Carlos

THat Zero load is my EXACT load of late; used it in a Glock to take 2nd at a local outlaw 3gun (glock used b/c the COF required re-holstering the gun hot). Accurate, low recoil load.

Perhaps the NRA can help out here. They have supported a 3gun out at their Ratton master facility & I think thier "range development" guys can probably answer many insurance questions - even if the NRA is not really associated with 3gun. Might be worth a try.

Sheesh Bob - all that time on your hands & no time for a report on those Wolf small pistol primers I gave you? Or shouldn't I ask? Seriously though, nice work on the dmooner. regards, d.

Score him minor, or have him declare Revolver. Simple solution & in accordance with the Minimum .40 cal rule for L10. Nonetheless, I think everyone would agree that the 6 & 8 shot 357s are already at a serious disadvantage as far as reloading speed, so as long as they are making Major, perhaps the BOD should consider granting .357 Major revolvers an exemption for L10? I seriously doubt we would see droves of L10 shooters abandon their SVs & Glocks for revolvers & it might (just might) draw one or two (maybe even three) ICORE guns into L10. Just a thought.

There are probably close to 1/2 dozen "major" 3gun shoots in the US all with their own rules (even if some of them are similar) and the "whys" behind this sad state of affairs can (and has) taken up many many virtual pages of argument. I find this current problem very annoying. Unfortunately, few of the match directors see this problem as a problem at all & fewer still are willing to change or propose a solution beyond "everyone ELSE should do it my way!" In any event, however, one constructive bit I have to offer is to echo one of Kelly's suggestions in his recent thread: - keep the pace of the match going by making any distant rifle targets self-resetting and have an RO call hits. It might not seem to be a big deal to simply walk 300 yards (and back) between shooters to score and re-set targets, but the actual time involved will limit the # of shooters to a very small number and likely kill the match in short order. Keep it simple to start & you are less likely to burn out. Thanks for offering us yet another venue; I applaud all volunteers.

Lawyer & former repo man. RE: repo: it was extra $$ during lawschool and a lot of laughs (well, looking back, nothing to laugh about really).

Agree 100%. What is with some matches that allow .30 cal but then try to ban the 7.62x39? What about those that let semi-auto shotguns in heavy metal? And speaking of heavy metal, it should be .45 cal - but some claim .40 should be allowed (it shouldn't) - nor should Heavy Metal allow Tactical scopes on the rifle. But heavy metal should NOT require SS rules for the handgun; the limit is supposed to be 10, not 8. We need a single set of rules. Anyone want to propse "model rules" & get all the big shoots to adopt them?

Wise move to not go with a pistol grip. Adding a mag extension to an imported pistol-grip shotgun = violation of law (unless you add enough US made parts or search out one of the rare "pre-ban" guns out there). Without the pistol grip, add any extension you like without worry.

Dunno if this will matter in the future, but: One company now owns Browning, Winchester, and FN. This is why all 3 companies make shotguns with the same basic action (Gold, Super X2 and SLP, respectively). Believe the rifles are still different - for now.

Good points. I agree that we have drifted too far in the direction of "hoser stages" at extremely close ranges. Add even 25 to 30 yard targets at your next match and you will be listening to a lot of grumbling. I enjoy 50 yard targets & would like to see more of them. Moreover, our top level shooters would likely be BETTER prepared for the World Shoot and other competitions if they were routinely forced to make accurate hits at 50 yards - as its my impression that IPSC is less "hoser oriented" than we have become. But I hate fixed time and I think its not optimal in light of our current classification system. Keep the distance & drop the fixed-time.

Benelli is not the only gun that can hold one on the carrier (ie "ghost load"). The Super X-2 - which is the same as an FN SLP and the same as Browning Gold - can also function with one on the carrier.

If it comes out of the custom shop, would it qualify for Production Division? Hmmmmm, I don't think so. That would be a pretty big blunder on S&W's part considering the talent they have gone out and recruited to shoot in their name. I hope this isn't so, and it's mass produced and released at a reasonable price. I hope its a Pro Series and not too much $$$; the M&Ps my friends shoot are great guns. But even if its "PC" or "Pro Shop" custom, they will still shoot it in production; its an old pet peeve of mine that S&W would build special custom "Production Division" versions of their PC 5906 - available to order for ONLY certain people; in Production, you could get yours with a 4" barrel & slide, or a 5" or a 6". You could get both front and rear serrations on the PC versions. They were custom built & had a lot of special parts (for the select few at a high price) - but because they had the "5906" on the frame (preceded by "PC") they were somehow allowed. I don't think the PC versions of that gun should have been allowed. In any event, that seems to be the past (maybe it was something S&W came up with under the old owners). With the new M&P, they have no need for special guns in order to compete with the other offerings in Production.

Thanks Bill! I would not come to the same conclusion with such a small sample of rounds tested. Also, the fact that you actually had a light hit with a Federal primer suggests to me that either your gun is set on the very ragged edge of lightness where NO primer is 100% or there are some inconsistencies in your loads. From my testing of these same primers in a highly tuned SP-01 with an very very light DA, I would (at a minimum) agree with the conclusion you reached in your first post: the PMC/wolf are BETWEEN the Winchester and the Federal primers in sensitivity. I have had exactly zero light strikes with my SP01, none with Federal and one with Winchester primers. We all know that Federal uses a formula of lead styphnate: "basic" while the other 3 US based primers use the lead styphnate: "Normal" (it was in Front Sight). Question is: does Wolf use Normal or Basic lead styphnate as its compound? My best guess from the relatively tough primer cup AND sensitivity is that they are using Basic lead styphnate as the compound. Thoughts?

No one has addressed ammo (maybe you did not ask? - though thats not stopped me in the past ). In any event, My gas gun (a Winchester) just HATES winchester ammo. Not certain, but I think it's base is aluminum like Blazer. I usually use Federal shot (#8) in value packs. But anything with a brass base should work. For slugs, I like the Federal low recoil slugs. 2 low cost (though slightly higher recoil) options are the excellent quality German manufactured Schoenebeck (sp?) slugs marketed by wolf; the German quality is outstanding. And S&B brand slugs - but measure the OAL and the number you can get in the gun as it may make a difference.

Please know that during this difficult time, John, you and your family are in our thoughts and our prayers. -Douglas

+1. Also, the correct rule to cite if the gun were not pointed in the vicinity of the target is Accidental Discharge - a lot of stuff is covered under Unsafe Gun Handling, but this isn't one of them. ROs should make note of this - a astute competitor (aka, Range Lawyer) could get out of a DQ they deserve if you don't write down the call correctly (they can very easily ask the RO if they did one of the offenses described in the UGH rule - if not....). Know the rules and use the right one Its obvious when a competitor ADs during a reload. Its also obvious when they get back on target (or thereabouts) and let one fly a little early - there's usually not grey area, as the gun tends to go off either when they smack the mag in, or when they are pushing the gun the last little bit of the way out and start to prep the trigger. The first is an AD. The second, while startling to the shooter, is not, even though technically they perhaps didn't mean to actuate the trigger at the time. Something in between is going to be left up to the RO, who hopefully had a good enough view to make an accurate call. +2. Joe4D wrote: "You knew it was a negligent discharge, he knew it was a negligent discharge, the issue can be tip toed around any way you want. Firing a round when you didnt want to is unsafe gun handling. Unload and show clear thanks for playing you are now the weakest link goodbye." I understand and appreciate your concern for safety. But, we have a rule that an AD outside the 3 meter circle is NOT an automatic DQ - suggesting that often times a round striking the ground beyond that radius is also not a DQ under USGH; to view it otherwise is to render the 3 meter circle meaningless. Don't you think that a DQ for USGH where the shooter hits the target - or close to it into the berm - is less of an issue than a round that strikes the ground outside the 3 meter circle? Furthermore, I think the mentality of "[y]ou knew it was a negligent discharge, he knew it was a negligent discharge" leads us away from the current objective rules and into a foggy grey area of guessing the shooter's intent (as opposed to his observable actions). Regards, C.

More background: LINK TO NY TIMES or try: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03bar...amp;oref=slogin I would like to see this thread stay open. To that end, let's not bring up the past history of this case to the extent that there was once a conflict between Robert A. Levy (the Libertarian lawyer behind this case) and the NRA. That conflict is now over. To quote from the article: "Both men [Levy and LaPierre] said the N.R.A. and Mr. Levy’s team were now on good terms." It serves no purpose to bring up the past. Now, on with the discussion regarding our future & how the Justices may rule.

Gimme a sec Lynn... I get you one and post it. EDIT: It was to dark, so the depth of field sucks, but you should be able to see the distance from the slide okay. Wow - that dot is not much higher than the top of some iron front sights! I bet that mount would make for an easy transition between an open S_I and a Limited S_I . Thanks for posting the pics.

I just agreed to sell my MEC (just don't shoot that much 3gun anymore). My old Clays load did not have the "oomph" (technical term) for the SLP (Win Super X2) but a switch to Universal clays fixed that.

CZ actually made a factory open gun: search Gunbroker for "Champion" Angus used a modified Chapion to best every STI/SV gun that showed up for the American Handgunner several years. OKO makes a site with a built in base that is intended from small frame CZ. Look at IPSC Store over on global village. The stock barrel would easily withstand old Major. New lower major would be no problem. And, Bar Sto makes and even stronger barrel if you feel the need. The EGW pin cures any worries about breakage.

Hi SV shooter. What primers are you using? Federals are nearly universally used for USPSA revolver competition. Also, such light strikes will usually go off if hit again - even with the same gun. Has the strain spring srew been loosened to reduce the DA pull? Finally, there are longer FPs for USPSA revolvers, but they may thwart dry firing from what I have heard.

That's true. But, since Smokejunkie is already a SASS/cowboy shooter, I bet he also reloads his own ammo, since those guys shoot a lot & get all their brass back. A minor .40 load with a slow moving 180 grn bullet makes a dandy Production division or IDPA load; I know some of the cowboys load light with Titegroup or Clays and maybe he has some on hand? (for just Minor, either of those powders would be safe). Only caution with the .40 minor plan is make sure the Taurus 24/7 works perfectly with the lighter load you choose. You might just have to fiddle with a lighter recoil spring to get it to work.

Once long ago I had a so-called gunsmith intall a US made gas piston on a new AK-47 bolt carrier for my rifle (for legal compliance reasons). The original factory installed piston would wobble and was quite loose. Well, said smith decided to "fix" what he saw as an obvious "problem" and installed the new piston tight as a drum. Result? My previously uber-reliable AK-47 beccame a jam-o-matic! Turns out the truth is: the piston is supposed to be loose on the carrier. The Bulgarians who built the gun knew that & did it right. I had to pay for an Americn 'smith to screw it up. It boggles my mind how many gun owners in the US are convinced their AR-15 has a "problem" because the upper/lower fit is not tight; the same perception problem applies to those who buy a Colt brand 1911 and imediately complain about the slide to frame fit - without ever firing the weapon for reliability or accuracy. Too many equate "tight" with "quality."

Fast forward from 67 to 77 - my Baltimore High School had gone from being a military school to civilian; then coed. 4 years later, I was on their rifle team and we shot on campus - until the headmaster decided to have the on-campus program shut down and called the state's OSHA out to issue an injuction on our own range. We shot for 1 year as guests of a National Guard armory until he killed the program entirely; dunno what happened to the rifles, though they were likely DCM property. Sad. During one year in law school in 1995, I remember the fact that the U.S. surpassed the 1 million mark for lawyers in practice. That equals today roughly 1 lawyer for every 300 people in the U.S. Many of the silly rules we have today are the result of lawsuits - suits that were often about money, but which had to use the cover of "safety issues" as cover to appear legitimate. This thread is a good one (thanks Brian) and I don't want to see it shut for political reasons; if you are interested in reading about both sides of what I believe to be the issue here, you might google the term: "tort reform."

I have stated above that Justice Kennedy, in my view, is key to the outcome of this case. That being said, I ran accross the following opinion re: how Kennedy may rule (note: this is just one interpretation; I am sure others may disagree w/ this person). (by Orin Kerr on Volokh.com) "Justice Kennedy and the Second Amendment: What is Justice Kennedy likely to do in the Second Amendment case the Court has granted? As a general rule, Justice Kennedy tends to construe the Bill of Rights so its protections apply broadly but often yield to competing interests. If the question is whether a constitutional protection applies in an abstract sense to a new set of facts, Justice Kennedy is often inclined to answer that question in the affirmative. On the other hand, Kennedy often finds that the right gives way to competing governmenet interests such as law enforcement needs, security, finality, etc. (These are obviously enormous oversimplifications, but I think it's a pretty good first cut.) What does that mean for the Second Amendment case? Well, I looked into my SCOTUS 330CLe Model Crystal Ball (patent pending, with optional GPS system), and it's predicting that Justice Kennedy will conclude that the Second Amendment does in fact create an individual right. It also tells me that Kennedy will endorse a relatively deferential standard of review that will end up allowing a great deal of gun regulation." Comment: not sure I agree with the "great deal of gun regulation" part. Rather, I predict that the Supreme Court will allow restrictions on the ownership of guns that do not go so far as to make gun ownership (including handgun ownership) impossible. What might such restrictions include? -Brady law (NICS check permissible) -NFA (though it might force some states to allow NFA firearms where they are currently prohibited) -registration such as it is in New York and Illinois (among others). -phohibitions based on felony convictions (of course) and possibly the Violence Against Women Act prohibitions concerning ex parte (ie your appearance is court is not required to issue) restraining orders But, the out right ban in D.C. would disappear and the complete ban in Morton Grove Ill and a few other places would be subject to challenge. Also made impossible would be provisions like the idea of a $1000 per bullet "tax" on ammunition (constitutes a de-facto ban) and other schemes to accomplish the same effect as a ban. But, this is all speculation so far. The oral arguments may shed some light on which way they may go (though often the arguments tell us little).