Garrison Joe

What a win-win situation all around! Good luck, GJ

Yep, TSA grunts LOVE them.

Shall I bring the dog?

Maybe I shall quit kicking dogs when posters start providing the whole story in the first post..... Guess that will never happen. ;D

It's the MD's call whether the disability was such that the shooter was "unable to comply" with the standard staging instruction. I trust the topic was discussed with the MD (or his effective delegate, the posse marshal) when someone first questioned the deviation from standard staging procedure. If not, well, RO and spotters all missed the chance to make a P call for improper staging. The line between "difficult" (as described above) and "unable to comply" (the burden of proof from the rule) is probably a pretty broad one. I'll not venture a call on that either way, having not seen the shooter try to execute the standard staging instruction. Good luck, GJ

We use the common, dictionary type definition of MALFUNCTION, since the rule book does not include malfunction in the list of terms in the glossary (Perhaps it should!) That common meaning of MALFUNCTION does not include an operator error while running the gun. So, while correcting an operator error, the rule that allows a slide-down reload is not in effect. While recovering from a malfunction, that rule IS in effect. That's the way my simple mind understands it. Good luck, GJ

Think that is an unwieldy and impossible concept. Not all such potential shooters will tell you before they show up that they might want some sort of accommodation. Would be great if they did, but they may not. Then, how long would it take to get a committee agreement on what the change is that you want to allow? A week, say? OK, let's tell the shooter at a Regional or National or International WB match they have to come back a week later and we'll let them shoot the match after we decide which accommodations they want to have will be allowed? Suuuuure... that will make everyone happy.... Here's the applicable WBAS Handbook statement from page 19: Nothing there requires the WBAS Rules Committee to vet your decision before you put some accommodation in place for a physically limited shooter. Match Director is able to make accommodations that he believes are necessary, on the spot, at the match. YOU want to be a major match director and turn away a qualified but wheelchair bound competitor who instead of shooting from a boardwalk, say, could be allowed to shoot from another location that allows the wheelchair to be operated? If we are not reasonable, we are not doing our best to welcome folks with a physical challenges. It's the MD's match to run fairly and be hospitable and welcoming (without giving away the farm). You will be surprised how being reasonable when running the match will be appreciated by the shooter and his/her friends or family. What is bringing all this on, pards? Good luck, GJ

What is that comment from left field all about? Is this a "have you quit kicking your dog yet" question? Wow, this thread just took a crazy turn South! Every shooter is eligible to get the accommodations that the posse marshal, with match director's consent when necessary, determines necessary to allow the shooter to safely shoot the match. However, I've not run across any shooter yet who needed (or would be willing to accept the offer of) something other than standard long gun staging. You will have to explain why staging a long gun propped up is a necessary accommodation for a particular shooter. Otherwise, shooters all play by the same rules. Good luck, GJ

Yep. AFAIK, you've missed the condition where a shooter has to, say, drop mag and rack slide to clear the gun because of a gun or ammo malfunction. Slide is now forward on empty chamber. Shooter may insert a mag, then rack slide. That load is purely and simply as a result of (following after) a malfunction. Shooter was not at the point where he would have had to do a reload, but to clear the malfunction, he cleared the gun. Loading then, with chamber empty and slide forward, is not a tactical reload. So, as I understand it, it would be allowed when the load is a part of recovery from the malfunction. This is supported by last sentence of rulebook text you cited: That has recently been clarified, as I understand a recent discussion, as being after any GUN or AMMO malfunction. It does not cover shooter mistakes (like dropping a mag before shooting last shot, which then ends up with slide forward on an empty chamber, but because it is OPERATOR error, not a malfunction, that does not allow shooter to just slam in another mag without first locking slide open). Good luck, GJ

Nope, not a hope in Hades that will get past a knowledgeable RO. Flat on table means flat on table, not propped up on anything, not standing on edge balanced, not laying on top of staged ammo, no, no, just No. Good luck, GJ

