Wildcat IPSC Calibers
CLARITO DOMINE
Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the following
"wildcat" IPSC calibers - 9x21 mm, 9x23 mm, 9x25 Dillon ? Do you have to
have a gun built from the ground up to accept these calibers ? What advantage
do these cartridges provide ?
THanks.
Jeffrey Maass
CLARITO DOMINE (dom...@sfsu.edu) wrote:
: Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the following
: "wildcat" IPSC calibers - 9x21 mm, 9x23 mm, 9x25 Dillon ? Do you have to
: have a gun built from the ground up to accept these calibers ? What advantage
: do these cartridges provide ?
9x21, as used for IPSC, was direct outgrowth of a ruling by USPSA (the US
Region IPSC governing body) that 9mm Parabellum should not be loaded to
IPSC Major velocities. It cannot be done without exceeding SAAMI pressure
levels, and they were concerned about the liability with all those old
9mmP hanguns out there in unknon condition. People wanted to
use 9mmP in raceguns because you could get more rounds in the gun, and
capacity was being seen as increasingly important to be competitive. 9x21
existed as a caliber (especially in Italy, where military calibers like
9mmP cannot be used by 'civilians'), and there was no SAAMI pressure
set for it. So, some of the top IPSC shooters started loading 9x21 to the
same Overall Length as 9mmP, and got around the ruling.
I shoot 9x21 in a Caspian framed gun, and in Caspian/Para/STI/SV guns, the
overall length is longer than 9mmP (I load to 1.250"). This is in the same
range as .38 Super, and the 9x21 has the advantage of being rimless (helps
reliability in double-stack guns). It's a higher-pressure round, with less
case capacity than .38 Super, and I drive the 125gr JRN at the same
velocity as those with .38 Supers (around 1450 fps). This give plenty of
gas to drive the compensator. The capacity is the same as .38 Super in
these guns (19+1 in factory Caspian mags; 25+1 and 27+1 in my two extended
magazines).
9x25 Dilllon was an effort to get even more gas to drive the compensator,
since it had a much higher case capacity than .38 Super and could
therefore burn more powder. I've shot someone's 9x25 and watched others
shoot them: they actually recoil _down_! Problem is, they also push back
vigorously and are loader than your mother-in-law: really painful! The
115gr JRN typically used were drivn fast enought that they damaged the
steel targets used at clubs, and some clubs banned their use. Top
shooters (who can afford to buy all new equipment) have given them up for
the most part in favor of 9x23 or .38 Super (or .38 Super Rimless).
9x23 is the newest solution, and probably the one that will finally
replace .38 Super in Open Class competition among the top shooters. It's
essentially a rimless .38 Super, with the case strengthened at the
critical area of the web: it's really beefy! Winchester has started
loading 9x23 factory ammo (which will make IPSC Major power factor!), and
Colt is chambering a 1911-variant for this caliber. The applied-for SAAMI
pressure level is 50,000 PSI, which is pretty close to where IPSC folk
load .38 Super in the old Super +P cases. There's a detailed article about
9x23 in the August issue of Shooting Times.
Generally, using these calibers involves buying a gun from a gunsmith,
although some of the 'production custom' manufacturers (like Springfield
Armory) have them available off-the-shelf. All of these calibers should be
used only in guns with fully-supported barrels, and that generally means
an aftermarket barrel.
I'm probably going to have my racegun converted to 9x23 when the barrel is
ready for replacement (I've got 13,000 rounds through it since last
August, and I expect it will be ready this Fall).
DVC,
--
Jeff Maass (jma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us) Amateur Radio K8ND
USPSA/IPSC # L-1192 NROI/CRO NW of Columbus Ohio
Don Kenny
In <4r7l5a$1...@news.csus.edu> dom...@sfsu.edu (CLARITO DOMINE) writes:
#
#Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the
#following "wildcat" IPSC calibers - 9x21mm, 9x23mm, 9x25 Dillon?
#What advantage do these cartridges provide?
They do nothing except exist as sales items.
