Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

enemeth

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by enemeth

  1. Todd, Please add me to the wait list for standard sort 9mm brass, ("comes sorted, cleaned, polished, and rollsized"). I would like 2 boxes (10,000), but if supply is limited I'll take one when it is available and just stay on the list for the second one. Thanks, Eugene
  2. He'll even 165 pf wasn't real world. just look at off the shelf non self defense ammo:Fed american eagle 230gr fmj 204pf Rem umc 230 fmj 192 pf Win white box 230 fmj 192 pf Cci blazer brass 230 fmj 190pf Those power factors don't translate to revolvers. The cylinder gap really drains off velocity. Some years back I did chrono some factory 230 grain ball. I used Magtech, S&B and Wolf. They all made power factor but none close to the numbers published on the box. Wolf turned out to be the hottest. I have also read (and everything you read on the internet is true) that none of the factory ball could reliably make power factor in S&W Govenors. I agree that at 155 pf we are playing a game but with the 105 pf for speed loaders I'm not sure they can play nice together in the same division anyway.
  3. According to the 2014 Rules Review Process one week after the member suggestion period closes "Tiger Team members will meet to discuss suggestions. Team members will be asked to gather information from shooters outside the team to answer any questions they have." Has anyone that shoots revolver been approached by a Tiger Team member and asked any questions? If you have, could you please leave a post about their questions to you? I would like to know if they showed any concern for the members that shoot revolvers.The members deserve to have their suggestions considered, followed up with questions presented to the members and an open mind to all options. Unfortunately the lack of open discussion and exchange of different perspectives before "elimination" creates a division (pun intended) between members and HQ. I did see a lot of good member suggestions submitted that would encourage more participation in both ESR and SSR. It seems like HQ should have at least given the members a heads up that their suggestions would be irrelevant because ESR was going to be dropped and "possibly" rolled into SSR. At least then members could address relevant issues based on those circumstances.
  4. So they are sorry we don't like it, but because it's a one gun division with poor participation. it has to go. ESR was created to address the revolver equipment race. Well the equipment race problem has been so well addressed, the rules only leave us with one gun. Now their reason to eliminate us is because it is a one gun division. It's not only one gun now but right from the beginning they limited participation by banning 5" barrels and people had to buy new equipment to eliminate the equipment race. With that type of circular logic no wonder ESR has a hard time getting competitors. The sport has to grow and adapt, but revolver rules have not even been given a chance at adapting to promote growth. The current rule book doesn't even address SSR or ESR in course of fire design ( except possibly rule 6.26 ), or suggest neutral stages, like the 2005 rules did. Instead ESR is eliminated to make room for a division attractive to competitors and folded back into SSR. Guess who may be next if SSR has growing pains trying to adapt to moon clips. Not all of revolver's problems are HQ's fault but if you look at the support we get, no wonder this is happening.
  5. 2005 Rule Book page 13 CoF 22. CoF should be " revolver neutral" whenever possible. This is a rule that doesn't require anything definitive. The wording "should" and "whenever possible" is nice but if I questioned a CoF design I couldn't rely on it to win in arbitration. I feel your pain. I suspect the TAC reload after 7 rounds really comes from a shift in CoF design philosophy rather than an enforceable rule change difference between 2005 and 2014. This is also why HQ's philosophy on how to follow up on their announcement to eliminate ESR is an important signal to all revolver shooters as to how we are reguarded as members.
  6. That's my point. Those comments were to improve ESR or consolidate revolver shooters to improve competition.The point of those comments was not to "eliminate" ESR. HQ's response "we know that this will make a few people unhappy,", "we have also decided to eliminate the ESR Division.", and "looking at the possibility of adding these guns back to SSR". This makes me nervous, there is no assurance that consolidation will happen.The track record for eliminating equipment, based on reasoning that has been questioned as being somewhat subjective, is why I am concerned.
  7. Would the person or persons out there who submitted the rule change recomendation to drop ESR please stand up? We all know that a lot of members who were concerned about the flat footed reload submitted recomendations when the rules were open for comment. Nobody I know or any of the postings I saw about rule change suggestions even mentioned dropping ESR. I apopogize if the members really want ESR dropped and I am just out of the loop. If no one owns up, then maybe HQ should still be open to consider member feedback even if it has to be through forum posts since the official comment time period is closed.
  8. Now for some rule changes. These are not my original ideas but some things to think about. Since there use to be 5" barrels allowed in revolver and there always have been 5" barrels in IDPA, specifically in CDP, why not bring that back. I know 1911s have to fit in a box but thats the beauty of it, with revolvers they already don't have to fit, so one less rule to change. But seriously though, it may attract some new shooters to IDPA that used them ( note past tense) in USPSA. I personally don't have a 5" 625 so my bias is based on wanting to keep ESR and finding more competitors. If someone says there are not a lot of USPSA revolver shooters to attract I couldn't disagree, but every little bit helps. One thing that did bring more revolver shooters out for USPSA was separating their Nationals and scheduling it while everyone is already in town for Single Stack. Maybe IDPA could do something like having the Back Up Gun Nationals and a National Revolver Match combimed but scheduled on two separate days so you can shoot both. At my club we had a revoler match on a off date for other matches in our area and more people than I would have imagined showed up that normally always shot semiautos. Again if we are trying to expand participation and "get with the times", the handicap placed on seven and eight shot revolvers might be addressed since they come in both speedloader and moon clip flavors. They could be subject to power factor requirements or only shoot six instead of only load six. Neither of which is a perfect solution but may open some options for people that already have them.
  9. Good points on giving warning and equipment stability. "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana By the way, is there anyone out there who was around before ESR was created that could give some insight on what shooting together in only one revolver division was like?
  10. I expect if you merge ESR with SSR, at least on the first try, it's likely someone will win and someone will loose. Being allowed to shoot moon clips in SSR is better than being banned, but I don't expect to be welcomed with open arms if it turns out the rules don't put moon clips at some disadvantage. Revolvers are too diverse to lump them all together easily. I am also thinking about the majority of revolvers that people really carry, with small frames and short barrels. Even though they are not banned from SSR they are a non factor. Sometimes you end up with a defacto ban based on the way the rules are written. Uncertainty in the future of revolvers causes more rule instability and adds new problems that IDPA didn't need to create.
  11. If it would save ESR I would be all for it. I would much rather see expansion than elimination. As far as the argument about every day carry, we all know a 4" 625, glock 34, or 5" 1911 is not exactly a pocket pistol anyway. I do have a 3" model 25 that I have carried, as well as shot BUG with, so although it can be done, my 4" n frames are for home defense and competition. It isn't realistic to say all guns in SSP,ESP, and CDP are every day carry so lets not use that excuse and close our options to attracting more shooters.
  12. Dropping ESR or not dropping ESR doesn't stop consideration of a new division. Announcing the dropping of ESR without an answer as to how moonclip guns will be addressed only creates uncertainty that adds to sense a of disorganization. Asking the membership for input about a new division, i.e. with a survey, is a much better approach than just saying we decided ESR is gone and it's only a "possibility" moonclip revolvers will be allowed in SSR. Personally I think if they wanted a new division they should consider combining BUG into a real Carry division that had full competition status as a division. ESR and a new division are separate concerns that don't have to be played against each other to see which can draw the most participants. I would like to see both succeed.
  13. I started shooting IDPA and ESR in 2006 so this was one year after the 2005 rule changes that created ESR and eliminated the 5" barrels. There were still people upset and talking about rule equipment changes when I started shooting. Since I was new it didn't affect me, I bought a 4" barreled 625 and started shooting revolver. ESR competitor equipment is so similar there is no real equipment race to deal with. Lack of competitors in the division has always been frustrating but if you roll ESR into SSR the rules will not be able to artificially put them on an equal level. The will be an equipment winner and looser. This has happened in USPSA revolver with 8 shot minor power factor taking over 6 shot major as soon as 8 shots were allowed. The decision to drop the division seems to have been made. I wish there could have been some discussion before the fact but this is typical of an orginazation that isn't obligated to be guided by the members. When they are having so much trouble with rule revisions it makes me wonder why they added the new task of resolving the speed loader vs moon clip problem. I hope there is still a place for the " 3%" but they are right when they say that "this will make a few people unhappy".
  14. The S&W 625 with a 4" barrel is the most versatile. It is a great home defense revolver. You can shoot USPSA Revolver division, IDPA ESR division and ICORE Limited division. You can shoot IDPA SSR or ICORE Classic if you use 45 auto rim and speed loaders. A S&W 627 8 shot may be a little better for ICORE. I shoot a S&W 627 4" in USPSA Production for fun since there isn't always someone to shoot against in revolver division. The S&W 627 is also a great home defense gun. Backup gun can mean an alternative gun to shoot at a match, a small concealable second carry gun or one that meets the IDPA Bug Gun division requirements. I do have a S&W 25 with a 3" barrel that I used at an IDPA Bug Match once (it was my primary carry gun) when my bug gun was put out of commision but N Frames are really too big to be concealed carry backup guns.
×
×
  • Create New...