TargetTalk

jipe wrote:Are these three recent Rink grips legal ?

It's extremely difficult to tell just from photographs. Let's just say that if they were mine I would want to get the opinion, in person, of someone who knows and understands the rules. I certainly wouldn't just turn up at a match and expect them to pass.

I believe your grip below is legal.

I believe the rule's point about >=90 degrees does not mean the lowest point of the overhang curve has follow the center axis of the gun. The >=90 deg means the curve must be at worse a flat line, or a curve upwards.

On my AP grip, which was just passed at the Olympics, has a similar profile. I've drawn a horizontal tangent along the bottom of the overhang, to show the wood does curve upward (ie, >90 deg).

I have also drawn a vertical line, to show that the lowest point of the overhang curve is not inline with the center of the pistol.

jipe wrote:I have a Morini CM22M RF Rink grip made in April 2008, so a newly designed grip (its specific for the new CM22M RF and doesn't fit on the normal CM22M), not an old one, that shows exactly the same shape as on the showed picture:


I was already wondering if this grip is legal. On the ISSF rule, the straigth and concave line cases are shown and judged illegal.

The convex line case as on the Rink grip is not shown, it is unclear for me if this is also illegal.

The rule says 90 degree but for a curved line, what does 90 degree mean ? If it is the angle of the tangent to the curve, then the angle of the tangent to the convex shape of Rink is at 90 degree and is legal while the angle to the tangent to the concave shape showed on the ISSF rule is indeed illegal.

trinity's point about the centreline of the pistol is important.

The curvature considerations in 8.16.0 & 8.17.0 are in relation to the grip and shooter's hand - i.e. any relationship to the pistol is irrelevant other than 8.4.4.1 The center line of the bore must pass above the web (between thumb and forefinger) of the hand.

The drawings for curvature in 8.17.0 do not show any part of the pistol - this is not an accidental omission.

Spencer

I cannot help thinking that the confusion about grip angles and shapes is the ISSF's fault.

They seem to have ignored their own Constitution. Rule 1.21.1 clearly states:-

"English is the permanent official language. The Constitution and all regulations, rules and legal or official communications must be published in the English language. The resolution of disputes must be conducted in the English language."

Where does the word "Griffachse" appear in English. I am sure that native speakers of German will understand what it means but literal translation does not fully explain its meaning.

it could be 'axis of grip' in the 2009 rules.

unfortunately griffachse appears to be one of those German words that takes a sentance in English.

Spencer

Spencer wrote:it could be 'axis of grip' in the 2009 rules.

unfortunately griffachse appears to be one of those German words that takes a sentance in English.

Thanks Spencer, but even "axis of grip" is totally meaningless without further definition of the word "axis". If it takes a sentance to adequately define what they mean then they should use a sentance.

The word "axis" would normally be used to define a line around which something rotates. There is no such line for a grip.

We are asked to measure 90 degrees (accurately), but are not given sufficient information in the rules where we should be measuring from. This leaves us with "it looks OK to me" type decisions.

Dear Shooters,

sorry for my bad english. But i think i have to say something to this problem.
My Name is Thomas Rink. I'm the head of the company Rink-Formgriffe.

It's verry importand to look at the midle axis of the pistol. This you can see at a laminated wood grip verry easy. I have add the picture with two lines and you can see verry easy that this grip agree with the rules.


If you put your thumb at the left or at the right part of the horn, you can see it better. Otherwise it will be a optical illusion.

It is possible that some older pictures at our homepage are not meet the rules. Since the changing of the rules with the new pictures, we keep an eye on each grip for it.
By the way: The new pictures in the ISSF rules are made from us. If you compare our logo with the grip from the side you will notice it.

Best regards
Thomas Rink

rink-grips wrote:Dear Shooters,

sorry for my bad english. But i think i have to say something to this problem.
My Name is Thomas Rink. I'm the head of the company Rink-Formgriffe.

It's verry importand to look at the midle axis of the pistol. This you can see at a laminated wood grip verry easy. I have add the picture with two lines and you can see verry easy that this grip agree with the rules.


If you put your thumb at the left or at the right part of the horn, you can see it better. Otherwise it will be a optical illusion.

It is possible that some older pictures at our homepage are not meet the rules. Since the changing of the rules with the new pictures, we keep an eye on each grip for it.
By the way: The new pictures in the ISSF rules are made from us. If you compare our logo with the grip from the side you will notice it.

Best regards
Thomas Rink

Thanks a lot for your participation to this thread.

Do you mean that the grips from which I have posted the pictures (see below) comply with the latest ISSF rules ?

rink-grips wrote:I have add the picture with two lines and you can see verry easy that this grip agree with the rules.

I am sorry but if you take the vertical line you have drawn as being the "Griffachse" then it is clear that there is a part 6 or 7 laminations to the right that is lower than at the "Griffachse". That makes it less than 90 degrees and NOT therefore in accordance with the rules.

