Power Factor

[Don Jorge]

I did not want to hijack the thread discussing PF and the rifle.

 

Why was the Power Factor set at 60 in the first place?

[G W Wade]

Thought it was something to do with 36 cal cap guns.    But could be wrong         GW

[Branchwater Jack SASS #88854]

5 minutes ago, G W Wade said:

Thought it was something to do with 36 cal cap guns.    But could be wrong         GW

 

Cap guns, even if shot in a aged based category, do not fall under the PF rule.

 

SHB pg 25 (emphasis added)

Quote

The minimum standard for center-fire ammunition used in all smokeless categories in all SASS matches, including State, Regional, National, International, and World Championship competitions is not less than a minimum power factor of 60 and no velocity may be less than 400 fps.   

 

Edited November 10 by Branchwater Jack SASS #88854

[Possum Skinner, SASS#60697]

.32 caliber ammunition can have bullets as light as 78 gr.  Since some were already running them, they wanted to accommodate them.

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Don Jorge said:

Why was the Power Factor set at 60 in the first place?

According the SHBs I have readily available to me it wasn't until the 1997 version that other than the maximum velocities being spelled out, that a revolver minimum of  650 fps was included.  But, I have no personal recollection of it ever being enforced, tho' I have heard stories of such.  However, at the time the only cartridge that was readily available in the minimum .32 cal was the .32-20.  .32 S&W was mostly only seen in pocket pistols, which were already outlawed a main match guns.  .32 caliber was picked as the minimum to keep the small framed .31 caliber c&b revolvers from use in the main match.   The 60 PF was formalized in the 2008 SHB.  I understand it was arrived at by recognizing  it's easily met @ 650 fps by 90 grain, and leaving a little wiggle room for slightly under weight bullets and 400 fps was arrived at because a 160 grain .45 would easily meet the 60 PF, again with wiggle room for slightly underweight bullets.   Both of which were in response to the proliferation of shooters using the .32 H&R.   For comparison, a standard velocity 38 special with a 158 grain bullet is generally recognized as doing 750fps at a PF of ~118.  Since this was the target load for KD targets, I understood the rules committee thought the perceived issue of "mouse phart loads" would be self regulating.  But, maybe a member of the rules committee at that time would like to speak up and clarify if my understanding is correct.

 

Sometimes rules are developed in response to specific actions or practices (as in the case of double projectiles, 1st round downrange, etc.), and sometimes they are enacted to cover already rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles).

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

7 minutes ago, Griff said:

Both of which were in response to the proliferation of shooters using the .32 H&R.

Proliferation...???

 

Wonder where I was during this time of rapid increase in numbers...

 

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

sometimes they are enacted to cover already rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles).

What rule exactly was being rampantly violated?

 

Since you have the handbooks...handy...can you please reproduce it here so folks can see it?

 

Phantom

[Griff]

45 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Proliferation...???

 

Wonder where I was during this time of rapid increase in numbers...

 

What rule exactly was being rampantly violated?

 

Since you have the handbooks...handy...can you please reproduce it here so folks can see it?

 

Phantom

Maybe "more common" is a better term, in conjunction with it's introduction in Ruger Single Sixes and the Marlin 1894.  While none of the rampant violations that ended up in rule changes are spelled out in the SHB, several incidents that I'm aware of were closely followed by rule changes.  In one instance, A competitor @ EOT repeatedly caused himself a fumble or malfunction during the course of one particular stage where he could see he wasn't going to do well on that stage.  This lead directly to the 1st round downrange rule.  In the 1st half of the 1990s, it was learned that many shooters using toggle link and some Marlin rifles were having them short stroked.  At first blush it was viewed as a external modification as it was clearly unlike factory produced rifles.  When looking at the numbers so modified it was clear that requiring everyone using them to revert to factory configuration would be nigh impossible as well putting a couple of 'smiths out of work, so they were allowed.  As the stroke became shorter & shorter, a limit was finally set... rendering at least one specific version illegal. 

 

Tried to PM you.  

