Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Competitions & Upcoming Events
IDPA/SSR change
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1443713" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Not quite as funny if you knew me. For a little perspective, I'm one of the three people most responsible for the SSR PF change. Between myself and the other two who lobbied to get it changed, we hold ALL of the IDPA Nationals SSR division titles since the ESR/SSR split in 2005. We were also partially responsible for the ESR/SSR split, which all complaints to the contrary, has increased overall revolver participation in IDPA. All three of us won with K-Frames (Model 19's and one 66 to be specific). All three of us have literally worn out and broken revolvers in the quest for those titles. So sorry if I came off as a little harsh (as did you), but it IS a little personal for me. <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>All three of us travel the country competing in IDPA. All three of us design, SO, and run matches all over the country, to include the Nationals. All three of us talk personally to IDPA shooters from all over the world and count many of those responsible for holding IDPA matches as personal friends. We've talked to many, many shooters who expressed a desire to shoot revolvers in competition, but couldn't or wouldn't due to logistical issues. </p><p></p><p>Let's examine those "Full Power Service loads" (actually, it's "full charge service ammunition"). What exactly is that? Most people would probably say that it's a full power JHP load for the caliber specified. Do you always use a JHP load when you compete? Do agencies that issue service ammunition always use JHP's during qualifications? No, because it wouldn't be cost effective. Competitors and agencies use lead or FMJ ammunition that approximates their service load to save money. So what is an approximate load for SSR? Page 28 in the ammunition section of the IDPA rulebook states: "The goal is to compete with “service type” ammunition, not light target ammunition." What is the traditional light target load for .38 Special? It's a 148gr HBWC load at a nominal 700fps (Federal lists the Gold Medal Match at 690). That's a 102 PF, which doesn't meet the new criteria, even when considering the PF advantage of a fairly heavy bullet. </p><p></p><p>Now let's take a look at common .38 Special defense loads. Under Federal's Premium Personal Defense category: P38MA 125gr Nyclad - 103PF, PD38HS3H 110gr Hydra-Shok &#8211; 108PF, P38HS1 129gr +P Hydra-Shok &#8211; 122PF. Winchester's offerings under the Personal Protection section: X38S9HP Silvertip - 104PF, X38S7PH 125 +P JHP - 118PF, X38S8HP 125 +P Silvertip &#8211; 118PF, X38SPD 158 +P LSWCHP &#8211; 140PF. Speer loads: 23720 125gr +P Gold Dot HP &#8211; 118PF, 23921 135gr +P Gold Dot Short Barrel &#8211; 116PF. So from 3 major ammunition manufacturers published load data for nine .38 Special “service type ammunition” loads (both +P and non-+P), we have an average PF of 116. Only one of those loads exceeds the old 125PF, primarily due to its 158gr weight. Four of these nine loads average a mere 108PF.</p><p></p><p>Now let’s look at what you would call “target” loads from these manufacturers, which actually aren’t target loads so much as “practice” loads. Federal AE38K 130gr FMJ &#8211; 116PF, AE38B &#8211; 158gr LRN - 122PF. Winchester Q4171 130gr FMJ &#8211; 104PF, Q4196 150gr LRN &#8211; 127PF, USA38JHP 125gr +P JHP &#8211; 118PF. Speer Lawman 53750 & 53833 158gr +P TMJ &#8211; 142PF each. So for seven practice loads, the average is 124PF. The bottom 4 loads in this bunch average 115PF. The two most prevalent loads available at your nearest Wally World are going to average about 110PF. So, based on this data, which pretty much represents what’s available as service ammunition, which is a better eqivalent for .38 Special in competition, 125PF or 105PF? I didn’t include Remington in this because they didn’t list load data openly on their website, but including it wouldn’t change the numbers much. </p><p></p><p>Factoring for atmospheric conditions and velocity variances between individual guns (we tested about 10 when recommending this change), the 105PF represented a safe margin for most every SSR shooter. Now you could literally fly to a match, pick up ammo locally if necessary (because the airline lost your checked bag with your ammo in it) and shoot the match you spent a lot of money getting to without getting disqualified because you didn’t make power.</p><p></p><p>The rulebook does not require the use of .38+P as a minimum, nor is it always desirable. the .38 Special cartridge isn't a 9mm equivalent and we shouldn't try to make it one. We should also remember that IDPA is a sport for everyone, not just members of the He Man Woman Hater’s Club. Not everyone will be as tolerant of recoil as some. I’ve listened to Jerry Miculek say for the last couple of years that he was going to give up ESR, because the recoil is tearing him up. I know that shooting 300 round practice sessions with 130PF ammo in my 19 was not at all pleasant, even compared to shooting 165PF in my polymer KZ-45 when I shot CDP. </p><p></p><p>Sorry I jumped your case earlier, but we put a lot of thought and effort into bringing about this change. I didn’t have time to type up this lengthy explanation at the time. Hopefully, this will give you reason to reconsider the whether the change is BS. Of course you don’t have to agree with it, but that’s why there are 5 different divisions to choose from. </p><p></p><p>Okay, I'm back on my meds now! <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p><img src="/images/smilies/rant.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":rant:" title="Rant :rant:" data-shortname=":rant:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1443713, member: 1132"] Not quite as funny if you knew me. For a little perspective, I'm one of the three people most responsible for the SSR PF change. Between myself and the other two who lobbied to get it changed, we hold ALL of the IDPA Nationals SSR division titles since the ESR/SSR split in 2005. We were also partially responsible for the ESR/SSR split, which all complaints to the contrary, has increased overall revolver participation in IDPA. All three of us won with K-Frames (Model 19's and one 66 to be specific). All three of us have literally worn out and broken revolvers in the quest for those titles. So sorry if I came off as a little harsh (as did you), but it IS a little personal for me. :) All three of us travel the country competing in IDPA. All three of us design, SO, and run matches all over the country, to include the Nationals. All three of us talk personally to IDPA shooters from all over the world and count many of those responsible for holding IDPA matches as personal friends. We've talked to many, many shooters who expressed a desire to shoot revolvers in competition, but couldn't or wouldn't due to logistical issues. Let's examine those "Full Power Service loads" (actually, it's "full charge service ammunition"). What exactly is that? Most people would probably say that it's a full power JHP load for the caliber specified. Do you always use a JHP load when you compete? Do agencies that issue service ammunition always use JHP's during qualifications? No, because it wouldn't be cost effective. Competitors and agencies use lead or FMJ ammunition that approximates their service load to save money. So what is an approximate load for SSR? Page 28 in the ammunition section of the IDPA rulebook states: "The goal is to compete with “service type” ammunition, not light target ammunition." What is the traditional light target load for .38 Special? It's a 148gr HBWC load at a nominal 700fps (Federal lists the Gold Medal Match at 690). That's a 102 PF, which doesn't meet the new criteria, even when considering the PF advantage of a fairly heavy bullet. Now let's take a look at common .38 Special defense loads. Under Federal's Premium Personal Defense category: P38MA 125gr Nyclad - 103PF, PD38HS3H 110gr Hydra-Shok – 108PF, P38HS1 129gr +P Hydra-Shok – 122PF. Winchester's offerings under the Personal Protection section: X38S9HP Silvertip - 104PF, X38S7PH 125 +P JHP - 118PF, X38S8HP 125 +P Silvertip – 118PF, X38SPD 158 +P LSWCHP – 140PF. Speer loads: 23720 125gr +P Gold Dot HP – 118PF, 23921 135gr +P Gold Dot Short Barrel – 116PF. So from 3 major ammunition manufacturers published load data for nine .38 Special “service type ammunition” loads (both +P and non-+P), we have an average PF of 116. Only one of those loads exceeds the old 125PF, primarily due to its 158gr weight. Four of these nine loads average a mere 108PF. Now let’s look at what you would call “target” loads from these manufacturers, which actually aren’t target loads so much as “practice” loads. Federal AE38K 130gr FMJ – 116PF, AE38B – 158gr LRN - 122PF. Winchester Q4171 130gr FMJ – 104PF, Q4196 150gr LRN – 127PF, USA38JHP 125gr +P JHP – 118PF. Speer Lawman 53750 & 53833 158gr +P TMJ – 142PF each. So for seven practice loads, the average is 124PF. The bottom 4 loads in this bunch average 115PF. The two most prevalent loads available at your nearest Wally World are going to average about 110PF. So, based on this data, which pretty much represents what’s available as service ammunition, which is a better eqivalent for .38 Special in competition, 125PF or 105PF? I didn’t include Remington in this because they didn’t list load data openly on their website, but including it wouldn’t change the numbers much. Factoring for atmospheric conditions and velocity variances between individual guns (we tested about 10 when recommending this change), the 105PF represented a safe margin for most every SSR shooter. Now you could literally fly to a match, pick up ammo locally if necessary (because the airline lost your checked bag with your ammo in it) and shoot the match you spent a lot of money getting to without getting disqualified because you didn’t make power. The rulebook does not require the use of .38+P as a minimum, nor is it always desirable. the .38 Special cartridge isn't a 9mm equivalent and we shouldn't try to make it one. We should also remember that IDPA is a sport for everyone, not just members of the He Man Woman Hater’s Club. Not everyone will be as tolerant of recoil as some. I’ve listened to Jerry Miculek say for the last couple of years that he was going to give up ESR, because the recoil is tearing him up. I know that shooting 300 round practice sessions with 130PF ammo in my 19 was not at all pleasant, even compared to shooting 165PF in my polymer KZ-45 when I shot CDP. Sorry I jumped your case earlier, but we put a lot of thought and effort into bringing about this change. I didn’t have time to type up this lengthy explanation at the time. Hopefully, this will give you reason to reconsider the whether the change is BS. Of course you don’t have to agree with it, but that’s why there are 5 different divisions to choose from. Okay, I'm back on my meds now! :) :rant: [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Competitions & Upcoming Events
IDPA/SSR change
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom