WHICH .22 PISTOL

guns4fun

I am thinking of getting a .22 pistol for target shooting if the new laws will allow them.
On a budget so can't really go for the expensive ones,,ther are 3 I was thinking of and would be in my price range but need advice on which is the best.

HAMMERLI X ESSE
WALTHER P22
SIG MOSQUITO

rrpc

guns4fun wrote: »

I am thinking of getting a .22 pistol for target shooting if the new laws will allow them.
On a budget so can't really go for the expensive ones,,ther are 3 I was thinking of and would be in my price range but need advice on which is the best.

HAMMERLI X ESSE

WALTHER P22

SIG MOSQUITO

Fixed for you

Bear in mind that we don't know *exactly* what way section 3D(1)(b) is going to be interpreted.

It refers to 4(2)(e) of SI 21 2008 and that says:

the following short firearms designed for use in connection with competitions governed by International Olympic Committee regulations:
(i) air-operated firearms of 4.5 millimetres (.177 inch) calibre,
(ii) firearms using .22 inch rim-fire percussion ammunition.

freddieot

+ 1 on all of that.

Meyer

Is there an actual rule stating Sig Mossies and P22's can't be used in the Olympics? I know you wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell, but What's to stop you competing with one, and therefore getting one under the new legislation?

rrpc

Meyer wrote: »

Is there an actual rule stating Sig Mossies and P22's can't be used in the Olympics? I know you wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell, but What's to stop you competing with one, and therefore getting one under the new legislation?

It's the 'designed for use' bit that hasn't been properly explained. Remember this SI appeared without any consultation and the consequences of that have become more far reaching than originally expected.

I just crossed the Walther and Sig off because they're pretty uselsess.

Bananaman

Don;t forget

• Browning Buckmark
• Smith & Wesson 22A

These have all performed admirably in competitions throughout the country.

B'Man

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

Don;t forget

• Browning Buckmark
• Smith & Wesson 22A

These have all performed admirably in competitions throughout the country.

B'Man

I'm not forgetting them, we still don't know what way the Gardai are going to inerpret section 4(2)(e) of SI 21/2008. That's the bit that has yet to be defined 'somewhere' because as far as I'm concerned 'designed for' could be aanything according to ISSF rules. (The IOC don't have rules on shooting sports).

Sparks

To go back to the OP's post, definitely cross off the P22 and the mosquito. In fact, double-scratch the P22, it's not just inaccurate, it seems it's prone to catastrophic failure due to the metal used in the slide:





But add the Baikal IZH35M to the list. And if you're fine with second-hand, add the Walther GSP and KSP models to the list as well (the KSP is essentially a cleaned-up and rebadged 35M).

Bananaman

as far as I'm concerned 'designed for' could be aanything according to ISSF rules

If the Government base it's decisions on the ISSF rules we are all in the toilet.

We will, all of us, spend the next decade or two in court fighting both the Government and the ISSF in discrimination cases.

For a sovereign state to be at the whim of non elected individuals, with some resident outside of the state (Such as Directors of Associations - isn't Horst a 'Herr Direktor') is akin to adopting the laws of a religion. Utter discrimination. That would be grounds for getting the European courts involved which would be eminently more affordable that trying to fight them through the Irish Courts.

B'Man

Sparks

I don't think the court cases are that close B'man, for one reason: the Law Reform Commission has recommended, and the Minister has commissioned, a restatement of the Firearms Acts. At which point, it's fairly likely that the urge to tinker won't be resisted, and when they discover such fun problem areas as Section 6 and Section 38, they're going to be forced to make changes. Not to mention the inflexible way that the Act now refers to a specific SI (meaning that whatever you do to the Restricted List by another SI from now on, that original SI is what's referenced by the Act and can't be changed without a new amendment to the Act).