 

Edited November 11 by Griff

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

Maybe "more common" is a better term, in conjunction with it's introduction in Ruger Single Sixes and the Marlin 1894.  While none of the rampant violations that ended up in rule changes are spelled out in the SHB, several incidents that I'm aware of were closely followed by rule changes.  In one instance, A competitor @ EOT repeatedly caused himself a fumble or malfunction during the course of one particular stage where he could see he wasn't going to do well on that stage.  This lead directly to the 1st round downrange rule.  In the 1st half of the 1990s, it was learned that many shooters using toggle link and some Marlin rifles were having them short stroked.  At first blush it was viewed as a external modification as it was clearly unlike factory produced rifles.  When looking at the numbers so modified it was clear that requiring everyone using them to revert to factory configuration would be nigh impossible as well putting a couple of 'smiths out of work, so they were allowed.  As the stroke became shorter & shorter, a limit was finally set... rendering at least one specific version illegal. 

 

I'm a little disoriented by your response. You said: "Sometimes rules are developed in response to specific actions or practices (as in the case of double projectiles, 1st round downrange, etc.), and sometimes they are enacted to cover already rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles).

 

What rule was being violated?

 

Phantom

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

I'm a little disoriented by your response. You said: "Sometimes rules are developed in response to specific actions or practices (as in the case of double projectiles, 1st round downrange, etc.), and sometimes they are enacted to cover already rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles).

 

What rule was being violated?

 

Phantom

Initially short stroked rifles were seen as violating the "no external modifications" rule.  I.e., the result of the internal modification was apparent externally, whereas springs, etc of different configurations are not.   I.e wire or coil springs vs. flat.  Similar to the changes in interpretation over lowered hammer spurs have evolved.    

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

59 minutes ago, Griff said:

Initially short stroked rifles were seen as violating the "no external modifications" rule.  I.e., the result of the internal modification was apparent externally, whereas springs, etc of different configurations are not.   I.e wire or coil springs vs. flat.  Similar to the changes in interpretation over lowered hammer spurs have evolved.    

Since you have the handbooks that you referenced earlier, could you quote that rule(s) here?
 

Phantom

[Griff]

12 hours ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Since you have the handbooks that you referenced earlier, could you quote that rule(s) here?
 

Phantom

I haven't been able to locate my 1997 SHB, so... SHB, 1989, pg 9  under "General Guidelines":

Quote

Firearms of all approved types should be maintained in as original condition as possible. No visible external modifications other than (non-rubber) grips, recoil pads and leather wrapping (e.g. rifle levers) are allowed.

Yes, rather non-specific and leaves latitude for a wide variety of interpretations.  That language continued thru at least 1995.  I haven't copied my 1996 copy to electronic form, but by 1997 the language changed to read:

Quote

Firearms of all approved types should be maintained in as original exterior condition as possible. No visible external modifications other than (non‑rubber) grips, recoil pads on shotguns, and leather wrapping (e.g. rifle levers) are allowed. Minor exterior modifications and cosmetic engraving are acceptable so long as the overall outward appearance of the firearm is not altered. The firearm must "look" period.

I don't know that I ever had a copy of the 1999 SHB, but the feb, 2000 ver 9, reads:

Quote

FIREARMS RESTRICTIONS
• Firearms of all approved types should be maintained
in as original exterior condition as possible.
The firearm must "look" period.
• No visible external modifications other than
(non-rubber) grips, recoil pads on shotguns,
and leather wrapping (e.g., rifle levers) are allowed.
• Contemporary rubber grips, modern target
grips, and grip tape are not allowed. Replacement
grips of wood, ivory, pearl, stag
horn, bone, and the like are perfectly acceptable
so long as they are not severely customized
to constitute a "target" grip. That is,
they must be of original shape and scale.
• Minor exterior modifications and cosmetic
engraving are acceptable so long as the overall
outward appearance of the firearm is not
altered. Cosmetic embellishment such as
engraving is permitted to the extent it does not
{page break}

create a competitive advantage. For example,
back strap checkering or stippling is not allowed.
Engraving your alias on the back strap
is permissible.
• Modifying the stock length to fit you or changing
a barrel to a different legal length is acceptable.
• Colored sights and sight inserts are not allowed.
Sight outlines or inserts must be blackened or
removed (e.g., Marlin's Cowboy Rifle factory
sights).
• Trigger shoes, compensating ports, counter
weights, bull barrels and all other such modifications
are prohibited.
• A stage disqualification is issued for use of
any non-legal SASS firearm at matches above
the club level.
General "Spirit of the Game" guidance ... if you
have to ask permission to use something because
it offers you a competitive advantage, the response
will nearly always be "no".