Here's most of the rules describing legal 1911 carry, staging and reholstering: (Part in bold is what I will refer to.) You would have allowed pistol to leave your hand, with slide forward AND a loaded magazine in the gun. (The rules don't distinguish not having charged the pistol as an exception that lets you remove your hand from the pistol). Therefore, staging the "uncharged," slide-forward, loaded-mag-inserted pistol on a table once you had started the stage would be grounds for a SDQ. Think you were advised correctly. Pulling the pistol, and shoving it back in the holster immediately, would also be grounds for an SDQ, for violating the last bullet item in the list. The only easy, non-penalty, way out of the jam, had you drawn pistol at wrong time, would have been to drop mag, lock slide back, lay pistol on table, shoot SG, pick up pistol and load or move as needed. Even then, there would be the unanswered question of whether you would be allowed to draw, empty and lock slide, then properly stage an empty pistol, which I can't find that the rules address, so I would have a "no call" for that maneuver. (Especially so because the first paragraph cited would allow you to fix a "charged at wrong time" problem. Might as well allow the shooter to fix the "drawn at wrong time but not charged" problem the same way!) Good luck, GJ

Experimenting? Psshaw, we already know they work. Any 1911 tuned to where it won't set off even CCI primers is probably not tuned well. I shoot Winchester or Federal (any of the 4 variations), and yes even CCI primers in my 1911s because the mainspring is not super light. Use of magnum primers can be expected to increase velocity (and pressure) slightly in most loads, so a chrono check and examination for excess pressure signs after a change to magnum primers is always wise. Right now, the Federal Large, Magnum, Match (155M) primer seems to be easier to get in these parts than any of the other LP Federals. And those work fine too. This is Wild Bunch - no fancy guns that won't fire off primers or that you have to work over if the load changes pressure or recoil slightly. One of the nice things about WB - no race guns! Good luck, GJ

Nope, that would NOT be where I would try to save a few dollars! Schofield sizer will leave brass sized to .480" on the outside rather than .473. Won't taper crimp. Probably won't be short enough in some of the dies. Good .45 auto dies will last forever and you will be much more likely to get the 1911 to cycle flawlessly with properly sized ammo. Folks have enough problems understanding how to load .45 auto with the correct dies. Never in a million years would I even try Schofield dies. Good luck, GJ

Is there a question in there some place, or do you just want us to tell you to find another local gun shop who will stock (or try to) the items you need? Unique will be greatin .44 mag, and WST in .45 auto. Good luck, GJ

The Jersey Kid? Howdy and welcome to Wild Bunch! "Getting lead bullets to feed" in the 1911 usually takes close attention to at least three things, most important first: 1) ammo that fits in the chamber "drop in" and is the correct length. Mention what bullet you are going to be using and we can give you feedback on what Over All Length (OAL) works for that particular slug. 2) high quality magazines that are known to feed such lead bullet ammo as you want to shoot. It's generally recognized that Tripp, Chip McCormick and Colt factory mags are right at the top of "always works in almost any gun for almost any load" 3) then, getting the gun running smooth, feeding 100% from the high quality mag, extracting and ejecting, and just generally "playing nicely." A polished and tuned feed ramp and chamber ramp area is part of the equation, but not as important as many folks think if 1 and 2 are done right. Another great 1911 gunsmith - and a moderator here! Goatneck Clem does fine work on 1911s. http://www.goatneckclemgunsmithing.com/ A fellow who does a very nice job on such things (he did a wonderful job on my dovetailed front sight, from scratch): Steve Morrison at Mars Guns in Salt Lake City: http://marsguns.com/Home.htm Good luck, GJ

No, I wouldn't raise a challenge like that (something that seems to have no solution) without warning you that I had already worked for X number of hours trying to find a solution. But, I did puzzle with it for about a minute before asking, not wanting to appear denser than I normally do. I would say that your solution on this one meets the ingenuity test, but probably not the simplicity test. And it's certainly not the brain-teaser job that I would like to have to solve as a match director when I've got 12 stages to design in the next hour or two. It seems to me that 7 round mags will require a small cheat sheet FOR ME to be able to design stages quickly enough to keep me from pulling out the rest of my gray hair. And, the post that JFN cited that he wrote 20 months ago does include several interesting sweeps. If we are going to go seven rounds, then let's allow moving at least with slide down and finger off trigger, too, or the IPSC and other practical disciplines are going to be all over that restriction as their next complaint. Good luck, GJ

OK, that's a nice one for a progressive sweep! And a variation on it with 5 targets, you could do a 2-3-4-3-2 tap sweep. Next challenge - Something like a Nevada sweep (no double taps), to use 14 shots, and you don't want the simplest way of using four targets (or the dumb way with just 2 targets alternated). GJ

4 targets - 1 on #1 2 on #2 4 on #3 7 on #4 Rather icky, no? Even worse, 1,2,3,8. That's not even a polka... (Maybe that is why there is no 6/7 time signature in music?) Come on, you all can get closer to a "Larry Welk" than that! Name us a few that IPCS does to get us rolling.... GJ

My post was not a complaint. It was a challenge. List 'em if you got em. I'll start you off - Let's see what you would do for a progressive sweep or something similar, where round count is different on each target and yet still a very simple series.... :D GJ

Gentlemen - As you start thinking about 7 round mags, I suggest you try to compile typical target counts and the sweeps that you could use to "come out even" on them. It seems to be a little tougher to layout with 7-round mag loadouts coming out "cleanly", except with a 3 or 4 target layout. Try single tap sweeps, double tap sweeps, progressive sweeps, Nevada sweeps and whatever else you think is pretty common. The 7 rounds don't seem to come out very even on lots of layouts we normally use in WB now. Stage writers may not think 7-round mag loadouts are as easy. Some stages, you might want to consider that a mag would be able to be loaded less than 7 to come out even. That might even be the first mag in the pistol, to avoid having to remember a specific mag on the body that has, say, 4 rounds in it to make a sweep have the right round count to end on an empty mag. Good luck, GJ

I've used the starting load in Hodgdon's on-line data for 230 grain in 45 auto with Titegroup and been happy with it. Makes PF in any of my 1911s. It came in at what the data shows, about 170 PF. http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/

I don't know any range that really loves to have aluminum cases littering their facility. And, sure, there is a little scrap value on those cases, so someone probably would want to take them. But, our local ranges would want them picked up - we'd just shag and bag while the match was going on. Good luck, GJ

Great suggestion. I would guess that since the rules don't prohibit it, it would be acceptable as an accommodation to weaker-muscled shooters. You certainly would not be doing it to shave a few milliseconds off your time. :D Good luck, GJ

There are 2 springs that resist the slide in recoil - the recoil spring and the mainspring. Recoil spring you see up at the muzzle every time you take the gun down for cleaning. The mainspring is down in the mainspring housing at the back of the grip, right behind the magazine well opening. Both contribute to difficulty in racking the slide. The mainspring does not bear directly on the slide, of course, it is the spring that drives the hammer, but the slide starts cocking the hammer almost immediately during recoil, so "both springs are being compressed during recoil." And, be careful to keep the two springs "in balance," as they work together. Drastically changing one without considering the other can lead to some strange behavior. For a 165 power factor load, I can drop to a 15 pound recoil spring without much difference in function. The factory spring is 16 pounds. I get nice ejection, about 5 feet to 10 feet from where I stand, so that is also a good indication that the spring setup is not "too light". To balance the little-bit-lighter recoil spring, I also have a lighter mainspring in my gun, at 19 pounds. This gives you less resistance when you cock the hammer. If the gun is easy for her to rack with the hammer already cocked, but difficult when the hammer is down, the mainspring is responsible for the extra force required. The factory mainspring is a 23 pound spring. When putting in a lighter mainspring, it is worth it to have the mainspring housing bore where the spring sits honed out - typically that area is very rough and needs to be smoothed to still drive the hammer to fall fast enough to get good primer strikes with a lighter mainspring. So, loading to the lower end of the PF range, smoothing the gun, and dropping a little spring weight to match the lighter loads will help quite a bit. Second is just the physical motion she uses to rack the slide. It is easier for folks without much upper body strength to rack with the gun close to the chest. Push the grip forward with the strong hand and resist the slide with the other hand - that will let the shooter rack easier. Trying to rack conventionally, with the gun out away from the body and the strong arm almost fully extended, means you are only using muscles from the weak arm. One fairly accurate way to monitor if the 1911 is sprung incorrectly, so as to lead to either damage to the gun or to failure to fully eject is to watch how far the empties get thrown. If dribbling out of the ejection port and falling at your feet, too much spring resistance for your load. If throwing 15 feet or more, not enough spring resistance for the load. Bullseye target shooter firing loads with about 130 PF can drop down closer to 12 pound recoil springs. "Heavy hardball" shooters are well served with 18 pound recoil springs. Folks shooting heavier loads than that ought to get a Desert Eagle or something built for that kind of service. Good luck, GJ

Since you have a micrometer/caliper available to measure (good deal - all loaders should have something!), measure a couple of the rounds that don't go into the case gage. I agree that all rounds should pass a standard loaded-round gage! What causes me problems is the BASE of the case, just above the extraction groove. Especially with "range brass" that came from who-knows-where. There are several guns commonly in use, chambered in.45 auto, that allow the base to swell when fired. A standard sizer die cannot remove that bulge. When you measure, if you get ANY diameter above 0.473 inch, except for the "rim" itself, you have a badly bulged case. Not to mention any names, but G*&^K and grease guns and other sub guns all have unsupported or very sloppy chambers that allow the base area to swell on firing. It is hard to bulge a 45 auto case up at the mouth with just a taper crimp that tightens down to 0.472. That is just barely crimping. If you are seating and crimping in a single die, back off the die body to just seat, but not crimp at all, a few cases. If those will not chamber, then you are not causing your problem just by adding the crimp! Most of the 45 auto 230 grain LRN are made to crimp right at the leading edge of the "driving band". Shorten your OAL until you can get the mouth to slip up over the band and crimp right where it starts the nose ogive curve. Then, look down from the top of the loaded round and see that you can still see part of the thickness of the case mouth that has not been buried into the lead of the slug. Just a little of the thickness should be crimped into the lead, most should be left free of the lead so that proper headspacing (on the mouth of the case) is not lost. You are probably trying to jam the leading edge of the lead driving band of the slug into the beginning of the throat of the barrel Make sure you do not get any bulging of the exposed part of the slug just above the crimp when you crimp, either. That is a problem some folks have with the 200 grain SWC (cast much softer usually), not normally with the 230 gr LRN. Most commercially cast 45 auto slugs are cast REALLY hard, like 14-16 Brinnell hardness. Sometimes it take a firmer hand on the seating step to make the crimp - sorta like seating jacketed slugs. If all else fails, then I would get a separate crimp die to apply the taper crimp after you have seated to the desired length. I favor the Redding profile crimp die, but the Lee Factory Crimp Die is very good, and has an extra use.......It can be used to remove those nasty bulges that the sizing die cannot reach by getting the "add on" parts in the "Lee Bulge Buster." Those extra parts allow you to size the ENTIRE case (even the rim, which is OK, if not actually "factory spec"). If you do have bulges down by the base, the Bulge Buster is the only cheap way to get them out. I found I went from having 5-10 rounds per hundred not fit the loaded round gage to less than one per hundred when I started "busting the bulges" off of all my 45 auto cases. And, finally, there are a few designs of the 230 grain lead round nose molds that make a slug which does not taper quickly through the ogive. The fat nose can hit the throat and rifling and prevent the round going in the chamber the last 1/10 of an inch. Compare the slugs you are using to those that known-successsful 45 auto shooters are using. Personally, I dislike the LRN so much that if I shoot a 230 grain bullet in the 1911, I use a 230 grain Truncated Cone bullet, which NEVER hits the rifling if seated at the correct OAL. Good luck, GJ PS - the "bulge" you see in the case mid-height at the base of the seated slug is normal. A 45 auto sizer die takes the brass down to a little less than 0.473 inch. Inserting the slug counts on having neck tension from that tight case help hold the slug in place. All this works right when you figure out your other problems. It is ALMOST NEVER solved right by dropping down to a .451 bullet diameter, and besides, you will have a hard time convincing a commercial caster to size small just for you. You have a different problem than the bullet diameter. If you doubt this part, measure the case right where the bullet bulge is the most visible. I'll bet you are not over 0.473 inch - the magic diameter for a well-formed loaded round. GJ