TheBrick

Good point BUT, my oal is not a problem in a clean bbl. Refusing to chamber is caused by the buildup of moly after shooting 100 or so rounds. Peter

All loading is done on a Dillon 550 with separate seating and crimping dies. I even adjusted the expansion of the mouth to make certain the bullets do not shave when seating. Peter

The build up coming out as I clean the bbl is consistent with the black moly coating and does not appear to be lead. Peter

No I don't know, whatever Precision and BBI send me. Peter

During these economic hard times I am, like others, looking to reduce the cost of my reloading. I have tried Precision Black Bullets and Black Bullet International moly coated products in my Kimber 45 Eclipse/Target II and my S&W model 15 38 special. Either product in either gun will cause a build up of the moly coating at the entrance of the rifling. The build up usually only takes 100-150 rounds and in the case of the Kimber, it will prevent the chambering of a round by changing the headspace. I built PPC guns in the 80's and checked the throating on the 38 and it fit the gauge perfectly. The 45 was checked by a really good local Smith and I was told that the throating was as it should be. Different powders didn't change a thing. I used the BBI recommended Clays powder with loads way below power factor and still have the problem. I have in the past used lead with the wax lube but I can't stand the smoke. Shooting fast (USPSA) even outdoors has built a cloud obscuring the target. I have tried various powders with little difference noted. Does anyone else have this problem and, if so,, what can be done. I guess I would rather clean lead out of the bore than have to "brass Chore Boy" brush my bore every 50 rounds when using the moly bullets. Any ideas? Suggestions? Shoot fast and don't miss. Peter

I guess I am wondering about all the debate on this issue. The gauge used does not fairly represent the measurement procedure as specified in appendix E-1 of the rule book. According to the pictures provided, it would appear that the upper front end of the feed lips of the magazine seems to be preventing the back of the magazine from touching the pad. The angle and height of the upper front end feed lips does not encounter any portion of the measurement specified in the appendix. The measurement is simply from the bottom of the base pad to the lowest, rearmost, portion of the feed lips of the magazine. If the upper angle of the feed lips is inclusive of the measurement portion of the magazine, it is not demonstrated in the measurement procedure specified in the current rule book. The gauge, in my opinion, needs to have the angle removed as it entends from the measuring corner of the magazines top rear lip. That would provide a fair measurement of the magazine length according to current rules. Peter

Bummer news all around. News of Stage tossing because the MD and RM didn't like the way competitors legally gamed the High & Low stage. Seems that I have often read John A. state that the problem in not following the intent of the course is because the WSB is incomplete or improperly written. Therein lies their problem. News of LEO not knowing the legal aspects of competitors rights to travel with competition guns and equipment. Experience with MR. Chrono trying to bump someone to minor because he fat fingered the keys when entering the bullet weight. He entered 160 instead of 180. Riverside Inn with their noisy AC units and flat rocks for pillows. Couldn't even get toast with breakfast. Couldn't even buy gas with debit/credit card. Why would I ever want to come back here?

So, let me try and sum this up. Rule 10.4 does not apply for a DQ since the shot did not strike the ground closer than 10 feet nor did it go over the berm. This requirement was also met even though the bullet struck a prop (filing cabinet) almost at muzzle contact but did not deflect in either of the two directions previously mentioned(10.4.2.2). Rules 10.5.10, 10.5.9 (finger in the trigger guard during movement, loading, unloading, reloading) as well as rule 8.5 (finger in the trigger guard during movement) all do not apply because the definition of movement as defined in the appendix A-3 has not been met. The argument for unsafe gun handling, 10.5 in general, would not bear up to the scrutiny of arbitration since they are required to cite rule violations for the specific offense. NO DQ by the rule book. The only thing is that it seems to some of us that this does not pass the sniff test. It sure SMELLS LIKE A DQ! It has been very interesting thread, Thank You

Thanks for all the input. SLM - I located that article in Front Sight and was very much informed by what was written. I feel better about using these primers and guess I have to look at my Dillon 550b for throwing an occasional light load. Grumpy - The primers are in the mail!

Has anyone been having problems with discolored or tarnished Winchester small pistol primers? I have a brick of 5,000 and there are always some that appear tarnished but then there are one or two that are really stained. I am wondering if these primers have "leaked" because I have been getting an occasional squib load with the bullet impacting the target but of a lower power. These have been in matches and I have been unable to isolate the squib round to look at the primer. I have tested shooting a round with just the primer and no powder which always results in a round stuck in the barrel. This makes me pretty confident that it is a primer problem and not powder. Any ideas or experiences? I can't find e-mail contact for Win and with my hearing, the phone does not work well.

Okay, Lets see what everyone thinks of this. A shooter draws from the holster and lets an unintentional shot go that strikes the ground 11 feet in front of him. No DQ and the shooter is allowed to continue unless he stops himself. In this case, the shooter is "drawing" from the file cabinet and lets an unintentional shot go that penetrates the back of the cabinet (prop - not the ground) which continues on down range. The same but different and also no DQ.

Gumpy your smarter than the average bear! The Grumpy One seem to have given the answer which would be hard to argue otherwise. I believe there can be no argument otherwise. The answer was right in front of the shooters muzzle. How did you get to be so smart? You guys might want to pay closer attention to the part of 10.4.2 that says "the ground". You are so right, I ran off with what I wanted to be the answer only to be wrong again. Props are exempt. I take it back Grumpy One.

I agree, if that happened to me all I would want to finish is that case of Keystone.

Thanks for clarifying that the AD must strike the "ground." Props are exempt. I fully understand S-1-F would excuse the action of the shooter. Why is it no one seems to want to address a DQ under S-1-E (dangerous finger in the trigger guard violation during drawing). Also S-7 - keeping finger out of the trigger guard during the draw.

I just got this thought from a USPSA shooter and I believe it answers the question. It is unsafe gun handling under S-1-F as the round impacted closer than 2 yards from the firing line. The round impacted inside the filing cabinet. Credit to Grumpy One I agree that the shooter in not an unsafe individual and did not mean to infer that idea. If we all shoot long enough, at some point we are likely to make a mistake that would earn us a DQ.

I couldn't agree with you more but under what rule? You seem to be the only one who was willing to speak on the rule S-7 (finger out of trigger guard unless on target) which I think applies.

In much discussion off the forum and the answer given by Ted on this topic; they all seem to indicate that it is a call to be made by the MD. I personally would find it hard not to find it as unsafe gun handling.

I believe there can be no argument otherwise. The answer was right in front of the shooters muzzle. How did you get to be so smart?

The Grumpy One seem to have given the answer which would be hard to argue otherwise.

I believe movement is defined in the rule book as more than one step in any direction or changing body position from seated to standing, etc. The shooter was seated and was required to remain seated for the entire stage. I agree with the intent you put forth but a competitor can put a round in the ground 11 feet in front of him during a draw and not be DQ'd I believe the rule about the finger in the trigger guard applies only during loading, unloading, reloading and during movement.

Shooter was not moving. He was seated and was required to remain seated for the stage. Shooter was retrieving the gun from the drawer with his strong hand and was NOT changing hands.

This happened at an IDPA match but I am wondering how it would be handled at a USPSA match. A competitor fired a round downrange while retrieving his loaded handgun from the starting position in a filing cabinet drawer. The round did not impact closer than 10 feet nor go over the berm nor was the shooter loading, unloading or reloading which would call for the obvious match DQ. The main question in IDPA is if the finger out of the trigger guard rule during a draw calls for a DQ or not. I see no such rule in USPSA and would say that no DQ would apply. Thoughts anybody? I forgot to add that the round fired went through the back of the filing cabinet.

A competitor received a match DQ for firing a shot downrange while retrieving his loaded handgun from the starting position located in a filing cabinet drawer. The round went through the filing cabinet and impacted not closer than 2 yds. from the start position nor over the berm and, obviously, not in the holster or uprange. The discussion is whether S-1-F absolves this action from a DQ or S-1-E and S-7 (both require finger out of the trigger guard during... drawing.) require the DQ. Kind of makes sense both ways. What defines a "draw." Thoughts anybody?

First I want everyone to know that I am not bashing IDPA by asking this question. My observations are based not only on local matches but a State match and readings from the Tactical Journal. Why is there such ambiquity in the rules and their application? My experience is that what one SO enforces on a stage is of no concern to the next stage SO.(like touching a barricade or cover with the hand or gun). Another stage allows for the shooter to move across threat targets with an empty gun after they have been neutralized while the next SO says that a neutralized target is still a threat. There is also subjective application to the rules. In the second quarter 2010 issue of the Tactical Journal in an article written by Tricia Kennedy about the S&W IDPA Indoor Championship; there is her comment on page 26 which states, "...the militaristic SO gave me a procedural for advancing too slowly..." That procedural seems so subjective. Also, twice in the same article she notes that two different SO's instructed her to stand straight. Again subjective. I have looked in the rule book and find no specific rules that really govern any of these examples. My next question would then be; Does IDPA allow the individual stage designers the latitude in making the criteria for their particular stage and enforcing the rules set forth in how that stage is to be shot? Is that why it varies from state to state, club to club? I love to shoot USPSA and IDPA both. I do find it more complex to shoot IDPA because it seems that each course has a set of instructions telling me how the stage is supposed to be shot and those instructions vary from stage to stage. Maybe I have been regimented by USPSA into thinking on my own as to how to solve the engagement of the targets on the stage. Why do IDPA rules seem to vary so much? If that is the way it is, so be it. That will not stop me from putting rounds downrange just, hopefully, getting me to better understand the nature of the game.