9mm major for Limited

[spd522]

I don't have a problem if they want to change the rules and allow the 9 as Major. I don't care if they leave it as is. I won't shoot it and will stay with what I already have which isn't the latest and greatest either but works fine for me.

Let them spend their money on it. That will just mean a bunch of nice guns hitting the market for sale so the owners can get the newest widget. May be some good deals............

Craig

[al503]

Imagine a 22 round stage with a 22 round gun...that's tight and you have no margin of error (might be worth going for it if you're trying to win). Now, give the same guy a 24 round gun and those two extra rounds provide one heck of a lot of margin for error in comparison. The guy with 22 misses once and he's hosed. The guy with 24 still has an extra makeup shot left and no static reload. It won't happen all the time, but it will happen.

Very good point. So lets say there is such a 22 round stage at nationals and those shooting 9mm have an edge. There are still 15 other stages where those shooting 9 are going to have to deal with the additional recoil, etc., and theres always that possibility that there won't be such a stage.

I just don't see the gloom and doom huge advantage that's going to obsolete the .40 guns and all those claiming that we'll see a bunch of lightly used 9mm limited guns in the classifieds seem to agree.

[eerw]

I liked the old rule that three ammo manufacturers had to make ammo that made major for that caliber to be considered for major.

back in the day..when this was all be tossed around Para was the biggest capacity around for major gun, .40 did not exist and 9mm major capacity would have been a huge advantage.

that is why Smith tooled up the .356TSW guns and Federal made the ammo.

personally..I probably would shoot a 9x23 in limited.. easy enough to get 24 in the mag. but I do like the way it is.

[Flexmoney]

Ahhhhhhh...

Finally.....finally....I get why IPSC has Major power factor set at 160 for Open, and 170 for Standard.

[G-ManBart]

Imagine a 22 round stage with a 22 round gun...that's tight and you have no margin of error (might be worth going for it if you're trying to win). Now, give the same guy a 24 round gun and those two extra rounds provide one heck of a lot of margin for error in comparison. The guy with 22 misses once and he's hosed. The guy with 24 still has an extra makeup shot left and no static reload. It won't happen all the time, but it will happen.

Very good point. So lets say there is such a 22 round stage at nationals and those shooting 9mm have an edge. There are still 15 other stages where those shooting 9 are going to have to deal with the additional recoil, etc., and theres always that possibility that there won't be such a stage.

I just don't see the gloom and doom huge advantage that's going to obsolete the .40 guns and all those claiming that we'll see a bunch of lightly used 9mm limited guns in the classifieds seem to agree.

Actually, there were three 22 round stages at Nationals this year and one 25 rounder (and a 25 round gun would be doable for those who wanted to push it). So, we're now looking at 25% of the match that would have been influenced. Not only that, but look at how few points often separate positions and giving away an advantage before you even start isn't something most competitive folks like doing.

What everyone seems to ignore is that we're a pretty creative bunch. Sure, a 9 Major Limited gun would have a little extra recoil using a gun typical of what most folks are using now, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't go to heavier guns, find heavier bullets and different powders until we worked out something quite reasonable to shoot. Then, suddenly, some folks are shooting a gun that isn't significantly harder to shoot and they have more mag capacity

Even if it didn't wind up to be total gloom and doom, it makes no sense from a cost/benefit analysis. There are thousands of people shooting Limited right now (second largest field size at Nationals) who don't need any rules changes. There might be a handful of folks not shooting Limited now that would start if Major 9 was allowed. Changing a rule that has been in place for many years to cater to a handful of folks we're not even sure are out there in significant numbers isn't a risk worth taking. R,

[RIIID]

A few years back I built a six inch 9x23 gun to shoot the Limited Nationals in minor. It was a good experiment for that match, there was 4 stages that I could run without the reload that everyone else had to. As a side note not one CRO/RO noticed that I didn't do a reload to complete the stages. The six inch sight radius was more of an advantage than the extra rounds. I mainly did it to because of my back, major hurts more to shoot than minor. I came up 4 stages short of finishing because it was I hurting too much.

IF .355 was to be allowed in LTD for major you would see most shooting heavier bullet weights to get a softer feel in the hand. Heavier bullets cost more, and 1/3 or more powder is needed to make major no cost saving there. If you don't already have a .355 dia Ltd gun you would have to re barrel your existing Ltd gun or do a new build, kind of sounds like what happened in Open when 9mm major was approved. Also you would have to buy a new set of mags and tuned mags are all the rage right now so more money spent. Gunsmiths would be the big winner with a rule change like this and here I'm against it, maybe I should re think this Hmmm.

Rich

[Strick]

Imagine a 22 round stage with a 22 round gun...that's tight and you have no margin of error (might be worth going for it if you're trying to win). Now, give the same guy a 24 round gun and those two extra rounds provide one heck of a lot of margin for error in comparison. The guy with 22 misses once and he's hosed. The guy with 24 still has an extra makeup shot left and no static reload. It won't happen all the time, but it will happen.

Very good point. So lets say there is such a 22 round stage at nationals and those shooting 9mm have an edge. There are still 15 other stages where those shooting 9 are going to have to deal with the additional recoil, etc., and theres always that possibility that there won't be such a stage.

I just don't see the gloom and doom huge advantage that's going to obsolete the .40 guns and all those claiming that we'll see a bunch of lightly used 9mm limited guns in the classifieds seem to agree.

Actually, there were three 22 round stages at Nationals this year and one 25 rounder (and a 25 round gun would be doable for those who wanted to push it). So, we're now looking at 25% of the match that would have been influenced. Not only that, but look at how few points often separate positions and giving away an advantage before you even start isn't something most competitive folks like doing.

And how many of those shots were fired from the same spot? Were all 22 shot from one location where the shooter could just hose ever target or did they have to move?

[Dan Sierpina]

9x21 wasn't really a fad and came along before the other two. It was extremely popular as the only .355" alternative to Super/SC for Major.

The 9x21 was used because of the Tanfoglio guns. It fit into the small frame magazines, and the rules of the day stated that 9x19 was not legal for Major PF. It enabled the beginning of the HiCap gun, at a fairly reasonble cost.

[G-ManBart]

Imagine a 22 round stage with a 22 round gun...that's tight and you have no margin of error (might be worth going for it if you're trying to win). Now, give the same guy a 24 round gun and those two extra rounds provide one heck of a lot of margin for error in comparison. The guy with 22 misses once and he's hosed. The guy with 24 still has an extra makeup shot left and no static reload. It won't happen all the time, but it will happen.

Very good point. So lets say there is such a 22 round stage at nationals and those shooting 9mm have an edge. There are still 15 other stages where those shooting 9 are going to have to deal with the additional recoil, etc., and theres always that possibility that there won't be such a stage.

I just don't see the gloom and doom huge advantage that's going to obsolete the .40 guns and all those claiming that we'll see a bunch of lightly used 9mm limited guns in the classifieds seem to agree.

Actually, there were three 22 round stages at Nationals this year and one 25 rounder (and a 25 round gun would be doable for those who wanted to push it). So, we're now looking at 25% of the match that would have been influenced. Not only that, but look at how few points often separate positions and giving away an advantage before you even start isn't something most competitive folks like doing.

And how many of those shots were fired from the same spot? Were all 22 shot from one location where the shooter could just hose ever target or did they have to move?

Obviously all of those stages were different, but it makes no difference. A reload costs you time even if you are moving. If you're reloading you're not moving as fast as you could be. A moving reload costs me about half a second when things go just right. Take stage 3 at the Limited Nats....22 shots in right at 10 seconds. There that half second reload costs you half a point in hit factor. That difference would have dropped you from say 10th to 21st and cost you six points so it's roughly a 5% penalty even if you shoot equally as well.

Math isn't negotiable and you can't do two major body movements as quickly and precisely as you can do either alone.

If mag capacity didn't matter SS would have the same classification hit factors as Limited;-)

[G-ManBart]

9x21 wasn't really a fad and came along before the other two. It was extremely popular as the only .355" alternative to Super/SC for Major.

The 9x21 was used because of the Tanfoglio guns. It fit into the small frame magazines, and the rules of the day stated that 9x19 was not legal for Major PF. It enabled the beginning of the HiCap gun, at a fairly reasonble cost.

Sure. I shot quite a few of them when they first came out. Still, there were folks building other guns besides the EAA/P9 in 9X21.

I was just saying it wasn't a "fad"... it had a very specific purpose and there are still a good number of them kicking around out there. R,

[G-ManBart]

Let's not forget the trickle down to stage designs we'd see from allowing 9 Major, 24-25 round guns. Suddenly we'd have to have more 25-26 round stages if we want to force a reload.

That would be fine by me since I shoot mostly Open, but I know when you shoot a match with mostly high round count stages it can annoy the SS, Prod and L10 shooters.....think of having to clean and load a pile of mags after every stage. R,

[eerw]

9x21 wasn't really a fad and came along before the other two. It was extremely popular as the only .355" alternative to Super/SC for Major.

The 9x21 was used because of the Tanfoglio guns. It fit into the small frame magazines, and the rules of the day stated that 9x19 was not legal for Major PF. It enabled the beginning of the HiCap gun, at a fairly reasonble cost.

Sure. I shot quite a few of them when they first came out. Still, there were folks building other guns besides the EAA/P9 in 9X21.

I was just saying it wasn't a "fad"... it had a very specific purpose and there are still a good number of them kicking around out there. R,

there was a season, maybe two where the only platforms going were the Springfield P9 and a converted Para P14 and a tricked out Smith in .356TSW, if you wanted the race you had to chase. 9x21 ( also called 9JLE) was to get around the no 9mm major and be able to run the small frame guns.

actually I thought that period of time was fun.. .45 to .38super to hicap to dot

[Jadeslade]

Let's not forget the trickle down to stage designs we'd see from allowing 9 Major, 24-25 round guns. Suddenly we'd have to have more 25-26 round stages if we want to force a reload.

That would be fine by me since I shoot mostly Open, but I know when you shoot a match with mostly high round count stages it can annoy the SS, Prod and L10 shooters.....think of having to clean and load a pile of mags after every stage. R,

I like high round count stages in Production Division-the more the merrier Does not make me want to allow 9mm Major in Limited. I think stability is important to Practical Shooting at this point in time. The car racing analogy is really not applicable-the dollar amount is nowhere near what is spent on firearms. It is out of the ballpark. Good discussion, though.

[twodownzero]

I think this is an interesting topic.

I think that higher round count stages, a lift on the mag capacity limit for production, and a lift of the .400" requirement for limited-major is long overdue.

If it'd require a mag capacity limit (say 15 for production and 20 for limited) to accomplish it, I'd support it.

Keeping things as they were for the sake of nostalgia would still have us shooting single stack guns with comps and red dots because innovation was "too fast."

I'm not saying to open the flood gates, but it's about time that the rules get closer to what's out there instead of maintaining an old status quo.

[wide45]

If it'd require a mag capacity limit (say 15 for production and 20 for limited) to accomplish it, I'd support it.

Not a chance. As an RO, counting to 15, or 20 won't work. Making it a rule would be foolish, because I can't do it.

We need stability in the rules at this point. A lot of members are not enjoying all the changes we've had.

[twodownzero]

If it'd require a mag capacity limit (say 15 for production and 20 for limited) to accomplish it, I'd support it.

Not a chance. As an RO, counting to 15, or 20 won't work. Making it a rule would be foolish, because I can't do it.

We need stability in the rules at this point. A lot of members are not enjoying all the changes we've had.

But counting 10 or 11 is easy? What's the difference between counting 11 or counting 15/16?

[Joe4d]

There aree a hole bunch of people showing up shooting production as is, Production came about because all these guys were shooting other sports because of the perception USPSA was all about raceguns. I dont see the need to fix what isnt broken.

I think 9mm major will open the gates to alot of cheating, of course these people will probably tank major matches because guns havent been debugged for major ammo. Again though I just dont see the need to fix what isnt broke.

[CocoBolo]

Letting 9 into major in Limited will cost everyone shooting limited money and harm the sport, let the guys with 9's spend the money a go to a major caliber, or quit their whining and shoot A's.

I shoot my 9 mm Infinity in Limited and have no issue with minor scoring.

[Aircooled6racer]

Hello: Let see a 9mm major Limited gun or a 40 limited gun? 9mm would have the round advantage by 1 or 2 rounds. 40 would have less recoil I think? So a 9mm major would be best as a 6" setup so you could use less powder. I think the 40 would still be the way to go because of the recoil and proven setups. As they say if you move more than 3 steps you can do a reload or design stages that it would not come into play. Thanks, Eric

[JThompson]

I don't think it would be all gloom and doom and it would be cheaper as their is a significant price break in bullet and brass. The extra couple of rounds? Bah, I shoot 28 reloadable in my open guns and a lot of guys are shooting 29 30 does it bother me? Nope.

But here's my problem with it... most people don't want it. I'm all about democracy and if you add up the numbers, I say we leave it alone.

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Be careful with that last quote though, that can go very badly for us as well......

JT

[G-ManBart]

I think this is an interesting topic.

I think that higher round count stages, a lift on the mag capacity limit for production, and a lift of the .400" requirement for limited-major is long overdue.

If it'd require a mag capacity limit (say 15 for production and 20 for limited) to accomplish it, I'd support it.

Keeping things as they were for the sake of nostalgia would still have us shooting single stack guns with comps and red dots because innovation was "too fast."

I'm not saying to open the flood gates, but it's about time that the rules get closer to what's out there instead of maintaining an old status quo.

