TargetTalk

Hi folks,

I've finally decided to sell my AW-93 and purchase another pistol for RF. Although the MG-2 is still the prime contender, I'm looking for feedback from anybody who can offer a quantitative performance analysis which compares the SP1 New and RF versions. There's not enough real hard data available to make a decision, and there are none available here for me to make a side-by-side comparison. If anybody has already done this I'd very much appreciate hearing the results.


Cheers,
Mark.

Mark,

I can only describe the differences between a SP New (mech) and the rapid with electric trigger.

The web site alludes to some changes to the bolt, grip, and weights.

I did a visual comparison from my SP New(mech) to Dimitry's Rapid fire(elect).

First, the grip angle on the rapid (elec or mech trigger) is more relaxed (less upright). It is the same angle of the Ralf Schumann 22 short rapid fire model or the Nygord "Master" grip for bullseye shooters but looks identical to the regular SP or SP New grip.The Master grip was a modified Schumann rapid fire with some of the back of the hand section removed for bullseye shooters.

Second, the bolt is different per the web site. I didn't disassemble the rapid fire but externally I couldn't tell the difference other than the finish (more shiny on the rapid). I suspect that the bolt is lighter to insure the wimpy 22 LR being developed will always function. 250m/sec is pretty slow for 22 LR as the slowest I've found is Lapua and Aguila Pistol Match at 280-ish. It does make a difference in the 4 second series.

Third, the steel weights are replaced with tungsten ones that give an increase of about 15 grams each (total 90 grams increase over steel) on the rapid fire models. Larry Carter sells them for about $30 a piece. I'm getting some myself to "update" my SP New. I know this will help on the flip I get during the 4 second series.

Both have the new fully adjustable trigger shoe affair.

Both have the rear width adjustable rear sight.

Last, the markings are different on the anodized front barrel/weight housing unit.

Hope this helps,

Lonnie Meyers

Lonnie - thank you, this was EXACTLY what I was hoping for! If I go with a Pardini I suspet it will be the SP New, mechanical trigger. I'm not a big fan of really nose-heavy pistols, so the tungsten weights of the RF version likely wouldn't help me much. And I do like an extreme rake angle on the grip, so once again the straighter grip angle of the RF version is likely not what I'm looking for.

Thanks again for providing the detailed feedback to help me in this decision!

Mark,

Re-read carefully what I said about the grip on the rapid fire. It is more raked than the SP or SP New.

I looked at the bolt on the rapid fire and my suspicions were correct. Two sections are milled out toward the rear of the bolt. I believe this is to produce faster cycling time or guarantee cycling with the wimpy 22 LR being developed. All other dimensions appeared exactly the same.

Lonnie Meyers

Thanks for the clarification, Lonnie!

Mark

What are the reasons for selling the AW93 and moving to a Pardini for Rapidfire?

Recently I got a detailed tour of the AW93 and the recoil management systems that are used, I was dubious as to whether these happen quick enough for Rapidfire. What are your thoughts?

I currently use a Walther GSP and am moving to a Pardini SP.

Mikey

Mikey,

Your comments concerning the AW-93 ring true with my findings. The recoil management design in this pistol is ideal for shot recovery on slow fire series. But as soon as you need to get some speed out of the gun it recovers far too slowly. I didn't have any trouble with the 8s series in Rapid Fire, but even at 6s things were getting a little shaky. At 4s the gun's performance is a distinct disadvantage.

That having been said, I don't want anybody to think I'm maligning this pistol. It is without doubt the finest crafted pistol on the market today - it's simply beautiful. And as a precision pistol I don't think there's anything else out there that can beat it. But it's not designed for Rapid Fire. Word has it that the fine engineers of FWB are working on an RF version. Now THAT would be something to see!

BTW, you'll see quite a difference in moving from the GSP to the Pardini. I wish you great success.

I just upgraded my old SP to a SP New, in my convesation with Larry Carter, I asked many of the same questions. The One that pushed me away from the RF, Larry said that the RF had a different chamber (larger)and that it would not be as accurate. I gather that RF is just that, a dedicated RF pistol, not the best choice to shoot both.

Gort - can you tell us how the larger chamber makes the gun more suitable for RF? Is it a function\reliability enhancement??

And if you have a moment:

What exactly did you have done to you SP to upgrade it to the SP new?

What did it cost?

Did you have to send the gun back to Larry to accomplish the upgrades?

Are you happy with the results?


Thanks much for any info you can provide.

F. Paul in Denver

I wasn't very clear, my upgrade was to sell my old ( early 90's) SP and purchased a SP New. My information about the chamber in the RF is vague, Larry did not go into detail and I didn't ask. but I got the impression that it was to reduce recoil.
Gort

THanks for the explanation Gort. My wife thanks you too . . . you just saved her a few hundred dollars. (:-))

On the chamber dimension issue, it might be worth while to look at the basics of accuracy tuning in firearms. Generally, a chamber which is machined as closely as possible to the minimum dimensions (ie a "tight" chamber) will produce more reliable alignment of the bullet and the bore. The end result of this configuration is generally a tighter group. But it comes at a cost - reliability. In bench rest rifles the cartridges are reloaded, and only the neck is resized, thereby removing any potential for slop between the cartridge and the chamber wall. But benchrest rifles don't have to fire 5 shots in 4 seconds!

In order to reduce friction between the spent cartridge case and the chamber wall, and to allow for some variation in cartridge dimensions, a slightly larger chamber is sometimes employed. While the alignment between bullet and bore may not be as good, and subsequently group size may open up a little, it's likely not going to have a significant impact at 25m in a pistol. The real up-side to making the chamber sligtly larger is that your pistol will reliably feed multiple types of ammunition, and will continue to do so even when somewhat dirty.

In the world of rapid fire with only one allowable malfunction, reliability of functioning is worth more than absolute accuracy. A bullet in the 9-ring isn't as good as one in the 10-ring, but is far, far better than a big fat zero caused by a non-allowable malfunction. As a result, some manufacturers have decided to opt for a slightly larger chamber in order to make their guns go "bang" every time you pull the trigger.

Mark Briggs wrote:A bullet in the 9-ring isn't as good as one in the 10-ring, but is far, far better than a big fat zero caused by a non-allowable malfunction.

Remember that it can be even worse than that Mark. You don't get a re-shoot any more so if you get an NAM on the second shot you suck 40 points.

I know the pain of which you speak, David! At the Championship of the Americas last fall I watched a shooter drop 30 points to a NAM. The look of disappointment and utter frustration on his face told the story all too well. I wouldn't be surprised if his pistol went into the trash compactor when he got home!