Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Limited Minor


HCH
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

That makes it seem like limited minor shooters don't really take the game all that seriously. Weird. 

 

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

No it sounds like potential new members that showed up with a Production gun and just a couple of magazines and were placed in Limited so they would not have to reload after every 10 rounds,

 

 

both of these are correct imho, based on attending  and officiating at 100's of matches, and giving the new shooter briefing at my club for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, BritinUSA said:

Growth only works when there is room to grow. We are in a bubble; There are a finite number of ranges, and new ranges are rare. There are criteria for hosting USPSA matches. Once you eliminate those ranges that do not, or cannot, or will not meet that criteria, how many potential ranges are left?

 

Its a regional thing. Some regions will have more clubs than others, so each region of the country will have a potential upper limit on the number of USPSA competitors that it can absorb.

 

Once that limit is reached than growth will stop, people will be unable to shoot at their local matches. It’s starting to happen already and if not for the ammo shortage it would be even more prevalent.

 

By ‘growing the sport’ without regard to its potential limits, they could have doomed the sport to fail.

 

we haven't reached that point here yet, but we have had discussions on how to handle it. we can handle about 70-ish people for our normal matches and be done shooting in 4 hrs. If we got more than that, I think rather than going to squads bigger than 12 or so, I would suggest a second flight of shooters that starts at 2:00 pm. You'd need about 20 such shooters and 1 responsible official to tear down the stages and finish up the scores. Another option would be to simply shoot both saturday and sunday, and not allow folks to register for both days until everyone who wants to shoot has been accommodated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

It's more competitive than you think, it's just that no one good chooses to do it unless they are shooting their production gun in a match where production isn't offered. The reason they don't do it is because there are 4 other divisions where 9mm minor is favored by the rules, plus SS where 9mm minor is a viable option that has been used to win many Area matches.

 

Based on 2020 race gun nationals, minor was good enough for 4th in limited, and that guy would probably have won shooting major. So shooting minor costs you 3 places.  Why not just give all minor shooters the option to claim they placed 3 places higher than their actual placing, and call it good? If you get 10th at a section match, you can say you got 7th. That should make everyone happy.

It's funny how the story always goes that it is a bad idea to shoot minor in Limited, and don't buy a minor pistol for limited, and you'll be handicapping yourself if you shoot minor UNTIL somebody suggests splitting the two and then all of a sudden minor is competitive if this and that and whatever excuse.

 

If it is good for 3 places at nationals and he would have won shooting major then it isn't competitive.  If you can only win with minor at area matches then it isn't competitive.  

 

9mm is not favored by the rules at all.  It is just cheaper...and only slightly in some cases if reloading.

 

Any 38 caliber revolver would be just as competitive as a 9mm revolver as long as it has 8rd capacity and moon clips/speed loaders. 

Any pistol caliber carbine can be loaded to minor and used in PCC - there is no limit on capacity or length

You can load any gun on the production list in calibers other than 9mm to minor pf.  If that isn't true for all guns then we have limited 10 as another option...where 9mm is not favored.

You can load 40 to minor and shoot carry optics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

It's funny how the story always goes that it is a bad idea to shoot minor in Limited, and don't buy a minor pistol for limited, and you'll be handicapping yourself if you shoot minor UNTIL somebody suggests splitting the two and then all of a sudden minor is competitive if this and that and whatever excuse.

 

If it is good for 3 places at nationals and he would have won shooting major then it isn't competitive.  If you can only win with minor at area matches then it isn't competitive.  

 

9mm is not favored by the rules at all.  It is just cheaper...and only slightly in some cases if reloading.

 

Any 38 caliber revolver would be just as competitive as a 9mm revolver as long as it has 8rd capacity and moon clips/speed loaders. 

Any pistol caliber carbine can be loaded to minor and used in PCC - there is no limit on capacity or length

You can load any gun on the production list in calibers other than 9mm to minor pf.  If that isn't true for all guns then we have limited 10 as another option...where 9mm is not favored.

You can load 40 to minor and shoot carry optics.

 

 

 

don't be a science-denier. we have empirical evidence that you can place in the top 4 at nationals shooting limited minor. OTOH, no one has ever placed in the top 10 shooting production 40 as far as my research can determine. No one has ever placed in the top 10 shooting pcc in any caliber but 9. Therefore it is clear that limited minor is more competitive than production 40, or pcc 40.

 

fwiw, It's not competitive to be a bad shooter and not practice either, yet many people do exactly that, and they try to get the rules changed to make up for their poor choices.....

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

 

don't be a science-denier. we have empirical evidence that you can place in the top 4 at nationals shooting limited minor. OTOH, no one has ever placed in the top 10 shooting production 40 as far as my research can determine. No one has ever placed in the top 10 shooting pcc in any caliber but 9. Therefore it is clear that limited minor is more competitive than production 40, or pcc 40.

 

fwiw, It's not competitive to be a bad shooter and not practice either, yet many people do exactly that, and they try to get the rules changed to make up for their poor choices.....

The science says minor wins against minor in prod and pcc but it doesn't win against major in limited. 

 

Scoring is based on PF, not diameter.  Your theory would not pass peer review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

The science says minor wins against minor in prod and pcc but it doesn't win against major in limited. 

 

Scoring is based on PF, not diameter.  Your theory would not pass peer review.

Science says minor wins in revolver and a former champ shooting major can only manage 10th or so.  So since the disparity is obviously greater there i suggest you focus on that division.  Or maybe open as no one gets in the top 20 shooting minor and there is not even a capacity advantage to minor in open. 

 

So tell the truth, did you buy a 2011 in 9mm and now want the rules changed to suit you?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RJH said:

Science says minor wins in revolver and a former champ shooting major can only manage 10th or so.  So since the disparity is obviously greater there i suggest you focus on that division.  Or maybe open as no one gets in the top 20 shooting minor and there is not even a capacity advantage to minor in open. 

 

So tell the truth, did you buy a 2011 in 9mm and now want the rules changed to suit you?

 

 

I suggest I can focus on the division I choose to focus on.  You can take up the crusade for revolver. This thread was started about limited minor.

 

I don't own any 2011s but why should someone that owns one be shafted on scoring because they picked 9mm over .40?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jeff226 said:

I suggest I can focus on the division I choose to focus on.  You can take up the crusade for revolver. This thread was started about limited minor.

You are the one worried about numbers, to be consistent you should start with revolver and open in your crusade for minor equality

1 minute ago, Jeff226 said:

 

I don't own any 2011s but why should someone that owns one be shafted on scoring because they picked 9mm over .40?  

 

 

If a person buys gun for a game, they should buy the best gun for the game, not expect a game to change for their poor decisions

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jeff226 said:

 

 

 why should someone that owns one be shafted on scoring because they picked 9mm over .40?  

 

 

Because sometimes the uninformed to get shafted. You’ve been chirping about the same issue since threads dating back to 2019. Plenty of time to buy a 40. 
I can’t decide if you’re  perpetuating this because you enjoy the banter or just can’t get over the hump to win some B-class wood at a section match. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Balakay said:

Because sometimes the uninformed to get shafted. You’ve been chirping about the same issue since threads dating back to 2019. Plenty of time to buy a 40. 
I can’t decide if you’re  perpetuating this because you enjoy the banter or just can’t get over the hump to win some B-class wood at a section match. 

Since you are reading back you can probably find where I said I own/shoot .40s.  You can probably also read again why I am perpetuating it...it shouldn't be confusing.

 

Have you been chirping against rule changes for 2-3 years?  Is it working?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, lots of whining about minor not being "competitive". Are you competitive? None of this matters until the shooter is capable of winning a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PatJones said:

Jeff, lots of whining about minor not being "competitive". Are you competitive? None of this matters until the shooter is capable of winning a match.

 

Whining?  I am just stating my opinion and responding to the haters.  Here is one of many threads where Admins, Mods, and most of the people in this thread are stating the same opinion.  Most of these opinions are based on information that appears to be factual to some degree.  There are other threads where the numbers are looked at in detail.  Since so many people share the same opinion and the facts strongly support it, I think it would be beneficial to fix it.  Do you disagree with the opinions? 

 

I think good divisions matter to everybody.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RJH said:

 

If a person buys gun for a game, they should buy the best gun for the game, not expect a game to change for their poor decisions

 

  

 

Thank you.

 

Someone buys a gun and starts shooting a division. They decide they are at a disadvantage because they are not winning. I'll skip the obvious argument that they just are not very good.

 

Either change to a more appropriate division or buy a different gun. Seems both of those are easy decisions unless you have to crawl to a wife to buy another gun. That's a different problem.

 

It looks like some would rather change the rules to suit their own interests even though doing so would be unlikely to solve their issue of just not being a competitive shooter. To be fair this Jeff is not alone. Every day here somebody has a "better" idea.

 

I guess I don't understand why this whining is allowed to go on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Brooke said:

 

Thank you.

 

Someone buys a gun and starts shooting a division. They decide they are at a disadvantage because they are not winning. I'll skip the obvious argument that they just are not very good.

 

Either change to a more appropriate division or buy a different gun. Seems both of those are easy decisions unless you have to crawl to a wife to buy another gun. That's a different problem.

 

It looks like some would rather change the rules to suit their own interests even though doing so would be unlikely to solve their issue of just not being a competitive shooter. To be fair this Jeff is not alone. Every day here somebody has a "better" idea.

 

I guess I don't understand why this whining is allowed to go on and on.

 

This is hilarious.  page 4 of the thread I linked just before your post:Capture.thumb.JPG.dc3b4906024a71d4bc89087f42a523d0.JPG

 

Brooke: ^^^ Needs to be done now!! 

 

WHAT????  Were you crawling to your wife for a new gun back then?  Having some problems being competitive?  Not very good? LOL, the hypocrisy!!  Yes, Jeff is not alone apparently.  

 

Page 3 - looks like page 4 wasn't an accident:Capture2.thumb.JPG.b3bc316336408cfafacf7c9ebb9c40dd.JPG

 

Dewey:  Still a good/relevant post!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The fact that 38 short colt is a thing in this game should tell us that a cartridge being obsolete or not is irrelevant in this game. If it's deemed to be a advantage shooters will make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Jeff226 said:

 

I don't own any 2011s but why should someone that owns one be shafted on scoring because they picked 9mm over .40?  

 

 

for the same reason you should be shafted on scoring if you hit more charlies and deltas. The rules have been there for a long time. If one bought a 2011 in 9mm, one did so despite the existing rules. The rest of the world is under no obligation to fundamentally change the sport to accommodate one's poor decision-making. and of course, since it's a free country and the object is to acquire *more* guns, the poor discriminated-against 9mm owner can simply go buy a 40 instead of crying for reparations, and then everyone wins.

Edited by motosapiens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It seems to me that if the intent of minor vs major scoring was to even out the recoil/capacity disadvantage of larger calibers, the final scoring should reflect that both minor and major trade blows. Anything else suggests that either better shooters never try minor, or that major has an uneven advantage that has not been properly compensated for with the scoring rules. 

 

The logical solution would be to balance the two until the outcomes are more even. There seems to be a lot of friction from the .40 crowd, and I suspect that they fear losing the competitive advantage since they are invested in the caliber with guns and reloading supplies. 

 

I think this is at odds with reality of the gun world, .40 is dying outside (by sheer volume of guns sold), new shooters, or even many veterans prefer 9mm across the board for various reasons. 

 

The original intent of major vs minor was to balance .45 vs 9mm? Unless I'm wrong. The .40 seems much closer to 9, and the .45 seems left in the dust anyway. So what did the minor vs major rule accomplish? Single stack, as far as my understanding goes, has much more parity between the .45 and 9mm. 

Edited by Foxtrotx1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Foxtrotx1 said:

It seems to me that if the intent of minor vs major scoring was to even out the recoil/capacity disadvantage of larger calibers, the final scoring should reflect that both minor and major trade blows. Anything else suggests that either better shooters never try minor, or that major has an uneven advantage that has not been properly compensated for with the scoring rules....

 

 

<snip>

 

 

The original intent of major vs minor was to balance .45 vs 9mm? Unless I'm wrong. The .40 seems much closer to 9, and the .45 seems left in the dust anyway. So what did the minor vs major rule accomplish? Single stack, as far as my understanding goes, has much more parity between the .45 and 9mm. 

IPSC, and USPSA are sports for full powered firearms. This is not PPC or Steel Challenge. It is not a matter of balancing the different calibers. From the beginning, shooting major power factor was to be rewarded.

 

From the first draft of the IPSC rules:

 

"Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical marksmanship, and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally (DVC)."

 

" Weapon types are not separated. Double- and single-actions, revolvers, auto pistols and single shots all compete together without handicap. This consideration does not apply to the power of the weapons, as power is an element to be recognized and rewarded."

IPSC_1st_1978.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PatJones said:

IPSC, and USPSA are sports for full powered firearms. This is not PPC or Steel Challenge. It is not a matter of balancing the different calibers. From the beginning, shooting major power factor was to be rewarded.

 

From the first draft of the IPSC rules:

 

"Accuracy, power and speed are the equivalent elements of practical marksmanship, and practical competition must be conducted in such a way as to evaluate these elements equally (DVC)."

 

" Weapon types are not separated. Double- and single-actions, revolvers, auto pistols and single shots all compete together without handicap. This consideration does not apply to the power of the weapons, as power is an element to be recognized and rewarded."

IPSC_1st_1978.pdf 1.27 MB · 0 downloads

That statement seems to run afoul of the current divisions separating SAO and DA/SA etc. 

 

Seems like the statments on power are a bit outdated, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. I guess that was written when .45 was king and 9's were European toys. 

Edited by Foxtrotx1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MHicks said:

In Limited how would you propose to balance major vs minor until the outcomes are more even?

IDK, just spitballing. Seems like you could change the zone sizes to give slightly more leeway to minor hits. Hell, hire a statistician, run some test matches and get both of them trading blows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Foxtrotx1 said:

Seems like you could change the zone sizes to give slightly more leeway to minor hits. Hell, hire a statistician, run some test matches and get both of them trading blows.

 

I'm not strongly convinced it's possible to make a ruleset where major and minor are roughly even in Limited, outside making the points something absurd like 50/30/10 and 50/32/12 instead of 5/3/1 and 5/4/2. Even then, it would probably end up depending on stage design. Major scoring is a big advantage. 23 rounds vs 20 in a magazine is an extremely small advantage. It's hard to account for that without making a target that's much, much more forgiving than it is now, or making Major scoring much less of an advantage.

 

Beyond that, major's worth relative to minor is different in different divisions. If you make it too small, suddenly, it's only worth shooting a 9mm 1911 in the dedicated 1911 division, which seems wrong.

 

More broadly, there are logistical problems that I don't trust the organization to get right, however you try to balance major/minor. You'd have to monkey with classifier HHFs, and the last few times USPSA has added or changed divisions, they haven't done a good job at that. cf. PCC using Open hit factors at first, including for turn-and-draw stages that PCC shooters don't turn and draw on, or Revolver allowing 8-round guns and all of the classifiers with 7 or 8-round arrays suddenly turning into GM-makers. The relative stability of the classification system over time is an asset, and I don't like the idea of upending it while tilting at the major/minor windmill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fishbreath said:

 

I'm not strongly convinced it's possible to make a ruleset where major and minor are roughly even in Limited, outside making the points something absurd like 50/30/10 and 50/32/12 instead of 5/3/1 and 5/4/2. Even then, it would probably end up depending on stage design. Major scoring is a big advantage. 23 rounds vs 20 in a magazine is an extremely small advantage. It's hard to account for that without making a target that's much, much more forgiving than it is now, or making Major scoring much less of an advantage.

 

Beyond that, major's worth relative to minor is different in different divisions. If you make it too small, suddenly, it's only worth shooting a 9mm 1911 in the dedicated 1911 division, which seems wrong.

 

More broadly, there are logistical problems that I don't trust the organization to get right, however you try to balance major/minor. You'd have to monkey with classifier HHFs, and the last few times USPSA has added or changed divisions, they haven't done a good job at that. cf. PCC using Open hit factors at first, including for turn-and-draw stages that PCC shooters don't turn and draw on, or Revolver allowing 8-round guns and all of the classifiers with 7 or 8-round arrays suddenly turning into GM-makers. The relative stability of the classification system over time is an asset, and I don't like the idea of upending it while tilting at the major/minor windmill.

That's fair, and you are probably right that the transition would not be smooth. 

 

I think there is a reality the sport will have to face someday. .40 sales go down, new shooters to the sport won't own or want to invest in new reloading calibers/guns for the divisions that require .40 to compete. Multi gun making minor the standard was progressive and ahead of the curve IMO. I think this boils down to a question: Is carry optics popular because of the optics, or because you can load up your 9mm magazines and have fun without losing out to .40s. 

 

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the sport is aging, as possibly evidenced by the lack of young, new shooters to divisions like SS. 

Edited by Foxtrotx1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...