Vince Pinto Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Hi guys, I'd like to hear opinions on whether or not we should abandon our minimum calibre of 9x19mm but simply retain our minimum power factor of 125 for Minor. The primary argument in favour of relying solely on a minimum PF is that the "V" in "DVC" deals with power, and further limiting it to a minimum calibre is an unncessary additional criteria. For example, by dropping the minimum calibre, rounds such as 9x18mm, 9x17mm and some 7.62 rounds could eaily achieve a 125PF. Of course if we dropped the minimum calibre for Minor, we should arguably also drop the minimum calibre for Major too. Comments, with arguments either way, are welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Vince, Even if you were gonna frop the minimum caliber for minor --- and I'm not sure that's a great idea, but I'm willing to be convinced --- people have TOO MUCH MONEY INVESTED IN GUNS to change the minimum caliber required to make major! Not everyone shoots this game with a (relatively inexpensive) Glock! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Even Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 What would the sport of IPSC gain by lowering the minimum caliber and power factor? Attract new regions that are not allowed to have pistols in the calibers required at this time? Who would that be? even Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Didn´t we have this whole discussion before? (and wasn´t it you that started it back then too ) http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3739&hl= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james h Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Once again your playing devils advocate ive made this comment previously when you asked about a .22 division and my answer is still the same.NO WAY ! See previous answer for reason why. keep on asking you may have a good question one day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm iprod Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 India, where it is difficult to actually own anything as BIG as a 9mm. But hey, all they carry is 32 and 25 Auto's. So unless someone is prepared to neck the 40 down to 32 (7.65SIG? ) we will not get the little pills going fast enough. So they could technically compete if we dropped the 9x19 rule, but anyone with the money to get into IPSC in those type of countries usually has some influence with the powers that be to get what they need anyway. Lowering the minimum size may actually help in countries like Australia where the Govt. is very anti, but I think it will make the whole thing a lot more messy and far more complicated than it already is. But once you make something smaller legal, and then there is the arguement that we should allow a division that shoots rimfire, the next step is air gun IPSC and that will lead to the Govt and anti's saying "well you just don't need those nasty BIG loud guns, you can happily use that Crosman 1711 Co2 Blaster." Just my 2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Folks, I'm well aware that I started a similar thread previously, but that was almost a year ago, and we have many new BE Forum members since then, so I wanted to revisit the subject to see if there are any new or changed opinions, either way. And I'm not here looking for "Yes Men" - I'll happily accept all views which are presented with reasonable supporting arguments. I have a meeting coming up in the near future where this topic will be raised once again, so I'm asking for your opinions on the subject in advance of the meeting. You see I, for one, never say "We discussed (or tried) that before, so let's not discuss (or try) it again" but, on the other hand, I also don't want to change things for the sake of change. A subject is "on the table", and it will be discussed. In case you haven't noticed, I often seek your views here on a variety of subjects, and you have a chance to be heard by an IPSC official. Moreover, I'd be remiss in my duty if I didn't state all known points of view during such discussions, whether I agree with them or not. Some people don't bother to ask what you think. I do. This is a good thing, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gm iprod Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Well said. I agree that it should be discussed. I am glad to get the oportunity to let you know what I feel. UNLIKE the NRA AP Committee, you are open to discussion before the event. Sorry, but that still burns my butt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Vince, 9mm is the minimum caliber in IPSC to make minor. In standard and modified division this has it's effect on magazine capacity (box rule). "Fortunately", standard/modified have the "10mm to make major"-rule. And since major is the way to go in every division except for production, I don't think standard/modified shooters will be bothered by it, but the shooters that shoot 9mm minor will be. And in countries like Denmark, where you can shoot nothing bigger than 9mm, I can imagine this would be a great disappointment. A pro of lowering the minimum caliber IMO is that the choice between minor and major will become interesting again, since the difference in capacity is larger than it is now. In open division this has it's effect on magazine capacity (170mm mag. rule) Since open has no restriction on major ammo, except the "120 grains to make major"-rule, I can imagine that people will start wildcatting and coming up with 160PF 7,65 ammo and 170mm mags that will fit 35 of those. Yet another equipment race. And since this is one of the biggest and arguably the most expensive division, I can imagine a lot of people will be disappointed when the minimum caliber is lowered, and new foo-foo guns will rise. The question for this class would be: how likely is it that effective "open-legal" (120 grains 160PF) guns with a much higher capacity will be made? (IMO, it will be a matter of time). In production division, this has no direct effect on magazine capacity, since there's no box rule or 170mm rule. But I can imagine that existing models that are chambered in 9mm, have a higher capacity than when chambered for a smaller caliber (A glock 17 type model magazine would hold at least 20x 7,65mm). So the question for production will be: how likely is it that major gun companies will start cranking out high-cap guns that shoot <9mm ammo? In revolver division (which IMO has PERFECT rules) it will not have any significant effect at all. The best argument against all of my cons would be that the guns that shoot <9mm ammo are in the "old 'n crappy"-category (maybe we can make a new "old 'n crappy" division ). We're talking about letting Tokarevs and Makarovs enter IPSC, right? I would however not underestimate the chances that people will take advantage of the proposed changes. Since it will be strictly a capacity issue, I think this could be prevented by restricting capacity in those guns to "9mm capacity", or something like that. I would make sure that people that enter IPSC with a 7,65 have absolutely no advantage over 9mm shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul B Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 If we were to lower the caliber for limited or L10 in the USA, we would probably be finding another way to stifle membership. A whole cadre of individuals would have their equipment rendered less than competitive and would probably not be too happy about it. If a certain region needs, for legal reasons, to use something smaller I would have no problem as long as they switched to the "International Rules" when shooting elsewhere. Local options should be part of our "Confederation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james h Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Spook raises the issue of the 9mm restriction in Denmark, as no dane has entered the fray thus far i will chip in. The 9mm restriction MAY be lifted BECAUSE of the .40 for major limit. At present visiting foreign shooters may compete in Denmark with their .40/.45 at sanctioned matches and now that the DSF is on the board of the Target shooting body they have some say in the firearms laws. Previously major was prohibited because the ISSF/UIT mob said they had no use for anything larger so the laws were written saying up to 9mm/.38. If you start messing with the minimum calibres a lot of places will say ok no military calibres (Italy) and nothing bigger than you need (7.65/.32) to make major. As for Australia i do not think they would appreciate the change either seing as the are restricted to 10rds only(last i heard anyway) and are fighting to get .40/.45 for international shooters.Any ozzie please comment. Ditto the space race i own an Edge .40 cost ££££ if the major floor is changed i loose out twice once on the value of the gun and once on replacing it and that would really piss me off and many others. Also smaller bullet +higher velocity and you may exceed the regulations for mv's on some ranges. On the issue of makarovs/FEG's and Stechkins ive shot them and they are not good enough to win so the top shooters will have S_i's etc anyway. Please get them to stop this nonsense Vince it onlyhelps the antis to say you dont need those "big" calibres your own governing body says so. as ever please feel free to ask questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Well, I have been busy reading the older thread during the past half-hour or so I agree with Spook (on several occasions) and I would resent smaller calibers than 9mm in IPSC very, very, much. Speaking for IPSC PD, the division in which I compete, I fear that PD would move a little bit closer to an equipment race. If <9mm were to be allowed, then let it please be in OD only, where everyone already is involved in an equipment race. Leave things as they are please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Sweeney Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 A subject I have mulled over in the past as well. The change to a "smaller than 9mm" cartridge to make Minor is a path with very limited options. It won't lead to super-highcap guns, simply because there is nothing out there that will work. Do youthink someone is going to hotrod .32 French Long pistol ammo to Minor? The original specs are a 90 grain bullet at 950 fps. Do you want to stand next to someone insane enough to go from the base 85PF to 125? The cartridges in questions would be .30 Luger, 7.63 tokarev/mauser, and not much else. So, the real question is at the International level: "Would the organization gain more shooters from places not allowed 9mm pistols, or lose members or areas from governments leaning on shooters because 'You don't need those big guns to compete any more'?" Technically, it is not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Is this only a controversial topic for Limited/Open? I can't see why it would matter to Limited-10 and Production. If they make 125PF (which seems a little low already), and in the last two classes have the same number of rounds... I can see if you could load up .17 Hornady to 125, that a 140 or 170 magazine could hold a ridiculous number of rounds.. I shoot 9mm in production (although moving to .40), and 45 in Limited-10. Whenever I shoot the 9mm, people kind of snub thier noses at it (not the Produciton guys), but so what? On the other side, I'd hate to see people load up 25 Auto's hot enough to make minor, people could really try to push some of these toys (no bias on my part though ) to some dangerous preasures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Neill Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 I feel it would cause considerable problems to discard the 9x19 as the minimum cartridge for Minor. People would try to hotrod the 32 Auto or 380 Auto or who knows what else. On the other hand, I do think anything that will get people out shooting is good. I would lean to a new sub-Minor or Beginner category having no power factor and scored, say, 5, 2, 2, 0 to allow 22's, 32's and whatever. It may be that this category would not use holsters either - being a vehicle to get people out with what thjey have, then let them progress into the other categories as their interest develops. Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucky Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 A subject I have mulled over in the past as well. The change to a "smaller than 9mm" cartridge to make Minor is a path with very limited options. It won't lead to super-highcap guns, simply because there is nothing out there that will work. Do youthink someone is going to hotrod .32 French Long pistol ammo to Minor? Don't be so sure about that! If you open the flood gates, I guarantee you that someone will make a "30 Super" or something in order to have 34+ rounds in the open magazine and 26 in the US Limited and maybe 22 in standard. (Your results may vary ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 7, 2003 Author Share Posted November 7, 2003 Hi guys, Thank you all for such constructive advice and criticisms - this is great stuff. OK, so far the primary concerns are: 1) Possibility of <9mm calibres having a significant capacity advantage, thereby making exisiting equipment defunct. As far as I know, this is probably not true with the <9mm guns available today but if these guns were accepted by IPSC, this might drive development of serious competition guns in <9mm calibre, with the same end result. A possible solution would be to limit the magazine length (maybe the IPSC box?) or limit the round count (say 15 rounds?) of <9mm calibre guns. In other words, we could give <9mm guns "special dispensation" but with conditions attached. 2) Possibility that competitors with <9mm calibres may load to unsafe pressures to make the 125pf. Frankly, I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to reloading (Guy Neill, where are you?), but I'm sure we could overcome this potential problem by dictating the minimum weight of the projectile, just as we do in Open Division. The primary thrust of the proposal to lower (or remove) the minimum calibre is to allow more regions, many of which do not have access to 9mm or higher guns, to join IPSC and/or become more active. Of course we're not silly enough to create a boost for membership development while giving a fatal blow to membership retention, so this matter will be discussed in great detail, and we won't do anything unless going forward has a significant positive effect. And let me explain the way things work. Matters such as this are usually discussed by the IPSC President's Council first and if, after due diligence and thorough investigation, we decide to make a recommendation in favour of the proposal, the matter will be referrred to each member region for comment. However nothing can become "law" without IPSC General Assembly approval. Anyway, if I've missed anything here, or if you guys can think of any other positive or negative points, don't be shy now, y'hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 There is a lot of info on those six pages from before. Be sure to read it. http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...topic=3739&st=0 Here is my latest thought. If a particular Region needs an exception to the minimum 9x19 rule, then they should make their request to IPSC for that exception. But, come World Shoot time...they have to abide by the 9x19 rule. If your gonna play on Texas...you gotta have a fiddle in the band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Neill Posted November 7, 2003 Share Posted November 7, 2003 Reloaders are a creative bunch. I can envision someone taking the 30 Carbine case and trimming it back and loading it up to high pressure to make the power factor. Or, how about a rimless 22 Hornet case? The 270 REN, as I recall, is the Hornet made into a staright wall case. A rimless 270 REN shortened might be something to play with. Still, any of these will be touchy. As I've tried to point out in various Front Sight columns, the small internal volumes make big differences with small changes. Some may be able to load and shoot these with no problems. Others could be risking life and limb. Thus, as stated earlier, if we want sub-nine guns, take away the power factor, for those smaller than 9mm, so the shooters can use standard ammuntiion without playing on the edge. I suggested to the IDPA group many years ago that they needed a category for the snub guns. I felt (then and now) that great strides have been made in shooting standard size guns. Small guns may need modifications to the techniques to do well. Or, as has been seen with the standard guns, the equipment itself may be improved through trying different things. Thus, getting people to shoot their 32's and such can be good, if not for the sport, then for the individual to gain greater proficiency. But let's not get into a power/capacity race with the small guns/cartridges. They have elected to have a snub gun category, but only at the local level. At one time we ALL shot 45's. Overall, I see no problems with the concept of allowing smaller cartridges, but not joined in with the existing categories. Some clubs have allowed shooters to re-shoot the match using 22 rimfire. I'm all for it - but it was scored separate. A beginner category, or sub-minor could allow those not presently able to get the gear to play with what they have. Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 8, 2003 Author Share Posted November 8, 2003 Guy, Thanks for the input and your suggestions. More food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 I doubt that dumping 9mm as the base cal. for minor is going to start a new arms race, and if it allows some of the folks from China and former Soviet republics to come play, so much the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radagast Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 Stick with what we have. I'm an Aussie and as Vince knows, an opiniated pain in the butt. On this matter, I would prefer to stick to the current international rules for Standard major, with regional dispensations available for those that are prohibited by law from possessing larger calibres. Why? Because our only hope of getting larger calibres back for general civilian ownership is if they are required to shoot IPSC. On a less parochial note, How many guys would buy a 19 round bull M5 in .38 super, making all of the guys with .45 cal Paras and STIs even more uncompetitive in high round count stages? Don't piss off your existing membership to obtain a new one or satisfy a minority is a good rule. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In Production division, magazine capacities in the competitive guns range from 15 rounds to 19 rounds. The Makarovs and similar are all around the 8 to 15 rounds capacity, so there would be no major advantage to going to .30 Luger or similar. Canada, Australia and America are restricted to 10 rounds anyway. As guns must be production guns, approved by Vince's cronies, I cannot see a hotted up .32 H&R Magnum autopistol made simply to get around the rules getting approved. So, for Standard, keep the calibre requirement. If it is dropped, drop the powerfactor floor to one that allows factory .38 super PlusP, .357 sig and 9 x 23 ammo to make powerfactor. This will provide a safety margin. For Production, I don't mind either way. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted November 9, 2003 Author Share Posted November 9, 2003 Ken, The thrust of your message is to retain the minimum calibre to make "Major", and I fully support that view, primarily because we don't want to (actually or perceptively) affect the value of 40 and 45 calibre guns by lowering the bar, but it's also a legitimate reason to require big bore handguns for competitive purposes. The main thrust of this thread is to seek input on whether or not to lower or remove the minimum calibre to make "Minor", and to rely solely on the existing power factor floor of 125. All things considered, if we make a change, I think the best way forward is to: 1) Change Rule 5.1.2: From: The minimum cartridge case dimension for handguns to be used in IPSC matches is 9 X 19 mm. The minimum bullet diameter is 9 mm (.354 inches). To: The minimum calibre/cartridge case dimension for handguns to be used in IPSC matches varies according to division (see Appendix D). -:because it's redundant to state the minimum calibre in two places. 2) Leave Open, Standard, Modified and Revolver with a 9x19mm minimum calibre to make Minor, and the other existing requirements to make Major. 3) Lower the minimum calibre in Production Division only to, say, 7.62x25mm, but retain the minimum power factor floor of 125, so that poppers can be calibrated to a common standard across the divisions. The beauty of the above proposal is that, with Production Division, guns must be approved by make/model, so we have control on which guns can make the grade and we can therefore prevent one make/model of gun from dominating the division. Moreover, the fact is that existing (and prospective) regions who would be best served by a lowering of the minimum calibre have guns which, frankly, are really only suitable for Production Division. If anyone can think of a reason why the above won't work, I'd love to hear from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 If anyone can think of a reason why the above won't work, I'd love to hear from you. I can't think of a reason why this won't work. Still want to respond. Nice going Vince! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted November 9, 2003 Share Posted November 9, 2003 Warning: rambling ahead The beauty of the above proposal is that, with Production Division, guns must be approved by make/model, so we have control on which guns can make the grade and we can therefore prevent one make/model of gun from dominating the division. Moreover, the fact is that existing (and prospective) regions who would be best served by a lowering of the minimum calibre have guns which, frankly, are really only suitable for Production Division.If anyone can think of a reason why the above won't work, I'd love to hear from you. So...you are thinking about proposing a rule...that would then give CONTROL over what was allowed to a committee which you are in CONTROL of? Forget how much I hate the bureaucracy*, lag-time, red-tape, and all the other vile things that come with committees and "approved lists"... This should, on various levels, come down to a could vs. should decision. On one level...this needs to be looked at with regards to separation of powers. And, it's not a matter of whether Vince (or whoever) is trusted or not. It's an issue of how much influence any one person should be able to wield. ... * Bureaucracy: Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts