John MH

Most of any kernels of powder that damage to bounce out of the powder cup land on the weighing plate cover and don't affect charge trickled into the cup.

These catch escaped kernels.

Difficult to say but I'd recommend reducing your charge to the minimum recommended in a Reloading Manual.

Heard last weekend that RUAG Ammotec had been bought by Beretta so that will slow things down even further, would expect the Liskeard site to close as everything moves to GMK's Fareham site. https://www.ruag.com/en/news/sale-ruag-ammotec-completed

What’s the news on a 1710 version?

I've got 3 spare O Rings sat on my desk, yours for a donation the the RBL.

Sounds like your problem is more to do with freedom to turn as the belt should not slip.

£14.89 plus postage.

Colour?

How many do you have left?

If you are an NRA Member then yes, however 800 yards may be difficult. You could certainly do 100, 200, 300, 600 and 1000 with little dificulty.

Something like this?

Thanks, I've moved his posts anyway.

Odd, was not aware that it is not visible to new members. https://bullettipping.com/2018/05/accuracy-one-precision-primer-gauge/ Unfortunately they do not export.

This is the for sale section, not 'Wanted'. This post has already been moved once.

https://www.anschutznorthamerica.com/store/p897/1710_MDT_ACC_Chassis_Only_(RED)_Crimson_Red.html

Not with the current exchange rate.

RS Powder shortage imminent.

CSR Shooters are very unlikely to be using 80 grain SMKs as they are far too long to be easily magazine fed.

The NRA probably think FTR Shooters are the most SQEP Hand Loaders.

It appears, according to the latest NRA Journal, that the NRA are going to add a 'Hand Loading' competency to a Shooter's Certification Card on the nod of your Club Chairman. Who carries the can when some 'Certified' shooter blows up their firearm is not clear. I expect the NRA will be more than happy to charge shooters for 'Certifying' them but I'm not sure they could reasonably be considered a 'Suitably Qualified and Experienced' body to perform such certification.

This is a can of worms that should be kept firmly shut.

Wrong in part, see here: https://www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/leisure/basics.htm and here https://www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/leisure/amateur-sports-club.htm In particular: If the Club or Range operator has to provided the ammunition then they have a responsibility to ensure its safe, if Range users (the Public/Club Member doing a leisure activity in this scenario) provide their own ammunition then the club cannot be responsible if it is unsafe. However, it is probably reasonable to ask the person shooting hand loaded ammunition if they used 'approve/accredited/recognised' data but if it all goes Pete Tong and someone is hurt when the questioned by the court was all done that was reasonably practical to mitigate the risk i.e elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls and personal protective equipment, then the answer would probably be no. If there is a perceived risk that hand loaded ammunition could be dangerous then the easiest mitigation is to 'eliminate' the risk i.e ban the use of home loaded ammunition (a bit severe and not something I would like to see). Take this example, a company provides a Zip Wire Experience where whilst undertaking the activity the customers are exposed to the risk of a fall from height. They mandate that only harnesses provided by them can be used by customers, these harnesses are serial numbered and regularly safety checked/tested and replaced with new at regular intervals (life expired). A customer turns up and asked can they use the harness they made themselves, it was made at home to recognised industry specifications so should be safe; what do you think the Zip Wire Experience company are going to say, 'sign this certificate to say you made it to recognised data' and you are good to go, I don't think so. Most HSE Regulation/Law is legally complex and often difficult to understand, as a result they provide an 'Approved Code of Practice' to allow employers and employees (including self employed) to navigate the HSE Regulation/Law, if you can demonstrate that you followed the ACOP and something goes wrong you should at least be offered some protection from the full weight of the law in court. Demonstrating means being able to 'demonstrate' (provide evidence) that the controls you put in place are being used and are effective and that there is a auditable trail. What I see from the 'declaration' approach is that whilst it may be auditable (We have a chit where Fred signed to say his home loads were assembled using 'recognised' data) it's not effective in preventing an idiot blowing up his firearm.

Do checks properly or don't do them at all. When some idiot blows his firearm up on a MoD Range even though he used 'recognised/approved/validated' (by what SEQP Body I might ask) data, but when looked into further, used his partners kitchen scales to measure the amount of 'recognised/approved/validated' propellent powder to use. Worse still the idiot who mixed Pistol Powder with Rifle Powder. These 'administrative safeguards' are not worth the paper they are written on. H&S at Work Act is for the work place, if you are not in a work place, in most instances the regulations don't apply, that's why so many people are allowed to fall off totally unsuitable ladders at home and not get prosecuted. Trying to put something in place that cannot be properly audited and checked and which relies on an individuals self declaration will not stand up to scrutiny when something does go wrong.

Direct Import to you does not require proofing, if it goes via an RFD then it does require proofing.