A Modest Proposal - Standardize 'major'

[TreblePlink]

Pullleese! I just finished investing in two .40 limited units. Lets keep limited stable.

[1911user]

Pullleese! I just finished investing in two .40 limited units. Lets keep limited stable.

That's what shooters in other divisions are saying also except their division(s) may disappear or be radically altered in 2008. I don't think the BOD would dare change anything about limited so you're probably safe, for now.

[uscbigdawg]

Yeah, and that's the vital point here, IMO. It isn't about safety, it's about not starting another capacity race in Limited.

Again. If they allow 9mm to be legal in Limited, EVERY pistol used today will be behind the curve. If the extra 4 rounds isn't, "that big a deal" than it's just as easy to say leave major at .40.

And, if they do make 9mm legal for Limited, I'll be selling my Limited gun and WILL seriously consider stopping ever shooting USPSA ever again and just shoot IMGA 3-Gun.

Rich

[tightloop]

Yeah, and that's the vital point here, IMO. It isn't about safety, it's about not starting another capacity race in Limited.

Again. If they allow 9mm to be legal in Limited, EVERY pistol used today will be behind the curve. If the extra 4 rounds isn't, "that big a deal" than it's just as easy to say leave major at .40.

And, if they do make 9mm legal for Limited, I'll be selling my Limited gun and WILL seriously consider stopping ever shooting USPSA ever again and just shoot IMGA 3-Gun.

Rich

What's the big deal, get a new top end, and get with it...it isn't changing to 9mm major that is the problem, it is the magazine capacity that is causing the problems....

[uscbigdawg]

New barrel, new slide, new ejector, new extractor, etc. That and 9mm Limited pistols just shows a complete abandoning of the history of USPSA. Like I've said before. The attractive part to Limited is that it's a "relatively" stock, 'appearing' pistol, with a major caliber and real muzzle energy (I was more than a little disappointed when the PF was dropped from 175).

This will not be the case with a 9mm Limited gun. The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol. What's next? Drop the power factor some more and allow 32 Magnum?

Rich

[EricBudd]

Yeah, and that's the vital point here, IMO. It isn't about safety, it's about not starting another capacity race in Limited.

Again. If they allow 9mm to be legal in Limited, EVERY pistol used today will be behind the curve. If the extra 4 rounds isn't, "that big a deal" than it's just as easy to say leave major at .40.

And, if they do make 9mm legal for Limited, I'll be selling my Limited gun and WILL seriously consider stopping ever shooting USPSA ever again and just shoot IMGA 3-Gun.

Rich

The same thing might be said by members if we take Limited 10 away or radically alter Production. The point is, leave the divisions alone. My suggestion was meant to get exactly your reaction from Limited shooters since they tend to be the shooters who want to see L10 go away because it dilutes competition. (Of course, if we want to maximize the numbers of competitors in a division, we should all shoot Limited 10.)

It is OK to make a guy with a 12-15 round gun shoot in Limited but the guys with $$$ invested in their top-of-the-line Limited guns don't want the rules to change in any way that disadvantages them. The point is that everyone favors rules that give them an advantage - or at least don't put them at a disadvantage - without really considering what the change means to the guy who gets screwed by the change.

Eric

[uscbigdawg]

I don't want Limited to go to 9mm 'cause EVERY Limited gun that folks have bought and those that don't have the dollars to change them, to have an obsolete pistol.

If you make 9mm legal in Limited, now it's legal in L-10 and Production scores major.

As for 12-15 rounds in a Limited gun, I'm guessing you're referring to XD's, CZ, et. al. How about when we started shooting there weren't whiz bang parts for ANY of these guns and someone had the bright idea to start producing cool parts (see Dawson, Arredondo, Grams, Taylor Freelance, THE, et. al.).

The BOD will do what it sees as right. If this is one of their 'rights', well, it'll be left behind by me.

Rich

[Nemo]

The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol.

That's open and limited now. Thus the beauty of the limited capacity divisions.

[uscbigdawg]

I get it for Open (and to an extent Limited). However, the caliber in Limited is still "real". It's not a small bullet/light load. It's a 'major' caliber and other platforms have comparable round capacity. Yeah, this won't change a lot with 9mm, but I have yet to hear a reason why to reduce the caliber in Limited.

The original poster wants to keep L-10 (and possibly keep things the way they are). While L-10 has run it's useful life (i.e. post AWB), if the choice is keeping it vs. making 9mm legal for Limited, then keep things the way they are.

Rich

[tightloop]

New barrel, new slide, new ejector, new extractor, etc. That and 9mm Limited pistols just shows a complete abandoning of the history of USPSA. Like I've said before. The attractive part to Limited is that it's a "relatively" stock, 'appearing' pistol, with a major caliber and real muzzle energy (I was more than a little disappointed when the PF was dropped from 175).

This will not be the case with a 9mm Limited gun. The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol. What's next? Drop the power factor some more and allow 32 Magnum?

Rich

The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol...Well welcome to today's world...what do you think it is NOW....that is exactly what has happened...either return to those thrilling days of yesteryear and make major really mean something (10/40 +) or cap the mags at 126mm and let everyone deal with that...makes all divisions closer and more competitive...

[Jim Norman]

And why do we need to make the divisoins closer to each other? Isn[thte differences why we have divisions? Does nayone here REALLY want tohave just one division? Welcome to Open winning nearly everything, Limited a distant second and the rest just sort of bringing up the rear.

Most really good people shooting a Limted gun agains JJ are going to finish aroud 80% The average shooter?

Let's look at this a different way. Run the divsions as they are, but make the unoffical combined divisions, available at all levels. It answers both groups, those that want to have "Real" Competition can sign up as and Overall Only Shooter, they only win in the combined results and gat awarded on a top down basis.

THe rest of us still play in the divisional worls we have all come to know. Only difference is that lets say Billy Ray wins the Match in the Overalll Only group, he is removed from the payout schedule for the Divisinal shooters.

Yes, it needs a little work, but maybe it answers al lthe concerns of eveyone. Heck, a Match Director COULD declare a Match as a TOp Down Combined Match if the local crowd wanted it. Actually there is no real reason we couldn't do this now. Who would know except those that at affected???

Jim

[EricBudd]

And why do we need to make the divisoins closer to each other? Isn[thte differences why we have divisions? Does nayone here REALLY want tohave just one division? Welcome to Open winning nearly everything, Limited a distant second and the rest just sort of bringing up the rear.

Most really good people shooting a Limted gun agains JJ are going to finish aroud 80% The average shooter?

Let's look at this a different way. Run the divsions as they are, but make the unoffical combined divisions, available at all levels. It answers both groups, those that want to have "Real" Competition can sign up as and Overall Only Shooter, they only win in the combined results and gat awarded on a top down basis.

THe rest of us still play in the divisional worls we have all come to know. Only difference is that lets say Billy Ray wins the Match in the Overalll Only group, he is removed from the payout schedule for the Divisinal shooters.

Yes, it needs a little work, but maybe it answers al lthe concerns of eveyone. Heck, a Match Director COULD declare a Match as a TOp Down Combined Match if the local crowd wanted it. Actually there is no real reason we couldn't do this now. Who would know except those that at affected???

Jim

+1

I like the idea of letting the match director decide if they want a 'Top Down' match based on what their shooters want - but I'd bet only the Open shooters would what that. I also like to post combined results for matches for the guys who are curious how they stack up.

[Jim Norman]

Eric,

At OBCATS we always post the combined results. We only pay on Divison, but you always know where you stack up against your buddy in a different division.

Occasionally we have to explain why there is a flip in order of finish, but that is the worst of it.

Jim

[tightloop]

And why do we need to make the divisoins closer to each other? Isn[thte differences why we have divisions? Does nayone here REALLY want tohave just one division? Welcome to Open winning nearly everything, Limited a distant second and the rest just sort of bringing up the rear.

Most really good people shooting a Limted gun agains JJ are going to finish aroud 80% The average shooter?

Let's look at this a different way. Run the divsions as they are, but make the unoffical combined divisions, available at all levels. It answers both groups, those that want to have "Real" Competition can sign up as and Overall Only Shooter, they only win in the combined results and gat awarded on a top down basis.

THe rest of us still play in the divisional worls we have all come to know. Only difference is that lets say Billy Ray wins the Match in the Overalll Only group, he is removed from the payout schedule for the Divisinal shooters.

Yes, it needs a little work, but maybe it answers al lthe concerns of eveyone. Heck, a Match Director COULD declare a Match as a TOp Down Combined Match if the local crowd wanted it. Actually there is no real reason we couldn't do this now. Who would know except those that at affected???

Jim

Not that I expect to change anyone's mind, but Open has had it their way for a while now..wouldn't it be nice for the Limited shooters to have a chance to be HOA? You have come to ACCEPT your fate of not being able to load 30 rounds is all ....make Open shoot a real major caliber with a real PF and the same number of rounds in the mag and it is an open ball game with the best shooter winning, and isn't that what this started out to be?

[GeorgeInNePa]

New barrel, new slide, new ejector, new extractor, etc. That and 9mm Limited pistols just shows a complete abandoning of the history of USPSA. Like I've said before. The attractive part to Limited is that it's a "relatively" stock, 'appearing' pistol, with a major caliber and real muzzle energy (I was more than a little disappointed when the PF was dropped from 175).

This will not be the case with a 9mm Limited gun. The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol. What's next? Drop the power factor some more and allow 32 Magnum?

Rich

Velocity is THE key to muzzle energy.

.40S&W:

180gr X 920fps = 165.600 PF

920 X 920 X 180 = 152352000 / 450400 = 338.26 ft/lbs

9mm/38Super:

1325fps X 125gr = 165.625 PF

1325 X 1325 X 125 = 219453125 / 450400 = 487.24 ft/lbs

[Flexmoney]

What's the big deal, get a new top end, and get with it...

Please send me the seeds so that I might grow my own money tree.

[uscbigdawg]

New barrel, new slide, new ejector, new extractor, etc. That and 9mm Limited pistols just shows a complete abandoning of the history of USPSA. Like I've said before. The attractive part to Limited is that it's a "relatively" stock, 'appearing' pistol, with a major caliber and real muzzle energy (I was more than a little disappointed when the PF was dropped from 175).

This will not be the case with a 9mm Limited gun. The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol. What's next? Drop the power factor some more and allow 32 Magnum?

Rich

Velocity is THE key to muzzle energy.

.40S&W:

180gr X 920fps = 165.600 PF

920 X 920 X 180 = 152352000 / 450400 = 338.26 ft/lbs

9mm/38Super:

1325fps X 125gr = 165.625 PF

1325 X 1325 X 125 = 219453125 / 450400 = 487.24 ft/lbs

Actually it's been proven in combat, that there is no substitute for mass in producing effective energy to drop Mr. I Hate American Soldier in fewer shots. See in Afghanistan (a.k.a. Home Sweet Home soon) where the M-16's and M-4's were not quite getting the job done during OEF1 and now M-14's are in high demand in theater. Note too how the Army has purchased 1911's again after a stupid political decision to switch from the 1911 to the Beretta.

But hey, back on topic. Raise the PF back up to 175 and all problems will be solved...just an opinion.

Rich

[GeorgeInNePa]

New barrel, new slide, new ejector, new extractor, etc. That and 9mm Limited pistols just shows a complete abandoning of the history of USPSA. Like I've said before. The attractive part to Limited is that it's a "relatively" stock, 'appearing' pistol, with a major caliber and real muzzle energy (I was more than a little disappointed when the PF was dropped from 175).

This will not be the case with a 9mm Limited gun. The game will become a gimmicky game of how many rounds can I stuff in a pistol. What's next? Drop the power factor some more and allow 32 Magnum?

Rich

Velocity is THE key to muzzle energy.

.40S&W:

180gr X 920fps = 165.600 PF

920 X 920 X 180 = 152352000 / 450400 = 338.26 ft/lbs

9mm/38Super:

1325fps X 125gr = 165.625 PF

1325 X 1325 X 125 = 219453125 / 450400 = 487.24 ft/lbs

Actually it's been proven in combat, that there is no substitute for mass in producing effective energy to drop Mr. I Hate American Soldier in fewer shots. See in Afghanistan (a.k.a. Home Sweet Home soon) where the M-16's and M-4's were not quite getting the job done during OEF1 and now M-14's are in high demand in theater. Note too how the Army has purchased 1911's again after a stupid political decision to switch from the 1911 to the Beretta.

But hey, back on topic. Raise the PF back up to 175 and all problems will be solved...just an opinion.

Rich

Yep, thread hijack, but weren't they going in the wrong direction with M16/M4? Heavier/slower bullets and then shortening the barrels thereby dropping the velocity even more?

[Nik Habicht]

Actually it's been proven in combat, that there is no substitute for mass in producing effective energy to drop Mr. I Hate American Soldier in fewer shots. See in Afghanistan (a.k.a. Home Sweet Home soon) where the M-16's and M-4's were not quite getting the job done during OEF1 and now M-14's are in high demand in theater. Note too how the Army has purchased 1911's again after a stupid political decision to switch from the 1911 to the Beretta.

But hey, back on topic. Raise the PF back up to 175 and all problems will be solved...just an opinion.

Rich

Rich,

is that on folks in the open, or is it because stuff that's cover for a .223 becomes concealment for a .308? 'Cause as in most things, real life vs. our game is apples to oranges, or perhaps more aptly tangerine to tangelo.......

[tightloop]

What's the big deal, get a new top end, and get with it...

Please send me the seeds so that I might grow my own money tree.

With all the money you saved by not financing your pistol, you should have enough to build a couple of top ends...

When the IPSC Wars were reallly raging, it was common to build something that was considered cutting edge and have to scrap it 45 to 60 days later when something else came out that made yours obsolete...same thing here, do you want to race with restrictor plates or really race....things change and if you don't change with them, sometimes you get left behind..just part of the game...

[uscbigdawg]

Actually it's been proven in combat, that there is no substitute for mass in producing effective energy to drop Mr. I Hate American Soldier in fewer shots. See in Afghanistan (a.k.a. Home Sweet Home soon) where the M-16's and M-4's were not quite getting the job done during OEF1 and now M-14's are in high demand in theater. Note too how the Army has purchased 1911's again after a stupid political decision to switch from the 1911 to the Beretta.

But hey, back on topic. Raise the PF back up to 175 and all problems will be solved...just an opinion.

Rich

Rich,

is that on folks in the open, or is it because stuff that's cover for a .223 becomes concealment for a .308? 'Cause as in most things, real life vs. our game is apples to oranges, or perhaps more aptly tangerine to tangelo.......

PM Sent.

[Flexmoney]

With all the money you saved by not financing your pistol, you should have enough to build a couple of top ends...

LOL...I'm still saving up to get a second 1911.

[tightloop]

With all the money you saved by not financing your pistol, you should have enough to build a couple of top ends...

LOL...I'm still saving up to get a second 1911.

Are you considering changing platforms...or are you using them as troutline weights?

[mcb]

Just a quick half thought, so take it for what little it is worth. If you want 9mm to be Major in all division simply put a numerical capacity limit on the rounds loaded in the magazine for each division rather than the, IMHO, goofy magazine length limit.

For example just make Limited have a 20 round limit on magazine capacity for Major and some other arbitrary number for Minor with nether Major or Minor having a length limit. This would keep the 40S&W Limited guns competitive with the new 9mm Major Limited guns.

It would also eliminate the need to get magazines tuned to get that 20th or 21st round in the gun. You would just get some longer tubes and then would not have to worry about trimming springs, tweaking followers, etc to get that 20th round to run right. Reliable 20rd magazines would be easily available rather than needing voodoo to achieve.

Not to mention it would let XD's, Beretta 96 and similar 40S&W in 9mm frame guns run in Limited and not worry about the narrow magazine handy-cap.

If you used numerical limits on magazine capacity you could just drop caliber restriction all together. If someone can figure out how to get a 32ACP to run Major Power factor then they can run that but at no real advantage since they only get X number of rounds in the magazine.

Doesn't some one make a 20 round single stack magazine that are the length of your arm? Limited single stack here we come!

$0.01 of rambling

mcb

[tightloop]

Just a quick half thought, so take it for what little it is worth. If you want 9mm to be Major in all division simply put a numerical capacity limit on the rounds loaded in the magazine for each division rather than the, IMHO, goofy magazine length limit.

For example just make Limited have a 20 round limit on magazine capacity for Major and some other arbitrary number for Minor with nether Major or Minor having a length limit. This would keep the 40S&W Limited guns competitive with the new 9mm Major Limited guns.

It would also eliminate the need to get magazines tuned to get that 20th or 21st round in the gun. You would just get some longer tubes and then would not have to worry about trimming springs, tweaking followers, etc to get that 20th round to run right. Reliable 20rd magazines would be easily available rather than needing voodoo to achieve.

Not to mention it would let XD's, Beretta 96 and similar 40S&W in 9mm frame guns run in Limited and not worry about the narrow magazine handy-cap.

If you used numerical limits on magazine capacity you could just drop caliber restriction all together. If someone can figure out how to get a 32ACP to run Major Power factor then they can run that but at no real advantage since they only get X number of rounds in the magazine.

Doesn't some one make a 20 round single stack magazine that are the length of your arm? Limited single stack here we come!

$0.01 of rambling

mcb

I like it...limit on the number of rounds is a good idea....and I could care less about the size of the hole in the barrel...