Thinking of changing the pistol - madness at the moment ?

mosulli4

All,

I shoot a 9mm Cz-85, and I am not getting on too well with it. However I shot a Cz Tactical sports in 40SW recently and I really shot well with it. A complete revelation to me in terms of trigger and shootability, and good groups too. It fits my hands better and the single stage trigger is a delight. :eek: I assume I would be stone mad to consider changing at the moment given the uncertainties surruonding pistol ownership?

Let me know your opinions...

Mick

Trojan911

mosulli4 wrote: »

All,

I shoot a 9mm Cz-85, and I am not getting on too well with it. However I shot a Cz Tactical sports in 40SW recently and I really shot well with it. A complete revelation to me in terms of trigger and shootability, and good groups too. It fits my hands better and the single stage trigger is a delight. :eek: I assume I would be stone mad to consider changing at the moment given the uncertainties surruonding pistol ownership?

Let me know your opinions...

Mick

Shouldn't make any difference in my opinion. You are already licensed.

V Bull

Trojan911 wrote: »

Shouldn't make any difference in my opinion. You are already licensed.

I agree totally with Trojan911, if you are already licenced with a pistol then your Garda FAO should be able to do a one off one on, simple...........

jwshooter

i heard there not amending any pistols .
before you buy, get it in writing that they will change it for you .

bunny shooter

Check with Super first I had trouble recently in this regard. Des Crofton got involved and it was sorted, thanks again Des

Reckon you might not be able to go from 9mm to 40 either. In my area you cannot amend up calibre but you amend can down :mad: Be careful and personally check with your Super FIRST to get his/her answer on whether they will allow change. Also can't amend semi-auto to revolver apparently

Trojan911

bunny shooter wrote: »

In my area you cannot amend up calibre but you amend can down :mad:

This is what bugs me about this country. There appears to be no set rules. Do these Superintendents make them up as they go along? If so, they are not complying with the laws set down before them, or am I missing something?

Time & time again I read on here about fellow shooters having to fight for their firearms whether it is either changing them over or upgrading them & then getting the license granted on the steps of the courthouse, so to speak.

It would be laughable except it is not when you hear of a Super granting a .223 licence in X county but another Super refusing one in Y county.

If a person is entitled to hold a license then grant it, if not, then deny it with written reason. Stop faffing a fella about.

Thankfully my Super or FO is not one of these.

bunny shooter

Trojan911 I agree 100% with you unfortunately we just seem to be banging our heads off walls. Must admit Des got my situation sorted in no time. Which just goes to show I was being messed around :mad:

Trojan911

bunny shooter wrote: »

Trojan911 I agree 100% with you unfortunately we just seem to be banging our heads off walls. Must admit Des got my situation sorted in no time. Which just goes to show I was being messed around :mad:

Ya, I've had conversations with Des before & that is why I am with NARGC. He, in my opinion, is a no nonsense guy, which I like.

Sparks

Trojan911 wrote: »

This is what bugs me about this country. There appears to be no set rules. Do these Superintendents make them up as they go along? If so, they are not complying with the laws set down before them, or am I missing something?
Time & time again I read on here about fellow shooters having to fight for their firearms whether it is either changing them over or upgrading them & then getting the license granted on the steps of the courthouse, so to speak.

The Superintendent is the persona designata meaning that standards cannot be enforced across the board; though guidelines can be issued and are (I understand) being worked on by the FCP. However, the Super's position as persona designata, and our inability to see standards enforced, is a direct result of taking the supers to court repeatedly (see the Dunne v Donoghue case, where the decision was made). I think, if that's the kind of thing that can result (as well as the Charleton case and the kneejerk it's enabled), we'd want to stop running to the courts every five minutes.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

...................... we'd want to stop running to the courts every five minutes.

Easy to say if your not having trouble getting a licence or firearm and you "tick all the boxes". Sometimes it has been/will be the only way.

Sparks

BS, the courts are like anti-biotics, okay?
If you need them, they're life-saving, but: they don't cure everything, they can only fix stuff that's already happened (ie. they're not preventatives), they're not miracles, and if you use them too often then you find the problems get much, much worse and then you're right up the creek without a paddle.
That is what I'm saying, not that we should bring in an edict that says we never darken their door again.

bunny shooter

Calm down :pac:

I did say "Sometimes it has been/will be the only way."

Sparks

And - shock, horror - I agree. I just have a different definition of 'sometimes'

bunny shooter

:eek: We actually agree on something. Never

Sparks

I know. I'm scared too.

kakashka

Thank you

Sparks

<

---

Click on the name of the person you want to speak to privately here;
then select 'Send a private message to...' and enter your message there.

kakashka

Thanks

Sparks

Try clicking here and see if that works?