Looking for a good pistol that won't raise objection with PTB

Zxthinger

Missed the boat on the centrefire pistols so I'm looking for a 22lr pistol that won't raise eyebrows and might slip through net.

I'm also open to a revolver 6 shot as I don't see 6 shot cylinders guns as restricted as I have stated before!

Main requirements are it's got to be neat accurate and reliable cheap and meet AGS requirements to keep it this side of non-restricted. But above all else it needs to look like a regular pistol or a reg revolver. I'm not interested in Olympic styled guns.

If I had to pick blindly I'd say a rugar revolver with 6 shots in 22lr. But I know nothing about 22lr pistols tbh.

Any thoughts

deerhunter1

Zxthinger wrote: »

Missed the boat on the centrefire pistols so I'm looking for a 22lr pistol that won't raise eyebrows and might slip through net.

I'm also open to a revolver 6 shot as I don't see 6 shot cylinders guns as restricted as I have stated before!

Main requirements are it's got to be neat accurate and reliable cheap and meet AGS requirements to keep it this side of non-restricted. But above all else it needs to look like a regular pistol or a reg revolver. I'm not interested in Olympic styled guns.

If I had to pick blindly I'd say a rugar revolver with 6 shots in 22lr. But I know nothing about 22lr pistols tbh.

Any thoughts

The ruger single six,a beauty,google it,or the s&w .22

mrbrianj

Is a 6 shot revolver unrestricted?
I was under the impression you had to have a chamber blocked to keep the capacity to 5 shots

If so, damn! I would have preferred a revolver to the semi auto I am waiting on.

Cass

No. No matter how much he thinks they are a revolver is restricted if it has more than 5 shots.

mrbrianj

Also the closer to Olympic standard means higher costs and higher accuracy and more competitive.

There is certainly a balance to be struck between budget and the quality of the gun you use in competition. But (just maybe in a very general way)the more it looks and is designed like a true target gun the more it scores like true target gun. Which is the only reason we have for using pistols

Aside from that something like the ruger mk3 hunter looks good, or a s&w 41a are supposed to be super guns

Heckler

Zxthinger wrote: »

Missed the boat on the centrefire pistols so I'm looking for a 22lr pistol that won't raise eyebrows and might slip through net.

I'm also open to a revolver 6 shot as I don't see 6 shot cylinders guns as restricted as I have stated before!

Main requirements are it's got to be neat accurate and reliable cheap and meet AGS requirements to keep it this side of non-restricted. But above all else it needs to look like a regular pistol or a reg revolver. I'm not interested in Olympic styled guns.

If I had to pick blindly I'd say a rugar revolver with 6 shots in 22lr. But I know nothing about 22lr pistols tbh.

Any thoughts

Got a licence for a hammerli xesse recently. Under the condition that the mags are plugged to 5 rounds. Might suit your needs.

http://www.carl-walther.de/cw.php?lang=en&content=products&sub=1&subsub=13&product=1071

cw67irl

Some districts won't licence an Xesse due to currently pending cases! Although a great gun!!!! Look at S+W Model 41 great gun but pricey, Browning Buckmark reasonable price nice gun or if you don't mine mind a bit of weight on it a Ruger Heavy Barrel

Forget the likes of the 1911 clones or Ruger SR22 as they aren't the most accurate or garda friendly

Heckler

cw67irl wrote: »

Some districts won't licence an Xesse due to currently pending cases! Although a great gun!!!! Look at S+W Model 41 great gun but pricey, Browning Buckmark reasonable price nice gun or if you don't mine mind a bit of weight on it a Ruger Heavy Barrel

Forget the likes of the 1911 clones or Ruger SR22 as they aren't the most accurate or garda friendly

Yup, as i understand it the fact that plugged 10 round mags can be converted back easily is being used to classify previously non-restricted firearms as restricted. Depending once again on the whim of the SI as I understand it.

As i see it its going to eventually make the licensing of anything but olympic style 5 shot magazine pistols (which cost a fortune in comparison and noone with an casual interest is going to buy on the off chance they enjoy it) impossible. Which is probably exactly what the PTB want.

One other thing I can't understand is the various storage requirements. Its ok to have a shotgun (albeit disassembled) with no safe but a .22 needs one. I know which stolen firearm I'd rather be shot with !

cw67irl

I'm assuming the storage requirements for a single shotgun are to do with the fact a lot of farmers would have had shotguns lying around farms ect and to force them to get cabinets would be a bit of a **** storm.

Most supers will insist on a cabinet for a first time shooter anyway at the end of the day if you spend a nice chunk of cash on anything it's worth securing it away!!!

The magazine issue is being appealed in a few cases at the moment but it's not a countrywide problem same as the Xesse being refused. Get down to your local club suss them out about joining (You can't apply for a pistol cert until you are in a garda approved club) meet the lads below see what they are shooting I'm sure some of them will let you try out their firearms, They will also know the lie of the land with the local super what he is willing to licence and what he's not!!

Don't rush out and buy until you have tried a couple,Priced around and don't buy on the "cool" factor A sig mosquito looks well but is a shed of a pistol!!!

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

No. No matter how much he thinks they are a revolver is restricted if it has more than 5 shots.

Dogmatic view again!.

Please go and read the 2009 amendment to the restricted list for the live of god!.. It's very straight forward Cass,

Short arms are restricted if the have a magazine with a capacity greater than 5..

The magazine MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE...

So what do cows drink???

Simple! A revolver has no magazine it has a cylinder!!

You get it now!

Witcher

I'm sure your super will care how you see it.

You'll be given one choice...plug a chamber or Fcuk off.

Zxthinger

mrbrianj wrote: »

Is a 6 shot revolver unrestricted?
I was under the impression you had to have a chamber blocked to keep the capacity to 5 shots

If so, damn! I would have preferred a revolver to the semi auto I am waiting on.

Gardaland fairytale rules.. Do fall for it or let any one else tell you the same clap trap! Look the issue up yourself

Cass

Zxthinger wrote:

So what do cows drink???

Magazines .............






ah, balls.

Zxthinger wrote:

Simple! A revolver has no magazine it has a cylinder!!

From your lips to God's ears.

If you get a revolver with 6 shots and try and convince a Garda (Super or Chief Super) that it's unrestricted because the wording says magazine and not cylinder he'll laugh at you and refuse you license. It's the reason every other person with a revolver has had to get the 6th chamber blocked. It's the same argument i heard from lads with a magazine when they say if they keep a round in the breach, and 5 in the mag, technically it's not restricted.

However to avoid ruining your thread i'll leave you at it. I say what i do because i don't want other people reading this to think that YOUR interpretation of the law is actually right and try go the route of getting a revolver as an unrestricted firearm.

When you apply for the unrestricted license let me know how you get on. Would be genuinely interested on how you get on.

mrbrianj

2009 guidelines also state pretty clearly that it's Olympic style pistols, designed like Olympic style pistol not to be confused with others that are considered unrestricted.
It states that they are 'low capacity' with 5 rounds underlined in bold.

Now you may be able to debate the difference between a magazine and a cylinder. But what about the rest of the guidelines? You can't just ignore the bits that don't suit your argument.

Zxthinger

mrbrianj wrote: »

2009 guidelines also state pretty clearly that it's Olympic style pistols, designed like Olympic style pistol not to be confused with others that are considered unrestricted.
It states that they are 'low capacity' with 5 rounds underlined in bold.

Now you may be able to debate the difference between a magazine and a cylinder. But what about the rest of the guidelines? You can't just ignore the bits that don't suit your argument.

Guidelines mean nothing!!

Here is the law!... LAW LAW LAW LAW LAW!!


(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.”.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0337.html

PS Cass, you can't help yourself ruining threads on me! It's just the way things are.. Lol

Sparks

Yes ZXThinger, that's indeed something new. Absolutely nobody thought of that when that law was being drafted. It was never mentioned in the FCP meetings. Ever. Nobody ever brought it up with the DoJ, the AGS, the AG's office, or anyone else. Nobody thought about it at all for the last five years even though we had a lot of people spending all their time on it. Never once. Oh, if only we had. If only we had mentioned it to the DoJ or the AGS, if only someone had explained to us that the real world definition of a word and the legal definition of a word aren't magically bound together for all eternity, or if we'd only seen cases where the interpretation of the law saw a small technical error like that and said "don't be stupid, you're engaging in semantics to sidestep the obvious intent" and ruled against it.