Someone mentioned the idea of the dust being settled around the Firearms Acts in another thread - I think we're a good five to six years away from the dust being settled yet

Bananaman

the idea of the dust being settled

Seeing what people get refused for and the grounds under which they are refused will be an adequate amount of settled dust for me.

I know of people who will have difficulty getting a new license for the firearms they hold as they simply do not use them.

I myself, as I hold a license for a Glock 34 - I know, I know, get back you unclean blasphemous heathen - am a bit apprehensive about what will happen with my 'new' license application and if it is refused for being a 'Blue Smartie' whether or not I will be allowed to get a 'nickel plated sissy pistol' to replace it.

I have competed in club, national and internationals with the Glock - Precision, Speed and IPSC - and won medals in em all - but I may now be tarred and feathered as I have heard rumours that Glocks are now being offered up on the altar of 'leave us be and you can have this'.

As for new applications - I too plan to get a .22 pistol - I have won loadsa medals with .22 aswell but have always been borrowing one off someone who was there so rarely have I shot the same one twice. I think if I had my own I might get a bit of consistency and kick some arse proper stylie.

I would, at the moment, be looking at the aforementioned Buckmark or 22A for no other reason than I know loads of people who have them (22A) and they win everything then enter so there is nothing wrong with the gun - I have won a few medals with the buckmark myself but I just like the action of it. (I have shot the xsesse and the pardiinis but did not like the xsesse out of the box and Pardini would be a bit more than I would like to spend out of the trap) I tried a Ruger recently aswell - not for me - well shiny though.

B'Man

Sparks

Bananaman wrote: »

Seeing what people get refused for and the grounds under which they are refused will be an adequate amount of settled dust for me.

And when they rewrite the entire pantheon of the Firearms Acts into one new Firearms Act with all the attendant inevitable "tweaks", a lot of that dust is just going to be blown right back up again.

I think if I had my own I might get a bit of consistency and kick some arse proper stylie.

Be warned that if you get a good .22 pistol (something like a Walther SSP or an MG4 or an AW93), you may find you shoot the Glock less and less...

I would, at the moment, be looking at the aforementioned Buckmark or 22A for no other reason than I know loads of people who have them (22A) and they win everything then enter

There's nothing wrong with the Buckmark or the S&W at plinking level. But if you look to the higher end of the market, the standard of accuracy is enormously higher. I'm not saying they'll suit you to the ground, but do yourself a favour - try them at least once or twice before you go for the cheaper models. You already know you like pistol shooting, so the usual worry over whether or not the sport will appeal isn't there, so try the top end of things as well as the mid-range.

rrpc

Bananaman wrote: »

If the Government base it's decisions on the ISSF rules we are all in the toilet.

You need to read my post again and then the relevant SI, bearing in mind that the IOC make no rules on any sport other than about sponsorship.

Sparks wrote:

Not to mention the inflexible way that the Act now refers to a specific SI (meaning that whatever you do to the Restricted List by another SI from now on, that original SI is what's referenced by the Act and can't be changed without a new amendment to the Act).

Very good point.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

You need to read my post again and then the relevant SI, bearing in mind that the IOC make no rules on any sport other than about sponsorship.

That's the kind of thing that really depresses me. Ten years we've been at this from the court cases to the '04 return of pistols to the CJB2004 to the CJA2006 to the CJA2009, and still we're stretching the Interpretation Act to the limits. The law should be what's written down for pete's sake, that's what has made law law since the time of Babylon (giving us phrases like "set in stone" in the process). When a law isn't what's written down but is instead how a judge or a garda or a civil servant interprets it because it is absurd when read literally, well, that's when you change the law. You're not meant to change working law into that state!

rrpc

Sparks wrote: »

That's the kind of thing that really depresses me. Ten years we've been at this from the court cases to the '04 return of pistols to the CJB2004 to the CJA2006 to the CJA2009, and still we're stretching the Interpretation Act to the limits. The law should be what's written down for pete's sake, that's what has made law law since the time of Babylon (giving us phrases like "set in stone" in the process). When a law isn't what's written down but is instead how a judge or a garda or a civil servant interprets it because it is absurd when read literally, well, that's when you change the law. You're not meant to change working law into that state!

I don't think law has been set in stone since Moses came down the mountain.

The reality is that there's always been a gap between intention and application when it comes to law, and the firearms acts are no exception.

We can look at that SI and immediately see what the intention was. Whether or not it's going to be applicable remains to be seen.

Sparks

rrpc wrote: »

I don't think law has been set in stone since Moses came down the mountain.

It might not be literally carved into rock anymore, but we see people exploiting the actual wording used in our law all the time, whether it be to get off from a speeding ticket in kilmacanogue because the local council forgot to pass a byelaw for a speed limit change, or for someone getting off from statutory rape because the statute's wording clashed with the constitution. "Erra, that's obviously not what I meant" doesn't cut it anywhere else in law, why must we live with it here?

We can look at that SI and immediately see what the intention was.

Maybe you can, but I can't. I can guess, but my guess is going to be biased by what I'm hoping (or fearing) they meant.

You look at that SI and you can say that they said IOC but in fact, whoopsie, they meant ISSF (or ISSF and UIPM), and okay, that's just the drafters being lazy and saving the ink of the extra eight characters (or the time to say "ISSF and UIPM events on the Olympic programme"). Okay. I could go along with that. Of course, that doesn't mean that the Super will. And at the end of the day, it's what he interprets it as that makes the difference.

But what the Super thinks of IOC-vs-ISSF, well, that's not a big deal really. The "designed for" clause, on the other hand, that's a doozy. Interpret that literally and you're gutting the field of pistols like the X-esse, which isn't specifically designed for the ISSF matches, but which was designed to be a jack of all trades, with variants that cover everything from plinking to ISSF to IPSC. Not to mention the basic entry-level pistols like the Rugers, the Buckmarks, the 22A's and the like. In fact, there aren't too many pistols out there that are designed from the ground up for ISSF - there's maybe twenty designs all told from the IZH35M to the MG4 to the SSP to the GSP to the AW93 and so forth.

G17

Sparks wrote: »

Be warned that if you get a good .22 pistol (something like a Walther SSP or an MG4 or an AW93), you may find you shoot the Glock less and less...

Mwah haw haw, haw haw, mercy me, oh my sides, that's priceless, oh, sniff, oh, good one, whew.

Sparks

Laugh away G17, but give them a try at the same time
There's something about a pistol that is so accurate that it'll put all five rounds in the same hole at 25m that just endears it to you...

G17

Sparks wrote: »

Laugh away G17, but give them a try at the same time
There's something about a pistol that is so accurate that it'll put all five rounds in the same hole at 25m that just endears it to you...

Em, bleh?

I did try them side by side and when I went from a super duper trigger to the G17 I actually thought it was broken I had to tug so hard! You gotta focus on one and stick to it to be serious (competitively).

What is UIPM?

Sparks

Modern Pentathlon's version of ISSF.

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

You look at that SI and you can say that they said IOC but in fact, whoopsie, they meant ISSF (or ISSF and UIPM), and okay, that's just the drafters being lazy and saving the ink of the extra eight characters (or the time to say "ISSF and UIPM events on the Olympic programme").

Well I looked at it and thought they meant the pistols that are used in the Olympics.
And it says air pistols and .22 pistols and there the ones they use in the olympics.
what do you think they meant?

It wasn't me!

Clash wrote: »

Well I looked at it and thought they meant the pistols that are used in the Olympics.
And it says air pistols and .22 pistols and there the ones they use in the olympics.
what do you think they meant?

The issue is that it actually says "designed for" and if taken literally, that's a very small number of pistols, either air or .22.

Clash

It wasn't me! wrote: »

The issue is that it actually says "designed for" and if taken literally, that's a very small number of pistols, either air or .22.

OK, there are rules for ISSF pistols and these are the ones used in the olympics right?

And these rules set things like weights and sight lengths and barrell lengths and trigger weights right?

So if a pistol is designed to get the maximum out of those rules, then it was designed for that competition, right? Even if it's three out of four or four out of five or whatever, you can easily see what it was designed for.

Or to put it another way, if it exceeds any of those dimensions it wasn't designed for use in olympic competition.

Or is that too easy?

Sparks

Clash wrote: »

what do you think they meant?

I can't tell what they meant just from reading that. I can tell you from conversations I've had with them at the FCP seminars, but here's the rub - what they meant has no weight with regard to how ambiguous language is interpreted by a Judge in a district court or a Super looking at an application. And what about the other 199,999 or so people who don't have those conversations? How do they figure out what the Department meant? This is why ambiguous is a really bad adjective here.

Clash wrote: »

OK, there are rules for ISSF pistols and these are the ones used in the Olympics right? And these rules set things like weights and sight lengths and barrell lengths and trigger weights right?

This is correct. However, those rules are sufficiently generic that a range of pistols can make it through equipment control, from those which were explicitly designed from the ground up to compete at Olympic level like the IZH35M and the MG4, to the mid-range, jack-of-all-trades pistols like the x-esse, to the entry-level, like the buckmark or the 22A or the rugers. So if the rule is "designed for", then the ISSF rulebook is useless and you instead have to go off and look at the design brief from the factory!

Or is that too easy?

'fraid so.

"designed for" is a problem. "suitable for" would have been much clearer, and would have avoided all the fuss, because "suitable for" would just have meant "can pass equipment control at the Olympic Games", and that's a very, very well documented and understood procedure - hell, we even have a half-dozen or so people who're officially qualified to adjudicate on that point, one of whom sits on the FCP.

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

I can't tell what they meant just from reading that.

Isn't there some sort of test for what a reasonable man might understand? Is it so important to get into the minds of people and not just read the words that are written?

This is correct. However, those rules are sufficiently generic that a range of pistols can make it through equipment control, from those which were explicitly designed from the ground up to compete at Olympic level like the IZH35M and the MG4, to the mid-range, jack-of-all-trades pistols like the x-esse, to the entry-level, like the buckmark or the 22A or the rugers. So if the rule is "designed for", then the ISSF rulebook is useless and you instead have to go off and look at the design brief from the factory!

How did we get to equipment control? To understand if something is designed for use, all you have to do is see if it meets the test of matching as many as possible of the rules. For example if one of those pistols has a barrel length of 154mm (yes I looked it up ) then it clearly wasn't designed for use in the olympics, or if the trigger can't be adjusted down to 1000gr or the sight length is considerably less or a little longer than 220mm.

Sometimes it's just that simple

In fact I looked up that Walther P22 mentioned at the start of this thread. The longest barrell is 127mm (other target pistols don't seem to go the full 153mm), but the trigger weight is 2000gr at the lowest and the sight length is 180mm. Obviously not designed for Olympic competition.

Sparks

Clash wrote: »

Isn't there some sort of test for what a reasonable man might understand? Is it so important to get into the minds of people and not just read the words that are written?

Maybe you misunderstand me Clash, I don't want to get into their heads. I just want them to write down what the actual rule is.

How did we get to equipment control?

You could either (a) go to an NTSA match, or (b) download the rulebook for free from the ISSF website and read it. It's not difficult to read or understand, it's actually quite straightforward.

To understand if something is designed for use, all you have to do is see if it meets the test of matching as many as possible of the rules.

That's not Designed For, that's Suitable For.

In fact I looked up that Walther P22 mentioned at the start of this thread. The longest barrell is 127mm (other target pistols don't seem to go the full 153mm), but the trigger weight is 2000gr at the lowest and the sight length is 180mm. Obviously not designed for Olympic competition.

Nope. It's designed to act as a .22lr plinking version of the P99. But you can't tell that from looking to see if it would pass equipment control for an ISSF match, which it would do (there's no upper limit to trigger weight, only a lower limit of 1000g; and the max sight base is 220mm, so the P22 would pass).

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

You could either (a) go to an NTSA match, or (b) download the rulebook for free from the ISSF website and read it. It's not difficult to read or understand, it's actually quite straightforward.

I think you misunderstood me, hopefully not deliberately. I meant that we were discussing the law and suddenly ended up in equipment control. I wasn't going there, so I asked how we got there.

That's not Designed For, that's Suitable For.

Well I'd like to disagree with that. It may also be suitable for, but if the purpose was to get the thing into the competition within an inch of the rules then the design brief would be aimed at maximising the hell out of the rule book. Which would mean that if the sight length is to be no greater than 220mm then my design brief would say 220mm. etc.

Nope. It's designed to act as a .22lr plinking version of the P99. But you can't tell that from looking to see if it would pass equipment control for an ISSF match, which it would do (there's no upper limit to trigger weight, only a lower limit of 1000g; and the max sight base is 220mm, so the P22 would pass).

Back in equipment control again I see. Really you're proving my point for me that equipment control is certainly not the place to decide if a pistol is designed for use in the olympic games.

And if my designer gave me a P22 from the parameters in the ISSF rule book, I'd fire his ass.

Sparks

Clash wrote: »

I meant that we were discussing the law and suddenly ended up in equipment control. I wasn't going there, so I asked how we got there.

It's the Designed For/Suitable For bit that got us there. See below:

Well I'd like to disagree with that. It may also be suitable for, but if the purpose was to get the thing into the competition within an inch of the rules then the design brief would be aimed at maximising the hell out of the rule book. Which would mean that if the sight length is to be no greater than 220mm then my design brief would say 220mm. etc.

That's not a design brief.
A design brief (which is what decides what something is designed for) says what the goal of the design is. Not how it's achieved. If my design goal is a 220mm sight base, that's not designed for the Olympics, it's designed for a 220mm sight base, and nothing more.

That's the hassle here. "Suitable for" can be objectively measured and tested. There is a book of rules and there are training courses for judging, and there is testing equipment in production to decide whether or not something is suitable for the Olympics; but "designed for" is a nebulous, fuzzy, marketing thing. Only in some specific cases can we say for sure that something's designed for the Olympics - like the IZH-35M where there was an actual directive from Moscow to build a pistol to go win an Olympic medal to embarrass the US. That kind of thing is a historical oddity - very much the exception, not the rule. Most firearms today are designed to appeal to a wider market, so they pick out a lowest common denominator among the rulebooks and build to that - which means their firearms are not designed for any specific sport.

And if my designer gave me a P22 from the parameters in the ISSF rule book, I'd fire his ass.

And if you gave a design brief that didn't give an objective but instead gave a bunch of numbers that formed a very loose set of parameters and then complained about the end product as if it was the designer's fault, I'd fire your backside as well because bad managers are much more common than good designers...

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

That's not a design brief.
A design brief (which is what decides what something is designed for) says what the goal of the design is. Not how it's achieved. If my design goal is a 220mm sight base, that's not designed for the Olympics, it's designed for a 220mm sight base, and nothing more.

Only if that's your sole design criteria.

But it's not. When you look at the ISSF rules, they're obviously stated in the way they are so that nobody gets an advantage from certain key factors. Anybody involved in shooting knows that the longer your sight base, the better your accuracy, the heavier the trigger pull wight the worse your accuracy etc.

That's presumably why the rules specify such measurements - because any abuse will give an advantage.

They are basic measurements in any case, the design brief has to incorporate them, it doesn't specify what you do with them or how you use them or even how you compromise.

The point I was making is that if any manufacturer exceeds any of these factors, the pistol can't be considered either designed for or suitable for. However if (all things being equal) they do not take advantage fully of the rules (say a 3Kg trigger weight) then they can't say it was 'designed for' even if it's 'suitable for' because there's no other design factor that would exclude a 1Kg trigger weight.

Sparks

I see what you're saying Clash, but you're being perverse in ignoring the problem.

Take the Buckmark as an easy example. It is manifestly not designed for the Olympics. However, it is suitable for it, and it has won medals at club level, and it is competitive at national level if you're good enough with it, and for a basic, cheap, beginner's pistol, it's not a bad choice. Same can be said for the 22A and the Ruger MkII.

Now take a harder example. The Hammerli X-esse is an often-recommended entry level pistol for ISSF shooting. It's not, however, really designed for ISSF. But it's hard to prove that. You can point to the IPSC and plinking models and point out that the basics of the pistol are the same between them and the ISSF model, that the only changes are really cosmetic. It's the same barrel, same slide, same frame, same sights, same trigger, in fact the only differences are in the mag release and safety controls (not their mechanisms, just the buttons). So is the X-esse designed for the Olympics when it's also sold for IPSC matches?

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

I see what you're saying Clash, but you're being perverse in ignoring the problem.

Take the Buckmark as an easy example. It is manifestly not designed for the Olympics. However, it is suitable for it, and it has won medals at club level, and it is competitive at national level if you're good enough with it, and for a basic, cheap, beginner's pistol, it's not a bad choice. Same can be said for the 22A and the Ruger MkII.

Now take a harder example. The Hammerli X-esse is an often-recommended entry level pistol for ISSF shooting. It's not, however, really designed for ISSF. But it's hard to prove that. You can point to the IPSC and plinking models and point out that the basics of the pistol are the same between them and the ISSF model, that the only changes are really cosmetic. It's the same barrel, same slide, same frame, same sights, same trigger, in fact the only differences are in the mag release and safety controls (not their mechanisms, just the buttons). So is the X-esse designed for the Olympics when it's also sold for IPSC matches?

Well that's easily answered. The X-Esse Sport is the one 'designed for' and the rest are for other stuff.

And you see the question here is which one is 'designed for' not which one is 'suitable for'. They all are obviously suitable for, but the Sport is the one that's designed for. And it is obvious.

I've looked at the Walther SP22 and it's following the same design philosophy of the X-Esse. There's a bunch of models based on the same frame, but the M4 is the one 'designed for' ISSF competition.

So once you get 'suitable for' out of your head and really look at them, it's easy to see what ones were designed for ISSF competition.

Sparks

Clash wrote: »

Well that's easily answered. The X-Esse Sport is the one 'designed for' and the rest are for other stuff

Easily answered is not correctly answered. If I buy an X-Esse IPSC or a basic X-Esse Trailside and put a Nill grip on it, I'll have the same thing that you got when you bought an X-Esse Sport. Same barrel, same frame, same slide, same trigger, same overall weight, same sights, same everything.

And that's the problem. Because if I can buy a "not designed for" pistol and add a part that isn't controlled by law, which is just a lump of wood, and get a "designed for" pistol, then the test in law is not based on a real and measurable attribute of the firearm itself, but on a marketing term. And that's not a good law.

Clash

Sparks wrote: »

Easily answered is not correctly answered. If I buy an X-Esse IPSC or a basic X-Esse Trailside and put a Nill grip on it, I'll have the same thing that you got when you bought an X-Esse Sport. Same barrel, same frame, same slide, same trigger, same overall weight, same sights, same everything.

Not the same money. You've just spent another €200 just to prove me wrong which is just a little perverse when the model you actually needed is available cheaper. Adding the grip is changeing the design the same way as adding an observatory to the side of your house is changing its design.

The trailside is the Sig model. Couldn't find it on the Walther site

And that's the problem. Because if I can buy a "not designed for" pistol and add a part that isn't controlled by law, which is just a lump of wood, and get a "designed for" pistol, then the test in law is not based on a real and measurable attribute of the firearm itself, but on a marketing term. And that's not a good law.

What?? The test is what it's designed for and you've changed the design. And why does it have to be 'controlled by law' for it to be a design change?

And a grip is an important factor wrt design because the grip on the sport model is designed (yes designed) for one handed shooting.

Sparks

Sparks wrote: »

And that's the problem. Because if I can buy a "not designed for" pistol and add a part that isn't controlled by law, which is just a lump of wood, and get a "designed for" pistol, then the test in law is not based on a real and measurable attribute of the firearm itself, but on a marketing term. And that's not a good law.

But you can't - you won't get a licence for the pistol in the first place (following the logic of Clash) as the pistol isn't designed for Olympic shooting. It doesn't matter that you can modify the gun, because you the Super can't issue you licence in the first place.

steppen

have a look at a beretta 87,

non-adjustable sights are a bit of a downside, but its a nice pistol

Sparks

Non-adjustable sights are a bit more than a downside for ISSF shooting...

steppen

Sparks wrote: »

Non-adjustable sights are a bit more than a downside for ISSF shooting...

True, but I suggested the beretta because:
in the OP's post he doesnt mention ISSF, just 'target shooting'

he was looking at a p22 and a sig, I would put the beretta before them anyday.

plus his name is guns4fun

Clash

steppen wrote: »

True, but I suggested the beretta because:
in the OP's post he doesnt mention ISSF, just 'target shooting'

he was looking at a p22 and a sig, I would put the beretta before them anyday.

plus his name is guns4fun

We know, but this thread got hijacked by pedants arguing over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin and you'd no right bringing it back to it's starting point.

guns4fun

is ther anything out there that describes the ministers description of olympic class???

rrpc

guns4fun wrote: »

is ther anything out there that describes the ministers description of olympic class???

Other than what's in the SI, no.

Perhaps the commissioner's guidelines will give us some direction.

steppen

Clash wrote: »

We know, but this thread got hijacked by pedants arguing over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin and you'd no right bringing it back to it's starting point.

Point taken, wont happen again:pac:

daveob007

rrpc wrote: »

Other than what's in the SI, no.

Perhaps the commissioner's guidelines will give us some direction.

WHERE CAN WE GET THESE GUIDELINES,are the on a link somewhere????
thanks

rrpc

daveob007 wrote: »

WHERE CAN WE GET THESE GUIDELINES,are the on a link somewhere????
thanks

Haven't appeared yet. Garda website would be best place and they even have a neato firearms section linked from the front page.

Make it your home page

Sparks

The guidelines won't be available for a week to ten days from what I've heard dave.

And it's annoying that that Garda webpage is protected by the robots.txt file - you can't automatically monitor it

daveob007

Its just crazy,,these guidelines should have been published before now,at least it would give people a chance to modify their security if needed within the extension period.
now there could be a big panic if someone is required to install a new alarm or something,, then there is the new 3 year licence to pay for.
its going to cost a few people a small fortune.
The whole thing was very badly though out and rushed through.
Firstly the new guidelines and criteria should have been published along with the ministers description of (LIMITED NUMBER OF HANGUNS FOR USE IN OLYMPIC SPORTS) after that was sorted the bill could have waited till the dail summer break was over.
this would have given us and the gardai time to digest the whole thing.
MAYBE THATS WHY IT WAS RUSHED????

Grizzly 45

Nah! They just wanted to look like they were actually "doing somthing" and in good Irish tradition leave it all to the last minute and rush it thru so they can sod off for 3months and the country can run itself and the poor mugs whom it affects [us and the Gardai,]can sort thru this Shte pile and hopefully come up with the right answers.


Just remember this on Oct 7th when they come around for another EU vote,and in proably three years time,or prefably sooner.When they want another cushy number....Vote this bunch OUT!!!!:mad: