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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by StealthyBlagga

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. Great for snakes - not much else.
  9. 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
  10. 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).
  11. Understood. As discussed above, I was addressing the tangential question about a larger-than-caliber hole.
  12. Neither "ricochet" nor "deflection"are defined in the USPSA rules glossary. Instead I defer to Meriam-Websters: Deflection: turning aside or off course Ricochet: a glancing rebound (as of a projectile off a flat surface), an object that ricochets Of the two words, only "ricochet" is used in the context of scoring policy (9.5.5. ricochets don't count for score). Nonetheless, if we follow your logic that the distinction is meaningful, I'd contend the following: A deflection implies a less extreme change of direction. The projectile changes direction slightly bu
  13. Yeah, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. In that example, the RO should declare REF, replace the target and reshoot the competitor. In the absence of a crown/grease ring or similar partial radius, the hit cannot be accurately scored.
  14. My statement that Rule 9.5.5 is clear and stands alone is not contradicted by the article you have referenced. 9.5.5 simply and clearly states a hole that exceeds the competitor’s bullet diameter should not be scored as a hit unless there is some evidence (examples given) that the bullet made the hole. Logic like "that bullet only partially hit that surface, so the hole behind MUST be from the bullet" are not supported by the rules as currently written. 9.5.5 also implies by its wording that a ricochet is not to be scored, which is a position confirmed in the article (text highlighted in red).
  15. Rule 9.5.5 is clear and stands alone (not dependent on adjacent hard cover, no shoots etc.): 9.5.5 Enlarged holes in cardboard targets which exceed the competitor’s bullet diameter will not count for score or penalty unless there is visible evidence within the remnants of the hole (e.g. a grease mark or a “crown” etc.), to eliminate a presumption that the hole was caused by a ricochet or splatter. The hole you describe should be scored a miss.
  16. Clean it then verify you don't have a ring bulge under the lead.
  17. Well that was quick - the match is full already. If anyone wants in but missed the boat, please go to the registration page above and join the wait list... there is a good chance we will be able to get at least some of you into the match.
  18. UPDATE: We are thrilled to announce that Lee Armory has stepped up HUGE as title sponsor for this event. Every competitor will have a chance of winning one of five excellent Lee Armory AK rifles from the random draw prize table. We expect this match will fill up in minutes, if not faster... if you want in, make sure you are online and logged in to your PractiScore account before the match opens tonight. If the match is full when you get to the registration page, we suggest you get on the wait list as we do typically have a few folks drop out as match day approaches.
  19. We've had a few folks ask if they can remove the optic from their flat-top AR15 rifle and add bolt-on or aftermarket iron sights. The answer is YES, but iron sights must be "battle-worthy". This means a protected post front sight, an aperture or notch rear sight, and a sight radius that does not exceed that of the original design. Only one set of sights on top of the rifle is allowed (no secondary offset irons). Specialized target sights (e.g. Globe front sight, diopter rear sight, extended sight radius etc) are a no-go. To be honest, all long-range targets will be inside 300M and pretty large
  20. Give the shooter the picked-up magazine after the first string and before the second string. Problem solved.
  21. Extra Shot? On a Virginia Count stage? PS: Virginia Count sucks.
  • Create New...