Deuce

FYI, my A-bolt .300wsm is 23in stock ... why would you want to cut an inch off? For those who don't know, the wsm's typically run about 2in shorter than the traditional mags. Also, from what I've seen on the ballistics, the new .25wssm should easily make major yet would probably have the softest recoil ... particularly based on the recoil of my 6.5 lbs .300wsm. I don't handload, so if I were serious about major MOR, I'd definitely go that route. But, to save on $, as it is, I'd just use my .243. Don't they calibrate steel for minor? I don't know sh!t about handloading ... but it seems to me you wouldn't need to run "full-power" 7wsm ... so I wouldn't think that'd be a bbl-burner. Too bad about capacity though ... with the wsm/wssm's. Here's a stupid question ... why not 7-08? Just makes major ... don't it? Or is there a significant offsetting benefit of the extra 400fps vs. recoil? I really don't have a clue ... I'm just used to pistols where everyone's trying to keep it as close to the major threshold as possible.

FWIW, I don't like any limits on round-counts ... any club can set up a match that's better suited for revolvers or single-stacks ... and so long as they're advertised as such, I don't see a problem. I've never met anyone who wanted to shoot less. And I think tapping the GSSF market has just as much, if not more, merit than tapping the single-stack market. And I don't think that just because someone doesn't agree, that it means they don't understand ... and I would like to see a single-stack division ... so long as it allows any 8rds or less revolver ... and any Prod-legal gun limited to 8rds ... presuming the single-stack guys aren't scared. And if that becomes Ltd-8 with stricter rules ... and becomes the death of Ltd-10 ... I don't see losing a division which suits only a couple metro's contempt for the 2nd Amendment as being significant ... and I do own quite a few 10rd 1911 mags ... but if USPSA is on a such a tight budget that it can't afford rules for an extra division, I suppose I'm willing to make that sacrifice in the name of attempting to preserve my competitive shooting opportunities. Anyhow, if your biggest problem, in losing Ltd-10, is that your Ltd classifications are under-stated, I'd say that's the least of your problems ... sorry ... I'm just sick of being dragged into the lowest-common-denominator ... nothing personal. Besides, can't your Section supercede USPSA rules just like USPSA supercedes IPSC rules? So long as 1.5 lbs trigger Glocks are allowed in Prod and double-wide extended dust-cover Ltd guns are allowed in Ltd-10, I think they're ... well ... kinda moot. Oh sure, you can compete with a Glock 17 in Prod ... but you really should get a $200 trigger-job on it first. And yet ... supposedly ... I can't shoot a Glock 20 with a .40sw bbl. FWIW.

I understand it's only "provisional" and "optional" ... but these sorts of things have a way of "taking". FWIW, my vote is to ALLOW any Prod-legal pistol, restricted to same rds as the new "provisional" division (8+1?). It's not like any Glock, XD, Sig ... whatever ... would have a rat's chance in he11 against a single-stack anyway ... right? I'd also like to see the new "provisional" division limited to 8+1 ... so maybe we'll see some cokky 627 owners brushing the dust of them? Just sayin'.

Just piling on ... I own a G20 that I put an EFK .40sw bbl into ... have shot it at 12+ local USPSA matches ... never one problem ... NOT ONE. Use the regular G20 mags ... regular G20 recoil spring ... regular G20 everything ... just drop in the new bbl and test-fire. I have particularly large hands and have always preferred my G20 grip over G34/G35 ... it's made a tremendous difference in speed/accuracy. One could argue a slight competitive advantage as the .40sw bbl has a shorter chamber and, therefore, more weight at that location. But, considering the G34/G35, I'd like to meet the guy who says this isn't "Hoyle".

... desperately searching for boots and Vaquero ...

Already some good outdoor opportunities. We're in MN ... so it gets cold September - May. The indoor club was actually started a few years ago to increase the opportunities during those months. If this holds, we'll be no worse off than we were a few years ago. Also, thanks again Kevin!