In transferring files from several computers, I've lost the SHBs for 2002, 3, 4, & 5, but by 2006 ver. 12. it greatly expanded the detail for allowed modifications.  Going from language that only took up two partial pages to 17 pages of "Firearm Restrictions".  Rather than quote all 17, under "Levers", it reads, in part:

Quote

All lever action rifles must have a lever travel
distance of not less than 4-1/8 inches when
measured as follows:
With the action closed, measure three inches
back from the back edge of the trigger at the
point where it enters the frame. Mark this point
on both the bottom of the buttstock and the lever
opposite the buttstock mark. Open the lever to
its maximum extension and measure the distance
between the two marks.

As it does to the current SHB.  I couldn't give you an exact date of when I first heard rumors about short stroked rifles,  Nor when I first physical saw one, it might have been as early as 1991/2, nor do I recall a specific conversation when I was advised they were acceptable, but ISTR sometime before 1995.  I do believe we've covered that specific topic in full.  There were many, many discussions about short strokes over a number of forums.  

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

I haven't been able to locate my 1997 SHB, so... SHB, 1989, pg 9  under "General Guidelines":

Yes, rather non-specific and leaves latitude for a wide variety of interpretations.  That language continued thru at least 1995.  I haven't copied my 1996 copy to electronic form, but by 1997 the language changed to read:

I don't know that I ever had a copy of the 1999 SHB, but the feb, 2000 ver 9, reads:

In transferring files from several computers, I've lost the SHBs for 2002, 3, 4, & 5, but by 2006 ver. 12. it greatly expanded the detail for allowed modifications.  Going from language that only took up two partial pages to 17 pages of "Firearm Restrictions".  Rather than quote all 17, under "Levers", it reads, in part:

As it does to the current SHB.  I couldn't give you an exact date of when I first heard rumors about short stroked rifles,  Nor when I first physical saw one, it might have been as early as 1991/2, nor do I recall a specific conversation when I was advised they were acceptable, but ISTR sometime before 1995.  I do believe we've covered that specific topic in full.  There were many, many discussions about short strokes over a number of forums.  

Alright...well...I don't see how you can claim that there was "...rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles)".

 

Why am I harping on this? Because I like clarity. I don't care for claims that are made as facts without any supporting docs. The only real "rule" made on the lever throw was done because the WB was afraid that the throw would get to the point where one's hand would barely move...which of course is kinda silly because of the physics involved. They measure Jim Bowie's Super Short Stroke and used it as the baseline for the minimum throw allowed.

 

There were discussions regarding the External Modification clause. Did it apply to when the rifle action was Open / Closed or both. The discussion really got going with the roller modification to the '73 Firing Pin Extension.

 

So...there were no rampant violations of the "short stroke" rifles since there was no rule.

 

Phantom

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

So...there were no rampant violations of the "short stroke" rifles since there was no rule.

Phantom

That would sorta depend on how one interprets the "no visible external modification" phrase.  

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

That would sorta depend on how one interprets the "no visible external modification" phrase.  

Ooookay Griff...fact is that the vast majority of folks considered the SS'ing of rifles an internal modification. The only time that a rule was put into place was when Jim Bowie came out with the Super Short Stroke kit and the WB want to put a limit on how far the SS could go.

 

Yes, you had a bunch of purists that felt anything other than Stock was an afront to their cowboy sensitivities...but so what. There will always be those...but it has nothing to do with what is and isn't a Rule.

 

Phantom

[Griff]

7 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Alright...well...I don't see how you can claim that there was "...rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles)".

 

Phantom

I would hazard a guess that near half of the toggle links in use had been short stroked by 2000.   By 2002, I would say that everyone at my home club using a '73 had it short stroked.

 

51 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Ooookay Griff...fact is that the vast majority of folks considered the SS'ing of rifles an internal modification. The only time that a rule was put into place was when Jim Bowie came out with the Super Short Stroke kit and the WB want to put a limit on how far the SS could go.

 

Yes, you had a bunch of purists that felt anything other than Stock was an afront to their cowboy sensitivities...but so what. There will always be those...but it has nothing to do with what is and isn't a Rule.

 

Phantom

 Not necessarily just "purists".  And I believe the "vast majority of folks" who "considered the SS'ing of rifle an internal modification," had already done so.    I don't think I own a stock gun...  with the exception of my derringer & a pocket pistol or two.  However, one of the often stated goals of the WB had been to not allow an "equipment race" to overtake cowboy action shooting.  But, and I agree, a smooth functioning, reliable firearm is much more enjoyable to shoot, and makes for good competition... where a breakage can mean the difference between win or "also-ran".    Replacing flat springs with coil or wire springs accomplishes this, or at the very least, minimizes the risk of a breakage mid-match.  Smoothing parts and improving timing also accomplishes the same.  I've known this and subscribed to this philosophy since I had my first duty pistol tuned by our department armorer, way before becoming a cowboy action shooter.  Going from an 11+ lb gritty, creepy, trigger pull on my duty revolver to a smooth, crisp, clean breaking 11 lb (department standard), trigger meant my qualification scores jumped from the mid-200s to a perfect 300 overnight.  Helped increase my X count also.  The short stroked rifle became the epitome of an equipment race.  Frankly, I don't think there's been a winner of EOT or the Nationals that hasn't run a short stroked rifle since sometime in the mid- to late 1990s.  Modified pistol hammers are much the same.  If new shooters are dismayed by the cost of the guns needed to compete, they'd be even more dismayed if they knew the extent and cost of the modifications needed to those guns to be competitive in today's atmosphere.   I was told, & I soon agreed, from almost the very beginning of my shooting career in CAS, that one couldn't practice enough to win with stock guns...  so why shoot stock guns?   However, it is also true that short stroking the rifle and now, the pistol has changed, at the very least, the landscape one competes in.  

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

33 minutes ago, Griff said:

I would hazard a guess that near half of the toggle links in use had been short stroked by 2000.   By 2002, I would say that everyone at my home club using a '73 had it short stroked.

How is this relevant to the context we've been engaged in?

 

The whole point of our discussion has centered around you taking and stating the position that there was "...rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles). (emphasis added).

 

Can you address this specific claim of yours with a reference to a rule in the Shooters Handbook...?

 

Phantom

[Griff]

1 minute ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

How is this relevant to the context we've been engaged in?

 

The whole point of our discussion has centered around you taking and stating the position that there was "...rampant violations, (i.e. short stroked rifles). (emphasis added).

 

Can you address this specific claim of yours with a reference to a rule in the Shooters Handbook...?

 

Phantom

Already did.  See NO EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS.  See subsequent statements.   Yes... subsequent discussions held that only those modifications that changed the external appearance of the rifle with the action closed were deemed illegal.  I can't confirm that any changes to the SHB were made clarifying that.  But, until such time, a grey area, and subject to interpretation.  

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

Just now, Griff said:

Already did.  See NO EXTERNAL MODIFICATIONS.  See subsequent statements.   Yes... subsequent discussions held that only those modifications that changed the external appearance of the rifle with the action closed were deemed illegal.  I can't confirm that any changes to the SHB were made clarifying that.  But, until such time, a grey area, and subject to interpretation.  

Good Lord...

 

That's not a rule regarding Short Strokes! Some may have wanted it to be applied to Short Strokes...but it wasn't.

 

You're making things up...

 

Oy!

 

Phantom

[Don Jorge]

How does this relate to Power Factor, the original question?

[Griff]

19 minutes ago, Phantom, SASS #54973 said:

Good Lord...

 

That's not a rule regarding Short Strokes! Some may have wanted it to be applied to Short Strokes...but it wasn't.

 

You're making things up...

 

Oy!

 

Phantom

Certainly not making things up.  There were several years from the appearance of the 1st short strokes to any sort of official ruling about them.  But, as this was 25-30+ years ago, I'll defer to Hip Shot or PWB as both were more intimately involved in rule changes & interpretations than I.  

[Griff]

Just now, Don Jorge said:

How does this relate to Power Factor, the original question?

My fault.  I apologize.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

4 minutes ago, Don Jorge said:

How does this relate to Power Factor, the original question?

Wasn't the original question already pretty much answered?

 

Curious...why you ask about the 60 PF.

 

Phantom

[Don Jorge]

As far as the Power factor goes, it seems low for most factory ammo, and low compared to what some other action shooting uses.  A previous thread had brought up Power factor and use of the rifle, so I wondered, historically, why 60?  Unsure if that was fully answered, although there seems to have been speculation brought forth.

