More on DR ammo
+4
Jack H
james r chapman
LenV
Russ OR
8 posters
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
More on DR ammo
Earlier today seeking clarification on legal DR ammo, I called the NRA and spoke to Damien Orsinger http://pistol-competition.nra.org/distinguished-revolver-program.aspx . He said that DR ammo is "158 grain specific" and that would eventually be clarified. I asked if I could quote him on it. He said I could.
I think it is wise, and the most fair, to stay with the 158g bullets. -- When this is settled officially and for certain - if it is not 158g specific - I will either donate the 3 lbs of Bullseye powder to Portland Rifle and Pistol Club (PRPC) or donate $75 to PRPC - their choice.
The 3½ lbs is actually 3lbs and an ounce or two. - - Russ
I think it is wise, and the most fair, to stay with the 158g bullets. -- When this is settled officially and for certain - if it is not 158g specific - I will either donate the 3 lbs of Bullseye powder to Portland Rifle and Pistol Club (PRPC) or donate $75 to PRPC - their choice.
The 3½ lbs is actually 3lbs and an ounce or two. - - Russ
Russ OR- Posts : 265
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Oregon City, OR
Re: More on DR ammo
Did you see the rule changes effective 2014? This is on the NRA site. It looks like they are trying to clean up 3.1.4. I wonder if they realize they didn't eliminate FMJ's ?
http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/rules/rul_conv_pistol_14.pdf
Since there no manufactures actually making 158gr fmj bullets that is probably moot.
http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/rules/rul_conv_pistol_14.pdf
Since there no manufactures actually making 158gr fmj bullets that is probably moot.
LenV- Posts : 4758
Join date : 2014-01-24
Age : 74
Location : Oregon
Re: More on DR ammo
E. Looks clear on 158 bullets
james r chapman- Admin
- Posts : 6359
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 75
Location : HELL, Michigan
Re: More on DR ammo
The last word I thought was this from about October:
"Neil,
The rule regarding the firearm simply says that the firearm must be CAPABLE of chambering and firing the 158gr round, not that the round must be used. Rule 3.17, regarding ammo, does NOT require use of the 158 gr round. When 3.17 was last changed, it was during a significant shortage of components and 130gr military ammo was prevalent so the committee decided to get out of the bullet weight business and allow ANY safe ammo. You can even use 148gr HBWC.
This can be brought before the committee for discussion if you like.
The information provided to Clark is correct.
Denny"
Dennis L. Willing
"Neil,
The rule regarding the firearm simply says that the firearm must be CAPABLE of chambering and firing the 158gr round, not that the round must be used. Rule 3.17, regarding ammo, does NOT require use of the 158 gr round. When 3.17 was last changed, it was during a significant shortage of components and 130gr military ammo was prevalent so the committee decided to get out of the bullet weight business and allow ANY safe ammo. You can even use 148gr HBWC.
This can be brought before the committee for discussion if you like.
The information provided to Clark is correct.
Denny"
Dennis L. Willing
Jack H- Posts : 2693
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 75
Location : Oregon
Re: More on DR ammo
I clicked on rule changes for conventional pistol and that is what popped up.
LenV- Posts : 4758
Join date : 2014-01-24
Age : 74
Location : Oregon
Re: More on DR ammo
Those "rule changes for 2014" were from a year ago--Jack's letter is much more recent.
Rob Kovach- Admin
- Posts : 2692
Join date : 2011-06-13
Age : 51
Location : Brooklyn, WI
Re: More on DR ammo
I have looked several times and that is the first time "E" restricted the ammo to 158 gr. I think they just put it there. Of course I could be wrong. That has happened once or twice in my life.
You might lose that bet Rob.
You might lose that bet Rob.
LenV- Posts : 4758
Join date : 2014-01-24
Age : 74
Location : Oregon
james r chapman- Admin
- Posts : 6359
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 75
Location : HELL, Michigan
Re: More on DR ammo
How do you figure? The link that Old Master found is from December of 2013, and this quote is from October 2014:
Sounds pretty clear that the 158gr requirement isn't going to be the rule much longer.the committee decided to get out of the bullet weight business and allow ANY safe ammo. You can even use 148gr HBWC.
Rob Kovach- Admin
- Posts : 2692
Join date : 2011-06-13
Age : 51
Location : Brooklyn, WI
Re: More on DR ammo
we shall wait and see... if you shot today, what would the rule be?
james r chapman- Admin
- Posts : 6359
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 75
Location : HELL, Michigan
Re: More on DR ammo
Okay, I think there's a little bit of misunderstanding here. The rule 3.17 mentioned by Dennis Willing is about the Conventional 900 where any safe CF ammo is allowed. The rule 3.1.4 specifically covers the DR competition, and (e) clearly says 158gr - either RN or SWC. Am I missing something here?
http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf
http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf
Re: More on DR ammo
deleted
Last edited by dronning on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:35 pm; edited 2 times in total
dronning- Posts : 2581
Join date : 2013-03-20
Age : 70
Location : Lakeville, MN
Re: More on DR ammo
But it does specify the ammo required, right here:dronning wrote:The rule has a huge hole in it because it says NOTHING about what ammo is required. ONLY that the revolver must be capable of....
"The revolver must be capable of chambering and firing a 158-grain round nose or Semi-Wadcutter .38 Special cartridge."
That's what all the discussion is about no ammo is defined. That's why everyone is looking for them to clear it up.
- Dave
http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf Page 12,
3.1.4 Distinguished Revolver
(e) Ammunition - Any safe .38 caliber ammunition using the 158 grain round nose or Semi-Wadcutter bullet only.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Re: More on DR ammo
What hole is that?
I read 3.1.4(e) to be very clear...
I read 3.1.4(e) to be very clear...
james r chapman- Admin
- Posts : 6359
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 75
Location : HELL, Michigan
Re: More on DR ammo
Earlier in the year, there was a hole in the posted rules. Now they might have plugged it contradicting the Dennis Willing quote in the October email from NSK.
I saw no announcement for any changes. Did you?
If I was a referee or on a jury, the rules as posted today would win.
I saw no announcement for any changes. Did you?
If I was a referee or on a jury, the rules as posted today would win.
Jack H- Posts : 2693
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 75
Location : Oregon
Re: More on DR ammo
The rules effective January 2014 require the 158gr round nose or Semi-wadcutter.
Isn't this discussion about what the rule will be changed to when "the clarification" is made?
The sub (e) in the 2014 rulebook matches the 2011 rulebook I have. The "missing sections" of the DR rules were missing for the 2012 and 2013 rulebooks.
After re-reading the message Jack/Old Master has from Neil Kravitz, it really looks like the "any safe ammo" comment refers to 3.17 which has nothing to do with DR.
I'm starting to think it looks like James R Chapman, Javaduke, and Russ OR are correct on this.
When we see the 2015 rulebook, I'll pay up.
Isn't this discussion about what the rule will be changed to when "the clarification" is made?
The sub (e) in the 2014 rulebook matches the 2011 rulebook I have. The "missing sections" of the DR rules were missing for the 2012 and 2013 rulebooks.
After re-reading the message Jack/Old Master has from Neil Kravitz, it really looks like the "any safe ammo" comment refers to 3.17 which has nothing to do with DR.
I'm starting to think it looks like James R Chapman, Javaduke, and Russ OR are correct on this.
When we see the 2015 rulebook, I'll pay up.
Rob Kovach- Admin
- Posts : 2692
Join date : 2011-06-13
Age : 51
Location : Brooklyn, WI
Re: More on DR ammo
The exchanges in October were about DR. Notice the Willing quote mentions "capable" which is part of DR for sure.
Jack H- Posts : 2693
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 75
Location : Oregon
Re: More on DR ammo
Yeah, but....
After hammering on NRA for the last 3 years to get the rulebook fixed and it's only now fixed makes me think that a decision has been made since that email. Who fixes a rulebook omission that reflects a rule that is obsolete?
I'm glad the rulebook is fixed. I'm hoping that this matter is resolved for good when we see the 2015 rulebook.
After hammering on NRA for the last 3 years to get the rulebook fixed and it's only now fixed makes me think that a decision has been made since that email. Who fixes a rulebook omission that reflects a rule that is obsolete?
I'm glad the rulebook is fixed. I'm hoping that this matter is resolved for good when we see the 2015 rulebook.
Rob Kovach- Admin
- Posts : 2692
Join date : 2011-06-13
Age : 51
Location : Brooklyn, WI
Re: More on DR ammo
Either way, you better bring a box of 158gr .38s to your next DR match until this is settled for good.
Rob Kovach- Admin
- Posts : 2692
Join date : 2011-06-13
Age : 51
Location : Brooklyn, WI
Re: More on DR ammo
Yepper!
james r chapman- Admin
- Posts : 6359
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 75
Location : HELL, Michigan
Re: More on DR ammo
Why didn't the NRA revise the cover page to reflect the date they changed the 2014 rules to include the subsections to 3.14? As of August 24 2014 the subsections 3.14.a, 3.14.b, 3.14.c, 3.14.d, 3.14.e and 3.14.f were missing from the rulebook effective January 2014 and is the reason behind this whole discussion. There are two versions of the rules with the same effective date.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140816070253/http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140816070253/http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf
Guest- Guest
Re: More on DR ammo
Wile E Coyote wrote:Why didn't the NRA revise the cover page to reflect the date they changed the 2014 rules to include the subsections to 3.14? As of August 24 2014 the subsections 3.14.a, 3.14.b, 3.14.c, 3.14.d, 3.14.e and 3.14.f were missing from the rulebook effective January 2014 and is the reason behind this whole discussion. There are two versions of the rules with the same effective date.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140816070253/http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf
Working off my downloaded copy of the current release (without the subsections) I was getting a little frustrated with the discussion until I clicked on the link and read the added subsections.
If someone was shooting a JHP round and had a copy of the "current rules" without the additions I'd be hard pressed to DQ them. Which copy prevails?
Not putting a newer publish date on the cover was just plain negligent.
- Dave
dronning- Posts : 2581
Join date : 2013-03-20
Age : 70
Location : Lakeville, MN
Re: More on DR ammo
Every DR match held since the screwed up 2012 rulebook has been held with an "rules addendum" that was part of each match bulletin. When the match director received their approval to hold a DR match they were required to attest that the would administer the rules that the 3.1.4 (a)-(f) describe.
SO what that all means is even though there is an omission in the rules, all competitors are made aware of the additional rules by the match bulleten "rules addendum". Since no DR matches were permitted without them, all DR matches have been held under the same rules and conditions even though the rulebook was missing those sections.
SO what that all means is even though there is an omission in the rules, all competitors are made aware of the additional rules by the match bulleten "rules addendum". Since no DR matches were permitted without them, all DR matches have been held under the same rules and conditions even though the rulebook was missing those sections.
Rob Kovach- Admin
- Posts : 2692
Join date : 2011-06-13
Age : 51
Location : Brooklyn, WI
Re: More on DR ammo
Its clear that the 2014 change says a 158gr must be used. But... I thought Denny's comment in Oct was for the up coming 2015 change. We are only a couple weeks from 2015.
It would be nice if Denny would post here what is really going on.
I will use 158s until its cleared up.
It would be nice if Denny would post here what is really going on.
I will use 158s until its cleared up.
KenO- Posts : 182
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 77
Location : Northern Lower Michigan/Florida winter
Re: More on DR ammo
We need t-shirts made up, darn it!
james r chapman- Admin
- Posts : 6359
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 75
Location : HELL, Michigan
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics
» Ammo Seek Online Ammo Search Engine
» .22 ammo - at what speed does ammo go beyond "standard velocity" ?
» Atlana Arms and Ammo 9mm ammo
» 22 ammo, what do you use
» SK .22 LR ammo
» .22 ammo - at what speed does ammo go beyond "standard velocity" ?
» Atlana Arms and Ammo 9mm ammo
» 22 ammo, what do you use
» SK .22 LR ammo
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|