Sterling White Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 *thumb rest [generic]*...interesting! Hell I want a NO2 button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ... Except when Vogel or Sevigny come in and beat everyone with a $500.00 gun. ... Perhaps we need to add a Limited rule that states the trigger pull must be less than 3 pounds to help control this issue. Happy New Year, Chuck That's funny. If this had been in place I would have won several more limited and L10 national championships. Hey Chuck, you suppose we can get that to be retroactive? Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGO Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The caliber would be the other difference. Primarily .40, although you can shoot whatever you want. Just might not be Major. With other restrictions going away, would there really be any need to continue the restriction on .40 for Major? That's also something of a legacy restriction that, with the reduction in PF for Major, may no longer be necessary or even desirable. My way of thinking, absolutely. Yes you can make Major with a smaller diameter bullet. But making that change would result in everyone elses limited guns being at a capacity disadvantage. Given a choice between a .40 with x number of rounds and a major 9 with x+3 number, that's a sizable difference. And one that is not easy to change the gun over from. Adding a thumbrest is one thing. Making 5000 competitors sell their .40's(or at least the uppers) in order to buy the new caliber, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. As long as we use length restrictions on the magazines to limit capacity, going to a smaller bullet will cause some ugly changes. Wait, he may be on to something here! As I already own several guns that will be legal in limited in 9mm, and IF I can determine that this will give me, I mean it will be fair for everyone, we should dump the .40 for major thing! Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike cyrwus Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Looks like some kiddies are gonna get new barbie dolls for 2013! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 *thumb rest [generic]*...interesting! Hell I want a NO2 button. I want one too, but we need to get the BoD to also drop rule 5.1.11 in 2013 as well: 5.1.11 Handguns offering “burst” and/or fully automatic operation are prohibited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The caliber would be the other difference. Primarily .40, although you can shoot whatever you want. Just might not be Major. With other restrictions going away, would there really be any need to continue the restriction on .40 for Major? That's also something of a legacy restriction that, with the reduction in PF for Major, may no longer be necessary or even desirable. My way of thinking, absolutely. Yes you can make Major with a smaller diameter bullet. But making that change would result in everyone elses limited guns being at a capacity disadvantage. Given a choice between a .40 with x number of rounds and a major 9 with x+3 number, that's a sizable difference. And one that is not easy to change the gun over from. Adding a thumbrest is one thing. Making 5000 competitors sell their .40's(or at least the uppers) in order to buy the new caliber, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. As long as we use length restrictions on the magazines to limit capacity, going to a smaller bullet will cause some ugly changes. Wait, he may be on to something here! As I already own several guns that will be legal in limited in 9mm, and IF I can determine that this will give me, I mean it will be fair for everyone, we should dump the .40 for major thing! Rob For me shooting a Tanfoglio, switching to 9mm is relatively cheap. Going cheap, I just take the top end from my Stock II and put it on my Limited, and move the base pads from my .40 mags to my 9mm mags and I'm ready to party. Or if I really wanted a dedicated top end and mags, paying retail prices: $285 for a new 9mm upper, and 4 magazines at $25 a piece gives me a total expenditure of $385. Let's do this! 9mm Major for Limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueOvalBruin Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 ... Except when Vogel or Sevigny come in and beat everyone with a $500.00 gun. ... Perhaps we need to add a Limited rule that states the trigger pull must be less than 3 pounds to help control this issue. Happy New Year, Chuck That's funny. If this had been in place I would have won several more limited and L10 national championships. Hey Chuck, you suppose we can get that to be retroactive? Rob Plus, this has to be a safety issue. Imagine how many shooters are injuring their fingers trying to pull those heavy triggers. You see all those shooters with calluses on their right hands? It must be from heavy trigger pulls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) Yea in 2013! In 2013, the restriction again barrel weights should go away as well. What will be interesting to see is if a barrel weight will be classified as a compensator instead: Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses). So if I have weight attached to the end of the barrel to counter muzzle rise, but it does not divert any of the escaping gasses, it seems like it still counts as a compensator. Unless its called a "sight tracker" or a "tru-sight!" ;-) I guess Clark Custom can start dusting off the early 80's era Pin Masters. Edited January 11, 2012 by mpolans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yea in 2013! In 2013, the restriction again barrel weights should go away as well. What will be interesting to see is if a barrel weight will be classified as a compensator instead: Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses). So if I have weight attached to the end of the barrel to counter muzzle rise, but it does not divert any of the escaping gasses, it seems like it still counts as a compensator. Unless its called a "sight tracker" or a "tru-sight!" ;-) I guess Clark Custom can start dusting off the early 80's era Pin Masters. Hmmm... Pretty toys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yea in 2013! In 2013, the restriction again barrel weights should go away as well. What will be interesting to see is if a barrel weight will be classified as a compensator instead: Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses). So if I have weight attached to the end of the barrel to counter muzzle rise, but it does not divert any of the escaping gasses, it seems like it still counts as a compensator. Unless its called a "sight tracker" or a "tru-sight!" ;-) I guess Clark Custom can start dusting off the early 80's era Pin Masters. Hmmm... Pretty toys... Nah, you need the earlier one, before they started milling out the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillD Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The caliber would be the other difference. Primarily .40, although you can shoot whatever you want. Just might not be Major. With other restrictions going away, would there really be any need to continue the restriction on .40 for Major? That's also something of a legacy restriction that, with the reduction in PF for Major, may no longer be necessary or even desirable. My way of thinking, absolutely. Yes you can make Major with a smaller diameter bullet. But making that change would result in everyone elses limited guns being at a capacity disadvantage. Given a choice between a .40 with x number of rounds and a major 9 with x+3 number, that's a sizable difference. And one that is not easy to change the gun over from. Adding a thumbrest is one thing. Making 5000 competitors sell their .40's(or at least the uppers) in order to buy the new caliber, doesn't sound like a good idea to me. As long as we use length restrictions on the magazines to limit capacity, going to a smaller bullet will cause some ugly changes. Wait, he may be on to something here! As I already own several guns that will be legal in limited in 9mm, and IF I can determine that this will give me, I mean it will be fair for everyone, we should dump the .40 for major thing! Rob For me shooting a Tanfoglio, switching to 9mm is relatively cheap. Going cheap, I just take the top end from my Stock II and put it on my Limited, and move the base pads from my .40 mags to my 9mm mags and I'm ready to party. Or if I really wanted a dedicated top end and mags, paying retail prices: $285 for a new 9mm upper, and 4 magazines at $25 a piece gives me a total expenditure of $385. Let's do this! 9mm Major for Limited. Since I am in the process of spending about $3000 of my hard earned money on a .40 Limited pistol and reloading stuff for it, I disagree. If 9MM major in Limited goes through there will be thousands of .40 pistols that will be worth pennies on the dollar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIIID Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Well the first time there was talk of making a .355 diameter cartridge Major was back when the 9x23 and the .356 TSW came in use. Back then if 3 major ammunition manufacturers made ammo to major power factor(175) it could become legal in Limited. Well wisdom won out and .40 was held as the major PF diameter. I can't see it being changed just to get more capacity with thousands of .40 made guns just for Limited. For those who want a 9mm major, have you even shot loads out of a limited gun in major 9/38 super? If it was to pass we would have guys loading 115's(because they are cheaper) with a fast burning powder wondering why they are having primer flow, case failures... Personally I would stick with a 180 grain .40 round, it would be a better feeling and controllable round over any .355 diameter bullet at any weight. Rich Maybe would should pass a stupid rule that there has to be a reload before the last shot taken on each stage. Edited January 12, 2012 by RIIID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I will second (third, fourth...) the motion AGAINST 9mm Major in Limited. We have literally thousands of guns in play that each cost with accessories a thousand or more, often several times more dollars. Why for the sake of a couple rounds do we want to switch to what could easily be a dangerous load. Learn to shoot to reduce the number of reloads you need if that is your concern. We play a game and I and many others see nothing that improves the sport or grows it by allowing 9mm major. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Just curious: what makes 9mm Major safe for open, but unsafe for Limited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 First off, I am not saying nor am I all that sure that 9mm major is safe in Open. However allowing 9mm major in Open had ZERO effect on the viability of any of the thousands of already in use Open guns. (mm capacity and .38 Super are the same. As for safety, one problem I feel we are potentially in for is 9mm major rounds getting left behind and someone, not necessarily the brightest someone, picking them up and shooting them out of their plastic gun. Heck even on the range during a match as people ULSC rounds get dropped, A Prod shooter picks up what he THINKS is HIS round and loads it up for the next stage, Ka-Boom. Heck if it doesn't fully chamber, maybe all he gets is a really crappy run, but it is still a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 First off, I am not saying nor am I all that sure that 9mm major is safe in Open. However allowing 9mm major in Open had ZERO effect on the viability of any of the thousands of already in use Open guns. (mm capacity and .38 Super are the same. As for safety, one problem I feel we are potentially in for is 9mm major rounds getting left behind and someone, not necessarily the brightest someone, picking them up and shooting them out of their plastic gun. Heck even on the range during a match as people ULSC rounds get dropped, A Prod shooter picks up what he THINKS is HIS round and loads it up for the next stage, Ka-Boom. Heck if it doesn't fully chamber, maybe all he gets is a really crappy run, but it is still a problem. Actually, that is a good point, and I'll take it maybe a little bit farther. Open guns are, for the most part, like top fule dragsters. They are hand build and everybody knows that they tend to play on the ragged edge. It isn't as big a deal because they are not mass market guns. If limited were to allow 9mm major, we all know that sooner or later someone would take their Glock, or Sig, or CZ or (shutter) Taurus 9mm, load up some rounds listed as 9mm major from this site (which are probably over SAMMI since most 9mm major shooters can load long) and blow up their gun or themselves or the poor RO. It isn't worth it. The only way I would support this is if there are multiple published loads that fall inside the presure safety margin for 9mm that can meet major. If that happens, it is progress. Until then, we are just asking for trouble. (BTW, I have only ever seen one published 9mm major reciepe - it involved a 148 GDHP and VV 3N38). Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skydiver Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Alright, if not 9mm because of safety, why not allow another .355 caliber round like 38 Super that can be safely loaded to major be allowed? Is the only argument that all the current .40's playing in Limited will suddenly be obsoleted and people will complain about their lost investment? Wouldn't these current guns be obsoleted anyway if the "trend" starts going for guns with integrated barrel weights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Texas Granny Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 *thumb rest [generic]*...interesting! Hell I want a NO2 button. I want one too, but we need to get the BoD to also drop rule 5.1.11 in 2013 as well: 5.1.11 Handguns offering “burst” and/or fully automatic operation are prohibited. What about a belt fed revolver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Texas Granny Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Yea in 2013! In 2013, the restriction again barrel weights should go away as well. What will be interesting to see is if a barrel weight will be classified as a compensator instead: Compensator . . . . . . . . . . .A device fitted to the muzzle end of a barrel to counter muzzle rise (usually by externally diverting escaping gasses). So if I have weight attached to the end of the barrel to counter muzzle rise, but it does not divert any of the escaping gasses, it seems like it still counts as a compensator. Unless its called a "sight tracker" or a "tru-sight!" ;-) I guess Clark Custom can start dusting off the early 80's era Pin Masters. I passed on one of those and to this day I regret it. Would have been a nice addition to the collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Alright, if not 9mm because of safety, why not allow another .355 caliber round like 38 Super that can be safely loaded to major be allowed? Is the only argument that all the current .40's playing in Limited will suddenly be obsoleted and people will complain about their lost investment? Wouldn't these current guns be obsoleted anyway if the "trend" starts going for guns with integrated barrel weights? No. Caliber/Capacity change = must build new gun/top end and must build it Right Now..... The things they've opened the door to = possibilities I can safely ignore, or explore in my next build, next year, two years from now. There's no requirement to be an early adopter.... A lot of weight out near the muzzle may help with muzzle flip on the 50 yard standards, but it's also weight that needs to be moved around on the draw, and on transitions.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricBudd Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 With 38 Super (or whatever) what is the capacity difference i n a 140 magazine? I know most get 20+1 in a 40 magazine. The other question I have is if the extra recoil / muzzle blast / etc. is really an advantage for the few extra rounds? Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 With 38 Super (or whatever) what is the capacity difference i n a 140 magazine? I know most get 20+1 in a 40 magazine. The other question I have is if the extra recoil / muzzle blast / etc. is really an advantage for the few extra rounds? Eric Capacity difference in a 9x19 is 3-4 rounds. I've got a couple of 140s, that'll do 24+1. I'm thinking that Winchester's 127 gr. +P+ load -- which while a handful out of a Glock 26, isn't downright unpleasant -- might not be as harsh out of Glock 17L, and I'm guessing it would make major. Given that muzzle weights and seven inch guns will be legal in 2013, that might be possible -- and the capacity difference along would force folks to build new..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I have to agree with Nik on this. Adding a weight, building a top end with weights or a 6" sighttracker is not a I HAVE TO DO THIS NOW, whereas a capacity increase of 4 rounds is a game changer. It means at the very least, 5 new mags and a top end. Estimate cost at around $2000.00 or more. And if you plan on remaining competitive you will do this. How many people shoot a .45 in Limited these days? the capacity difference .45 to .40 is about equal to the 9mm to 10mm, I vote that we keep the minimum diameter round for Major at 10mm. No one says you can't shoot minor in Limited. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 So basically, the difference between Open and limited as voted on for 2013 comes down to 4 things: Open, 9mm for major, Limited 10mm for major. Open 170mm mags, Limited 140mm mags. Open allows comps and and Optics, Limited does not. I was heading down the path for a Limited 2011 build having already bought magazines and a grip, but I think I might let it slide for a while to make sure I am not missing something I may want in the future. I'll have to keep my eyes peeled at SHOT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Open, 9mm for major, Limited 10mm for major. Open 170mm mags, Limited 140mm mags. Open allows comps and and Optics, Limited does not. That's my understanding. 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