crazyaboutguns

5.2 grains with a 200 grain, plated bullet in a 5 inch barrell averages 850 feet/second. Very consistent load, original AA#2.

The problem may have been induced by deficient design of the range equipment. Did the course of fire instructions stipulate opening the lid only by means of the handle? On what basis is the assertion made that the competitor was trying to gain a time advantage? That assertion is a rationalization for disqualification, not an objective examination of the issue(s). Because a disqualification can be issued does not require that one be issued. The information presented in the posting supports only the premise that if the competitor complied with the course of fire requirements, that a disqualification due to compliance was the end result. That premise may be within the rules, but it substitutes dogma for informed reasoning. As such, a disqualification is at best questionable, and the course of fire should have been immediately halted due to a previously unrecognized safety hazard. Was it? R. Sparks

Travis: I read your post response. Well stated about using the components, not for shooting. Appreciate your response, and am glad you posted. Regards, R. Sparks

Unpredictable results of an individual bumping into another, i.e the RO tripping and falling onto the shooter, could very well knock the shooter off his feet, and spin the shooter as he falls. This type of contact occurs in every game of USA style tackle football, from junior high to the pros.

I did read the entire thread. See the quote, "Put it up on the classifieds, buyer pays freight. Problem solved". My comments were directed to the content of the quoted post, and were appropriate. Jeeper did not post the quote to which I was directing my comments.

Selling, or giving someone else ammo that you would not shoot is nothing more than reckless endangerment of another. The seller should be held responsible for any damages to person or property. He should also be ashamed of himself for conducting such a transaction, whether any harm comes to the buyer, or not.

The only thing more costly than education is ignorance. Moral; If your going to be stupid, you better be tough.

Have shot an SX-2 for 18 months. Absolutely reliable with 11/8 ounce loads and heavier, soft recoil, quick pointing. For a Limited class gun I consider it the best available. I have a Benelli, an 1100 and an 870, the SX-2 beats all. Ron Sparks

Steve: As I understand the ATF position concerning magazine tube capacity for post-ban shot guns, a 10 round tube is legal, more capacity than ten is not. An arguement can be made, rightly or wrongly, that using shotgun shells of a length that allows more than 10 rounds to be loaded in the tube constitutes a knowing and deliberate attempt to create a configuration of firearm and ammunition that when used together violates the terms of the 1994 crime bill basn on, "Assault Weapons". Give it some thought before proceeding. Regards, Ron Sparks

Steve: I have an 870 with the same configuration, as does a friend I shoot with. In two years of monthly matches we have not had any problems. Ron Sparks

Acqired a SuperX-2 about 18 months ago. The gun functions flawlessly with 11/8 ounce or heavier loads, typically 3-31/4 drams, any ammo manufacturer, shot size 5 thru 8. Loads lighter than 11/8 ounce do not cycle reliably. Winchester recommends 11/4 ounce, or heavier in the owner's manual. This is the best shooting, softest handling, shortest split time shotgun for Limited class I have ever used, dating back to 1992. Ron Sparks

Shooter Girl: Becoming a competent, Certified Range Officer involves much more than simply reading the Rule Book, and instantaneous, verbatim recollection of its contents is not what makes a good RO. The RO course points out many aspects of conducting a match, and teaches numerous aspects of how to conduct a safe match, the first responsibility of an RO. Stage design fundamentals, dealing with a dropped gun, unsafe equipment detection before the equipment is used, and many other aspects of match conduct are studied in the RO course. The single best, most useful experience a USPSA member can have, in my opinion, is to take the RO course, apply oneself to its content, and thereby expand one's knowledge of the sport. Reviewing your posts from 27 March thru 21 April: 1) "First, I could care less about certification." (27 March) 2) "Well...I'm done with my RO class. It was, in all honesty a complete waste of time. I learned nothing new... but I did the time.....". (20 April) 3) "Um, well... we did actually point out at least two errors from the instructor." (21 April) Speaking for myself, I do care about certification. The RO course teaches a defined body of information, and provides an opportunity to build overall RO skills. I certainly want to know that somone ROing me has exposure to that body of information, and has demonstrated in the class and on the written exam that they have such knowledge and proficiency. As to not learning anything new, the opportunity was presented in the RO class, anyone that did not learn anything new simply chose to occupy space, rather than participate by listening, analyzing and contributing to the class. Ask yourself, did you constructively contribute to the learning process of the class? Each attendee had the opportunity to share and receive their experiences. The instructor was not the only person teaching in the class. Reading you post of 21 April, "Um, well... we did actually point out at least two errors from the instructor", speaks volumes concerning your contribution to the class. Please, do not take the RO exam, and do not attempt to engage in actual ROing. Your temperment, mindset, lack of receptivity to inputs from others, and self assuredness that you are so widely knowledgeable and skilled that as a result you learned nothing from the course, are precisely the wrong set of traits for someone who is going to be in charge of conducting a safe match event by directing someone who will be handling a firearm.

That is not humor, itis is coarse, scatological vulgarity.

The 30-30 cartridge was introduced between 1895 and 1900. I believe the time frame for the series was prior to 1895, so the gun must have been in another cartridge.