El Chapo

Bullseye with a 230 is an excellent combination for 45 Auto. I don't load it but if I had Bullseye, that's what I'd be loading it in. I would not mess with heavier bullets, as the case is too small and pressures can get scary quickly if you do that.

I have an 8 pound jug of Aliant extra lite right now I'm going through as well, but there's a few cautions here. There are no published metallic loads for it that I'm aware of. Also, all Alliant powders are suspended production indefinitely, so once my jug is gone, I may not see any more. Given how scary the pressure spikes could be with it, I would not load it in any metallic cartridge. If I could pick one powder to rule them all, it'd probably be my personal favorite: Accurate Solo 1000. Unfortunately it has been discontinued for about 11 years, so I'm hoarding the last little bit I have. Runner up would be Hodgdon Clays for CAS/WBAS. After that, Alliant Red Dot and Ramshot Competition are two others I've tried that I would load in metallic cartridges and shotgun. Winchester WST works, too.

No real surprises here other than the shotgun misses. I am surprised to see the margin of victory on some of the questions though. Glad to see many people wrote similar comments to the ones I recognize as mine.

If my reading of the text is correct, I don't have to consult anything. It'd be the person claiming I was doing something against a non-existent rule who would bear the burden of explaining what was violated. Since I have enough ammunition for quite a while, I came here to see what others were doing because black powder is fun. I never said you had no grounds to express whatever you want. I asked what your textual support was. What's the call? And on what do you base the call?

Which I would do anyway, 3 dot sights are a terrible distraction. Not sure how those ever became popular.

You haven't answered my inquiry at all. You made a claim: that a cowboy rule that has no bearing on a rule decision as to WBAS governs. What's your authority for that? Because you say so? Because if there's any textual support for that, I can't find it anywhere. You made the claim, so the burden is on you to establish why you think that claim is defensible. My review of the WBAS rules suggests that by oversight or otherwise, the text that appears in the CAS handbook related to that issue and the banning of a certain powder by name is not present in the WBAS rules. WBAS was once a side match, and so all that history no longer matters. It is now its own sport with its own rules and equal recognition, so what was going on when it was a side match within CAS is irrelevant now or it wouldn't have its own rule book.

Do you have any authority for that proposition? It seems like a quite dramatic oversight, but CAS rules do not apply to WBAS and they are co-equals; WB is not inferior or subject to the rules from the other game.

Is there anything banning that in Wild Bunch?

I don't think your read is correct. I also think the fact that we can't agree on how to read this language suggests that this needs clarification. A SxS can certainly be "cycled" and "cocked." Neither of those concepts are unique to pump or lever action guns. Even a bolt action gun can be cycled and cocked. A definition that is limited to what "cycled" means for a pump or lever action gun doesn't tell you anything about what "cycled" means for a SxS nor does it exclude a SxS from the concept of what it means to be "cycled." In this case, it's likely the authors never considered it, but even that would not have any bearing as language often has to address facts not considered and the intent of the authors has nothing to do with what words mean even if some would find it persuasive. I think looking for ways to penalize someone for something that isn't clearly a penalty is an automatic no-no. If there's no clear rule that makes a certain infraction a penalty, then it should be no-call, just like "I thought I saw a miss" is a hit. That said, I have never used a SxS in WBAS and I don't intend to start, absent my M12 going down mid-match.

The question presented was an empty, not a "live round"

I'd be in favor of eliminating that definition in the interest of competitive equity. What is "attempting"? That requires us to get into a shooter's head. Obviously there's a good argument if the hammer falls and the round doesn't fire, but the fact that we even have to debate it is too unclear. I'm also in favor of round count stages, especially for wild bunch. It'd be a whole lot easier to have high round counts and more shooting if it wasn't for sweeps.

I don't think that thinking about shooting a target is the same as shooting at a target, but I'm also not any level of RO in either SASS sport.

I would think it's a P for shooting targets out of order anyway. If there are 3 targets you haven't attempted to shoot at, and you start another sweep, that is a procedural error on top of the 3 misses.

Separate is great if it's my state. Separate not so good if I have to travel. Either way, "Wild Bunch is not a side match"

I struggle with the same thing. Having it on Tuesday is hard. Thursday/Friday would be great.