IPSC Minimum Calibre

[jhgtyre]

Okay.  An important difference in what I suggested and some of you are suggesting is that I am talking about allowing specific cartridges.  The 7.62x25 cartridge is not going to give a huge capacity increase over the 9mm.  It IS able to make major and is not anywhere near a .22lr.  Nor is the 9x18 mak which is, I believe, slightly larger in diameter than a 9x19.  Again I don't think 9x18 should be allowed to attempt major.

On the revolver issue I was recommending .32 H&R mag specifically and only for revolvers.  ICORE allows it and there hasn't been some horrible equipment race among their modest ranks.  It just allows the shooter an option and a good one.

-jhgtyre

[Detlef]

that would be a complete novelty in IPSC and would have to be thought through veryveryvery carefully! Obviously, you are also suggesting lowering the minor PF at the same time. All this has potentially unforeseen consequences. Ever heard about *ain't broke, don't fix it*? The regions of concern can ask for an exception to the rules under the local legal circumstances provision. Precedent exists (USPSA already has other PF than IPSC), so the former Commies (just a joke, guys!) should have an easy time asking for caliber and PF exceptions.

--Detlef

[jhgtyre]

I wasn't suggesting lowering the minor power factor but a check on some reloading data suggests that the 9x18 wouldn't make it so I guess it is too wimpy for consideration.  The .32 H&R Mag would make the current minimum with no problem and the 7.62x25 makes major without too much of a problem.

As far as fixing that which isn't broken goes...  No tinkering and we would all be shooting stock guns.  Change can be good.

-jhgtyre

[Detlef]

I beg to differ: No tinkering WITH THE RULES and we would all be shooting Open Guns!

--Detlef

[jhgtyre]

[omnia1911]

Doesn't 3.3.1 provide a mechanism whereby a request for sub-9mm calibres by Eastern Europe, China, Indochina, the Balkans, and Central Asia in IPSC competition can be accomodated if it it due to local laws, and if done with the consent of their Regional Directorate? If that is the case, why is it necessary to make the entire IPSC membership comply with a particular Region's politically correct laws?

[Patrick Sweeney]

I hadn't thought of the .30 TJ approach.

However, if structured as a variance for a particular Region, with reasonable limits on Divisions (no Major for 7.62X25, as it damages the steel, etc.) why not let a Region go with what they can get?

9X18 may be out as it can't make Minor, so let the other two calibers shoot Minor in Standard and Open if they wish.

Just because the East Elbonians are forced to use .30 Luger doesn't mean the rest of us can get away with it for some competitive advantage.

[spook]

I agree with the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" argumentation. Lowering PF adds the change that it's more beneficial to shoot minor then it is now. It will end up as a .22 superdupermagnum class, with 50 round guns...... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! I WANT STABILITY!!!!!!!!

[Vince Pinto]

Wow. Talk about thread drift.

There is no suggestion to lower the minimum 125pf.

The original question was, and still is, should we consider lowering the minimum calibre? If yes, to which lower calibre? If no, why?

I really can't use your feedback unless you stick to the subject, guys!

[Vince Pinto]

I was just thinking to myself about other changes which some people said would mean the end of IPSC:

1) Electronic scopes;

2) Compensators;

3) "Race-gun" type holsters;

4) The Classic target;

5) Production and Revolver Standard DIvisions.

The fact is that each one of these was a shot in the arm for us.

[Detlef]

hmmm, you don't like NO, do you? This seems like one of the threads where people pretty much stick to answering the original question...

--D.

[omnia1911]

I don't think my last post was thread drift.

When the General Assembly meets to vote on whether a Region should receive membership in IPSC, don't you think it is incumbant upon those voting to insure that the prospective new member has the necessary local laws to allow it to abide by the existing rule book, and not rely on IPSC reworking the rule book to accomodate them? That is what the smaller caliber issue is about, isn't it?

[Vince Pinto]

No. You're way off the mark.

Every aspiring region who applies for affiliation to IPSC is informed of existing rules, however there are a bunch of regions who cannot apply because they cannot comply.

There are other regions who comply, but they'd grow by leaps and bounds if we lowered the minimum calibre to match guns which are prevalent in their country.

If we want to stick to our guns and retain 9x19mm as the minimum, fine, but if we drop it a bit to, say 7.62mm then, potentially, we have an oppotrunity for a huge surge in membership.

And more members means more political clout for every region.

[Vince Pinto]

Detlef,

I can accept "No" as an answer, but can you accept "Yes" or "Maybe"?

The responses in this thread have been far from unanimous, and I'm willing to listen to all points of view.

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 5:57 pm on Dec. 3, 2002)

[Flexmoney]

political clout...?

That springs forth a new question.

Are we assembled for politcal reasons or for competitive reasons?

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 5:49 pm on Dec. 3, 2002

No. You're way off the mark.

Every aspiring region who applies for affiliation to IPSC is informed of existing rules, however there are a bunch of regions who cannot apply because they cannot comply.

There are other regions who comply, but they'd grow by leaps and bounds if we lowered the minimum calibre to match guns which are prevalent in their country.

If we want to stick to our guns and retain 9x19mm as the minimum, fine, but if we drop it a bit to, say 7.62mm then, potentially, we have an oppotrunity for a huge surge in membership.

And more members means more political clout for every region.

---

What am I missing? You just stated that if we lower the caliber to 7.62mm then, potentially, we have an oppotrunity for a huge surge in membership. That is what I said in my post; we are lowering the minimum caliber (it's stated in the rule book) to accomodate new membership (Regions).

You have said in past posts that individuals can not be members in IPSC, only Regions are members in IPSC. I'm assuming that is what you mean when you use the word "membership".

Maybe a better first question would have been: Why don't these Regions have access to the calibers that we are currently using?

[omnia1911]

I guess there was a great deal of thread drift here. We are all talking about lowering the minimum caliber when the issue was the type of guns that are available. Are these "other guns" going to meet the Division requirements, or are we going to modify that too. Will these "other guns" be available to all of the Regions, as specified in Appendix E?

[Vince Pinto]

I'm discussing two broad groups:

G1) Regions which are already members of IPSC all meet our minimum calibre rule.

G2) Regions which don't apply because they can't meet our minimum calibre rule.

If we lower our minimum calibre, the G2 regions would apply and some G1 regions would grow more rapidly.

And it's not necessarily a case of restricted or zero access to 9mm, it's just a prevalence of 7.62mm, and if you consider the areas I mentioned earlier, you'll know that 7.62mm has long ruled the roost.

[omnia1911]

---

Quote: from Vince Pinto on 6:30 pm on Dec. 3, 2002

I'm discussing two broad groups:

G1) Regions which are already members of IPSC all meet our minimum calibre rule.

G2) Regions which don't apply because they can't meet our minimum calibre rule.

If we lower our minimum calibre, the G2 regions would apply

and

some G1 regions would grow more rapidly.

And it's not necessarily a case of restricted or zero access to 9mm, it's just a prevalence of 7.62mm, and if you consider the areas I mentioned earlier, you'll know that 7.62mm has long ruled the roost.

---

OK, but why don't they use, or have access to, the calibers, or the types of guns, that IPSC currently uses?

Vince, I'll guess that you are primarily talking about the 7.62x25mm Russian Tokerev cartridge being used in a Tokerev TT33 pistol, which is also chambered in 9mm. The cartridge can also be used in a Nagant Revolver and the CZ52.

Are these the handguns and the cartridge that you want to include in IPSC competition?

(Edited by omnia1911 at 2:37 am on Dec. 4, 2002)

[spook]

Ok, sorry for the thread drift.

"Should we consider lowering the minimum caliber?"

No. If that means firing projectiles that have a smaller diameter than .354".

"Why not?"

Because people who do will have an advantage over 9mm shooters.

OR....You can set a mag restriction in the divisions that would have the caliber lowered, but I doubt anyone would like that.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Advantage?

In what way is a .30 Luger or 7.62 Tokarev advantaged over a 9x19?  Shooting Minor?  Capacity?  No.  Recoil?  They still make Minor.  Bullet torque?  Sure, if it's you, Rob, Jerry and Todd for the Championship of the Milky Way.  Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

A minor Open gun in .30/7.62 is not exactly a crowd-beating wondertool.

I say let 'em, provided they shoot Minor, can't do major, and have to comply with the equipment rules.

[omnia1911]

Vince, since your motivation for lowering the minimum caliber is to accomodate the available equipment in certain Regions, is it possible to write the rule to say: The minimum caliber in IPSC is 9x19, to include the 7.62x25mm Tokerev. That would narrow the solution to the specific problem.

[jhgtyre]

What a concept!

[spook]

Patrick, I'm thinking capacity in production class in the first place (since everything is minor there), second capacity when the competition companies start cranking out guns in 7.62x45 to make major or whatever.

You see, the current rules don't say anything about what "cartridge" can make major an which can't. The rules only say what "caliber" cannot make major (in standard class). The rules just speak of calibers. So lowering the caliber rule, will bring new cartridges to the game.

IPSC also never had a ban on 9x19mm major. So I foresee new "cartridges" with a smaller caliber making major after a while.

That would be an advantage right?

And of course, I cannot beat Eric Grauffel with a 7.62 even if he would be shooting a .50 AE desert eagle in open, but I have always found that a bit of a cheap argument. (I couldn't beat Eric with a .22LR, so why not allow them, you know what I mean?)

Cheers

[Vince Pinto]

Spook,

Take a look at the revised IPSC rules, which now specifically refer to "cartridge case / bullet diameter" in Appendix E. We missed changing it in 5.2.6.1, but it's been noted for the next revision.

According my (not very scientific) research, the only guns commonly available now which take the 7.62mm Tokarov are the TT33, the Chinese Model 54 (or 51) and the CZ52 (which Omnia pointed out earlier).

All these guns are single stack, single action guns, and they look like something out of a very bad 1931 movie with sub-titles. And you should see the holsters!

My crystal ball is a bit fuzzy these days but I really don't think we'll see a huge migration from 9mm to 7.62mm, nor do I think any major manufacturer is going to be bothered offering new products in 7.62mm.

And winning matches has nothing to do with calibre or the amount of money you spend on your equipment.

As we all know. TGO would still kick our collectively asses even if he used a 6 shot revolver which fired 7.62mm french fries dipped in ballistic ketchup ......

(Edited by Vince Pinto at 1:11 pm on Dec. 4, 2002)