9mm major for Limited

[larry cazes]

I'm going to say guess that there are a large number of USPSA members that would not like to see the sport evolve into a PC .22 lr event. Whether 9mm would be cheaper or not in Limited really goes against the founding principles of the sport. I think allowing the smaller caliber in is a bad idea. I think putting a cap on magazine capacity in Limited or Open is a bad idea. We're already limited to a specific capacity in 2/3 of the Divisions.

You say this would be for new shooters. How easy is it to expalin to new shooters that they can shoot a 9mm in major in Limited, but they have to load it so that it is unsafe in that stock Glock 17 they just bought because the rules say 9mm can make major. I just think this is a really bad idea. My $.02

I gotta agree with Lawman and the others for ALL of the reasons already stated. I also don't think that it would be a major savings for most folks. For those that want to do it there is already 9mm scored as minor. If this came up for comment I would definitely oppose it.

[zhunter]

If you want economics to dictate the rules, start your own shooting game Z. Practical shooting is an expensive sport, it's not for everyones pocket book. There's other cheaper shooting games out there.

Rich

Sorry Rich, but it is attitudes like that that can cause an expensive sport like we have to start chasing if we are not careful. Hey, I am just throwing an idea out there. I think with a bit of forward thinking, we might be in a better position in 2, 5, or even 10 years down the road.

Look at history, and there are often "clues" about what is coming, but oftentimes we are blinded by the present and get caught trying to catch up. look no further than the price of gas as an example. IF oil speculation was regulated, we would NOT be paying $4.25 a gallon today. Just one example. How about Oliver North telling Al Gore in Congressional Hearings about the threat that Osama Bin Laden was at the time and how he would continue to be in the future.

So, there are two pretty good examples.

I still say it should be looked at VERY closely.

Edited July 11, 2008 by zhunter

[Flexmoney]

I thought forward a couple of years ago and switched to 9mm in Production.

[G-ManBart]

I say get rid of the difference in scoring, every division is scored minor, but have the PF limit of 165 for all divisions except production. Then we can see how competitive 9 major or 38 super is in limited/l10/ss. It will also make the game harder as minor scoring vs. speed makes you shoot more accurate.

If everyone is scored as minor, what happens to someone who fails the chrono? There's no remedy, so they're shooting for fun, which is pretty bad if you've spent a lot of time and money to get to the match. At every big match some folks go minor and they still compete for score, so it's a penalty, but not like a DQ

[G-ManBart]

Just one example. How about Oliver North telling Al Gore in Congressional Hearings about the threat that Osama Bin Laden was at the time and how he would continue to be in the future.

So, there are two pretty good examples.

I still say it should be looked at VERY closely.

Uh, Z, Oliver North didn't tell Al Gore and/or the Senate Select Committee about OBL (really UBL). The hearings were in 1987. UBL was considered a friend/freedeom fighter by the U.S. in 1987. He didn't start hating the U.S. until the Gulf War, 1991 time frame.

The terrorist Lt Col North mentioned in testimony was Abu Nidal, who had reportedly made threats against North. This has been an urban legand since about 2002.

So, would you also support 9mm in Single Stack?

[Merlin Orr]

MAJOR PF is 165.

Does it make 165? Yes = Major

NO = Minor

Why should we give a care what the caliber is? Worried about blowing up a gun. Shoot a .45 - no wait...everyone NOW shoots .40 (which pissed every old salt off when it became the "gamer's choice."

[Chuck Anderson]

MAJOR PF is 165.

Does it make 165? Yes = Major

NO = Minor

Why should we give a care what the caliber is? Worried about blowing up a gun. Shoot a .45 - no wait...everyone NOW shoots .40 (which pissed every old salt off when it became the "gamer's choice."

And you again want to piss off the new old salts by letting Major 9 into limited to be the "gamer's choice"?

[zhunter]

So, would you also support 9mm in Single Stack?

Bart

I want our sport to be healthy for a LONG time. Sure, as long as it is 9 Major, bring it.

I like my .45

[Merlin Orr]

Why Hell... I'm one of those guys now... And...I don't care if people shoot a 9 or .40 or .45.... Some guys will still beat me and some won't. Loading a nine to Major is a kicking POS IMHO anyway.. I shoot 9 Major in my 6" at times and it is much harder to control than a similar PF in a .40 - again that is my opinion.

