TargetTalk

;-) First time as far as I know that I (indirectly) have been pointed out to be insane. Perhaps I should start write in Swedish instead in order to express myself more correctly :-°

Equipment control is usually several days before the match. Things can happen between that time and the start of the match.

As for the pic(s) being "stretched" to fit a page layout. I don't think so. If your are familiar with Pardini pistols then you would see that every other feature is in proportion.

Pär Hylander wrote:;-) First time as far as I know that I (indirectly) have been pointed out to be insane.

You will have guessed that there was no personal insult intended. I pride myself that if I intend to insult someone they are left in no doubt that I meant it ;^)

It just seems strange to me that this thread seems to be:-

1) Accusing a world class shooter of, intentionally or unintentionally, cheating.
2) Accusing the organisers of a World Cup of not running a proper equipment control section.
3) Insinuating that ISSF qualified range personnel should be so inefficient as to miss an, apparently blatant, breach of the rules.

Any or all of the above points may or may not be true. I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't make such accusations based on the evidence of one photograph.

Mr. j-team:
State your point: Are you accusing Milev of cheating? If so, you should be contacting ISSF directly. If not, it's probably time to drop the subject. Nicht wahr?

Bruce F wrote:Does anyone know what happened to Ralf Schumann (appears to have malfunctioned out in his first half) or to the other German who was disqualified ? Was it Trigger weight or ammo not meeting specifications ?

Was just looking over the results on the ISSF website, and they listed the reason for the DQ as rule 8.4.6, which is the ammo specs. Thus, his bullet weight was either less than 39g, or his velocity was less than 250 m/s. I was there and remember him firing through the chronograph twice after his match, so my guess would be the velocity is what his problem was.

-Ted

Dropping the subject is probably the best thing to do...

I agree fully with Pär that sight radius has very little bearing on Emil´s achivement.

David Levene wrote:I certainly wouldn't make such accusations based on the evidence of one photograph.

It´s not just that one picture, but also the pictures taken by our host.
Accusations, hmm... I would rather call it observations

The pistol was a loaner, does that mean his own pistol broke down and he got that one during practice?
That could account for a less than perfect EC, after all, even officials are only human, they might have forgotten the radius check.

Oh, I should have dropped it ;-)
Have now...

In response to Quickly's question, I'll try to explain this in simple terms. Measurement points will be described using alphabetical characters, just to save a few words.

The dimension called into question on the MG-2 had to do with a measurement from the rearward-most point of the grip where it extends over the top of the hand toward the wrist (point A) to that vertical part of the grip spanned by the web between thumb and forefinger (point B) (this is the part of the grip where if you grind away too much material you'll end up exposing the square corners of the rear of the pistol's frame). The diagram in the ISSF rule book makes it appear as though this measurement is to be taken between the rear face of the rear sight blade (point C) and and point B. The textual description reads as though the measurement is from point A to point B, which is in fact correct. The heart palpitations started when the measurement between points B and C of the MG-2 exceeded maximum by at least 4mm. Once it was determined that measurement needed to be made between points A and B it was found the MG-2 passed with flying colours, being a few millimetres less than the maximum specified.

Hope this clarifies things for you, Quickly. I wish you great success with your new MG-2!

Anders Turebrand wrote:It´s not just that one picture, but also the pictures taken by our host.

Oh I see, 1 taken from about 45 degrees behind the shooter, 1 where the shooter is holding the front of the gun so you cannot see the front sight and 1 where you cannot see the gun at all.

I agree, time to drop it BUT without any outstanding slur on Milev's character or achievement.

http://pilkguns.com/2005/wcMRF/img_9423.htm

http://pilkguns.com/2005/wcMRF/img_9429.htm

http://pilkguns.com/2005/wcMRF/img_9430.htm

Anders,

I do not see the relevance of pointing to 3 pictures, all of which are taken from approximately 45 degrees behind the shooter, only one of which is of the shooter in question.

There seems to be no evidence of a breach of the rules. Without such evidence there must be no slur on Milev's character or achievement.

David, if you look at those front sights, it's pretty obvious that Milevs is not the same and especially not mounted in the same place as the other two. Now I would not assume that those other 2 guys would voluntarily use a shorter sight radius than allowed. Beside that, I'm a Pardini owner myself, and if that gun of Milev has a sight radius of 220mm or less, I'm going to eat my hat. I'm not saying that this had a real influence on his result, I'm not going to say that HE cheated (perhaps he borrowed the whole pistol after somebody else got it through the check, what do I know?) but I'd VERY suprised if he (or somebody else) used the same barrel shroud / front sight in his next competition.

I don't believe that any of this original thread was intended to be any sort of accusation of deliberate cheating, just an observation of an unusual sight configuration. (Personally knowing Emil, I think he would be the first to say if it was wrong then take the appropriate action, disqualification or whatever the rules say... he is not the type of guy to take an unfair advantage, however small.)

If all the guns were checked for sight radius - no problem. If not, then there is an opportunity for improvement in the way the gun checks were done. Some World Cup competitions are very strick on all aspects of equipment control, others not, - I wasn't there so I can't say which category Ft Benning fell into.

By the way in my 20 years of competition shooting, I have never seen a 'spot check' include the re-measurment of a pistol, it has only ever been trigger weight (and now bullet spec). It would normally be assumed the dimensions have not changed and were verified at time of the original equipment control.

Just my 2 cents worth....

Off:
Alifirenko's pistol:
"MTs-57"