itento Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 I'm brand new to IDPA and have been trying to get educated reading the various threads. I generally shoot .40 S&W (Glock 35) and it appears it can be shot in SSP legally which is great. When I looked at the power factor floor for SSP and ESP I see they are 125. Most factory loads for .40 S&W are in the neighborhood of 175 to 180 (970 to 1000+fps for 180 gr bullet). This is quite a penality in controllability and recovery time, especially in a light frame auto pistol. According to the new Rule Book: The goal is to compete with “service type” ammunition, not light target ammunition. Therefore, the following minimum power floors will be in effect: SSP - 125,000 ESP - 125,000 CDP - 165,000 ESR - 165,000 SSR - 125,000 It appear that the reason to have a 165 pf for ESR is to make it more competitive for larger/heavier frames in .40/10mm/.45 caliber. I would have expected that ESP would also have a 165 pf since it allows more weight and modifications. I really think a major/minor system like USPSA is a good method to even the playing field between light weight loads and man stoppers. Isn't the reason most PDs/Agencies went to .40/10mm/.45 was to minimize multiple shot knock downs? I like to hear some opinions from long time IDPA shooters so I can see if I'm missing something or IJTWIS (its just the way it is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revchuck Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 itento - ESP is home to single action guns in calibers other than .45 ACP. That includes guns in 9x19 and .38 Super for which there is no published reloading data or factory ammo that makes the 165 PF. (Now that I think of it, though, I think Leathem is using Winchester Ranger +P+ 9x19 to make major, but I doubt he pays for the ammo or the guns.) Browning High Powers are popular, as are CZ-75s and their variants and clones, and these guns are usually seen in 9x19. Excluding guns that can't safely make the 165 PF would leave many shooters without a class in which to shoot. Having said that, yeah, it's silly to have .40s and 10mms shooting in the same class. Most of them download to the 125 PF. Some who want to practice with their carry guns more than win just shoot full power ammo. Other Glock 35 shooters just buy a 34 and shoot it in SSP. Works for Dave Sevigny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itento Posted March 12, 2005 Author Share Posted March 12, 2005 Chuck, Thanks for the insight. It really helps to find out the "real" reasons for certain rules. I don't know why IDPA just didn't name the Divisions: Double Action 9mm, Single Action 9mm, Single Action 45Cal., .38cal Speedloader Revolver, .45 Cal Moonclip Revolver. I'd buy a model 34 but I don't own any other 9mm guns and I don't want to load a new caliber. Guess I'll just have to do some .40 Cal light liads. Let see, 200 gr JHP at 625 fps makes the floor. I wonder if I'll get a "failure to do the right thing"? Actually, I'll shoot the 171pf loads for Limited IPSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Chuck, Thanks for the insight. It really helps to find out the "real" reasons for certain rules. I don't know why IDPA just didn't name the Divisions: Double Action 9mm, Single Action 9mm, Single Action 45Cal., .38cal Speedloader Revolver, .45 Cal Moonclip Revolver. I'd buy a model 34 but I don't own any other 9mm guns and I don't want to load a new caliber. Guess I'll just have to do some .40 Cal light liads. Let see, 200 gr JHP at 625 fps makes the floor. I wonder if I'll get a "failure to do the right thing"? Actually, I'll shoot the 171pf loads for Limited IPSC. Cause then where would I shoot my Para .40? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 It appear that the reason to have a 165 pf for ESR is to make it more competitive for larger/heavier frames in .40/10mm/.45 caliber. The power floor in ESR is 165,000 because, under the previous Rule Book, Stock Service Revolver with a 125,000 power floor allowed moon clip guns. The "rule beater" gun to have was a Smith & Wesson .45 ACP revolver, for the faster moon clip reloads, with mouse fart 125,000 pf .45 loads. By outlawing moon guns in SSR and creating ESR with a power floor of 165,000, IDPA is saying, "You want to shoot your fast reloading moon clipped .45 in IDPA? Fine. But you're going to have to shoot it with real .45 ammo." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff87 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 The "rule beater" gun to have was a Smith & Wesson .45 ACP revolver, for the faster moon clip reloads, with mouse fart 125,000 pf .45 loads. "Rule beater?" It actually was entirely legal until the rules were changed. I believe that .45acp revolvers with moon clips were around a long time before IPDA or any other action shooting sport. I have one that dates to the fifties (barrel says 1955 target on it); and it shoots great with light or heavy loads. Don't know when full moon clips were invented, but half moons go back to WWI. I still think there is no reason to have two revolver divisions; but I've already classifed EX with a 610 and 170 pf loads. I also think that SSR with speed loaders is much easier than any other division for classification, but that's only an opionion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revchuck Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 I also think that SSR with speed loaders is much easier than any other division for classification, but that's only an opionion. Buff - Nah. SSP is way easier. FWIW, every S&W .45 ACP revolver since the 1917 (with the exception of the 1950 Army/M22, which is an updated 1917) was designed as a competition revolver. The 1950 Target/M26 is basically a 1917 with adjustable sights; the 1955 Target/M25 came about due to bullseye shooters fussing about the light barrel on the 1950. The 625s came about due to pin shooters wanting an even heavier barrel - since they were shooting loads almost twice the PF used in IDPA (255 grain LSWCs at 900+ fps), it made sense. It's true that 610s and 625 are legal under the soon-to-be-old rules. Wilson and the other founders of IDPA have admitted since the beginning that they screwed up when they did this. I could (and did) live with it, though. I think that creating ESR was probably a bad idea. However, it's kinda silly to insist (and you're not - good job on the EX classification) that shooting a 50 oz. revolver against a 30 oz. revolver using ammo at the same PF represents a level playing field. That's the main complaint I've heard from 610 and 625 shooters, after it goes through my personal affective filter - they didn't want a level playing field. Now that they've been forced onto one, they're pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff87 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 However, it's kinda silly to insist (and you're not - good job on the EX classification) that shooting a 50 oz. revolver against a 30 oz. revolver using ammo at the same PF represents a level playing field. That's the main complaint I've heard from 610 and 625 shooters, after it goes through my personal affective filter - they didn't want a level playing field. Now that they've been forced onto one, they're pissed. My favorite moonclip revolver is the 686 38 super which in L frame and weighs about the same as the .357s (which are way downloaded of course for competiton/no one uses real .357 loads either). It's a terrific revolver that I don't want to shoot major pf, so it's now a fun gun only or USPSA revolver shooting minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Reload and a 125 power factor .40 load is within your reach. A 135 grain nosler JHP at 1k FPS is a sweet load and it makes bigger holes than a 9 or 38 super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itento Posted March 13, 2005 Author Share Posted March 13, 2005 Thanks Crusher. I just happen to have about 300 135 Noslers gathering dust. Do you have a load for Titegroup, 3N37 or WST? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusher Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Sorry I use VV 320 (4.0 gn. at an OAL of 1.155-1.160) I would imagine 3.4-3.6 titegroup at the shorter OAL of 1.125-1.130 for a stock glock barrel should achive similar results (moving the 135 JHP at around 1k fps). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe D Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Itento, the two most accurate loads in my G35 are 3.2 gr of Titegroup and 3.5 gr. Both group under 1 1/2" @ 25 yds with a 180 gr Rainier bullet. OAL is 1.125-1.130". Both loads are very soft shooting. The 3.5 gr load goes a bit over 800 fps. I don't remember what the 3.2 goes. Seems like it was around 750 fps. BTW don't confuse reality with IDPA. The 180 gr. bullets shoot much softer than the 135 gr bullet. Stick a 13# ISMI spring in there and you are good to go for IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itento Posted March 15, 2005 Author Share Posted March 15, 2005 Joe, Thanks for the insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srf Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Itento, 10mm was in CDP then the rules changed and it wasn't. 40s&w should be in CDP but it isn't. 45GAP should be in CDP but it isn't. 45 acp is the only caliber in CDP. Bill Wilson is primarily a noted 45 ACP pistol builder. Bill Wilson is IDPA. (remember it's .com, not .org). STI and SVI owns IPSC open, limited, and limited 10 (throw in a few Glock's and Para's). Glock owns IDPA ssp and IPSC production. (throw in a few Beretta's and Sig's). And CDP is owned by...? Yeah, I know, other manufacturers make 45 acp's. But the pool gets pretty deep if you add in STI, SVI, Para, SA in 40 and 10mm. And all those other Glock's in 45 GAP, 40s&w and 10mm. I like IDPA, but the obvious conflict between the stated (page one of the rule book) Purpose and Principles, and the Divisions of Competition is dishonest. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I don't understand the point of your post. If you wanna play in CDP load 8 rounds in your mags and shoot your STI bushing barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 "Rule beater?" It actually was entirely legal until the rules were changed. I believe that .45acp revolvers with moon clips were around a long time before IPDA or any other action shooting sport. Rule beater? No. Rule exploiter? Definitely. The 625 made speedloader guns obsolete in IDPA. Oh, when you find some 125pf .45ACP factory ammo you let us know. With the new division the moonies are now competing against each other and all those folks who want to shoot speedloader guns NOW have a level playing field. 45 acp is the only caliber in CDP. Bill Wilson is primarily a noted 45 ACP pistol builder. Bill Wilson is IDPA. (remember it's .com, not .org). Again with this lame crap. SO WHAT? Glock owns IDPA ssp and IPSC production. (throw in a few Beretta's and Sig's). Then using your logic Glock is obviously behind the SSP rules and IPSC production. I smell a conspiracy. And CDP is owned by...? KIMBER Yeah, I know, other manufacturers make 45 acp's. But the pool gets pretty deep if you add in STI, SVI, Para, SA in 40 and 10mm. And all those other Glock's in 45 GAP, 40s&w and 10mm. Yeah all 5 10mm shooters in the country. And all 2 of the GAP shooters. And very few Wilson's. Thanks for making my point easier. Figure it out man! IDPA was created by guyS (note PLURAL) that are 1911 aficionados! Bill Wilson, Ken Hackathorn, Larry Vickers, Walt Rauch, Dick Thomas, John Sayle. THEY created a game and made a class for 1911's! Get over it. I like IDPA, but the obvious conflict between the stated (page one of the rule book) Purpose and Principles, and the Divisions of Competition is dishonest. Period. Sorry, That dog just doesn't hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I like IDPA, but the obvious conflict between the stated (page one of the rule book) Purpose and Principles, and the Divisions of Competition is dishonest. Period. How do you figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buff87 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 "Rule beater?" It actually was entirely legal until the rules were changed. I believe that .45acp revolvers with moon clips were around a long time before IPDA or any other action shooting sport. Rule beater? No. Rule exploiter? Definitely. The 625 made speedloader guns obsolete in IDPA. Oh, when you find some 125pf .45ACP factory ammo you let us know. With the new division the moonies are now competing against each other and all those folks who want to shoot speedloader guns NOW have a level playing field. 45 acp revolvers have been around with moon clips andbeing download longbefore IDPA becare a thought in Bill Wilson's mind. I have once circa 1989 that I bought used and shot it in USPSA matches with minor load long before IDPA was startedl. Also the "factory load" issue is non existant and no one shoot 357 in the speed loader gun.s I maintain that splittingthe smallest division in two was silly and certainly not well thought out. BTW I have already qualifed ex with ESR at170 pf; not a big deal, just unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe D Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Mayo, wait until you see my new CDP gun. Glock 21 frame with a 1911 slide and trigger. I certainly hope a Glock never wins CDP at the Nationals. A new rule will come in to play stating CDP is for single action guns only. I wish BW would just go ahead and make CDP for single stack 1911 pattern guns only. That would solve all of his issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayonaise Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Mayo, wait until you see my new CDP gun. Glock 21 frame with a 1911 slide and trigger. I certainly hope a Glock never wins CDP at the Nationals. A new rule will come in to play stating CDP is for single action guns only. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you need to go and show them how it's done! Or Talk to Dave Sevigny into shooting the Nats in CDP. If anyone can win that division w/ a Glock it's him. I just don't understand all of the hubbub. Mayo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 A SIG won CDP not too long ago remember, and for many, the Glock trigger is easier to work than DA/SA. Someone will win CDP with a glock sooner or later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay1 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Concerning the guy that won with the sig, isn't that sig now illegal in IDPA because of the weight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtypool40 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Well, I was trying to quote Mayo's response to the thread, the new look of the site isn't working too easily for me. (technophobe that I am , it may be my fault). Anyway, per usual Mayo and I agree to disagree on just about everything. That's ok, and please don't throw me off the board for my dissent. I only used the phrase "the cartel" once in this post (OK, once here too). He says come talk to him when we have a handful of factory 125pf .45 ACP ammo. Fair enough, as soon as he supplies me with some of that oh so common 125pf .40 S&W carry ammo, for use in the "real world tactical training IDPA represents". I've said it a bunch-o-time on here; the .40 is the most popular carry and LEO cartridge in the country, but NO ONE manufactures 125 pf ammo for it. Hell, every factory load I have ever shot through a 5" gun has made 165 in my guns. The question at the top of this thread should not be "IS" The cartel (<= there it is) anti-.40 but rather why?. They are obviously anti-common sense solution, like letting anything .40 or bigger that can safely make 165 shoot one division (No, I won't invoke the common sense of Major/Minor AGAIN) and let EVERYTHING 9mm and bigger that makes between 125 and 165 shoot another division. Stop......evaluate....correct. Or is "that dog" pointing too obviously to the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bones Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 [ Also the "factory load" issue is non existant and no one shoot 357 in the speed loader gun.s I'm you're HoneySuckle, Buff. See you in AR? Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Murphy Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I've said it a bunch-o-time on here; the .40 is the most popular carry and LEO cartridge in the country, but NO ONE manufactures 125 pf ammo for it. 136power factor close enough? http://www.corbon.com/catalog/index.php?fi...73716&uid=12665 Look, IDPA isn't "anti" .40/10mm, they simply chose to make SSP/ESP a division where the 9mm/.38 super can be used effectively out of the box. .40 may be the most popular LE cartridge in the country but 9mm is still mighty popular. 2 out of the 3 largest LE agencies in Pennsylvania still use the 9mm. Major/Minor scoring would make all the 9mm shooters buy a .40 to be comepetitive and instead of "is IDPA Anti .40/10mm?" a different group of whiners would be saying "is IDPA anti 9mm?". Some may say giving an edge to the guys shooting the hotter ammo is more in line with IDPA's philosophy but that does add more complexity to the mix as well as being a subject of some debate. Caliber Specific Power Factors would have shooters complaining the .40 is still getting screwed. At least you can download the .40/10mm, can't upload the 9mm quite as easily. Ted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts