IPSC Minimum Calibre

[Vince Pinto]

As you know, 9x19mm is the minimum calibre for IPSC but is it worth lowering this to, say, 7.62mm?

Although I wasn't there at the time, I'm reliably informed that Col. Jeff Cooper actually wanted the minimum calibre to be 45ACP but he reluctantly agreed to drop down to the "ineffective" 9mm!

However if guns which are sub-9mm calibre can make our power factor floor of 125, is there any good reason to exclude them?

Would appreciate arguments either way.

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 7:23 am on Dec. 2, 2002)

[Ron Ankeny]

There are really only two sides to this coin. I suppose some would suggest that a power factor be set and forget about caliber.

Others would counter by saying that the notion of DVC has been watered down enough and if anything raise the bar.

My personal belief is to just leave it as it is. The 9x19 is well accepted world wide. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[jhgtyre]

Revolver shooters should be allowed the .32 H&R Magnum.  It is a great cartridge and you should be able to get a cylinder to hold 10.

Semi-Auto shooters should be allowed the 9x18 (minor only) and the 7.62x25 (should be able to make major but I am not sure).  These cartridges are available world wide and there are bound to be shooters who would like to compete with them.

-jhgtyre

[omnia1911]

Any change in the minimum caliber that will effect the magazine capacity for the 140 and 170 length limits is a bad idea.

[Detlef]

all minimum-caliber changes should be fought tooth & nail because they will inevitably lead to the eventual introduction of the 22 lr into the sport as admissable cartridge. This event will signify the end of the sport of IPSC as we know and love it.

--Detlef

(Edited by Detlef at 12:44 pm on Dec. 2, 2002)

[Chuck D]

After playing around on the IPSC Russia web site one day I see that all they have to use ( or can use by law I would guess) is 7.62 Makarov pistols. I'm guessing that IPSC shooters in China have a surplus of the same caliber firearms available to them. Could this be the reason your asking Vince? If this is one of the factors for changing the rules then just give those two IPSC regions a rules exemption. Why else would we change the 9x19 minimum caliber requirement than to allow certain region members to use unconventional calibers/pistols to compete. If this is the case, I'd support it for those regions only,not world wide.

[spook]

I'm with omnia and Detlef. Allowing smaller calibers will really add an extra equipment race to the game (like we need another).

jhgtyre, the cool thing about revolver is that it's a six round game. Take that out and everyone will be shooting hicap revo's, and those who cannot afford to join the equipment race (like this poor student:) ) will lose, because some have "better" gear. One of the reasons I shoot revolver class is because equipment is equal in capacity, which to me makes it kind of equal overall. I think in a low round game like revolver, capacity differences would be crucial. Keep it the way it is.

The same goes for other divisions BTW IMO, but in revolver class, it's just so obvious.

[Vince Pinto]

The question has been bandied about for quite a few years and it keeps coming up.

The primary argument in favour of accepting smaller calibres is that they do meet our minimum power factor, so why exclude them?

I have no fixed views either way, but I wonder if our primary equipment criteria should be power, not calibre?

[shred]

I think at some point we need to put our collective feet down and say "Sorry, that's the way it is". Otherwise we'll either end up with .22 Short because East Elbonia can't shoot anything else, or shooters firing ion guns at the speed of light to make major (hard to score those targets, you know)

My opinion is that 9mm is a reasonable stopping point, so let's stop there. Local rules and bodies can handle the fringe cases.

[lynn jones]

let's make a new division too:  "major wimpy"

can only be shot on saturday nights.

lynn jones

[Detlef]

Vince,

on one hand you say that this idea keeps coming and coming, on the other that any changes that would result in major expenditures by members die an early death. Why is this idea an exception and surviving? Would you mind mentioning the main players?

--Detlef

[jhgtyre]

Spook,

The 6 rounds in a revo rule is one point upon which I think we are destined to disagree.  I don't think it's great at all.  I don't own a revo that holds more than 6 and this still bugs me.  I think it is one of the worst moves that IPSC has made in some time.  Why shut out the 7 or 8 shot guns just to appease those with 6 shooters?  I am assuming that those guns are now bumped into open if they don't want to continuously dump good rounds on the ground.  This is a huge disadvantage for them compared to the relitively small advantage they had over the 6 shooters.  If they really want to make it fair there needs to be a revo open, revo limited, and revo production.  

Detlef,

.22lr?  I don't think anyone is advocating that!  There is a huge gulf in power lever between a .22lr and the .32 H&R Mag.  Conversley there is a small gulf between the .32 H&R Mag and the .38 or 9mm.

-jhgtyre

[Vince Pinto]

Detlef,

The request for sub-9mm calibres is usually made by or for Eastern Europe, China, Indochina, the Balkans and Central Asia.

These areas account for something like 40 potential new regions, most of whom only need us to go down as far as 7.62mm.

Currently our first criteria is 9x19mm minimum, followed by the power factor, but this seems backwards to me. Surely under DVC, power should come first?

If not, why not?

We introduced Production and Revolver Standard Divisions so that a much wider selection of guns are competitive. Wouldn't it make sense to follow through and allow guns which satisfy our power factor to qualify too?

And is it any easier to shot a 7.62x25mm at 125pf, than a 9x19mm at 125pf?

[Vince Pinto]

One more thing, Detlef.

How would the acceptance of sub-9mm guns affect you financially?

[Ron Ankeny]

I have so much .357 Magnum brass that have trouble storing it. Hmmm...I can reform it and make 135 pf with a .256. Imagine a 60 grain bullet out of a 9 shot revolver. No recoil... what a gamer gun.

Vince:

As long as you are talking power, who the heck came along and defied the world of physics in terms of power factor instead of kinetic energy?

(Edited by Ron Ankeny at 3:43 pm on Dec. 2, 2002)

[Detlef]

Thanks, Vince!

As for finance, the smaller calibers will allow more rounds in the magazines and easier shooting at same PF. EVERYone who claims to be competitive will move to the smallest possible caliber, resulting in huge expenses to *stay competitive*. I thought this was obvious...

--D.

[TDean]

Vince said...

"..And is it any easier to shot a 7.62x25mm at 125pf, than a 9x19mm at 125pf?.."

Detlef said...

"..EVERYone who claims to be competitive will move to the smallest possible caliber, resulting in huge expenses to *stay competitive”

Those two above comments pretty much sum it up.

We've all heard of the "torquing theory" where a larger diameter bullet grabbing the rifling of the barrel imparts more torque to the shooter, but how *real* is this theory?  Definitely worthy of research.

I also wonder about recoil impulse.  Does our 165 power-factor-scale accurately parallel the difficulty-factor-scale (controllability) using every conceivable bullet weight and velocity to get to the 165PF?

I can certainly see the point of view of shooters who recently spent $3,000 on a 38Super.  If smaller dia bullets  mean higher capacity guns, they’ll have to spend even more $$ to become competitive again.

Not that that isn’t the driving force behind our sport anyway!

[omnia1911]

Am I correct in assuming that these smaller calibers would only be allowed to shoot minor for as far into the future as one could ever conceptualize?

Even then, it all comes down to altering the mag capacity for me.

(Edited by omnia1911 at 7:36 am on Dec. 3, 2002)

[Duane Thomas]

The reason the 6-shot revolver rule was passed is that USPSA wants Revolver - and Production - to be their entry level divisions, the ones that bring new shooters into the sport with previously owned guns - no need to spend more money to get into the game. With our rule book built around 8 shots (no more than) per position, a guy with an 8-shot revolver has an immense advantage over the guy with the common 6-shooter. The last thing USPSA wanted was a class where you're sucking wind unless you've shelled out the big bucks for an 8-shot Model 27 from the Smith & Wesson Performance Center.

[Vince Pinto]

Ron,

I know nothing about kinetic energy but power factor has been our yardstick to enable you to shoot, and/or make Major, for donkey's years.

