Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

rudder

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rudder

  • Rank
    Looks for Range

Profile Information

  • Real Name
    bill rudder

Recent Profile Visitors

91 profile views
  1. rudder

    Fault lines?

    Your math is all fuzzy. You theoretical fault line violations of 3400 skews the math. First, 326 is 9.5% of 3400, but that 3400 dilutes the number. A better way to look at it is 326 is 191% of the shooters, or almost 2 per shooter. (1.917 x 170= 325.9). Of course there were some who got none, and some who got a lot more. The point is that the fault line rule did skew the match. It was also illegal per the rules. It is also fact that had ONE shooter arbitrated, all the fault line stages would be discarded, leaving the match to be determined by a very few stages. (Even the standards had a fault line). This was clearly delineated in an email from IDPA leadership. If we are going to allow rule changes in any match (especially a tier 2 or higher), it must first be approved by HQ, all shooters notified well in advance. Then all can decide for him or herself if they want to spend upwards of $125.00 in entry fees, travel, etc. However, HQ did finally relay that all matches will be run by the rule book. That is the final word I have received. Revisit you math. BR
  2. rudder

    Fault lines?

    There were about 176 paid shooters, a total of about 200. There were well over 300 procedurals, total. Of course, not all were foot faults. Look at the breakdown for clarity.
  3. rudder

    Fault lines?

    I was one that protested last years fault line(s), and acute angle targets; leading to off balance shooters and danger of falls and accidental discharges. The simplest solution was to paint the fault line wood with anti skid paint (just sand in paint), color of choice, but red preferable, or yellow. Instead, the match folks chose to alter the rules, in contravention of the rules. I did contact HQ about this, and was referred to my AC and/or SC. The answer I got (I have the emails if anyone really doubts), was that the match director was notified that this was illegal, and that if protested, could result in all stages with the fault lines being thrown out. Thus, the directors were duly notified of the problem. No one formally arbitrated this. In my personal opinion, the briefing on the fault lines rules change, was in addition to the obvious, was to try and negate a arbitration. There were quite a few upset shooters. I also posted on the idpa forum about this situation. It should be noted, as of this time, not all my questions were answered, by either HQ or AC/SC. There were other issues as well, but I leave that to others. HQ did have a meeting on this; however, I have not been privy to the results, and don't expect to be informed. There were questions about this; and I directed these folks to the HQ designates, but was accused of "name dropping". Apparently a high crime and misdemeanor to some. My primary concern here is the "on the fly" rule changes, lack of enforcement by HQ, transparency of the rules, accountability, and fairness. Then we have rules decisions, in the form of a several page document, that cannot be released to the general membership. I have seen it. The author considers it his personal domain, but contents delineate how certain rules are applied. I don't like cloaking of rules in any way. The fault line rules are clear. Some others are not. After 22 years, can we not get it right.
  4. rudder

    P320 X5 Thread

    I invite all to read: P320 X5 blowout posting 01/24/19 by Rudder, concerning the Sig P320 X5 blowouts. Interesting alternative viewpoint of others experiences. FYI
  5. rudder

    P320 X5 Thread

    Talk about Sig discontinuing the current X5, its being false, then being sold at discount to allow for new model with updated optic mounting plate, is interesting A different viewpoint. Bought a new, upgraded P320 X5 recently. With mixed factory rounds (9mm), it severely bulged 13 rounds straight (seen later), and blew out a 14th, ejecting the extractor to obscurity. Called Sig and was told by customer service:"We have never heard of this before". Examination of the pistol revealed, and using precision metrology equipment, that chamber depth was indeed too short, leaving the case rears unsupported the full circumference of the chamber. In fact the blown case was almost severed into two pieces, not just at the feed ramp. Additionally, there is a very heavy and deep radius around the chamber mouth. The use of mixed factory rules out the "bad case" excuse, often cited. Comparison of many different 9mm handguns in collection (Beretta, Sig P226 X5, 226, 229, Browning, 1911, Smith and Wesson 5906 PPC, 469, Astra 600, Kahr, Luger, Colt 2000, even a Hi point, showed much more chamber/case support. Search revealed at least three federal lawsuits over blowouts, on in Western District of Missouri, a class action, and repeated blow ups. There are suits over safety as well, with several injured law enforcement officers. Noting the date of the suits, and my recent "Never heard of this" comment from Sig, it is truly almost impossible that Sig did not know of this. The local gun shop (Duncan's Gun Shop, Wilkesboro, N.C.) was of absolutely no help. I obtained a return authorization and returned the pistol to Sig. 12 days later, it returned, citing only a extractor replacement, examination and test firing, all reported as normal. However, back to the metrology equipment, the chamber depth was most definitely not the same, with deeper seat. Headspace was in normal limits. As a mere chamber ream would open headspace, it must be a new barrel. Radius appeared same. Combination of the many suits far predating my contact with Sig, and the discrepancy shown by metrology, there is cause to suspect Sig is not being totally honest here. I have personally met with others who were not as lucky as me, sustaining injury. "We never heard of this" was cited as well. IT is interesting that the customer service rep is fast to ask about injuries or emergency room visitation. Out of lock firings were cited in one suit; technically this is right and wrong. Mr. Gray with GrayGuns, was quite argumentative over this out of lock issue, citing "It is impossible for the X5 to fire out of battery". He is half right. When the pistol if out of lock and fires, there is catastrophic case failure. The disconnector is set to prevent this. However, a situation of gross headspace can also mimick the same, or in the case of failed case support, say due to tolerance stacking. Generous radius, shallow chamber reaming, but with headspace appearing normal, leaves unsupported case web area. This can happen because the barrel remains in lock, disconnector not engaged. Thus the result is a blowout with the action indeed locked. So, technically, Gray is correct. But, as Paul Harvey once said: "Here is the rest of the story". Then the issue of reload use was suggested. In my case, no. However, in over 40 years of reloading, including many .38 Super and 9mm loadings (Not major 9), I have never experienced a blow out of any nature. The only problem encountered, ever, was a case partial separation loading for the 5.7x28, years ago, when I first started loading that caliber for the FiveSeven pistol. That was near the shoulder and was a repeated sizing/shoulder setback issue native to that cartridge. But I digress, my point here is, in my opinion, Sig knew it had a problem with the X5 barrel. It chose not to do a recall and rebarrel. Much like they did a voluntary send back for upgrading secondary to drop fires, but no recall. Rebarreling would be too expensive. The approach is to replace those sent in, but initially blame on "bad brass", reloads, or some other "operator" error. I did contact several nationally known gunwriters, who expressed interest, but were "unaware" of the problem. But then, when was the last time a gunwriter wrote of such issues? I can't remember. They wish to remain cozy with the manufacturers. I am concerned with shooter safety. I did recommend, based on this, that Duncan's withdraw this pistol from stock for sale, but seemingly they have refused. They are now very well informed as to the safety problem, as should all gunshops. Some have had glowing positive experiences with the X5, some clearly have had near catastrophic experiences. So, any new model change, say to incorporate a new optic base, does raise my antennae. It avoids facing the problem. FYI.
×
×
  • Create New...