rgkeller Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 For the life of me, I do not understand the restrictions on adding grip tape to a production pistol. The cheapest way to personalize a pistol. And in no way an "arms race." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 What restrictions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 What restrictions? Those in Appendix E4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jman Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 The TruGrip pre-cut grip tape I use complies. Coverage is excellent IMO. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Okay so both my Matt Mink SP-01 pistols are now illegal I assume. They both have the firing pin block removed and have the trigger from the CZ 85 installed. Realize that this rule makes every CZ SP-01 "Custom Shop" pistol sold illegal in Production due to the taking out of the FPB. No other division (including the other stock division Single Stack) requires that the onus of rules compliance/defense be on the shooter from what I can tell. Now what happens if the shooter isn't capable of tearing his gun apart to show that it is in compliance with the rules? And how does one PROVE that a firing pin block functions without cocking the gun and throwing it against a hard object? The onus is on the shooter to defend his pistol so to prove that a FPB safety is still functioning and not somehow disabled would mean that the shooter would have to prove it if challenged by another shooter or an official from what I can read. So do any other Divisions get to have other competitors allow challenges to your equipment? I haven't been able to find it in the rule books so forgive me if that is the case now but this seems a new direction for the rules. What is to prevent a shooter from making a blanket statement at the beginning of a match challenging every other shooter's equipment and requiring every shooter to tear down their gun to prove compliance? The rules don't state that it's not allowed. Specifically it seems to be allowed. The rules make no allowance for when it's allowed so it appears to be able to be called for by any competitor if they feel another competitor might be shirking the rules as written. Yes I'm playing devil's advocate, but I'm still seeing some holes in the logic and they are more in line with compliance than with the actual rulings themselves. And why is the determination that a magazine safety is less of a safety than any other safety? If you can make that ruling then why is a gun that has an external thumb safety AND a FPB safety required to keep both of theirs? Mag safeties are still additional complications to the gun and could in fact make the gun malfunction in a match causing the competitor to not shoot as well. So why allow that modification and not the removal of the FPB when other safeties are still in tact on the gun such as the external thumb safety on the CZ SP-01? And when one has to prove the functioning of safeties in a challenge, who is that proof to be made to? The RM? What happens if that RM isn't familiar with that particular weapon either? And there seems to be a direction now requiring that your gun specifically stay in it's same factory configuration for that individual serial numbered gun also. So a run of guns that started with a FPB safety and then the manufacturer dropped them later would have to prove that the serial number of your gun is one that came without the safety. At some point does this become ridiculous to other people or is it just me? Edited March 18, 2009 by Morphire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 --- snip --- And how does one PROVE that a firing pin block functions without cocking the gun and throwing it against a hard object? --- snip --- All you have to do is cock the unloaded gun and try and push the firing pin forward w/o touching the trigger. The way I read the new rules is that your competition sights, hammer and 85 trigger are fine. You (and I ) will have to put the FPB back in. The Shadow does not have the hole so they are good to go. Your gun has the hole, you are in open. Pass on your feelings to your Area director. Later, Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Pass on your feelings to your Area director.Later, Chuck That brings up another issue. This is posted on the USPSA website with a note that it is up for member review for 30 days and yet I couldn't find an official thread on the USPSA Forum like they did before with the new rule book. This is what I'd consider a MAJOR rule clarification and I think it should warrant a thread on the USPSA Forum as an official site for member comment. Using Brian's site for that seems somewhat less than official as far as the 30 day review goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckS Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) Pass on your feelings to your Area director.Later, Chuck That brings up another issue. This is posted on the USPSA website with a note that it is up for member review for 30 days and yet I couldn't find an official thread on the USPSA Forum like they did before with the new rule book. This is what I'd consider a MAJOR rule clarification and I think it should warrant a thread on the USPSA Forum as an official site for member comment. Using Brian's site for that seems somewhat less than official as far as the 30 day review goes. Your voice to the BOD should be your area director or coordinator. That should be the path for you to make your feelings known. Later, Chuck Edited March 18, 2009 by ChuckS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted March 18, 2009 Author Share Posted March 18, 2009 Morphire, As to the blanket protest you will need a deep pocket. The protest fee is generally set at $100.00 per, that's to stop people from protesting anyone and everyones gun. Let your AD know your views. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 ---snip---The Shadow does not have the hole so they are good to go. Your gun has the hole, you are in open. Pass on your feelings to your Area director. Later, Chuck By that same logic then the M&P owner shouldn't be able to remove the mag safety on their pistol if it shipped with it originally. and that's a specifically allowed option in the new rules. If there is a place to install it [mag safety] then that gun should be in open as well shouldn't it? Why disallow the removal of one secondary safety and require the keeping of another? The SP-01 HAS a primary safety (external thumb safety) so why make the distinction unless it is to specifically rule against one gun? I'm not trying to see a conspiracy here so someone help me out with why the FPB rule isn't a rule specific to pretty much one pistol design? The M&P even hit the approved list with a version available that didn't come with the mag safety yet the SP-01 Shadow, without a FPB, was a recent addition to the approved list while the SP-01 with the FPB has been available for a while. I just don't understand the need for inconsistencies. If you are taking the time to make a set of rules that discourages loopholes then why not close them at the same time. Clarify the safety issue once and for all and make it apply to ALL safeties in every pistol design. Also clarify what the ruling is when a pistol line has a version of a gun with and without a safety. Right now the rules as stated are inconsistent. I've already passed on my feelings to my Section and Area Coordinators. Hopefully there will an official location from USPSA where members can comment like they had for the last rule book too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 (edited) ---snip---The way I read the new rules is that your competition sights, hammer and 85 trigger are fine. ---snip--- Later, Chuck Actually it may still be muddy... ==================== 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 Special Notes/Clarifications: n Parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OEM parts” if the custom-shop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns. ==================== That seems to say that the competition hammer will be disallowed as I interpret this new rule. I was under the impression that the competition hammer was an OEM part but was not standard on any of the approved CZ Production guns. I could be wrong here but I haven't been able to find an approved gun that has the competition hammer on it. Yet that specifically differs from the NROI ruling on 8/12/08 "Aftermarket parts are allowed but restricted to those listed in Appendix D4, any other part must be OEM, either offered on an approved model for Production or in their catalog." Which seems to allow an OEM catalog part (which the competition hammer is) even if is "external". This appears to be a possible rule conflict from what I can see. Do the new rulings no longer allow OEM catalog parts to be used externally if they are not standard parts on any other approved Production guns? This is eventually going to come down to a very specific list of allowed modifications for each and every pistol on the production list I think. Edited March 19, 2009 by Morphire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphire Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Morphire,As to the blanket protest you will need a deep pocket. The protest fee is generally set at $100.00 per, that's to stop people from protesting anyone and everyones gun. Let your AD know your views. Rich There might still be some confusion if you will indulge me for a sec. From the new FAQ at http://www.uspsa.org/members/stmts/Product...)%20v090308.htm "13) I once had a scope mounted on my gun, and there are holes in the frame. Is that an illegal modification? ANSWER: It depends. If there are simply a series of small screw-holes drilled and tapped into the frame, and the gun is still within 2 ounces of standard weight, the holes would not be considered a prohibited modification. However, if it appears that the holes serve a separate purpose (such as lightening), they may be challenged by a range official or competitor. We would advise you to contact NROI for an official ruling." There is no mention of protest or arbitration. We have a new word that is undefined in the rule book from what I can find. "Challenge" There appears to be more requirement for an Arbitration fee as the "challenge" can come before a ruling has been made. If the competitor disagreed with the ruling then they could arbitrate and put up their $$$ but this FAQ seems to imply that any competitor may challenge any other competitor and require an official making a ruling in each instance. It woudl seem to require the RM to either ask every competitor to prove their pistol is in compliance or make a ruling that each pistol is in compliance without having them torn down. If the Official makes a blanket statement that all the production guns are OK then it would eliminate any further challenges from either another competitor or a range official. That's my interpretation at least. I believe it to be a poorly worded FAQ but since it's supposed to be added to the NROI postings it will go in as a rule and be interpreted as such with all the wrangling involved. It should be better clarified IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eerw Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 ---snip---The way I read the new rules is that your competition sights, hammer and 85 trigger are fine. ---snip--- Later, Chuck Actually it may still be muddy... ==================== 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 Special Notes/Clarifications: n Parts from “custom shop” guns will only be considered “OEM parts” if the custom-shop gun is on the NROI list of approved Production guns. ==================== That seems to say that the competition hammer will be disallowed as I interpret this new rule. I was under the impression that the competition hammer was an OEM part but was not standard on any of the approved CZ Production guns. I could be wrong here but I haven't been able to find an approved gun that has the competition hammer on it. Yet that specifically differs from the NROI ruling on 8/12/08 "Aftermarket parts are allowed but restricted to those listed in Appendix D4, any other part must be OEM, either offered on an approved model for Production or in their catalog." Which seems to allow an OEM catalog part (which the competition hammer is) even if is "external". This appears to be a possible rule conflict from what I can see. Do the new rulings no longer allow OEM catalog parts to be used externally if they are not standard parts on any other approved Production guns? ***********UPDATE*********** Just heard from CZ that you can in fact, factory order a 75 series pistol with a competition hammer as standard so this should clear that up and make it definably allowed. This is eventually going to come down to a very specific list of allowed modifications for each and every pistol on the production list I think. actually if the factory lists the parts as OFM/OEM and they can be had on a legal production gun. they can be installed on another legal production gun. factory parts list, catalog, product sheets have been said to be credible documentation. so all the CZ parts are good to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr2e Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 actually if the factory lists the parts as OFM/OEM and they can be had on a legal production gun. they can be installed on another legal production gun. factory parts list, catalog, product sheets have been said to be credible documentation. so all the CZ parts are good to go. you 'da man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 By that same logic then the M&P owner shouldn't be able to remove the mag safety on their pistol if it shipped with it originally. and that's a specifically allowed option in the new rules. If there is a place to install it [mag safety] then that gun should be in open as well shouldn't it? Smith ships M&Ps both with and without the mag safety, and reportedly will now remove the mag safety from guns if asked to do the conversion. Since the factory offers the otherwise identical gun both ways, as well as offering the change/removal as an option, it seems silly to suggest that the factory is the only place allowed to make that modification.... In other words the M&P is a different animal than the CZ. Now if CZ offers a particular model both with and without a firing pin block, then you might have a leg to stand on, in terms of a rules clarification. You've gotten good advice here --- you need to draft a note with your concerns and send it off to your area director. Heck, for that matter copy Voight and the other directors --- who knows who might listen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 There is no mention of protest or arbitration. We have a new word that is undefined in the rule book from what I can find."Challenge" There appears to be more requirement for an Arbitration fee as the "challenge" can come before a ruling has been made. If the competitor disagreed with the ruling then they could arbitrate and put up their $$$ but this FAQ seems to imply that any competitor may challenge any other competitor and require an official making a ruling in each instance. It woudl seem to require the RM to either ask every competitor to prove their pistol is in compliance or make a ruling that each pistol is in compliance without having them torn down. If the Official makes a blanket statement that all the production guns are OK then it would eliminate any further challenges from either another competitor or a range official. That's my interpretation at least. I believe it to be a poorly worded FAQ but since it's supposed to be added to the NROI postings it will go in as a rule and be interpreted as such with all the wrangling involved. It should be better clarified IMO. I agree that's an area of concern, that really requires a procedure to be followed in the rulebook..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 And it turns out that the Board actually addressed this. From the NROI Interpretation dated 3/7/9: The burden of responsibility is on the shooter to ensure that his/her equipment is compliant with these provisions. If a modification is disputed – either by a Match Official or a competitor, under 11.1.2 and 11.7 – the competitor may be required to provide evidence of a specific clause in the rules or published NROI rulings which specifically authorizes the modification. That reference to 11.1.2 and 11.7 sets the procedure as requiring arbitration --- so at a major match the $100 fee would likely apply. (11.4.1 sets a limit of $100 or the maximum individual entry fee for the match, whichever is lower, as the arbitration fee.) If the appeal is upheld, the arbitration is refunded, if the appeal is denied both fee and decision must be forwarded to NROI..... The more I look at this product --- the interpretation --- the more I'm impressed by how comprehensively the Board addressed the situation. Did they do so perfectly? No, but I believe they came closer than ever before.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I've already passed on my feelings to my Section and Area Coordinators. Hopefully there will an official location from USPSA where members can comment like they had for the last rule book too. Well, looks like there's a comment thread on the official USPSA forum now: Click Here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I still have not heard any explanation or reason for disallowing tape on any and all parts of of a production pistol. Hopefully, the reason is not to be IPSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I still have not heard any explanation or reason for disallowing tape on any and all parts of of a production pistol.Hopefully, the reason is not to be IPSC. That's nothing new --- it dates back to at least the 2004 rulebook..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Actually a quick check shows it going back to at least the 14th Edition 2001 rulebook..... Appendix E -- US Divisions -- Production -- Item f, page 92: Slip on grip sock and or skateboard tape is allowed, no other modifications to grips are allowed. Nothing new.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 It might be in the Bible but I still have not heard any rationale for banning a cheap and effective method of personalizing a pistol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 It might be in the Bible but I still have not heard any rationale for banning a cheap and effective method of personalizing a pistol. Then you clearly don't understand the concept behind the division..... Production isn't about personalizing a gun --- was apparently never intended to be about personalizing a gun, according to some people I've spoken with who were present at the creating. So why precisely should we allow it now? What is your concern? Where do you want to put grip tape? Been moved to open for having some in an inappropriate place in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgkeller Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Explain to me, then, the concept of the division. It's OK to spend several hundred dollars milling a slide to accept non OEM sights but not OK to put ten cents worth of removable tape on that same slide. And no, I have never been in violation of any production or any other division equipment rules. Take another shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Something tells me getting snippy with a moderator is ill advised. 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