a bit.

I'm not arguing that they made an exception. That much is blatantly clear. I'm trying to find out why. Why allow one safety to be removed and require all others to remain? What definition of "safety" did the mag safety fail? If the board arbitrarily selects certain pieces of equipment as being removable when it appears they do not allow any other sort of similar device to be removed then what is the thinking behind it? So far no one on the board has been able to tell me that. And it seems pretty critical to making a good rule that can last beyond today's guns and configurations to me.

What happens if S&W decides that all of their pistols will now only come with versions with mag safeties? The rules should be able to stand up to tomorrow's new gun or new configuration or new innovation. My point is if you make the rules and exceptions so specific on a part by part level then you will constantly be chasing the rules trying to cover every circumstance. Define what constitutes a "safety" in the eyes of USPSA and then apply that definition to see if the part in question is covered by the "In addition, USPSA has taken the position that ALL factory safety mechanisms must remain operable and functional on USPSA Production Division guns." interpretation.

You also wind up evenly applying the rules without exception in doing so and further the stated goal of eliminating exceptions and loopholes in the rules.

[Morphire]

I have suggested that we let the box be the determining factor in the magazine issue. We will have to see where that one lands, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I am afraid we are asking our RO types to make decisions that will have to be made with micrometers, etc. There is no way any RO can be knowledgeable about every potential magazine that might show up in any particular Production Division gun, IMO.

Manufacturers are notorious for changing horses in mid-stream based on a better or perhaps cheaper product. This leads to a variety of the same item being in circulation and can cause a huge problem with an organization such as ours.

I thought the new rules said the Shooter had to prove his innocence. So isn't the Shooter the one with the micrometer and documentation trying to prove it to the RO? Production division uses a different set of rules than the other Divisions. Imagine if someone questions an aftermarket barrel. The shooter has to produce proof of the original barrel length and contour and then pull out his barrel and mic it to show it's within .1" or go into Open.

[Morphire]

Well with all the discussion of safeties I thought it would be interesting to see what NROI/USPSA used as a definition for determining what is a "safety". I have heard many arguments that a mag safety isn't a "real" safety. It would seem this definition is different from how some manufacturer's define a safety even. So instead of me trying to say that this is a safety or that isn't, can the NROI/BOG come up with a definition of what a safety is and then we just apply that safety definition to anything on the gun and then use that to determine what is and isn't a safety?

How 'bout it. Can you come up with a safety definition that covers all the safeties you want to keep and doesn't eliminate the ones you say we can get rid of?

The most basic safety definition I can come up with is that when engaged, it keeps a loaded gun from going bang when you pull the trigger (active) or drop the gun (passive). Am I missing anything?

Since the issue of USPSA's possible liability in a civil suit has been raised, I think it's probably less relevant what USPSA/NROI think is a safety, and more relevant what a jury of laypersons listening to hired expert witnesses might believe is a safety.

Point taken. I'm betting any lawyer worth his degree is going to have little effort when the manufacturer calls the device a "Mag Safety".