Any Body Used a Bob Sled?

[Mono1]

Anybody used a Bob Sled before?

They are used in place of a Magazine where your best performing loads exceed Magazine length, and so they need to be loaded one at a time into the Rifle.

Common in F-Class Target Rifle competition as I understand it.

I have heard it is hard on Extractors.

Appreciate any thoughts.

Read More

 

[TTSX]

 

[Mono1]

View attachment 1489607

Thanks TTSX. You can go to bed now.

 

[drstrangelove]

Yep. Have one for my AICS short action chassis platforms. They work great, especially if you're pushing the limit of magazine length reloading and mostly shooting single shot for groups.

 

[Mono1]

Yep. Have one for my AICS short action chassis platforms. They work great, especially if you're pushing the limit of magazine length reloading and mostly shooting single shot for groups.

No issues?

 

[drstrangelove]

No issues?

Not one bit. Clicks right in and feeds perfectly. I don't see any reason extractor wear would be an issue since almost any push feed rifle is doing the same thing. Mauser claws being the exception.

 

[Mono1]

Not one bit. Clicks right in and feeds perfectly. I don't see any reason extractor wear would be an issue since almost any push feed rifle is doing the same thing. Mauser claws being the exception.

Thankyou @drstrangelove good info!

 

[lucusloc]

I imagine the whole "hard on extractors" complaint is the same logic as the "don't load a round into the chamber directly" argument in pistol circles. The extractor needs to rid up over the rim as the bolt comes home, and this can cause "excessive wear" on the extractor.

I say phooey to that. Yes I know this is an actual issue with older pistols (and, presumably in this context, older rifles too). But for modern extractors this should be a complete non-issue. If you do not have a firearm that you cannot directly chamber-load without worry of breaking something, get a better firearm. In a working gun situation this is hands down the safest way to load and prep a gun for duty. It is the absolute minimum amount of manipulation of a loaded firearm before it gets put into a safe state (e.g. into a holster), and is far better than loading a round with the magazine, then dropping, topping off and reloading (again). Not to mention direct chamber loading entirely mitigates bullet setback, which is a huge issue for working arms that are commonly loaded and unloaded between actual uses.

In a competition rifle, well as discussed above the advantage is a longer COL for better powered capacity and/or bullet geometry. It also does not impact COL when loaded from a magazine, which in extreme precision shooting could be a consideration, especially if you extract the cartridge a few times before you actually decide to fire it. (granted you will probably not be doing that to a single cartridge to nearly the same extent as a pistol you carry and unload every day, but I can see even two or three re-chamberings of a precisions cartridge from the mag throwing off the seating depth to a noticeable degree, especially in uncrimped cases as is commonly found in precision handloads.)

At the end of the day you are going to have to do the research to find out if a weak extractor is an issue on your particular model and age of firearm, and if it is an issue you are going to have to decide if it is worth working around that limitation or if it would better for you to upgrade to a model of firearm where it isn't. I do know that if I ever find a modern firearm where this is a known issue I absolutely consider that a design/manufacturing defect and I would keep sending the firearm back until they manage to fix the issue. I would only ever tolerate this on a historic arm that I was unwilling to modify to modern specs, but then again I probably would not be using such an arm for real world or high performance competition work, so this limitation would be entirely irrelevant to me anyway.

 

[ron]

Highpower rifle competition requires single loading of sighters, slow fire prone and off hand.
The 600 yard slow fire prone stage most shooters use a bullet loaded long like the 80 SMK.
That's OK because single loading is required by the rules in the slow fire prone stage.
A Single Loading Enhancement Device or SLED are used. They make sleds for M1s and ARs.
The Bob sled is used by many shooters and are popular. I think they are ridiculous cost at
$46.99 each!! I use a single shot magazine follower in a 20 round mag. Works great.
No stress on extractor when using either type of sled because the M1 and AR are 'push feed'.

Original Bob Sled Match Loading Block AR-15 6mm ARC

To get the most performance and highest ballistic coefficient possible out of the chosen cartridge, long range competitive shooters often handload...

www.midwayusa.com

AR-15/M16 SINGLE SHOT MAGAZINE FOLLOWER | Brownells

If you are using the longer, heavier bullets in your AR-15, then you need a Sinclair AR-15 Single Shot Follower. The longer, heavier bullets are normally loaded longer than magazine length. The Sinclair AR-15 Single Shot Follower positions the 223...

www.brownells.com

 

[WillametteWill]

I say phooey to that. Yes I know this is an actual issue with older pistols (and, presumably in this context, older rifles too). But for modern extractors this should be a complete non-issue. If you do not have a firearm that you cannot directly chamber-load without worry of breaking something, get a better firearm. In a working gun situation this is hands down the safest way to load and prep a gun for duty. It is the absolute minimum amount of manipulation of a loaded firearm before it gets put into a safe state (e.g. into a holster), and is far better than loading a round with the magazine, then dropping, topping off and reloading (again). Not to mention direct chamber loading entirely mitigates bullet setback, which is a huge issue for working arms that are commonly loaded and unloaded between actual uses.

Questions and thoughts...

So why would it be an issue for older pistols but not for my modern pistols (e.g., 1911s)? And many to most striker fired pistols are using essentially the same design that has been around for 100 plus years, where it is intended for the rim to ride up under the extractor and not "ping" it as it goes over the rim? Many "new" extractors (e.g., Wilsons) are known to be extremely tough but they are much harder and, again, would be designed for the cartridge to load like every other round does, by sliding up under the extractor.

The extractor riding over the rim can also possibly cause rim damage. I'm not worried about setback in duty/carry ammo that I may only load from a magazine a few times (I do not repeatedly use the same cartridge in the chamber, yes, I'm that anal about it), but repeatedly slamming the slide on a primer will possibly damage the primer compound (I have heard of documented cases from LEOs their guns did not go bang because of this reason, repeated chamberings).

And lastly, it's not anymore safe for those of us who carry guns with one loaded down in the mag. I load a full mag, load the gun, and call it good. It's easier to reseat the mag if ever needed and in my experience, lowers the likelihood of first-round malfunctions from overstuffed magazines (my wife watched this happen, again, in class this weekend).

There may be some firearms where it is not an issue, specifically some rifles and shotguns, but for "carry" types of handguns, in my most humble opinion, I would stick to being kinder with the extractors.

 

[NeoBlackdog]

Questions and thoughts...

So why would it be an issue for older pistols but not for my modern pistols (e.g., 1911s)? And many to most striker fired pistols are using essentially the same design that has been around for 100 plus years, where it is intended for the rim to ride up under the extractor and not "ping" it as it goes over the rim? Many "new" extractors (e.g., Wilsons) are known to be extremely tough but they are much harder and, again, would be designed for the cartridge to load like every other round does, by sliding up under the extractor.

The extractor riding over the rim can also possibly cause rim damage. I'm not worried about setback in duty/carry ammo that I may only load from a magazine a few times (I do not repeatedly use the same cartridge in the chamber, yes, I'm that anal about it), but repeatedly slamming the slide on a primer will possibly damage the primer compound (I have heard of documented cases from LEOs their guns did not go bang because of this reason, repeated chamberings).

And lastly, it's not anymore safe for those of us who carry guns with one loaded down in the mag. I load a full mag, load the gun, and call it good. It's easier to reseat the mag if ever needed and in my experience, lowers the likelihood of first-round malfunctions from overstuffed magazines (my wife watched this happen, again, in class this weekend).

There may be some firearms where it is not an issue, specifically some rifles and shotguns, but for "carry" types of handguns, in my most humble opinion, I would stick to being kinder with the extractors.

In addition to all of the above questions, why does one need to be doing so much administrative loading and unloading of a pistol? I load 'em, top 'em off, and stick 'em in the holster. You (@lucusloc ) make it sound like you're unloading/reloading the firearm every hour and a half.

 

[lucusloc]

Questions and thoughts...

...

Older extractors can be noticeably thinner and weaker than what more modern pistols are designed for. I have an old historic 1911 from the 50s and it has a visibly less robust extractor than what I see on modern examples of the type. Couple that with a different geometry for the extractor face and I can see how older pistols could have a problem with extractors riding up over the rim. This differing geometry could also be what lead to rim damage in the past. If the rake angle on the face was not aggressive enough the face could try digging into the softer brass as it tries to ride over and that could cause its own problems in addition to increasing the loads on the extractor. I know old 1911s like mine are known to have extractor failures, and I can understand how dropping a round directly into the pipe and closing the action could be a contributing factor to that failure.

But on modern firearms? I expect them to handle this behavior without a second thought. I expect my new firearms to have an extractor design that just accepts whatever presentation the next cartridge gives it, and to be nice to the brass while doing so. If I see the extractor struggling, or marring my brass, I am going to send that thing back to the manufacturer and tell them to fix it. And if they come back and say the problem is me, and that I should not load that way with their firearm, I am going to let them keep it and go looking for a firearm that works properly. I am particular about my duty weapons, I do not tolerate faff and bother with them. They need to be well suited to my manual of arms and not have "features" that get in the way of their primary function. A poor/weak extractor goes right up there with features like magazine cutoffs, overly nannified safeties and intrusive LCIs (like some that I have seen that damn near block the sights); I simply will not consider your firearm as fit for use if it has them.

I am a lot more tolerant of downloading mags in rifles. Taking one or two off the top of a 30 rnd mag is not that big an impact to available rounds (to me at least). I am significantly less tolerant of this "feature" in pistols, as most of them cap out at 12-14 rounds standard, sometimes far less for things suitable for deep concealment. Taking one off the top for those has a much bigger relative impact on available firepower, and so I expect my pistols to function flawlessly from a full mag, every time. If I have a mag that fails to feed reliably (first round, last round, whatever) it gets retired. Fortunately this is not an issue I have regularly seen on anything I have for duty use. I do see it somewhat consistently on race guns and plinkers, but that is most likely due to high performance and marginal tuning or just plain lack of proper care/design, respectively. But again, these are not firearms I would be considering for duty use in the first place, so that issue would be a moot point to me.

(including @NeoBlackdog here) As for why I choose the manual of arms I do with loading, dropping one directly in the pipe simply requires the lease amount of manipulation and bother with the firearm. I can take the unloaded gun, drop a round in, drop the action and either load the mag and holster, or holster and load the mag, depending on my current carry setup. I know that setting up your carry gun is (and should be!) a low risk activity; you should be paying careful attention to your manipulation and every action should be deliberate. But it is not no risk, and minimizing handling is one way to reduce the risk to as low as it will go. Dropping a round in the chamber is about as minimal handling as you can get, especially if you want a fully loaded mag.

With respect to bullet setback, even if you rotate your cartridges every day, a daily load/unload cycle will, over the course of a year, subject each round in the average magazine to about a dozen chamberings. That is not an insignificant potential for bullet setback and should be something that is part of your inspection routine. Now, if you do not clear your duty weapon every day then this setback issue will be far less, but I still prefer to just avoid it entirely. If you put the round right in the chamber it will never see feeding forces at all, and all the rest of the rounds in the mag will only ever see them once, right before they get sent downrange.

Overall I just find this manual of arms to be about as optimal as it can be, and the pros (minimum handling of the firearm to set it up for use, no chance of bullet setback) to far outweigh the cons (not suitable for older or poorly designed arms). If you have not tried it, and you have a firearm suited to it, I would recommend you do give it a try and see if a simpler manual of arms tickles your fancy.

 

[WillametteWill]

Thanks for the detailed reply. You clearly have thought about your actions and what works for you @lucusloc . I guess my thought is that even "modern" pistols are not designed for the slide to slam on a chambered round. They will do it, but in doing so, they are working in a manner that does not exist in the general function. This causes the extractor to bend in a place that could weaken eventually, especially with daily loading. To me it's not about my carry/duty guns being reliable (they are), but also not doing things that could take them out of the fight.

It should not be a practice to let a slide slam home without a round being fed, especially on a 1911 (I think a little part of Bill Wilson dies every time this happens in the universe, and his guns are known for their reliability), and it's also not intended even for plastic striker guns. It may not be a big deal...until it is. I don't baby my carry guns, but I do try and operate them as designed to avoid weakening any parts.

To the OP, many rifle extractors have a different design that allows for move movement with less stress on the extractor. Sorry to derail the thread and I'll let the train get back on the tracks.

 

[DLS]

The problem with direct loading with a pistol like a standard 1911 is that they possess an internal extractor. There is very little room for the extractor to move laterally, so dropping the slide on a loaded chamber places a good bit of stress on a pretty thin part. This is one reason why they break as often as they do. They are beveled on the front of the claw to allow the extractor to snap over the case with minimal damage (to the extractor or case) if the slide, for some reason, was inadvertently dropped, but the proper manual of arms is to load from the magazine allowing controlled round feeding.

This is why, "back in the day", action shooters using 1911 pattern guns always had a pre-tuned extractor in their range kit. Otherwise a broken extractor sidelined you in the middle of a match.

Pistol designs with an external extractor have significantly more room to move laterally due to the pivot action around the extractor pin. Additionally, the extractor is tensioned by a separate spring rather than relying on the extractor's tensile strength / springyness. This, coupled with the much larger physical dimensions of an external extractor makes them much more forgiving of direct loading techniques. This is still hard on the brass itself however.

Regarding the Bob SLED, they work great, but as @ron has already stated, they are crazy expensive for what they are. They are typically a "buy once" type of purchase though, as they really don't have any significant points that will wear out from use.