cautery

Most economically (read: cheapest) priced ammunition that will function reliably in your weapon while not making it dirtier than you are willing to accept, and that does not damage your weapon. Not always an easy get..... Which is why most serious shooters will load for themselves.

"Warning" Unsolicited Opinions Follows Allowing a Match Director (or anyone) to "make up" rules "on the fly" or for a match that has already begun is ludicrous and fraught with multiple potential issues. NOT a burst or double based on the video I saw. You wanna make bump firing "illegal", then write a rule BEFORE the match. Look forward to fewer entries IF you do.

I am not a trap specialist by any means... But one of my best friends was a Winchester sponsored trap shooter for many years... She didn't use a raised rib... still doesn't. I would never buy a "dedicated" trap gun... I would never use a "raised rib". Personally, I think the raised rib is at best a marketing ploy, and at worst, an unnecessary crutch that rewards poor skill/technique. Just my opinion... But of course, I also hold the opinion that pre-mounting the gun in ANY clay sport is a crutch as well... IMHO... the BEST solution is to buy a good gun and have it PROPERLY fitted to YOU... I highly recommend Todd Nelson. THEN, get good instruction and PRACTICE... this applies to ALL shotgun sports.

Don't have a single powder bar without one... excellent product. I've worked up spreadsheets for all the different powders I use. For frequent loads, I know the exact number to dial in. For new loads, I can use the spreadsheet to estimate the exact number. I am usually well within .1 gr on selection. (Note: I dial in my powder charge setting using the "average of 10 charges" method.... provideds for a much more accurate average charge weight.)

Wonder why on a fully custom barrel they don't delete that "loaded chamber indicator" cutout in the hood?

Never use TG... send all your Titegroup to me and choose another powder. Just kidding... There's a reason TG is hard to find. It worls great under jacketed and coated bullets. Both my wife and I have used it for years. Wish I could get my hands on a couple of cases of 8lb jugs though.

Neomet - I understand.

Depends on what you call "expensive".... $250 per hour? $500 per hour? Several DAYS to a WEEK or MORE for an outside person to make a thorough examination of the books? How thorough? My point is that UNTIL the BOD has determined if there is a need for something like this, why do it. IF it is just lax enforcement of accounting procedures, then it is NOT needed... Management counseling, instruction, orders, et al. is what would be needed... I am BETTING that if there is ANYTHING material to these allegations, there's a 90%+ chance that it is simply a need to adhere to/enforce proper procedures. AND/OR establish procedures if they don't exist. IAW.... IF there is any merit to this letter ( a letter that should NOT have been a public document to begin with), then it's a 90%+ chance that it is a management issue, not a criminal issue.

Sorry... yes, I guess you can go through the additional procedure of getting a duplicate receipt (there are also other options). This is getting a bit far afield now... What I would do/have done. How I would handle it, et al. isn't really relevant here.... First, this would have never come up had it been my office/org to run. I don't let my personal accounts to vary by a single cent, much less an org to whom I have a fiduciary responsibility. I guess my main deal here is that there is a BIG difference between: 1) Accounting/internal Controls that need work/oversight/enforcement, and 2) Accusations/insinuation of illegal use of funds, or other wrongdoing.... ESPECIALLY without sufficient proof...

MarkCO - I respectfully disagree... gotta have the receipt or can't finish the reconciliation.... properly. You CAN complete a recon without hard-copy for every transaction... in practice, everyone does.... because you have to make the books balance... but it is done so (properly) by "coding" the transactions with missing receipts as "suspended". It's about the receipt. The receipt or receipt substitute is required for tax purposes... That's really the only reason the transaction is placed into suspense... simply a device to mark transactions that are missing hard-copy. If you get audited by the IRS and cannot produce the hard-copy or an acceptable substitute, then they can disallow any deduction/credit you take based on that transaction.... NOT to mention, that missing receipts just make them dig deeper and with more interest into your stuff.... More time to complete "financial rectal exam" = higher cost to your bottom line. When you choose to close an accounting period is a management policy issue.... has nothing to do with the recon. The bank and/or CC rec process has nothign to do with "good" or "bad" charges... Simply with accounting for all the documentation and balancing the books... However, the inability to document/receipt transactions is frequently how "untoward" activity comes to light. Internal Controls for preventing fraud/theft are separate and apart from proper book keeping... One is to stop stealing/fraud, et al. The other is to satisfy the tax man... Having good books makes it easier to have a good Internal Controls system, usually. You must have much better CC statements than I do... frequently, I have vendor info on my statements that make litttle to no sense at all. HOWEVER, MarkCO, I do agree with you on the "calling" thing... Back when I needed one, I had a report that we ran that listed "undocumented" transactions. They were ALL investigated immediately. ALL were resolved within a reasonable period (max 3 days). There were a very limited and strict numbber of ways to "resolve" issues. Personnel who were "frequent flyers" on the list experienced increasing discomfort every time they had an unreasonable/unexplained line on the list. But all that was management policy/internal controls that I/we chose to use... It is always a cost/benefit thing... Internal Controls cost money/time. The tighter the controls the more expensive... and the "return" is a diminishing one financially.

I come from a family full of accountants and book keepers... And my military, IS/IT, et al. experiences have given me the opportunity to see accounting systems in multiple industries, et al. up close (think, how do I automate this manual accounting system... or, How do I transition this corporation from this paper/antiquated accounting system to <insert system here> Yes, I'm old; I've been around that long). I have absolutely no information whatsoever on this deal... but I do have some experience with organizations/companies using credit cards in the field... be they for regular operational needs, or travel, et al... Here's the deal... there are almost ALWAYS "unreconciled" transactions... Keeping credit card accounts... especially when there are multiple banks and multiple cards for each bank... is a ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS!!! Every transaction on the credit card statement requires a receipt (or suitable replacement) to "back up" the charge. The receipt is "coded" by the book keeper.... meaning that the transaction is assigned to an account number/type on the "books" (e.g. office supplies, travel, et al.) Typically, receipts are required to be turned in "as soon as practical" after an expense is incurred. IDEALLY, the accountant keeps receipts in a "suspense file" by vendor/credit card company, et al. until the statment/invoice comes in. As the accountant receives the receipts, they typically add transactions in the accounting software/books to reflect the expense and "code" them against a budget aqccount, etc. In a perfect world, when the statement/invoice comes in, the accountant "reconciles" the statement... meaning to match every transaction on the statement with corresponding transactions in the "books". If they all match up perfect... same number of valide receipts EQUALS number of transactions on statement, then GENERALLY, everything is great.... This almost NEVER happens... Typically, there will be expenses on the statement for which the accountant does NOT have a receipt... VERY common. It CAN become a nightmare, and book keepers/accountants HATE it because it is a HUGE pain in the ass to chase people down to get receipts that should have already been turned in.... Now, sometimes this can't be avoided... long road trips, road trips that extend across statement dates, etc... MOST times, the "missing receipts" show up or are located... Bbob, sue, and Bill turn in their receipts with lame assed excuses (Oh, sorry, I forgot... that one was in my floor board, et al... <---- I formally counsel these people) Sometimes, a receipt is lost or takes extra time to locate.... another long/pain in the ass process to document a missing receipt properly. Sometimes, large events or a large number of travel/events produce a LARGE number of "missing" receipts.... (AKA: Accountant doesn't have them in his/her hands, they are "missing") ANY transaction for which there is not a corresponding receipt is entered into the system from the statement and is placed in the "suspense" or "Ask the Accountant", or other "holding" account UNTIL the receipt is produced/documented lost, and the accountant is provided sufficient information to determine how to "code" the expense. ###################################################################################################### Now, in this instance, I have no first hand information, but with the information currently available, there are more possible plausible scenarios that involve no malfeasance, than there are plausible scenarios with wrong-doing. Tossing around accusations/inferences alluding to possible financial wrong-doing without PROOF is irresponsible. The MOST likely scenario in the present situation (again this is a SWAG, because I have absolutely no first hand knowlege), is that: 1) One or more receipts aren't "turned in" on a monthly basis and are suspended... (they are turned in late and cleard later) 2) Perhaps, there are a few transactions which have been pending for an extended period (for MY company, that would be more than 30 days). This should be cleared up... either the receipts located, OR proper procedures followed to justify the expense(s), create a missing receipt substitute, code the expense properly, CREATE PROCEDURES TO PREVENT RECURRENCE. 3) Nationals IS going on, and a huge number of transactions and a large amount of money are created/spent in the months leading up to the event..... perhaps accounting for the large "suspended" balance. I have no idea why the bookkeeper quit, wrote the letter, or allegedly consulted counsel... maybe its what it looks like... I doubt it. Maybe she is conflating several issues into one to make her situation look better... I don't know. That that letter is "out" in the open is an issue... If the ex-employee released it, it is a serious issue... Actually, I can't really think of a NON-issue creating person/reason to release that letter... Bottom Line: Please be careful abbout what you sayy and accusations/insinuations you make... even in jest. It could seriously and needlessly damage reputations, et al. of innocent folks. Would you want someone launching untrue/unfounded accusations and innuendo at you?

