The IPSC, USPSA and the .327 Magnum

[Timthinker]

According to my understanding, both the IPSC (International Practical Shooting Confederation) and the USPSA (United States Practical Shooting Association) will not allow handguns smaller than the 9mm Parabellum to be used at their respective matches. Is it possible those rules might be changed to allow for the use of the new .327 Magnum revolvers? This is a topic that I do not believe anyone has yet addressed. Given our diverse membership, I am certain someone here can attempt to answer this question. Thanks in advance.


Timthinker

 

[Kind of Blued]

Here's a question: Do you, or anyone, want to use the cartridge in competition?

Sounds expensive and/or time-consuming...

 

[Timthinker]

The reason I ask this question is due to the popularity-or some may use the term hype-the .327 seems to be generating. Proponents of this round are claiming near .357 Magnum power with much less recoil. These glowing estimates of the .327s purported capabilites lead me to wonder if those involved in practical shooting competitions have been questioned about admitting this new round into their contests.

Granted, the .327 is a new round with a very limited number of handguns chambered for it. Plus, such shooting contests tend to be predominated by semi-auto handguns, if my impression of such matches is correct. Still, I wonder if the topic of the .327 has been discussed by competitors involved in these matches. Hopefully, this explanation helps explain why I started this thread.


Timthinker

 

[Eightball]

I would wonder more about ICORE matches than IPSC or USPSA, but that would negate the above question.

If they were going to add in an exception, I would imagine it would have to be very precise as to allow only certain .327 loads soas to keep the competition fair.

 

[General Geoff]

Why would caliber diameter be restricted to 9mm and above? What about folks that want to use 7.62 tokarev in these competitions? Or .32ACP? What does this rule accomplish?

 

[Mooseman]

I think its so folks don't use really low recoiling guns for the competitions.

 

[MrBorland]

Granted, the .327 is a new round with a very limited number of handguns chambered for it.

Don't know the answer to your original question; if the .327 isn't allowed, if it shows itself to be a legit SD round, perhaps it will be in the future.

When it comes to competitive combat revolver shooting, though, a big issue (in addition to the # of guns chambered for it) is the availability of speedloaders. AFAIK, there aren't any yet for the .327mag.

Also, from what I've seen, there seems to be some factory ammo that'd make the 125k minor power factor, but, even so, the .327 mag is a high pressure round. Recoil may be relatively low, but my bet is the muzzle blast and noise is impressive. For combat revolver shooting competitions, I personally would opt for a round in which speedloaders are available, and achieves the required PF with the relatively low pressure.

 

[Timthinker]

I appreciate all the answers so far. Still, I hold out hope that someone involved in the IPSC or USPSA might be able to give a more definitive answer. General Geoff asked a relevant question that I think I can answer. The late Jeff Cooper was instrumental in the creation of the USPSA as I understand its history. Given Cooper's disdain for small caliber handguns, the rules against them seem somewhat understandable. At least, that is my reading of the tea leaves. Hopefully, someone knowledgeable about these organizations may shed some light here. Thanks again.


Timthinker

 

[Jim Watson]

if my impression of such matches is correct.

Impression? Do you SHOOT "such matches?" If so, with what revolver, and what advantage do you see to a .327 vs a .357 loaded to the same power factor? If not, why do you care?

Proponents of this round are claiming near .357 Magnum power with much less recoil

Such "proponents" as I have read are either advertising agents or general circulation gun magazine writers, which amounts to the same thing. And "near" has many meanings to such people.

 

[BikerRN]

Gee, another handgun round.

I'm not against the concept, I just don't believe the "hype". Until the .327 Magnum has some documented history of stopping a felon it's all a guessing game. I don't like guessing games.

I doubt that the caliber will be allowed in a shooting venue for national or international competition, but I could be wrong. Personally I would like things to remain as they are in regards to competition caliber selection, but that's just me.

I will not be using a .327 anytime soon. I'm not even on the 40 "band-wagon" yet, but I do like the 357 Sig.

BikerRN

 

[Johnboy53]

I'm going to get a 686 S&W cylinder cut for moons to shoot the 9mm and 38 super. the 327 is to much for that kind of shooting. Plus if you down load, then it don't have enough butt behind it.

 

[Crazy Fingers]

The point of the rule is to keep people from using very low recoiling cartridges which would normally be unsuitable for serious pistol work. But to assume that recoil and caliber (as in bullet width) are related is completely ignorant. You cannot tell me that a .257 Weatherby has less recoil than a .45 ACP. But it certainly is a smaller caliber. Recoil is a product of bullet weight and velocity divided by gun weight. This should be the number which is regulated, not caliber.

As it stands now, some guy can get a 4 pound 1911, put a really light recoil spring in it, download .45 ACP, and shoot all day, but a guy shooting full power .327 Mag can't do it because he is using too weak of a cartridge. Ridiculous.

 

[Crazy Fingers]

The point of the rule is to keep people from using very low recoiling cartridges which would normally be unsuitable for serious pistol work. But to assume that recoil and caliber (as in bullet width) are related is completely ignorant. You cannot tell me that a .257 Weatherby has less recoil than a .45 ACP. But it certainly is a smaller caliber. Recoil is a product of bullet weight and velocity divided by gun weight. This should be the number which is regulated.

As it stands now, some guy can get a 4 pound 1911, put a really light recoil spring in it, download .45 ACP, and shoot all day, but a guy shooting full power .327 Mag can't shoot because he is using too weak of a cartridge. Ridiculous.

 

[Timthinker]

Sorry for the delay in posting this reply, but some pressing personal matters have taken priority. Now, one of our respected members wishes to know why I "care" about this matter. I believe he has asked a valid question. Hopefully, my response will do more than satisfy his curiosity. I also hope it will encourage our readers to take their respective training programs seriously.

Some years ago, I began studying unarmed and bladed fighting skills as a sort of "insurance policy" in case I should face an assault. I thought that possibility was somewhat remote. I was wrong. While out one evening, I encountered a punk armed with a cheap folding blade. Fortunately, I was able to draw my own folder and he beat a quick retreat. Truth be known, I also got away quickly after I was sure I would not be stabbed in the back. I firmly believe my weapon, supported by the confidence my training inspired, kept me from becoming the victim of a criminal assault. Afterwards, I began to incorporate handgun training into my self-defense training for obvious reasons.

While I have learned to shoot a variety of different handguns well, I realize training programs such as the IPSC would take my level of skill and confidence to a new level. Unfortunately, limited free time and financial constraints have prevented me from participating in such events. Hopefully, that will change in the near future.

I brought up the subject of the new .327 because it is being discussed as a potential CCW piece. Personally, I believe that bigger is better in terms of handgun rounds. But not everyone carries a handgun chambered for the 9mm cartridge or larger as many of our contributors have freely admitted. I hope this posing both clearifies matters and takes the high road in terms of replies.


Timthinker

 

[earplug]

I have shot some different types of shooting matches with some sort of skill,
I think the smaller rounds are handicaped by the lack of diameter to do damage to human organs, when used in IDPA or USPSA games.
Or it might be to the speed required to obtain the power factor to obtain minor classification. To much speed will damage steel targets without obtaining any real life advantage in defensive use. This hurts the sponsering clubs income.
Kind of like shooting 7.62x25 out of a M-52. Lots of noise, some target damage, but not a match or street round to bet one's life on,
Many hours of thinking have produced some decent rules for the games mentioned.
I don't think the new rounds will last ten years.
There has not been any great invention on the bullet or powder side of the house to dismiss the 158 grain .38 spl.

 

[Jim Watson]

Thanks for the clarification, the OP did not state your position in a manner that made me sympathetic to your interests.

First: If you showed up at my range (IDPA, not IPSC, but the thought applies) and said that a .327 Ruger was the only handgun you owned, I would let you shoot club matches with it.

Second: I do not consider that a good idea.

Most of the more taste, less filling, er more power, less recoil stuff is advertising hype; the round has no track record and comparison with older small caliber high velocity cartridges is not encouraging.

If budget is a concern, bear in mind that the .327 is a new product. Guns will not be much discounted and ammunition will not be well distributed or cheap to buy when you find some. If it does not catch on, the guns will get less expensive, but the ammo harder to obtain.

I consider a 28 oz 3" barrelled revolver to be a holster weapon, not a pocket pistol. For only a little more size, you can have a more conventional sidearm. If you are wedded to the revolver, check the secondary market for a Ruger Speed Six or S&W Model 13 .357 Magnum. If you would consider an auto, a Glock 19 weighs less than a SP101 and carries more than twice the ammunition.

I saw a perfect example last night at our biweekly indoor IDPA match.
Father and son were shooting elderly Colt Detective Special .38s, doing rather well, and having a good time. Now Dad is senior FBI and can have and shoot pretty much what he likes, and I am sure his son can "get the keys" to modern weaponry, too. But on his own time he usually reverts to his old favorite, the Dick Special, and Junior follows suit.

 

[peacemaker45]

Diligentsia, Vis, Celeritas. Accuracy, Power, Speed.

Anyhow, the dominant revolver in USPSA is the 625 with moonclips. The .45 makes major easily, isn't too harsh on recoil, and is short and stumpy enough that it's easy to get into the chambers for reloads. I don't see the .327 making any inroads there, even if it were legalized. The only advantage it might offer would be eight or nine shots per cylinder, but in revolver division, you're only allowed six. Also, while the max loads, 115 grn bullet @ 1300 fps, would make minor, it would take some seriously creative handloading, and a strong gun to make major. (like that same 115 grn bullet at 1500 fps.) Doesn't sound healthy for a thin walled cylinder, like a 9 shot. The only place you'd be able to use it, as it was designed, would be in Production, where everyone's scored Minor, and more than six rounds are permitted to revos. You still wouldn't be competitive, though, as you'd be up against Glocks, CZs, Berettas, Sigs, and such that are faster to reload, and faster on the trigger. Not saying Jerry Miculek couldn't do it, but I don't think any mere mortal could.

~~~Mat

 

[Sam1911]

The original question was "is it possible?"

The answer to that would be yes. IPSC, USPSA, IDPA, etc. are all businesses of a sort with customers (their competitors). If enough of those customers wrote and called requesting a change to allow .327 Mag, the head honchos would think pretty hard about saying yes. Might take them a while, but they'd eventually figure out a way to say yes.

But, for reasons already stated, this caliber is going to appeal to VERY few competitors for the (long) near future. Hence, few folks will be calling the offices with that on their mind.

So, practically, no they won't.

-Sam

 

[Timthinker]

Thanks for all the responses so far. Given the subject matter, I should have provided more personal background information in the opening post. That might have avoided some confusion. Sorry for that omission.

The insights from those of you who participate in such matches is both welcome and informative. Trust me, I will take all that advice under consideration for my CCW piece. Again, many thanks.


Timthinker