TargetTalk

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:31 am**

David, I do not doubt for an instant the X ring potential of the 32 Long.
However it is not well suited to auto pistols and there is hardly and CF pistols build with center fire as a starting concept.

Furthermore, its generally up to the shooting community to come up with solutions, if manufacturers are to situp and listen.
Just look at the development of cartridges and weapons themselves for sport shooting events of the past 50 odd years or so and letr this guide you.

The point is, is 32 Long good? Yes it is.
Can it be made more reliable? Yes.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:40 am**

This post by Tiger /viewtopic.php?t=8499&highlight=fas
pretty much sums it up.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:02 am**

schatzperson wrote:This post by Tiger /viewtopic.php?t=8499&highlight=fas
pretty much sums it up.

I was also a contributor to that thread and I stand by what I said on it.

By changing one screw and keeping to a good maintenance routine match reliability with a FAS was superb. I have absolutely no doubt that the situation with other top grade pistols is the same.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:03 am**

schatzperson wrote:,,,The post by fc60 is encouraging and constructive, well done.

The load given (Hornady 60 grain XTP - 2.6 grains W-W 231) seems fairly 'heavy' to me, and jacketed projectiles are not allowed in ISSF 25M

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:09 am**

I have seen yet to witness consistent feed problems with the 32, granted my exposure has been limited to pocket sized pistols.
Why would any pistol shooter bother with a clinical approach to maintenance ? Its the rim.
You will only notice the horror when the rims are silent.
Silence of the rims.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:59 pm**

Spencer wrote: The load given (Hornady 60 grain XTP - 2.6 grains W-W 231) seems fairly 'heavy' to me, and jacketed projectiles are not allowed in ISSF 25M

Spencer, What about copper plated bullets? Technically they are not jacketed but would some ass of a judge (not you of course!) decide that they are jacketed?

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:45 pm**

j-team wrote:Spencer, What about copper plated bullets? Technically they are not jacketed but would some ass of a judge (not you of course!) decide that they are jacketed?

in ISSF pistol this is another one of those 'maybe' questions:
- I have discussed flash coated lead projectiles with a few other Judges and they are generally considered OK by most of them - but then, are there any flash coated projectiles (.22 or CF) being used at ISSF Championships?
- there is copper-plated and copper-plated... I have seen 'flash' copper plating on projectiles that is so thin that it will rub off on a sheet of paper: I have also seen copper plating on projectiles that is so thick that it definitely a jacket
- "8.4.4 All projectiles used must be made of lead or similar soft material only..." I can envisage a number of Judges around the world seeing this in black-and-white. It's probably not worth turning up at an ISSF Championship and finding that the majority of the Jury rules against any plating, however thin, that is not "of lead or similar soft material".

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:56 pm**

The jacket business always had me in knots.
Does anybody know the reason the ISSF considers jacketed bullets bad ?

Spencer, I considered the 32ACP post encouraging in the way of room for experimentation. Yes the 90 gr load a bit on the stiff side perhaps.

It would be interesting to know what the twist rate, bore diameter and perhaps crown angle on this gun was.

Posted: **Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:06 pm**

Spencer wrote: in ISSF pistol this is another one of those 'maybe' questions:
- I have discussed flash coated lead projectiles with a few other Judges and they are generally considered OK by most of them - but then, are there any flash coated projectiles (.22 or CF) being used at ISSF Championships?
- there is copper-plated and copper-plated... I have seen 'flash' copper plating on projectiles that is so thin that it will rub off on a sheet of paper: I have also seen copper plating on projectiles that is so thick that it definitely a jacket

Yes, there are currently .32 HBWC (83gr) projectiles available with a copper plated lube. Didn't an Aussie outfit make some tin plated ones some years ago?

As for thick plating being a jacket, I would have to disagree. A jacket is formed from a sheet, drawn into a cup and then swaged over a lead core. Plating, no matter how thick, is never a jacketed. Try selling plated bullets as jacketed and the unhappy customers will soon let you know they're not jacketed.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:24 am**

j-team wrote:Yes, there are currently .32 HBWC (83gr) projectiles available with a copper plated lube. Didn't an Aussie outfit make some tin plated ones some years ago?

not sure if they were a flash of tin or cadmium, but the old ADI(?) .38/148gr HBWC available in the 70s were absolutely brilliant in my K38 - loved those overlapping 10s on the target when they happened :)

j-team wrote:A jacket is formed from a sheet, drawn into a cup and then swaged over a lead core...

that's one way of providing a jacket, and the usual one in the normal rifle/pistol context - but not the only way.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:30 am**

Spencer wrote:[- "8.4.4 All projectiles used must be made of lead or similar soft material only..." I can envisage a number of Judges around the world seeing this in black-and-white. It's probably not worth turning up at an ISSF Championship and finding that the majority of the Jury rules against any plating, however thin, that is not "of lead or similar soft material".

There will always be some shooters who want to push the rules to the limit, and they are the ones who find that their definition of "the limit" might not be the same as everyone elses.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:32 am**

David Levene wrote:There will always be some shooters who want to push the rules to the limit, and they are the ones who find that their definition of "the limit" might not be the same as everyone elses.

David, you state that like the use if plated projectiles is somehow an attempt to gain an advantage?

Consider this. I live in a city of 1.4m people. Only one guns shop currently has any stock of .32HBWC and they happen to be copper plated.

I guess we could shoot .22... or maybe laser pistols, or change to another discipline like 90% of pistol shooters already do. We've no problem getting a wide range 9mm projectiles by the way.

ISSF centre fire is a dying event, every little hurdle kills it a little more.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:04 am**

j-team wrote:
David Levene wrote:There will always be some shooters who want to push the rules to the limit, and they are the ones who find that their definition of "the limit" might not be the same as everyone elses.
David, you state that like the use if plated projectiles is somehow an attempt to gain an advantage?

I wasn't suggesting that at all. What I was saying is that anyone who doesn't make sure that they fully comply with the letter of the rules runs the risk, at best, of a "discussion" with the Jury. Do you really need that at a match?

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:25 am**

Can the copper plating not be seen as a form of lubrication? Usually there is a form of lubrication OR copper plating.
From that point it is easy to accept the rule “8.4.4 All projectiles used must be made of lead or similar soft material only..."
The question is "similar soft material! IF it can be peeled of then it is not allowed and if it can be rubbed of it is no doubt soft enough.
How does this sound?
Kent

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:59 am**

In their infinite wisdom the ISSF throw in an adjustable goalpost;
How the heck can you define "similar soft material" ?
Copper is a soft metal also; Reference to lead alloys perhaps?
How thick can copper plating be ? Notice no reference to what sort of plating/deposition/construction exits.
Shooters worldwide are meant to suck-up or leave the club.

Any of you guys can think of a REAL reason for this ruling?

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:35 pm**

Shooters worldwide are meant to suck-up or leave the club.

This one is a serious issue since the ISSF makes the difference in being able to shoot / allowed to posses weapons in several countries.

Code: Select all

Any of you guys can think of a REAL reason for this ruling?

The excuse was a FMJ bullet may lead to ricochets... they usually allow TMJ bullets, but you never know what today's range official opinion is... There's some regulated maches using 9x19mm pistols only which can lead to problems in several guns were LRN bullets lead to heavy leading real quick. Yet they have to use LRN or TMJ if lucky because their local authorties read that ISSF thing about no FMJ bullets...

ISSF is the only "excuse" why guns are allowed in several countries, yet the ISSF is no NRA... It's like that rumor about Centerfire being shot with 22lr pistols after 2012... that may mean hundreds if not thousands of shooters worldwide having to surrender their expensive guns if the ISSF decides to go that way.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:41 pm**

Another ISSF example:

What about a shooter in a Centerfire match using his 357Mag revolver with 38SP ammo? That'll be allowed. But what about the same shooter using handloaded ammo at 38Wadcutter specs but using 357Mag cases? Here we may have an issue... That also explains why in some countries shooters can buy 38SP/W ammo but not 357M ammo... There's a real need for an alternative to ISSF.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:44 pm**

schatzperson wrote:In their infinite wisdom the ISSF throw in an adjustable goalpost;
How the heck can you define "similar soft material" ?

What I can't understand is why this doesn't seem to have been a problem before.

The rule hasn't changed since at least January 1993, and if I could find an older rule book I'm pretty sure it would have been the same before then.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:48 pm**

What I can't understand is why this doesn't seem to have been a problem before.

It's actually been a problem... until I sold my Centerfire and 9x19mm guns and went 22lr only. Maybe that wasn't an issue in the UK, but that rule really gave some problems in some countries.

Sometimes, the range official would scrape the bullet of one of your cartridges with a knife to determine whether your bullets were FMJ or TMJ. Then, sometimes, they would let you shoot with your TMJ bullets. That was like the lottery. Not fun when you had been preparing for that specific match and traveled several hours to get there.

Posted: **Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:55 pm**

Anonymous wrote: Sometimes, the range official would scrape the bullet of one of your cartridges with a knife to determine whether your bullets were FMJ or TMJ. Then, sometimes, they would let you shoot with your TMJ bullets. That was like the lottery. Not fun when you had been preparing for that specific match and traveled several hours to get there.

Which brings me back to my earlier point:-

".....anyone who doesn't make sure that they fully comply with the letter of the rules runs the risk, at best, of a "discussion" with the Jury. Do you really need that at a match?"

TargetTalk

.32 ACP

32ACP

32ACP

Re: 32ACP

Re: 32ACP

32ACP

Re: 32ACP

Re: 32ACP

32ACP

Re: 32ACP

Re: 32ACP

Re: 32ACP

Re: 32ACP

Re: 32ACP

32ACP

Re: 32ACP