Patrick Sweeney Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 OK. For those who haven't read the rules lately, you must use a .40 or larger to declare Major in Limited or L-10. A brief history lesson: back in "the day" we busted every 9mm gun made trying to make Major. Couldn't be safely done. We even broke the springfield P9 and EAA guns with amazing regualrity, shooting 9X21, with better powders and tougher guns. In the early 1990s, S&W came up with, and got SAAMI-approved, the .356TSW. The USPSA nixed it for other than Open, and there things stood. Tuesday, while chronoing the BHP, I had a Cor-bon 125+P load make Major. 168PF, just in a five-shot average. Using the USPSA chrono method, it probably would have been a 170. The BHP has a barrel just under 4-3/4". Were I using this ammo in a 5" 1911, I could count on a 172PF for sure. In Super, I could pick from a bunch of factory loads that make Major. We are rapidly approaching a crossroads: One will soon be able to buy factory ammo in 9mm (easier in Super) that makes Major. Many object. Thier objections fall into the following categories: It isn't safe to load. They're thinking of some kid with a police tradein S&W M-59 trying to stuff enough Unique into a case to make Major. Many guns won't take it. All the older S&Ws, many lightweight guns (the BHP perhaps) and a whole raft of other guns are not up to the task. It would start an equipment race again. If you shoot a 140mm magazine loaded with 9mm or some Super variant, you'll get a 24-25 round magazine. Against a 40 S&W holding 19, that is a significant advantage. The objections are valid, but do not negate the advances in powder chemistry that have gotten us here. If we are to deal with it in a rational manner, here are my proposals: It isn't safe to load. Simple. Designate a 9mm Major cartridge. Yes, I know the "lure" of 9mm Major is the cheap brass. Get over it. If we're to get a handle on this, we have to give up false economy. We can use the 356TSW. It was designed to be what we want, and is SAAMI approved. Add in the super, and we're there. Want to shoot Major with a 9mm in L or L-10? Your gun had better be chambered in Super or 356TSW. Otherwise, you're shooting Minor. With a designated, named cartridge, we can be sure loading data is specific and detailed. Many guns won't take it. Let the makers decide. Allow only firearms that the manufacturer makes in the designated caliber(s). EAA & S&W makes them? Great, you're in. Browning and Beretta don't? Too bad, shoot minor. Re-barreled guns that were in 9mm will not be allowed. I don't care that your gunsmith is a god, and can fit a 356TSW barrel in your M-59/BHP/Taurus. If the factory didn't make it, you're shooting Minor. If a manufacturer doesn't think his guns are up to the new cartridge, they won't make them. They have the R&D, they know what their guns can take. It also might be a lure to get more makers paying attention to us. It would start an equipment race. As much as I hate more rules, a 126mm overall magazine length solves this problem. A 126 in 9mm holds about the same as a 140 in 40. With capacity the same, then it is up to the shooters to decide, do they want a rolling recoil 40 or a snappy recoil 356? No one can complain that the rule change forced them into buying a new gun, any more than changing tastes in bullet weight forced them to stock up on 180s instead of 200s in their 40 loading. Will any of this happen? I doubt it. I just thought you might appreciate a peek into the mind of the Professor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritinUSA Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I'd add the .357Sig to the list as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Patrick, As long as the capacity differences between 9mm and 10mm catridges is somehow regulated, perhaps in the maner youi suggest, 140 for 10/40, 126 for 9mm I suppose that would eliminate the equipment race. Mandating certain cartridges, 357TSW or 38 Super would generally eliminate the major safety aspect, however, it would add a layer to the complexity of match administartion that we really don't need. I say things are good the way they are. Yes, there have been improvements in powders and guns, use them in Open. Hey, you really want to shoot a non-comped 9mm with iron sights at major? THere is nothing stopping you today, just do it in OPEN. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 I agree, the .357 Sig is a lock. Heck, there probably aren't loads on the store shelves that don't make Major. As for shooting an iron-sighted Super in Open, we proved that was non-competitive back in 1991. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Read it. Consider hate mail sent (that will save me time from typing it...and youi from reading it). Please return me to rules stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Can we please just leave the freakin' divisions alone? There's a place to play for virtually everything ---- can't we keep it that way for a while? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Nik, then what woul have left to scream about? Seriously in response to Patrick, I agree most people in most matches could not compete in open with a non-comped, iron sighted gun, but that was said somewhat tounge in check. I really think however that we should not have 9mm Major in Limited. Period. Why can't we just play the game, leave the rules alone, look at all the controversy in PD over at IPSC. None of this is good for the sport. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeInNePa Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Can we please just leave the freakin' divisions alone? There's a place to play for virtually everything ---- can't we keep it that way for a while? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 +2 Shooters would leave in droves if 9mm major Limited were started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Shooters would leave in droves? I have a .38 Super single stack and I could install a 9x23 barrel. If a 9mm were legal for major, why would anyone care if I shot L10 with a 9X23 single stack? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I don't think shooters would leave in droves.... If you were to limit the length of 9mm mags so they would have the same capacity of .40 mags, it would be absolutely pointless to go to 9mm for Limited. I don't think it would be the best idea....maybe sometime in the future, but for now there is no reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfinney Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 As long as your at it , just change Limited to Limited-20. Then you could shoot whatever caliber you want, without a capacity advantage.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mactiger Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I agree with Jake. If you limited capacity in the 9mm caliber pistols, what would be the point of going to that over a .40, which easily makes major and has good capacity in the 140 mm magazine? It seems to me that the only real advantage to a 9mm major cartridge would be capacity. Nicely laid out, Patrick, but not feasible for a variety of reasons, in my opinion. Troy I don't think shooters would leave in droves....If you were to limit the length of 9mm mags so they would have the same capacity of .40 mags, it would be absolutely pointless to go to 9mm for Limited. I don't think it would be the best idea....maybe sometime in the future, but for now there is no reason for it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omnia1911 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I say leave Limited Division alone. But, with a new Single Stack Division coming into the picture, I see no reason not to allow the smaller calibers to score major there, as long as everyone has the same capacity limits. It might add to the interest in that division. I'd consider building a 38super SS to compete in that division if I could score major with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 The point would be cheaper bullets. And cheaper brass, if 9x19 is used, instead of .356TSW or 9xWhatever. And maybe more accuracy. Having fired 155 PF ammo out of a G17, I think 165 PF out of a long/wide Modular gun could be quite manageable. But Limited and L-10 are medium-large bore divisions and should stay that way. It's not just the power factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
short_round Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 The point would be cheaper bullets. And cheaper brass<{POST_SNAPBACK}> exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 There are places in the world where the only reasonthat the shooters can have a .40 or a .45 is IPSC. If we remove the 10mm minimum, they may loose the right/privilage to shoot larger calibers. Keep things as they are. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSeevers Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Shooters find a way to make it faster/better/hold more rounds. If you "limited" it to 126 mm you would have to be sure that they could never get more rounds than a .40. If there was a way they would and all .40 owners would be real ticked off. Now if you limit number of rds problem solved. Course none of you would stand for that. PS Limited 10 doesn't count, of course it would work there PSS I would love it since I could shoot a 38 Super limited cheap and with less press setup hassle but I have seen changes much less then this drive shooters away. Some need to be driven away though. I stick with the idea, QUIT changing the division rules! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspian_45 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Pat this is not a new subject. This got dicussed on the USPSA IB forum. I feel much the same as you on this subject. And you have a great idea about the manufactuer has to make it in that caliber and configuration. Also, if 9mm is safe to use in open then it should be safe to use it in limited/L-10 ..................right? Am I missing something? Example: I have a STI 9mm limited gun. Now I enter Open division I can shoot major. But same gun same load OH YEAH SAME BARREL LENGTH AS SOME OPEN GUNS, enter it in limited and now I get scored minor. I just don't get it. Anyway, if you can revive this dead horse, I have one buried in the back hay field I need you to work on. But if you are going to restrict mag capacity why even talk about it at all? Will it help or hurt USPSA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Di Vita Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Cheapr bullets and brass? 9 brass is in no way cheaper than .40 brass, and building a whole new platform just so someone could save a couple bucks on bullets is hardly worth doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redmercury2 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 I pay 2.2 cents less for 9mm bullets than for 40 cal, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestock Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 LEAVE LIMITED AND LIMITED 10 ALONE!!!!!! You can still shoot you whimpy 9mm only in MINOR. That is the trade off for magizine capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Allowing 9mm Major in Limited will hurt USPSA. The shooting public wants above all else logical, understnadable, STABLE rules. And by stable I don't mean the place you keep horses or what comes out of them. We have enough of an equipment race already in Limited. THere is so much that can be done to a limited gun that wll enhance performance. Prtoblem is too many people already focus far too much on the equipment and the minor differences as opposed to the shooter. Having said this, allowing 9mm as Major would change everything. The difference in round count of 4-6 rounds would make a major difference between shooters of the same or nearly same skill level. I still wouldn't be able to beat Todd or Robbie, but as a reasonable B shooter with an A card, I could, if I nvested in a new platform , maybe push ahead of a lot of people that couldn't afford the equipment. Let's face it, right now we have many courses in Limited require a reload. If we allow 4-6 more rounds, we eliminate that requirement, Or we have to up the round count. Why not just allow a bigstick in Limited if the idea is to eliminate a skill? Leave Limited alone Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted March 31, 2005 Author Share Posted March 31, 2005 Interesting, and rational discussion. The only reason I brought it up was that progress in ammunition adn powder chemistry will continue. there wil come a tiem when there will be choices of ammo on the shelves that make Major. Against that time, we now have all our ducks in a row, and there is no need to modify the rules. Were we going to vote on the matter, I'd vote against it. But I wanted to see what others thought. Consider the matter closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Patrick, All I got to say is you must have Nomex shorts for bring up the subject. Hopefuly it will die peacefully and trouble us no more. Otherwise we may need to bring out the molds for casting silver bullets, then bury the body at a crossroad at midnight on a full moon with a wooden stake driven through its heart. Jim 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