WHICH .22 PISTOL

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

I see what you're saying Clash, but you're being perverse in ignoring the problem.

Take the Buckmark as an easy example. It is manifestly not designed for the Olympics. However, it is suitable for it, and it has won medals at club level, and it is competitive at national level if you're good enough with it, and for a basic, cheap, beginner's pistol, it's not a bad choice. Same can be said for the 22A and the Ruger MkII.

Now take a harder example. The Hammerli X-esse is an often-recommended entry level pistol for ISSF shooting. It's not, however, really designed for ISSF. But it's hard to prove that. You can point to the IPSC and plinking models and point out that the basics of the pistol are the same between them and the ISSF model, that the only changes are really cosmetic. It's the same barrel, same slide, same frame, same sights, same trigger, in fact the only differences are in the mag release and safety controls (not their mechanisms, just the buttons). So is the X-esse designed for the Olympics when it's also sold for IPSC matches?

Well that's easily answered. The X-Esse Sport is the one 'designed for' and the rest are for other stuff.

And you see the question here is which one is 'designed for' not which one is 'suitable for'. They all are obviously suitable for, but the Sport is the one that's designed for. And it is obvious.

I've looked at the Walther SP22 and it's following the same design philosophy of the X-Esse. There's a bunch of models based on the same frame, but the M4 is the one 'designed for' ISSF competition.

So once you get 'suitable for' out of your head and really look at them, it's easy to see what ones were designed for ISSF competition.

Sparks

Clash wrote: »

Well that's easily answered. The X-Esse Sport is the one 'designed for' and the rest are for other stuff

Easily answered is not correctly answered. If I buy an X-Esse IPSC or a basic X-Esse Trailside and put a Nill grip on it, I'll have the same thing that you got when you bought an X-Esse Sport. Same barrel, same frame, same slide, same trigger, same overall weight, same sights, same everything.

And that's the problem. Because if I can buy a "not designed for" pistol and add a part that isn't controlled by law, which is just a lump of wood, and get a "designed for" pistol, then the test in law is not based on a real and measurable attribute of the firearm itself, but on a marketing term. And that's not a good law.

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

Easily answered is not correctly answered. If I buy an X-Esse IPSC or a basic X-Esse Trailside and put a Nill grip on it, I'll have the same thing that you got when you bought an X-Esse Sport. Same barrel, same frame, same slide, same trigger, same overall weight, same sights, same everything.

Not the same money. You've just spent another €200 just to prove me wrong which is just a little perverse when the model you actually needed is available cheaper. Adding the grip is changeing the design the same way as adding an observatory to the side of your house is changing its design.

The trailside is the Sig model. Couldn't find it on the Walther site

And that's the problem. Because if I can buy a "not designed for" pistol and add a part that isn't controlled by law, which is just a lump of wood, and get a "designed for" pistol, then the test in law is not based on a real and measurable attribute of the firearm itself, but on a marketing term. And that's not a good law.

What?? The test is what it's designed for and you've changed the design. And why does it have to be 'controlled by law' for it to be a design change?

And a grip is an important factor wrt design because the grip on the sport model is designed (yes designed) for one handed shooting.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

And that's the problem. Because if I can buy a "not designed for" pistol and add a part that isn't controlled by law, which is just a lump of wood, and get a "designed for" pistol, then the test in law is not based on a real and measurable attribute of the firearm itself, but on a marketing term. And that's not a good law.

But you can't - you won't get a licence for the pistol in the first place (following the logic of Clash) as the pistol isn't designed for Olympic shooting. It doesn't matter that you can modify the gun, because you the Super can't issue you licence in the first place.

steppen

have a look at a beretta 87,

non-adjustable sights are a bit of a downside, but its a nice pistol

Sparks

Non-adjustable sights are a bit more than a downside for ISSF shooting...

steppen

Sparks wrote: »

Non-adjustable sights are a bit more than a downside for ISSF shooting...

True, but I suggested the beretta because:
in the OP's post he doesnt mention ISSF, just 'target shooting'

he was looking at a p22 and a sig, I would put the beretta before them anyday.

plus his name is guns4fun

Clash

steppen wrote: »

True, but I suggested the beretta because:
in the OP's post he doesnt mention ISSF, just 'target shooting'

he was looking at a p22 and a sig, I would put the beretta before them anyday.

plus his name is guns4fun

We know, but this thread got hijacked by pedants arguing over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin and you'd no right bringing it back to it's starting point.

guns4fun

is ther anything out there that describes the ministers description of olympic class???

rrpc

guns4fun wrote: »

is ther anything out there that describes the ministers description of olympic class???

Other than what's in the SI, no.

Perhaps the commissioner's guidelines will give us some direction.

steppen

Clash wrote: »

We know, but this thread got hijacked by pedants arguing over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin and you'd no right bringing it back to it's starting point.

Point taken, wont happen again:pac:

daveob007

rrpc wrote: »

Other than what's in the SI, no.

Perhaps the commissioner's guidelines will give us some direction.

WHERE CAN WE GET THESE GUIDELINES,are the on a link somewhere????
thanks

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

WHERE CAN WE GET THESE GUIDELINES,are the on a link somewhere????
thanks

Haven't appeared yet. Garda website would be best place and they even have a neato firearms section linked from the front page.

Make it your home page

Sparks

The guidelines won't be available for a week to ten days from what I've heard dave.

And it's annoying that that Garda webpage is protected by the robots.txt file - you can't automatically monitor it

daveob007

Its just crazy,,these guidelines should have been published before now,at least it would give people a chance to modify their security if needed within the extension period.
now there could be a big panic if someone is required to install a new alarm or something,, then there is the new 3 year licence to pay for.
its going to cost a few people a small fortune.
The whole thing was very badly though out and rushed through.
Firstly the new guidelines and criteria should have been published along with the ministers description of (LIMITED NUMBER OF HANGUNS FOR USE IN OLYMPIC SPORTS) after that was sorted the bill could have waited till the dail summer break was over.
this would have given us and the gardai time to digest the whole thing.
MAYBE THATS WHY IT WAS RUSHED????

Grizzly 45

Nah! They just wanted to look like they were actually "doing somthing" and in good Irish tradition leave it all to the last minute and rush it thru so they can sod off for 3months and the country can run itself and the poor mugs whom it affects [us and the Gardai,]can sort thru this Shte pile and hopefully come up with the right answers.


Just remember this on Oct 7th when they come around for another EU vote,and in proably three years time,or prefably sooner.When they want another cushy number....Vote this bunch OUT!!!!:mad: