peterthefish
-
Posts
1,124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by peterthefish
-
-
If it's more than 23 feet,No dq unless the steel fault lines were part of the WSB, in which case faulting over those lines is a DQ for 5.4.1 - failing to comply with the reasonable directions of a Match Official. Its a uspsa match with uspsa rules or its not. It used to be pretty simple
FIFY
-
Might help to put it in perspective that a fair number of ROs don't really make any effort to verify a firearm is actually clear. I always make an effort to show clear, but can understand some folks might see it as more of a pro-forma exercise.
-
So my question would be.....If your powder absorbed water out of the air would it increase or decrease velocity? I submit to the peanut gallery that if your powder absorbed a grain or 2 of water it might increase velocity. When you have a liquid and convert it to a gas you get a huge increase in volume. So "damp" powder may have an increased gas volume over the dry powder for similar weights of powder. Just a thought.....
It would decrease velocity. Water expands when it turns into a gas, but not nearly as much as smokeless powder. Damp powder is bulkier due to the absorbed water, so you're getting less per charge. -
If you leave powder in there it will shrink. Turn it upside down and it should fit tightly again. Replacements are pretty cheap. But I'll have to look into the Pyrex one...
-
Vihtavuori load manual shows a max load for 3N38 under a 147 at 1.142" of 6.9gr making 177pf
This is the load I use for shooting pins in my open gun (sometime my Glock 34 as well).
Recoil is not super different than with 124s over 6.8 GR of WAC.
-
Vihtavuori load manual shows a max load for 3N38 under a 147 at 1.142" of 6.9gr making 177pf
This is the load I use for shooting pins in my open gun (sometime my Glock 34 as well).
Recoil is not super different than with 124s over 6.8 GR of WAC.
-
I ordered a case of 115 earlier in the week even after seeing this. The price is right. If a few slip in with some flaking coating, I'm ok with that.
Until a couple 124s or 147s slip in that you miss cause they go right in the MBF... -
So here is the issue, you have to have a fundamental understanding of chemistry before you can understand what you are trying to understand. To precipitate lead acetate, a solid, you need to have at least an order of magnitude more concentration of both solutions, and a sufficient amount of elemental lead, and reach boiling temperature of that solution. I've only repeated that protocol several times in our wet chemistry lab, and never reached a temperature greater than 222F to boil, far below reaction temperature. And after we dried the solution, under high vacuum, to a solid, and ran it thru the FTIR, it was only still elemental lead. No lead acetate was precipitated.
But back to the OPs question, "Is this lead" Yes, in my experience, your photo is identical to mine. But the only empirical data is to brass brush the barrel, followed by Hoppes, then dry patch. Put your kitchen gloves on, if you are scared, and put a couple of ounces in the barrel. If it fizzes, its lead.
But besides all that, blood lead level in shooters is what you breathe in from gun exhaust, nothing else. If you have not been tested, you should, otherwise you rely on internet yadada. Only data is meaningful.
I do, thanks. I'm not the one ripping off wikipedia and passing it off as first hand knowledge. Lead and acetic acid alone form lead acetate. Period. That was the industrial process for producing lead acetate over a hundred years ago. Nor is it necessary to precipitate the lead salt to have a vector for lead exposure.
The statement that "blood lead level in shooters is what you breathe in from gun exhaust, nothing else." is so oversimplified as to be false. Sure, that's a vector of exposure. But the reality is, for most people there's substantially more exposure from touching stuff contaminated with primer residue and then transferring that residue to their mouth when eating, drinking, or smoking.
-
No, it does not create lead acetate with only 3% Hydrogen peroxide and 5% vinegar. It takes much, much higher concentrations and the solution has to boil.
Lead acetate can be made by boiling elemental lead in acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide. This method of using acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide will also work with lead carbonate or lead oxide. Acetic acid starts to boil at 245F and peroxide at about 303F. Insufficient concentration of either solution and failure to reach the required boiling temperature and there will be no reaction. A successful reaction, after drying, yields a solid, lead acetate, which would then have to be ingested to cause harm.
Here it is dissolving my finger (not), solution temperature is 71F
That's a nice job ripping some quotes from Wikipedia, but there's a difference between industrial processes for stoichiometric production of lead acetate and the production of it as a byproduct. Vinegar and lead alone at STP will react to form lead acetate.
Dissolved lead acetate is absolutely toxic transdermally. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8016629/
-
I believe the XD is also actually an SAO, following this:
8.1.5.1 "Single Action" means activation of the trigger causes a single action to occur (i.e. the hammer or striker falls).
Wait, so you mean USPSA doesn't define all striker guns as D/A?
However, in some cases, SAO is specifically not approved, and therefore not allowed, as in this statement at the end of the Sig Production list:
No SAO (Single action only) versions are approved.
I'm guessing that's because SIG makes both SAO and normal DA/SA versions of the same gun (I.e. p226) so administratively makes it easier.
I'm not saying a hammer fired SAO gun makes sense in production. I'm just waiting for STI to make a striker fired 2011 and own yet another division of USPSA. Looks like Hudson might beat them to the punch. -
Responses above, in bold. Done, going to work now, to earn money for loading components and additional necessary toys.
The PPQ being striker fired doesn't make it a double action gun any more than being black makes it a Glock. If USPSA has a rule / ruling somewhere that all striker fired guns are DA, that's news to me.
You see, a Walther P99 is a DA/SA gun. And a PPQ is just a P99 with some updated design and the DA parts removed. If was DA/SA and you take away the DA, it's now a SA gun.
As for your "traditional hammer-fired single action only gun..." you could just say hammer fired SAO.
And if you replace 'hammer' with 'striker' and 'hammer down' with 'striker forward' you've just described a PPQ's action, but not a Glock's.
Finally, as I pointed out, there are in fact SA guns on the production approved list.
If you don't understand why a firm might not bother to get a 1911 on the list (when no one would bother shooting one due to the hammer down start requirement placing them at a competitive disadvantage) then I can't help you.
The problem is some folks seem to assume all striker fired guns work like Glocks. They don't. The PPQ system essentially merges the hammer and firing pin (into a striker) but otherwise functionally behaves like a 1911, not a Glock.
-
What you really want is to see that the range hosting the event has insurance coverage that covers all officials and volunteers for any of its events. It's pretty simple.......I do this all the time for matches that many of you have attended (many area & sectional matches and even the USPSA Jr. Camp at MGM.....) or will attend. Providing this type of coverage for your volunteers/match officials is something I personally as a MD think is part of the cost of doing business for my range. The problem is that many folks who are in charge of purchasing the insurance coverage for the range really have no clue about this and the agents who are selling it don't really understand all the risks involved if they are not participants.
I absolutely agree with this. Agents make a lot of mistakes, especially when dealing with less common coverages. Most states require less professional education to be an insurance agent than they do to cut hair.
Having to rely on your personal insurance coverage such as a Homeowners policy(and the related Excess policy that goes over it) for something such as this is just asking for trouble.
Generally agree here - the best strategy is to know what the range / host organization offers. However, it's not a bad idea to have a layer of protection you buy (and understand) above that.
I work for Insurance companies...........the first thing that they do when a potential large claim comes in is to sit down and try to figure out a way to NOT pay the claim by invoking exclusions or case law. Please read that last statement again. The Claims department's job is first to see if they can get out of paying. Then the 2nd part of that is to see if they can pay as little as possible.
I strongly disagree with this, although I understand why the perception exists. The first thing insurance companies do when a loss comes in is to verify coverage. This means looking at the loss, and the policy language, to determine that the policy you bought actually covers the loss you are reporting. You wouldn't expect your homeowners insurance policy to cover you from a car accident would you? But the only reason it doesn't provide liability coverage for an auto accident is a tricky little "exclusion" the evil insurance companies try to use to get out of paying claims!!! Insurers have a duty to pay losses covered by the policy - expecting them to do otherwise is like expecting Walmart to refund you for something you bought at Target.
The reality is, insurers make errors in coverage analysis, sure. But it's far more common (like 10:1) that an agent tells an insured "sure, that's covered by the policy" without knowing or checking the accuracy of that statement. And then when an uncovered loss occurs, the agent blames the insurer rather than walking back their opinion and exposing themself to an E&O claim.
-
Interesting. Which SAO guns are on the list? Are they actually standard, hammer-fired SAO guns? If so, why isn't STI/1911/2011 on the list?
1) Walther PPQ
2) what is a "standard, hammer-fired SAO gun"?
3) because production rules place hammer fired SAO guns at a competitive disadvantage.
I don't see any STI 1911/2011 guns on the Production list. Therefore, aren't they "not legal".
Whatever words you use, or however one tries to twist the language into being what they want it to be, you can't shoot a 1911 in Production. It's not legal (or legitimate, or allowed - whatever words float your boat) to do so.
No one is twisting language here - I'm not sure you actually read the comments that lead to my post. A poster wanted to know if STI could apply to have the HOST approved for production. Six gun shooter said that the HOST could not be legal under production rules because it is single action.
That is what lead to my post - there is no rule prohibiting SAO guns from approval for production.
The question was not "are any STI guns / 1911s / whatever you have in mind production legal today".
Any 1911 manufacturer meeting the volume requirements could request their gun be approved. There is no reason that approval shouldn't be given if it were applied for, and if a 1911 were approved for production, there's no reason shooting one wouldn't be legitimate. -
Anything is, technically, "possible", but how likely is it? Right now we have rules on the book, and we can live with them.
The rules on the book allow SAO guns but give hammer fired SAO guns a competitive disadvantage. Not talking about rule changes - this is within the framework of the current rules. -
six-gun shooter didn't say it was a rule. It might as well be one, though. Appendix 7, rule 19 (Handgun specific approval for Division) refers to the "Special Conditions" note at the end of the appendix, which says the guns have to be on the Production approval list. And - lo and behold - there are no single-action-only guns on that list. Therefore, SAO (incl 1911/2011) is "not legal".
He said SAO guns are not legal. That means that there is a rule prohibiting SAO guns from production. That is not accurate.
As for your second contention: there are in fact SAO guns on the production list. The reason you will not see STIs listed is because the rules require hammer fired guns in production to start with the hammer down. Ain't nobody want to mess with that.
-
Not legal. Single action.
Not actually a rule. -
I'm not guessing here. I spoke to my insurance agent, who has been an American Family rep for 25 years and he called the underwriters. I have no coverage under my homeowners or any umbrella type policy that they have available for me. Your insurance company might be different.
I do pay for the NRA instructors insurance out of my own pocket, which covers me for shooting related activities.
I would suggest you call your agent and see about your own personal situation with your current insurance company. The time to find out is not after the fact.
You might not be guessing but your agent was. I have access to American Family policy forms - there is no exclusion for firearms activities for either the Liability sections of the HO forms or their umbrella forms.
The only way that it might be excluded is via a manuscript endorsement - that would be exceedingly rare for an individual policy.
In addition, you can access to umbrella policies sold by any insurer - just not through your current agent.
If you think he's not guessing and I am, have him fax or email you the exclusionary language and post it up here. -
So what I'm reading between the lines here is the question, if I'm holding the timer at a USPSA match and someone dies while I'm doing so, do I have any legal protection? It seems the answer is no, not unless you have purchased it yourself.
Do not expect anyone else to provide something for you, whether the org, the club or the range. That's the message I'm hearing...
Don't expect it. Depending on USPSA's policy, match volunteers MAY be covered. A typical General Liability policy defines an insured as a party who is entitled to coverage under the policy - amongst those are;
"Each of the following is also an insured:
a. Your "volunteer workers" only while performing duties related to the conduct of your business,"
However, USPSA's liability coverage may or may not contain the above standard language, so you may or may not be on your own.
Also, in the event that policy or policies was exhausted and you had additional assets, they would still be at risk.
-
My insurance rep called the underwritters for me to see if I could get an umbrella policy. They said that they would not be able to offer me anything for coverage in the shooting sports. Make sure your umbrella policy really covers what you think it covers.
Your rep is probably confused. Your HO policy (that you're looking for an umbrella for) covers losses due to your negligence. There is no blanket exclusion for shooting sports. An umbrella typically follows form and provides higher limits. So you would just need an umbrella liability policy, not a policy specific to the shooting sports. -
Two avenues here:
1) First Party Insurance
This is your personal Life and AD&D coverage. Hopefully you carry some - it's typically fairly cheap. You're more likely to check out on a way to a match than at a match, and you can't depend on the other driver having adequate insurance to cover your family. Accidents (traffic, goofing off, boating, slipping, etc...) are the single largest cause of death for folks under 45 so an AD&D policy (cheaper than term life) is a good way to stretch a dollar for coverage even further.
The NRA offers a small benefit for members that's also available. I would guess if USPSA did they would also market it heavily (as the NRA does) - the life insurance companies typically use affinity relationships like this to acquire customers.
2) Third Party Coverage
AKA suing people. If you are shot fatally at a range and it's your fault, no coverage. Life Insurance is the better bet here.
If you're shot by someone else I would expect your estate to sue the range and any officers and directors, the sanctioning body of the sport, match staff (at a minimum the MD and the RO for the stage where it happened) and the shooter.
This would likely net your estate and family a couple hundred thousand (assuming there was some negligence that was involved, but it could take years.
As a general rule of thumb, if you're worried about the impact a loss would have on you or your family, cover yourself first. -
Sounds like a great place for the state to send some troopers to hang out "check paperwork" or look for "dangerous contraband" to snag up some new felons. You know, just some "random" spot checks.
Yup. And again, while the odds of that are small, given the current climate of the state I don't have a hard time believing the AG would love the opportunity to make headlines about how supposed law abiding gun owners are anything but. -
So, even as a limited 10 shooter from NY State, I would be a felon if I showed up. Nice. This all sounds worse than the NY laws I have to deal with.
Only if you don't make the trip to Boston to get a non-resident LTC. -
here is a pic of the letter i took with me to MA to shoot the idpa indoor nats one year. Just to give you an idea as a non resident, in transit to/through MA for purposes of competition with a pistol in my possession. at the time i was in CA so my gun had 10rnd mags and a sku to match.
A Glock 17 (even the 10 round mag SKU) is still a large capacity firearm. Only works if there are no variants made for mags > 10 rounds.
It's unlikely you would get jammed up, but the very small probability is balanced by the very large penalty to make it a substantial risk IMO, and one anyone shooting the match without an MA non-resident permit should be aware of.
Again, the MA AG stuck her finger in the eye/ of gun owners last July when she declared that she was just enforcing the gun laws on the books like gun owners keep saying we should do in declaring all ARs sold in the state since the MA AWB (even ARs openly marketed and sold as MA compliant) to be non-compliant, essentially declaring their owners to be felons. -
The manufacturer has never shipped/sold it with a magazine of any kind that I know of. Would that be a good thing in this case?
Is it an AR pattern gun, or "is capable of accepting any detachable large capacity feeding device"?
If so, it's an assault rifle or large capacity firearm.
Steel DQ line- Handbook Vs. Range
in Stage Comments or Questions
Posted
Where does one find Steel & Paper Fault lines? Seems like that should solve the problem - only ever seen generic fault lines.