bgary

Interesting. I hadn't thought about possible damage to the blue tip. My primer issues are sporadic - maybe 1 or 2 per 1000 rounds - but they are VERY frustrating, as I have not found a way to clear them without removing the whole primer assembly from the press, and whenever I do that it (of course) spews the whole contents of the tube all over my bench. Lacking a 3D printer, do you know of anyone who makes such a tip protector? Bruce

I have an RL-1050, and I'm sick enough of the endlessly-creative ways my primer system likes to puke that I'm thinking of selling it and getting an 1100. How much of the 1050 "stuff" I currently have will work on the 1100? For example, are the toolheads compatible, or would I have to replace them? Same question for shellplates, powder-drops, casefeeder heads, etc, etc, etc. Thx Bruce

Have a home-built PCC that has run fine for years. F1/QC10 receiver set, JP everything else (barrel, trigger, bolt, SCS buffer) Built a new PCC a couple of weeks ago, and it ran great in testing, which of course meant it barfed when it heard a "beep". 3 times over the course of a dozen stages, it fed more than one round - which resulted in a mess in the chamber. One round nosed into the chamber with another round wedged above it against the ceiling of the upper. New PCC is an R&R barrel (ramped 8" barrel with shroud to make it legal length), SI bolt, Blitzkrieg buffer... and except for those things, identical to the above (same receiver set, same buffer tube, etc). Also, same ammo. And same mags (MBX tubes with an assortment of MBX extensions) One thing I have in my head is that - I think - each of the three malfs occurred at a port with low/close targets behind it, which means the PCC was pointed down 45 degrees or so. I'm wondering if somehow the weight of the mag is rocking it forward, changing the relationship between the top round and the bolt. But... it's an identical receiver and the same mags, so I'm not sure why it would happen with this one and not the other. Any ideas?

Hmmmm.... okay, I did some digging and I think I've convinced myself that a "good" BC is .... not particularly meaningful. I called Montana Gold and asked if they had a BC, they said "no, we never did that, because those bullets are only meant for pistol distances". They did say that the BC for the Hornady 124gr XTP should be fairly close. I found BCs for the XTP and a couple of other 124gr JHPs from a number of manufacturers, and at the velocity I'm running, the calculator says they all peak at 60y, and POIs are all within 1/3" at 100y. In case there are other number-geeks among us, here is the data I came up with (using 1140fps): Sierra 125gr JHP / BC = .137 / peak rise is 3.5" at 60y / hits 0.5" high at 100y Winchester 124gr JHP / BC = .142 / peak rise is 3.5" at 60y / hits 0.6" high at 100y Sierra 124gr JHP / BC = .157 / peak rise is 3.5" at 60y / hits 0.7" high at 100y Hornady 124gr XTP / BC = .165 / peak rise is 3.5" at 60y / hits 0.8" high at 100y So, I think I have a "good enough" answer. (It's not like i'm going to hold - off-hand - to 1/3" accuracy at 100y anyway...) B

Anyone have a (good) BC figure for the Montana Gold 124gr JHP? I have a load I like, I have a good 15-yard zero, I'm curious what the POI will be along the way out to 100y.... and it's raining, so I don't feel like going out and hanging targets right now.... Yeah, I know, I know, it's not really a distance platform.... but... whatevs. My old load with a 15y zero was "on" at 100y, and no more than 3" high at distances in between, which has sometimes been handy to know.

I usually run 12-round strings and count them all (including the cold-bore shot, which usually ends up the low velocity of the string) Spreads are... pretty good. Across 12 rounds with the 124gr CMJs, extreme spread was 38fps, SD = 9 Same load but using 124JHPs, extreme spread was 28fps, SD = 7. Which is nice, but I'll have to do some testing to see if there are any issues feeding the JHPs. Edited to add, just out of curiosity I used to run 15-round strings, and toss the extreme-low and the two extreme-high velocities.... thinking that would give me a better idea of the real-world average. Turns out that the resulting averages and SDs for the remaining 12 rounds were almost identical to the results if I just shot 12 rounds and counted them all. (#NotAStatisticianAndICanProveIt)

Standard JP 16" (14.5" + pinned muzzle device) ....although I'm currently giving a long look at that Taccom ULW.

OK, I loaded some stuff yesterday and took it to the range today. I "think" I have a new load (*) With 4.2gr of N320 under a 124g CMJ, I got an average of 1053 fps, for an average PF of 130.6 (PF for slowest round was 130.2) I also tested some loads with 4.3gr and 4.4gr of N320. Didn't like the feel, they were VERY dirty (a little more crimp might help that), and on the 4.4gr set, got slightly flattened primers. All for about 30fps, which doesn't seem worth it. So... I think I'm settled on 4.2gr. I like the feel, plenty accurate, pretty low spread across a 12-round sample.... the only thing that gives me pause is that there isn't a lot of fudge room in the PF. (*) So.... today's question is... how close is too close? Is 130.6 enough buffer over the shoot-for-no-score line, or should I work up something that runs a little faster? My Open 9-Major load usually runs about 169-170, which gives me about the same buffer... except if something weird happens and I drop 3% at the chrono, I'm still in the game, just shooting minor. If I drop 3% with this load, I'm flirting with a big fat zero.... Thoughts?

Cool! Thank you....

Testing…

Hmmmm... N320 and 231 are practically right next to each other on the burn-rate chart on my wall. Unless I'm mis-reading it.... To the rest of your comments, yeah, totally agree, with the addition that I want them to feed, and go bang when I pull the trigger. Both of which have been problems lately. I use a JP SCS buffer, and can tweak the weights to give the recoil-feel and dot movement. B

Maybe . If I could get the 130gr Fed Syntech bullets, I'd use them. But they're unobtanium... and I'm sitting on a garage full of Montana Gold 124JHPs and 124 CMJs, so it seems silly to go out and try to find different bullets, especially in the middle of a components crisis. I did try some 147s and really didn't like the "ker.....chunk.... feel of the action.

How do I get my "MoM badge back? I edited my signature to update the email address, and it wouldn't let me save the change with the picture included. I think it was October 2006, but not positive.... Thanks! Bruce

So... I'm finally breaking up with the factory ammo I've been shooting for the last couple of years. It's not me, it's you. Couple of years ago I worked up some test loads. 124gr MG jacketed round-nose over 4.2gr of N320 with a winchester SPP. Ran fine. Problem is, I have my PCC dialed in for the current load, which runs at about a 145 power-factor, and really like the way the gun feels right now,. I just don't love the ammo anymore. Irreconcilable differences. Test load ran about a 132pf. Which presents a dilemma. Should I bump my load up to (maybe) 4.4gr of N320? That should, in theory, end up around 140pf Or should I start over from scratch, build a load that runs, and then do all the things (reconfigure my buffer, etc) to get the feel I want. I looked through all the PCC / N320 / 125gr loads in the threads here, and most of them seem to cluster between 3.8gr and 4.2gr. Didn't see any above 4.2gr, so I'm wondering if that would push the gun (bolt, buffer) more than is good. Other options might be to switch to TiteGroup, but I have a bunch of N320 and like it for other 9mm loads, so I'd love to make it work here. Open to input... Bruce

Generally true. It varies from place to place, but in general a Section is formed when there are a number of clubs within a geographic locale that want to work together (coordinating calendars, bringing in RO seminars, pooling activity for Nationals slots, etc). Each Section is required to have section bylaws that specify how the Section Coordinator is elected, and how slots will be distributed. I have 12 Sections in Area-1, and I think all 12 of them elect the Section Coordinator at the club level - each club-representative has one vote in the process.

Yes, and yes! Note, too, that clubs have some options. For a Tier-1 match, The only requirement is that at least two official stages be included - the club could include smaller versions of OL or SO among the other stages they put into the match.

Generally, yes. Think of it as a loose heirarchy: clubs represent the interests/concerns/needs of their shooters, Section Coordinators represent the interest of their clubs, Area Directors represent the interests of the Sections. Except that (while I adhere to that) I try to respond to questions I get from members and clubs, too. My current thoughts are ... I'm not opposed, but not convinced the need outweighs the complexity. Right now, the Area Directors pay attention to (and are working to grow) both Steel Challenge and USPSA matches. It doesn't feel to me like that is broken. I'd also note that each AD has a budget for traveling to visit Sections in the Area, and also incurs travel costs for in-person Board meetings. If we doubled the number of ADs, we'd double those costs. Not necessarily a reason not to do it, but something to consider.

...make that triple. Ugh.

gaah. double-tap....

Yeah. We picked dates that didn't have a conflict with any major USPSA matches, or with any Tier-2 or Tier-3 SC matches (well, at least not within 1000 miles. I think there was a Tier-3 in Florida that same weekend...). We were told there was a conflict with a scholastic SC match, but never saw it on the SCSA calendar, so not sure if we missed something. We "thought" it was a sweet-spot on the calendar, as well as being a central spot (less than 12 hours of driving from pretty much anywhere in Area-1 except Alaska), and SLC has a ton of stuff to do in the Area. At present, we're planning to give SLC another shot at it in the summer of 2023. Consider this the beginning of the promotion!!! As far as getting the word out, fair point. We promoted it on Facebook and Practiscore, but clearly that wasn't enough to get the word to the right eyeballs. Open to ideas about what we can do better. Bruce

No worries. Yes, I'm part of the USPSA Board (Area-1, representing Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington and Alaska...) And as an aside, we had an Area-1 Steel Challenge match scheduled for Salt Lake City in July, and ended up having to cancel it for lack of entries. Would love any insights on what we did wrong and how we can fix it. The 2022 Area-1 Steel Challenge will be in Missoula, which hosted the 2020 match, but I'm very interested in moving it around the Area to make it accessible to more members.... Bruce

Not really. We "grabbed" the sport because we wanted to expand the kinds of practical shooting activities the org could offer. I mean, everyone knows "the USPSA game" but we think there are other ways to get people out burning gunpowder in safe, fair, fun matches. SC was the first move in (what I hope is still) a long-term play - to broaden the array of practical shooting games available to clubs and members. SC is a very different game, no power-factor or scoring zones beyond "hits", but it's still about accuracy at speed, and it creates huge benefits in other ways - it's easy to get new shooters involved, it's a game that less-able people can play on a level field, it has 22LR divisions, etc. The thought is that "USPSA, Inc" is the umbrella org for a collection of different-but-still-practical shooting games. Maybe we add a 22 "action" game next? or an AR game? or a pro-am kind of game? or....? The more we get people out burning powder, the better off we all are. JMHO SC has its own set of rules, but is under the USPSA Board for good reason - we want to grow the whole org, not just "the USPSA game". At some point, maybe SC will have it's own Board, its own Area and Section leaders, etc. Don't know. But it'll still be part of our family of practical shooting sports, either way. Bruce (SC fan since 1987...)

Due to circumstances beyond our control, it will not be possible to hold the Area-1 match in Washington in August, as planned. Thanks to a bunch of awesome Section Coordinators and match planners, I'm happy to be able to announce that the 2020 Area-1 match will now be in Nampa, ID, the first week of October. Details should be on the USPSA calendar (and registration on practiscore) within the next day or so. Bruce

I was actually in favor of getting rid of the weight thing entirely. It's a pain in the ass to administrate, it's already been moved a number of times and... IMO, it's a self-solving problem. Our sport has always been about trade-offs ("do I want to go fast and get a good time, or slow down and get good hits") How heavy a gun is, is one of those tradeoffs (do I want a heavy gun to manage recoil, or a light gun for faster transitions... or whatever) I suspect at some point we'll stop moving the limit and just get rid of it. Get out of the way of letting the shooter figure out what works best for them... (Just Bruce's Opinion)

What you are "exactly" saying is that USPSA officers and directors accept manufacturer money - directly or indirectly - as part of our rules-making process. I'm saying you're dead wrong. The money that comes in from manufacturers is in the form of sponsor fees and ad buys. The money does not buy them ANY influence - it's purely transactional. Want to sponsor a stage? Here's what it costs. Want to put a full-page ad in our magazine? Here's what it costs. Period. In point of fact, we don't even exercise any preference. There are times when a "big name" company comes in late and wants to sponsor a stage or a match after all the opportunities are taken. Too bad, so sad, step up earlier next time. the sponsor-money or ad-money from Joe Bob's Sportswear Emporium is exactly the same to us - and has exactly the same "influence" - as the money from Big Name Gun Manufacturer. When you use words like "kickback, access, favors", you're making an accusation which is not only untrue, it's potentially harmful to the reputation of the org I (and presumably you) love. Same as when you say "the equipment rules [reflect] what the influencers want to see". You're saying we - *I* - can be bought, and I don't take that lightly. The equipment rules reflect what we, the elected representatives of the members, feel is the best set of competitive options for those members, present and future, given that equipment and interests are changing every day. The other thing I'd add is.... I highly doubt manufacturers are paying a lot of attention to USPSA. We have ~35,000 members, of whom maybe ~25,000 are active in a year, and those are spread across eight different divisions. Even if a manufacturer wanted to sell something to every active member, the total number we're talking about isn't even shipment of guns, let alone a production run, from their perspective. *we* think we're bigtime, but... to them, we're a rounding error in the marketing plan. Nobody is going to pay USPSA to change a rule. They're going to build the guns that they think will appeal to the broadest (and most profitable) market, and its OUR job to try to keep up with the changes and decide if they're good for our sport. And even if they were willing to spend the money to try to buy influence? We wouldn't take it. It's not what we do. Bruce