I wonder what the International body is going to cook up regarding the thousands of redundant Rapid Fire Pistols when they change the rules after the Olympics. Are we going to use them as sinkers for fishing?
My suggestion is that we should sent an invoice to the ISSF body for a pistol buy-back.
Obviously those who made the change of rules have not thought it through, as far as what shooters are to do with their R/F pistols, and all the money they will lose.
I think everyone should protest about it, as much as possible.
I would be interested to hear if you are in favour of the change of rules or not.
Alex L
Rapis Fire after the Olympics.
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Chris L in NC
I would support your buyback program Alex, except that I didn't buy a rapid fire pistol because this change has been talked about for two years now. I already have a standard pistol so now I'm all set. And I was one of the first to write to ISSF in support of the change so I wouldn't have to buy a RF pistol and pay US$.08 per round for .22 short.
I've seen one or two people shoot RF pistols at public ranges just for fun and didn't know what they had. You can still do that, and also use them for very small game hunting.
I've seen one or two people shoot RF pistols at public ranges just for fun and didn't know what they had. You can still do that, and also use them for very small game hunting.
-
David Levene
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:49 pm
- Location: Ruislip, UK
I know what Alex's reasoning could be.
Here in Australia, with the increased restrictions of gun ownership, R/F pistols could? just be deemed an illegal pistol and handed in/seized by the Govt., as the current R/F pistol will be illegal for Olympic style events.
The new laws restrict pistol ownership to pistols used in Olympic or World events.
Now pistols over .38 cal, are restricted to only Black powder, sillouette, and western action events. Initially, the Govt. wasn't even going to allow that.
Here in Australia, with the increased restrictions of gun ownership, R/F pistols could? just be deemed an illegal pistol and handed in/seized by the Govt., as the current R/F pistol will be illegal for Olympic style events.
The new laws restrict pistol ownership to pistols used in Olympic or World events.
Now pistols over .38 cal, are restricted to only Black powder, sillouette, and western action events. Initially, the Govt. wasn't even going to allow that.
May all your shots be "10's"
That doesn't sound like an ISSF problem. That sounds like a People's Republic of Australia government problem.
xtreme wrote:I know what Alex's reasoning could be.
Here in Australia, with the increased restrictions of gun ownership, R/F pistols could? just be deemed an illegal pistol and handed in/seized by the Govt., as the current R/F pistol will be illegal for Olympic style events.
The new laws restrict pistol ownership to pistols used in Olympic or World events.
Now pistols over .38 cal, are restricted to only Black powder, sillouette, and western action events. Initially, the Govt. wasn't even going to allow that.
-
Paul Kierkus
ISSF vs. F1
The difference is that (at least in theory) F1 runs under a concord agreement. That means that 100% of the teams must ratify any change in the rules of the game. Is that the case here with the ISSF??
Hmmm....
Paul
Hmmm....
Paul
-
Mike T.
Obsolete Rapid Fire pistols
I must disagree with some posters. Spring air guns and High Standard pistols are still acceptable in their respective disciplines - Air Pistol and Standard/Sport Pistol respectively. Conversely, the .22 short pistol is, after 31 December, 2004, no longer acceptable for Rapid Fire. It will not meet the new rules.
There is no other ISSF event (nor NRA Conventional Pistol event, for that matter) for which the .22 short Rapid Fire pistol is acceptable. Our .22 short Rapid Fire pistols will become just expensive "plinkers".
But, in Canada, it is even worse than that! In Canada, firearms with a barrel length less than 104 mm are prohibited. An exception is made for guns that are used in International competition. Some .22 short Rapid Fire pistols have barrels of length less than 104 mm. Come January 1st, 2005, these pistols will no longer be eligible for International competition. Thus, they will become prohibited firearms. Unless the owner is "grandfathered", the pistols will then be subject to seizure by the police (without compensation). So, in Canada, you don't just see the resale value of your .22 short Rapid Fire pistol plummet, its value goes to zero (and maybe worse, if you get charged for possessing a prohibited firearm).
The ISSF has proposed this rule change (from .22 short to Standard pistols) purportedly to increase participation in the Rapid Fire event. It is my observation that the base level clubs cannot support increased participation in Rapid Fire. The clubs at which I have shot (about 25) do not have the capacity to permit more than four shooters to fire at any one time (some can accommodate only two at a time). They cannot afford, neither in time nor equipment, to have greater participation. Certainly, when most base level competitions are fired on a weekend as part of a five or six ISSF events programme, there is not enough time to permit more than 10 or 15 competitors to participate in Rapid Fire.
The elite shooters at the apex of the pyramid must come from the base level clubs. Since the base level cannot accommodate more Rapid Fire shooters, the apex will not see an increase in the number of elite shooters. It is also my observation, over a period of 25 years, that shooters who try Rapid Fire with a Standard pistol, and like the event enough to want to participate, quickly purchase a .22 short pistol.
In my opinion, this change from .22 short to Standard pistol for the Rapid Fire event, totally ignores the reality of the base level clubs from which the elite shooter must rise, and totally ignores the financial loss that will be incurred by current owners of .22 short Rapid Fire pistols.
As you may conclude, I am highly upset by this ISSF rule change.
There is no other ISSF event (nor NRA Conventional Pistol event, for that matter) for which the .22 short Rapid Fire pistol is acceptable. Our .22 short Rapid Fire pistols will become just expensive "plinkers".
But, in Canada, it is even worse than that! In Canada, firearms with a barrel length less than 104 mm are prohibited. An exception is made for guns that are used in International competition. Some .22 short Rapid Fire pistols have barrels of length less than 104 mm. Come January 1st, 2005, these pistols will no longer be eligible for International competition. Thus, they will become prohibited firearms. Unless the owner is "grandfathered", the pistols will then be subject to seizure by the police (without compensation). So, in Canada, you don't just see the resale value of your .22 short Rapid Fire pistol plummet, its value goes to zero (and maybe worse, if you get charged for possessing a prohibited firearm).
The ISSF has proposed this rule change (from .22 short to Standard pistols) purportedly to increase participation in the Rapid Fire event. It is my observation that the base level clubs cannot support increased participation in Rapid Fire. The clubs at which I have shot (about 25) do not have the capacity to permit more than four shooters to fire at any one time (some can accommodate only two at a time). They cannot afford, neither in time nor equipment, to have greater participation. Certainly, when most base level competitions are fired on a weekend as part of a five or six ISSF events programme, there is not enough time to permit more than 10 or 15 competitors to participate in Rapid Fire.
The elite shooters at the apex of the pyramid must come from the base level clubs. Since the base level cannot accommodate more Rapid Fire shooters, the apex will not see an increase in the number of elite shooters. It is also my observation, over a period of 25 years, that shooters who try Rapid Fire with a Standard pistol, and like the event enough to want to participate, quickly purchase a .22 short pistol.
In my opinion, this change from .22 short to Standard pistol for the Rapid Fire event, totally ignores the reality of the base level clubs from which the elite shooter must rise, and totally ignores the financial loss that will be incurred by current owners of .22 short Rapid Fire pistols.
As you may conclude, I am highly upset by this ISSF rule change.
-
Mike McDaniel
It's not as bad as you think
I think that there are several issues here that aren't getting recognized.
First, the ISSF is working toward promoting the shooting sports in ALL countries. Which means that the irrational antics of British Commonwealth countries are of interest, but cannot be permitted to override the considerations of the rest of the world.
Second, the dedicated RF guns have always been expensive and cantankerous. The SP guns are often a bit cheaper, MUCH more reliable, and there are entry-level guns available. Plus, consolidating to a single SP/WSP/RF type increases the production runs and cuts costs. Remember, right now there are only three outfits making RF pistols - but I can think of nearly a dozen making SPs.
Third, everybody assumes that there is no possibility of a retrofit. Which I consider absolute nonsense. I'm betting that Walther will come out with an OSP retrofit kit by the end of the year - a GSP trigger module, but a shorter barrel. Expensive, but it means that you get to keep your RF gun in the match. And I doubt very much if Pardini or FAS will miss this opportunity to make money.
Yes, I own a Walther OSP. Which means that I take it in the shorts, both metaphorically and in terms of about 8,000 rounds of R25 ammo. But I think that it will be for the best over the long run.
First, the ISSF is working toward promoting the shooting sports in ALL countries. Which means that the irrational antics of British Commonwealth countries are of interest, but cannot be permitted to override the considerations of the rest of the world.
Second, the dedicated RF guns have always been expensive and cantankerous. The SP guns are often a bit cheaper, MUCH more reliable, and there are entry-level guns available. Plus, consolidating to a single SP/WSP/RF type increases the production runs and cuts costs. Remember, right now there are only three outfits making RF pistols - but I can think of nearly a dozen making SPs.
Third, everybody assumes that there is no possibility of a retrofit. Which I consider absolute nonsense. I'm betting that Walther will come out with an OSP retrofit kit by the end of the year - a GSP trigger module, but a shorter barrel. Expensive, but it means that you get to keep your RF gun in the match. And I doubt very much if Pardini or FAS will miss this opportunity to make money.
Yes, I own a Walther OSP. Which means that I take it in the shorts, both metaphorically and in terms of about 8,000 rounds of R25 ammo. But I think that it will be for the best over the long run.
-
guest
the essence of the game?
Legislation and economics aside,
(I live in sweden where this is going to be an issue...)
I think that a change to SP will take away part of the fun of the game.
I have no problem with changing to .22lr but going all the way to SP is kind of like having F1 teams use standard road cars to make that game more accessible...
Thinking along the same lines:
In order to make free pistol more popular we might consider going to SP there to (you´re free to use your SP already, but if everyone had to use one you wouldn´t be at a disadvantage;-)...
I for one would like to keep the wraparound grip, the ported barrel, free trigger weight and long line of sight, basically a .22lr RFP
Anders Turebrand, Stockholm Sweden
(I live in sweden where this is going to be an issue...)
I think that a change to SP will take away part of the fun of the game.
I have no problem with changing to .22lr but going all the way to SP is kind of like having F1 teams use standard road cars to make that game more accessible...
Thinking along the same lines:
In order to make free pistol more popular we might consider going to SP there to (you´re free to use your SP already, but if everyone had to use one you wouldn´t be at a disadvantage;-)...
I for one would like to keep the wraparound grip, the ported barrel, free trigger weight and long line of sight, basically a .22lr RFP
Anders Turebrand, Stockholm Sweden
-
Tom
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:43 pm
- Location: On the mountain overlooking Manchvegas, USA
Not all is lost
Hi,
In the USA there is an market for soon to be out of date rapid fire guns.
The 50' NRA gallery shooters. Most of the local leagues are a "run what you brung" type for rules. As long as it's not way out of line, they let it run. The trigger and grips would cause problems at a legal match for record sore. On the Walthers, those are easily but not cheaply swapped.
At 50' as long as the shooter does his part, these are shooting low 290's and up. Most of those points lost to lack of follow through in slowfire.
None of this helps shooters in other countries however. I'm not a member of the ISSF but there should be a way for members to voice an objection to new rules or other changes. The most resonable way to open the RF event to newer shooters without causing the established shooters issues is to simply have another class of RF. They can have "Standard-RF" and "Traditional-RF" (Sort of like New and Classic Coke, same but different) These 2 classes of RF would allow newer or standard pistol shooters to shoot RF with no investment and allow the current RF shooters to remain.
Just my 2 cents
Tom
In the USA there is an market for soon to be out of date rapid fire guns.
The 50' NRA gallery shooters. Most of the local leagues are a "run what you brung" type for rules. As long as it's not way out of line, they let it run. The trigger and grips would cause problems at a legal match for record sore. On the Walthers, those are easily but not cheaply swapped.
At 50' as long as the shooter does his part, these are shooting low 290's and up. Most of those points lost to lack of follow through in slowfire.
None of this helps shooters in other countries however. I'm not a member of the ISSF but there should be a way for members to voice an objection to new rules or other changes. The most resonable way to open the RF event to newer shooters without causing the established shooters issues is to simply have another class of RF. They can have "Standard-RF" and "Traditional-RF" (Sort of like New and Classic Coke, same but different) These 2 classes of RF would allow newer or standard pistol shooters to shoot RF with no investment and allow the current RF shooters to remain.
Just my 2 cents
Tom
-
crmeyer
Re: Not all is lost
One issue will be ammo availability - if the ISSF does not allow the current .22 short rapid fire pistols, will the ammo manufacturers continue to make match grade .22 short ammo. It is not a large market currently and will obviously be getting smaller. And if so - what will the quality be like for such small runs (and lack of incentive)?
Charles
-------------------------------------------
In the USA there is an market for soon to be out of date rapid fire guns.
The 50' NRA gallery shooters. Most of the local leagues are a "run what you brung" type for rules. As long as it's not way out of line, they let it run. The trigger and grips would cause problems at a legal match for record sore. On the Walthers, those are easily but not cheaply swapped.
"
Charles
-------------------------------------------
In the USA there is an market for soon to be out of date rapid fire guns.
The 50' NRA gallery shooters. Most of the local leagues are a "run what you brung" type for rules. As long as it's not way out of line, they let it run. The trigger and grips would cause problems at a legal match for record sore. On the Walthers, those are easily but not cheaply swapped.
"
Re: Obsolete Rapid Fire pistols
This is kind of a backwards take on things, or at least IMHO, a wrong-headed approach. If you get a surge of shooters wanting to shoot rapid fire, the answer isn't to turn them away, but rather to expand the shooting facilities. I realize this can be difficult to do in some places, but you'll have a hard time convincing me that it is the best interest of everyone involved in our sport to TURN AWAY AND DISCOURAGE new shooters.
FWIW, the comparison by another poster about a possible "domino-effect" scenario where Free Pistol might be shot with a sport pistol is like comparing apples to oranges. IIRC, rapid fire was once commonly shot with .22lr. Also, the mechanisms and structures of the matches for SP and FP (semi-auto @25m vs. single shot @50m) are different on a more fundamental level than SP and RF (both semi-auto @ 25m).
FWIW, the comparison by another poster about a possible "domino-effect" scenario where Free Pistol might be shot with a sport pistol is like comparing apples to oranges. IIRC, rapid fire was once commonly shot with .22lr. Also, the mechanisms and structures of the matches for SP and FP (semi-auto @25m vs. single shot @50m) are different on a more fundamental level than SP and RF (both semi-auto @ 25m).
Mike T. wrote:<snip, since most this stuff has been rebutted in above posts>The ISSF has proposed this rule change (from .22 short to Standard pistols) purportedly to increase participation in the Rapid Fire event. It is my observation that the base level clubs cannot support increased participation in Rapid Fire. The clubs at which I have shot (about 25) do not have the capacity to permit more than four shooters to fire at any one time (some can accommodate only two at a time). They cannot afford, neither in time nor equipment, to have greater participation. Certainly, when most base level competitions are fired on a weekend as part of a five or six ISSF events programme, there is not enough time to permit more than 10 or 15 competitors to participate in Rapid Fire.
The elite shooters at the apex of the pyramid must come from the base level clubs. Since the base level cannot accommodate more Rapid Fire shooters, the apex will not see an increase in the number of elite shooters. It is also my observation, over a period of 25 years, that shooters who try Rapid Fire with a Standard pistol, and like the event enough to want to participate, quickly purchase a .22 short pistol.
In my opinion, this change from .22 short to Standard pistol for the Rapid Fire event, totally ignores the reality of the base level clubs from which the elite shooter must rise, and totally ignores the financial loss that will be incurred by current owners of .22 short Rapid Fire pistols.
As you may conclude, I am highly upset by this ISSF rule change.
Rapid Fire
Thanks for the correspondence about this subject. It has been interesting to hear the opinions of others.
I am told that the reason for the change is that the existing Olympic Pistol Shooting programme has to be cut back before the China Olympic Games, which also happened after the Atlanta Games.
A lack of spectator interest, and being very difficult to set up TV programming for these events (too expensive) are some of the causes, plus there are no interested buyers for the TV broadcasters.
The ISSF are trying to make excuses by saying the manufacturers are not going to make the .22 shorts, and that the maximum score of 600 has already been shot. They blame the lack of participation in the USA, and Asian countries, and think that most interest is only in Europe.
They just wanted to change it. It is a great disappointment that Walther, Hammerli etc have allowed it to happen without a wimper.
I just hope that this discussion will filter back, and someone will realise that many of us are not happy.
Has anyone seen any pictures of the Athens Shooting range? I have not heard a mention of it.
I am told that the reason for the change is that the existing Olympic Pistol Shooting programme has to be cut back before the China Olympic Games, which also happened after the Atlanta Games.
A lack of spectator interest, and being very difficult to set up TV programming for these events (too expensive) are some of the causes, plus there are no interested buyers for the TV broadcasters.
The ISSF are trying to make excuses by saying the manufacturers are not going to make the .22 shorts, and that the maximum score of 600 has already been shot. They blame the lack of participation in the USA, and Asian countries, and think that most interest is only in Europe.
They just wanted to change it. It is a great disappointment that Walther, Hammerli etc have allowed it to happen without a wimper.
I just hope that this discussion will filter back, and someone will realise that many of us are not happy.
Has anyone seen any pictures of the Athens Shooting range? I have not heard a mention of it.
Rapid Fire After the Olympics
From the various posts here which support the change to .22LR Standard Pistol for this event and the lack of empathy towards those in British Commonwealth countries who are going to have their .22 short pistols confiscated by the police following this change, I get the impression that the majority of shooters world wide will support any change brought on by the ISSF in future regardless of the effect it has on the shooters?
For example, if in the not too distant future the ISSF decides to replace all .22 pistols with air pistols for all events, I gather everyone will enthusiastically dispose of their expensive .22 LR pistols with a cheer and get on with it? How about if the ISSF abolishes all forms of projectile firearms and permits only electronic firearms which project nothing but laser beams onto an electronic target? Still happy with that?
You think this will never happen? Put the proposition to the ISSF and see what sort of answer you get - and then start worrying. Perhaps then the "I'm alright, Jack" brigade might start to understand that letting the ISSF ride roughshod over the wishes of shooters isn't such a good idea after all.
It won't worry me. I saw the writing on the wall after the recent law changes and the compensated compensation for newly banned pistols in Australia and got out of the sport before it gets banned here altogether. Are all of you so happy with the situation in your countries that you think it will never happen there? What's the view like, under the sand?
For example, if in the not too distant future the ISSF decides to replace all .22 pistols with air pistols for all events, I gather everyone will enthusiastically dispose of their expensive .22 LR pistols with a cheer and get on with it? How about if the ISSF abolishes all forms of projectile firearms and permits only electronic firearms which project nothing but laser beams onto an electronic target? Still happy with that?
You think this will never happen? Put the proposition to the ISSF and see what sort of answer you get - and then start worrying. Perhaps then the "I'm alright, Jack" brigade might start to understand that letting the ISSF ride roughshod over the wishes of shooters isn't such a good idea after all.
It won't worry me. I saw the writing on the wall after the recent law changes and the compensated compensation for newly banned pistols in Australia and got out of the sport before it gets banned here altogether. Are all of you so happy with the situation in your countries that you think it will never happen there? What's the view like, under the sand?
Tom
Re: Rapid Fire After the Olympics
How about if the ISSF abolishes all forms of projectile firearms and permits only electronic firearms which project nothing but laser beams onto an electronic target? Still happy with that?
Looking on the bright side, that doesn't sound so bad.
Imagine no ammo (and error that comes with it), pellets, lead, gun cleaning, noise, paper targets, restriction in ownership and transport and more. What's left is pure shooter's skills.
For those who grew up with firearms this is not going to be a pleasant experience, but new generation is probably not going to miss it at all. Change is good.
Looking on the bright side, that doesn't sound so bad.
Imagine no ammo (and error that comes with it), pellets, lead, gun cleaning, noise, paper targets, restriction in ownership and transport and more. What's left is pure shooter's skills.
For those who grew up with firearms this is not going to be a pleasant experience, but new generation is probably not going to miss it at all. Change is good.
-
Guest
Re: Rapid Fire
Err.... I suspect Pardini was pretty mad, having recently introduced a new electronic triger rapid fire pistol.
Charles
Charles
Alex L wrote: It is a great disappointment that Walther, Hammerli etc have allowed it to happen without a wimper.
Rapid Fire
Hi, Tom,
Thank you for an excellent letter.
Sorry to hear you decided to give the sport away, however, I have been competeing since 1956, and you can bet your life I am not going to give up, and let "them" win!
I was taught to compete in a fair manner, and I believe that this website and discussion group may pass the message around that the shooting sports have a long tradition that Must be maintained.
I believe in progress, but all change is not good. Some of it is downright bad.
Thanks to Pilkington Guns for the opportunity to chat with everyone around the world.
Alex L.
Thank you for an excellent letter.
Sorry to hear you decided to give the sport away, however, I have been competeing since 1956, and you can bet your life I am not going to give up, and let "them" win!
I was taught to compete in a fair manner, and I believe that this website and discussion group may pass the message around that the shooting sports have a long tradition that Must be maintained.
I believe in progress, but all change is not good. Some of it is downright bad.
Thanks to Pilkington Guns for the opportunity to chat with everyone around the world.
Alex L.
-
Guest
One of the points brought up from time to time in regards to the difficulties for most clubs to accomodate RF equipment is the space required. This is obvious since one shooter will take up the space of five target positions.
Just a wild thought here, so don't kill me:
Since the ISSF is going to change the gun, the cartridge, and the target to be used, and only the RF name remains unchanged, then why not add one more dramatic change that is totally out of the ordinary: arrange the five targets vertically.
The shooter can even take advantage of the recoil to shoot from the bottom target all the way to the top.
At least this way we can put the same number of shooters on the line as regular shooting events!
Just a wild thought here, so don't kill me:
Since the ISSF is going to change the gun, the cartridge, and the target to be used, and only the RF name remains unchanged, then why not add one more dramatic change that is totally out of the ordinary: arrange the five targets vertically.
The shooter can even take advantage of the recoil to shoot from the bottom target all the way to the top.
At least this way we can put the same number of shooters on the line as regular shooting events!
Rapid Fire After the Olympics
For LesJ
So change is good? I suppose the best solution, therefore, is to ban real guns altogether. Pistol shooters can tape lasers pointers to their index fingers and for added realism, say "Bang!" as they imitate a shot. Rifle and shotgunners can tie the pointers to broomhandles and ditto.
That should make the sport accessible to eveyone, get rid of all ammo problems and eliminate equipment problems.
Is this really the way you would like to see things go?
Don't rely on the ISSF to decide for everyone what is best for the sport. We, the practitioners, must be heard by that body and hopefully there are still enough left who know what real shooting involves - I hope.
So change is good? I suppose the best solution, therefore, is to ban real guns altogether. Pistol shooters can tape lasers pointers to their index fingers and for added realism, say "Bang!" as they imitate a shot. Rifle and shotgunners can tie the pointers to broomhandles and ditto.
That should make the sport accessible to eveyone, get rid of all ammo problems and eliminate equipment problems.
Is this really the way you would like to see things go?
Don't rely on the ISSF to decide for everyone what is best for the sport. We, the practitioners, must be heard by that body and hopefully there are still enough left who know what real shooting involves - I hope.
Tom