mcb

As I'm sure you're aware, that was done because the vast majority of .38 Special ammo available commercially would/will not make 125pf. IDPA did not want to make the division "for reloaders only". But any 38 Special ammunition you might realistically carry for self defense would easily make 125 from a 4-inch revolver especial the heavier stuff. The BUG division requires a 95PF and there are very few commercial 380 ACP ammo (and non of the cost effective FMJ) that will make a 95 PF from a BUG legal 380 ACP. They don't seem afraid to make that cartridge a reloader only cartridge. Yep, you can probably find some +Ps for the .38, but that's not realistic for many people. Good point about BUG, although I doubt many people will be shooting a .380 anyway. 9mm (or .38 Special) is much easier to find, and a .380 at 20+ yards is pretty iffy. I've sure never seen one accurate at that distance. I think IDPA set a precedent by lowering SSR to a 105PF to accommodate the division's definitive minimum cartridge and the availability of affordable factory ammunition. Would it not be a double standard to set an unrealistic power factor for the definitive minimal cartridge in BUG? IMHO Lower the PF or raise the minimum cartridge but be consistent across all divisions.

As I'm sure you're aware, that was done because the vast majority of .38 Special ammo available commercially would/will not make 125pf. IDPA did not want to make the division "for reloaders only". But any 38 Special ammunition you might realistically carry for self defense would easily make 125 from a 4-inch revolver especial the heavier stuff. The BUG division requires a 95PF and there are very few commercial 380 ACP ammo (and non of the cost effective FMJ) that will make a 95 PF from a BUG legal 380 ACP. They don't seem afraid to make that cartridge a reloader only cartridge.

105PF for Revolver-SSR...

For me its not even the number of rules. A rule set can be large and yet still be simple and straight forward to understand and enforce. IDPA rule book is only 76 pages and the USPSA rule book is 106 pages. What has always made IDPA a bit less fun for me is that IDPA has several areas that required the SO to make a subjective judgement call. Did I expose too much of my body around cover is a prime example. You could shoot a stage the same way for several SO's and likely get different calls, especially if you are pushing things to the edge and/or the SO has a good line to make the call. Comparatively USPSA has far fewer rules that required a subjective judgement call by the RO. You where either faulting the line or you weren't when the shot broke. That is a much more black and white call then where you properly behind cover. To me IDPA vs USPSA has always felt like figure skating vs speed skating. I enjoy both sports but USPSA's rule set is far more polished, well thought out and consistent than I have found with IDPA and thus far more straight forward to interpret and enforce.

Order the stuff on Thursday. They were in my mailbox today, only two days later. Now that is service!

http://www.moonclips.com/cart/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=36&cat=Moonclip+Holders+%2F+Concealed+Carry

So I just noticed that TK Custom claims (and I have no reason to doubt) that their regular .025 thick moonclips for a J-frame are the OEM clips that came with my 442 Moon clip. Interestingly even though TK website say that Winchester brass needs the .020 I have been having good luck with running Winchester 38 Spl +P PDX1 130gr HP on the OEM clips. So I ordered more of the OEM clips and one of the pocket moon clip protectors. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Currently carrying Winchester on the three OEM clips. Will probably order a few of all three as I am in the mood to play but was hoping to understand what differentiated the StarLine specific 0.025 from the regular 0.025.

38/357 in general but specifically looking at getting more for my 442 moon clip.

What is the difference between the 0.025 thick moon clips that are for all brass except Win and the 0.025 thick moon clips made specifically for Star Line. From the descriptions is sound like the Star Line specific has a slightly smaller radius where is wraps around the case? Are there any other differences?

California Competition Cylinder Releases for the win! http://www.demooner.com/product.asp?numRecordPosition=4&P_ID=89&strPageHistory=cat&strKeywords=&SearchFor=&PT_ID=28

I don't understand this "hatred" for NFC. Not to call you out in particular Jim but I have seen this a few times here and over at the IDPA forum with regards to NFC. Why if you allow someone to shoot in the NFC division would you not keep score for them? It's just another division, one only recognized at club level, and one not recognized for awards. Seems NFC is meant to help newbes and transfers from other sports get their feet wet in IDPA. Not scoring them is not encouraging them to want to come back, especially if you took their money. Score'em and show them what they need to do to get properly equipped to be in one of the division that will be recognized at higher level matches. Also some of us shoot NFC occasionally because we have a favorite handgun that was once a legal IDPA handgun but is no longer IDPA legal. Matt

Sorry I meant L-frame.

Thanks guys, They also had a 629 with a 6.5 inch barrel. but that was a good bit more money, nearly $900 IIRC. If I was shooting it a lot that would be ideal. I love my 6.5 inch 610. The 69 felt really good in my hand. The K-frame just feels so much slimmer than an N-frame even if its not a lot lighter.

So I want a 44 Mag to carry with my little Rossi M92 in 44 Mag when I am brush hunting deer and a general carry on the tractor when I am working food plots or mowing trails. For this purpose I would think one of the new S&W 69 might be a perfect gun for this task. A lot lighter than a 629 sacrificing just one round. 44 Special shot shells would be excellent on the occasional rattle snake. Local shop has a new one presently mark on sale. What would be a fair market price for this gun? MSRP according to S&W's website in $849. I want to see if this really is a sale price or just a "sale" price. They were asking $688. Has anyone shot one? How are full house 44 Mag loads in a revolver that light? I am not a mega monster power junk but would also not want to shoot nothing but 44 Special either. My present hunting load is a 240gr XTP pushed to about 1315 FPS from a 16 barrel. Should be a bit milder in a 4-inch barrel revolver. Any and all opinions and experience are appreciated!

Interesting, did not know that. I will have to pull the grips off my Ruger Blackhawk convertible and see if it has some sort of lock mechanism in the grip frame. Not that it matters a whole lot but my Ruger Blackhawk Convertable 357/38 to 9mm bough new in early 2003 does not have any hammer lock under the grip. So does that make it worth more?

Interesting, did not know that. I will have to pull the grips off my Ruger Blackhawk convertible and see if it has some sort of lock mechanism in the grip frame.

Oh that makes sense in a twisted American business way. How many good products get lost, or corrupted due to some onerous business deal? If true I wonder how long S&W will have that monkey on their back.

Despite all the fears IDPA revolver did not really change much at all with the latest revision. They basically just squished ESR and SSR together and lowered ESR power factor to 155. Unfortunately most match results fail to track the ESR vs SSR sub-divisions so its hard to find good data on which equipment is the better choice. I suspect both are reasonably competitive give IDPA stages in general and the limited number of reloads on the clock.

Subject line basically covers it. Why do nearly all new S&W revolvers have the internal hammer locks (excluding only a very few J-frame models) but as I understand it none of the Ruger revolvers come with an internal hammer lock. Both are selling to basically the same markets, aren't they? Is there a market that requires the internal lock that S&W does business in and Ruger does not? Did S&W get sued or some other legal action that required and/or made them over react? With all the negative feelings towards that internal lock from S&W customers there has got to be a pretty good reason for S&W to stay with the lock that is no doubt costing them sales. Maybe revolvers are not a large enough part of the S&W revenue stream any more to care? It just seems there has to be some compelling reasons behind such an unpopular feature. Does a lawyer need to retire before S&W can retire the internal lock?

Very nice revolver. I really like that you built in on an old Model 64.

1 oz to heavy for SSR-sub division, but just fine for ESR sub division. Wonder what 105PF 45 Colt would feel like in a 43oz revolver assuming you could shave that ounce off.

I have the books but I like to see what people are actually getting vs what the books state. Thanks exactly what I was looking. Wow that seems really light too me. It took 4.1 gr of Clays to push a BBI 230RN with an OAL 1.245 to a 170 PF for me. Now this was BBI's older coating that I believe they are no longer using. I was shooting it from an S&W 625 5-inch That same 4.1 gr of Clays under a IbejiHead 230 RN with OAL 1.24 made a 181 PF but I still could not back it down anywhere close to 3.2 gr and still make Major.

I agree with you PatJones it really doesn't make sense to run a rimless revolver without moonclips, but the thread I was reading on a another forum made me curious especially since I knew my 610 works just fine with 10mm Auto and no moonclip. In all my reloading I have never trimmed a 40S&W, 10mm Auto or 45 ACP and have never had an issue in my semi-auto's that with case length so why would we might expect greater problems with our rimless revolvers? It seems like it should be a non-issue to put proper 9x19mm chambers into the cylinder. Not a big deal either way just curious. Would a proper length chamber help with accuracy any? Seems like it could/should.

Thanks seanc. I wonder why S&W did not chamber them to allow head spacing off the case mouth? ETA, I read on another forum someone speculating they where chambered for 9x21mm rather than 9x19mm for export to countries where 9x19mm is not civilian legal.