Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Magpul Magazine Floor Plates, Legal?

Discussion in 'GSSF' started by gdawg09, Oct 12, 2010.

  1. I'm thinking of installing the Magpul floor plates on my competition magazines. Is there any problem with the GSSF rules on that? Thanks
  2. DannyR

    DannyR Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 17, 1998
    Roanoke, Virginia
    Based on the photograph on MidwayUSA, I would say yes, there is a problem, because they would offer a distinct competitive advantage. If I saw one at a GSSF match I would certainly protest it unless it was being used in Unlimited Category.


  3. Thanks James5M, That pretty much clears it up as being OK, since there are a rubbery material.

    40.30 ​
    Allowable Modifications to “Stock”

    1. “Hogue Grip”-type sleeves, “A-Grip” panels,
    “skateboard tape” or other grip-enhancing
    materials that do not materially alter the
    function of the stock firearm
    2. Slide and barrel stripping and/or refinishing
    3. Pearce Grip, Inc. grip extenders only on G26,
    G27, G29, G30, G33, G36 and G39 magazines
    4. Aftermarket replacement non-metallic base
    plates on magazines
    5. Post and notch sights (“patridge” sights)
    excluding any sight requiring slide
    modifications. Please note that fiber-optic
    and “express” sights are approved.
    You may use any combination of GLOCKproduced
    firearms parts that do not result in a
    significant competitive advantage in the Stock
    divisions and that are, in the sole opinion of the​
    match armorer, safe to utilize.
  4. I have 3 of these Magpuls and read #4 before. To satisfy the letter of the rule, they seem to be allowed. But the spirit of rule would indicate NOT, in that they result in a competitive advantage.

    It seems that the on-site ROs and Armorers have the last say. And if Danny (or anyone else) protests, that may cinch it.

    (I have never been to a match yet. These are observations...)
  5. ron59

    ron59 Bustin Caps

    Jan 3, 2009
    Smyrna, GA
    Doesn't really matter to me, as I don't have these and don't care to... but I'm curious about how you reached that conclusion ?
  6. legacy38

    legacy38 Millennium Member

    Mar 13, 1999
    I don't think they would be legal because they aren't stock, but I don't see where they result in a competitive advantage. They shouldn't add enough weight to offer any recoil reduction.
  7. The Magpul Speedplate effectively adds one more finger groove to the grip so that at least on short-gripped Glocks, it would add a useful extension. And the letter of the rules (above) say:
    "3. Pearce Grip, Inc. grip extenders only on G26,
    G27, G29, G30, G33, G36 and G39 magazines."
  8. ron59

    ron59 Bustin Caps

    Jan 3, 2009
    Smyrna, GA
    I would agree with that assessment. However, if you look at the OPs signature line... he doesn't own any of those guns. He must want those baseplates for something *besides* an "extra finger groove", possibly nullifying the #3 you pointed out ? And therefore not giving him an advantage?

    I don't see that putting that on a G17 or G19 would give him an edge over me shooting my G17.
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2010
  9. Okay Ron, I'm just trying to understand the nuances of these rules BEFORE I show up. The rules have to appply to everyone. Many shoot the 26 and 27.

    I'm not here to get in a urination competition with you or end up on your defecation roster. :wavey:
  10. I guess my question would be why? There is no holster work, nor magazine changes while on the clock. There appears to be a negligible weight difference vs. the oem Glock base pads.

    Yeah, it may add an additional finger rest, but I have used my 26 numerous times with oem 17 mags. I do this simply for my grip.

    Again, I don't really understand why one would buy these to add to their GSSF competitive pistol. It's not like it takes a long time to swap them, perhaps 2 minutes for five of them?
  11. VAisForGlockers


    Jun 21, 2010
    Ok, maybe Im in a bad mood but I dont even see why you guys are arguing this. This part does not offer any type of advantage on a service or compact model. If Pearce grips are acceptable on subcompacts in GSSF, so should this piece be. Its of less benefit than the Pearce grips
  12. lethal tupperwa

    lethal tupperwa

    Aug 20, 2002
    did you learn how to read the rules from clinton?

    "I did not have sex with that woman"
  13. Norske

    Norske Millennium Member

    Mar 24, 1999
    GSSF has to write their rules such that if Austria asked for a rationale behind them, GSSF would have an answer.

    GSSF defines "stock" in terms of availability of a particular part from Glock. Including parts that were available from Glock at one time but perhaps no longer are.

    This is why Pearce subcompact mag extensions were traditionally allowed by name but similar units, like those of Scherer, were not. Soon after the G-26/27 came out, a major LE agency expressed interest in the guns, but only if they could get pinky extensions. For that ONE contract, Glock got Pearce's extensions. Thus, Pearce's extensions were "explainable" to Austria.

    Although Scherer units may violate the letter of GSSF rules in that they are not by Pearce, GSSF usually turns a blind eye to anything that does not either lend itself to a competitive advantage, either real or even imagined, or reduces the functional reliability of the Glock and wastes everyone's time in a match environment by lending itself to malfunctions.

    More recently the rules pretty much allow any plastic (not metal; with the added weight you get into "competitive advantage) base pad.

    As to the subject units from Midway. So long as no one trys to squeeze a pinky through the hole, they are probably OK as there is no competitive advantage.