steel1212 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 What would the point be of ESP Minor/Major, more scoring headache ? Just let anyone who wants to shoot Major shoot in CDP in whatever caliber they want. 38 Super, 9x23, 40, 10mm, 9x25, 357sig.. Have at it. Knock your socks off. 8+1 rounds. I like that idea better than a ESP major. Then again I basically do that now when I shoot ESP I shoot 8+1 major Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I like that idea, ESP and CDP the same set of rules with the following exceptions, ESP minor power factor (10rds), CDP major power factor(8 rds), no caliber restrictions (9mm or larger for both). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 9mm is not a major caliber, why do people think that a 9mm in a basically stock gun would such a great idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Letting the hoards try and load 9 major for their stock Glock 34's and 4" M&P's seems like bad juju. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salilus Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The current rules in IDPA as intended are fine. As written, they are not. Simply being able to open a rule book and say, according to 7.2.5, you get a procedural error. Most of the rules we enforce on a daily basis are given as examples in the book. There is no point in having Major\Minor scoring in a raw+time based scoring method. The only major change I would like to see is rename CDP to Single Stack and allow .40 to play at 165pf. Don't increase the NT times. At the top of the game, if some one clips a NT, you might as well pack up and go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 9mm is not a major caliber, why do people think that a 9mm in a basically stock gun would such a great idea? 357 sig is a 9mm caliber round that makes, or at least comes close, to making major. 1911 9mms can handle 9mm major easily, I know a guy that shoots 9mm major rounds through his un comped 9mm single stack, no not me. How is the "hoard" in IDPA any different than the "hoard" in USPSA? Granted the guys shooting 9mm major through their open guns have more loose if they KABOOM a 3500$ open gun versus a G17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWFAN Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 9mm is not a major caliber, why do people think that a 9mm in a basically stock gun would such a great idea? I dont, and thats why I didnt include it specifically in the list. Personally I dont think that the PF/Major/Minor issue is broken in IDPA, so, dont fix it. I was just coming up with a solution to let other major pf'd guns play if people want to shoot their 38super or 9x23. Tray has it right (except for the single stack part, CDP should allow double stack .40 and .45). Fix what's broken and make the rule book enforceable as intended with less random interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 9mm is not a major caliber, why do people think that a 9mm in a basically stock gun would such a great idea? 357 sig is a 9mm caliber round that makes, . I am sure you knew I was referring to 9mm para, luger, or the other various names used to label the "9mm" cartridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steel1212 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 9mm is not a major caliber, why do people think that a 9mm in a basically stock gun would such a great idea? 357 sig is a 9mm caliber round that makes, . I am sure you knew I was referring to 9mm para, luger, or the other various names used to label the "9mm" cartridge. Those are the type of things we are hoping IDPA gets away from, Assumptions. Sure I knew what you meant but that isn't what was wrote in the rule book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Not sure if there would be hordes of people shooting 9 major but they would certainly have zero advantage in a non comped gun. As for me I don't want to be around them unless they have a purpose built gun for 9 major. Not a stock barreled Glock or M&P for sure..... Violent and nasty are the words that I would use..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Right, and the phrase "purpose build gun for 9 major" doesn't even come close to fitting with the purpose and principles of IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul-the new guy Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Don't increase the NT times. At the top of the game, if some one clips a NT, you might as well pack up and go home. You don't have to be at the top of the game for that to be true. The NT penalties are severe enough in my opinion. I would like to see some clarification on how cover is relative to threats. So's make cover calls from different angles even though you don't get a pe just having to think and re adjust is a second... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Hostetter Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) << purpose built for 9 major doesn't even come close >> You don't think people are building special pistols specifically for IDPA competition? Edited November 2, 2011 by Bob Hostetter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBBB Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I think it makes sense to look at factory loadings that meet published pressure standards (not +p, +p+ etc.) and use that as a basis for determining whether or not a particular cartridge meets the required pf to be included in a particular division. You can always choose to load your own ammo to higher pressures than this. I just don't think doing so should be a consideration for whether or not a cartridge should be included in a division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jualdeaux Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Tray has it right (except for the single stack part, CDP should allow double stack .40 and .45). Fix what's broken and make the rule book enforceable as intended with less random interpretation. You can already shoot double stack guns in CDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 We could just go to one semi-auto pistol division. Then get rid of classifications while we're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoleroJesse Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 (edited) What would the point be of ESP Minor/Major, more scoring headache ? Different divisions for people with a G22 and a G17. Scoring would be the same but they would be competing in different devisions due to the caliber difference. Edited November 3, 2011 by PistoleroJesse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWFAN Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 But if CDP allows .40, you can shoot it there at 165pf, or load it to minor. .40 minor is softer than 9minor anyway. No need to add more scoring headache's or divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 What would the point be of ESP Minor/Major, more scoring headache ? Different divisions for people with a G22 and a G17. Scoring would be the same but they would be competing in different devisions due to the caliber difference. That's what I was thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yeah, because IDPA needs a further dilution of the divisions they have now. The only place to have .40 shooting major is in CDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Koski Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) What if we offed a revolver division? Edited November 4, 2011 by Steve Koski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astephenson Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Like Brian said, IDPA does NOT need any more divisions. If anything, scale it back to three divisions- 165pf guns (regardless of caliber) at 8+1 that otherwise meet CDP specs, 125pf guns at 10+1 that otherwise meet ESP specs, and revolver...moonclip guns at 165pf and speedloader guns at 105pf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWFAN Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Esp needs a subminor division also. I want to shoot my buckmark next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chills1994 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strick Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Esp needs a subminor division also. I want to shoot my buckmark next year. Just shoot SSR, the power factor is about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now