Actually, keeping things the way they were for the sake of nostalgia would have everyone shooting a hi-cap Super/SC or 9 with an optic and a compensator because nothing else would be competitive. That's the way things were years ago....show up and shoot with what you have, no division. That equipment race pushed a lot of people out of the sport (including me) for a long time. I was broke and couldn't afford a high cap Open gun and I was suddenly getting beat by guys only because they had twice the magazine capacity I did....the same guys I could school with a single stack Open gun.

Your suggestions sound like reasonable ideas unless you've been in the sport long enough to know the problems that they'll cause, and the fact that a lot of this has already been tried, in some shape or fashion, over the years. None of those rules are about nostalgia, they're about keeping the divisions distinctly different. Once you start changing things the divisions blend together and we're back to an equipment race (in many cases).

If someone doesn't want to be involved in an equipment race, they shoot Production....simple. It's the least expensive, most equitable division available just as it is right now. There simply isn't any need to change. If you make it 15 rounds (as an example) you've taken some guns out of the mix and made other guns more competitive....think of the guy with a Beretta 96 that only holds 13 rounds...he'll feel he can't compete evenly (with some justification) against people with 16 rounds. Now that guy has to buy another gun. That isn't the way to increase participation. Production is huge, and growing because of the rules in place and almost any significant change will take away from that.

When you look at Limited, the reality is that very few shooters have a gun that can be or is competitive when they start the sport. Sure, a couple will have a Para or Glock 35, but not most. So, starting out, to get into Limited you're going to have to buy a gun. That means you'll know to buy one that's .40 or larger to make Major. It's not like there's a bunch of people out there with guns that would otherwise be competitive thinking "if only they'd allow 9 Major, I'd start shooting matches". So, we're not keeping folks away from the sport, or the division, with the .40 rule. Changing it would hurt many of those (most really) that are already shooting Limited because most of us would want/feel we need the extra magazine capacity a 9 gets you. Is it a huge difference? No, but look at what people have done (and spent) to get a 21 or 22 round mag(s) for their current Limited gun. A large percentage of people spent $100-150 for each 21-22 round mag they have, and most have a couple. If it wasn't something people either knew or felt to be an advantage they wouldn't have spent that money. I spent enough to have three 21 round mags, and if I was shooting a lot of Limited now I'd have at least one 22-rounder just in case there's a stage where it'll be an advantage (and there are some). The whole argument that you can reload in three steps holds no water.....you can move three steps faster without doing a reload than you can while doing a reload, so it costs you time, even if it's only a little.

There's no need to open the floodgates or even crack them. There's a division that is completely in line with what's out there....no matter what sort of gun you want to shoot. Want hi-tech, no limits? Shoot Open. Want to go classic? Shoot Single Stack. Want high capacity and fancy guns? Shoot Limited. Plenty of choices, plenty of options and all of the divisions are fair and reasonable as they are right now. R,

[Joe4d]

I really would like to see someones math on the "9mm is cheaper" in limited. Not a 9mm vs 38 open calculation.

Bullets: I never really found cast or Moly 9mm I liked, I can only imagine the leading or other issues trying to shoot it at major will cause, on the other end lots of shooters having good results with 180 or so grain Moly .40's, so go compare Moly .40 to jacketed 9mm looks like its alot cheaper to shoot .40.

Brass: bend over pick it up its all free, .40 brass may cost a little more to buy but you can reuse it over and over, 9mm Open ? I think not, I would say this is at least a wash.

Powder: To make major in 9mm you are talking heavier charges of slower powder nearly double the amount that goes in a .40 . Granted without the comp you can step down to a little faster than the current open powders but you aint gonna do it with 4.4 grs of tightgroup,

[spd522]

I have a 9mm Para P18 and originally shot it in IDPA ESP. I no longer shoot IDPA but still use it for 3 gun or police matches because of the 22 + 1 capacity. I have loaded Major 9 for my Open gun and have shot the P18 with the Major 9 loads after changing the recoil spring.

It still recoils substantially more than a 40 or 45 shooting major.

I don't own a 40 cal of any kind and just shoot my P14 Para 45 with 18+1 mags if I ever shoot Limited. It shoots easier and faster than the P18 with Major 9 loads.

I don't really care if they allow 9mm to be loaded to major for Limited. I won't do it and I think after a while, most that try it will go back to whatever they were shooting before. To me the added recoil and pounding isn't worth the extra couple of rounds in the mag over shooting my 45. Yes, it may cost a bit less but overall the tradeoff isn't worth it to me. I would rather take the hit on points and shoot minor 9 Limited than major 9.

Edited December 26, 2009 by spd522