The discussion concerning other rules, and the history of short stroking rifles could deserve its own thread.  Some might enjoy the discussion but not know that it was buried in the PF title

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

49 minutes ago, Don Jorge said:

As far as the Power factor goes, it seems low for most factory ammo, and low compared to what some other action shooting uses.  A previous thread had brought up Power factor and use of the rifle, so I wondered, historically, why 60?  Unsure if that was fully answered, although there seems to have been speculation brought forth.

Alright...first, we are a rather unique type of shooting sport/game. Factory ammo is generally hotter than is need to fit the needs of this game. So comparing to Factory Ammo is just not real relevant. 

 

Same thing pretty much goes with comparing to other shooting sports. We are wholly a revolver game so PF is not an issue for cycling handguns. We engage steel (for the most part), at relatively close ranges (why only lead with no gas checks). Same actually applies to our rifles...

 

The 60PF from my memory came from allowing 32 cal shooters to use 78gr bullets. The 78gr bullets are pretty common and popular.

 

So do you feel that a 60PF is too low?

 

Phantom

[Don Jorge]

Factory ammo may be what many start with in CAS, so there may be some relevancy.

 

You barely need primers with the current target distances, unlike "the old days," when targets were farther back, I am told.

 

Is a PF of 60 too low?  I don't know if it is for CAS, such as it is.  The other thread seemed to associate it with inability to consistently register the last rifle shot with a timer.  A higher PF, perhaps with other factors, may have allowed better rifle shot pickups by the timer in Wild Bunch, when the PF for the rifle was 150.

[Phantom, SASS #54973]

8 minutes ago, Don Jorge said:

Factory ammo may be what many start with in CAS, so there may be some relevancy.

The fact that one can use Factory ammo doesn't enter into the discussion of our PF...so...kinda irrelevant.

 

9 minutes ago, Don Jorge said:

You barely need primers with the current target distances, unlike "the old days," when targets were farther back, I am told.

You're told...??? Your SASS number would indicate that you've been in the game a long time...I'm confuzaled. Now as far as the primer comment...that's just silly and I'm sure you were just joshin.

12 minutes ago, Don Jorge said:

Is a PF of 60 too low?  I don't know if it is for CAS, such as it is.  The other thread seemed to associate it with inability to consistently register the last rifle shot with a timer.  A higher PF, perhaps with other factors, may have allowed better rifle shot pickups by the timer in Wild Bunch, when the PF for the rifle was 150.

What would be those "other factors"?

 

Phantom

[watab kid]

interesting thread , ive gotten educated a little by some of it , learned a bit of the past and the present , thanks , 

[Don Jorge]

Anecdotally, of course, many of the SASS shooters started out using factory ammo, as they did not reload yet.  That was guy case, anyway.  And, I used commercial reloads (like Ten-X) for some time, as have others.  Even those had more velocity than my own reloads, of course.  So, that premise may not be totally invalid.

Along those lines, again, anecdotally, many of my SASS friends started out shooting .44's, .45 Colt, or .38's, not .32's.  Historically, I do not know when the .32's became more available as far as firearms go, and I would bet that few reloaded .32's before starting SASS shooting.  So, this leads me to think that few used .32's when the power factor was made to be 60.  So, a minority of the SASS Shooters were accommodated for this rule?  Interesting, if true.

 

The primer comment?  Well, I am sure that you, too have seen your share of squibs in competitors who were trying for the minimum powder for their cartridge.

I'll bet we have all seen bullets practically crawling out of the barrels at times.

 

When I started CAS, the targets were usually in the mid range of that recommended in the Handbook.  I am told, by those who started before me and shot in the 90's, that the targets were quite farther out.  Land Run, before even a regional, I am told, and have seen images, had much more distance to the targets..

 

By other factors, I meant timer location, surrounding props, louder rifle report.  Nothing nefarious.

 

I have never seen. or even heard of anyone being challenged for their ammunition's PF in CAS, even those who have had squibs (which would speak for itself, I guess).  Wild Bunch is another story,.

[July Smith]

On 11/10/2024 at 4:34 PM, Don Jorge said:

Why was the Power Factor set at 60 in the first place?

When I first started I asked the same question at my club.  The MD told me the low power factor helped older shooters stay in the game longer. 

[Santa Fe River Stan,36999L]

I believe the 2008 Shooters Handbook was the first one that included "Power Factor". Page 11 had 3 examples of calculating Power Factor. I believe the 77 gr bullet example is probably the most realistic reason for the 60 FP.

 

100 gr bullet traveling at 600 fps has a power factor of 60: (100x600)/1000=60.00
77 gr bullet traveling at 800 fps has a power factor of 61.6 (77x800)/1000=61.60
200 gr bullet traveling at 400 fps has a power factor of 80 (200x400)/1000=80.00

 

From the Hodgdon website 

32 HR has a starting velocity of 797 with an 77 grain bullet and HP-38 (61PF)

 

2004,5,6,7 Handbooks only refer to maximum FPS for pistol and rifle. Some of them included "there is no minimum velocity" verbiage.

 

When I started in 2000 I believe there was a minimum FPS of 600 or 650...BUT....I will have to double check as it could have been removed by then. I don't have those books in digital format. Either way a PF of 60 or something very close was allowed for many years with 600/650 as a minimum when combined with a 100 grain bullet. 

 

Stan

 

PS. All this talk about PF is simply blah blah blah......Wanna shoot heavier loads? GREAT.....Wanna shoot light loads? GREAT......I'm just glad folks are shooting. Shooting heavier loads does not make you "a real shooter" like some of the chest beaters say.  I can't for the life of me understand how someone playing the game within the rules somehow diminishes another persons enjoyment of the game. It certainly does not impact mine.

 

PSS....If you want to talk about competitive advantage then we can talk about how finding a consistent load that is not too heavy or too light will be the best choice for shooting fast. Personally I wish all my closest competitors would shoot 60PF......but they don't

 

PSSS....In all the years I've been involved with matches, I've tested exactly 1 shooters loads and to my amazement they passed.

[Hoss]

6 minutes ago, Santa Fe River Stan,36999L said:

I believe the 2008 Shooters Handbook was the first one that included "Power Factor". Page 11 had 3 examples of calculating Power Factor. I believe the 77 gr bullet example is probably the most realistic reason for the 60 FP.

 

100 gr bullet traveling at 600 fps has a power factor of 60: (100x600)/1000=60.00
77 gr bullet traveling at 800 fps has a power factor of 61.6 (77x800)/1000=61.60
200 gr bullet traveling at 400 fps has a power factor of 80 (200x400)/1000=80.00

 

From the Hodgdon website 

32 HR has a starting velocity of 797 with an 77 grain bullet and HP-38 (61PF)

 

2004,5,6,7 Handbooks only refer to maximum FPS for pistol and rifle. Some of them included "there is no minimum velocity" verbiage.

 

When I started in 2000 I believe there was a minimum FPS of 600 or 650...BUT....I will have to double check as it could have been removed by then. I don't have those books in digital format. Either way a PF of 60 or something very close was allowed for many years with 600/650 as a minimum when combined with a 100 grain bullet. 

 

Stan

 

PS. All this talk about PF is simply blah blah blah......Wanna shoot heavier loads? GREAT.....Wanna shoot light loads? GREAT......I'm just glad folks are shooting. Shooting heavier loads does not make you "a real shooter" like some of the chest beaters say.  I can't for the life of me understand how someone playing the game within the rules somehow diminishes another persons enjoyment of the game. It certainly does not impact mine.

 

PSS....If you want to talk about competitive advantage then we can talk about how finding a consistent load that is not too heavy or too light will be the best choice for shooting fast. Personally I wish all my closest competitors would shoot 60PF......but they don't

 

PSSS....In all the years I've been involved with matches, I've tested exactly 1 shooters loads and to my amazement they passed.

I watched a guy a couple of weeks ago shooting loads so light that nearly every stage he has a pistol problem due to primer not reseating. He was shooting classic cowboy, so .40 + caliber, so probably making power factor but loads were definitely very light. 
for me, I shoot a light-medium load around 65 in pistols, 75 in rifle. I tried lighter, especially in rifle did not like them. 

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Aw Common younz (Pittsburgheez).  Let's think about this for a moment.  We haven't gotten this to Page TWO yet!!!  Don't give up now.

 

Besides, for the GAME we now play, Where does Power Factor actually Factor In??  Iffin it (Power Factor) is even a Factor at all??  And do most of us even care??  Think about the actual requirements.  Does the gun go BANG - Yes/No   Does the Bullet leave the gun - Yes/No   Does the bullet reach all the way to the target - Yes/No   As long as you get all "yes" answers, you be gold.