Ipsc Revolver Standard Division

[Yoda]

AFD,

Yes, you can already modify the cylinder to accept Moon Clips.

Hi Vince,

AFD ment something different when he asked about chamfering the chambers of the cylinder. This is a proces where you enlarge the entry point of the cylinderslightly (only rounding the edges), thus giving the bullets a slicker way to search their hole. This is mainly done on .38/.357 cylinders - who wants to enlarge a .45? Those 200 and 230 grain RN bullets are already selfseeking

Regards from your friend "The Flying Dutchman"

[Vince Pinto]

Hi Kees,

Welcome to the BE Forums. I always suspected you were a little green man, but now I have the evidence

Anyway, the IPSC Revolver Standard rules operate on a "if it's not specifically allowed, it's prohibited basis", which is evidenced by:

19. Modifications which are permitted are limited to:

++ 19.1 Replacement of, or modification to, sights, hammers and cylinder releases;

++ 19.2 Replacement barrels, provided the barrel length is the same as the OFM standard;

++ 19.3 Cosmetic enhancements which do not give a competitive advantage (e.g. plating, checkering of frames, custom grips);

++ 19.4 Modifications to the cylinder to accept “Moon Clips”.

So if "chamfering" is different to Point 19.4 then, no, it's not permitted because it seems to me that it would be a "competitive advantage" which is prohibited under Point 19.3 (but I'm not a Revolver expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

Given that the conversion to moonclips is a huge advantage in speeding a re-load, why not consider allowing for the chamfering of charge holes to ease the burden on those folks wanting to play the game with speed-loader type revolvers?

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

I have no problem with your suggestion but, during the 12 months we were writing the new rulebooks, none of the revolver guys said a word to us about allowing chamfering, so we basically left Revolver Standard Division alone. The only things I recall hearing from Revolver shooters were:

1. Require (or at least suggest) that stages be 6 round neutral;

2. Create a new Revolver Open Division;

3. Allow +6 rounders to shoot to capacity in RS Division.

-:but for every supporter of the above, we had an objection, and that's why nothing changed in RS Division except for the addition of one line which says "semi-automatic" (i.e. Mateba) revolvers do not qualify for Revolver Standard Division. As you know, I spent a lot of time here (and in another 3 or 4 forums) during 2003 looking for ideas, and I got a whole bunch of them, but not much more than the 3 points above when it came to RS Division.

However I'll certainly make a note to deal with it in the next edition. In the meantime, if there's popular support, I'll try to arrange a Rule 11.8 interpretation to allow chamfering, but the huddled masses need to rise up and scream at me

[diehli]

ARRRRRRRRRGH!!!

Oh... you said "huddled masses," not "befuddled asses." I should wear my reading glasses when I post.

Seriously, though: my understanding of converting a cylinder to accept moonclips includes a bit of chargehole chamfering to allow the rounds to be slightly off in the clip, but still get into the holes and then align as the whole mess is seated (by weight or by hand). Am I wrong?

[Nik Habicht]

I'm not a revolver shooter --- so I spent no time thinking about the division rules until I saw that little blurb above ---- which prompted my little (and few remaining) gray cells to spew forth that proposal....

[spook]

Chamfering is allowed (on S&W revo's), since the Performance Center does that on request.

BTW, what ever happened to the word "external" in the revolver rules. I could have sworn it was there before. It said: "external modifications are limited to....etc."

Why the change? It's starting to look like production. I want to be able to swap springs and stuff.

[Yoda]

Anyway, the IPSC Revolver Standard rules operate on a "if it's not specifically allowed, it's prohibited basis", which is evidenced by:

19. Modifications which are permitted are limited to:

++ 19.1 Replacement of, or modification to, sights, hammers and cylinder releases;

++ 19.2 Replacement barrels, provided the barrel length is the same as the OFM standard;

++ 19.3 Cosmetic enhancements which do not give a competitive advantage (e.g. plating, checkering of frames, custom grips);

++ 19.4 Modifications to the cylinder to accept “Moon Clips”.

So if "chamfering" is different to Point 19.4 then, no, it's not permitted because it seems to me that it would be a "competitive advantage" which is prohibited under Point 19.3 (but I'm not a Revolver expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

Vince,

I have to admit that I did not notice this problem when we discussed the rules last year (although I am a wheelgunner). In a previous rules version (14th edition January 2001) it was described as "internal modifications to improve reliability and functioning such as modifications to accept moon clips are allowed."

This wording had changed in the 14th edition January 2003 and I completely overlooked it . It is my firm belief that chamfering the charge holes is a smaller INTERNAL modification than the clip modification where the cylinder en ejector have to be slimmed down to accept the clips. Also - the modification to clips is definetely a competitive advantage and specifically allowed. I would like to share the chamfering under the same policy.

May I suggest to add it under 11.8 provisions?

[Flexmoney]

I'm with Nik and the boys...

I also thought the restrictions were for "external modifications"?

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

I checked my library of rules and this is what I found:

IPSC 14th Edition September 2000 rulebook:

e) External modifications are not allowed except as follows:

-- replacement sights

-- replacement grips

-- replacement cylinder releases

f) Internal modifications to improve function and reliability are allowed.

IPSC 14th Edition September 2002 rulebook:

18. Modifications such as weights or other devices to control and/or to reduce recoil are prohibited.

19. Modifications which are permitted are limited to:

-- a. Replacement or modified sights, hammers and cylinder releases;

-- b. Replacement barrels provided the barrel length is the same as the original factory standard;

-- c. Cosmetic enhancements which do not give a competitive advantage (e.g. plating, checkering of frames, custom grips);

-- d. Modifications to the cylinder to accept “Moon Clips”.

IPSC January 2004 rulebook:

18. Modifications such as weights or other devices to control and/or to reduce recoil are prohibited.

19. Modifications which are permitted are limited to:

-- 19.1 Replacement of, or modification to, sights, hammers and cylinder releases;

-- 19.2 Replacement barrels, provided the barrel length is the same as the OFM standard;

-- 19.3 Cosmetic enhancements which do not give a competitive advantage (e.g. plating, checkering of frames, custom grips);

-- 19.4 Modifications to the cylinder to accept “Moon Clips”.

As you can see, there were hardly any changes between the last (2002) and current (2004) rulebooks, apart from numbering. The major change of removing the words "internal" and "external" occurred between the 2000 and 2002 Editions, largely because it's tough to define what's "internal" and "external", especially with revolvers. However the word "chamfering" has never appeared in RS Division.

Anyway, it's not a big deal. I'm sure we can issue an interpretation under Rule 11.8 at the next IPSC Executive Council meeting next month in Las Vegas to say "chamfering" is allowable under 19.4.

And I'm sure my old mate Kees "The Flying Dutchman Wheelgunner' Guichelaar who will be attending will be watching me closely with a big stick to make sure that I raise the issue. Ya see, he's bigger 'n meaner than me, so I always do what he tells me to do

[spook]

Vince and Kees (hi Kees),

The most common and inexpensive ways to make he sixguns shoot is the internal tuning of the guns (this mostly consists of polishing the internals and swapping the springs). I'd throw the whole "Internal modifications to improve function and reliability are allowed"- thing back in. I'm willing to bet that 98-99% of the shooters have "illegal" tuning done to their revolvers (springs and/or polishing)

Please, don't make RSD as restrictive as production division.

Bjorn Dietrich

[Vince Pinto]

Spook,

I know I need to do more research (and maybe you can help me) but my concern with allowing "internal" mods is the expense, but I admit to having conflicting thoughts on the mattter.

On one hand, I'd hate to see $$$ having a major influence on the outcome of a match where, say, Joe Public with a highly worked, soft-shooting, performance centre S&W 625 has a huge advantage over Leo The LEO with a bog standard, high-torque 357 revolver issued by his Department.

On the other hand, RS Division has not attracted as many LEOs as I would have hoped, and I also recognise that pistols are gradually (mostly?) replacing revolvers as duty guns, so perhaps we are catering purely to recreational sport shooters.

Your (and other revolver shooters) further thoughts and guidance would be appreciated.

[spook]

Vince, I'd be glad to help you out with questions that you have (if I can be of help, that is )

I'd hate to see $$$ having a major influence on the outcome of a match

I think this is nice philosophy. The game should be fun for most people. Not just the guys with lots of cash to blow.

But, I would think that for instance, even the guy with the issued model 10 .38 can chamfer the cylinder on his gun without much trouble. I did it myself (and I am a technical retard). He can switch a spring or two in a matter of minutes. These are all modifications that are (IMO an experience) inexpensive and easy to do.

I think (another IMO!) that there's not much to gain in RSD by modifying the gun. The "capacity" is fixed (I know, I know, 8 shooter can play too as long as they only pull the trigger 6 times), sights are all post and notch and grips can be switched easily. This makes all guns that compete more or less equal.

Only thing that makes a revolver more competitive (IMO) is the caliber (shooting a .45 major is easier than shooting a .357 magnum major), federal primers, and an OK trigger (notice the OK It doesn't have to be perfect)

In other words, you can give me a stock 625, a $15 springkit, a small file and 10 hours of dryfire and it'll be just as comptitive as a 625 + $1000 worth of gunsmithing (Hell, I wouldn't even know what to spend the $1000 on in an IPSC revolver). Keep the "capacity" fixed (6 shots because that is what most people have), prohibit ports and optics and you have the most "equal" division of them all.

[shred]

Spook's got it right.. Revos are limited on capacity most, then on trigger pull by what will set off a primer. Since you can only go so far, it doesn't make much sense to throw down more limits.

An additional problem is the bazillion revolvers already out there. We all know the early S&Ws were built better and had better triggers, but whos to know if that used gun-show special was worked on after the factory or not?

[Vince Pinto]

Spook,

Convincing arguments, especially the one about "How the hell do you spend $1,000 on a modifying a revolver?". Guess you can't, unless we're talking about a diamond front sight, gold inlay and ivory grips, none of which add any functionality or give you a competitive advantage.

OK, any other views? Where's Yoda? Out in the Tulip fields again?

[Garfield]

he's bigger 'n meaner than me

Have you seen him lately ?

For no apparent reason he decided to lose some weight and is quite successful at it too

Anyway, interesting discussion. I too think that Spook is right on the money (no pun intended).

[Yoda]

Hi Spook, Vince and Garfield,

I have to agree with Spook - the $1000 is better spent on buying ammo (or reloading) and training then on fancy gunsmithing. Most of the costs with pistol gunsmithing have to do with complicated trigger jobs, slide to frame fitting, recoilmasters, checkering, etc. Those are almost non-existent with the wheelgunners. A good set of Wolf springs, 5 minutes to disassemble and reassemble the gun and there you go. A buddy of mine even tuned his triggerpull on a Taurus revolver by filling it with household scrub (cleaner) and dryfiring. This honed the internal parts very well in only a few hours dryfiring (while watching TV). Also a good exercise for trigger control

BTW Garfield - I have to compensate my loss of weight somehow - I've grown MEANER!

[Vince Pinto]

Hey,

What the hell's going on here, huh? Is this the Dutch Mafia? We've got Spook, Garfield and Yoda for sure, and God knows how many other Nederlanders lurking about with Sidewinder Windmills, Kevlar Clogs and Tactical Tulips. I'm afraid. I'm very afraid

OK guys, you've convinced me - I'll definitely bring up the matter at the meeting next month to see what we can do, and I'll report back here.

Thanks to all for your input on this subject

[diehli]

Vince... it's the windmills and clogs. Some sort of weird natural evolution to seek familiar shapes, materials, and actions in their firearms as they find about the countryside.

Kinda like me... I like foods made from dough.

[Radagast]

From Tod Green's site: 357 Magnum/Winchester 125 gr jhp does 1375 froma S&W M66 4.00 inch barrel.

This is just under major powerfactor. I would suggest dropping the major powerfactor requirement to match open.

Again, a trigger job should be allowed, some revolvers have horrible double action pulls that can be greatly improved by polishing or changing springs. From my reading of the rules neither would be allowed, consistent shot to shot double action shooting is difficult enough for me with a good trigger.

Vince,

Peter Muscat is rebarrelling smiths with slab sided barrels here in OZ, would this be considered legal as a replacement barrel, or illegal as a recoil control weight?

I'm personally in favour of 8 shot revolvers being allowed to shoot 8 shots in revolver division. From my perspective the fun isn't there when dealing with 8 shot shooting positions. I will admit that the pro revolver crowd on the Aussie forum shouted me down on that one, so I guess I'm in the minority here. I just wonder how many more revolver shooters we would get if we allowed the 8 shooters to play to capacity, only against their own. Here in OZ most owners buy a gun specifically to shoot IPSC, if the 8 shooter is what is competitive, they may sell, then we would have a faster moving division, which might grow in support.

Ken

[spook]

[...]if the 8 shooter is what is competitive, they may sell, then we would have a faster moving division, which might grow in support.

OTOH, there's a bazillion 6 shooters laying around in people's gun safes. RSD is a great beginners division right now.

[...]if the 8 shooter is what is competitive[...]

This is not a valid argument IMO. It would make just as much sense as allowing comps and dots in Production Division to make those guns more competitive.

In what way are 8 shot revolvers more competitive? RSD shooters compete against other RSD shooters. If all the top shooters switched to 8 shooters, you would be just as competitive as you were before. It would mean that 6 shooter are less cometitive, though. But I would still get my ass kicked by Jerry M, shooting his 8 shot 627.

[Vince Pinto]

Ken,

I would suggest dropping the major powerfactor requirement to match open.

That's certainly a possibility. As far as I can tell, it helps everybody and hurts nobody.

Again, a trigger job should be allowed, some revolvers have horrible double action pulls that can be greatly improved by polishing or changing springs. From my reading of the rules neither would be allowed, consistent shot to shot double action shooting is difficult enough for me with a good trigger.

This is obviously a popular request from purely competitive shooters but not from those using duty or service revolvers. Needs some thought but I suspect an increase to the permitted modifications is more likely than not.

Peter Muscat is rebarrelling smiths with slab sided barrels here in OZ, would this be considered legal as a replacement barrel, or illegal as a recoil control weight?

This is something we're going to deal with next month in Las Vegas. Under current rules, an aftermarket barrel would have to be the same length as the original but weights are illegal, so my call today is that slab-sided barrels are illegal (but you know that already!)

I'm personally in favour of 8 shot revolvers being allowed to shoot 8 shots in revolver division.

This is very unlikely to find support. We were conscious from the very outset that we did not want to discourage 6 shot revolvers and, regardless of what capacity revolver you have, it's a level playing field limiting "shots fired" to 6. Judging from various comments here and in other forums, my conclusion is that we have more to lose than gain by allowing "shoot to capacity".

[Yoda]

I just wonder how many more revolver shooters we would get if we allowed the 8 shooters to play to capacity, only against their own. Here in OZ most owners buy a gun specifically to shoot IPSC, if the 8 shooter is what is competitive, they may sell, then we would have a faster moving division, which might grow in support.

Ken,

you answer your own question - you won't attract any new revolver shooters by changing from 6-shooters to 8-shooters. As you say, they will be bought specifically for playing IPSC revolver. So if 6-shot rules they will buy a sixshooter, if 8-shot rules it will be an eightshooter. With the current 6-round rule anyone who owns a traditional fullsize revolver (even with the 5-shot small frames, although not very competitive) can compete on the same level. If you change it to 8 rounds the competitive shooter will have to invest in an 8-shooter while the casual shooter cannot compete on an equal level (aside from shooting skills). Your proposition looks counterproductive to me.

[Radagast]

Spook, Yoda, I was expressing a personal opinion, which is not popular with the revolver shooters here in OZ, those with 8 shooters want to have an open revolver division instead.

From the view point of someone who shoots a Glock 17A in Production, 6 round friendly stages suck for the autoloaders, reloading and dropping a magazine every three seconds just doesn't flow freely. Nor does whacking in another speed loader. 8 shots with moon clips has a good chance of keeping up with the flow of a match that is designed to cater for the autoloader majority, and thus will be more fun to shoot. Remember, it's half gun, the rest is run.

Yes an 8 shooter can be used in Production, but it won't be competitive against 10 plus 1 in a neutered mag or 15 plus in a non neutered one.

the very fact that we get so few wheel gunners at matchs suggests it's not that interesting to them when using the 6 round guns. I feel that the 8 rounders will attract people who like the flow of an IPSC match.

Anyway, I've been shouted down in OZ and it looks like I'm in a minority of one here as well.

Ken

[spook]

Radagast,

I'm sorry if my reply seemed a little harsh. That was in no way my intention. If I were you, I'd be shooting my 8 shooter in any of the other divisions. Over here (IPSC rules) we have a max of 9 shots/position. If it were 8 shots/position like in USPSA, I'd be shooting one of those sweet 627 .38 supers in Open div. as we speak.

The whole flow part might be true for USPSA, but over here, I see at least one 9 round array every match (and you have to admit that shooting 6 and dumping three is better than shooting 8 and dumping 7 right )

I like the idea of Open revolver division as a separate division, though. But in stock, I'd never go past the 6 round limit. And again this is also just my opinion. I didn't mean to flame you

Björn