TargetTalk

Umm...

8.4.4 Ammunition?

50m Pistol - 5.6 mm (.22”) - Rimfire Long Rifle

Spencer wrote:Umm...

8.4.4 Ammunition?

50m Pistol - 5.6 mm (.22”) - Rimfire Long Rifle

Ok, I'm fully aware of the rules, but it's just a discussion point. As you know most of our matches are not ISSF sanctioned. I bet we mostly shoot 10 shots per target for Free Pistol too. My suggestion of .22long was just to overcome the problem with .22 short having to "jump the gap" in a .22lr chamber.

As for .22 long rifle, does the ISSF define the same as SAAMI? If so, SAAMI specs do not specify projectile weight, only length. So, to take the idea further (as a point of discussion, not trying to break the rules or anything like that) a .22lr round loaded with a lighter projetile would be OK (for Free pistol, but not RF where the bullet weight is mentioned)?

j-team wrote: As for .22 long rifle, does the ISSF define the same as SAAMI? If so, SAAMI specs do not specify projectile weight, only length. So, to take the idea further (as a point of discussion, not trying to break the rules or anything like that) a .22lr round loaded with a lighter projetile would be OK (for Free pistol, but not RF where the bullet weight is mentioned)?

j-team is correct.

That's what I meant in my 04 October post about the ISSF rules being problematic - the fact that ISSF didn't provide definitions in the rules for 50m pistol.

Here are the true statements about the ISSF 50m pistol rules:

• Rule 8.4.3.3. says that any PISTOL is legal as long as it is caliber 5.6 mm (.22") rimfire, chambered for .22 Long Rifle.
  
  Rule 8.4.4. says that any AMMUNITION is legal as long as it is Rimfire Long Rifle.

What is missing is a definition of "Rimfire Long Rifle", or at least a reference to someone else's definition (e.g., SAAMI, C.I.P.). This causes ambiguity. For example, the C.I.P. has a separate definition for ".22 Long" and for ".22 Long Rifle", even though the cartridge dimensions are identical. So a judge could justifiably disallow 22 Long (or 22 CB Long) because it is not ".22 Long Rifle" even if it might be illogical.

Since ISSF doesn't define ".22 Rimfire Long Rifle" then that means that no judge could justifiably disallow any cartridge marked or marketed as "22 Long Rifle".

Somewhat surreally, because they are ".22 Rimfire Long Rifle", these are allowed http://www.aguilaammo.com/rimfire.html#12 (Aguila Colibrí, .22 long rifle, 20 gr bullet at 375 fps), and http://www.aguilaammo.com/rimfire.html#2 (Aguila SSS, .22 long rifle, 60 gr bullet at 950 fps). I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to shoot those - the first one is a primer-only load and that's got to be really inconsistent, then there's barrel time and wind effect; the 60 gr would probably be unstable (keyholing).

Makris D. G. wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Makris D. G. wrote:To my cries that the rules say "must be .22LR" so no personal judgement required, the answer was that in the English language, "must be" is more of a suggestion, while "has to be" is the definite wording to disallow something......
Any comments?

"Must be" needs no interpretation. It is the same as "has to be".

"Should be" is different and in some circumstances (but I would suggest not this one) could allow some choice.

They are of course free to allow someone to use .22 short unless it is an ISSF controlled competition.

Well the gentleman in question hides his shorts in LR boxes, and after the more vocal comments by some competitors, puts each short case in his pocket and scatters a few LR cases for good measure so its not quite "allowed" up to this point... but we will see...

Makris D.G. -
You should let that gentleman know about these so he doesn't have to "hide his shorts" any more...:
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/5 ... ?a=1337616
It's the SK "reduced charge", the ballistic equivalent of a 22 short but labeled "22 Long Rifle". 28 grain lead bullet at 850 fps.

It is good that this is a "discussion only" topic because if anyone would seriously consider using 22 Shorts in a 50m Pistol in competition, then my very strong advice would be to test it over 50m in your pistol with the barrel clamped in a machine rest and compare the resulting 10-shot groups with 22LR ammo in the same set-up. I think this topic might end quite abruptly!

But then, you can get 10'000 shots of .22 short for around 200$ nowadays, so if you worry more about the cost than about the result... :-)

jliston48 wrote:It is good that this is a "discussion only" topic because if anyone would seriously consider using 22 Shorts in a 50m Pistol in competition, then my very strong advice would be to test it over 50m in your pistol with the barrel clamped in a machine rest and compare the resulting 10-shot groups with 22LR ammo in the same set-up. I think this topic might end quite abruptly!

I had planned to do a machine rest test on my Free Pistol next week, I'll fire a few shorts just for a laugh! I did once read an article in a gun mag about a guy who built a match grade rifle and chambered in .22short, he was getting 1/4" groups at 50m with R25, so the ammo seems capable, but that was in a purpose made barrel.

Tycho, When I sold my Pardini GP in 2004 (for a fraction of it's value), I gave away all my .22 short ammo, no one wanted it!

Tycho wrote:But then, you can get 10'000 shots of .22 short for around 200$ nowadays, so if you worry more about the cost than about the result... :-)

... and you get to use a lot more of the target. ;-)