Mr Glack

The other posts are correct. 625 is the way to go to be competitive. As to your question. My game is USPSA. I shoot a Model 25-2 and enjoy it. I usually do a match each year with my GP100 too. These are not competitive revolvers (and I am not a competitive shooter for that matter), but I enjoy them and like to work on skills for their use as well. For me, "practical," and shooting the wheels are not about being the fastest at the match.

I took a look at this and there is a proposed rule posted at OSHA.gov http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.sh...&p_id=19509 There may be some SAAMI members out there that know more about this. First of all this is an OSHA regulation and does not apply outside the jurisdiction of OSHA. It does not apply to sport shooting outside of the employer-employee relationship. See the summary section and purpose of the regulations: "SUMMARY: OSHA proposes to revise the explosives and blasting agents standard in subpart H of part 1910. This revision of Sec. 1910.109 is intended to enhance the protections provided to employees engaged in the manufacture, storage, sale, transportation, handling, and use of explosives. The proposal updates and clarifies the regulatory language, addresses regulatory inconsistencies between OSHA and other Federal agencies, incorporates updated consensus standards, and provides the regulated community with greater compliance flexibility." These are not new regulations either but modification of existing regulations. It appears to be an update based on changes to NFPA standards: "This proposed rule contains a complete revision and re-organization of existing Sec. 1910.109. In addition to requesting comments on any of the requirements in the proposed standard, OSHA has identified issues throughout the preamble and has requested comments on these issues. OSHA's development of the proposed rule was based in part on the 2001 edition of NFPA 495--Explosive Materials Code. NFPA has recently issued a 2006 edition of this code. OSHA has compared the differences between the 2001 and 2006 editions. Any significant changes relevant to the proposed rule in the 2006 edition compared to the 2001 edition are discussed at the appropriate location in the preamble. OSHA is interested in comments on whether there are any requirements in the 2006 edition of NFPA 495 that should be in the proposed rule but have not been included." The changes to the rules seems to be in response to a petition by IME and SAAMI. This is not surprising since these organizations were probably involved in developing changes to the NFPA standards and now wants antiquated OSHA regulations to be updated to reflect their work with NFPA. "On July 29, 2002, OSHA received a petition (the Petition) from the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) to revise the standard. A copy of the Petition can be found at Docket No. OSHA-S031-2006-0665 (Ex. 2-1). IME is an association of manufacturers of high explosives and other companies that distribute explosives or provide other related services and the SAAMI is an association of manufacturers of sporting firearms, ammunition, and related components. The Petition claimed that Sec. 1910.109 does not reflect significant technological and safety advances made by the explosives industry since the standard was promulgated. It further contended that the standard contains outdated references, classifications, and jurisdiction-related provisions that do not accurately represent the current regulatory environment." There are also definition changes which make sense since years ago U.S. DOT started adopting international dangerous goods code definitions for explosives which are a lot different from the old U.S. definitions and needed changing by OSHA (who apparently adopted a lot of the old DOT definitions).

Great stuff. THANKS ! You got it.

Did someone call for a smartass? Sorry I'm late. There was a line at the door.

I watched one competitor go left first... then take a knee for the right hand shots (i.e., half way heading to prone) ... then go to his right shoulder for the center low port. Thought that was a pretty clever way to economize the body travel to prone position.

This is what we do as well; stake down a pulley or simply run the cable through a "U" stake. You stake it down a few yards against the activator's direction of travel then finish running the cable back to where you need it (e.g., your swinger). You can modify the direction of the activator cable up to 180 reversal.

Sorry to hear this. You were not alone of course. Class act to help the squad and stay with it. The best thing about the nationals was all the great people there. There were a lot of people just enjoying the company and the spectacle. Hope you find some satisfaction in your experience.

Jim +1 ... Leroy +1

Sounds like a good stage design if it's got you thinking about different approaches. I think the rule is that you practice based on weaknesses, but you compete with your strengths. What are your strengths? Good at shooting on the move? Good on long range shots? How fast can you cover ground? Is there a no-shoot in the array that adds a bonus to accuracy (or penalty for lack of it)? How hungry are you for a match win? It takes a lot of points to make up for lost time.

+1 +1 !!

Old eyes so I purchase the ones with the bifocal lens built in.

Lab Safety Supply is a large supplier on line with a good variety of hearing protection. http://www.labsafety.com/store/Safety_Supp...ing_Protection/ Here is the page for the style you are looking for. http://www.labsafety.com/store/Safety_Supp.../Hearing_Bands/ Personally when I wear these around the back of my neck the band rubs on shirt collar or neck and generates an irritating noise from a stethescope effect. They are typically used under the chin which might bother you in other ways. I use push ins or custom molded for hot weather. Need the string to take them out regularly and still keep track of them.

Partial hits that strike other score/penalty targets count for score or penalty. Rules 9.1.5.3 & 4 for hits on targets ... and 9.1.6.3 & 4 for hard cover. 9.1.5.3 Bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike the scoring area of another paper target, the hit on the subsequent paper target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be. 9.1.5.4 Bullet strikes partially within the scoring area of a paper or metal target, and continues on to strike down (or hit the scoring area of) another metal target, the fallen (or hit on the) subsequent metal target will also count for score or penalty, as the case may be. 9.1.6.3 Bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike the scoring area of a paper target, the hit on that paper target will count for score or penalty, as the case may be. 9.1.6.4 Bullet strikes partially within hard cover, and continues on to strike down or hit the scoring area of a metal target, the fallen metal target or hit thereon will count for score or penalty, as the case may be.

I had 6 years of active reserve and 11 years regular. Great experience. It was a while ago though. All of it was in the marine safety missions. Mission balance has changed of course in recent years. Mobile had a great reputation and a lot of people in marine safety wanted to work there. It should be a big plus to have a good sized port station like this near to your home. You may have to travel though. Could you deal with activation for the war effort? I'm not sure how much of that is going on for the CG reserves. I'm sure you are checking it out though.

Have a similar thread going on chrono variability for revolvers shooting .45. The chrono pros will hopefully chime in. They commonly use two chronos (in line) to account for the equipment part of variability (chrono equipment that is). I understand there's not much difference there actually. The table data is for a certain type of gun and/or barrel. Often it is a bench test standard barrel that allows them to test CUP pressure as well. Even if it's the same gun model it won't necessarily match the tables exactly. On the other thread we have the extreme example of 1911 .45 ACP ammo being used in a revolver. Can't expect the same results. Predicting the difference is also hairy. You must test. You also want to get in the habit of testing something like 10 rounds for a load to get an average and I also evaluate the standard deviation to get an idea of the variability of performance. Even if your powder is very accurately measured there will be differences. In particular the arrangement of the powder in the case cavity (remaining space when bullet is seated). A .45 or .38 load for example will have a lot of empty space for the powder to rattle around in while a 9mm often is just the opposite. In my experience my 9mm loads typically are below 1% standard deviation (reflected as a percentage of the average velocity) while .45 or .38 loads are going to be well above. In the other revolver thread for example. This results in a 95% confidence limit for one load example ranging from 713 to 763 fps. So it's not necessarily the chrono's variability. The only real test is what the chrono pros do with two chronos measuring the same shot. I'm anxious to hear their thoughts.