Matt G Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) I am shooting a G34 in production, I also have a Glock 22P which is the red practice gun. Can I swap the frames and be legal in production? G22p frame on a G34 slide All of the Glock 17, 22, 34, 35, 24 use a common frame so if I swap the internals to OEM would it be legal. I think it would be as the rules state as originally produced by the manufacturer. What do you guys think, John your opinion would help a lot too. Edited January 8, 2010 by Matt G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Anderson Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 John doesn't post here. You would need to email him directly. dnroi@uspsa.org. My opinion would be no. The frame of the gun has never been offered as a Production legal gun. (It's never been offered as a gun for that matter) I think you're out of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 As far as I'm aware the answer is no since it's not a factory gun. No 22p was ever made to shoot 9mm same as putting a 9mm barrel in a 40 cal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Matt, I concur --- the 22P does not exist on the production list. Since it's red, odds are it'll be caught..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt G Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 OK I see your points on this. But what determines the gun model the frame or the slide? If all of them have the same frame then the only differences are the slides, and the slides would determine the model # otherwise they would all be the same model correct? I can take a model 17 frame and put a model 22 slide on it and it becomes a model 22 that's legal in production. I think it would be legal as long as there is nothing on the pistol that wasn't there on the model 34 which it would become once you put that slide on it. Besides colored glocks are not specifically on the production list, there is no difference between a OD green model 22 and a black model 22. I want to hear everyone's thoughts so thanks for the help so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sslav Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 If you want a red frame, just duracoat your g-34 frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt G Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) Got an email from John, it is illegal as the 22p is not on the approved list. Honestly don't see anything wrong with doing it, its the same as duracoating it. But oh well rules are rules. Edited January 8, 2010 by Matt G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin c Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Got an email from John, it is illegal as the 22p is not on the approved list.Honestly don't see anything wrong with doing it, its the same as duracoating it. But oh well rules are rules. I asked the same about using the (identical) frame from a G34 with a G35 slide group, and the same swap with the 35 frame and 34 slide group (with the additional change of the ejector to the appropriate caliber). Such Frankenstein guns are identical to the factory configurations for the same caliber top end, with the only difference being the serial # plate. Same reply from NROI. It's using the frame from a model of a different caliber than the one that goes with the top end, and the rules do not permit it. It does not matter that the frame is identical from one model to the next (with the swap out of the appropriate internals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt G Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 Seeing as there is no competitive advantage gained at all, I just don't see why it shouldn't be legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 Seeing as there is no competitive advantage gained at all, I just don't see why it shouldn't be legal. Simple: To simplify matters for the people who need to check legality at matches, i.e. the ROs working chrono. Yep, you're right, on a three-pin Glock frame it matters not; however not all Glocks have three-pin frames, and not all guns are Glocks. Pretty quickly we'd get to a point where there'd need to be an encyclopedia at chrono..... And to top it off --- it's probably not legal for anything but Open. (No 500 22Ps produced as working guns....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt G Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 I would think it would be easy for the RO's a glock is a glock, doesn't matter if it's a 2 pin or 3 pin gun. if its a glock frame with a factory slide then its a glock. It shouldn't matter what number is on the slide. The interchangeability would be more of a benefit to the sport. One frame you could shoot limited, production, and open, just change the top ends. It possibly could be legal for limited. "Any complete handgun or components with a minimum production of 500 units by a factory and available to the general public." I'm sure they have made over 500, and wholesalers are now releasing them to the public, PD turn in's, nothing there states it has to be a working firearm. It would of course be subject to NROI but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 It would of course be subject to NROI but who knows. Didn't you post above that it was submitted to DNROI and he said, "No"? I guess we do know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bierman Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 A good rule of thumb for Production Division might be "If you have to ask "is this legal?" it probably isn't." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyZip Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 A good rule of thumb for Production Division might be "If you have to ask "is this legal?" it probably isn't." This is sound advice. Seems to always come to this anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I can take a model 17 frame and put a model 22 slide on it and it becomes a model 22 that's legal in production. No it doesn't become a Model 22, and no, it's not legal in Production. Glock never produced a 17 in .40S&W, so it's not allowed in Production. Do people do this and get away with it? Probably....but it's against the rules. R, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 It seems like this question comes up a lot, but for me, it's pretty simple. If you have done much beyond removing your gun from the box, putting ammo in the magazine, and putting it in your holster, and expect to shoot production, you're probably violating the rules. Seems pretty simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sslav Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Got an email from John, it is illegal as the 22p is not on the approved list.Honestly don't see anything wrong with doing it, its the same as duracoating it. But oh well rules are rules. I asked the same about using the (identical) frame from a G34 with a G35 slide group, and the same swap with the 35 frame and 34 slide group (with the additional change of the ejector to the appropriate caliber). Such Frankenstein guns are identical to the factory configurations for the same caliber top end, with the only difference being the serial # plate. Same reply from NROI. It's using the frame from a model of a different caliber than the one that goes with the top end, and the rules do not permit it. It does not matter that the frame is identical from one model to the next (with the swap out of the appropriate internals). Frankly it is an unenforceable ruling and thus it is plain stupid. Not only is there not a competitive or any other kind of advantage, there is also no way they are going to be checking serial numbers at the chrono. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-ManBart Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) Frankly it is an unenforceable ruling and thus it is plain stupid. Not only is there not a competitive or any other kind of advantage, there is also no way they are going to be checking serial numbers at the chrono. Just because it would be hard (not impossible) to enforce doesn't mean it's okay to ignore..... It may seem stupid, but as was posted above, not all guns are Glocks, and sooner or later, somebody would come up with a combination that everybody would swear was more efficient when swapping frames/slides etc. For now, if some folks want to ignore this (I said "cheat" earlier, but that's a bit harsh), because it really "makes no difference"....well, that's up to them and their conscience. R, Edited January 10, 2010 by G-ManBart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanky Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 I can take a model 17 frame and put a model 22 slide on it and it becomes a model 22 that's legal in production. No it doesn't become a Model 22, and no, it's not legal in Production. Glock never produced a 17 in .40S&W, so it's not allowed in Production. Do people do this and get away with it? Probably....but it's against the rules. R, Exactly. The rules are specific in this regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt G Posted January 11, 2010 Author Share Posted January 11, 2010 I guess my main point was that the frames are all the same no matter the model number, just the sizes are different, i.e large frame, small frame, compact etc. So that when we look at glocks what differentiates the models is the slides length and caliber, not the frame. I agree with everyone that has posted as to why it wouldn't be legal, and have no plans to try to worm around the production rules with it. After all it would make a great dryfire gun, no chance of live ammo being fired or an AD. Thanks for everyone's help with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 (edited) Personally, I think it's a stupid ruling for an all but unenforceble rule. Picture this hypothetical scenario: Dick shoots a G35 and shoots Limited. One day, he comes across a G34 top end and decides to buy it to practice with. Dick falls on hard times and decides to sell his Glock stuff. He sells his Glock with the G34 top end on it to Jane and sells the G35 top end to another buyer. Jane is unaware that the Gun was originally a G34 and decides to use it in Production. She gets really good and starts winning some major matches. One day, while watching Jane compete at the Nationals, Dick comments to a group of shooters on how well Jane is doing with his old G35 with a G34 top end on it. Someone brings it to the MD's attention. Does Jane deserve to be moved to Open? (thus effectively removing her from competition at the Nationals) Sounds like a lot folks on here would say yes. Amended to reflect the correct likely ruling. Edited February 2, 2010 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Personally, I think it's a stupid ruling for an all but unenforceble rule. My assumption is that the intent of the rule is to keep people from taking pieces from different legal production guns and making a FrankenGun that is not legal. Problem is, that it does not take into consideration guns like Glocks who have interchangeable frames and slides. Often, we see cases that abide by the letter of the law but skirt the spirit. In this case, we have something that abides by the spirit of the law but violates the letter. Rules is rules, but things have changed enough in this regard that this one needs to be updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LPatterson Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Personally, I think it's a stupid ruling for an all but unenforceble rule. Picture this hypothetical scenario: Dick shoots a G35 and shoots Limited. One day, he comes across a G34 top end and decides to buy it to practice with. Dick falls on hard times and decides to sell his Glock stuff. He sells his Glock with the G34 top end on it to Jane and sells the G35 top end to another buyer. Jane is unaware that the Gun was originally a G34 and decides to use it in Production. She gets really good and starts winning some major matches. One day, while watching Jane compete at the Nationals, Dick comments to a group of shooters on how well Jane is doing with his old G35 with a G34 top end on it. Someone brings it to the MD's attention. Does Jane deserve to be disqualified? Sounds like a lot folks on here would say yes. [Devil's advocate] Does Jane deserve to be disqualified? No the correct action would be movement to Open. Does Dick deserve to be hung by his gonands? YES Also Dick has sold 2 illegal guns to innocent people who could lose their guns to BATFE should serial number searches be run. What you have done with this scerario is to provided ammunition to the anti's as to why all sales must be between FFL's. If you discovered the serial number plate and the slide/barrel serial numnbers were different, what would you do to Dick? What does your dissertation have to do with the rules of Production? I know it is the normal American way to cheat as long as you're not caught! [/Devil's advocate] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 My assumption is that the intent of the rule is to keep people from taking pieces from different legal production guns and making a FrankenGun that is not legal. Problem is, that it does not take into consideration guns like Glocks who have interchangeable frames and slides. Often, we see cases that abide by the letter of the law but skirt the spirit. In this case, we have something that abides by the spirit of the law but violates the letter. Rules is rules, but things have changed enough in this regard that this one needs to be updated. The problem with the update would be to write so narrowly that it gets around this Glock issue without opening Pandora's box..... I'm not holding my breath on that one..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Also Dick has sold 2 illegal guns to innocent people who could lose their guns to BATFE should serial number searches be run. Huh? If that were true, then things like .40-9mm conversion barrels wouldn't be legal.... Neither would the .50 (some caliber designation I can't remember) conversion for the Glock 21.... I'm confused.... 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