Bought a brand new CDP Pro a couple years ago ... didn't notice the F'd up feed-ramp. Had many feeding problems ... sent it in to Kimber as usual. They accused me of dremmeling the feed-ramp and said the best they could do was charge me $150 for a new frame. After months of back 'n forth, had to cough up the $150 to fix a BRAND NEW gun! Dumped my other 4 Kimbers ... each of which also had return trips to Yonkers for this 'n that ... and never looked back. My new SW1911 is twice the gun any of my $1000 Kimbers ever was. Looking forward to a new STI Trojan for about the same money. FYI, FWIW, YMMV.

Recently on sale at Menard's for $20. Note the built-in mag-holders and rubber-bottom. Awesome zippers, canvas, gate-mouth, pockets, D-rings, built-in mesh PACT or CED800 pocket. Clip made for all belt-clip accessories ... including oversize water-bottle pocket. Haven't figured out what to do with the built-in cell-phone pocket (yes, that's what it actually is) yet. I sure would like to meet the shooter who designed this "tool bag".

Where is Sun Prairie and Deerfield? I grew up in Green Bay ... been livin' with the mud-ducks for the last 18yrs. Just waitin' on the game. We've been sharing an indoor range with an IDPA club. I've heard some bickering about what's better. I'm afriad the IDPA club may have gotten the short-end due to an inordinate number of newbies. I own a G34 ... but, for the last few matches, I've competed with a P226 and Mitch Rosen OWB leather ... and done about as well as I ever have with my Glock 34. I wouldn't really consider either a reasonable concealed-carry piece ... but that's just my opinion. Maybe what USPSA could use ... uh oh ... here we go again ... is another division ... kinda like IDPA BUG (what ever happened with that anyhow?) ... I've got a sweet little Defender just itchin' for a fight. I just don't understand the animosity to having race-guns show up to the same match ... it's not like you have to compete with 'em if you don't want to. I shot with the IDPA club all last winter ... no, that doesn't make me an expert. But, from what I could tell, the equipment had little to nothing to do with any differences with USPSA. In fact, while the rules might allow otherwise, it seemed that CDP was the same as Ltd-10 and SSP was the same as Prod. The only differences I saw was you couldn't drop loaded mags and you had to pretend to use cover available ... nothing wrong with that. Anyhow, just last week, while I was competing with my P226, I got to see a Master compete with his race-gun ... and every time I see it I think it's pretty neat ... then I don't feel so bad about missing Jim Scouten. I'm really not trying to get into any debate here ... I'm just really curious as to what, exactly, you didn't like about competing in Prod, Ltd-10, or Ltd? To be fair, I suppose I should say why I don't shoot IDPA anymore. Really, it's just that I started with USPSA before I knew IDPA existed and that's where my friends are. I tried IDPA for a while and always felt like I was bustin' ass tryin' to keep newbies from gettin' DQ'd. And I got tired of gettin' procedurals for droppin' loaded mags and getting creative with 2-to-the-body-1-to-the-head. All things combined, I guess I just wasn't having nearly as much fun. But, I could see trying it again ... knowing the rules ... and getting used to 'em. Then again, in our area, USPSA matches seem to out-number IPDA matches by about 5 to 1 ... unless I'm on the wrong email list. Still, I have nothing against IDPA or anyone who prefers that slightly different style. FWIW, so long as it's not a classifier, I see no reason you can't just agree to your own set of equipment rules. Pay IDPA their dues as usual ... you've still gotta support the sport. And if they don't want your money anymore, they'll let you know. None of any of the rest of this is directed at you Sean ... just sounding off again. I will say one thing ... my buddy bought a 5in 625 thinkin' he could use it in IDPA as well ... and, apparently, IDPA decided to change the limit to 4in ... I think that's pretty lame. I'm unaware of any recent changes ... sounds like it's not going well though. FWIW, I think XD's and Glocks belong in Prod about as much as they belong in Revolver ... nothing against 'em personally ... I just think there's a big difference between 2nd-strike and what might be considered DA ... so I don't think IDPA has exclusive rights on not meeting certain expectations. Actually, I kinda feel for the guys runnin' the show ... they're always trying to maintain a level playing field ... and there's always someone trying to squeeze just a little bit more advantage out of it. And if ya try to take a more philosophical approach, you end up with LOTS 'o divisions ... some with no willing participants. Not to mention the law-degree you'd need to figure out if you're 100% compliant. Anyhow, I think this whole us vs. them mentallity is pretty ridiculous. I can see trying to stick with one or the other while you try to improve your fundamentals ... but if either IDPA or USPSA ultimately fails, would any of us truly be better off?

Well ... last I heard this whole lead concern was brought to the attention of the owner of the range who ... upon hearing of it ... apparently said "no more practical shooting". That may or may not be the end of it. As it is, some believe a level of 20 is perfectly normal. Others believe a level of 20 is time to see a Dr. And the "perfectly normal" group is pissed at the "Dr." group 'cause they've ... apparently ... screwed up our indoor opportunities. Actually, it may be that the question was even asked at all ... that got us shut down. I'm afraid Larry may have been right. Thanks to Guy for the blurb in the Front Sight I got today! Hopefully a lot of people read that! At some point, the cigarette companies got sued ... successfully ... 'cause they knew what they were doing was bad for people ... and they kept on doin' it. I'm convinced if ammo manufacturers were to simply replace ALL FMJ with TMJ and lead-free primers that there would be no increase in costs ... as such costs are often the result of units sold to pay for any "re-tooling". And, I'm convinced any indoor range, upon becoming "clean" and "non-toxic" could actually SAVE a great deal of money with regards to ventilation, filtration, cleaning ... probably a bunch of other stuff I don't even know about. Ya, there's still lead in the trap ... but I'd bet even OSHA would give 'em quite a break considering everything else. If I'm right ... then it really wouldn't matter if 20 is normal ... or dangerous ... 'cause it simply wouldn't be an issue anymore. What do I know? Between this, everyone being notified that, at least, our next match is cancelled, and Guy's article ... I'll presume everyone has received fair warning. FWIW, thanks to everyone who provided input on this ... I may not know precisely what's what ... but I do feel like I know a lot more ... and maybe some other people do too.

I sure do appreciate all the good input! Hopefully, at some point, others may benefit from this discussion as well! I understand about the ventilation thing ... I should point out that we typically do everything downrange from the public firing line though. As such, any ventilation/filtration system is 20yds+ away from us. For all intents and purposes, we don't have any ventilation/filtration. However, having spoken with the host-range personnel, we will make every effort to set-up stages as close as we can to the public firing line. In fact, we just had a match yesterday ... and most of the stages were MUCH closer to the front ... probably could've been even closer yet. I think we're on the right track. Presuming we're not benefitting 100% from the ventilation/filtration system, it sounds like non-toxic ammo WOULD help a great deal? Again, I think it's a shame that ammunition manufacturers and indoor ranges don't do more about this of their own accord. With a clean range, and non-toxic ammo, I don't see why this should be a concern for ANYONE.

Thanks much for the input gentlemen! I think a couple things are coming clear: 1. there doesn't seem to be ANY kind of information disseminated to anyone on the various ways (primers, FMJ vs. TMJ, dust) shooters can be exposed to lead, and to what degree that typically affects 'em 2. despite OSHA, there doesn't seem to be any official standard of just what kind of lead levels can be comfortably tolerated ... and it IS a matter of level as I'm sure that ANYONE who shoots at all, indoors or not, has, at least, a level of 1 As it is, I suppose I will go with the OSHA numbers ... I think that's pretty conservative as, I believe, they're basically talkin' about someone who's exposed to those levels on a daily basis as is necessary for their work ... and I hope none of us has quite that much exposure. Having been someone who was utterly clueless about 1. and 2., and now isn't so much, I find it disconcerting to have to learn about it in this manner. In other words, I would've very much appreciated someone, having come before me, to make all newbies, as I once was, aware of this sort of thing (to Larry's point). Whether our club survives the near future or not ... and regardless of going non-toxic ... I think it's only right to let all our shooters know ... probably at every match as we do tend to get a lot of newbies throughout the season ... what we believe the risk is, and that they should get their lead levels checked at least every 3 mos. The problem with this is I'm no authority on the subject. Maybe that's why no one's ever seemed to say anything before. Who is? But, I think it's safe to say, as we shoot bi-weekly, that getting it checked every 3 mos is better than not at all. Of course, if a Dr. sees a level of 11, is the Dr. gonna say "Oh sure, that's nothing, go ahead and shoot some more"? So, going with the OSHA numbers, I think I'll say that if someone's 20+, they should probably either start wearing a mask or stop shooting indoors for a couple mos and until they get it checked again and they're back down closer to 10. Along with that, I'll state that I believe that's a safe level based on the fact that OSHA says 40 is the limit for someone who's exposed to lead as part of their job. At that point, we probably will lose shooters who will simply be scared off. And, if enough don't come back, that may be the end of our club anyway. But, I suppose that's the only way we can do it ... and sleep at night. I guess I'm just a little p!ssed off 'cause I really don't think this is a new issue ... but I'm only just learning about it now. I guess I can't really blame anyone ... except maybe the ammo manufacturers for not making all target-ammo TMJ with lead-free primers (as it doesn't seem to cost much, if anything, more). The club is Amored Fire in Blaine, MN ... for those who haven't figured that out yet. For those familiar with the club, you know what we've been thru. It's a new club (4th season?). And we've been struggling to keep it going despite our founder's death after the 1st season ... yes, some have suggested that it was due to lead ... no, I don't believe that for a second ... it was lung cancer ... his name was Steve Ellis ... I'm sure some of you have met him. By all means, if someone has something intelligent to add, please do so. This discussion isn't necessarily over ... but, the time to say something is getting very close. And I'm just trying to figure out what that something should be. And, regardless, I'm perfectly willing to learn more about this. Thank you.

From what I've seen, any ammo packaged as "non-toxic" or "green" HAS lead-free (actually heavy-metal-free) primers (actually, there's normally all kinds of nasty stuff in 'em). As the only difference, as far as I know, between TMJ and FMJ is that the base is covered, again, from what I've seen, all TMJ ammo is packaged as "non-toxic" and, again, as such, has lead-free primers. FYI.

Found this on OSHA.gov OHSA.gov maximum lead levels FYI my read is 40 = "stop" and 50 = "go see a Dr."

Thanks again Larry! Ok, a couple updates in case anyone cares ... Our two main guys running the club are intending to step-down in the very near future due to anticipation of growing lead-levels. Barring a small miracle, that would be the end of our club. In speaking with the host-range personnel, going non-toxic is a possibility ... but we need to wait and see. One problem is that the host-range must require non-toxic for EVERYONE who would ever use that portion of the range ... including .22 bullseye shooters ... do they make non-toxic .22? While the public doesn't normally use that portion of the range, they sometimes do when it's busy. As such, they'd have to comply as well. Simply put, this isn't an easy or quick decision for them. Also, I spoke with someone who, supposedly, worked for Federal for quite a few years who indicated that their limit for lead-levels was 40 and OSHA's was 50 and that anyone living downtown typically has a level of 20 ... just 'cause they live there. This would suggest that the levels we're seeing, as of yet, are nothing to be concerned with. I'm having a hard time just selling the non-toxic idea ... let alone that we really don't have anything to be concerned with at all. Anyhow, I'm not sure if that would "hold up in court". There's also an IDPA club which uses the same host-range. As of yet, apparently, this isn't a concern for them. However, most of their members are newbies to action-pistol altogether. And, supposedly, their prez will be getting his lead-level checked soon. Unless I'm splipping between dimensions, I'd expect this will be an issue for them as well. Right now, we're fighting the clock. This may simply blow-up before we have even have a possible resolution. Should any other indoor clubs ever read this, I'd suggest to you that, if you value your indoor shooting opportunities, you might consider nipping this in the bud asap. Again, barring a small miracle, I'm afraid we may simply be too late. Still, any additional input would be greatly appreciated. FWIW, I'm disappointed that this non-toxic proposal isn't a slam-dunk. We're talking about a health-risk here ... which, as of yet, appears to be genuine. And, if it costs the host-range no more, and costs the shooters no more (to shoot TMJ and lead-free primers), why NOT, at least, give it a try? Thank you.