More on DR ammo

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

More on DR ammo

Post by Russ OR on Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:19 am

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

Russ OR

Posts : 121
Join date : 2011-06-10
Location : Oregon City, OR

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by LenV on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:27 am

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.

LenV

Posts : 1730
Join date : 2014-01-25
Age : 66
Location : Oargun

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by james r chapman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:55 pm

E. Looks clear on 158 bullets

james r chapman

Posts : 1596
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 67
Location : HELL, Michigan

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Jack H on Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:28 pm

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

Jack H

Posts : 971
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 67
Location : Duckburg, Orygun

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by LenV on Sat Dec 13, 2014 6:34 pm

I clicked on rule changes for conventional pistol and that is what popped up.

LenV

Posts : 1730
Join date : 2014-01-25
Age : 66
Location : Oargun

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Rob Kovach on Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:30 pm

Those "rule changes for 2014" were from a year ago--Jack's letter is much more recent.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2552
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by LenV on Sat Dec 13, 2014 7:56 pm

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. Rolling Eyes


You might lose that bet Rob.

LenV

Posts : 1730
Join date : 2014-01-25
Age : 66
Location : Oargun

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by james r chapman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:33 pm


james r chapman

Posts : 1596
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 67
Location : HELL, Michigan

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Rob Kovach on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:46 pm

How do you figure?  The link that Old Master found is from December of 2013, and this quote is from October 2014:
the committee decided to get out of the bullet weight business and allow ANY safe ammo. You can even use 148gr HBWC.
Sounds pretty clear that the 158gr requirement isn't going to be the rule much longer.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2552
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by james r chapman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:47 pm

we shall wait and see... if you shot today, what would the rule be?

james r chapman

Posts : 1596
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 67
Location : HELL, Michigan

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by javaduke on Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:18 pm

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

javaduke

Posts : 87
Join date : 2012-07-04

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by dronning on Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:20 pm

deleted


Last edited by dronning on Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:35 pm; edited 2 times in total

dronning

Posts : 1122
Join date : 2013-03-20
Age : 63
Location : Lakeville, MN

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by javaduke on Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:23 pm

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
But it does specify the ammo required, right here:
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.

javaduke

Posts : 87
Join date : 2012-07-04

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by james r chapman on Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:25 pm

What hole is that?

I read 3.1.4(e) to be very clear...

james r chapman

Posts : 1596
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 67
Location : HELL, Michigan

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Jack H on Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:50 pm

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.

Jack H

Posts : 971
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 67
Location : Duckburg, Orygun

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Rob Kovach on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:24 pm

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.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2552
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Jack H on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:37 pm

The exchanges in October were about DR.  Notice the Willing quote mentions "capable" which is part of DR for sure.

Jack H

Posts : 971
Join date : 2011-06-10
Age : 67
Location : Duckburg, Orygun

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Rob Kovach on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:41 pm

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.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2552
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Rob Kovach on Sat Dec 13, 2014 11:47 pm

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 : 2552
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by james r chapman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 12:16 am

Yepper!

james r chapman

Posts : 1596
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 67
Location : HELL, Michigan

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Wile E Coyote on Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:11 am

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

Wile E Coyote

Posts : 40
Join date : 2014-08-18
Location : NJ

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by dronning on Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:56 am

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 : 1122
Join date : 2013-03-20
Age : 63
Location : Lakeville, MN

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Rob Kovach on Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:20 am

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.

Rob Kovach
Admin

Posts : 2552
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 43
Location : Brooklyn, WI

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by KenO on Sun Dec 14, 2014 6:44 am

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.

KenO

Posts : 120
Join date : 2011-06-14
Age : 69
Location : Northern Lower Michigan/Florida winter

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by james r chapman on Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:46 pm

We need t-shirts made up, darn it!

james r chapman

Posts : 1596
Join date : 2012-01-31
Age : 67
Location : HELL, Michigan

Back to top Go down

Re: More on DR ammo

Post by Sponsored content Today at 4:21 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum