straightshooter1

I had some success with the safety pin, but, over time, and always at an inconvenient moment, it would snag, bend and jam. I then used a large paper clip, cut off the ends and bent the last 3/8" over the top of the lid and it has worked perfectly for several thousand rounds. There was, I am sure, a member who made a device that fit 550s. Someone asked him about making them available and IIRC, he was gonna do it. I recall that this member was into bikes, too. Can't find the old posts. Can someone point out that link? Bob

Thanks dillon-my tubes most definitely predate 3 years ago. I think the newest are early 90s. Next time I order something, I'll buy the right tips. Thanks to all who responded, Bob

I haven't seen anyone do that-not that it may not happen, just haven't seen it myself. I guess it might happen in smaller jurisdictions but, again, it doesn't mean anything and the opponent, without a lot of work, could take that away by looking at some of the cases the persons brags about winning. Most every time the case is made before the prosecutor gets it. Some places, here for example, we also do investigations, make our own cases (for example, I seem to do most of the crooked lawyer/corrupt cop type cases), but, IMO, most of the time the work is done, the DNA is matched, the confession is taped, the witnesses have given statements, etc. before the case is brought to the prosecutor. Another saying: we don't make 'em, we just fly 'em. We've gotten so far afield from the original thread, I'm gonna either bail or tag with kellyn and let him wrestle you awhile. Bob

Rob you really don't know what you are talking about when you say conviction rates are what go on the resume. Conviction rates don't mean anything. What may say something, but generally never appears on the resume, is the number of jury trials. Civil lawyers often count non-jury trials, and we have one guy running for judge locally who apparently counts hearings as "trials." What counts is jury trials, where the jury was picked and the case tried to a conclusion. If you try a lot of cases, you are gonna lose some. We have a saying here, and I don't think it is just local, that if you aren't losing some, you aren't trying any. Some of the best lawyers I know are career Public Defenders, who lose most of their cases. But if I needed a lawyer to try a case I was involved in, one of these men or women would be who I would call. I also have the impression some think the prosecutor (or maybe the defense attorney) can somehow stack the jury with robots who think like they want them to. At least in Florida that can't happen (and never could based on my more than thirty five years of law enforcement/court room experience). First, as I said in a prior post, no one knows who the jurors are. They are picked to come there because they have a driver's license and reside within the county. Secondly, everything is done in open court, reported by a court reporter. Thirdly, the trial starts with 35-50 or more prospective jurors in the room and the Judge inquires first, the prosecutor asks next and the defense attorney gets to talk to these folks last. Then, either at the bench or after sending the prospective jurors out, the prosecutor and defense attorney each exercise possible challenges to each juror, starting with the first one in the first row. The challenges can be for cause (for some reason they are not qualified to serve or have some physical or other serious problem or indicate a bias or prejudice). Then peremptory challenges (which I mentioned in a prior post) are exercised and finally there is a jury of 6 or 12 persons, depending on the case. Lastly one or two jurors are selected as alternates if the case will last longer than one day. Sometimes I don't exercise any challenges at all, sometimes I use all or most of the 6 or 10 I have for felony cases. In Florida with its open discovery the defense gets everything in my file except notes I make about the case (they may get them after the case is final), everything the police have on the case and get to depose every witness, look at every piece of evidence and have anything they want tested/examined (i.e. get their own DNA experts/firearms experts). Convictions come from the facts, not because of the lawyers. kellyn-you are sure right about lawyers-they are the worst jurors and IMO the pits as witnesses. We have actually had prosecutors leave lawyers on juries before. All of them that I know of say they will never do that again. Bob

On another thread, I mentioned that Dillon's primer pick-up tubes won't hold a full 100 large and small rifle primers. Someone said that if I added a certain tip they would hold the 100. Do any of you rifle shooters know which tip? I have several, but the ones I have tried still hold about 97. Thanks in advance, Bob

