Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

M&P 15/22 vs Hammerli tac R1

  • 08-03-2022 11:40pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭


    Hi all,

    Thinking of picking up either one of the above


    All my current rifles are competition set ups so just looking for something fun on the side.

    The m&p 15/22 seems the more popular option but I’m edging towards the Hammerli on the basis it has a full metal upper and lower receiver and I prefer the overall look.

    For anyone who has either rifle what’s your thoughts?

    Thanks



Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Main reasons I went for the 15-22 over the Hammerli were:

    Parts compatibility(15-22 is compatible with AR triggers and similar, Hammerli is not),

    Aftermarket parts availability, in the UK 15-22s are very popular, so much so that there are UK manufactured parts for them including firing pins, barrels, etc,

    Have heard some accuracy concerns about the Hammerli, less so with the 15-22, obviously taking into account that neither are benchrest guns,

    No functional bolt release on the Hammerli(mainly because it is just an AR15-esque shell on the same underlying 22lr semiauto firearm design as most Umarex stuff, see linked diagrams below),

    While the upper and lower on the Hammerli are reportedly aluminium some of the internals are pot metal akin to the Umarex airsoft line, obviously not the pressure bearing parts but still, not a fan of that,

    Hammerli uses a small diameter barrel inside a larger fake barrel in order to achieve the right look, the 15-22 barrel is one solid barrel, same diameter as AR15 barrels too so quite thick for a 22,

    Finally, and also on the barrel, Hammerli uses a flash hider to tension the above "real" and lookalike barrel together, which isn't terrible design wise but still far from ideal.


    Comparison of the Umarex Colt licenced M4 in 22 if you're interested:

    https://usermanual.wiki/Document/ManualColtM4M1622Rimfire10R11.3454155861/asset-1a.png

    And the Hammerli:

    https://www.bisley-uk.com/stockimages/products/FHATRSA.jpg


    In the end I went for the 15-22 and very happy with it since 😉

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭GolfVI


    Thank you so much for the very detailed and comprehensive reply,


    the information regarding aftermarket parts and the barrel has been extremely useful so thank you again for that.


    some very well made points and has made me reconsider the 15-22 now.


    a quick question regards ammo.. how does it find the cheap stuff? Not too concerned accuracy wise as I have my bolt guns for that, but how does it cycle as I know some semis struggle with certain ammo



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    No worries at all, happy to help.


    From my experience it'll eat anything I throw at it, and when I first got it I literally went into my local dealers and got a box of every 22lr they had to try.

    The one exception to this is the federal .22lr birdshot, which wouldn't extract. Not that I'd recommend it anyway as it is pretty useless, but it was an interesting test.

    Accuracy wise, federal bulk is adequate for some plinking, and I use CCI subs for the most accuracy the gun will give.

    Interestingly after falling head over heels with mine a buddy got a 15-22 and comparing the two his(newer generation) shoots markedly better with the same federal bulk as mine, so that says good stuff about improvements over time too.

    His would also eat the 22lr birdshot no problem, so if you can a newer model will be preferable vs a used older generation if that's something you might want to shoot with it.


    Oh and all the above ammo was tested suppressed and unsuppressed, bar the birdshot for fear of a baffle strike.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Just out of curiosity, what's the accuracy like on it?



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Pretty good, IMO. Again not benchrest accurate but with the ammo it likes 1-1.5 inches at 50m with the stock trigger. It can likely do better without me behind it though 😋

    Perfectly good for the intent of the gun, for me anyway.

    With a nicer trigger that'd likely narrow closer to 1", one of the benefits of the 15-22 as you can stick in any ar15 trigger pack and 95% will work straight off the bat, the other 5% need a little fettling to work reliably.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 182 ✭✭GolfVI


    Is your lisence restricted or non restricted on the M&P ? hoping to have an application in soon and undecided what to choose



  • Registered Users Posts: 12 BC11011


    You choose unrestricted as thats what it is as long as the mags are limited to 10 rounds. If your buying from Gunshop.ie on the receipt they give you once you pay the deposit for your application it will also say its an application for an unrestricted licence.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Non restricted, so limited to 10 rounds.

    If you can justify it though no reason not to go restricted and get the full mag capacity.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Wadi14


    No matter which one you go for you will def have fun, I shot the M&P at the weekend, oh and when you apply for the license add plenty of ammo to it, you will need it lol, its difficult to stop after one round.



  • Registered Users Posts: 161 ✭✭smmember20


    M&P 15-22 all the way in my opinion, it is very functional as a Gallery Rifle gun, it will never out run the customized Kidds etc but as a functional and fun gun cannot be beaten, unfortunately 99% of the time it will be required to be licensed as restricted, that then in a perverse way allows you to have magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, seems odd to me that AGS insist on it being restricted facilitating high capacity magazines just because it is black and it looks like!!!

    Rant over, go for it, if you can afford the Performance Centre version worth the extra, I dropped in a CMC trigger, as the PC trigger is not fab, and added a TandemKross muzzle break, if you do go for the TandemKross muzzle break you need to order the spacer washers also other wise it will not time correctly on your barrel, these are cut specifically for Ruger pistols but do fit correctly without the spacer washers on the 15-22. I'd recommend them, they can be imported directly and cost less than €60.00 and decrease muzzle flip substantially, they look good also!

    PS in my experience CCI standard run no problem and are cheap when banging through volume, but for clean and reliable function go for CCI AR, copper washed round nose solids, 40 grn, about 1100FPS just below CCI mini Mags.




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Agree with all of that, except the restricted part.

    There is case law(cheers Grizzly/FUNI for letting me know) striking down the "looks like an assault weapon" part of the law, and if you get told it has to be licensed as restricted simply tell them to ring the firearms policy unit and check.

    Their 2 questions will be is it rimfire, and are the mags restricted to 10 or less?

    If those 2 answers are yes then it is non restricted, regardless of looks.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,987 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    What case law was that? It was alluded to before on here, and I asked but nobody was ever able to point to it.

    At the time I felt separate laws were getting mixed up. “Looks like” isn’t sufficient to say a guns falls into the banned assault rifle category. As its not part of the definition.

    But that’s a completely different law to the restricted list SI. Case law of one may not apply to the other.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Dunno how we got to case law...It's an accepted point that it was an unworkable definition in the act and in application in real life as confirmed by numerous dist court decisions, that there is no definition in the act of what an "assault rifle" is under Irish law or in the statue books.IOW how do you ban something,if you don't or can't describe what it is in the legislation?

    Put it like this; All such references and descriptions of SA CF or RF rifles and the like has been removed from the Commissioners guidelines in the latest [2018 version].Just being replaced with this bit about any new licenses issued post-2017 for SACF rifles will stand revoked whenever in the future.[But doesn't say anything about refusing to issue new ones either]

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,987 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Dunno how we got to case law...It's an accepted point that it was an unworkable definition in the act and in application in real life as confirmed by numerous dist court decisions,

    Court decisions related to the ban (stemming from the EU) on assault weapons. Or the restricted SI?

    Two different laws. I’m aware of the former, but not the latter.

    that there is no definition in the act of what an "assault rifle" is under Irish law or in the statue books.

    Well, we all know that’s not actually true though. There is a definition in SI 21/2008 - a bad one, but that’s the entire problem.

    IOW how do you ban something,if you don't or can't describe what it is in the legislation?

    We’re not referring to any ban.

    Put it like this; All such references and descriptions of SA CF or RF rifles and the like has been removed from the Commissioners guidelines in the latest [2018 version].Just being replaced with this bit about any new licenses issued post-2017 for SACF rifles will stand revoked whenever in the future.[But doesn't say anything about refusing to issue new ones either]

    The guidelines don’t say they are restricted, but they also don’t say that they are not. The bit about SACFs only applies to SACF.

    IOW people around the country making these decisions do not have clear guidance to ignore the (redundant) definition in the SI. Many do ignore these, but many do not.

    I assume @smmember20 was referencing his own firearm, and I’ve no reason to doubt him.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Misspoke, not case law, precedent from court decisions.


    If in doubt contact the FPU and you will get the same answer I referenced above, 2 questions:

    Is it rimfire?

    Are the mags restricted to 10 or less?

    If those 2 answers are yes then it is non restricted, regardless of looks.


    Speaking from my own experience licencing a 15-22, and a buddy's in a neighbouring licencing district who was similarly told they would be restricted until the FPU was contacted(at my urging).

    On top of Grizzly's district court decisions which preceded both of these of course.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭BSA International


    District Court decisions do not, in law, set legal precedent.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,987 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Correct. Case law is precedent.

    None the less, favorable district court decisions would at least be reassuring that they won't continually pull it. Which is where Otmmyboy is going I think.

    If the FPU are advising that currently, that's positive. And a possible recourse. But as we always remind people, policy and guidelines are not law. All it takes in one person with an agenda to change that policy. The FPU supposed works closely with the DoJ, the SI has been updated multiple times, if they relly wanted to correct it would have taken no time. Makes you wonder why.

    As for the district case, I asked for details, would be good to know how it went, even if not a precedent. But as I mentioned above, I know cases regarding SACFs and the EU "Assault" weapons ban. Completely baseless to make that connection on looks, but also complete irrelevant in terms of the restricted SI



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    As for the district case, I asked for details, would be good to know how it went, even if not a precedent. But as I mentioned above, I know cases regarding SACFs and the EU "Assault" weapons ban. Completely baseless to make that connection on looks, but also complete irrelevant in terms of the restricted SI

    How much details do you want ,and on what point and topic???

    Also in relation to the "EU Assault weapons ban"..No such thing.Full auto and select fire weapons have been banned from civilian ownership since the EU directive of 1990,if bnot before in members own individual national laws. Are you getting mixed up with the 2017 "magazine ban" that codified former selectfire/full auto weapons that are converted to semi-auto only being banned post a registry date of 2017?


    Correct. Case law is precedent.

    None the less, favorable district court decisions would at least be reassuring that they won't continually pull it. Which is where Otmmyboy is going I think.

    Thats pretty much as it now stands.


    The guidelines don’t say they are restricted, but they also don’t say that they are not. The bit about SACFs only applies to SACF.

    The guideline makes no mention anymore about looks, suitability,form ,etc be they SC or RF SA.Only thing is v

    this bit about post 2017 SACF licenses standing revoked if the law is enacted.

    IOW people around the country making these decisions do not have clear guidance to ignore the (redundant) definition in the SI. Many do ignore these, but many do not.

    Seems pretty clear... As they have the mag capacity and caliber to go by to decide on restricted or not.


    Well, we all know that’s not actually true though. There is a definition in SI 21/2008 - a bad one, but that’s the entire problem.

    Very, as it is not a technical description.Or maybe also a godsend, as it allows us to win these cases.


    IOW how do you ban something,if you don't or can't describe what it is in the legislation?

    We’re not referring to any ban.

    Ban, restrict, prohibit, deny, obfusticate in any way possible your position to own one...Same difference.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,987 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    How much details do you want ,and on what point and topic???

    No identifiable information or anything obviously.

    But there has been a number of district court cases, where the firearm owner was successful in getting approval. It would be good to know the basic details of the firearms. ie Make/Model/Calibre. That way it would be helpful for people to know what type of this was ok.

    My understanding was that these were mostly SACFs but perhaps not.

    Also in relation to the "EU Assault weapons ban"..No such thing.Full auto and select fire weapons have been banned from civilian ownership since the EU directive of 1990,if bnot before in members own individual national laws.

    Yes that what I was referring to, hence the inverted commas. As you and I know the difference between what was banned, ie firearms with full autos ability, and what people thing a full auto gun look like.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    But there has been a number of district court cases, where the firearm owner was successful in getting approval. It would be good to know the basic details of the firearms. ie Make/Model/Calibre. That way it would be helpful for people to know what type of this was ok.

    My understanding was that these were mostly SACFs but perhaps not.

    From my personal knowledge. There were over 30 dist court cases that I know of in relation to firearms over .22 cal. It ranged from any type of CF handgun to any type of semi-auto rifle and in two cases to "military-style" semi-auto shotguns.[SPAS12&15] and one semi-auto shotgun[customised Rem1100]. So as a fair sample, you can say 9mm Glock and AR types, followed by HK style rifles of all brands were a good cross example in 223/7.62 NATO/308.But you could probably throw a dart at a list of SACF rifles,and your hit is/was probably on it too.

