raz-0

That's the statement of someone who doesn't shoot a lot. Manufactured ammo is definitely not free of defects. I've seen plenty. But much, much more common is that by the time the supply chain gets it to me, it sure as heck isn't a perfect box anymore.

I've ordered from Buds. I try to avoid them these days. They used to be cheap and fast. Then they were REALLY cheap and slow. Now they are maybe cheap and slow. Over time they have added more and more practices that while not actually deceptive, are confusing to the consumer and generally make the process of dealing with them more annoying and fraught with risk. They also just screw up more often these days. TO address T Bill's question. Like 45 doll said, some don't like them becuase they sell below their cost and kill any chance of them being competitive. However, I have run into a couple of FFLs that are geared primarily at doing transfers and are happy with their fees that also REALLY do not like doing business with Bud's and it is because of the following reason more or less. So buds catalog used to be a pretty competent cut and paste of manufacturer's web pages. NOW it's a sku with a random picture from the product line and a random description from the product line. It's crap. This results in a lot more people ordering something other than what they thought they did. Buds also now relies a lot more on selling stuff not yet in their actual inventory. This sometimes results in mistakes. Combine those two with a certain kind of... lets say thrifty and less informed customer that buds seems to attract, and they wind up having to make use of bud's return policy. The FFL has to ship it. THis leaves them doing all the work of a transfer and all the work of shipping and arguing with said customer type about how they need to pay to ship it back, or they just spent $XX supporting bud's business model and made zero money for it.

I've had issues where I get a significant change in POI with change in bullets. i.e. jacketed vs coated lead. But 6" at 15 yards is a LOT. I'd examine the barrel, slide, and rails of the gun. make sure they look right and nothing is worn, cracked, etc. If you change the barrel lock up, you can move POI by a LOT.

The biggest obstacle to challenge would be the federal excise tax on firearms. It is essentially a special sales tax on firearms and ammo at the federal level. It provides the majority of funding to government conservation efforts.

Since the pioneers of this bullshit were largley people who make up the state government, I highly doubt that is the issue. In case people haven't noticed, we have a serious bee problem. Reducing the number of well tended hives is not a way to fix that bee problem. Large commercial apiaries are experiencing more issues with hive collapse than smaller, well tended operations that aren't over taxing their bees.

First, no don't build a 1:12 .223 gun. Second, if you want to build a .223 for accuracy, it usually means you want to shoot heavier rounds, not lighter. Heavier round mean higher BCs, which means less wind drift over distance. If you are reloading for volume, yeah the light varmint bullets are cheap. However, if you aren't, they aren't so easy to find commercially. 77gr SMK/nosler based rounds cna be had regularly, and sometimes at pretty good price per round for accurate ammo. I personally like 1:8 barrels, it covers pretty much every useful bullet for .223/5.56

USPSA, IDPA and 3 gun matches are open to the public and will have some movers mixed in. Static steel and knockdown steel are good places to start. They get you used to the range commands and drawing form a holster if shooting centerfire, and can get you used to the basic safety process and gun handling before you throw in movement and strategy. Also, don't create intimidation for yourself that isn't there. AT least at OB, we are used to getting probationary OB members showing up to observe and meet their probation requirements. We won't look at you funny if you stop by to check things out as a non member. It wouldn't be the first time it has happened.

Aerosol cans usual hold their seal with something plasticy or rubbers, which oil and solvents tend to be unkind to and make cracked or brittle. Holding a gas seal is a lot harder than keeping a pump sprayer working. The only aerosol lubes I have found to last for really long are things like Remington dry lube. the carrier evaporates rapidly, and hte lube isn't hostile towards plastics. I just buy pumps or squeeze bottles.

1) "Buy a powder that has been around for at least 10 years and is well known for working in the cartridge you want to load. You can look at several manuals and most will tell you what powders worked best for them." Yes, and they can be wrong unless they genuinely update regularly. If they genuinely update regularly they will be adding new powder. Checking multiple sources is good. Trusting something simply because it has been around forever is bad if it is known that said thing changes over time. One of the metrics I use to determine if load data form a given source should be trusted is if it is remotely close to the powder maker's current data, and if they are adding new powders. The powder makers are simply NOT publishing dangerous data. They are publishing conservative, current numbers, or informing you they are not conservative numbers. 2) You said " Buy some JACKETED, not plated, bullets from a major maker." That would imply sierra, hornady, nosler, etc. What you say is true about jacketed being forgiving on crimp, which wasn't the question, that was pressure. But jacketed bulk bullets from precision delta, montana gold, rose distributing, etc all share that feature. The biggest problem people have loading plated is that they approach it with the attitude of "I'm doing everything right, why won't may plated loads do X". The answer, is like with every bullet, mic it, if it looks in spec, you are actually not doing everything right. People load coated without issues all the time because it looks different and thus the read the damn instructions.

It's not that I didn't believe sig couldn't screw something up, it's just that absent quality content demonstrating some effort to verify a statement, the internet is full of lies, trolling, and general bullshit. Case in point, the initial video claiming to demonstrate this has to date not been able to be reproduced by anyone. What was demonstrated was a different drop angle. This whole thing makes me curious as to just how drop safe most guns are. I have a pretty good idea with regard to glock, the sig 320 at this point, and series 70 1911s. but not much else other than what's on the CA DOJ roster vs. their test.

No I doubt that. I suspect the weight of the trigger and trigger bar imparts enough inertia to overcome the drop safety and the inertia on the -pre-loaded striker pulls it off of the sear. The latter wouldn't be a problem if the drop safety remained in place. We'll see what the replacement looks like. It may not even be a new trigger part, it may just be heavier springs in some place, which will make the trigger pull worse.

The military tests might. It wouldn't likely cause an issue with SIGs offering for the military contract as that mandataes a thumb safety. Which, unless implemented really oddly, would negate this issue as it would physically impede the motion of at least one item involved in this.

I'm not going to quote noylj in entirety because it is too long and most of it isn't what I'm commenting on, but 1) Jacketed, plated, lead. There's nothing special about jacketed. They can vary in design enough to really jack pressure. The only thing they buy you is, theoretically, no worries about polygonal barrels. But bullet A vs bullet B can have a different enough shape to affect pressure. It saves you nothing unless you go with the specific generation of the specific bullet tested. Which largley means the only thing you can readily and reliably identify are the pricey SD heads like gold dots, etc. This is why you work up from minimum and check for pressure signs. For sanity sake, I keep a sample of the bullets I load so I can compare differences in geometry to know if I can reuse my existing loads without making huge errors. If it's longer, you will have to seat deeper to get to mag length, and pressures go up for a given charge. If it has a longer bearing surface, pressures go up for a given charge. The mark one eyeball is usually sufficient to tell if there is a change, and if there is, you back off and work up again. 2) Go with a powder that has been out there for at least 10 years? Why? This is bullshit. Formulations of powders get changed over time. They aren't the same forever, just similar. This is why noylj likely had issues with a start load being over max. Because they were likely taking a load form a bullet manufacturers load manual that tends ot push the limit on pressures, AND it was likely from old powder done a while ago and the bullet maker just re-used it because they didn't change the bullet shape or composition (or noylj used an old manual). Use what you like, go by the powder manufacturers CURRENT numbers for sanity checks. Use common sense. noylj's logic is old data is tried and true. My logic is old data may be out of date. One of us has seen insane numbers in a manual and loaded bad ammo, one of us has not because he cross checked against current manufacturer recommendations and said that looks insane.

OK, so more news. OMaha outdoors is pulling sales of the 320 becuase they drop tested 4 and found 3 would fire when dropped. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/08/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-omaha-outdoors-halts-sales-of-sig-sauer-p320-pistols-following-drop-testing/ Oh wait. 3 of the 4 were torture tested. Yeah.. the 3 that would go off when dropped in a very specific manner. Also the one that didn't go off had a different trigger shoe that's lighter. Also nobody addressed the fact that there are 3 different factory triggers yet. "standard" which is no longer sold, "adverse conditions" which used to be optional, but now ships on all of them, and the flat trigger. Also of note, they all passed the saami and CA DOJ tests. The failed test combines the height of the ANSI/SAAMI test and the hard surface of the CA DOJ test and changes the angle form both. IT looks like the truth about guns is ordering their own and plans to try to actually do some testing right. At this point, absolute worst case is sig has to put some speed holes in the fat trigger bars.

TFB seems to have tried to actually do the right thing in an organized manner. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/02/breaking-p320-recall-issued-dallas-police-prohibited-duty-till-repaired/ To summarize: yes, there was a memo from DPD saying stop using the sig320. No, DPD is not aware of any incident that actually occurred. They claim the memo originated as a response to a warning from sig. No, sig did not issue any such warning according to sig. So right now the official story from both sides boils down to DPD magiced some shit out of thin air unless they can name a name lower on the totem pole at sig, or produce some communications to that effect form the mother ship. My net belief at this point is that DPD employs at least one stupid person that someone listens to. I might upgrade that to DPD employs more than one person who needs to be more skeptical and engage in a bit more of trust but verify. Knee jerk imagining of the scenario in my brain: Someone sees dipshit troll's video on the interwebz and complains to someone with something resembling authority/culpability for the 320 approval. We'll call them Bob. Bob: oh that looks bad. Calls armorer. Armorer: hunh? I doubt it but we don't issue the 320, so I'm not certified on it and have non to test. Bob: Oh. Calls "sig" where "sig" actually means the rep for the company they contract with for their shit and gets them contract pricing on their 22x guns. Bob:hey, is the 320 drop safe? Rep:I would assume so. Bob: my armorer says it isn't. Rep: Looking at your account, we don't sell you 320s, so why are you calling me? The 22Xs meet your criteria. Bob: yeah but what about the 320? Rep: How would I know? I don't sell them to you and I'm not sig. Bob: but your a sig distributer, they'd tell you and we buy a lot of stuff from you. Don't make me get pissy. Rep: Jeez fine. In the manual it says dropped guns may discharge like it does in all of their manuals. Tell your officers to stop buying shit I'm not selling them. Bob: See I knew you knew the answer. Rep: yeah don't forget you are paying for the golf cart rental next tuesday. Bob: Sure, bye.

I generally go with the EARsoft blasts because I can get a 200 pair pack for $28. Pairs indiviudally wrapped, which is convenient.

Foam nrr33 plugs. If you have small ears EAR makes their EARsoft plugs in a smaller size. Then some Howard leight amplified mugfs over top. They are $30-40. And not as huge as many others. You'll hear what you need to.

Yes. Polygonal increases pressure and will have lower max loads than traditional rifling.

OK. Some tips and explanations. 1) Have you read the fornt half of the lee manual? Cause it explains a lot well. 2) Lee doesn't generate load data, they aggregate load data form powder manufacturers, bullet makers, etc. These sources have different thresholds for safety margin, use different test barrel fixtures, may be reporting about different generations of a given named powder, etc. IMO in this day and age, jsut go to the powder manufacturer's load data page and work from there first. Sanity check it with the bullet manufacturer or other load manual if you are pushing the high end. 3) Check if it is jacketed or jacketed hollow point. Bullet construction affects overall length of the bullet, and surface area of the bearing surface. Longer bullet, less case volume, higher pressures with less gas. More beating surface means more friction, which means more force working against the bullet moving, whcih means higher pressures, which means lower max charge wieght. Lead forms a seal and is kind of sticky when put under those pressures, which is why it has lower max charge than slick jacketed projectiles. 4) In pistol loads, 1 grain is a lot. I load a lot of plated. IMO you do the following. All are to powder manufacturer data which I find to be the most frequently updated and most conservative. My experience applies to 9x19mm, .40S&W, and .45 acp. Raineir - load to lead data. Berrys normal - load to lead data. Berrys double struck - can load close to jacketed, I'll use similar weight JHP data for a sanity check on max load. Xtreme - load to jacketed data. bulletworks - load to jacketed data. powerbond - load to jacketed data then ask yourself why you are paying jacketed prices for plated. I stick to either extreme or bulletworks for plated these days. Their plating is thick and their lead is harder than the competition. And the price is right. They are very similar, but not the same. As a note to trusting the powder manufacturers: 124gr load for CFE from hodgdon is 4.9 start 5.5 max, and it's for their 4" test fixture using berry's 124 plated. You should be safe within that entire range substituting extreme's 124.

Well I've been looking around for info on this, because click baity single articles with few details are bullshit, but guns can break. This lead me to reread the article. article quote of Dallas PD " We have not currently had any issues with the Sig Sauer P320 handgun." Article's "explanation" "Based on an incident that occured on a range during training with Dallas PD, the P320 is being investigated and taken out of service. According to DPD Officers, a P320 discharged as a result of being dropped during training. " Then why wasn't that in the quoted statement? The new quote is what has been confimed, yet they do not remove the old "quote" that apparantly DPD won't confirm. So... There are only a couple things I have found that add information. 1) There's a giant troll fest with someone trolling for the past several months that the sig p320 will fire when dropped. They have posted video of it, but nobody can reproduce it, and they have been caught in many other lies in the process of this BS campaign. The presence of any debate seems to stem from the 320 failing the FBI drop test. However if you dig into that, the failure was breaking floorplates causing a speed unload upon drop. 2) One dude claiming to be from DPD who got his notice this morning. According to that guy, the issue stems form one officer having an incident with the 320 in the carry frame having a dead trigger after being dropped. I could see why this would cause concern, but it's not firing when dorpped, even a little bit. It's also unconfirmed just like everything else.

At a single incident, I think that conclusion is more than a bit premature. At that point you can very, very easily be dealing with some yutz dicking with the gun. It could be a training issue. Apparantly you can cause this problem by losing a spring during assembly. Removing it also lowers the trigge rpull weight. In some instances 2+2=don't fuck around. It is possible that you decide your officers are too stupid/controllable to keep them from doing stupid shit or disassembling farther than they need to. Losing it is possible if you disassemble it that far. They also could just be old. There was a change to the trigger at some point in production, and the appropriate action for those would to be to take pistols out of service and replace the parts. 320s no longer ship with those triggers. But hey, anything for page clicks in this day and age, why look into the details when you can stir up the glock fan boys for cash?

I wish you luck, but the problem with the approach was the notion that they give a crap about the technicalities of the law, or that they accept the notion that the systemic deprivation of a right in any matter is a civil rights violation. While I agree that the law says what it says on paper, and that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, the duck laws should apply, but we know the law doesn't matter in a NJ court. At the appellate level the law is selectively applied, and the only chance it was going to be applied was if a ruling against SAPPA's case endangered rulings they cared about. Which is wouldn't, so circuit 3 wasn't going to entertain your argument. Which leaves SCOTUS. There's going to be at least one judge who thinks the entire thing is pointless arguing of bullshit minutiae. Given that, you are going to have to get 5 people who love the issue. You don't even get the choice of protecting precedent because it'll be a simple denial and doesn't work that well for undermining precedent set on similar logic. My 1st place odds go to simply denying cert. 2nd place goes to remanding it to the lower court to come up with an argument better than nuh-uh. At the root of the flaw with this case is that as far as I can tell, it generalizes the RICO charges of conspiracy to actions generally considered within the perview of government. Without a specific, well formed case they want to side with as clear denial, they aren't going to undermine that right. For example, they might be willing to shoot down a background check law if you can demonstrate that being black was sufficient to fail the check. But more likely, they will rule that sanctions would be placed for discrimination, because they accept without question the right to perform a background check for felons and other prohibited individuals. They believe there are prohibited individuals and it is the government's job to delineate them and prevent them from exercising said right that they don't have. Which in the end gets to the problem with RICO. it's a law targeted at a generalized group of people, not a set of illegal behaviors. Everything one does to get a RICO rap is considered just fine if done for the government. It's a law written by one gang against the other gangs. It itself should likely be unconstitutional, and nobody wants to address that either. But it does run into punishing a pattern of behavior. For example if the above background check says that good cause is discretionary to the investigating officer, but race definitely isn't a disqualifier, even though nobody up the food chain ever said screen out the black folks, if someone down the food chain does it, it's a conspiracy. You just have to be functionally related to the process. being an unwitting accomplice protects you not at all by letter of the law. The public at large is protected from the overreach of RICO by investigator and prosecutor discretion. They sure as hell don't intend to hold public office holders to a standard they are sunbjecting the general public to. So you will get what you will generally get. The judicial as a whole will ignore the problems of law and assure themselves that it is fine, because everyone will do the right thing when it needs doing.

You sure the latter isn't just the mental health record consent? I'm not even sure why they bother with a waiver for that. IN theory your background check is a police investigation, and police investigations are exempt form HIPPA regs, which is what the form is waiving.

It applied across the nation because it was a ruling against a policy of a federal entity operating at a national scale. That and the executive branch chose not to ignore it. In the case of heller and mcdonald, we have rulings at a state scale, and executive branch and judicial branch members who deliberately want to ignore it.

That's not surprising in the least. I do like how the dude is trolling at the end talking about electric motors. He want's a sample that is readily convertible to a machine gun. Which is going to be an inherent problem for the technology. Because there's realy only two choices. The electronics interrupt the mechanical system like the armatix one does in which case it is as easily defeated as a magazine safety or similar, or the electronics fire the gun. Which means you just replace the signal from the trigger with something you whipped up yourself and you have a happy switch.