Oh, if only...

Zxthinger

Sparks wrote: »

Yes ZXThinger, that's indeed something new. Absolutely nobody thought of that when that law was being drafted. It was never mentioned in the FCP meetings. Ever. Nobody ever brought it up with the DoJ, the AGS, the AG's office, or anyone else. Nobody thought about it at all for the last five years even though we had a lot of people spending all their time on it. Never once. Oh, if only we had. If only we had mentioned it to the DoJ or the AGS, if only someone had explained to us that the real world definition of a word and the legal definition of a word aren't magically bound together for all eternity, or if we'd only seen cases where the interpretation of the law saw a small technical error like that and said "don't be stupid, you're engaging in semantics to sidestep the obvious intent" and ruled against it.

Oh, if only...

Well, if only is yes! It doesn't matter what the DOJ or the FPC or AGS thought they were doing !
What was wrote into law is black and white! Well at least in this instance.

It seems that you have resigned yourselfs to accept the crumbs from the floor and you all have a mental blockage that won't allow you accept something that seems too good to be true and you continually denie the existence of something that is wrote in the statute book in favour of what oppressive groups have suggested as allowed. Have you got a picture if a chap banging his head agains a wall?? Attach it to this post

Cass

Zxthinger wrote: »

Here is the law!... LAW LAW LAW LAW LAW!!

Or more to the point your interpretation of it.

PS Cass, you can't help yourself ruining threads on me! It's just the way things are.. Lol

It's not my fault you are so wrong all time. I mean if you start a thread and give correct information i'd agree, but as i said above knock yourself out and best of luck with your unrestricted 6 shot revolver.

Sparks

Zxthinger wrote: »

Well, if only is yes! It doesn't matter what the DOJ or the FPC or AGS thought they were doing !
What was wrote into law is black and white! Well at least in this instance.

Go ahead then, apply for one on those grounds. Let us know how it goes. Forgive us if we don't hold our breath.

It seems that you have resigned yourselfs to accept the crumbs from the floor and you all have a mental blockage that won't allow you accept something that seems too good to be true and you continually denie the existence of something that is wrote in the statute book in favour of what oppressive groups have suggested as allowed. Have you got a picture if a chap banging his head agains a wall?? Attach it to this post mark!

Oh, I see. We should be fighting against De Man. Sorry, I forgot that. Got distracted by fourteen years of learning the hard way that you can't beat the government with the courts but our side seems to have more than its fair share of dumb people who think you can. Was distracted by the way even our best wins in a courtroom got written away within a week or so by the government, and by how even our slightest losses wound up crippling us while those same dumb people cheered the effort. Silly me.

Gatling

Can i have a belt fed .45 been there's nothing about belt fed pistols in the legislation

Zxthinger

Here it is again!

""provided that the maximum magazine capacity of such a firearm does not exceed five rounds""

Simple really!.
Ye have all argumentative powers in the world mark so can you show me how this would block, say, a rugar single 6!

Witcher

Make sure you write 'LAW LAW LAW...' on your form and shout it at the super if you meet him.

Nothing supers like more than being told what the law is and what they have to give you.

Sparks

Gatling wrote: »

Can i have a belt fed .45 been there's nothing about belt fed pistols in the legislation

I know what you're thinking of too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_P7LWQCPoc

Gatling

Sparks wrote: »

I know what you're thinking of too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_P7LWQCPoc

I actually wasn't but now im sold,

i owe you a glass of Teelings good sir ,

Sparks

Zxthinger wrote: »

Ye have all argumentative powers in the world mark so can you show me how this would block, say, a rugar single 6!

You'll apply for it, the Super will refuse on the grounds that it holds six shots, you'll go to the DC and say

"your honour, it says magazine not cylinder"

and the Super will say

"your honour, obviously the legislation refers here to the capacity of the firearm and uses the term magazine in that sense; otherwise we'd be into quibbles about the difference between a magazine and a clip, or licencing belt-fed pistols because they haven't got a magazine. I would also point out that the fluidity of the language in shooting is such that there is some disagreement over what the actual definition of a magazine is at all, hence the confusion between clips and magazines. For a revolver, we should treat the cylinder as an integral magazine within the firearm and since this applicant applied for a firearm with a capacity for six rounds instead of the many, many varieties that have the regulation five rounds capacity, all of which are as suitable and most of which are more suitable to target shooting, I refused his application. But I would be happy to grant one for a five-shot capacity pistol if it fell within the legal requirements".

And now you're out at least a grand to pay your section 68 costs to the solicitor.

Seriously lad, get better advice before you pay that much to go to court, would you?

Zxthinger

Gatling wrote: »

Can i have a belt fed .45 been there's nothing about belt fed pistols in the legislation

Don't act the goat mate!
Read the legislation and you'll find yer answer! But just case ye can't read it, I'll tell ye why!
All firearms must conform to those accepted into competition under the Olympic guideline. It doesn't mean that they all have to be the quintessential Olympic styled pistols.

Now if ye wana act the goat, go look into the fact that certain people don't actually require a licence fir firearms under certain circumstances such as slaughter men or vets etc and then think of the possibility that such non licenced firearms if issued would not infringe upon the moratorium of issuing centrefire pistols.

Sparks

Oh, and if we're being piss-ant-y about things, revolvers only have one cylinder. That cylinder contains several chambers.

You really want to go apply for six licences for the one firearm because it's got multiple chambers, you go right ahead... I'll be over here getting out of the way of the other revolver owners who'll be queuing up to smack some sense into you before you drop a court precedent on their heads...

Seriously lad, go get yourself an xesse or an IZH and go shoot with the thing. Arguing with gardai isn't anywhere near as much fun.

Witcher

Zxthinger wrote: »

Now if ye wana act the goat, go look into the fact that certain people don't actually require a licence fir firearms under certain circumstances such as slaughter men or vets etc and then think of the possibility that such non licenced firearms if issued would not infringe upon the moratorium of issuing centrefire pistols.

If they're not licenced then the Gardai aren't breaking the moratorium on the licencing of centrefire pistols then are they?

Sparks

Zxthinger wrote: »

Don't act the goat mate!
Read the legislation and you'll find yer answer! But just case ye can't read it, I'll tell ye why!
All firearms must conform to those accepted into competition under the Olympic guideline. It doesn't mean that they all have to be the quintessential Olympic styled pistols.

Yeah, there's no rule against using belt-fed pistols in an ISSF match so long as all the other rules are complied with.

think of the possibility that such non licenced firearms if issued would not infringe upon the moratorium of issuing centrefire pistols.

So (a) it's not a moratorium on issuing centerfire pistols, it's a moratorium on licencing restricted short firearms and the two are not the same thing; and (b) it's not the avenue you think it is because those exceptions don't let you actually do what you're thinking of doing (ie. having a licence for a centerfire pistol or shooting one recreationally without a licence).

Gatling

Zxthinger wrote: »

Don't act the goat mate!
Read the legislation and you'll find yer answer! But just case ye can't read it, I'll tell ye why!
All firearms must conform to those accepted into competition under the Olympic guideline. It doesn't mean that they all have to be the quintessential Olympic styled pistols.

Im not acting the goat

A belt fed pistol can only hold one round at a time so surely it cant be restricted

Zxthinger

Cass wrote: »

Or more to the point your interpretation of it.

It's comical that you don't have the ability to accept what is wrote out in straight forward language.

It's not my interpretation, if you go into the law library you'll find several books that show the simple diagrams of all handguns.
It's very straight forward. Revolvers don't have mags.

It's gas really! Posters go put of their way to commend those that have gad to go to court to uphold the sport in the face of oppressive attrition yet ye kneel before the FPC and DOJ and run with their expectations as opposed to the law in it's plain form.

Amazing stuff really.. Black and White yet no one can see the obvious.