dsb
-
Posts
40 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by dsb
-
-
13 hours ago, DeweyH said:
I am commenting on a philosophical debate that never will happen...
That's all this is... A bunch of 'what ifs'. nothing to get all wound up about.
13 hours ago, DeweyH said:I also wouldn't care if they got rid of classifications as well. That would end the debate on sandbaggers/grandbagger too.
I won my 'Class' in the first match I ever shot (late 70's)...
They took the best score and then drew a line where all of the class percentages fell, if you came out at the top of the percentage bracket, you won that 'class' (A,B,C, and D, I don't remember them having master at the time, but I could be wrong).
I imagine that would stir some people's grits these days...
-
56 minutes ago, ATLDave said:
My personal history with USPSA doesn't go back that far, but I don't think any step was taken to affirmatively "allow" it. As I understand it, the original gun rules were very, very loose, and there were no divisions. A large number of technical innovations came about, including some that were considered so advantageous that they needed to be set aside as a special division - or, rather, that everything not using those particular innovations would be "protected" from them in a separate division. That's how limited and open were created.
So there wasn't ever a rule change, to my knowledge, that "allowed" 2011's. At some point they were "invented" or adopted by lots of USPSA shooters, and the rules didn't specifically exclude them from limited. The technology changed (or was adopted), but not the rules. At least that's my understanding.
I think that's quite a bit different than affirmatively changing existing rules. Also, USPSA is a heck of a lot bigger today in terms of participants - and in terms of total dollars sunk into gear complying with existing rules - than it was way back when.
Would you say that the 2011 capacity over the 1911 was more or less of and advantage than the dot v. iron sights on any given 1911? If it's near as makes no difference then why wasn't something said/done at the time? If it was a mistake, why do we have to live with it forever?
The only specific rule that I remember is that I wasn't allowed to run may SVi as a 10mm because they hadn't made enough in that caliber, never mind that people were blowing up .40s and the 10mm made major easily...
-
On 10/31/2019 at 1:07 PM, ATLDave said:
Changing division rules is generally dumb because it usually screws the people who are already most-invested in a division. Screwing current stakeholders in the hopes that it will attract some additional people who aren't as invested is risky, and perhaps a d!ck move.
Isn't that essentially what happened when they allowed the 2011's into Limited? Both the 1911 shooters and the 9mm double stack shooters were screwed.
-
I shot IPSC matches in the late '70's (Before USPSA)... As I recall, the first scoring was just 5-3-1 until the guys convinced the powers that be that a hit from a .45 was worth more than a 9mm. The first El Prez I shot didn't have a mandatory reload and the guys shooting Hi Powers killed the 1911s (which were the majority) which is probably why it got changed. There used to be a concerted effort to make stages as power factor neutral as possible. There used to be an emphasis on the 'Practical' part of IPSC.
The whole major/minor thing got gamed with the .38 supers, 9mm capacity with major power/scoring... and quite a few blown up guns.
The main thing, as I recall, that was behind the push for Limited was the scopes/dots, they created a big gap in speed and accuracy over iron sights.
The main thing, as I recall, that was the push for Production was the idea that the Glocks* couldn't compete with the 2011s.
Personally, I think production got messed up, I don't see nearly as much difference between a 2011, 1911, or Stock 2, as I do between any of those and the polymer striker guns. A 2011 or Stock 2** are more similar than dissimilar for Limited, and any of the 3 would work for L10.
I don't think there's a huge difference between shooting a G19 or a G34, or at least not so much as someone with a 19 thinking they didn't belong shooting against 34s.
I do think that the gun being holstered with the butt above the belt is a good idea, and I think appendix carry should be legal in Production.
I think that production should have Major/Minor scoring based on commercial ammo performance in whatever gun you're using, and there should be an increase in capacity for minor (i.e. 10rnds Major/15rnds minor).
While this arrangement may not be 'newbie friendly' it makes more sense to me, and it may address some of what the OP is pondering.
Just my $.02, and I can't remember if I've taken my meds today...
*I'm using 'Glock' and Glock models as generic for all of the polymer striker guns...
**I'm using 'Stock 2' as a generic example...
-
Let me qualify this response by admitting that I'm a Theoretical Physicist and my approach may be unorthodox... When looking at potential loads I look for the outliers, which powder/bullet weight combinations have the largest/smallest mass spreads. For any given bullet weight, for example, the load data may show powders with a .6grn spread from min. to max pressure as well as powders with a 1 - 1.2 grain spread. I would use the powder with the largest spread. I wouldn't use the powder with the tightest spread. Then, if I didn't know what bullet weight I wanted to use, I would look at the spread of the powders across the different bullet weights, the powder with the largest spread for 115grn bullets (9mm example) wouldn't necessarily have the largest spread for 147's, but that would give me a better idea of what powder may be workable for the largest variation of bullet weights. Another consideration is the desired velocity with regard to the range of velocities for a given powder/bullet combo. If I can help it, I don't want to use a bullet/powder combo that's at either extreme end of the range (no starting load, no max load). I'd rather that the powder/bullet combo fall into the middle of the charge range. All things being equal (which they never are) if it's 'close', I'll use something I have, I'd rather not use a dirty powder, and how well the powder meters is of importance as well. I don't like using powders that are difficult to get a consistent charge from my powder measure.
YMMV,
D
-
1 hour ago, Hi-Power Jack said:
If you're worried about the brass, it would NOT be nice to shoot the gun you already have ...
What a lot of .38 super shooters do is buy new brass, shoot it 3-6 times in practice,
and then let it lie during a match (you've amortized the cost of the brass over your
practice sessions).
But, lots of .38 shooters rechamber for 9mm or buy a 9mm to solve the "brass problem".
Your choice - new gun, new chamber or amortize your brass expense.
This is where I'm at... 1K of new Starline 10mm is $162 American... If you leave 200 cases at a match it cost you $32.40. If you fired them once already and this is the second time they've been used you've left the equivalent of $16.20 in 'new' brass. If this is the third time they've been fired, that's equal to $8.10 worth of 'new' brass. I'm not worried about $8 worth of brass.
Yes, it's a rationalization... But, it's my rationalization, and I'm sticking to it.
YMMV
-
I like the division... shot a match with my carry gun (G29), though I had to get a different holster as AIWB is no joy... spent way too much time trying to find my brass (nobody picks up brass anymore?)... Looked at the rules, thought a 9mm commander would be a fun gun to shoot in CCP... Bought a RO Champion in Nov '16... now the 2017 v2 rules say I can't play CCP with it... It would seem that IDPA kicked me out of CCP.
-
I went down this path with a G20...
125pf wouldn't reliably run the gun even with a 10# RSA...
The lightest spring combination that just barely passes the 'vertical test' was a 13# RSA paired with a 4# striker...
~150pf was about the lightest load that would reliably run the gun with a 13# RSA...
~150pf didn't produce sufficient pressure to seal the chamber, which gave me a wider velocity spread than I'd like...
Lack of chamber seal didn't help with accuracy...
Had to file the front sight to get it anywhere near POA/POI, though the 7.3mm rear sight might do the trick...
Even at ~150pf the recoil was laughable...
HTH,
Dave
-
My two cents. It looks like some people look at it opposite from what I do. I came into this sport, read the rules, decided what division I wanted to shoot, and bought my gear accordingly. It appears to me some guys come into the sport, already have their favorite gun, and want to change the rules to make that gun more competitive.
If you're talking to me... I never said anything about changing any rules, or even about being competitive at all, I was merely pointing out that L-10 has appeal to more than S_i shooters who live in mag capacity limited states. FWIW, I have open guns, and limited guns, as well as tupperware...
-
Personally, I think USPSA is missing an opportunity with limited-10. Perhaps it's the unfortunate name, that the class originated as a result of unfortunate legislation, whatever, it has become the red headed step child, and it doesn't have to be.
Nearly every sport has some sort of entry division, in some fashion production is/was supposed to be that for USPSA. But, there are a large number of people, myself included, that already have stuff that fits the L-10 class better than any other. I personally shoot a Glock 29, from concealment (AIWB, that neither production, nor IDPA allows), with ammo loaded to the same PF as my defensive ammo (that would be MAJOR), in L-10 and I think that others might be interested in doing something similar, if for no other reason than working with their actual carry gear.
Whether marketing to this demographic would increase the L-10 participation to the level that would hold these 'elimination' debates at bay, I have no idea. Would it bring in new shooters? No clue, but I don't think that L-10 does that in it's 'Limited for those unfortunate few' guise either.
Just a thought.
-
The vertical spring test is not absolute, it may work with an almost dead spring, but will definitely not work with a completely dead spring.
Jager makes a Gen4 recoil rod that uses Gen3 springs.
FWIW, I am using brand new Wolff springs, and have found that on my G20 it takes at least a 13# recoil spring to pass the vertical test when using a 4# striker spring. Brand new 10, 11, and 12# recoil springs would not pass.
YMMV
-
What do you mean by "vertical test"? guess I need to google, I havent had any glocks in years, mostly shooting 1911/2011s.
edit, I searched, do you mean when you hold the gun upright, and pull slide back, releaseing slowly, checking it will go into battery?
That would be the one...
-
Been searching around, not exactly normal use, but we got a class for "pocket guns" and one of the class dictates a 10mm bullet... and G23 is the largest gun that will fit the box, so I bought one.
Class does not dictate a minimum powerfactor, so how low can I go on stock springs with 180gr? and what springs are available to go lower? It's for competition use, so of course it needs to cycle every time. I usually buy my springs from wolff, but seems they dont do gen4 glocks?
I'm using Wolff springs and a Wolff guide rod in a Gen4 G20, with a Zev adapter button. I have used their 10# springs experimenting with light loads, but that light of a spring it won't pass the vertical test in my G20 even with a 4# striker spring. The G20 has a very heavy slide, I would think you'd be able to go lighter with a G23.
-
Let me pose this question: If Limited Minor doesn't warrant an increased mag capacity, why does Single Stack and Revolver?
With 32 round stages you're not going to get a 'functional' capacity advantage unless you cap 'major' at 15 rounds and force them to make 2 mag changes...
Just out of curiosity, does anyone use these 140mm mags anywhere other than gun games?
-
While you guys are changing stuff. Have them change DVC to DC, because you guys don't understand that part.
Again... The rules for minor are the same as when this game was invented. The rules for major, the 'V' part, originally were based on .45 ball ammo (230grn/850fps), you do the math.
-
Can't believe this thread is still going. Let me say it again-
You want to be more competitive in limited division? Then put in the work, practice! Don't change the rules so you'll be more competitive, change your skill level and be competitive.
Ironic... The rules for minor are the same as they were when this game was invented. The rules for major are considerably different, and more preferential than they ever were.... just sayin'
-
FWIW, I've been using a Wolff guide rod and springs with a Zev adapter button in my Gen 4 G-20 for a while now without any ill effect
That's very interesting! Does the barrel assembly groove fit both rod heads equally well?
Has your frame also remained unmarked after extended firing? Thanks!
It seems to fit OK...
The frame looks fine, but keep in mind, I'm shooting bunny fart loads, 13# rsa and just enough Vhit for it to cycle reliably.
-
Are there any issues if I buy WOLFF Guide rod and Recoil springs for my Glock 17 & 34 Gen 4? I will be using a reducer ring. Some says it cannot be.
Please share your experience.
Wolff Gunsprings doesn't offer all-steel guide rods for 4th generation G-17, or G-34's.
FWIW, I've been using a Wolff guide rod and springs with a Zev adapter button in my Gen 4 G-20 for a while now without any ill effects.
-
If minor ever makes sense in a match, then there will be minor shooters at an advantage at certain matches and major shooters at an advantage at others. This means that top shooters will have to bring both major and minor guns to important matches so they will have the platform that can win at that match.
If 'they' went to the 15 rnd major/20+ rnd minor scheme, I could show up at any given match with my 10mm SVi Limited gun, and based on what the COF looked like I could shoot it either minor with 20+ loaded or major with 15 loaded, both with 165+ PF ammo. If I want to go to the expense of being a real 'gamer' I could bring 125+ PF ammo (and the appropriate recoil spring) as well, and shoot that if I chose the minor route, but I doubt that would be much of an advantage.
Of course, if I were a Super Squad-er, and someone was giving me guns and ammo, I could show up with multiple iterations of all of the above, optimized for their specific roles, and backups to boot, but it probably wouldn't matter because I'd be too distracted by the groupies and autograph hounds to shoot well anyway.
YMMV
-
When this game was invented, there were two primary platforms, the .45 with an ~8 round capacity, and the Hi-Power with a ~14 round capacity. Major PF was ~200 (based on a 230grn .45 going 950 fps if I remember correctly), and minor PF was 125. Whether the scoring was implemented to reward the more powerful round, or to penalize the minor round to make up for the capacity advantage, I don't really know, but given that the name of the game is hit factor, this allowed .45s and Hi-Powers to play on basically a level field.
People used to actually consider major/minor parity wrt. stages, and there were more than a few 'discussions' when either a major or minor shooter thought that a stage favored the other.
Obviously, things have changed, you now have major caliber guns that have capacities greater than the Hi-Power, and with major PF being 165 you can run a gun shooting major just as fast as one shooting minor. I don't know what the rules would have looked like if the current technology had been available then, but it's obvious that there's no parity in the game today, at least not in Open/Limited.
If you wanted to introduce more parity, you could 'limit' major to 15 rounds, this would mean that on a 32 round COF there would be two reloads. Raising the capacity further (24+ rounds) won't help, major shooters will still only have to do 1 reload.
I'm all for parity, but you guys do what you want...
-
This is something that I don't think enough people pay attention to, and it's very important. That being said, there are a lot of people doing it, and there don't seem to be a lot of problems.
When you load long the first inclination is that you've lowered the pressure from what it would have been with a spec OAL, but then you have to use more powder to get up to the velocity that will make major, which is going to bring the pressure back up.
So what exactly are you loading? A long .40...
...or a short 10mm?
I don't have any load data for ramshot in 10mm, so I don't know what a 4.7g load would be pressure wise wrt. 1.25" OAL. Powder doesn't necessarily burn at a linear rate when you get outside it's optimum range, and I don't like the idea of just bumping a charge beyond tested loads without some clue as to how the pressure behaves... but maybe that's just me, YMMV.
Personally, I would be looking for a powder that has data for both the .40 and the 10mm. More specifically one that has a pretty good spread from starting load to max, and I would be suspicious of one that takes more powder in long .40 to make velocity than a 10mm starting load. The 10mm case is rated for more pressure than the .40.
HTH,
Dave
-
bsb, are you trying to run 10mm minor?
Affirmative.
-
Ok, so what's your load? And what does it chrono at?
180 grn Zero going 760 fps... and while it shoots silly soft, my concern is that the gun isn't functioning properly and may have an issue. I can load it to whatever, I'm just concerned that the 10# recoil spring is too light for the gun to function properly since it won't pass the vertical test. I'm also somewhat concerned about light strikes with the 4# striker spring although that hasn't presented itself as a problem (I'm using Winchester primers).
Thanks Bruce, I think I'll put the 12# recoil spring back in and load to that.
-
So I'm experimenting with 'light' loads in a G20, and I'm using a 10# wolff recoil spring. It won't pass the vertical test with a 4# striker spring, but it seems to run OK. Is this too light? It'll pass the vertical test with a 12# recoil spring/4# striker, should that be the minimum? The slide on this thing is massive.
Thanks,
Dave
New USPSA Division Proposal
in USPSA/IPSC Shooting
Posted
Even then it got gamed... The 'power factor' was calculated from the center of an 8 or 12 inch steel plate, if you hit it at the very bottom you effectively gained 4 to 6 inches of extra leverage and could swing the plate the required distance with less than the required power factor.