ddc

I agree. I can see it for SSP.

I believe that limitation applies only to SSP and CDP. For ESP and ESP derived divisions (CO) they are apparently ok now if I am reading the rulebook correctly.

As of the time of this post he's only got 24 more to go.

Too bad it can't be found in the rule book which is where most would think to look. And as far as overlays are concerned I agree about the allergy; for some reason if you bring up overlays the old guard just about has a stroke.

You are A137805 It is listed in the Practiscore results. (If you are looking on your phone you have to swipe left to reveal additional columns.)

yeah I think we get that and I would suspect that is our experience as well. We are commenting upon the fact that the way the rule book is structured you have to do at least a little "reading between the lines" to come up with your conclusion.

https://www.natchezss.com/alliant-powder-e3-8-hpe38 available as of the time I posted... good luck, haven't seen it anywhere else...

I'm not suggesting it's good or bad. Simply asking the question.

Would this not hasten the demise of Limited as currently defined? I think only the old guard is going to shoot Limited if Limited/Minor is an option as a legit stand alone division.

I think that example is better than the one I gave. To my mind that is equivalent to "touching the perf" but it's IDPA so ...

I was going to answer "yes" but I thought I'd check the rule book. The USPSA rule book explicitly addresses this but a cursory look through the IDPA rule book didn't reveal similar language. (Sometimes I forget which sport I'm shooting that day... lol) It is very possible I missed it. The closest thing I could find is: 4.5.1 When a Safety Officer has a reasonable doubt on a scoring call (including penalties) the SO will award the better score to the shooter. This also applies to possible doubles. However, this does not automatically mean that every miss is a double. Hopefully somebody will come along shortly and straighten us out...

There seems to have been some back and forth on this since the new rule came out. I have not followed this issue for a while but my last understanding was as you state: If it fits it is good to go.

I've always thought that if there was at one point a good reason for L10 then why wasn't there a good reason for Open10? I assume L10 was in response to the 1994 AWB or associated legislation?

I swear they must hire a 7th grader to write these surveys. There is no coherent logic to the sequence of questions.

Given Washington state gun laws I'd suspect that the only way to do this legally would be to have an FFL formally log it in via their bound book. Then log it back out afterwards. I don't know if that process is even possible so obviously just a wild ass guess on my part so there ya go...

Where in the rulebook does it say "Position of the hands is part of the "start position."" ?

I'm a little surprised one isn't available already. Either from Sig or a third party. With the Walther and now S&W and Canik releasing steel framed guns you'd think somebody would follow suit with the 320.

Every chamber is different. Some chambers are generous with respect to SAAMI specs and some chambers are tight. Each manufacturer tends to follow a pattern. Some cut their chambers tight; some cut them loose. Another issue to consider is the "leade" or throat that extends from the chamber to where the rifling in the barrel starts. That dimension impacts how long you can load your cartridge before the bullet hits the rifling. Some manufacturers allow for a more generous leade/throat; some are more constrained. The actual bullet you choose also enters into this. For example CZ barrels are known to have a rather short throat compared to others. That limits how long you can load your ammo. When it comes to gauges the same thing is true. Some are tighter. Some are looser. Some allow a longer COL; some do not. It is a bit of a gray area; a bit of art; a bit of science. It is a good idea to get a feel for how your particular gun's chamber reacts to rounds that are more than flush with the particular gauge you are using. Your gauge could be tight. Your gun could be loose. In this case you could be calling rounds as "failed" even though they would be totally functional in YOUR gun. They might fail every time in my gun. So every chamber can vary. Every gauge can vary. As I indicated earlier my gauge is more generous than my chambers. Therefore anything which is even close to gauging; ie. just how flush to the gauge is it... ???, will chamber fine in my guns. In my gauge the rounds can be surprisingly high and still function just fine. In my experience that may not be typical but is also not surprising. But I shoot guns which typically have very forgiving chamber dimensions. It is entirely possible to have the reverse situation where your gauge is actually more forgiving than your chamber. That doesn't happen all that often but be aware of the possibility. In the end you get a feel for how your ammo will react to your gauge and how that affects it's shootability in your gun. To use your gauge as the sole determination of whether a round is good or bad means you are most likely tossing perfectly functional rounds. For YOUR gun. I'd also suggest doing a bit of research on the concept of "plunk testing" your ammo. A gauge is a tool but not the ultimate authority.

There may be some ambiguity there... When people talk about "x number of rounds reloadable" I take it to mean they can have x rounds in the mag and the mag can be inserted with relative ease against a closed slide as would typically happen during a mag change as you moved through your course of fire. The way that MBX statement is made you could argue they are not saying that but are instead just saying you can easily stick 24 rounds into the mag without undue effort. Upon first reading their words I jumped to the first interpretation but after re-reading I'm not sure.

I notice this with S&B and CBC also. I make minor adjustments, typically with seating depth, as I go from one headstamp to another. When going from Blazer to SB/CBC I'll get a slight longer COL if I don't make a slight adjustment. Opposite going from CBC to Blazer my COL will be a little shorter than my target if I don't adjust. That might be OCD but it's the way I've always done it.

a head scratcher for sure

I'm probably just repeating what Shred said but maybe using different words... Why? Only to get around the NFA barrel length limitations. Guys use them (or used them) as stocks on guns registered as pistols which had barrels less than 16" which they wished to use as if it was a rifle. If it wasn't for the NFA and the ATF nobody would use a brace in lieu of a legitimate stock. It was an end run around ATF/NFA regulations. Frankly I'm surprised they were every approved in the first place. In the end all this has done is display the ineptitude of the ATF and the ridiculousness of the whole NFA farce. There are some laws that really need a sunset provision.

Interesting. I can't remember the last time I had a problem I could identify as a seating depth issue. I sort for headstamps and batch reload as much of a given headstamp as I have on hand at that point in time. I go from Blazer to FC to S&B to RP to Win, etc. and never worry about adjusting seating depth.

It is possible that you are failing rounds that don't need to be failed. After a while you develop a feel for how proud a round can be before it starts failing the plunk test. For my P320's I have probably 3 or 4 percent that are not flush but they plunk just fine and shoot just fine. Having said that when selecting rounds for a match I want them all to be flush or just a hair high. The rest go into the practice only bin. They are not "failed"; but they are not "prime time" either.

What do you consider a failed round? Is it anything that isn't 100% flush or do you allow a small fudge factor? Just because the cartridge may be a little proud of the gauge does not mean you necessarily have a failed round.