Will they ever do away with major/minor for Limited?

[IHAVEGAS]

24 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

curses. I should have known, but it looked so much like the serious posts earlier in this thread, lol.

Seems like you guys are all on the same page when it comes to reading skills. 

Hmmm, might be similar to sight issues. 

[dcloudy777]

I'll go ahead and say it, I don't care.

Major/Minor is an antiquated notion, that doesn't fit into the "Practical" nature of the game in 2016.  Modern ammo tech has closed the gap between 125PF ammo and 165PF ammo to be statistically insignificant as far as incapacitation potential.  Set the PM minimum at 125 and score everything the same.

[ltdmstr]

13 minutes ago, dcloudy777 said:

Modern ammo tech has closed the gap between 125PF ammo and 165PF ammo to be statistically insignificant as far as incapacitation potential.

Interesting.  So modern ammunition technology has circumvented the laws of physics?

As far as minor not being competitive, I shoot Limited minor on occasion and match results are about the same as when I shoot major.  Also, some of my top classifier scores were shot with minor. 

[Thomas H]

2 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

Interesting.  So modern ammunition technology has circumvented the laws of physics?

Nope.

But that isn't what he said.

(And there is plenty of research showing there is no functional difference in their ability to cause physiological stops in attackers.)

With respect to Limited Minor being competitive---that may be working for you.  But there is a reason why people in major matches DON'T do it that way.

 

[ltdmstr]

1 hour ago, Thomas H said:

Nope.

But that isn't what he said.

(And there is plenty of research showing there is no functional difference in their ability to cause physiological stops in attackers.)

Ok, explain to me how a 125 pf round is going to be as effective as a 165 pf round, assuming comparable bullets, etc.  A 125 pf with hollow point vs. 165 pf w/ball ammo is not a like comparison.  There are simply too many variables involved to make a generalized statement like that based solely on power factor.

[Gooldylocks]

Ok, explain to me how a 125 pf round is going to be as effective as a 165 pf round, assuming comparable bullets, etc.  A 125 pf with hollow point vs. 165 pf w/ball ammo is not a like comparison.  There are simply too many variables involved to make a generalized statement like that based solely on power factor.

Is this thread seriously still happening? I tried to make that argument earlier and they refused to listen. Apparently modern bullet design only applies to 9mm, not to any other calibers. So you have to shoot a 180 grain FMJ while I shoot a 124 +P HST.

Because parity

[Thomas H]

1 hour ago, ltdmstr said:

Ok, explain to me how a 125 pf round is going to be as effective as a 165 pf round, assuming comparable bullets, etc.  A 125 pf with hollow point vs. 165 pf w/ball ammo is not a like comparison.  There are simply too many variables involved to make a generalized statement like that based solely on power factor.

 

47 minutes ago, Gooldylocks said:

Is this thread seriously still happening? I tried to make that argument earlier and they refused to listen. Apparently modern bullet design only applies to 9mm, not to any other calibers. So you have to shoot a 180 grain FMJ while I shoot a 124 +P HST.

Good to see that people are still arguing without knowing the difference between ballistics and functional effectiveness.  (Hint:  No one is arguing that there isn't a difference in ballistic numbers.  That isn't the measure of functional effectiveness, though, so that isn't the actual argument.)

Yes, apparently nothing has changed.  People still don't read research.  Momentarily, we'll see "stopping power" and then "knockdown power."

 

Back to the point:  Limited Minor isn't competitive compared to Limited Major given the same high skill level.  The ability to shoot twice as many C-hits in the same time frame without a point penalty (comparatively speaking) is significantly more important than 1) getting an extra couple of rounds into a magazine when you generally have to reload once per stage anyway, and 2) the decrease in recoil which is noticeable and important (how many people with enough money for two guns bother shooting .40 in Steel Challenge or Multigun when they could shoot a comparable 9mm instead?) yet still not enough to make up for that point-difference.

A B-class shooter might find there to be no difference for them.  The top shooters (as evidenced by caliber choice at major matches) however, do.

[ltdmstr]

5 hours ago, Thomas H said:

 

Good to see that people are still arguing without knowing the difference between ballistics and functional effectiveness.  (Hint:  No one is arguing that there isn't a difference in ballistic numbers.  That isn't the measure of functional effectiveness, though, so that isn't the actual argument.)

Yes, apparently nothing has changed.  People still don't read research.  Momentarily, we'll see "stopping power" and then "knockdown power."

 

Back to the point:  Limited Minor isn't competitive compared to Limited Major given the same high skill level.  The ability to shoot twice as many C-hits in the same time frame without a point penalty (comparatively speaking) is significantly more important than 1) getting an extra couple of rounds into a magazine when you generally have to reload once per stage anyway, and 2) the decrease in recoil which is noticeable and important (how many people with enough money for two guns bother shooting .40 in Steel Challenge or Multigun when they could shoot a comparable 9mm instead?) yet still not enough to make up for that point-difference.

A B-class shooter might find there to be no difference for them.  The top shooters (as evidenced by caliber choice at major matches) however, do.

Well, I agree with you on the major/minor issue for Limited.  Pretty much sums up what I've seen.  As far as ballistics v. "functional effectiveness," instead of tossing around insults, why don't you try explaining what you mean by the latter.  Nobody is arguing about stopping power or knockdown power or any such thing.  According to the statement that minor is the same as major in terms of "functional effectiveness" then 380 should be just as functionally effective as 357, no?  I'm just trying to understand what the heck your point is.  The insults, anecdotal evidence and opinion don't count for much and don't further your argument.

Edited December 18, 2016 by ltdmstr

[Thomas H]

9 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

As far as ballistics v. "functional effectiveness," instead of tossing around insults, why don't you try explaining what you mean by the latter.  Nobody is arguing about stopping power or knockdown power or any such thing.  According to the statement that minor is the same as major in terms of "functional effectiveness" then 380 should be just as functionally effective as 357, no?  I'm just trying to understand what the heck your point is.  The insults, anecdotal evidence and opinion don't count for much and don't further your argument.

380 as functionally effective as 357?  No.  In USPSA, Major/Minor is basically the difference between 9mm and .40.  Attempting to create a strawman argument doesn't help you. (In addition, .380 is NOT as functionally effective as the other rounds listed.)

If you don't understand the term "functional effectiveness" then you probably shouldn't be arguing about it.  (By saying things like " Ok, explain to me how a 125 pf round is going to be as effective as a 165 pf round, assuming comparable bullets, etc.")    No one is arguing that they have different ballistics.  That is a separate issue from their effectiveness in terms of physiological stops.

If you take a look at ANY research on handgun functional effectiveness, they all say the same thing.  And I haven't given any anecdotal evidence, so attacking me for doing so doesn't help you either.  In addition, my comment about "Good to see that people are still arguing without knowing the difference between ballistics and functional effectiveness" wasn't an insult, it was apparently the truth since you just admitted you don't know what that is.  So accusing me of insulting you also doesn't help you either.

The original comment was:  "Modern ammo tech has closed the gap between 125PF ammo and 165PF ammo to be statistically insignificant as far as incapacitation potential."

You responded with:  " Interesting.  So modern ammunition technology has circumvented the laws of physics? " in a nicely dismissive manner, and now have said directly that you don't know what the difference is between ballistics and functional effectiveness. 

I even said:  "...there is plenty of research showing there is no functional difference in their ability to cause physiological stops in attackers "

If you decide to ignore that, it isn't really my job to repeat it for you.  If you want to learn about it, look it up.  When you do, you'll find all the current research says the same thing:  There is no functional difference between 9mm, .40, and .45 in their ability to cause physiological stops in attackers.

You started off by being dismissive, and have moved on to making up strawman arguments and accusing me of being insulting.  That doesn't make me really interested in spending time explaining something that is very easy to look up.

 

Interestingly enough, you originally said:  " As far as minor not being competitive, I shoot Limited minor on occasion and match results are about the same as when I shoot major.  Also, some of my top classifier scores were shot with minor.  "

And now you say:  " Well, I agree with you on the major/minor issue for Limited.  Pretty much sums up what I've seen. "

....when I said pretty much the exact opposite---that Limited Minor is not competitive with Limited Major.

 

I personally think it is unlikely that we'll ever drop the Major/Minor scoring divide.  9mm IS easier to shoot quickly, assuming equal accuracy.  And having higher capacity (no matter how small) is never a bad thing.  As such dropping the divide would make a huge number of guns effectively obsolete, and the uproar that would occur would be...significant, IMO.

[GrumpyOne]

Last warning.

 

[ltdmstr]

Ok sorry about that.  On the the Limited minor issue, I never said that there was no advantage.  I said my results, as a B class shooter btw, are about the same shooting minor or major.  I do see some slight advantage for the very top shooters.  They are probably as fast and accurate shooting major as they are shooting minor.  For most others, that's not the case.  Not going to argue about the other stuff, it's not really relevant anyway.

Edited December 18, 2016 by ltdmstr