Detlef,

Of course I cannot dismiss your "smaller calibre, more bullets" argument outright, but given the types of guns which currently exist in 7.62mm (e.g the Babushka 2000!), I doubt capacity would ever become an an issue to drive competitors to jump ship.

It's more about accommodating existing guns, as I seriously doubt Glock, STI, Beretta, S&W etc. would suddenly start producing new guns in 7.62mm. In fact Glock won't even make a 38 Super!

I'd guess that given the low round capacity, 7.62mm guns would only be used in Production.

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

Then maybe that's your answer.  Allow 7.62 in Production only to allow those guys to compete who cannot.

[spook]

There have been so many annoying changes in the last fifteen years or so. Introduction of new classes. Specs for calibers that can make major. I personally think that now most people know what they "need" to be "competitive". There are two entry level classes now, production and revolver. Anyone with a six shooter or a 9mm can be competitive there. Once you've grown out of these classes (like you can beat TJ ), or you just want to shoot something else, you can shoot the other three.

If the caliber rule changes once again, I think IPSC might lose some of the new shooters, and it will definately tick off some of the shooters who are glad that equipment didn't change that much relatively over the last five years. Don't make the rules any more complicated then they already are.

Vince, i don't know if Glock will never crank out a .32 gun. I know they already produce an 9x18mm which is available here in Europe. They produced the 34 and 35 for practical shooting (at least that's what their own site sais), so why not make "the ultimate 24 shot production gun" in .32? I would never assume that gun companies don't make certain stuff, because it just used in competition.

jhgtyre, I'm with Duane here. 8 shot revolvers give you a tremendous advantage. I like your idea of multiple revolver classes in the way that it's fair, but given the fact that only a handful of people shoot revolver as is, doubt it will be fun classes to shoot.

Detlef, your point is obvious. Another equipment stirring will begin and it will take a couple of years before it's clear what works and what doesn't. IMHO, that would really suck . We all know what works now. Why change that?

[Patrick Sweeney]

Hold on a minute.  If the minimum bore diameter was dropped to 7.62, but the Minor power factor was kept the same, what calibers could make it?  Surely not a .32 ACP.  (A 72 gr bullet @ 1740 fps?  Ain't happening.)

We're talking three calibers:  9X18, 7.62x25 and .30 Luger.  None of which would increase magazine capacity.  So, If I'm shooting a 125 jrn @ 1050 out of a 9x19 to make Minor, would there be any difference in felt recoil if I were launching a 125 jrn @ 1050 out of a .30 Luger?  Capacity?

If the poor jamokes in East Elbonia can only  run .30 Luger pistols, and they can make Minor, and they want to sign up for the match (and the organization) what's the problem?

[Detlef]

hold on yourself, Patrick! Are you saying the .38TJ and the 9x23 and (...long list...) were *not* explicitly developed for the action shooting sports (especially IPSC)? If 7.72 or .30 would become min. caliber, we'd soon see the .30TJ and its variants! No, existing guns and existing cartridges are probably not going to be issues in the coming equipment race. And yes, I can easily see a shop like STI come out with a 1911 in .30TJ, possibly even making major. Remember 9x25?

Plus, power factors are *not* kept the same forever, as we all know. The minimum caliber rule was a nice island of stability in our sport since its inception, DON"T TOUCH IT!

One could indeed think about admitting smaller calibers in production div. as doing little or no damage, but even there the gun market is not static, and before long the 7.62 (or whatever) chambering *will* provide the most competitive gun! I am still very much against it. 9mm is a line not to cross, or we will proceed down the slippery path towards a .22 division where all *practical* aspect of IPSC have been eradicated.

Only 30 y ago Olympic rapid fire was shot at human-shape targets. Look at it now!

--Detlef

[Carlos]

Agree 100% W. Pat and Detlef; "could" we do it? Sure. Should we? NO! Not looking to build an open gun in .224 BOZ.