Prosecutors should always be more concerned with truth than winning. Yes, there have been some cases where DNA evidence shows the person convicted was innocent. Some others show the person convicted did not leave the item or thing or deposit from which the DNA was acquired and the cops/prosecutors can't retry the defendant for one reason or another. That is different than an innocent defendant. What I am talking about are cases in which there is no DNA. Remember that DNA is a relatively recent science and it is evolving relatively rapidly. I don't want someone on the jury who will not convict if there is no DNA when the witness or victim says that the defendant is the person who committed the crime, the person id'ing the defendant has no baggage to show why he/she would make a false id and the defendant has no alibi witnesses to testify he/she was somewhere else at the time of the crime. Rigorous proof? I am not sure what that is. Do you have some definition in mind Rob? I know in EVERY criminal case I have the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond and to the exclusion of EVERY reasonable doubt. The Court gives the jury a definition of what is and what isn't a reasonable doubt. What I don't want is someone who adds to the burden I already have or wants me to prove the case beyond all doubt or by rigorous proof or something else that the law doesn't require. All I am saying is that certain occupations IMO make better or worse jurors in certain cases. I already said these are generalizations and I only have a few minutes to talk to the prospective jurors and decide what I think they will do based on their background which includes their occupations, prior experiences with the system, etc. Either 6 or 12 people from the venire (prospective jurors) ARE going to sit on the jury. If you were the defendant or the victim or the cop who made the case, wouldn't you expect both the prosecutor and defense attorney to try to exclude any prospective jurors who would decide the case based on something other than the evidence (whatever that may be DNA, eyewitness, fingerprints, circumstantial) and the law as the Judge instructs it? That's all I am talking about-people who bring some bias/prejudice to the case because of something in their background. The thread has kind of seized on that being occupations, but contact with the criminal justice system, bad dealing with law enforcement, prior arrests, family members prosecuted and many other factors are things any prosecutor will consider in picking a jury. Not to mention that I have to weed out all those people that think CSI is a reality show. Did you see the one where they found a clay pot made on a potter's wheel with grooves like an old 45 or 78 record? Yep, spun in at a certain speed, cleaned it up with the old computer, and heard the killer's voice. Bob

Depends on the State, I guess. Here all any of us know is that the potential jurors live in this county. We can ask if they live in Clearwater (north) or St. Petersburg (south) but no one gets their addresses. A few years ago, after a police officer shot a young man trying to run over him in a stolen car, and after the Grand Jury declined to indict the officer, the local paper tried to get the Grand Jurors' names and addresses. They were unsuccessful as they are excluded from both our Public Records Law and the Rules of Judicial Procedure as being non-public. I am sure it is different in different parts of the country. BTW, getting back to topic, I got to talk to Blue Edge yesterday. I believe it is a jury trial summons and not for the Federal Grand Jury. The poll like Mjolnir discussed shouldn't happen in Florida. Don't know about other places. Bob

Actually, EricW, I think about the "intellect" in certain cases getting confused by the trees, missing the forrest and letting some child molester, rapist or murderer go. Remember, I pointed out that in some cases an engineer would be great, but on others nope. But school teachers, never. People who have been convicted of anything, especially drug charges or DUIs, never, people who have children who have been prosecuted, never. Engineers-sometimes. And the defense gets the same number of challenges and has their own quirks, too. No cops, no cops' wives, no one who has been the victim of a violent crime, no one who has been a witness. If we have lots of scientific evidence, do you think the defense wants an engineer or someone with a science background? Not a chance. I guess the short answer is that we can't pick a jury that is going to favor our side, whatever one that is, but we can try to eliminate potential jurors who might torpedo the case because of some bias/prejudice they have. Occupations are one way of trying to pick the best jurors, & eliminate the worst. Some lawyers use bumper stickers, TV programs, magazines you subscribe to. It's all about having only a few minutes to decide which of these strangers would make the least worst jurors in your murder, rape or other serious case. Bob

KELLYN can certainly speak for himself about why he doesn't want engineers on his jury panel, but, as for me, please understand two things: 1. Each side gets a certain number of peremptory challenges so each side can excuse any prospective juror, up to the limit of the law (Florida is 3, 6, or 10 depending upon what the case is) for any or no reason except these can't be exercised for racial or ethic or protected class reasons. Lots more details about this, but essentially, this is the law. 2. The lawyers picking the jury have only a few minutes to get to know the prospective jurors and decide if they want them to sit on their jury. Engineers, in particular, can be troubling. Generalizing (because in that limited time, that's all we can do) I think engineers would be great jurors for a case which is a whodunit with lots of scientific evidence, fingerprints, DNA, etc. But, a case built on circumstantial evidence (yes, circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence upon which to base a case) I would not want someone with a math or scientific background. Generalizing, again, IMO you engineers are into certainties, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2. If my case has the first 1 and I am using circumstances to prove the second 1 and asking you to find it equals 2 (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) I don't want an engineer on the panel. OTOH, if I have a 1 (eyewitness) + 1 (DNA), then I might want an engineer who will know that equals 2 (guilty). Same with school teachers. Generalizing, IMO, teachers are liberals, deal with wayward kids and are used to aberrant behavior as kinda the norm. IMO they will look for a way to excuse the conduct and find a reason to not hold the defendant accountable. I know that is not true of all teachers but I don't have time (or any opportunity) to determine if a teacher on a prosepective panel fits that generality or not. I don't take a chance and use a peremptory challenge on the teacher. I realize none of this is very scientific-most of it is gut-instinct and very bad experiences that mold us in our opinions about who makes the best jurors for a particular case.

Glad to have talked with you. Be sure, if you can, to let us know how it works out for you. Bob

You bell the case mouth when you press the case up into the Dillon powder measure on your Dillon press. You do have a Dillon press, don't you? Bob

Kellyn is right on the money here. Also no school teachers, no one who has had a family member arrested or prosecuted sits on my juries. I don't know about other states, but if you tried to do a jury nullification in Florida, you would be have to be a lying perjurer. Every prosecutor questions the prospective jurors (who are sworn by the way) about whether they will follow the law, whether they like it, disagree with it, or find it different than they thought it was. I get a commitment, under oath, from every prospective juror that they are swearing they will follow the law no matter what. If a prospective juror can't do that, they don't serve. Then I get another sworn commitment from them that they will set aside prejudice, bias and sympathy and decide the case based soley on the evidence in the form of testimony and exhibits, and the law as the judge gives it to them. If someone can't do that, they don't serve. Then I get a third sworn commitment that they will render a verdict that speaks the truth about what happened on a particular date in the past. Again, if they can't commit to that, they don't serve. All of these commitments mirror the instructions the judge will give them later. Lastly, the judge gets another commitment, with a new oath, before the chosen men/women actually sit on the jury that they will "well and truly" try the issues between the State of Florida and the Defendant. Of course, the defense attorney gets his/her own set of sworn commitments-such as that they will hold the State to proving each and every element that makes up the particular crime charged beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. In 25 years of trying cases and just under 11 years of being a police witness before law school, I have never had a jury nullification. Certainly I have had cases where the defendant was found not guilty and there have been cases where one juror has refused to deliberate, committed some act of misconduct or refused to agree with the rest of the jurors resulting in a mistrial (which means we just pick another jury later) but I think it would be difficult, in Florida, to get 6 people (12 in capital cases) to all agree the defendant committed each element of the crime charged, but should be freed. A recent case in Tampa, where a guy drove over a man who had just robbed him resulted in a acquittal. Some blogs suggested a nullification, but there were clearly plenty of grounds to find that guy not guilty and IIRC the jurors who spoke to the media said just that. Could there be a jury nullification? Only if 6 or 12 people have no integrity and will lie under oath. In my experience, most people are honest.

Looks like for us in Tampa Bay, at least, we've skated again. The Cone of Wobble (or Death or Guess) has drifted to the east and it may not be as bad for Floridians if it stays on that course. I am praying it wobbles more easterly and passes well east of the Keys and Bahamas, but the computer models show it heading for South Florida. Bob

Well, the projected path (we sometimes call it the Cone of Death) of Ernesto has it right at the mouth of Tampa Bay on Wednesday afternoon. Right now it has fizzled back to a Tropical Storm, but since the water is so warm, if it gets away from land, it will be back to Hurricane strength. Did I mention I was going to start my vacation on Thursday morning? Planned for about 6 days at the range. Hopefully, it'll fizzle over land before it does anyone any damage. Grrrrrrrrrr!

Yes kellyn I can do arrest warrants. Actually I was a police officer for just under 11 years (patrol, detective and sergeant) before law school. And, to be clear, I am not advocating a special prize table for police officers, but wouldn't have a problem with it if they competed with their duty guns/rigs. Otherwise, they would be a real small class. For example, if only one officer showed up to shoot, he/she would "automatically" be top dog in that class, right? Seems wrong to me. Maybe it's just this area, but seems like less than 5% of shooters at any kind of match are LEOs. Probably way less. I'm a year or less from retirement and plan to do a little traveling. Maybe I'll take you up on the offer. Bob

kellyn-I thought I was the only prosecutor on this forum. Here in Florida, under Chapter 790 (the firearms section) we are LEOs but, of course, don't have the power to arrest. Seems pretty clear (at least to the lawyer in me) that under the GSSF definition at least a Florida prosecutor would qualify. Never got around to shooting GSSF, though. Actually, as far as USPSA, I don't see why there needs to be a special class for LEOs. Seems to me, if there is, they should shoot what they carry in their duty (uniform or plain clothes) holsters. They'd be competitive in their class/division or whatever it was titled. If they did not choose to shoot with their carry rigs, they could shoot whatever fit in their division, just no special award/prize, etc. for being a LEO. Bob

Sort of surprised nobody replied to your post. IIRC these appeared in the early 90s. I had two pass through my hands in the late 90s, never really spent any time with either. Reviews were mixed, I think, among 550 owners with some swearing they were great after a little tinkering/tweaking, others swearing at them because they couldn't get them to function correctly. One of our local 45/38 Super gunsmiths talked them up pretty good, but said you needed to be "handy" to get/keep one functioning right. I think I have seen them for sale on Ebay, and if I had it, that is probably how I'd sell it. Dillon's new casefeeder, while costing lots more, works-sometimes your model doesn't. Good luck, Bob

I have three Dillon trimmers (two dedicated to specific cartridges, the third for "other" cartridges) and the Giraud for 30'06 and 223. One of our High Power instructors has access to the Gracey for 223. He says he doesn't like it because it sometimes overtrims (past the length he wanted) brass. Most of the threads I have read say the Giraud is more powerful, trims quicker and I notice that on Ebay you can purchase the Gracey without a motor (later adding the Giraud motor). As to my experience with the Giraud, I found it to be very simple. Doug sends it to you all set up & ready to go. He sends a trimmed piece of brass showing how it is set up to trim and what length. You work it sort of like a pencil sharpener, stick the brass in, turn it 180 degrees and pull it out. It is trimmed to length, and chamfered inside and out. Takes a second or so. Using two hands, (right one grabs brass, sticks it in, turns, pulls out, left one sticks new piece in, etc, while right one grabs third piece, etc.) it seems is faster than the Dillon, and, as a bonus, chamfers, too. I have never used the Gracey myself and I have heard good things about it despite what the instructor says, though everyone I have discussed it with says the Giraud is better, faster and more powerful. Only drawback is that you can almost buy two Dillon trimmers for what one Giraud costs. I have no regrets, however, and may buy another and certainly will buy another Dillon. Bob

Wow! I kinda see what you mean, now. I think I would let those parts sleep with the fishes and put a complete new/different set in. I thought I knew at little something about Glocks, but this is really an eyeopener for me. Thanks for posting this thread. Everybody seems to be seeking that slick, crisp, target quality let-off in the Glock-maybe there is a point of diminishing returns (or downright dangerous ones). Before this, I sorta believed that the worst that could happen is that the gun just would not work. Thanks again, Bob

In the second of your posts, you discuss getting a repeat with dummy rounds. I think you are talking about getting the slide to go forward into battery when you slam the mag into the magwell, right? But not getting the gun to "fire", right again? It does look like there's some irregularities with the parts, but I have some doubts about the possibility of the Glock firing without the trigger being back. All of the instances of the Glock supposedly firing "full auto" or more than one round at a time involved the trigger being pulled to fire one and actually firing two or more before the operator can release the trigger. I just don't see, and haven't heard of, a Glock firing without the trigger being back. But I sure don't claim to have heard or read about every unexpected/unwanted "bang" from the Glock and will watch the posts on this thread with great interest. Bob

I have noticed what LPATTERSON says to be correct in my experience. The different shcok buffs from different companies work/last differently. However, it seems that your spring(s) aren't quite right based on the damage to the buff you describe and the short length of time/service they last (less than 200 rounds). Sounds like there is a real slam taking place when you shoot, and that suggests the spring is either not heavy enough for the load or is worn out or defective. I'd change to another 18.5 spring and see if there's a similar result. If so, I don't see why you wouldn't try the 20 if you like the load you are shooting. If no problem with the buff when you change to another spring, you could probably conclude it was that particular spring and throw it away so you don't use it again. I like 231 and find it a great all around powder for 45 ACP so you could also change loads, but, really, if the one you are using shoots and functions okay, why change unless you find the 18.5 new spring is too weak and don't want to use a 20. Maybe Patrick Sweeney will weigh in on this from a gunsmithing perspective. Bob

Thanks Merlin, I just ordered some stuff from Brian, but I'll do it next time I need something. Bob

Thanks HSMITH-maybe I'll pick up a couple of the newer ones. Mine are the really old style with the pin in the shaft. Bob

I have had mine since about the time they first were marketed. Found out that it works the best, for me at least, if I use the Dillon tubes, rather than the ones that come with it. I just stick the bottom of a Dillon tube up the chute on the bottom, wiggle it and it slips right in the correct spot, pull the trigger and the primers come out perfectly-no flipped ones. With the Dillon tubes and rifle primers, whether large or small, I can only get about 96-97 in the tube but that is absolutely the only drawback to this system that I have found. My tubes are probably 15-20 years old, so maybe Dillon makes them a bit longer now. Bob

Since I got the VibraPrime, reloading has been more of a pleasure. I find that I dislike it only when there is some pressure on such as I MUST have this number of rounds loaded by a certain time. Then it seems as if I'm always delayed because I need some other powder I don't have, am short of the right bullets, etc. The 550s always work, though, even when I don't feel like it. Otherwise it's a lot like Herky's post-I use it as a chance to relax, not worry about other things, concentrate on what I'm doing, focus on making the best round for the greatest accuracy. Bob