    The States argument was mostly based on the idea that these firearms were military/police weapons and unsuitable for civilian usage due to their "dangerous calibres and high rate of fire" And that if they fell into the wrong hands...etc, etc. And that there weren't any suitable competitions or "good reason" for civilians to own these. As well as that they could be "easily converted" to full auto. The "looks like" came up a few times,but it fell apart on the acceptance in every dist case of the argument of "form does not follow function, and by the state falling into a trap of believing that one brand SIG was the same company as SIG/Sauer and trying to equate a SIG handgun which was a combat model, with a SIG/Sauer model that was a civilian target model. Aptly explained by a German company rep of SIG /Sauer who was imported especially for the court case.

    Nor did they help themselves by putting a virulently anti-gun Cheif super in the stand in Tralee, who declared under oath that he was totally biased against civilian gun-ownership of any kind and esp these kinds of "big calibre weapons with a high rate of fire,that should only be used by trained police or military personnel." And that his policy was "to refuse such licenses on principle".Nor was it helped much by the AGS ballistics expert continuously referring to a copy " Janes infantry weapons" reference book as his source reference.A fact that peeved the judge off no end.

    The easily converted was dismissed by simply getting the German Bundeskriminal Amt technical depts certification of any particular make and model of firearm that is for sale to the public cannot be converted or modified with normal household tools, or does not fall foul of the German war weapons act before it can be put on the market. Since most of these types of guns are sold/bought from German sources and wholesales and imported here to Ireland. They are certified as being unconvertable semi-auto sporting rifles designed as such from the ground up, or rifles built on demilitarized parts kits incapable of being converted back.

    This tactic continued until Oct 2012 when it came to a head in the Limerick Disct court, where costs were awarded against the CS of Henry st, who lost 6 cases in a row on the same day against a mixed bag of handguns and SA rifles.

    It's been pretty quiet since then...

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,987 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Thanks Grizley, very detailed summary.

    It ranged from any type of CF handgun to any type of semi-auto rifle and in two cases to "military-style" semi-auto shotguns.[SPAS12&15] and one semi-auto shotgun[customised Rem1100]. So as a fair sample, you can say 9mm Glock and AR types, followed by HK style rifles of all brands were a good cross example in 223/7.62 NATO/308.But you could probably throw a dart at a list of SACF rifles,and your hit is/was probably on it too.

    Generalising a bit here. But wouldn’t they mostly be restricted firearms. Centrefire handguns, "military-style" shotguns, SACF rifles. etc.

    Where any of them non restricted. Say SA-RF .22lr rifles?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,949 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Generalising a bit here. But wouldn’t they mostly be restricted firearms. Centrefire handguns, "military-style" shotguns, SACF rifles. etc.

    They are. There has never really been any problems that amounted to DC cases with unrestricted firearms before. Since there has been a couple of cases regarding Supers being bolshie about calibres.

    Another point I should mention is that before the DC cases there was an unofficial "policy" of as we coined the phrase here on boards of the "Idontlikedelookofdatnow!"clause much employed by Supers and Cheifs to refuse to license firearms solely on their looks or titles.[One dealer was refused import licenses from the DOJ for the Henry arms AR7 rifle, because of the word "Survival" in its name. Long since rectified I believe]

    This practice has also gone as now a Super or CS must give in writing his reasons for refusing a license, and just refusal on looks alone of a firearm has been discounted as a refusal to grant


    Where any of them non restricted. Say SA-RF .22lr rifles?

    Not in these cases. The SA RF licensing problems only came about in later years, as at the time these were pretty much a novelty and just starting to appear on the market. However,as far as I am aware, none of these licensing probs for these types has gone to a courtroom,yet.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭coltmaster


    I put in for one of these the end of last year and had some exchanges with the FO and Super Intendent, must be gone to Chief Super because I haven't heard a sausage since, regret not just getting 10/22 now with the hassle.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,419 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    Thought about contacting your FO or Super's office to see where the application has got to?

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 55 ✭✭coltmaster


    I dropped in another application this month and was talking to 2 FO's in passing, they asked had crime prevention officer been out yet, he hasn't, so they said that was probably the hold up is and once it goes to chief Super it is out of their hands. Hoping to receive the grant letter this week (for other firearm) and will then get back onto them about the .22, have had loads on the last 2 weeks and got Covid so didn't push it. They have been sound with me with everything else so I don't want to burn bridges.



Advertisement