22 pistol application

Grizzly 45

Thats your answer then..Jumped up pot metal for critical parts.:mad:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Sparks,just for a pig iron point.Do you know if any of those guns in the pics had current German proof marks?

Nope, but they were US, UK and Canadian models. It appears to be a problem not tied to any one export zone.

On another point.Re .22 pistols.Is the" Olympic standard" list the be all and absolutely ONLY selection you can choose from.I've been offered a High Standard Mil Citation or Victor,which despite the mag capacity fit the bill of Olympic standard[albeit pretty dated].If not how do you get it onto the list or talk to whom??

Technically, the list is just a suggested list. The actual law defines characteristics, not makes and models (5 rounds, .22 calibre, barrel length over 10cm). As to adding to the list, you'd have to talk to the Commissioner basicly.

rowa

i was lucky enough a few years ago to have a sig sauer p226 x5 in .40 s&w and it was truly an excellent piece of engineering , the mosquito was around then and it was obviously a cheap knock-off , sig must be mad putting their name on it , it'll cheapen their reputation , walther ditto with the p22 .

jwshooter

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's not. It's one of the worst ever made. Even when in fully working condition, it's ridiculously inaccurate. Not to mention its rather interesting failure modes:





And it's not just at that point in the slide; there's a report of a shooter in 2007 whose P22 slide seperated completely and came back off the gun and hit him in the face. That was after less than 500 rounds through the pistol, of ordinary winchester .22 subs.



So no, it's not a good pistol. At all.

so you had one ?

rowa

the first time i handled a p22 i was taken aback at how light it was and it was obvious the the metal parts apart from the barrel was made of pot metal , and as such isn't built to last , the plastic frame is probabily tougher , it works well on glocks after all , but i wouldn't put money on a counter for one .

Sparks

jwshooter wrote: »

so you had one ?

You're joking, surely.
Photographic evidence of major malfunctions, including one documented incident where physical injury nearly occured as a result; proven inaccuracy (RRPC fired a P22 from a bench rest in rathdrum's range - the pistol couldn't hold a group the size of the backstop, let alone the card); but it doesn't count because I don't own one - even though I don't own one because these problems were well-known before they were legal to own in Ireland and I tend to do background research before spending money (not to mention the point that they're far too small for my hands).

You're being a bit ridiculous there jw.

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

You're being a bit ridiculous there jw.

No he's just being defensive; he has one after all

Not one person I know who owns one (I don't count jw here as I don't know him). doesn't regret buying it. And I'm including lads who shelled out the extra few quid for the 6" 'target' barrel in this.

It's primary purpose is to go 'bang' and throw a piece of lead somewhere, anywhere, except where you're aiming of course; unless it's a barn door at 5 paces.

Oh, and to star in execrable pieces of fluff on YouTube.

Grizzly 45

Nope, but they were US, UK and Canadian models. It appears to be a problem not tied to any one export zone.

HMMMMM That IS intresting all right..that is proably why Walther or Umarex can slap the brand on them and use crud to build them outside the EU..That kind of shoddiness wouldnt make it out of the German proof house,not to mind in the door either.
My guess is that the slides are exactly the same on the.22,the blank firer,and the softair,not to mind the frames.Just change the internals.

rowa

i wouldn't go through all the trouble to get a cert for a pistol here now and go and buy a walther p22 or mosquito , they'd put you off pistol shooting for life and are not worth the effort , i think the baikal pistols are built better and wouldn't be more expensive .

happyjack

Boyle243 wrote: »

Hi all,
I dont mean to ask silly questions but can anyone tell me the story with getting a 22 pistol for target shooting if i was a member of a gun range and all ready held three fire arm certs? Are supers licensing this pistol or is the same story as centerfire pistols?
Thanks in advance for help..

Howdy 243, what would your end usage be for the 22 pistol? The reason I ask is that will help you narrow down what model to get. I've found that looking at pictures of pistols in gun mags and what they actually handle like is very different, for years I wanted a Ruger 22 semi, then the first time I handled one I found it was very like a walter PPK, lump of metal in my hand, no balance or point, I got a Benelli MP 95 E myself from Germany and it is highly accurate, has perfect point and balance for me and has a sweet trigger, I may get a Ruger yet in time, but more as a plinker.

Just some ideas, I'd get a pistol if you want one and are willing to use it at a range, we only pass this way once, might as well have a good time while we're here, as they say, we're here for a good time not a long time.

All the best,

HJ:)

Ps, I fired the cheap walter a good few times and it jammed like bejappers, tried diiferent pistols, same problem, feels very plastic also, that said their good value for money, you get what you pay for I guess.

rrpc

There are plenty of good pistols on the Annex F list. I really couldn't advise anyone in good faith to go for the Walther or the Sig when it may welll be an uphill struggle to license either of them, and certainly not worth the trouble.

They're cheap for a reason.

murph226

rrpc wrote: »

There are plenty of good pistols on the Annex F list. I really couldn't advise anyone in good faith to go for the Walther or the Sig when it may welll be an uphill struggle to license either of them, and certainly not worth the trouble.

