Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
WHICH .22 PISTOL
Options
-
29-07-2009 4:20pm#1
Comments
-
Fixed for youI am thinking of getting a .22 pistol for target shooting if the new laws will allow them.
On a budget so can't really go for the expensive ones,,ther are 3 I was thinking of and would be in my price range but need advice on which is the best.
HAMMERLI X ESSE
WALTHER P22
SIG MOSQUITO
Bear in mind that we don't know *exactly* what way section 3D(1)(b) is going to be interpreted.
It refers to 4(2)(e) of SI 21 2008 and that says:the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:
(i) air-operated firearms of 4.5 millimetres (.177 inch) calibre,
(ii) firearms using .22 inch rim-fire percussion ammunition.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
To go back to the OP's post, definitely cross off the P22 and the mosquito. In fact, double-scratch the P22, it's not just inaccurate, it seems it's prone to catastrophic failure due to the metal used in the slide:
But add the Baikal IZH35M to the list. And if you're fine with second-hand, add the Walther GSP and KSP models to the list as well (the KSP is essentially a cleaned-up and rebadged 35M).0 -
-
I don't think the court cases are that close B'man, for one reason: the Law Reform Commission has recommended, and the Minister has commissioned, a restatement of the Firearms Acts. At which point, it's fairly likely that the urge to tinker won't be resisted, and when they discover such fun problem areas as Section 6 and Section 38, they're going to be forced to make changes. Not to mention the inflexible way that the Act now refers to a specific SI (meaning that whatever you do to the Restricted List by another SI from now on, that original SI is what's referenced by the Act and can't be changed without a new amendment to the Act).
Someone mentioned the idea of the dust being settled around the Firearms Acts in another thread - I think we're a good five to six years away from the dust being settled yet
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I don't think law has been set in stone since Moses came down the mountain.That's the kind of thing that really depresses me. Ten years we've been at this from the court cases to the '04 return of pistols to the CJB2004 to the CJA2006 to the CJA2009, and still we're stretching the Interpretation Act to the limits. The law should be what's written down for pete's sake, that's what has made law law since the time of Babylon (giving us phrases like "set in stone" in the process). When a law isn't what's written down but is instead how a judge or a garda or a civil servant interprets it because it is absurd when read literally, well, that's when you change the law. You're not meant to change working law into that state!
The reality is that there's always been a gap between intention and application when it comes to law, and the firearms acts are no exception.
We can look at that SI and immediately see what the intention was. Whether or not it's going to be applicable remains to be seen.0 -
-
-
-
Laugh away G17, but give them a try at the same time
There's something about a pistol that is so accurate that it'll put all five rounds in the same hole at 25m that just endears it to you...
Em, bleh?
I did try them side by side and when I went from a super duper trigger to the G17 I actually thought it was broken I had to tug so hard! You gotta focus on one and stick to it to be serious (competitively).0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
It wasn't me! wrote: »The issue is that it actually says "designed for" and if taken literally, that's a very small number of pistols, either air or .22.
OK, there are rules for ISSF pistols and these are the ones used in the olympics right?
And these rules set things like weights and sight lengths and barrell lengths and trigger weights right?
So if a pistol is designed to get the maximum out of those rules, then it was designed for that competition, right? Even if it's three out of four or four out of five or whatever, you can easily see what it was designed for.
Or to put it another way, if it exceeds any of those dimensions it wasn't designed for use in olympic competition.
Or is that too easy?
0 -
I can't tell what they meant just from reading that. I can tell you from conversations I've had with them at the FCP seminars, but here's the rub - what they meant has no weight with regard to how ambiguous language is interpreted by a Judge in a district court or a Super looking at an application. And what about the other 199,999 or so people who don't have those conversations? How do they figure out what the Department meant? This is why ambiguous is a really bad adjective here.what do you think they meant?
This is correct. However, those rules are sufficiently generic that a range of pistols can make it through equipment control, from those which were explicitly designed from the ground up to compete at Olympic level like the IZH35M and the MG4, to the mid-range, jack-of-all-trades pistols like the x-esse, to the entry-level, like the buckmark or the 22A or the rugers. So if the rule is "designed for", then the ISSF rulebook is useless and you instead have to go off and look at the design brief from the factory!OK, there are rules for ISSF pistols and these are the ones used in the Olympics right? And these rules set things like weights and sight lengths and barrell lengths and trigger weights right?
'fraid so.Or is that too easy?
"designed for" is a problem. "suitable for" would have been much clearer, and would have avoided all the fuss, because "suitable for" would just have meant "can pass equipment control at the Olympic Games", and that's a very, very well documented and understood procedure - hell, we even have a half-dozen or so people who're officially qualified to adjudicate on that point, one of whom sits on the FCP.0 -
Isn't there some sort of test for what a reasonable man might understand? Is it so important to get into the minds of people and not just read the words that are written?I can't tell what they meant just from reading that.
How did we get to equipment control? To understand if something is designed for use, all you have to do is see if it meets the test of matching as many as possible of the rules. For example if one of those pistols has a barrel length of 154mm (yes I looked it upThis is correct. However, those rules are sufficiently generic that a range of pistols can make it through equipment control, from those which were explicitly designed from the ground up to compete at Olympic level like the IZH35M and the MG4, to the mid-range, jack-of-all-trades pistols like the x-esse, to the entry-level, like the buckmark or the 22A or the rugers. So if the rule is "designed for", then the ISSF rulebook is useless and you instead have to go off and look at the design brief from the factory!) then it clearly wasn't designed for use in the olympics, or if the trigger can't be adjusted down to 1000gr or the sight length is considerably less or a little longer than 220mm.
Sometimes it's just that simple
In fact I looked up that Walther P22 mentioned at the start of this thread. The longest barrell is 127mm (other target pistols don't seem to go the full 153mm), but the trigger weight is 2000gr at the lowest and the sight length is 180mm. Obviously not designed for Olympic competition.0 -
-
I think you misunderstood me, hopefully not deliberately. I meant that we were discussing the law and suddenly ended up in equipment control. I wasn't going there, so I asked how we got there.You could either (a) go to an NTSA match, or (b) download the rulebook for free from the ISSF website and read it. It's not difficult to read or understand, it's actually quite straightforward.
Well I'd like to disagree with that. It may also be suitable for, but if the purpose was to get the thing into the competition within an inch of the rules then the design brief would be aimed at maximising the hell out of the rule book. Which would mean that if the sight length is to be no greater than 220mm then my design brief would say 220mm. etc.That's not Designed For, that's Suitable For.
Back in equipment control again I see. Really you're proving my point for me that equipment control is certainly not the place to decide if a pistol is designed for use in the olympic games.Nope. It's designed to act as a .22lr plinking version of the P99. But you can't tell that from looking to see if it would pass equipment control for an ISSF match, which it would do (there's no upper limit to trigger weight, only a lower limit of 1000g; and the max sight base is 220mm, so the P22 would pass).
And if my designer gave me a P22 from the parameters in the ISSF rule book, I'd fire his ass. 0 -
It's the Designed For/Suitable For bit that got us there. See below:I meant that we were discussing the law and suddenly ended up in equipment control. I wasn't going there, so I asked how we got there.
That's not a design brief.Well I'd like to disagree with that. It may also be suitable for, but if the purpose was to get the thing into the competition within an inch of the rules then the design brief would be aimed at maximising the hell out of the rule book. Which would mean that if the sight length is to be no greater than 220mm then my design brief would say 220mm. etc.
A design brief (which is what decides what something is designed for) says what the goal of the design is. Not how it's achieved. If my design goal is a 220mm sight base, that's not designed for the Olympics, it's designed for a 220mm sight base, and nothing more.
That's the hassle here. "Suitable for" can be objectively measured and tested. There is a book of rules and there are training courses for judging, and there is testing equipment in production to decide whether or not something is suitable for the Olympics; but "designed for" is a nebulous, fuzzy, marketing thing. Only in some specific cases can we say for sure that something's designed for the Olympics - like the IZH-35M where there was an actual directive from Moscow to build a pistol to go win an Olympic medal to embarrass the US. That kind of thing is a historical oddity - very much the exception, not the rule. Most firearms today are designed to appeal to a wider market, so they pick out a lowest common denominator among the rulebooks and build to that - which means their firearms are not designed for any specific sport.
And if you gave a design brief that didn't give an objective but instead gave a bunch of numbers that formed a very loose set of parameters and then complained about the end product as if it was the designer's fault, I'd fire your backside as well because bad managers are much more common than good designers...And if my designer gave me a P22 from the parameters in the ISSF rule book, I'd fire his ass.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement