Handgun shooting

scanzbucket

Hi all

I am new member to the boards, and I am considering the purchase of a handgun, in particular a revolver. Has anyone had any experience of these? I have had a firearm of one description or another since I was 18 (.22 rifles) and I currently own a .223 and a shotgun, both of which are used mainly for target/clay shooting. I am considering joining midlands as I think that they have a great setup and they also accomodate pistols. My local Garda station is willing to put the application through for me, though I have heard that the super doesn't like centrefire handguns, in that case I may consider .22 revolver. Any thoughts or suggestions would be much appreciated

bullets

There was a write up on a .17HMR revolver in the Irish Shooters digest
a while back. I cant remember if it was the Taurus or not but there
was a mention that it could be fitted with a stock
(not sure the name of the stock but like a wire frame stock)
where it legally could be classified as a rifle even though it was
still a revolver.

Anyway one advantage of said revolver would be that it would be still
a rim-fire rifle and also you could use the same ammo if you were to
purchase a rimfire rifle in the same calibre.

http://www.gunblast.com/TaurusTracker17.htm

~B

viewmount

I think the ultimate decision comes down to the local super, but it would help your cause if you were in a shooting club or range (if there is such thing!). Also a house alarm and good gun cabinet would show you are a responsible person.

Kramer

viewmount wrote:

it would help your cause if you were in a shooting club or range (if there is such thing!). Also a house alarm and good gun cabinet would show you are a responsible person.

All three are mandatory for pistol ownership.

flight93

Quote: All three are mandatory for pistol ownership.

No they are not! I have never been asked about an alarm or safe (howver I have both) and I have a center fire pistol & rifle.

Bullets,

I think a .17 is a crazy round for a hand gun. What purpose does it serve?? It has no advantage over a .22 pistol. I know it will shoot further and flatter, but rimfire pistols generally are not shot to a range that this could make any difference. The rounds cost alot more than .22 yet you can not use it in center fire competitions or for practical pistol.

bullets

flight93 wrote:

Bullets,
I think a .17 is a crazy round for a hand gun. What purpose does it serve??

I'm the owner of a .17 Rifle
I dont have a strong interest (or knowledge) in pistol shooting having only
shot 9mm pistol a few times but
I was thinking along the lines that if I was ever to buy one it
would be handy to be able to use the same ammo in both the
pistol and the rifle. Without needing to buy seperate ammo
for both the pistol and rifle.

flight93 wrote:

you can not use it in center fire competitions or for practical pistol.

I dont see anything at all crazy about it,
the .17HMR is getting more and more popular who knows
in the future it could as popular as the .22.
I personally have fell in love with this little round.

I know its not as wide-spread as the .22 but
If more people did use it then a seperate catagory
of compatition or shooting style could be made it may
add a bit of variety to shooting.
(For both rifle and pistol)

The way things stand currently if you cant use it for Competitions
or practical pistol for either rimfire or centrefire it raises the question
why not? Why not broaden the range to rimfire or centrefire
competitions or giving it a spot of its own.
excluding it is kinda treating the calibre as if it was outcast
or the leper of calibres.

~B

Umiq88

Point is the .17hmr doesnt really offer much more over a .22lr when your shooting a 15-25yards.

And at 15euro a box its on the expensive side.

Nothing and i mean nothing will every replace the .22lr its the most versitile cartridge there is and everyone should have at least one

bullets

psittacosis wrote:

Point is the .17hmr doesnt really offer much more over a .22lr when your shooting a 15-25yards.

Surely then neither does the 9mm/.45/.38 (apart from recoil)
which I am guessing may be more expensive than the 17hmr.
But yet they seem to be perfectly acceptable.
(I'm not trying to argue more so am trying to understand the reasoning behind
things pistol related)

As I mentioned I dont know a lot about pistol shooting but in my own mind
I would see it as a happy inbetween type round when it comes to .22 vs centrefire. If your only shooting at papertargets or even metal plates at
15-25 yards it should not matter what the calibre is so why exclude one.
(unless you are using the pistol to hunt/kill things with)

I am wondering What does a round need to offer for pistol shooting other
than price. what factors or attributes do people look out for.

(On the other extreme is there an upper limit when it comes to pistol
fireing say like point 5's that the likes of Dessert eagles fire ?)

(The firearm I thought was in the Irish shooters digest but I was wrong
it was in the Feb issue of Target Sports magazine)
With regard to the the actual firearm was reading about that used the .17
Its the Taurus Revolving rifle. (Long barrel comes in both .22 and .17hmr)
it offered the advantage that when it was fitted with the stock it could
be licenced/classified as a rifle. Which would be handy for people living with Supers who
drag their heels when it comes to handing out licences for pistols.
For the likes of people waiting months or even over a year for a pistol licence
then if something could be licenced as a rifle and yet still be a pistol
then you could be talking only weeks to get a licence for one.
It also appears that its nice and cheap I saw once article that said
the Taurus .17 HMR tracker was only 406 USD.

~B

Clare gunner

Thing about the Taurus and such,was they are hybrids that were built specifically for the British market post Dunblane. They are too long to be pistols,and they lose the "practical" aspect of a handgun,being able to carry it concealed or in a holster. Then the "stock" is from what I have seen a non removeable wrist brace,as it cant have a stock as it then apprently falls foul of UK gun laws and becomes a stocked pistol carbine.
So what have you got?A pistol that needs a sling to carry,or a rifle that is very wobbly? Any Super is going to say it is a long barreled pistol.So you would have to permantly affix astock to make it a revolver carbine. Only advantage I could see to them is a fine accurate small cal scoped varmit pistol or a shiloutte[sic] pistol?

flight93

bullets wrote:

Surely then neither does the 9mm/.45/.38 (apart from recoil)
~B

Er no, a 9mm and above has a power factor (combination of bullet weight & speed) that means that it can be used fo practical pistol. For pistol target shooting it would have no advantage whatsoever over .22 due to its price. A .17 rifle is a very different thing, here the .17 has an advantage at longer ranges.

Generally in pistol competitions rimfire falls into a different category than centerfire. In this case you would be paying more per round than 9mm (a relitively cheap centerfire round) yet you would not be able to compete in the same category.

If you think its a good pistol round and you enjoy it, more power to you! I am not saying that it is not a good round for a rifle, just too expensive for a rimfire pistol that can not take advantage of its longer range and flatter trajectory.

babybundy

i priced 9mm yesterday and its only 12.50 a box of 50 i was surprised

Kramer

flight93 wrote:

Quote: All three are mandatory for pistol ownership.

No they are not! I have never been asked about an alarm or safe (howver I have both) and I have a center fire pistol & rifle.

Just goes to show how the "rules" are different throughout the country :eek: .

To be fair though, in relation to the op's question:
Membership of range IS mandatory.
Alarm/safe are mandatory FOR MOST supers .

flight93, you're lucky to have such a "forgiving" super .

babybundy

ya my super wants all 3 too in a club, have a good safe and will be fitting the alarm when i get one

scanzbucket

I read the article on gunblast.com, and the .17 really is an impressive piece of kit, there are just too many choices. In my mind I am still inclined to go with .22lr as I have had a no. of 22 rifles in the past and liked them, also the furthest I will be shooting is 25-30 yards. I fired the sig mosquito in mallow range (many thanks to the owner of same who allowed me!!!) and I liked it a lot, though I thought that the trigger felt 'spongey' and not crisp, I fired the S & W revolver and felt that it was better and more accurate or possibly easier to control. I would need more time to practice, I haven't completely ruled out pistols as option either........

scanzbucket

I have a safe, and am planning to join midlands in june, and will enquire about a house alarm (if required), my biggest hurdle however may be in convincing she who must be obeyed......