9mm limited major...

[3gungeezer]

I am glad I don't shoot well enough to be interested in the "arms" race. I think limited should be open minus the extra barrel holes and optical sights. Yes my limited gun is a Para framed .45. For the Guys worried about the "arms" race there is always production but we need to do away with the PC 10 round rule. Want to or can only shoot 10 rounds you have limited 10 or single stack.

[StravIs09]

Nine major would allow 22+ rounds in a magazine. Shooters would feel forced to sell their .40 gear and buy 9mm gear to be competitive because of the extra round--IMO.

It would be an equipment race.

i think that changes to the new 2013 rules will make people feel like they need to add all kinds of stuff to stay competitive.

[bigfish]

If we do away it the 10 round rule for production that kind of makes if unfair for restricted cap states. At that point what do we do with the shooters with poly guns from those states when they go to an area match? Put them against the $4000 custom 2011 in L10? As hard as it is to believe some people would rather shoot glocks and m&ps to 1911 style guns

[JFlowers]

Remember that IPSC had no round limit in Production and it led to an Arms Race for them. First 19rd guns, then 20rd guns, then 21 round guns. Finally they put a round limit in place to stop the madness.

[3gungeezer]

...

Edited November 21, 2012 by 3gungeezer

[MGMorden]

Remember that IPSC had no round limit in Production and it led to an Arms Race for them. First 19rd guns, then 20rd guns, then 21 round guns. Finally they put a round limit in place to stop the madness.

Yep, I agree. To limit the arms race (which is the point of production) there should be some mag-cap limit established that is generally below the minimum amount that most guns can handle.

In IPSC, they chose 15, which I suppose is OK as most 9mm double-stacks can hold that many, but in the USA we have several states where law mandates 10-round mags. If we need to put a limit there anyways, why not limit it in such a way that all the states still get to play on even ground?

I have never shot anything but production, and I was steadfastly against the 3-lb trigger limit, but I'm fine with leaving the 10-round limit in place. Heck I think I'm about to start shooting my production rig in the local club's ICORE matches. Appparently to encourage participation they're allowing semi-autos but with a 6-round per mag limit.

[PatJones]

Hey, I shoot my production rig in ICORE too, my S&W 627.

[Justsomeguy]

I realize this is an older thread now, but recently I built a standard barreled gun (no compensator/popple holes) in 9X23 Winchester (mostly using Starline 9X23 Comp brass) which easily makes major without any concerns about overpressure or damage to the gun or shooter. Taking an EAA large frame gun with a Long Slide and using a 9X19 standard rifling barrel which I then reamed to 9X23, I wound up with a very accurate and fun to shoot gun. Building one of these is not that expensive, and easily a lot less expensive than even a good quality 1911 type pistol, let alone a 2011. It is certainly not a "dangerous" gun to shoot nor does it seem like it would engender an "equipment race" to use something like this in Limited. It seems to have about the same recoil impulse as a Major 40, though it is a pretty heavy gun. It also has a 40 upper making the two calibers easy to compare. Using the Starline 9X23 Comp brass also allows for the use of 147grn bullets because the internal taper of the Starline stuff is pushed back a bit compared to the Winchester brass and thus no "coke bottle" effect or chambering problems. You need only make 1150fps or so to make Major with room to spare using an 147grn bullet. The EAA barrels also give full web support to the round, though the 9X23 has a very thick web to begin with and is rated for pressures in excess of 50,000psi making it the most robust handgun brass that I know of.

My vote would be to allow the 9X23, even in Limited, because it is a "safe" round that is not strained by making Major, can be inexpensively used in a rugged platform, and to see if it can be competitive with .40cal guns in Limited. 357 SIG is harder to load, has less magazine capacity, and the short neck above the shoulder limits the types of bullets you can use. 9X23 is a superior round for Major competition to any other 9mm alternative.

[Alaskapopo]

I realize this is an older thread now, but recently I built a standard barreled gun (no compensator/popple holes) in 9X23 Winchester (mostly using Starline 9X23 Comp brass) which easily makes major without any concerns about overpressure or damage to the gun or shooter. Taking an EAA large frame gun with a Long Slide and using a 9X19 standard rifling barrel which I then reamed to 9X23, I wound up with a very accurate and fun to shoot gun. Building one of these is not that expensive, and easily a lot less expensive than even a good quality 1911 type pistol, let alone a 2011. It is certainly not a "dangerous" gun to shoot nor does it seem like it would engender an "equipment race" to use something like this in Limited. It seems to have about the same recoil impulse as a Major 40, though it is a pretty heavy gun. It also has a 40 upper making the two calibers easy to compare. Using the Starline 9X23 Comp brass also allows for the use of 147grn bullets because the internal taper of the Starline stuff is pushed back a bit compared to the Winchester brass and thus no "coke bottle" effect or chambering problems. You need only make 1150fps or so to make Major with room to spare using an 147grn bullet. The EAA barrels also give full web support to the round, though the 9X23 has a very thick web to begin with and is rated for pressures in excess of 50,000psi making it the most robust handgun brass that I know of.

My vote would be to allow the 9X23, even in Limited, because it is a "safe" round that is not strained by making Major, can be inexpensively used in a rugged platform, and to see if it can be competitive with .40cal guns in Limited. 357 SIG is harder to load, has less magazine capacity, and the short neck above the shoulder limits the types of bullets you can use. 9X23 is a superior round for Major competition to any other 9mm alternative.

Its not about safety its about limiting the arms race. (hence the term limited) Lmited and all the other classes but open are there to allow people to find a division they can afford to shoot in. Its not very cool to change the rules to make everyone's gun obsolete overnight. If you want an arms race join us in open. But if your wanting to avoid the arms race then chose limited, limited 10, production etc.

Pat

[dskinsler83]

I realize this is an older thread now, but recently I built a standard barreled gun (no compensator/popple holes) in 9X23 Winchester (mostly using Starline 9X23 Comp brass) which easily makes major without any concerns about overpressure or damage to the gun or shooter. Taking an EAA large frame gun with a Long Slide and using a 9X19 standard rifling barrel which I then reamed to 9X23, I wound up with a very accurate and fun to shoot gun. Building one of these is not that expensive, and easily a lot less expensive than even a good quality 1911 type pistol, let alone a 2011. It is certainly not a "dangerous" gun to shoot nor does it seem like it would engender an "equipment race" to use something like this in Limited. It seems to have about the same recoil impulse as a Major 40, though it is a pretty heavy gun. It also has a 40 upper making the two calibers easy to compare. Using the Starline 9X23 Comp brass also allows for the use of 147grn bullets because the internal taper of the Starline stuff is pushed back a bit compared to the Winchester brass and thus no "coke bottle" effect or chambering problems. You need only make 1150fps or so to make Major with room to spare using an 147grn bullet. The EAA barrels also give full web support to the round, though the 9X23 has a very thick web to begin with and is rated for pressures in excess of 50,000psi making it the most robust handgun brass that I know of.

My vote would be to allow the 9X23, even in Limited, because it is a "safe" round that is not strained by making Major, can be inexpensively used in a rugged platform, and to see if it can be competitive with .40cal guns in Limited. 357 SIG is harder to load, has less magazine capacity, and the short neck above the shoulder limits the types of bullets you can use. 9X23 is a superior round for Major competition to any other 9mm alternative.

Also note .357 Sig is not considered major in limited either only in open

[StealthyBlagga]

I realize this is an older thread now, but recently I built a standard barreled gun (no compensator/popple holes) in 9X23 Winchester (mostly using Starline 9X23 Comp brass) which easily makes major without any concerns about overpressure or damage to the gun or shooter. Taking an EAA large frame gun with a Long Slide and using a 9X19 standard rifling barrel which I then reamed to 9X23, I wound up with a very accurate and fun to shoot gun. Building one of these is not that expensive, and easily a lot less expensive than even a good quality 1911 type pistol, let alone a 2011. It is certainly not a "dangerous" gun to shoot nor does it seem like it would engender an "equipment race" to use something like this in Limited. It seems to have about the same recoil impulse as a Major 40, though it is a pretty heavy gun. It also has a 40 upper making the two calibers easy to compare. Using the Starline 9X23 Comp brass also allows for the use of 147grn bullets because the internal taper of the Starline stuff is pushed back a bit compared to the Winchester brass and thus no "coke bottle" effect or chambering problems. You need only make 1150fps or so to make Major with room to spare using an 147grn bullet. The EAA barrels also give full web support to the round, though the 9X23 has a very thick web to begin with and is rated for pressures in excess of 50,000psi making it the most robust handgun brass that I know of.

My vote would be to allow the 9X23, even in Limited, because it is a "safe" round that is not strained by making Major, can be inexpensively used in a rugged platform, and to see if it can be competitive with .40cal guns in Limited. 357 SIG is harder to load, has less magazine capacity, and the short neck above the shoulder limits the types of bullets you can use. 9X23 is a superior round for Major competition to any other 9mm alternative.

Also note .357 Sig is not considered major in limited either only in open

It is under IPSC rules.

[dskinsler83]

Ah ha! I did not know that. My apologies

[StealthyBlagga]

Let me unveil the elephant in the room. Back in the day, the primary reason for requiring a .40 minimum caliber for Limited Major was the martial origins of the sport. At that time, there was a prevailing feeling that making big holes in bad guys was the way to go for personal defense (even though CCW was far less common then than now), and so the powers-that-be did not want to allow the discipline to become small-bore centric.

Everything since then is inertia.

One could argue that, with the design improvements to projectiles that have taken place in the last decade, allowing Major 9 in Limited could be a meaningful step forwards in personal defense technology. That is, of course, if anyone in the practical shooting hierarchy cared about such things anymore (which I suspect these days they don't).

Personally, I don't care either way. I'm old school enough that I carry a .40, but I'm enough of a gamer that I shoot 9mm in matches.

Edited October 17, 2013 by StealthyBlagga

[kneelingatlas]

When you play a game there have to be rules, the rules draw a line (arbitrary or not), but once that line has been drawn people play right to it and there has to be a damn good reason to move it. I just fail to see the big picture benefit to changing Limited major to a .355 min projectile? Will it draw more people to the sport? It would certainly cost the membership a lot of money to change.