Shawnee Hills

P for both scenarios for targets shot out of order. I agree with Dave that these are examples of P traps. While it might not be the point of the thread, the responses may highlight the future success of a club that chooses to set up stages like this.

I take it to mean that if a shooter is to wear such things then the shooter must wear them as they are intended to be worn. That’s reasonable.

While I am rarely a fan or owner of Lee Precision products, I have the APP set up as a dedicated decapping only station. While cheaply made, it does work well for this task. It is fast and keeps the Dillon free for loading.

While he hasn’t stated it explicitly, the information that Bucky has provided in his replies strongly suggests that he was the TO. The TO has a front row seat to what a shooter is doing on the line but his calls are just opinions?? The MS penalty in this case is about as clear as it gets; no “opinion” about it. Regarding the shooter’s behavior afterwards, yes, it is possible that he wasn’t trying to gain a competitive advantage but his claiming that declaring “broke gun” when it wasn’t certainly suggests that he was. At the very least, he was trying to get the TO to reconsider his call. Depending on the severity of the behavior, the shooter risks an “unsportsmanlike conduct” call. If we’re not going to enforce rules then why have any at all??

You’re way overthinking this. The functionality of the shotgun has already been confirmed; nothing was broken. The statement about the shooter being upset about the MS call suggests that either he doesn’t understand the rules or was trying to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding a penalty that he clearly earned. MS is the correct call.

You were right to call the MS. No shooter can simply call "broke gun" to get out of shucking their hulls. The shooter needs to understand that by his actions he is hoping to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding a penalty and that can easily be considered a SOG infraction. I'm normally a pretty easy-going TO but would definitely call the SOG if someone did that and then got upset that I wouldn't let him get away with it.

Please see Bucky's third post in this thread. If the hull was extracted and the TO flipped it out with his finger then the gun remains fully functional.

Doesn’t matter. As long as some part of the hull remains in the chamber it’s still a minor safety. It also doesn’t matter if the shooter called a ‘broke gun’. He still has earned a minor safety and is flirting with a SOG if he persists with his argument.

Given the opportunity within the rules and stage description, a shooter interested in completing the stage in the fastest time possible will always look for ways to shave off fractions of a second wherever they can. You'll see attempts to gain an advantage over other competitors in any game with highly competitive and skilled participants. For those that call this "gaming" . . . well . . . CAS is a game and, so long as the shooter stays within the rules and stage description, they've done nothing wrong. The word "intent" has come up several times in this discussion; including both what the shooter's intent was and how the stage was intended to be completed. Of course the shooter intended to shoot the stage as fast as possible but I don't see that he violated any rule or the stage description as offered by Taos . . . even if he admits that he shot it that way to save time. The shooter simply found a way to complete the stage quickly without incurring any penalties. A SOG penalty is completely unwarranted. We often see "how a stage is intended to be shot" often in these kinds of threads. Ultimately, it comes down to how stages are written. Writers that want their stages to be completed in a rigid step-by-step fashion need to ensure that they communicate that in their writing. Failing to do that offers an opportunity for a shooter to be flexible in how they complete it. Sure, how they shoot it might the bring the question of what the writer intended but the following discussions tend to be subjective. Writing comprehensive specific stage instructions avoids the problem.

5.5 is the barrel length, not the starting weight. Where are you seeing the minimum suggested powder charge on that site??

Loading 3.5 gr. of Titegroup behind an ACME 105 at an OAL of 1.500” here. It runs clean during summer temps but have a little unburnt powder during cooler seasons. Shooters in other disciplines have reported temp sensitivity of Titegroup and I have found that to be true as well. It’s not as bad as some powders but it’s still something to consider.

Good rule to follow but it's frequently done with CAS loads resulting in underpowered loads. I've always found it strange that the PF doesn't coincide with light book loads. Special test 'guns' are used for determining published pressure data but not necessarily velocity. Load data for a given caliber will usually identify the firearm used to obtain that data. These are normally consumer-grade firearms. Solid points for the need to test loads using a chronograph. Generally speaking, no one will have access to lab-grade equipment so using a consumer-grade chrono is as good as you're going to get. Still, they're pretty darn good at what they do and much better than assuming the published velocity is what one is getting out of their firearm.

The extremely low PF in Cowboy combined with the seemingly nonexistent risk of ammo being tested at a match invites problems. There will always be competitors that run the ragged edge of legality in order to gain an advantage. For loads that barely meet the PF, a change in environmental conditions can result in squibs that, in the very least, waste a bunch of match time. It's disruptive and disrespectful to fellow shooters. SASS really needs to consider raising the PF to a realistic level and encourage more use of a chrono. Raising the PF gets loads further away from squibland and shooters will be more likely to meet the minimum if they can expect to be tested. As previously mentioned, testing is performed during the matches of many other shooting sports so why should anyone expect SASS to be different? Probably but also realize that data is only accurate for the particular gun and environmental conditions from which it was gathered. Individual results are likely to be much different but a shooter will never know unless they test with a chronograph.

Like your post, eh?

No kidding! Not quite sure what the intended purpose of the post is but it certainly is not encouraging for those considering getting involved in CAS. The fact-of-the-matter is, new shooters only need a very small portion of that list. A newbie can easily get started relatively cheaply and upgrade (if desired) as they go along. Very few shooters use their first guns for long anyway.