Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

.454 Casull for SASS


Recommended Posts

On 7/19/2020 at 11:48 AM, Warden Callaway said:

 

There is nothing wimpy about full load 44WCF or 45 Colt black powder loads.  

When I shoot my 44/40s loaded with a case full of GOEX 2F people complain about the noise. 

I am trying to imagine what a .454 Casull full of BP would sound like.

 

Duffield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Savvy Jack said:

 

Liberals!!!!

Actually, you can be a hardcore Conservative and complain about noise. Jacking up folk's hearing is not cool...and I suppose that if one was in favor of the HPA (that I wish would be brought back and passed), they too would be "Liberals"?

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Duffield, SASS #23454 said:

When I shoot my 44/40s loaded with a case full of GOEX 2F people complain about the noise. 

I am trying to imagine what a .454 Casull full of BP would sound like.

 

Duffield

 

I would be smiling too loud to notice. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Ah.   What was/is that.  I've not heard of it before.

 

 

I see what you did there. ;)

 

HPA is a good thing. At least 'twas trying to be.

 

Suppressors are a good thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

 

I see what you did there. ;)

 

HPA is a good thing. At least 'twas trying to be.

 

Suppressors are a good thing.

 

 

 

Not sure what I did.  I did not get a reference, so asked for clarification.    And, in an attempt to be overly technical and exacting, there is no such [legal] thing as a suppressor.   I actually read the full text of the NFA 34.   The word suppressor is not found anywhere in the law.   But silencers are very much regulated by it.

It's kind of the gun version of Trekkie vs. Trekker....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

But you don't use at matches... Right?

Wondering what your comments mean? Do you have info that the old Ten X BP ammo was too hot? Or did you think he was saying 10 times the BP power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Not sure what I did.  I did not get a reference, so asked for clarification.    And, in an attempt to be overly technical and exacting, there is no such [legal] thing as a suppressor.   I actually read the full text of the NFA 34.   The word suppressor is not found anywhere in the law.   But silencers are very much regulated by it.

It's kind of the gun version of Trekkie vs. Trekker....

I call them suppressors... That's just me.

 

Reference??? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Goody, SASS #26190 said:

Wondering what your comments mean? Do you have info that the old Ten X BP ammo was too hot? Or did you think he was saying 10 times the BP power?

No, of course not.

 

My comment was based on him saying that his rounds knowingly dented mild steel. If this is true, using those rounds on known mild steel targets or targets that are of unknown quality would be irresponsible.

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H.K.

 

Silencers/supressors... pretty much an interchangeable definition of a device that muffles muzzle blast in the world of those who use them.

 

Usually it will not totally silence a gunshot, especially when supersonic ammo is used but it does reduce decible level.

 

Some subsonics do run veeeeeeery quiet with a can/silencer/suppressor. 300 BLK subsonic is pretty much quieter than the gun's action cycling.

 

The ATF also considers the term interchangeable, (at least that is what the local NFA Trust attorney indicates.)The word suppressor might not be written in NFA 34 as you say (I don't know) but probably when that was drafted, silencer was the operative word then whereas the terminology changed over time.

 

Otherwise you make an interesting observation. Maybe silencers are regulated but suppressors are technically not. :o Don't think I want to be the guy who tests that hypothesis.  ;) BATF has no sense of humor.

 

Tomato/tomawtoe

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Sorry, I have a life.

 

PS: My company has an SOT.

PSS: I wasn't asking for a reference, I was referring to your post saying you didn't get a reference... oy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Sorry, I have a life.

 

PS: My company has an SOT.

 

Huh?   You asked for a reference, so I provided one.  It's a one page webpage with definition taken from the text of the law and a drawing of one.   That's it.

What's an SOT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Huh?   You asked for a reference, so I provided one.  It's a one page webpage with definition taken from the text of the law and a drawing of one.   That's it.

What's an SOT?

I didn't ask for a reference...you may think I did, but I didn't. 

 

Believe it or not, I'm completely capable of looking up definitions alllllll by myself.

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2020 at 4:07 AM, Sedalia Dave said:

A case full of 777 in 44 WFC out of my 1860 Henry will dent mild steel targets.

 

On 7/20/2020 at 4:08 AM, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Hope you don't use it at matches than with a full case of Triple 7.

 

21 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Shoot it every time take my 1860 to a match. Have over 400 rounds to shoot up.

 

20 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

You do that knowing that the round you shoot damages targets??

 

Only question should be if the ammo is legal according SHB (V24.1, p.27): does not exceed 1400 fps from that Henry, all lead projectile etc.

YES = GOOD

NO = BAD (with corresponding penalties)

 

If someone's not happy with the current ammunition requirements he may initiate a revision (via TG) of that clause in the SHB instead of trying to blame other shooters who play according the rules, just my opinion.

Everyone enjoys different aspects of CAS, like running his irons as fast as possible or shooting clean matches etc. I personally can't imagine a pard just shooting stout loads to damage targets on purpose (and unless everybody misses all the time, targets get damaged in shooting sports/games).