It all depends on the exact position of the "Griffachse". Unfortunately the ISSF rules do not tell us how to determine this.

That's the problem! Where you have to set the vertical axis?
You can use the axis of the grip or you can use the axis of pistol. That's not the same!
At the picture with the three red laminated grips you can see it:
At the left grip it's no problem, grip and pistol axis are the same. At this pistol you can't turn the grip in the vertical axis.
At the middle and the right picture the grip is turned about 3 degrees clockwise. So the right part of the horn isn't, relative to the rear sight, correct. But relative to the vertical grip axis it is okay.

But what's about the palm rest? If you turn the grip counterclockwise, the palm rest goes upwards at the right side. This is also not correct.

So you must look to the axis of the grip! Otherwise you can't use the possibility of some pistols to turn the grip angle.

You see, it's a difficult problem. But the easiest way to remove it, is to sand the right edge a little bit round and nobody can get on s.o.s nerves.


Best regards
Thomas Rink

OK! Enough already...!

IMHO the REALLY important part of the rule is The grip must not encircle the hand. Curved surfaces on the grips or frame, including the heel and/or thumb rest, in the longitudinal direction of the pistol are permitted.

The references to 90 degrees, the drawings, etc. are all to illustrate that the grip must not encircle the hand, or part of it. You are allowed to come to the 90 degrees but not beyond that, or it becomes 'encircling'.

Spencer

Spencer wrote:OK! Enough already...!...............
...................You are allowed to come to the 90 degrees but not beyond that, or it becomes 'encircling'.

Time to get off the fence I'm afraid Spencer.

Fully understanding that it's extremely difficult to be certain from photographs, what is your impression of:-

a) The initial picture from Walter
b) The second picture from Walter
c) The two triple pictures fron jipe.

Legal, illegal or "too close to call".

not a matter of fence-sitting.

From the photos:
- the first from Walter appears to not comply with the rules
- for the others, it will depend on the particular grip in the particular shooters hand. These grips might be 'legal' for some shooters, and not for others.

The same situation exists for Neither the grip nor any part of the pistol may be extended or constructed in any way that would allow it to touch beyond the hand. The wrist must remain visibly free when the pistol is held in the normal firing position. - with my short, beefy hand I have to carve off up to 5mm from the back of grips that would be 'legal' for many (most?) shooters.

Spencer

Spencer wrote:not a matter of fence-sitting.

From the photos:
- the first from Walter appears to not comply with the rules
- for the others, it will depend on the particular grip in the particular shooters hand. These grips might be 'legal' for some shooters, and not for others.

The same situation exists for Neither the grip nor any part of the pistol may be extended or constructed in any way that would allow it to touch beyond the hand. The wrist must remain visibly free when the pistol is held in the normal firing position. - with my short, beefy hand I have to carve off up to 5mm from the back of grips that would be 'legal' for many (most?) shooters.

Spencer

I agree with you Spencer - the intent of the regulation is clear; the problem is that the wording does not provide the specific guidelines needed to make a judgement. Perhaps seeing the pistol in the shooters hand is the only way. I had the same problem with having to remove material from the back of the palm rest which otherwise would have supported my wrist. I still have a problem figuring out where my wrist begins. :-)

Now we are into anatomy! Where your wrist begins and ends is complex due to the bone structure.

The intent of the rule is that no part of the pistol imobilises the hand by bracing the mobile hand with the rigid (relative the the hand) arm. I had to grind off about 5 mm from my MG2's palm shelf, we Aussies must have different anatomy to the rest of the world.

Equipment control is a wondrous place to work....Now we need someone to start a thread "but it fitted the box the last time mate"

ausdiver99 wrote:I had to grind off about 5 mm from my MG2's palm shelf, we Aussies must have different anatomy to the rest of the world.

Everybody's got different anatomy to the rest of the world. I am sure that a pre-requisite for becoming a grip maker/designer is to have hands the size of dinner plates ;-)

ausdiver99 wrote:Equipment control is a wondrous place to work....Now we need someone to start a thread "but it fitted the box the last time mate"

Oh, how true. I think anyone who has ever worked equipment control can relate to that.

ausdiver99 wrote:....Now we need someone to start a thread "but it fitted the box the last time mate"

'
At one AUS competition the EC personnel had forms printed stating
"but it fitted the box the last time" and
"but it lifted the weight last time" with
"please cross out whichever does not apply, sign, and hand to the Equipment Control Staff"

Spencer

I LIKE that!

Plagiarism works for me, I might get a small one laminated to keep with my yellow, green and red cards, bit like the blue one I have seen!

ausdiver99 wrote:........bit like the blue one I have seen!

But a little more polite?

The politest blue card I have seen has the words
'Tell someone that cares'

Spencer