They're cheap for a reason.

+1 they are heaps of dirt!

fiattech

ezridax wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, supers are still accepting applications for .22 pistols. The usual regulations apply, membership of a range, type of pistol, etc.

It is exactly one year to the day since i put in my application for a .22 browning buckmark. When i asked for a meeting with my super on 01/04/09 three months after my application i was told his hands were tied and no new pistol licence's would be granted because of what happened in limerick the previous november. So i sat tight untill the CJ Bill was in place and reapplied on 06/08/09 when the new 9 page application came up on the garda web site when i handed it in at my local station i was told it would have to go to the chief superintendent because it was "Restricted" so after five months my application was returned to me in the post looking for proof of home alarm but the alarm company will not give me a letter untill they service it next week when they return to work. The bit that confuses me is should it have gone to my local Super or Chief Super. seen as the buckmark is on the list.

Cass

The problem with that list fiattech, is that it is just a guideline of acceptable types of .22 calibre pistols. The actual piece of the Act makes no mention of specific makes or models. As has been pointed out to me the list is ever growing, so just because something is not, or in your case, is on the list is not a guarantee of approval.

Baikal IZH 35
Baikal IZH 35M
Benelli MP90S
Benelli MP95E
Beretta U22 Neos\87
Browning Buckmark
FAS Domino SP602
FAS Domino SP607
FAS Domino SP 607 Light
Feinwerbkau AW 93
Feinwerbkau AW 93 Light
etc,
etc,


With relation to your pistol and application. Has your pistol been restricted to a 5 shot. It is mentioned that it must be a single shot or 5 round mag, .22 long rifle percussion ammo, greater than 10 cm in lenght.

“(e) 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) single shot firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire
percussion ammunition;
(iii) other firearms using 0.22 inch long rifle rim fire percussion
ammunition provided that the maximum magazine
capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five
rounds and that the barrel length of the firearm is
greater than 10 cm.”.

If your pistol falls under all these conditions then it is deemed unrestricted and should be evaluated by your Super. Your Chief Super can though (if i'm not mistaken) exercise his authority and evaluate all pistol applications. I don't think there is any rules or laws saying it MUST be a Super only.

In relation to the extra security, whether it is restricted or not a Super or Chief Super can at their discretion demand extra security before processing, considering or passing any application. The security standars set out in the CJB and Guidelines are minimum standards only.

rrpc

ezridax wrote: »

As has been pointed out to me the list is ever growing, so just because something is not, or in your case, is on the list is not a guarantee of approval.

The list hasn't changed since it first appeared in the Commissioner's guidelines.

If your pistol falls under all these conditions then it is deemed unrestricted and should be evaluated by your Super. Your Chief Super can though (if i'm not mistaken) exercise his authority and evaluate all pistol applications. I don't think there is any rules or laws saying it MUST be a Super only.

There is actually: the firearms act specifically states that application for a firearm should be made to the Superintendent of your district, not the Commissioner (who has delegated his function in relation to restricted firearms to Chief Superintendents), it doesn't work backwards. So if it's non-restricted it goes to your Super.

As no further applications for restricted pistols can be considered after 19/11/08, then Chief Superintendents have no role in new applications.

Cass

rrpc wrote: »

The list hasn't changed since it first appeared in the Commissioner's guidelines.

So it hasn't changed at all, ever. The list that is currently available is the one that was first listed (not necessarily by the commisioner)? Did i not read here about firearms being added to the list on the request of certain NGBs as their members were using a certain make and model but as it was not on the list they feared their application would not be accepted, processed, etc.

There is actually: the firearms act specifically states that application for a firearm should be made to the Superintendent of your district, not the Commissioner (who has delegated his function in relation to restricted firearms to Chief Superintendents), it doesn't work backwards. So if it's non-restricted it goes to your Super.

As no further applications for restricted pistols can be considered after 19/11/08, then Chief Superintendents have no role in new applications.

I highlighted "should be" because i'm curious. Should be is not "can only be". So does the section of the Act state that ONLY a Super may accept and process an application for an unrestricted firearm. Can a Chief Super of a district (being of highrer rank) not step in and take over any application he sees fit to. Is there a mention in the Act or in Law that states the Chief Super has no right to.

I fully understand that if fiattech has met all the conditions set out then it is an unrestricted application (as i have already stated) and the Supers normally process these applications. Not arguing that point. My only question, and it is a question, is can a Chief Super not take over any application for ANY firearm if he so decides?

rowa

sorry to drag up a technicality , but a lot of the match pistols listed on the unrestricted list are said to be five shot , but the magazine takes five and another round in the chamber meaning the total capacity is six rounds , am i correct or does the magazine have to be limited to four rounds ?

fiattech

the mag on my buckmark has been modifyed to hold 5 rounds..

Cass

rowa wrote: »

sorry to drag up a technicality , but a lot of the match pistols listed on the unrestricted list are said to be five shot , but the magazine takes five and another round in the chamber meaning the total capacity is six rounds , am i correct or does the magazine have to be limited to four rounds ?

Not sure which way you would do it. One in the chamber and four in the mag or empty chamber and five in the mag. Either way the amount you can have in the firearm (ie. Mag and firearm) at any one time is 5 rounds. At least thats the way i read it. Why else would some be blocking chambers on revolvers, reducing them from 6 to 5 shots.

On that note, those in the know might tell me. What type of revolver would people use that is .22 calibre but only holds 6 shots. I've heard lads here and elsewhere talking of blocking a chamber to make the firearm unrestricted. I've only seen two .22 revolvers and both were an 8 shot. Is there a six shot .22 revolver?





PS - fiattech you're sound so.

rowa

my revolver is 6 shot and i have been told to get it plugged , i told the fo that most semi's with a five round capacity are infact six shot , this cut no ice and i have to get it plugged anyway .
some of the smith and wesson .22 revolvers are 10 shot capacity , it seems that getting one of those plugged would make it a bit of a joke ,
common sense is in short supply .

Cass

rowa wrote: »

........i told the fo that most semi's with a five round capacity are infact six shot ,

Thats true. The issue would be enforcement. If you are on a range with an unrestricted firearm, and an official checks the ammo amount in the firearm and you have 1 in the spout and 5 in the mag (if i'm not wrong here) you are in breach of the restrictions/rules of your license. The gun is technically a restricted firearm. Who will check them regularly? Will it actually be enforced?

.... some of the smith and wesson .22 revolvers are 10 shot capacity , it seems that getting one of those plugged would make it a bit of a joke ,..... .

True also. Start buying half cylinders.:rolleyes:

rowa

its all nonsense , they should have made all centrefires restricted and left the rimfire's alone regardless of capacity or made 10 rounds the limit ,

Cass

I hear what you're saying. Out of curiosity what are the rules for rimfire pistol comps with regard to ammo amount per detail? I use centrefire and have never seen or been to a rimfire event.

rowa

ezridax wrote: »

I hear what you're saying. Out of curiosity what are the rules for rimfire pistol comps with regard to ammo amount per detail? I use centrefire and have never seen or been to a rimfire event.

we used to have informal club comp's where you would have to fire two 10 shot mags in two minutes at a target fifteen metres away , it was fun and shooting a .22 revolver made loading in a hurry an issue .

rrpc

Oh dear, such a lot of questions

ezridax, the five shot capacity is the same as every other capacity limitation in the firearms acts and that's the magazine (or cylinder) capacity. Funny how we're not having this discussion about the ten shot limit on .22 rifles or the three shot limit for shotguns, is it just pistols that bring out the pedantics?

As for Chief Superintendents usurping the powers conferred on Superintendents by the Oireachtas, well perhaps the way I've stated it may bring some clarity? If not, consider the evident frustration expressed by the Garda Commissioner at the PAC on the subject of Superintendent's licensing Glocks.

As for the 'nonsesnse' about the .22 pistols; without getting too pedantic myself, I would like to point out that section 4(2)(e) of the restricted SI referred to Olympic Pistols as did the Minister in his 19/11 statement. It is my belief that the extra restrictions were introduced in SI337 in order to more clearly restrict new pistol applications to Olympic category pistols: air, single shot and 5 shot semis.

Finally, for the OP and anyone else considering applying for a pistol licence, I have one piece of advice: Stop putting the cart before the horse!

Find out what you want to do and then get the tool to suit. If you want to 'plink' with a pistol, forget about it because the amount of work needed to get a licence these days would require that you have a bit more ambition than making noise

bunny shooter

rrpc wrote: »

........... If you want to 'plink' with a pistol, forget about it because the amount of work needed to get a licence these days would require that you have a bit more ambition than making noise

So 'club shooting' with a pistol will not be entertained ? It's competitions or nothing ?

Sparks

Why do you think 'club shooting' means 'plinking' bunny?
If you wanted a pistol to shoot cans off a wall with some cheap piece of pot metal that may well send bits flying at your face just as fast as it'll send them downrange, well, yes, that sort of plinking is probably not worth the effort it'd take to get the licence anymore. But that's not club shooting. Club shooting is a step or three above that - you might not be interested in competing, but you're still interested in hitting the target in club shooting. In plinking, you're just interested in what's going on at the shooter's end of the range - targets are almost an afterthought.

bunny shooter

I plink at the range sometimes. Shooting just for sake of shooting :eek:

Different view/interpretation on same term :cool:

Sparks

See, to me, that's not plinking Bunny, because you bothered to go to the range and put up a target. Plinking would be shooting at tin cans or anything else like that out in a field or whatever. To me, at least, the line between plinking and shooting is pretty much laid down by when you start to care about the score or where the bullet hits the target, more than you care about the sensation of firing the firearm. If the puff of smoke and the bang is the fun bit, you're plinking. If the hole in the dead centre of the target is the fun bit, you're shooting (and if it doesn't happen in a competition or in training, then it's club shooting).

Boyle243

Thanks to everybody for all the info.
l think i get the msg about the kind of gun's which would be acceptable, I think i will have a chat with the local range and take it from there:)

Once again thanks for the help much appreciated.....