Limited optics strong early showing

[Makicjf]

1 minute ago, shred said:

One more time... "the V in DVC is not about recoil, it's about power on target and always has been.."

 

I think many struggle with this for the simple fact that more modern thinking in regards to handgun power essentially considers all duty rounds relatively "equal" in effectiveness on target.

I'll not enter that debate, but I can anecdotally note that bigger , flatter bullets kill medium game quick without the need for high velocity.

If one believes all rounds are "equal" in effectiveness, the perception MUST be that major shooters are rewarded for recoil.

The mindset of shooters has shifted.

Jason

 

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, Makicjf said:

I think many struggle with this for the simple fact that more modern thinking in regards to handgun power essentially considers all duty rounds relatively "equal" in effectiveness on target.

I'll not enter that debate, but I can anecdotally note that bigger , flatter bullets kill medium game quick without the need for high velocity.

If one believes all rounds are "equal" in effectiveness, the perception MUST be that major shooters are rewarded for recoil.

The mindset of shooters has shifted.

Jason

 

 

Notice you changed the wording from "power" on target to "effectiveness" on target.

 

I don't know what the intent was, I wasn't around then. 

[shred]

Here's a snipped from Jeff Cooper in 1974 (Godfather and founder of IPSC for those of you born this century )

 

 

 

 

 

Plus a bonus quote that was in the same folder..

 

 

 

I think a lot of the "9mm is just as good" line is driven by the ease of training non-gunny LEOs to get good hits with the 9 vs .40 or 45 or .357 Sig.  Kind of how the Govt pushed ".223 is just as effective" when they were trying to phase out the M14... You tell the grunts that, and in aggregate, its likely reasonably true, but in specific cases with trained shooters maybe not so much...

 

[Racinready300ex]

I like the part out "limited to service cartridges fully loaded" oh how far we've come. 

 

And really, if we want to talk effectiveness as @Makicjf mentioned. The typical round we shoot with 147 gr bullet going 860 fps  is a far cry from the rounds people test when comparing caliber. I'd bet competition loads for limited would be more effective than our typical minor ammo. 

 

But hey, could be worse some games are going to no minimum power factor now. Just make the gun cycle is all that matters. 

[RJH]

31 minutes ago, shred said:

Here's a snipped from Jeff Cooper in 1974 (Godfather and founder of IPSC for those of you born this century )

 

 

 

 

 

Plus a bonus quote that was in the same folder..

 

 

 

I think a lot of the "9mm is just as good" line is driven by the ease of training non-gunny LEOs to get good hits with the 9 vs .40 or 45 or .357 Sig.  Kind of how the Govt pushed ".223 is just as effective" when they were trying to phase out the M14... You tell the grunts that, and in aggregate, its likely reasonably true, but in specific cases with trained shooters maybe not so much...

 

 

 

I don't get too caught up on what Jeff Cooper envisioned, things have changed a bunch since then. 

 

One of the first is that 45 ball ammo makes about 200 power factor, and not even the diehards are asking for major to be raised to 200 PF

 

Not to stray off into hunting, but after killing things with pistols, you realize that there is differences in how things react to "more powerful" handgun calibers, but accuracy trumps all. I've seen it enough that I don't care what anybody else says, if they disagree they're simply wrong lol

 

Cooper also says all action types must compete head-to-head. When practical shooting was new this made sense because they were still discovering things. But now since everybody knows what an open pistol is, if we all have to compete head-to-head we all know we need an open pistol to compete. Back when it was new this hadn't really been discovered yet. All guns competing Head to Head today is a horrible idea. We could pare down divisions some, but if it's straight up we all know what everybody's going to end up with.

 

I like tradition, but time moves on and burying your head in the sand and saying things never change, doesn't make things not change. 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if somebody started a new action pistol sport that was exactly like ipsc was in the beginning, basically nobody would shoot it and everybody would still shoot USPSA as it is today

Edited August 3, 2023 by RJH

[RJH]

23 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

I like the part out "limited to service cartridges fully loaded" oh how far we've come. 

 

And really, if we want to talk effectiveness as @Makicjf mentioned. The typical round we shoot with 147 gr bullet going 860 fps  is a far cry from the rounds people test when comparing caliber. I'd bet competition loads for limited would be more effective than our typical minor ammo. 

 

But hey, could be worse some games are going to no minimum power factor now. Just make the gun cycle is all that matters. 

 

 

Three gun generally has no minimum power factor. But they also don't calibrate steel usually either, so you takes your chances if you go to light

[Racinready300ex]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

Three gun generally has no minimum power factor. But they also don't calibrate steel usually either, so you takes your chances if you go to light

 

PCSL has no PF either, locally there are some guys trying to get a IDPA like spin off going and they aren't doing any PF either. They do call for steel to be calibrated with 100 pf ammo. PCSL seems to just say set the steel as light as you can.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see major go away first then we start talking about lowering minor. But that's probably a few years down the road still. 

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

PCSL has no PF either, locally there are some guys trying to get a IDPA like spin off going and they aren't doing any PF either. They do call for steel to be calibrated with 100 pf ammo. PCSL seems to just say set the steel as light as you can.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see major go away first then we start talking about lowering minor. But that's probably a few years down the road still. 

 

I wouldn't care if major went away, but I don't really want to see minor lowered any. Mostly because I like to shoot big steel occasionally and it's already a pain in the ass with minor at 125. By pain in the ass I mean you have to stay on top of it to make sure it'll fall when hit with minor but doesn't blow over with the wind, and sometimes that balance is almost impossible depending on the wind

[Boomstick303]

Not sure if USPSA could go below minor PF.  How exactly would the failed falling Steel procedure go?

 

Treat all Steel as static steel and thus must be painted for every shooter to understand where the hits are on steel?

 

You open a whole other can of worms going below a 125 PF. 

 

[MHicks]

Doesn't "power on target" go hand in hand with more recoil? 

[Racinready300ex]

11 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

Not sure if USPSA could go below minor PF.  How exactly would the failed falling Steel procedure go?

 

Treat all Steel as static steel and thus must be painted for every shooter to understand where the hits are on steel?

 

You open a whole other can of worms going below a 125 PF. 

 

 

At the end of the day people want a easy button. That's all. 

 

I'm sure there are people who think we'll never get rid of major. Probably someone who thought we'd never drop major below 175. Or that another sport would form just for less modified guns (IDPA). And IDPA helped push uspsa into all these divisions. Now PCSL is popping up as a new competitor to steal market from uspsa. They don't have PF, if that proves to be really successful what will we do?

 

I don't really see it on the horizon, but I don't thinks it's completely out of the realm of possibility either. The way we change rules I think anything is possible. 

[Boomstick303]

3 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

At the end of the day people want a easy button. That's all. 

 

^^^^^

Yup

[Schutzenmeister]

59 minutes ago, MHicks said:

Doesn't "power on target" go hand in hand with more recoil? 

 

Only indirectly ... Point in case, a well tuned Open gun can make 165+ PF with little to no perceived recoil to the shooter.

 

It actually derives to impact power on target.

[truespode]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

At the end of the day people want a easy button. That's all. 

 

Agreed... I fall into that category. It's a hobby for me so I want it to be just challenging enough to leave me with something to work on and achieve but not so difficult that I grumble spending money on it. I don't like irons and I don't like locap so the changes since 2019 have all kept me entertained.

[shred]

So it's a "Living Constitution", then?  That old 2A is obsolete and needs to go away?

 

Maybe we shouldn't chuck out all the Principles because Times Change and we are therefore way smarter than those dudes back in the past that made this from nothing.

 

If someone wants to start their own thing then more power to them.

 

[MHicks]

1 hour ago, Schutzenmeister said:

 

Only indirectly ... Point in case, a well tuned Open gun can make 165+ PF with little to no perceived recoil to the shooter.

 

It actually derives to impact power on target.

 

Well yeah in open.  The recoil is straight back, not up and down. Still recoil in limited and SS.

[Racinready300ex]

3 minutes ago, MHicks said:

 

Well yeah in open.  The recoil is straight back, not up and down. Still recoil in limited and SS.

 

When the sport started, and likely when major/minor was determined I don't the Limited or SS existed. 

[RJH]

29 minutes ago, shred said:

So it's a "Living Constitution", then?  That old 2A is obsolete and needs to go away?

 

Maybe we shouldn't chuck out all the Principles because Times Change and we are therefore way smarter than those dudes back in the past that made this from nothing.

 

If someone wants to start their own thing then more power to them.

 

 

Well, it's been a living Constitution as soon as they lowered the power factor from 200 to whatever number they made up and also as soon as they made divisions.

 

I don't know what year the full power 45 was no longer a requirement, but divisions started in '93. So don't blame me for it being a living Constitution LOL.

 

There is a lot of things about IDPA that mirror early uspsa/ipsc though, so maybe people that don't like where are USPSA is heading could shoot one of those events? Although IDPA even realizes to get mired down in tradition and not accept advancements in equipment is a bad idea

[Racinready300ex]

@RJH my understanding is IDPA was started by guys who didn't like the direction USPSA was headed. There current rules are much better, probably the best they've been in a long time. Still not as good as USPSA but it's much better than it used to be. 

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Racinready300ex said:

@RJH my understanding is IDPA was started by guys who didn't like the direction USPSA was headed. There current rules are much better, probably the best they've been in a long time. Still not as good as USPSA but it's much better than it used to be. 

 

That's always been my understanding as well. My point though was that even IDPA knows that you can't be stagnant and disregard modern guns because of John Browning, 45 ACP, and Jeff Cooper

 

On a side note, pretty sure SASS was also started with guys who didn't like the direction of USPSA

[Schutzenmeister]

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

When the sport started, and likely when major/minor was determined I don't the Limited or SS existed. 

 

In effect, everything was limited as I don't believe comps and dots had come into use at that time.  It wasn't called Limited until they decided to create 2 divisions, Open and Limited, circa 1994 IIRC.

 

As for SS ... The 1911 was VERY much in use at the time.  SS, as a division, came from the Single Stack Society who was trying to bring these "classic" guns back into the mainstream of the sport.  In fact, SS in an IPSC match is called Classic Division.

 

The current names may not have been in use, but the guns were.

[shred]

Sigh... when will USPSA get that history site going. 

 

Comps were always a thing.  Two shooters at the very first US nationals in 1977 had rudimentary comps.  There were also plastic race holsters in use at that match.

 

Here's the 1978 IPSC rulebook, all four pages of it.  Optical sights are specifically allowed.  Nobody serious used them for another decade until Barnhart won Nationals with a dot, then everyone had to have one.

 

IDPA started because they thought USPSA was getting too "gamey" with dots and comps and high round counts and cleats and knee pads and they wanted to be the "real practical shooting sport" (rumor had it Bill Wilson was tired of getting beaten by the whippersnappers, but AFAIK that was just a rumor).

 

SASS was older guys that were tired of jumping over and crawling under stuff and going prone and getting back up on the clock and liked to play Cowboy.  IPSC was a lot more physical and less shooting back in the day.

 

Power factor was never "200".  It was how far your load would swing the power-meter plate.  Once chronos came into commoner use, then there were numbers attached.

 

938089951_IPSC_1st_1978Copy.pdf

[Joe4d]

On 8/2/2023 at 8:16 PM, Climbhard said:

My whole problem with where things are going is this sport is (or was) based on three fundementals.  DVC.  Accuracy, Power, Speed.   However, power is now gone.  There is no skill required to manage recoil of 130pf ammo in a 50+ oz gun.  Recoil control, managing the gun at speed, is an acquired skill developed from extended training.  Its now just became a game of accuracy and speed.  Its dumbed down.  Marginalized.  its like the tick tock of shooting.  If your 23 and can run fast and are good at video games (putting the dot on target) you'll do well.  Your grip can be ****, fundementals ****, but with a 53 oz gun shooting bunny farts you'll do well.  Yes, Im just a bitter old man shooting Ltd major.  

not even accuracy any more, throw up a 25 yard partial and you can water the grass from all the tears . 

[RJH]

43 minutes ago, shred said:

Sigh... when will USPSA get that history site going. 

 

Comps were always a thing.  Two shooters at the very first US nationals in 1977 had rudimentary comps.  There were also plastic race holsters in use at that match.

 

Here's the 1978 IPSC rulebook, all four pages of it.  Optical sights are specifically allowed.  Nobody serious used them for another decade until Barnhart won Nationals with a dot, then everyone had to have one.

 

IDPA started because they thought USPSA was getting too "gamey" with dots and comps and high round counts and cleats and knee pads and they wanted to be the "real practical shooting sport" (rumor had it Bill Wilson was tired of getting beaten by the whippersnappers, but AFAIK that was just a rumor).

 

SASS was older guys that were tired of jumping over and crawling under stuff and going prone and getting back up on the clock and liked to play Cowboy.  IPSC was a lot more physical and less shooting back in the day.

 

Power factor was never "200".  It was how far your load would swing the power-meter plate.  Once chronos came into commoner use, then there were numbers attached.

 

938089951_IPSC_1st_1978Copy.pdf 1.27 MB · 0 downloads

 

Sigh...... Math is sometimes hard.

 

From your article Cooper said service cartridges loaded to full power. 45 loaded to full power with 230 grain ball is right at 200 power factor. So that's why I came up with that number, I didn't pull it out of the sky. I don't know if it was written in stone or not at the beginning, just going off of the information you provided LOL 

 

 

Unfortunately for some reason I don't seem to be able to open the PDF you linked, I would like to see that

Edited August 4, 2023 by RJH

[Schutzenmeister]

@shred ... I was referring to the early days before IPSC's formal establishment.  Think Chapman, Cooper, Weaver, etc.  Had comps, optical sights been invented?  Yeah, I think so ... but they weren't exactly much in use.  Then, it was chiefly the 1911 vs. various revolvers - mostly .38/.357, but occasionally larger - and the occasional 9mm, I would guess like the Browning Hi Power.

 

Have things changed ... Of course.  Both in terms of equipment and what the "practitioners" of the sport pursue.

 

But, if we want to keep going down this rabbit hole, we should all just chuck our current equipment (and any meaningful PFs) and just shoot .22LR.  But even then, I think we'll still be stuck with comps and dots.