COF

Failure to Neutralize Jerry

Actually, the 38 SC case is shorter than the 38 S&W. (.765 vs .775) Besides that the rim on the 38 SC is .445, while the 38 S&W is .440, the same as 38 Special and .357 mag. In a previous thread there was a discussion on this to shoot the same revolver in both IDPA revolver classes. Same way some folks are using 45 AR in their 625's. It would only require a 125 PF load and you could actually load the bullet out some with the shorter case. Jerry

Has anyone thought of using .38 S&W brass for this instead of shortening .38 or .357 brass? The brass is a little shorter than .38 Super (.775 vs. .900) and a little larger but could be run through a .38 Super die. Jerry

Does Smith still make a 6 shot .38 Super revolver? I couldn't find anything on their website. Jerry

Mike, I might have to try that one. I'd give me an excuse to go on to Omaha and see my sister. Besides, I'd get to use my gamey Bladetech moonclip holders Jerry

You could go with individual holders like Safarilands CD-2 or the 333 from Safariland that hold 3 of them Jerry

Has anyone had problems with using .45 Autorim cases in a 625? A couple of my cohorts with 625's are having extraction problems with the brass. The loads are fairly light and it's all new Starline brass. Jerry

I usually tell new shooters on stage 3 to put their front sight at the neckline of the target since a lot of folks drop their hits into the -1 and -3 below center. I started doing it and it made a big difference. Of course a good sight picture and trigger press will do the same thing.... Jerry

I guess I don't understand the question. If you were required to shoot the popper and then move down the left side of the barrels then you would have to shoot the far target before you moved because you are exposed to it once you move around the barrel. If you think you gamed it because you reengaged the target from close up - nothing wrong with reengaging any targets in a Vickers Count Stage. Jerry

The scenario stage is the basis for IDPA. We shoot skills tests or standards to do exactly that - test the shooters skills. The scenario stage tests the shooters abilty to react under pressure and choose a course of action. As such, a scenario stage should be written with a minimum of direction. The design of the stage should determine what the shooter's options are, not a detailed checklist expected actions. A real scenario stage should present a problem for the shooter to solve within IDPA rules. That being said, we see a lot of scenario stages that direct every action the shooter takes. This happens a lot of times as a convenience in setting up a stage - if I tell the shooter they have to do something, I don't have to fool with putting up vision barriers that would make them do the same thing. I've been guilty of that myself. Usually what happens is some smart shooter shoots it the most efficient way instead of how you wanted them to. Jerry

The course of fire should specify whether or not you must shoot around the side of the barrel. If it does not specify, you should be able to shoot around or over the barrel. Sometimes the description may allow you to shoot over the top but then the targets have to be engaged in tactical sequence because you're exposed to all of them. In the absence of any specific directions, either method is acceptable. Sounds like someone dropped the ball on the stage design Jerry

The 646 is a darn good .40 cal gun on the L frame. I've shot mine for over a year and enjoy it immensely Jerry

It's ironic - I talked to Jerry Miculek at the Nationals and he said he'd been trying to get S&W to build a 9mm K-frame. Now that would have been a sweet shooter. Jerry

I've asked HQ that very question...still waiting for a response. Jerry

Hey, I resemble that remark Jerry

Has anyone ever tried to bore out a 9mm revolver to .38 Super. Not sure how many 6 shot 9mm revolvers are out there. Jerry

No, actually Glocks are double action. The striker is pulled to the rear then released to go forward, every time the trigger is pulled. I believe the point he is trying to make is that Glocks, like Para LDA's and XD's, if they don't do bang when you pull the trigger, all require slide manipulation to cock the weapon before it can be fired again. In the classic example of a single action and a double action revolver, if you can't make it fire by just pulling the trigger, then it's a single action. If you can pull the trigger and it cocks the hammer and releases it, then it's a double action. I think a lot of folks use this definition or example to define whether a pistol or revolver is single or double action. Jerry

Ted, you're right about the speedloaders. I've got them for my .41 Redhawk but they won't work for the 646. Shoepop, have you tried the cases in an L-frame speedloader? Not sure if the rims would fit or not. Jerry

Shoepop, I was looking at my reloading manual last night trying to find a rimmed case that could be modified for the 646. Sounds like an interesting proposition. I'd like to be able to keep shooting the same gun for both divisions and don't want to go out and buy a 625 again. Jerry

Actually a revolver is typically measured from the forcing cone since it has no breechface, per se, and the barrel length is rounded. That's why you end up with a barrel length of 4.12, or 4.22, or some other odd number Then again some folks measure them from the inside of the frame. I'm not absolutely sure what the correct medhod is since it's been a while since I stayed at the Holiday Inn Express Jerry

While I'm sure that many of the suggestions were made here with a great deal of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek, it also shows a willingness and tendency to circumvent the rules that are precisely what these new rules are about. Before anyone jumps up and accuses me of being a koolaid drinker, check my posts on this forum, as well as others. You'll find that I don't agree with many of the changes. However, I think we need to work to change the rules that don't make sense, rather than try to circumvent them. Jerry

The "daylight" issue was one of the items I covered in my email to them Monday. I think at best it is an arbitarary standard that someone hopes will help keep holsters in keeping with IDPA principles. At worst, it is something being forced down our throats by someone unwilling to admit that it is ridiculous and it will be subjectively enforced to varying degrees. Guess if they keep it, I'll have to build a wooden stand for shooters to stand on because I, sure as hell, am not getting down on my knees to check someone's holster for light penetration through the belt tunnel! The 3/4" standard is easily defined and used. I'm sure more than one MD out there has a few broken target stakes that happen to be 3/4" thick on the narrow side. I'll bet you could even make one up to resemble an old Brit swagger stick complete with lanyard. Jerry

It's interesting that the Bladetech moonclip carrier is specifically banned when it is more concealable then the Delfatti pouches shown or the typical speedloader pouch. If properly tensioned it will hold a moonclip as well as anything else. I wrote a two page letter to HQ the other day on the issues that I saw in the rule book. I'm not looking for miracles, just the application of logic and common sense. Jerry

If you read Bill N's orginal post, I believe you'll see the crux of the issue. Notice that Bill Wilson doesn't say .38 Supers will make power factor, but should. As an experienced "barracks lawyer", that indicates to me that he doesn't know for sure. Also the comment that "9mm's should shoot in SSR" Does this mean if you shoot a 9mm MOONCLIP gun you get to shoot it in SSR? I thought the idea was to separate moonclips and speedloaders. So we're making an exception to that rule rather than admitting that the 165 PF for all moonclip guns is bogus. Now all of a sudden you get to modify guns so you can shoot in two divisions. That runs counter to everything that IDPA has done from the beginning. It gets curiouser and curiouser Jerry