Favorite team:LSU 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:124
Registered on:8/28/2009
Online Status: 

Recent Posts

Message

re: Steel cased ammo

Posted by johnarbour on 10/6/10 at 12:16 pm to
Really just looking for range ammo. I wouldn't shoot more than 100 rounds of steel, and would mix in brass during the session.I'm shootng a Springfield XD9, and want to take good care of it.

Steel cased ammo

Posted by johnarbour on 10/6/10 at 9:54 am
Anyone ever shot steel cased 9mm ammo? Read conflicting views on what it can do to a gun, how dirty it is, and accuracy. Just curious.

re: 9mm ammo

Posted by johnarbour on 10/2/10 at 2:08 pm to
Is there a limit to the # of boxes you can get?

re: 9mm ammo

Posted by johnarbour on 10/2/10 at 7:20 am to
After checking these sites, I still think good ole Wally world may be cheapest. I've been shooting federal FMJ at the range, and walmart has them for under 11$ a box.

re: 9mm ammo

Posted by johnarbour on 10/1/10 at 10:16 pm to
Really appreciate the help guys. Got my first handgun and I'm putting some serious rounds through it. Starting to add up!

9mm ammo

Posted by johnarbour on 10/1/10 at 3:42 pm
What's the best place online for 9mm range ammo? Looking for bulk boxes if possible.
This isn't baseball. You can't really expect a good hop with a football kicked full force into the ground directly at you. Maybe a bouncing pooch kick.

re: on side kick ruling from 2009

Posted by johnarbour on 9/6/10 at 12:26 am to
I wish I could remember exactly the interpretation i was referring to. It involved the definition of a block, and how in a case like this (a grounded kick), the definition of a block and blocker changes. Similar to how players can throw each other around when trying to secure a fumble. As I understand it, blocking in the back and clipping rules are still in effect. Looking at the replay again, I think a block in the back could have been called. It's close.

re: on side kick ruling from 2009

Posted by johnarbour on 9/6/10 at 12:05 am to
I agree with everything you just stated, but in this case, once blue crosses his restraining line, he could be blocked. Otherwise, he could headhunt and wipe someone out. You have to take in consideration specific definitions and designations of terms. Football rules are a royal pain in the arse because definitions change so much in a play. For instance, how long is a quarterback considered a passer and have protection from roughing the passer? It's all really interesting and frustrating at the same time.

re: on side kick ruling from 2009

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 11:47 pm to
This is correct of he called fair catch. It would have been a penalty for calling fair catch of a grounded kick, but he would have been protected.

re: on side kick ruling from 2009

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 11:45 pm to
Also, you're misinterpreting the rule. Once recieving team crosses it's restraining line like blue did, and the ball has touched the ground, which it did, he is fair game. The way you state it, the recieving team could run and smash a kicker before the ball goes ten yards, but a kicker cannot.

re: on side kick ruling from 2009

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 11:36 pm to
How is it smart? If he knew the kicking team couldn't touch it until after ten yards unless he touched it, why would he go get it before it goes ten yards? Players are coached to let it come to them in an anticipated free kick. It's way too risky to go get it before it travels 10 yards.

re: on side kick ruling from 2009

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 11:22 pm to
If it had gne ten yards yes. But once it hits the ground, if kicking team touches before ten yards, it's called first touching. Receiving team gets the ball at that spot. In my opinion, blue was blocked (legally) into the ball and by rule, that negates te receiving team touching it. That is revihewable by the way. Not the blocking penalty, but the fact that he was blocked into the ball. But it was his fault for going to get the ball before it went ten yards. That's fundamentals.
The ball was loose well before that. He didn't have control before he hit the ground. It may not have come out yet, but he didn't have control. And all plays are reviewed. It was a fumble by a long shot. Really not that close in my opinion.

re: No Call on the Onsides Kick

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 1:25 pm to
Yes there is. Rule doesn't specify.

re: No Call on the Onsides Kick

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 1:16 pm to
But a free kick is no longer defined as a free kick once it touches the ground or a player of the receiving team. It's a crazy definition. It could have been called a block in the back. In that case, since it was a loose ball when the penalty occurred, UNC is backed ip 10 yards, and rekick.

re: No Call on the Onsides Kick

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 1:04 pm to
The key the it hit ground means the receiving team is noblonger protected. Kicking team cannot recover until it goes ten yards, but once it hits the ground the receiving team can be hit without penalty.

re: No Call on the Onsides Kick

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 12:58 pm to
Sorry, didn't see your post. The key is te kick touching the ground. That's why it's intentionally kicked into the ground.

re: No Call on the Onsides Kick

Posted by johnarbour on 9/5/10 at 12:55 pm to
By rule, once a kick is grounded (touched the ground) the receiving team is no longer protected. Good no call. LSU should not have touched the ball before it went ten yards.