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

StealthyBlagga

Classifieds
  • Content Count

    3,296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About StealthyBlagga

  • Rank
    Special Little Snowflake

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Uzi Triangle (Gilbert, AZ)
  • Real Name
    Richard Bhella

Recent Profile Visitors

4,108 profile views
  1. Registration for SMM3G 2021 is officially OPEN. As in recent years, there will be a 1-week registration window after which match slots will be awarded by random draw using the PractiScore lottery system. For details of the match, and to register, visit the SMM3G match page on PractiScore.
  2. Superstition Mountain Mystery 3-Gun (SMM3G) March 17-21, 2021. Registration opens mid-October (dates to be posted here).
  3. Indeed, bimetal ammo has a mild steel jacket that will attract a magnet, but you can use it under this match's unique rules. Just please do not bring ammo with a penetrator core.
  4. I've used Arredondo, TTI and TF. All worked 100%. Whichever you choose, do NOT add anything to the bottom of the extension (e.g. grip tape) without checking it in the official gauge... I've see a lot of mags fail the gauge for this reason. At the very least, only bring your shortest magazine to the chrono
  5. I have been running Glock magazines in my 9mm PCCs since the creation of USPSA PCC division, initially with a Quarter Circle 10 blowback gun and most recently with a pair of CMMG Radial Delayed Blowback frankenguns. I've had great luck with factory Glock 33-round mags in all of these guns, but noted a tendency for the front of the magazine to deform after a period of time: My assumption is that this deformation is caused by the cartridge nose impacting the front of the magazine tube as it feeds into the chamber. The deformation occurs in the steel magazine liner and is
  6. Understood. This is one of those unusual situations that the rules don't really anticipate. An experienced RO will use it as a teachable moment - the poor guy was probably wondering why he was not getting any hits past 10 yards.
  7. Please re-read my statement above - I never said a grease ring is required. I said "the presence of a crown, grease ring or similar evidence of an actual intact bullet is required by 9.5.5 to negate the PRESUMPTION that the hole was caused by a non-scoring impact (examples given)". I think this is a reasonable interpretation of 9.5.5. Your statement above that (and I quote) "Rule 9.5.5 deals with debris and splatter, not with scoring of deflected bullets" is factually incorrect... rather, 9.5.5 deals with RICOCHETS and splatter (read the rule). I think if you asked the average sho
  8. I agree that the RO should routinely be checking to see if the bullet passed full-diameter through anything deemed inpenetrable (target, hard cover), whether or not the hole in the target looks unusual (though the appearance may be a cue to pay extra attention). However, I do not agree with the assertion that we should otherwise automatically or by default assume any hole in the target was caused by the bullet (which I think is what you are saying). Instead, regardless of what we think might have happened, if the hole is larger-than-caliber then rule 9.5.5 should come into play - that's its wh
  9. One can always speculate about way-out-in-left-field situations, but the RO should not ignore the rules as written to accommodate them. I would resolve your scenario by invoking one or both of the following rules: 5.5.5 Any ammunition deemed unsafe by a Range Officer must be immediately withdrawn from the match. 5.5.6 Ammunition must not discharge more than one bullet or other scoring projectile from a single round.
  10. Great for snakes - not much else.
  11. I hear you, but I have two concerns: 1) Knowing with certainty that a larger-than-caliber hole was caused by a relatively intact bullet, which presumably we can all agree should score, as opposed to a spray of fragments or a secondary missile (like a piece of wood), which presumably we can all agree should not count. 2) Being able to accurately score a larger-than-caliber hole that spans a scoring line. The "crown/grease ring" test is an objective way for the RO to resolve both questions, and has served me well over the years. If folks want to advocate for a diffe
  12. Agreed. The larger-than-caliber distinction is clearly only intended to address holes that do not contain a scoreable arc, which calls into question whether the hole was caused by an intact bullet vs. secondary debris. An elongated bullet hole is easy to score (assuming it penetrates the target of course).
  13. Understood. As discussed above, I was addressing the tangential question about a larger-than-caliber hole.
×
×
  • Create New...