It don't scare me....

165 is 165. Run what you brung.

[spd522]

Why Hell... I'm one of those guys now... And...I don't care if people shoot a 9 or .40 or .45.... Some guys will still beat me and some won't. Loading a nine to Major is a kicking POS IMHO anyway.. I shoot 9 Major in my 6" at times and it is much harder to control than a similar PF in a .40 - again that is my opinion.

It don't scare me....

165 is 165. Run what you brung.

I got to agree with Merlin. I shoot Major 9 in my Open Para. I have shot the same loads through my P18 9mm Para (with a stouter recoil spring) and without a comp, it's a different beast. It's nice to have 22 rds in the mag but it kicks a lot harder than my P14 Para 45 that holds 18. And I shoot the 45 better with the Major loads.

I don't think those with a 40 cal would be at a disadvantage giving up a couple of rounds mag capacity. The 40 shoots softer and with better control at that level.

If someone wants to shoot the pounding Major 9 loads in a Limited gun, I don't care. I will still shoot my softer 45 and give them the extra capacity. Big holes score better anyway.

My thought (although thinning the already spread out divisions) was a Limited-Minor class for everyone to shoot standard capacity mags and not be held to 10 rd limitations. I bet a lot of Production shooters would play with their 18-20 round mags being used and have a second place to play with the same guns but just different mag capacities. Much like Limited and L-10 can now.

We do need to think about losing shooters due to skyrocketing costs and 9mm is always cheaper to load and shoot, no matter the power factor. I have switched to Production this year after shootin L10 lately, just because of the costs involved. Match fees remain pretty stable but fuel costs boost match costs substantially. Add the doubled cost of bullets and primers over the past year or so and you have to save where you can.

I don't shoot that much Limited anyway but anything we can do to cut costs, keep shooters, and bring in more shooters is to the advantage of the organization.

Craig

[RIIID]

Z changing the sport you like so it's more affordable could back fire. It could evolve into a sport you hate then what, go back to the old way. Making this sport more affordable every time the prices go up is chasing. If you can't afford to shoot the sport, then find a way, but don't make the rest of us change the sport we like because of your problems. There's a lot of shooters who would like to shoot more but, just can't do it because they lack the funds or family commitments or......... Do what you can and enjoy it. Trying to squeeze the most out of every penny might just cost more in the long run.

If you want to look for signs in the past, back in the mid 90's there was a push to get the 9X23 and 356STW legal for Limited. If three major manufactures would make ammo to major (175 PF) it would be legal. They looked to the future and saw it wouldn't be good for the sport in the long run and got rid of that 3 manufacturers clause or something like that. I'm sure we all know someone who is still pissed about that.

The rules state for major scoring a 10mm/.40 cal dia. bullet is the minimum. So if you want to save money and use a 9mm dia. bullet you'll be scored minor. No need for all of this what if, the rules are real clear on this.

Watering down the sport to save money is a real bad sign.

Rich

[G-ManBart]

So, would you also support 9mm in Single Stack?

Bart

I want our sport to be healthy for a LONG time. Sure, as long as it is 9 Major, bring it.

I like my .45

From what I've seen in the last 15+ years, there are more people aware of USPSA now than ever. We have lots of great, young shooters, and the sport is growing. Yes, the economy isn't at it's strongest right now, but that doesn't mean it's time to change the rules to make the second most specialized division cheaper.

I think you may be overlooking something pretty important. How many people start out shooting USPSA matches shooting Limited? Almost nobody does that. It's far too specialized to jump right into. Right now the most common starting point is either Production or Single Stack as people can nearly walk off the street with gear they have and compete....or pretty close to it.

If someone starts shooting USPSA matches in Production or Single Stack gun, they're not likely to quit because they can't afford to shoot Limited. If they do decide they can afford to shoot Limited, they're going to take into account the higher cost of ammo (and nearly everything else).

If anything, more publicity for Production and Single Stack would attract more people and grow the sport better than making the second most expensive division marginally cheaper.

$2000 Limited S_I

$500 5 tuned magazines

$200 Gun belt, holster and puches

$100 Shooting bag

$1000 Reloading setup (cheap one)

That breakout could be lower if they went with a Glock, or similar, but that's the minority right now. After all that we're worried about $30 per K (if even that much) cheaper ammo? Say someone shoots a modest 12K per year....we're saving them a whopping total of $360 bucks...yippee, now I can afford to shoot Limited next year Oh, and they'd still have to pick up their brass to make the math work. If they buy brass, they probably spend more per K than someone who reuses .40 brass.

[HoMiE]

I say get rid of the difference in scoring, every division is scored minor, but have the PF limit of 165 for all divisions except production. Then we can see how competitive 9 major or 38 super is in limited/l10/ss. It will also make the game harder as minor scoring vs. speed makes you shoot more accurate.

If everyone is scored as minor, what happens to someone who fails the chrono? There's no remedy, so they're shooting for fun, which is pretty bad if you've spent a lot of time and money to get to the match. At every big match some folks go minor and they still compete for score, so it's a penalty, but not like a DQ

If you don't make major PF at chrono, then your just shooting for fun.

Or keep Major/minor and make major scoring hits worth 5-3-1 and minor scoring hits worth 5-2-0. I hear too many complaints that people think USPSA/IPSC is too much speed and not enough accuracy in the D.V.C equation. I tend to agree.

[markm]

Or keep Major/minor and make major scoring hits worth 5-3-1 and minor scoring hits worth 5-2-0. I hear too many complaints that people think USPSA/IPSC is too much speed and not enough accuracy in the D.V.C equation. I tend to agree.

Nothing wrong with the scoring now, if your shootong maj or minor and have too may dropped points, your out of it no matter how fast you shoot the course. The winners are shooting faster than everyone else and dropping the fewest points. I don't care about 9 or 40 either, shoot 165 PF major, less minor.

[HoMiE]

Or keep Major/minor and make major scoring hits worth 5-3-1 and minor scoring hits worth 5-2-0. I hear too many complaints that people think USPSA/IPSC is too much speed and not enough accuracy in the D.V.C equation. I tend to agree.

Nothing wrong with the scoring now, if your shootong maj or minor and have too may dropped points, your out of it no matter how fast you shoot the course. The winners are shooting faster than everyone else and dropping the fewest points. I don't care about 9 or 40 either, shoot 165 PF major, less minor.

Granted at the top of the heap of a big match you have to shot both fast and accurate to win (assuming everyone is shooting major), but I still think speed is rewarded more. If you want some numbers to look at, take a look a recent Area 1 match results in Open and Limited. TT dropped more points, but shot considerably faster and won most of the stages. In Open, stage winners dropped more points but shot faster. I think the story is the same as you work down the list in class levels, but it only spreads out the placement more. The only shot worth making up is a miss, luckily for me I miss fast.

[Chuck Anderson]

Or keep Major/minor and make major scoring hits worth 5-3-1 and minor scoring hits worth 5-2-0. I hear too many complaints that people think USPSA/IPSC is too much speed and not enough accuracy in the D.V.C equation. I tend to agree.

Nothing wrong with the scoring now, if your shootong maj or minor and have too may dropped points, your out of it no matter how fast you shoot the course. The winners are shooting faster than everyone else and dropping the fewest points. I don't care about 9 or 40 either, shoot 165 PF major, less minor.

Granted at the top of the heap of a big match you have to shot both fast and accurate to win (assuming everyone is shooting major), but I still think speed is rewarded more. If you want some numbers to look at, take a look a recent Area 1 match results in Open and Limited. TT dropped more points, but shot considerably faster and won most of the stages. In Open, stage winners dropped more points but shot faster. I think the story is the same as you work down the list in class levels, but it only spreads out the placement more. The only shot worth making up is a miss, luckily for me I miss fast.

Without drifting the thread too much. That logic doesn't hold up because you see the same thing happened in Production with Minor scoring. Any time you use Hit factor scoring regardless of the point value, at some point decent hits with a smoking time are always going to beat perfect hits you could time on a sundial.

[vrmn1]

If you let .355 be scored major that would mean I could shoot my 8 shot 357 in limited 10 and kick azz.