 

Equanimous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Equanimous Phil said:

 

 

 

 

Only question should be if the ammo is legal according SHB (V24.1, p.27): does not exceed 1400 fps from that Henry, all lead projectile etc.

YES = GOOD

NO = BAD (with corresponding penalties)

 

If someone's not happy with the current ammunition requirements he may initiate a revision (via TG) of that clause in the SHB instead of trying to blame other shooters who play according the rules, just my opinion.

Everyone enjoys different aspects of CAS, like running his irons as fast as possible or shooting clean matches etc. I personally can't imagine a pard just shooting stout loads to damage targets on purpose (and unless everybody misses all the time, targets get damaged in shooting sports/games).

 

Equanimous

So if it's "Legal", then it's okay...even if you KNOW it's damaging a club's targets?

 

Got it...

 

<_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

So if it's "Legal", then it's okay...even if you KNOW it's damaging a club's targets?

 

Got it...

 

<_<

 

Counterquestion: Is it okay for a club to put up targets for a match that don't withstand SASS legal ammo?

 

Should everybody use just slightly above minimum PF? (But even those rounds damage targets).

Where do you draw the line? Max PF?

Staggered entry fee for different PF might be reasonable?

 

I am not kidding, it's a topic that got to be addressed and requiring low PF ammo for low-grade targets doesn't seem to be a solution for me.

 

<_<

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Equanimous Phil said:

 

Counterquestion: Is it okay for a club to put up targets for a match that don't withstand SASS legal ammo?

 

Should everybody use just slightly above minimum PF? (But even those rounds damage targets).

Where do you draw the line? Max PF?

Staggered entry fee for different PF might be reasonable?

 

I am not kidding, it's a topic that got to be addressed and requiring low PF ammo for low-grade targets doesn't seem to be a solution for me.

 

<_<

 

That's an Easy "Counterquestion": Yes.

 

Or would you rather the club just cease to exist?

 

Most crappy targets can handle average CAS loads. The problem comes when you get folks that insist on using ammo that's at the top of the PF/Velo limits. 

 

Making this question into more than it needs to be. If a shooter KNOWS that their ammo is harmful to the clubs targets, using it would be inconsiderate and selfish. 

 

Phantom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Not sure what I did. 

 

You asked what 'HPA' was.

 

A reply said it was the 'Hearing Protection Act'.

 

You said 'you never **heard** of it'.

 

THAT was the joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Cemetery said:

 

You asked what 'HPA' was.

 

A reply said it was the 'Hearing Protection Act'.

 

You said 'you never **heard** of it'.

 

THAT was the joke.

 

 

Ah...   I wish I could take credit for being so clever, but I am afraid it was not meant as a joke.    Still, glad it was entertaining.   :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

 

Ah...   I wish I could take credit for being so clever, but I am afraid it was not meant as a joke.    Still, glad it was entertaining.   :)

 

H.K.

 

I assure you, I meant it as a joke. That phrase is used a lot and I saw opportunity to use it. Sorry it was not clear.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

Ah...   I wish I could take credit for being so clever, but I am afraid it was not meant as a joke.    Still, glad it was entertaining.   :)

 

That's the hidden bonus, when not realizing the humor until it gets pointed out.

 

It's like this, a few years ago a local shooter was recently released from the hospital following a bypass surgery, a get well card was circulated at a match, I signed it 'Hope to see you soon! ~Cemetery'.  I was asked how I could sign a get well card like that, I was like 'oh'.....then chuckled.  Turns out the recipient of the card loved it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/19/2020 at 8:36 AM, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

I specifically said using black powder for that very reason.   It would not hit as hard as a smokeless load.    I would think an unconverted Walker with a full load of 60 grains of black would hit harder that my theoretical, and not entirely serious, scenario.

 

I wondered about the 454 Casull myself.

 

But my concern was the boolit itself becoming an obstruction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cemetery said:

 

That's the hidden bonus, when not realizing the humor until it gets pointed out.

 

It's like this, a few years ago a local shooter was recently released from the hospital following a bypass surgery, a get well card was circulated at a match, I signed it 'Hope to see you soon! ~Cemetery'.  I was asked how I could sign a get well card like that, I was like 'oh'.....then chuckled.  Turns out the recipient of the card loved it.

 

Oh, I have had something similar to that happen to me.   I recently had brain surgery, and when I posted a letter to the folks at my church that the surgery was over and I was in my room feeling more or less okay, one of the ladies at the church wrote back and said, "I hope you get to go home soon."

 

My response was, "Uh..."

 

"Going home" can be a polite what of saying someone has died.   They have "gone home" to Heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

 

H.K.

 

I assure you, I meant it as a joke. That phrase is used a lot and I saw opportunity to use it. Sorry it was not clear.

 

:D

 

Oh, I know you meant it as a joke, and it was a good one.  I meant that I didn't mean it as one.  I disclaim being clever enough to have thought of it.  I, mean, I know what you meant, but I didn't mean what you may have thought what I meant, I just meant that...

 

Uhm...    Can I call in a life line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.