dkleskiw - You are making huge assumptions using innacurate/incomplete data... 45 lbs of powder is nothing for an active shooting family... 6 grains for a pistol charge? Depends on the powder and lot of other variables. Shotgun and rifle powder charges are much larger... in the low to mid-20s... Assuming your 52k figure was accurate... and it's not... that's not an unreasonable number of rounds to expend for an active shooter much less an active family.... Further... who says that we have to work on a zero base component system? Not all shooters are alike... not all just load for pistol. A lot of us load for multiple weapons of multiple types for multiple people... Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I'm still looking for at least 40 lbs of Titegroup and Varget, and 64+ of Clays... Can't find an 8lbb container anywhere at a sane price.

Not listed on site... Call 'em... Manny will ship you one. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

If a jacketed bullet is required for pistol, I have used both MG and PD... both successfully. I have a very large stockpile of MG jacketed bullets right now, so I haven't tried anyone elses). For any pistol without a comp, I (renee, too) have used and still do use David Long's Precision Bullets (which BTW, I have noticed a recent price reduction). (I use 185 and Renee loves the 200 gr (which are not currently available)). I haven't done a bunch of price comparison in the past 5 years or so because as I said, we have a fair stockpile of what we use. From everything I have heard, Donny Miculek's "green bullets" are nice, too.

I have used them all.. Dillon, Whidden, with and without Lee's clamping kit installed... not necessarily in that order. 1) I will probably never use another toolhead without Lee's kit installed. 2) I have a lot of tool heads... Dillon toolheads do have some small manufacturing tolerance diferences, but it is minimal. The Whidden tool heads are very consistent and works of machining art. IF I ever need to buy another tool head, it will likely be a WGW part simply because I know the centers will be consisitently located and the die locking ring surfaces will be consistent from batch to batch and perpendicular to the die axis. For MOST reloaders, this level of precision is not "required". Most of the reloading "I" do doesn't "require" it. I do it for ALL of my reloading because in combination with all of the other things I do (setup procedures, die selection/setup, powder measure mods, micrometer powder bar, et al), it allows me to make ammo that is much more consistent from round to round and lot to lot... AND, if I need (or want) to, I can make ammo that rivals the absolute best available..

Nik - I understand the logic you are applying in your analysis... I was operating based on what the OP stated... "full reload". IF he cleared the malfunction by a procedure that included removing the magazine and then put the same mag back, I would agree with you.... BUT, if he "reloaded", which I interpret to mean replacing one mag with another one... which is what I would interpret the OPs words to mean, then I would submit that this satisfies the "mandatory reload" as per the WSB... So whether you call the failure to engage T6 an FTE or Procedural failure to follow the instructions in the WSB, it's the same net result. Firing TWICE at T6 AFTER the "reload" is either 1) extra shot, or 2) procedural for failure to follow WSB instructions (fired 7 with 2 on one target vs. 1 per target/six total) same net result. Once again, we're back at the extra shot/extra hit question which if it is ruled #2 Procedural for failing to comply with WSB, then it isn't an "extra shot"... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, this is why I requested further discussion of this scenario... would make a fine Level I RO Class discussion. To arrive at the 6 procedurals "solution", one has to conclude that the "reload" was not really a reload.... So, I guess the first/key question that has to be adjuticated prior to addressing any of the rest of this scenario is: Was there a "reload"? Or was the "reload" only part of malfunction clearing? I submit, barring a ruling from NROI, that it would have been an RO judgement call as to what the shooter's INTENT was based on observation by the RO... [EDIT: In light of the applicable rules] If the shooter reloaded a 2nd magazine, and... If the shooter re-engaged from T1-T6, the shooter INTENT was to NOT engage T6 and to proceed with the stage from the madatory reload... I submit that the evidence points to the INTENT of the shooter to choose NOT to engage T6 the first time as instructed, and move on to the mandatory reload. _______________________________________________________________________ Again, I may well be wrong, but I think there is sufficient ambiguity to make an argument either way... Someone PM Troy... [EDIT: I wrote a PM to ask Troy if he would care to comment and/or rule] PS - Jay, Nik, et al. Not trying to argue or be obstinate or anything... I am genuinely intrigued with the scenario and am simply discussing it as an academic exercise.

That's a cool exercise deal for reducing presbyopia... I'm gonna setup a schedule to do it for a month to see if I cana get some improvement.... And, I serious dig your usernmae... Daves not here.

Perhaps I should write this up as a question for our new NROI director....

Interesting question from an academic perspective... I would actually appreciate some further discussion on it. Personally, I do not see a valid justification for assessing 1 procedural per shot fired after the reload. If this stage was shot as described above, I would have been tempted to score it as follows: 1 FTE for failing to engage T6 prior to the reload. (The WSB specifically requires the shooter to engage EACH target TWICE during the stage, once before and once after a mandatory reload. The shooter did not fire at T6 before the reload) 1 Procedural for the extra shot on T6 after the reload. (The shooter clearly fired more than 6 rounds after the reload which violates the 1 shot per target requirement in the WSB) Scoring would depend on what T6 looked like after the Range is Clear command: T1-T5 - scored as shot T6: If zero hits: 2 Mike (-20 points) If one hit: as shot plus 1 Mike (MAX 0 points) If two hits: as shot plus 1 Extra Hit (MAX 0 points) In no case, with two hits, can shooter be awarded the points for both hits, as the second hit is clearly from an extra shot. _____________________________________________________________________ If my analysis is incorrect, as an RO, I would certainly appreciate having it explained to me where I have gone awryy in my thinking. I want to understand. Regardless of the way it is scored, Jay is spot on. This classifier would not likely count on anyone's record due to it being a 60 point classifier and extra time incurred from malfunction clearing. Best case scenario, the shooter can't possibly score better than 30 points. 50 MAX possible (No possible positive score for T6) -10 FTE -10 Extra Shot --------------------- 30 MAX possible. i disagree. you cannot score a target based on what happened at the line. you have to score the target independently. there are supposed to be 2 hits on the target...there are 2 hits on the target...therefore you cannot give an extra hit penalty. how do you know which hit was the "extra" hit??? What if the shooter was off and he missed all the shots but fortunately, they all hit a target (might not be the target he was aiming for, but hit the target nonetheless). It's like if you have 3 hits on T2 and one hit on T1. The shooter did not shoot an extra shot, however he gets a miss on T1 and an extra hit on T2. You can't give the shooter an extra shot based on 3 hits on a target. Now - FTE would be a different story. I will agree with that one and score 1 FTE and 1 extra shot for penalties. We score targets based on "what happened at the line" all the time. Every FTE I award is based on what the shooter does "at the line" (during the course of fire). In this case, I know for a FACT that the shooter did not engage the target prior to the reload. I KNOW that he ONLY fired 5 shots. I KNOW that he fired 7 shots AFTER the reload. I KNOW that it is mathematically impossible for him to have more than one "legal" hit on T6. As for which hit is the "extra shot" and how to score it... there is a rule to cover that... On any target having more hits than are scorable, for instance if a shooter fires a makeup on a target and has three hits, then the RO scored the two hits with the highest score. The only issue is whether there is IN FACT an extra hit OR NOT. Extra hits are NOT scored. In MOST circumstances the RO could not rule 1 of 2 hits on a target as an extra hit due to an extra shot because the RO could not reasonably KNOW which of the shots hit the paper and which did not... In this case, we KNOW there is 2 shots, one of which is definitely an "extra shot". Unlike when there are three hits on a paper target... no definitve way to know which of the three are the extra shot... which is why the "arbitrary" decision was made to grant the HIGHEST two scoring vs. some other method. SO, I am simply following the same logic... scoring the highest one of two hits... Bottom Line: Question: Is a hit resulting from a known extra shot scored as an "extra hit". As I said, I have no dog in this race and am not trying to push it either way... I simply analyzed it according to the way I have read the rules. If I'm wrong, cool... just want to know the "why", because to my reading of the rules, there is nothing that clearly addresses this situation.

LOL! I understand... I think I'd enjoy shooting Open, but I'd prefer it be a choice. GrumpyOne may have a point... talking to an eye doc that shoots migght be of benefit. It took extensive education of my doctor before he understood what I wanted and why I needed what I wanted... Fortunately, he was prior Air Force, so not freaked out by the idea of me bringing my pistol (discreetly) to the exam room.

Nimitz, sorry.... In response to original question, I am not an eye doctor, not have I worn contacts, but will make a supposition. I have "old man eyes" like the rest of the guy my age... When I finally broke down and got a pair of "real" glasses to replace my "readers", I chose progressive lenses... I decided to try them shooting. I quickly decided that they would not be the solution. I found that the area of the lense available that matched the focus distance for my front sight was very narrow, and found myslef fighting to get the eye/head tilt "right" Additionally, my eyes continued to fight for dominance (right handed, left-eye dominant), and also fought to focus other than on the sight... Is it possible that your progressive contacts have such a narrow transisition area, combined with changing eye abilities to focus close, that either 1) the CLOSE ring takes over which maxes out near the rear sight, and/or 2) variations in stance/head/eye tilt/position cause you to NOT be able to use the very narrow ring that includes the front sight distance. MY solution, since I still ahve 20/20 distant vision, was to use an insert on my Rudys and put aplano lense in th eleft lense, and a 1.25 diopter in the right (optimized specifically for my front sight distance). This allows me to 1) see the front sight clearly, and 2) as a bonus overcomes the cross-dominance problem since the left eye can't focus on the front sight clearly at all.... and the left eye can take over for down range stuff. Takes some getting used to but seems to be working...

Interesting question from an academic perspective... I would actually appreciate some further discussion on it. Personally, I do not see a valid justification for assessing 1 procedural per shot fired after the reload. If this stage was shot as described above, I would have been tempted to score it as follows: 1 FTE for failing to engage T6 prior to the reload. (The WSB specifically requires the shooter to engage EACH target TWICE during the stage, once before and once after a mandatory reload. The shooter did not fire at T6 before the reload) 1 Procedural for the extra shot on T6 after the reload. (The shooter clearly fired more than 6 rounds after the reload which violates the 1 shot per target requirement in the WSB) Scoring would depend on what T6 looked like after the Range is Clear command: T1-T5 - scored as shot T6: If zero hits: 2 Mike (-20 points) If one hit: as shot plus 1 Mike (MAX 0 points) If two hits: as shot plus 1 Extra Hit (MAX 0 points) In no case, with two hits, can shooter be awarded the points for both hits, as the second hit is clearly from an extra shot. _____________________________________________________________________ If my analysis is incorrect, as an RO, I would certainly appreciate having it explained to me where I have gone awryy in my thinking. I want to understand. Regardless of the way it is scored, Jay is spot on. This classifier would not likely count on anyone's record due to it being a 60 point classifier and extra time incurred from malfunction clearing. Best case scenario, the shooter can't possibly score better than 30 points. 50 MAX possible (No possible positive score for T6) -10 FTE -10 Extra Shot --------------------- 30 MAX possible.

I've not seen this study, or its conclusions. But if theyy are asserting that it makes little difference between target vs. front sight focus, I think there'd be a LOT of top shooters who might tend to disagree with them. Of course, you have to take into account the FBI's studied conditions. What was their "scoring area" and what was their "scoring distance". The front sight becomes more and more important with either/both reduction in the desired scoring area deviation and with increasing distance to scoring area.

I gain Nothing... You (and others) have some valid points. And since Production really isn't my thing, I'm just gonna back out of this discussion re: Production capacity limits. Hard NOT to notice however that Appendices D1-D3 are all a single page long, but Appendix D4 - Production Division is now 7 pages long.... AND add to this the "Approved Handguns List" which is another 4 full pages. I agree with you that I would prefer NOT to increase the RO work load any more than absolutely necessary... The equipment restriction babysitting requirements are already quite extensive and have grown noticeably since I first became an RO. PS - You don't have to provide me your resume... a logical argument is all that is required.