Note the following text from Jeff Cooper's newsletter:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the matter of cartridge design, things are no better. We really do
not need new cartridges, since the 45 ACP has been around since the
beginning and has not yet met its equal - for defensive utility
purposes. Yet, we now have a selection of 9's, including 9x17, two
varieties of 9x18, the 9x19, the 9x20, the 9x21, the 9x21.5, and the
9x22. This profusion of cartridge choices is obviously ridiculous.
The purpose of a pistol cartridge is to turn your opponent off with one
round. It is impossible to conceive how variations of 1 mm. of case
length are going to effect this capability. If you want more stopping
power than a 9mm affords, you need a larger bore and more mass - you
do not need more velocity. This conclusion was reached by the
knowledgeable decades ago and it has not been successfully
controverted. None of the various 9's is anymore conclusive in a fight
than any other. Why people just do not drop the subject is a mystery."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cheers
- Don Kenny (dke...@ix.netcom.com)
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA, CRPA
Shooting and Reloading For Nearly 40 Years
"Society Is Safer When Criminals Don't Know Who's Armed"
Ordinary_Guy
On Jul 01, 1996 23:41:41 in article <Wildcat IPSC Calibers>,
'dom...@sfsu.edu (CLARITO DOMINE)' wrote:
#Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the following
#"wildcat" IPSC calibers - 9x21 mm, 9x23 mm, 9x25 Dillon ? Do you have to
#have a gun built from the ground up to accept these calibers ? What
advantage
#do these cartridges provide ?
Clarito,
These cartridges were developed after IPSC regulated .38 Super Major loads
out of existence. To get major with the Super many folk were going to 30K,
40K, even 50K pressure units. Not even the supported barrels were entirely
safe. So new cartridges were introduced to bypass the rule and, ideally,
allow safer Major loads.
Regards,
Walt
Jeffrey Maass
Don Kenny (dke...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: #What advantage do these cartridges provide?
: They do nothing except exist as sales items.
: Note the following text from Jeff Cooper's newsletter:
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: "In the matter of cartridge design, things are no better. We really do
: not need new cartridges, since the 45 ACP has been around since the
: beginning and has not yet met its equal - for defensive utility
: purposes. Yet, we now have a selection of 9's, including 9x17, two
: varieties of 9x18, the 9x19, the 9x20, the 9x21, the 9x21.5, and the
: 9x22. This profusion of cartridge choices is obviously ridiculous.
: The purpose of a pistol cartridge is to turn your opponent off with one
: round. It is impossible to conceive how variations of 1 mm. of case
: length are going to effect this capability. If you want more stopping
: power than a 9mm affords, you need a larger bore and more mass - you
: do not need more velocity. This conclusion was reached by the
: knowledgeable decades ago and it has not been successfully
: controverted. None of the various 9's is anymore conclusive in a fight
: than any other. Why people just do not drop the subject is a mystery."
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bullhockey, Don.
You've successfully compared apples and orangatans, and quoted your holy
Lt. Colonel out of context to boot!
The poster specifically asked about the purpose of the development of the
specified IPSC wildcat calibers, *not* their value (stopping power, etc.) in
defense applications. Since none of the specified calibers (9x21, 9x23,
9x25 Dillon) have ever been held up as 'defense calibers', the Cooper
pontification above has no meaning in the context of the question.
The reason each of the calibers has been promoted within the *sport* of
IPSC as it exists today is that they provide some competitive advantage
within the context of the rules of the sport and the challenges faced by
shooters in the sport.
Saying they "...do nothing except exist as sales items." is a parochial
attempt to belittle every use for firearms and specific calibers _except_ for
defense applications, and thousands aren't buying that load of compost, as
demonstrated by the Champions and competitors in the sport as it exists today.
To paraphrase: "The purpose of a pistol caliber used in the sport of IPSC
is to allow the competitor to outperform the other competitors in the match."
Mike Starling
In article <4rdtl1$l...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, wjku...@usa.pipeline.com
(Ordinary_Guy) wrote:
# On Jul 01, 1996 23:41:41 in article <Wildcat IPSC Calibers>,
# 'dom...@sfsu.edu (CLARITO DOMINE)' wrote:
#
#
# #Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the following
# #"wildcat" IPSC calibers - 9x21 mm, 9x23 mm, 9x25 Dillon ? Do you have to
# #have a gun built from the ground up to accept these calibers ? What
# advantage
# #do these cartridges provide ?
#
# Clarito,
#
# These cartridges were developed after IPSC regulated .38 Super Major loads
# out of existence. To get major with the Super many folk were going to 30K,
# 40K, even 50K pressure units. Not even the supported barrels were entirely
# safe. So new cartridges were introduced to bypass the rule and, ideally,
# allow safer Major loads.
#
# Regards,
#
# Walt
Sorry folks, but the reason given in the reply is not correct.
9x21 was brought to play because 9x19 Major loads were banned in the
United States
by USPSA. 9x23 was brought to use because it is truly rimless and
"should" feed just
little bit better than Super. Rimless Super is also in use for the same reason.
9x25 was sought as a "safe" way to push 115 grain and lighter projectiles to the
velocities required to make major. It has other problems however ... like
very poor
barrel and comp life due to excessive gas cutting. It also generates
extraordinary
(not to be confused with muzzle flip).
38 Super works just fine with projectiles of 125 grains or more in guns
built like
bank vaults (as all good IPSC guns are built). That does not mean that
one does not
have to be very careful loading, use good brass (Rem +P), and expect more parts
breakage than when used with heavier bullets at lower velocities. After
all, 125 gr
slugs must make 1440 fps to safely make major under all temperatures and
altitudes.
135's must make only 1330.
Hope this gives just a little more insight thatn the previous discussion.
regards,
mike
Gary Napolitano
Don Kenny wrote:
#
# #
# #Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the
# #What advantage do these cartridges provide?
#
#From an IPSC standpoint ONLY they provide less recoil at major factor
velocities, sometimes feed better (9x25) and have higher capacity
than a similar 1911 style gun in .45. Those are the only reasons
I can think of.
Cooper is correct about "fighting" cartridges, in that the .45 has
no equal, but that was not your question.
I stopped shooting IPSC because I started carrying and felt
it was not (IMO) practical, and the rest of the world who makes
guns for carry must agree, because we see NO IPSC type RACE gear,
or calibers in/on carry guns.
Keith Whaley
Gary Napolitano wrote:
#
# #
# # In <4r7l5a$1...@news.csus.edu> dom...@sfsu.edu (CLARITO DOMINE) writes:
# # #
# # #Can anybody explain the rationale behind the development of the
# # #What advantage do these cartridges provide?
# #
#
# than a similar 1911 style gun in .45. Those are the only reasons
# I can think of.
#
# Cooper is correct about "fighting" cartridges, in that the .45 has
# no equal, but that was not your question.
#
# I stopped shooting IPSC because I started carrying and felt
# it was not (IMO) practical, and the rest of the world who makes
# guns for carry must agree, because we see NO IPSC type RACE gear,
# or calibers in/on carry guns.
In an "open letter" response to dom...@sfsu.edu (CLARITO DOMINE), I have to say that
a 9x21 is not a "wildcat" as it has been made over in Italy for some time (I'm told)
and certainly the 9x23 isn't, as the Spaniards have been making this cartridge since
about 1910! They call it the 9mm Largo, others call it the 9mm Bergmann-Bayard and
some just the 9x23mm.
keith <== aka: "Larg...@aol.com"
Mark Montana
I'd sure wouldn't want to be the criminal who tried to assualt even a D
class IPSC shooter, (none of whom would be carrying their 'match' gun,
most likely a Glock, some type of 1911or a S&W 640). The skills used in
any combat matches absolutely improve ones all around shooting skills.
The idea that IPSC skills don't work in real life is nonsense. Kind of
like saying we shouldn't shoot 22 rifles if we're going to shoot big game
with a 7mm mag! Give me a break. If you don't like to show up at a match
and have everybody watch you shoot- Just Say So.
As for the silly calibers, the search is for very high pressures that will
help the advanced compensators function, and work they do, some of these
calibers and compensated guns just don't have any muzzle rise.
See ya at the range
Dave
SYaw2
i just started ipsc i used a peice of crap glock 17 the 1st time sold it
and bought a rossi m88 38 spl. now thats a practical gun. i agree some of
the guns used at are club are NOT practical.
BORDEN1000
I started ISPC shooting a couple of month ago with my SIG 226 cause it
is the only handgun I own.....no fancy sights or anything, just regular
gun...
I am slightly aware of the scoring system (major / minor)...IF I were to
purchase a second gun and give the 226 to my wife, (and I DON'T want a
1911) what is the caliber of choice???
I am not a SIG zelot, but I am currious about the SIG .357 How does
it stack up against the .40 or the 38 super ???
thanks is advance
bl
ps Is there a better holster for my 226 than the $9.00 "Sidekick" that
I am using ???
Jeffrey Maass
BORDEN1000 (borde...@aol.com) wrote:
: I started ISPC shooting a couple of month ago with my SIG 226 cause it
: is the only handgun I own.....no fancy sights or anything, just regular
: gun...
: I am slightly aware of the scoring system (major / minor)...IF I were to
: purchase a second gun and give the 226 to my wife, (and I DON'T want a
: 1911) what is the caliber of choice???
For Limited category guns (no compensator, no optics, et. al), .40 S&W is
the present 'best caliber', with a large majority of the winners using
them. The advantages are in the capacity available. You can buy a Para
P16-40 right now (through August, I believe) and get a certificate to
allow you to buy up to 4 16-round magazines for around $47 each (only 2 if
you are not a USPSA member). Those pre-ban mags can be legally extended to
19 rounds each with products on the market, giving you 19+1 rounds when
the timer starts!
.40 caliber is the smallest that can be score IPSC Major in Limited
category: see below.
: I am not a SIG zelot, but I am currious about the SIG .357 How does
: it stack up against the .40 or the 38 super ???
The .357 SIG round cannot be scored IPSC Major: caliber must be at least
.40" for Limited to make Major (with specific exception made for .357
Magnum in revolvers ONLY: don't ask!). You REALLY REALLY want to avoid
being scored Minor unless you NEVER shoot anything bu A-zone hits: it's
too big a penalty!
: ps Is there a better holster for my 226 than the $9.00 "Sidekick" that
: I am using ???
Absolutely, but only you can decide what you want in terms of use away
from the IPSC match (if you carry at all).
If what you want is the fastest Limited holster for competition, then the
Safariland 009/010, or the Hellweg race holster, or even the Spillmor...er,
Gilmore are faster. Not good for carry, though.
There are a numbr of good, rigid, carry holsters that will be much faster
than the "Sidekick" as well, although I don't have any info about them.
CLARITO DOMINE
: 38 Super works just fine with projectiles of 125 grains or more in guns
: built like
: bank vaults (as all good IPSC guns are built). That does not mean that
: one does not
: have to be very careful loading, use good brass (Rem +P), and expect more parts
: breakage than when used with heavier bullets at lower velocities. After
: all, 125 gr
: slugs must make 1440 fps to safely make major under all temperatures and
: altitudes.
: 135's must make only 1330.
Which brings us the recent announcement by Colt and Winchester to promote
the 9x23 cartridge as an alternative to the 38 Super. I called Shooting Times
and asked why not just load 9mm Largo hotter. They said it was a matter of
cartridge dimensions.
Any comments ?
Also, let me ask what is wrong with 40S&W for IPSC ? Am I missing
something ?
Thanks.
Tito
Jeffrey Maass
CLARITO DOMINE (dom...@sfsu.edu) wrote:
: : 38 Super works just fine with projectiles of 125 grains or more in guns
: : built like
: : bank vaults (as all good IPSC guns are built). That does not mean that
: : one does not
: : have to be very careful loading, use good brass (Rem +P), and expect more parts
: : breakage than when used with heavier bullets at lower velocities. After
: : all, 125 gr
: : slugs must make 1440 fps to safely make major under all temperatures and
: : altitudes.
: : 135's must make only 1330.
: Which brings us the recent announcement by Colt and Winchester to promote
: the 9x23 cartridge as an alternative to the 38 Super. I called Shooting Times
: and asked why not just load 9mm Largo hotter. They said it was a matter of
: cartridge dimensions.
The case of the 9x23 is *much* thicker at the base than the Largo. At IPSC
pressures, you don't want to load Largo brass like 9x23 will be loaded.
I'm not sure what the current SAAMI perssure limit is for Largo, but the
requested limit for 9x23 is 50,000 psi. The limit for .38 Super is 32,000
or so (don't have my book here), and there is *NO* commercial .38 Super
loading that makes even close to IPSC Major (even Corbon).
: Also, let me ask what is wrong with 40S&W for IPSC ? Am I missing
: something ?
Nothing, especially for Limited category, where the caliber has to be
.40" or large to be scored Major. In Open category, where there is no
scoring limitation of that type, you lose 2 rounds or more in capacity from
the .38 Super/9x21/9x23 in the high-capacity frames, and that's a ticket to
losing in IPSC (1 reload costs 1-2.5 seconds, depending on your skill, and
opens the door for a possible jam: one more thing to go wrong, and
therefore to be avoided).
An A-Class shooter locally shoots a .40S&W Para-framed racegun, and does OK
with it. He'd prefer one of the rounds permitting more capacity, but he's
firearms officer for his local police agency, and gets his reloading
componants for FREE! Big incentive...
DVC,
Jeffrey Maass
master blaster (gbal...@loop.com) wrote:
: jma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Jeffrey Maass) wrote:
: #The case of the 9x23 is *much* thicker at the base than the Largo. At IPSC
: #pressures, you don't want to load Largo brass like 9x23 will be loaded.
: #I'm not sure what the current SAAMI perssure limit is for Largo, but the
: #requested limit for 9x23 is 50,000 psi. The limit for .38 Super is 32,000
: #or so (don't have my book here), and there is *NO* commercial .38 Super
: #loading that makes even close to IPSC Major (even Corbon).
: I don't think you should go as far as saying not "to load Largo brass
: like 9x23 will be loaded." A lot of IPSC shooters who use 9x23 use
: Starline brass --- initially advertised as "Largo (9x23)" and now
: advertised only as "Largo" --- in my area. Most of the people
: I have talked to use 125 grain bullets.
You are right, I don't have any reason to suspect that modern-production Largo
brass (e.g. Starline) should be any more precarious at IPSC pressures than
current .38 Super loadings. Most .38 Super IPSC major loadings for 124/125
grain loads appear to be in the 40,000 psi pressure neighborhood (well in
excess of the SAAMI standard), and I'm not sure what the SAAMI standard
for 9x23 Largo is (if there ever was one). I'm sure that my 9x21 is loaded
to near 45000+ psi with 125gr JRN at 1450 fps in that stubby little case.
The requested SAAMI standard for 9x23 Winchester is 50,000 psi. The newer
CP 9x23 and 9x23 Winchester brass is *much* beefier in the web than is
modern +P .38 Super brass or 9x21 : is this true of 9x23 Largo as well? Is the
case taper _identical_ to the new 9x23 Winchester specs? How many firings
at IPSC Major loading with 124/125gr bullets are these folk getting out of the
Starline 9x23 Largo brass?
: ... but then again, have you experienced or heard of any major
: blowups with shooters using Starline Largo brass?
No, I haven't. The database of competitors using 9x23 is, however,
still fairly small among the IPSC folk, so I would guess we need to assume
that the jury is still out. I expect that we'll see some loadings with
faster powders that push real hard on 50,000 psi, and probably will press
right on through in search for the 'perfect compensator function' (near
9x25 Dillon performance with 115gr bullets).
Not much room for compromise or error up there in 'nosebleed territory'!
master blaster
jma...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Jeffrey Maass) wrote:
#The case of the 9x23 is *much* thicker at the base than the Largo. At IPSC
#pressures, you don't want to load Largo brass like 9x23 will be loaded.
#I'm not sure what the current SAAMI perssure limit is for Largo, but the
#requested limit for 9x23 is 50,000 psi. The limit for .38 Super is 32,000
#or so (don't have my book here), and there is *NO* commercial .38 Super
#loading that makes even close to IPSC Major (even Corbon).
I don't think you should go as far as saying not "to load Largo brass
like 9x23 will be loaded." A lot of IPSC shooters who use 9x23 use
Starline brass --- initially advertised as "Largo (9x23)" and now
advertised only as "Largo" --- in my area. Most of the people
I have talked to use 125 grain bullets.
... but then again, have you experienced or heard of any major