[scirocco38s]

Look, the rules are as they are right now. 9mm is minor in limited and so is 38s. It isnt going to change and I wouldnt want it to. Your acessment of economics is false as all the shooters would spend the money for new guns to shoot 9mm. The cost of a good 9mm gun(or topend) will buy alot of ammo. There needs to be a dividing line in limited and we have it. Mag capacity is always going to be king in this game and it is showing right now with folks paying as much as 225 bucks for a 40cal 22round mag. All that goes out the door when 9mm comes in and people can now load 23/24 rounds in a 140 mag. I dont want uspsa to become a 9mm sport regarless of what division you are shooting.

If a person wants to shoot 9mm/38s limited, no one is stopping them and they are scored minor. I shoot it that way myself sometims when I dont feel like loading and the match has a ammo store before I get to it. I can wheel in buy 200 rounds of whatever 9mm and shoot minor, I know it up front and shoot as accurately as possible and accept the score I get.

The rules are stable and rational now, Dont be like some other sports and change for now good reason, leave limited as it is. If we do change anything make limited use 126 mags like the rest of the world.(if you really want to strt a sh--storm)

[ebg3]

Recoil would be a serious issue with major 9 limited. Even 147's loaded to major will have more felt recoil than a 180 major load in .40. No doubt you would have some top competitors adapting to the increased recoil to have the added capacity. I think most would stick with the .40. When you start increasing bullet weight in 9mm, you get really close to .40 bullet prices, so where is the economic advantage? IMHO, the real savings is found in shooting 9mm minor limited using 115fmj bullets. I've found 115fmj 9mm bullets to be about $40/1k less than 180fmj .40 bullets.

[Merlin Orr]

Maybe shooting 9mm is "false ecomomy"...?

A whole bunch of Open shooters sure bought into it....

My thoughts .... If 9mm Major was deemed to be "Legal" starting tomorrow - a bunch of 9mm guns would be sold for Limited Class and in a few months a bunch of 9mm Limited guns would be for sale. A few shooters with Really good grips and recoil control might shoot them and reap a small benefit due to the capacity ( on a few rare stages) while at the same time loosing time fighting the harsh kick of Major 9.

Same as with 9mm Open guns.

This thread is a tempest in a tea pot.

[Flexmoney]

My thoughts .... If 9mm Major was deemed to be "Legal" starting tomorrow - a bunch of 9mm guns would be sold for Limited Class and in a few months a bunch of 9mm Limited guns would be for sale. A few shooters with Really good grips and recoil control might shoot them and reap a small benefit due to the capacity ( on a few rare stages) while at the same time loosing time fighting the harsh kick of Major 9.

While I don't agree with your shooting predictions...I do agree that it would be an equipment race.

There are very few shooters that aren't equipment hounds.

[spd522]

Maybe shooting 9mm is "false ecomomy"...?

A whole bunch of Open shooters sure bought into it....

My thoughts .... If 9mm Major was deemed to be "Legal" starting tomorrow - a bunch of 9mm guns would be sold for Limited Class and in a few months a bunch of 9mm Limited guns would be for sale. A few shooters with Really good grips and recoil control might shoot them and reap a small benefit due to the capacity ( on a few rare stages) while at the same time loosing time fighting the harsh kick of Major 9.

Same as with 9mm Open guns.

This thread is a tempest in a tea pot.

Gotta disagree on the Open 9mm statement.

For me switching from 38 Super to Major 9 in my open gun was a big savings in both cost and work involved. I get all the 9mm brass I want free from the Police range. So it doesn't get any cheaper than free. And I don't have to CasePro or pickup 38 Super brass any more so I save work and my failing back. My gun runs every bit as smooth and soft if not more so with the 9mm than with 38 Super. And I can shoot soft 9mm loads for steel matches in the same gun.

You are right on the 9 vs 40 Limited issue though. Major 9 Limited is like shooting a hot .357 mag in a "K" Frame.

I have shot Limited with my P18 and my regular 9mm loads. The extra bullets that score less usually don't help. Now if I could shoot more accurately...............................

Still, I don't have a problem if they allow Major 9 in Limited. Many will try it, a few will stick with it, but most will go back to what they already use that seems to work fine.

Craig

Edited July 14, 2008 by spd522

[G-ManBart]

Gotta disagree on the Open 9mm statement.

For me switching from 38 Super to Major 9 in my open gun was a big savings in both cost and work involved. I get all the 9mm brass I want free from the Police range. So it doesn't get any cheaper than free. And I don't have to CasePro or pickup 38 Super brass any more so I save work and my failing back.

I think Merlin might actually have been quoting someone rather than making that statement that it was false economy....the smiley wink after the next part at least indicates that to me.

Not too many folks are getting all the free 9mm brass they want any more and even those folks are likely to see that well dry up with the cost of brass scrap skyrocketing. There are also fewer and fewer departments using 9mm, so it's getting even harder for folks to get it free.

The cost comparison is usally done wrong most times I see it. If people are buying new 9mm brass the cost per rounds is nearly identical to Super/Supercomp. If you reuse the brass, the cost is probably higher as Super/Supercomp brass lasts longer than 9mm. For folks that get their 9mm brass free, or buy used, then it is a little cheaper. They use it once and lots of folks use Super/SC cases 10 times. Sure, they're 12 cents each, but if you use them ten times, it's like a penny per shot more than free 9mm used once.

You can take that and change it out to a comparison between 9mm and .40 and it's almost identical. There are plenty of sources of free or used .40 brass out there now that it's the most popular choice for LE. It costs a bit more new than 9mm does, but it's not a big difference. .40 brass lasts until you can't read the headstamp any longer and the same isn't true of 9mm, so if you reuse it, it's cheaper than 9mm. The difference between heavy 9mm bullets and the typical .40 bullets isn't all that great right now. 9mm 147gr CMJ Montana Golds are $115/K and their .40 180gr CMJ are $129.

The brass can be almost a wash between the two and the bullets are (in this case) $14 per thousand more. Take someone that shoots 20K per year and we're only talking $280 in savings. If you take two people that both buy used brass and use it once (like from the Brassman) the cost is the same....both are as low as $37.50/K now. The only way you get a big savings for either choice is if you get the brass free.

Just as many folks are going to be able to get free .40 (maybe more) as there are folks getting 9mm free so I just don't see this as any significant way to grow the sport.

Would I build a new Limited gun if they allowed 9mm and/or .38 Super Major? Probably. I can easily have a 25-26 round gun with either choice and 23 is the max anybody's getting in .40 (at least that I've heard of). Those three extra rounds may or may not make a difference, but I've seen lots of 24 round stages (three positions with eight rounds each) that suddenly would be doable without a reload!

[Chuck Anderson]

I think there are two issues in this. One if we allow 9mm Major in Limited and two if we institute a mag capacity limit. I've heard a couple folks suggest limiting 9mm to 20 rounds in the mag. That this would do away with the equipment race. I agree with this statement. It would do away with the equipment race. I personally don't view that as a good thing in Limited/Open.

As far as the recoil management of the 9mm Major. Is there anyone who doesn't think the .40 recoils more/snappier/worse than a .45? The same argument was made about the .40. I think everyone knows how that one turned out.

[Jim Norman]

If we were to vote this issue, I would vote NO on 9mm Major in Limited.

There are more than a few reasons:

1) The equipment race that would immediately follow. We have already an image of being an almost prohibitively expensive sport to get into and to remain in. Think of all the 'Local Only" shooters that would feel that unless they spring for a new gun, they are no longer competitive. Will they stay? or will we lose them to other shooting sports, or worse, to non-shooting sports? There will be a raft of unfavorable press in all the gun rags about how expensive IPSC/USPSA is and how we keep changing things all the time. This will drive away potential new shooters.

2) 9mm Major rounds that just might be 'too hot to handle' in non-USPSA guns that may be picked up by error and fired. This could cause problems we just don't need.

3) From a world view, we already have a few places that can only have .45 and .40 because they are recognized as a requirement to shoot this sport. Allowing 9mm as a Major round would remove that need and we could see a cascade of bans on larger calibers. We are already seeing a push in this direction with rifle calibers.

4) Difficulty for newer shooters to learn the basics with an even snappier round than .40. The argument that .40 is snappier than a .45 is fine, but where will this stop? a 147 grain 9mm needs to move out at 1125fps to break over the edge of Major PF. Recoil impulse, felt recoil, muzzle flip etc are going to be high. The argument that we allow 9mm Major in Open, doesn't wash as we already allowed and always allowed a 9mm DIAMETER bullet, all we did in allowing 9 x 19 as Major was to allow a shorter case. In Limited we would be allowing a smaller diameter bullet and changing the face of the game with the resultant increase in capacity.

My opinions only, but they are of course right.

Jim