Glock RTF Frame legality

[Nik Habicht]

If I show up at a match with a NIB 22 with the RTF frame what rule excludes it from production? It has "22" on the slide and 22 is on the list.

What's the box say that it came in? By 21SF doesn't have the SF designation anywhere on the gun, only on the case --- but the SF models were specifically added to the list, so they're good to go.....

Amidon tells us that the RTF frames haven't been approved yet --- and under the new production rules, you'd have to prove that your gun is legal to play, not the other way around....

USPSA is considering that a major change --- and requiring Glock to certify that quantity numbers have been reached. That didn't happen with previous frame changes, because those predate Production division.....

I don't love that decision --- but I agreed to enforce it when i became an RO....

[SDM]

If I show up at a match with a NIB 22 with the RTF frame what rule excludes it from production? It has "22" on the slide and 22 is on the list.

What's the box say that it came in? By 21SF doesn't have the SF designation anywhere on the gun, only on the case --- but the SF models were specifically added to the list, so they're good to go.....

Amidon tells us that the RTF frames haven't been approved yet --- and under the new production rules, you'd have to prove that your gun is legal to play, not the other way around....

USPSA is considering that a major change --- and requiring Glock to certify that quantity numbers have been reached. That didn't happen with previous frame changes, because those predate Production division.....

I don't love that decision --- but I agreed to enforce it when i became an RO....

The SF models I've seen do have "SF" on the side of the frame.

I don't think they'll have any problem selling enough RTF guns to get approval, nor do I have any interest in one myself. The rules are the rules and like you enforcing them, I'll follow them as they are. I'm really thinking about the new guy who does the right thing and consults the rule book, picks a gun off the list, then shows up to find out he can't shoot.

[BigTinVA]

I'm really thinking about the new guy who does the right thing and consults the rule book, picks a gun off the list, then shows up to find out he can't shoot.

Thank you, Seth. That is exactly my point.

[Nik Habicht]

I'm really thinking about the new guy who does the right thing and consults the rule book, picks a gun off the list, then shows up to find out he can't shoot.

1. It's legal for open --- so the new guy gets to shoot.....

2. Is letting the new guy shoot an illegal gun in production the right --- or fair --- thing to do to the other competitors in the division? (Around here there's a pretty fierce battle for position among the last four or five finishers --- as fierce as the battle for division winner or high B.)

3. Does it really matter to the new guy? I've interacted with a lot of them over the years, they're typically focused more on learning and completing the match safely and shooting all the targets and on how much fun this is (sometimes managing their adrenaline rush too) to worry about being competitive.....

4. A lot --- as usual comes down to the explanation and to how that's delivered. If you're friendly, polite and matter of fact about, and are willing to answer questions, in my experience it tends to go over well....

5. Personally, I don't believe the RTF frame offers an advantage. I suspect Glock will hit the numbers and certify them pretty quickly, if they haven't already hit them.....

6. You're right -- there's an SF designation on my frame. I missed it.....

[00bullitt]

Well.....like previously stated.......the SF is stamped on the frame and there is a difference in the grip diameter. No where on the RTF does it say RTF. It is only visibly different than the others. But the Gen 1,2,and 3 are also visibly different from each other in the grip area and texture and the presence of light attachment rails. Did Glock have to satisfy production quotas for each generational change to be approved? I would think that if they did or if it mattered they would denote such on the approved Production gun list. The RTF is nothing more than a generational change and Glock is exploiting the RTF to test the waters as the 3rd Gen version is still available in all models. The grip size did not change and neither did any other part that differentiates it from previous models except a different grip texture and some different looking cocking serrations. And with the 2008 rule change brought stippling to be a legal modification. The RTF is nothing more than a factory stippled gun. Its still a 17 or a 22 on the slide and everywhere else. What if I show up and someone says is that an RTF frame and I say no.....I stippled it......that would be ok right? And the cocking serrations should not matter since slides are allowed to be replaced so long as they follow the original contour.

I'm just having a hard time understanding why its not currently legal.

