Blast Masterson

This is the only advantage IMHO.

Is not the "Foam Underlayment" waterproof (and air sealed as required)? Vinyl

Flute the barrels and leave it alone. The timing of that gun is criticle. Channge one thing and three other things change. Shoot the crap out of it and polish the wear marks off. Love mine, but it can get finicky as it wears.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3224529600906739&id=100000491928710

Keep it simple, and the simple answer is; rifle targets are only slightly further in distance than pistol targets. Any cartridge recipe will perform better in the rifle vs the pistol making up some or all of the distance change. If you load mouse fart cartridges, you may reconsider if your match uses knock down rifle targets. But any normal loading should work fine in both guns.

High amperage inductive load appliances/tools should be on their own circuit (like a compressor, welder etc.). Voltage drop from line wire or motor start up increases amperage draw making the breaker trip. Wire size is about type of wire and conductor material. Breaker size is to protect the wire down stream of the breaker not the tool amperage attached to it. Make sure your 20 amp outlets are not on the same phase from the panel.

So are we no longer talking about Ruger Wranglers? You can not load them at half cock. The gate controls the loading. If the gate is open you can not move the Hammer. Why do you check for high primers by spinning the cylinder on a rim fire gun? Load five and shut the gate. Turn it counter clock wise slightly till the cylinder locks. (Otherwise you can't cock the hammer).

On the Wrangler you just load five rounds close the gate and turn the cylinder back slightly to lock it and you're good to go.

It is more about the difference between a rifle and a pistol than .22 vs .17. Both will work fine at pistol ranges. But when you get past pistol distances you gain very little from the pistol. The .17 extends the max effective distance of a .22 (we all know how far we can effectively shoot with a .22 rifle or pistol). If you can shoot 50% further with a .17, that distance in a rifle is significantly further than the same 50% out of a pistol. Also you must subtract the performance factor between bbl lengths in rifle vs pistol. Any advantage you gain with a .17 in a pistol is hardly worth it. Once you get past the max effective range of a .22 pistol your sights start to get in the way at greater distance and accuracy degrades because of the sight picture negating advantages you picked up with the .17. We are talking about a Supper Six. Now if you use a scoped long bbl pistol in .17, things start to change for the better. Think of a 30-30 rifle vs. pistol. You load from rifle powder to pistol powder and your using a long single shot pistol. .22 to .17 your using the same load designed for a rifle. If you really want to blow stuff up, the little high speed .17 will do that for you better than a .22. BTW: are we talking .22 mag vs .17 ? Like Widder, I'm making this stuff up. I own a .17 but I would never buy a .17 revolver. My experience is with rifles in these calibers.

In my opinion, .17 is a rifle cart. but in a revolver that would not be a factor, Agreed- I see no advantage when considering pistol range limitations. I find wind, brush etc. affects accuracy of the .17 cal. more than .22 cal. The .17 cal explodes on impact (with about anything), which is nice if you need control with what is down range.

I changed to Ultra-Lite from using 700X. At lite loading 700x was filthy and actually caught a hull on fire (on the range)! I posted this incident elsewhere here.

Alliant Extra Lite was designed for the exact load your looking for... https://www.alliantpowder.com/reloaders/Powder.aspx?powderid=28 One of the cheapest powders by Alliant @ $22/lb

I have no intention of "complaining" to anyone. All this is above my pay grade. I am assuming here, but the short stroke is described and limitations have been placed on it in the SHB. If it is not a written modification by SASS it too will be illegal (as stated in the SHB). All I'm asking is if SASS sanctioned the the lever lock (and/or the short stroke), it must be in a written reply somewhere. So show me... I'm not asking if this device should be allowed. I'm asking if it has been. My concern is because of the perceived safety issues of dropping the hammer to release the lever, not because someone who jacks rounds will possibly beat me in a match with the device. I interpret "the external operation of the gun." as how the gun now operates the external lever which now prevents extraction of a potential live round in the rifle without having to drop the hammer to make the rifle safe, not how it changes the looks of internal components. Can you lower the hammer over a live round without incident? Sure, but it's not allowed. Modern pump shotguns have the same lock which prevents operation of the slide unless the trigger is pulled. But they also have an external unlocking lever, which this device does not provide.

It prevents opening (and making the rifle safe) without dropping the hammer over a live round. So I perceive this as affecting the external operation. I am asking for the required documentation on the decision by SASS, not an assumption or opinion. Already discussed: These items have been approved through SASS (written down in the shooters handbook) therefor there is no need to make these comparisons as they went through SASS. What I am asking is, was this device written and accepted by SASS (but not yet listed in the Handbook)? I practice with rifle and pistols that are not short stroked. Both my match rifle and pistols are manufactured to SASS standards (they were not modified after market). These modifications were accepted by SASS with stipulations. There is a difference. - - - - - - - - - - - I am not a purest, I'm simply playing devils advocate and discussing my observations. I am not afraid to discuss things that go against the flow of those established shooters of this game. It's not about being confrontational. As you can see by all the quotes in my post, I'm not making opinion, I'm discussing established rules. I am open to changing my opinion if someone can enlighten me that this issue was addressed and approved by SASS as written in the the Handbook concerning adoption of changes to the rule (not just that short strokes are ok so everything else must be ok. I would appreciate facts, not just more opinions about perceived rules.