[Nik Habicht]

Again, generations 1,2,and 3 predate production division......

AAMOF, the 34 and 35 were designed to fit the IPSC box for Standard at the time of their introduction, about 5-6 years prior to Production's inception....

[00bullitt]

I don't understand. What does them predated have to do with anything? They still had to be approved and they are not denoted as such on the list. If they were denoted as each generation being legal that would make more sense to me that now the RTF has to be approved.

AAMOF? My acronym fu is weak.

[Nik Habicht]

I don't understand. What does them predated have to do with anything? They still had to be approved and they are not denoted as such on the list. If they were denoted as each generation being legal that would make more sense to me that now the RTF has to be approved.

AAMOF? My acronym fu is weak.

AAMOF --- As a matter of fact.....

I'm suggesting that listing them separately never occurred to anyone --- since all three generations had been in production long enough and in sufficient quantity --- that it was necessary to differentiate between generations......

As the years have gone by and as Glock has added other models, the SF frames have been specifically added to the list. I'm not trying to argue the right vs. wrong --- just trying to think of some reasons why NROI might consider the RTF guns to be "new" models and what the implications of such a decision are.....

[BigTinVA]

1. It's legal for open --- so the new guy gets to shoot.....

It is still nitpicking. A guy wouldn't choose a gun from the approved Production Gun list to go out and shoot in Open Division. I bought my G17 RTF specifically to compete in Production. I replaced my sights, and did my trigger work and then read this post and found out that my gun was not legal. That is a huge bummer to me since the list says a model 17 is approved.

And with the 2008 rule change brought stippling to be a legal modification. The RTF is nothing more than a factory stippled gun. Its still a 17 or a 22 on the slide and everywhere else.

Agreed.

[sfinney]

Guys, what gets me is that everyone is upset or confused that the Production rules exclude a particular gun or feature based on technicalities....... this is nothing new, despite continous rules revisions over the yeasr - it has always been that way, and looks like it always will. (Such as the M&P Pro being approved, and the M&P 9L taking a few months more to meet production numbers.... aren't they basiclly the same thing?) The rules aren't designed for common sense or interpretation so much as being the yardstick to go by. Frankly, I wish there were less exceptions or interpretations required, or granted, as they have NOT always been very consistent IMHO.

The best remedy in this case is contact Glock and ask them to certify the RTF models as meeting Production volume asap. Thats realy all that can be done for now. RTF owners (I'm one) - don't panic, the way Glock spits out guns, I'm sure they will be legal in months, if not weeks, if not already.....

Edited July 9, 2009 by sfinney

[BigTinVA]

The M&P9 Pro and the M&P9 L are two different guns. They have different slides and are marked with different model numbers by the manufacturer. Not the case with the RTF guns from Glock, they have the same model numbers as the rest of the generations.

[sfinney]

The M&P9 Pro and the M&P9 L are two different guns. They have different slides and are marked with different model numbers by the manufacturer. Not the case with the RTF guns from Glock, they have the same model numbers as the rest of the generations.

Except on the model number on the box, mine says "Glock 17 (RTF2)". RTF guns have different slide serrations and grip surfaces, and no half moon"cutout" in the front strap, so they are different guns than a prevous generation Glock. (And yes the Pro and 9L are 2 different guns as well, despite that they are very similar in size, purpose and function.....)

You are missing my point. Rather than complain or nitpicking your way to having the gun made legal, have a little more patience and just get it certified. How long could it take for Glock to hit the Production numbers?

[Graham Smith]

As the years have gone by and as Glock has added other models, the SF frames have been specifically added to the list. I'm not trying to argue the right vs. wrong --- just trying to think of some reasons why NROI might consider the RTF guns to be "new" models and what the implications of such a decision are.....

Compared to most here, I'm a complete novice. But isn't the idea here that a design change in a gun that could impact on the rules (such as a change in the frame) must be looked at by some official to say whether it's a significant change or not?

[00bullitt]

Glock has already surpassed the production numbers of the RTF's. I've tried to get folks at Glock to submit the certification to NROI. They just don't seem interested to comply. I live in GA and shoot with plenty of folks who work there and ask them every time I see them to try and expedite the matter. Glock seems to believe there is no need to submit certification as well. I've been hoping to see Sevigny at a local match to enlist his help but he has not been around as of late like he used to.

And as for the Gen 1........if I recall.....it did not have the half moon cutout on the front of the grip either. The difference between S&W and Glock is that Smith denoted different model variations on the gun making it necessary for S&W to get approval. This is not the case here. Not to mention the 9L and Pro were longer barrel and slides than originals M&Ps.

Like I had said in my previous post.....if I were questioned on my gun at a match and someone asked me about my grip and I said I stippled it or Glock stippled it.......is that breaking the rules since it is allowed? If someone said something about the slide and I said I changed it.....is that breaking the rules now that slides that maintain original contours are allowed? Everything in the rules says that what is done to the new version RTF Glocks is legal.

The logic is there to support the gun being legal under the current rules and list. My argument is that I don't see why it has to be approved. But I totally understand that what NROI says is the written word and without it......the burden is on us.

[00bullitt]

As the years have gone by and as Glock has added other models, the SF frames have been specifically added to the list. I'm not trying to argue the right vs. wrong --- just trying to think of some reasons why NROI might consider the RTF guns to be "new" models and what the implications of such a decision are.....

Compared to most here, I'm a complete novice. But isn't the idea here that a design change in a gun that could impact on the rules (such as a change in the frame) must be looked at by some official to say whether it's a significant change or not?

Assuming that significant change may not already be allowed in the current set of rules? There are no dimensional changes. Just stippling and new serrations on the slide.

[Nik Habicht]

As the years have gone by and as Glock has added other models, the SF frames have been specifically added to the list. I'm not trying to argue the right vs. wrong --- just trying to think of some reasons why NROI might consider the RTF guns to be "new" models and what the implications of such a decision are.....

Compared to most here, I'm a complete novice. But isn't the idea here that a design change in a gun that could impact on the rules (such as a change in the frame) must be looked at by some official to say whether it's a significant change or not?

I'm pretty sure that's NROI's position.....

[Nik Habicht]

There are no dimensional changes. Just stippling and new serrations on the slide.

There's a direct contradiction --- clearly there are dimensional changes. Stippling, lack of a cutout, new serrations -- which alone would probably be enough to disqualify an aftermarket slide. (Yeah, the rules allow them, but everyone out there making them wants to improve on the glock design by adding forward cocking serrations, resulting in the slides having a different profile/contour/whatever from factory original and making them not legal for production....)

Do the RTF2 guns offer any advantage over a 3rd gen gun --- Not in my opinion.

Are the RTF2 guns sufficiently changed to require NROI to have a look/approve them to evaluate if they still meet division criteria -- yeah, they've changed enough. NROI has a responsibility to look after the interests of all members, not just those who bought a new gun.....

How do we resolve the situation? Petition Amidon and your AD to get the guns approved.....

[00bullitt]

There are no dimensional changes. Just stippling and new serrations on the slide.

There's a direct contradiction --- clearly there are dimensional changes. Stippling, lack of a cutout, new serrations -- which alone would probably be enough to disqualify an aftermarket slide. (Yeah, the rules allow them, but everyone out there making them wants to improve on the glock design by adding forward cocking serrations, resulting in the slides having a different profile/contour/whatever from factory original and making them not legal for production....)

Well....I guess I don't see them as dimensional changes then. I see them as allowed under current rules. Dimensional....to me.... means size. And as stated....the Gen 1 frames did not have the cutout. The serrations have not been disallowed in the past interpretations. For example.....Lone wolf and Caspian both make slides with front cocking serrations. They also have rear cocking serrations that are different from factry but Amidon only said that front cocking serrations are not allowed because that does not follow the original contour. Apparently he is not concerned with the design of the serrations as long as it has them in the appropriate places as the original and not in additional places.

Do the RTF2 guns offer any advantage over a 3rd gen gun --- Not in my opinion.

Mine neither.....but I do like having a factory gun that is textured more aggressively that allows me to use the same gun legally in Production and IDPA SSP division instead of having to compete in ESP since I stippled my Production gun. I prefer more aggressive stippling as opposed to other methods and like the idea of the factory doing it for me.

Are the RTF2 guns sufficiently changed to require NROI to have a look/approve them to evaluate if they still meet division criteria -- yeah, they've changed enough. NROI has a responsibility to look after the interests of all members, not just those who bought a new gun.....

I disagree......it has not changed any more than the changes to the first 3 generations of guns(regardless if they predate the division or not). The first 3 generations should be denoted as such on the approved list if they are allowed to help curtail this sort of confusion among most members. that would be more of a defining line in this interpretation.

How do we resolve the situation? Petition Amidon and your AD to get the guns approved.....

I have sent 3 emails to Amidon. One just the other day. Still waiting on a response. Another email to Charles Bond linking him to this post to hopefully get the ball rolling.

And I think I'll call Dave today and see what he can do. I was trying to not ask for his involvement,but I'm gonna give it a shot.

[The Antichrome]

Wow, this is a big open can of worms, isnt it?

I wrote up a big long list of comments about this subject, but then decided it may sound too argumentative.

So I shortened it vastly to a few points.

The RTF is an 'option' for the G17. If the powers that be cant see that, then they are simply missing the forest for the trees.

In buying a car, you may have the option of cloth or leather upholstery...same car.

If I buy an M&P JG model, its a different model and model number (even though the only difference is a pink grip insert and a ribbon on the slide) But it's really just an option. I doubt they've sold the required number, or filed the paperwork.

So, is it legal to shoot the M&P9 JG in prod? If it is, then there's some contradiction and ambiguity. If its not, then that's just plain dumb.

Our sport needs the support of the manufacturers MUCH more than they need the support from our tiny little sport.

I work for numerous manufacturers (non firearms) if a small organization like USPSA wanted my vendors to provide sales or production numbers...they wouldnt get it.

Glock probably isnt too worried that their rapidly selling gun isnt on the approved list so a fraction of a small little sport cant legally use it. So what, if they cant see that the gun is suitable for production, its their problem, not Glocks.

If I were Glock, I wouldnt have an employee spend any time on the clock filing the paperwork.

I wouldnt buy an RTF until it's on the blessed list...if that was going to hold back the sales figures, then you'd get Glocks attention.

Bureaucracy and a dogmatic attitude will not grow or advance our sport.

Edited July 9, 2009 by The Antichrome

[00bullitt]

Just got a reply to me last email from JA:

Once Glock issued it as a new model, even if it is using older generation numbers, it must qualify, they are only offering it on the 17 and 22.

Update, both the models above in RTF are now on the approved list, so its legal for you to use yours.

It wasn't as thorough in response to the particular questions I asked but it is now approved so it does not much matter anymore.

[Jadeslade]

Just got a reply to me last email from JA:

Once Glock issued it as a new model, even if it is using older generation numbers, it must qualify, they are only offering it on the 17 and 22.

Update, both the models above in RTF are now on the approved list, so its legal for you to use yours.

It wasn't as thorough in response to the particular questions I asked but it is now approved so it does not much matter anymore.

Yippee!

[sfinney]

Much to do about nothing.

Told ya it would get approved.

[Duane Thomas]

This happens every time a new version of an old gun gets introduced. In the (brief) time before it gets approved, we always have the thread saying, "Why hasn't this been approved? It's so unfair this hasn't been approved. Oh, this sucks. John Amidon should be replaced. Oh, the sky is falling."

Then it gets approved.

Shrug.

[Nik Habicht]

Above spun off from a "what do you think about the RTF frame" thread in the Glock subforum......

To recap: Glock 17 and 22 RTF frame models are legal for production.....

[Jadeslade]

Excellent decision.