FP Rules Question

[rmca]

The grip itself is legal... If his wrist was not touching it!!!
Another shooter with that grip mite be OK... He is not!

Read the rules:

"Neither the grip nor any part of the pistol may be extended or constructed in any way that would allow it to touch beyond the hand."

If he is complaining that the grip hurts his wrist when he shoots, then it MUST be touching him.

[IPshooter]

You sure the grip is not too large? If it fits across the knuckles, that's OK, but it definitely extends too far back over the wrist.

Stan

[David Levene]

I don't see any special modification on your Steyr FP2 that warrants it illegal, especially the grip part. The grip is not the typical older one, but there is little difference between the old and the new. Simply put, it is legal.

Without referring to this particular case I'm afraid that the idea that a standard grip must be legal is totally (and frequently) wrong.

Yes, there are aspects of a grip that would make it illegal irespective of the hand holding it. There are also however aspects of the grip that depend in the hand to decide whether it is legal or not.

Anyone who has spent time at equipment control at a large match will have seen many instances of standard factory grips being illegal for particular shooters purely for touching beyond the hand. Steyr, Morini, Walther, Pardini etc; none of them are imune from the problem. Neither are hand made custom grips, which tend to concentrate more on the width of the hand and length of the fingers rather than the last contact point.

At higher levels of competition the problem is less common as the shooter will normally already have gone through several strict ECs with the grip, but it's not totally unheard of even at the very highest level.

With regard to the pistol/grip/hand pictured in this thread, I have seen too many cases of photographs being deceptive to make a firm "it's illegal" statement. I would say however that it does appear suspicious.

[RobStubbs]

With regard to the pistol/grip/hand pictured in this thread, I have seen too many cases of photographs being deceptive to make a firm "it's illegal" statement. I would say however that it does appear suspicious.

With all Davids caveats included I too would suggest it looks illegal. I would suggest you draw line in pen around your wrist and then take up the grip and get some more pictures taken. You should though be able to confirm by shooting the gun and seeing where the red mark appears. If it's the wrong side of your line then it's illegal.

Rob.

[joel]

Well, the bruising is definitely beyond where my hand ends so I suppose that I need to make some changes. The grip fits fine, though I might try a smaller one in the near future and see if that helps. In the meantime, I was thinking that by attaching some foam or felt to the inside bottom of the grip, it might lift my hand up and therefore leave my wrist free.

I am a relatively new FP shooter and have only shot at one local event. No real equipment check so it isn't crucial right now, but I still want to be compliant.

Also, many thanks to all for your input.

Joel

[rmca]

Joel

One of the beauties of free pistol is that there aren't many rules to comply with (hence the "free" part), so as long as your modifications complies with this, you can add whatever you like to the gun.

8.4.3.3
"Neither the grip nor any part of the pistol may be extended or constructed in any way that would allow it to touch beyond the hand. The wrist must remain visibly free when the pistol is held in the normal firing position."

You can get the full version of the rules here: http://www.issf-sports.org/documents/ru ... NG.pdf.zip

Don't be scared by the number of pages, look at the index and see that it is divided into sections, or just use the search function to look something up.

Hope this helps

[David Levene]

Joel

One of the beauties of free pistol is that there aren't many rules to comply with

I can only think of:-

1) Mustn't touch beyond the hand
2) Only open sights
3) Must be fired by the hand holding the gun
4) Must be .22LR
5) Must be safe
6) All components for electronic triggers must be contained within the frame or grip
7) No ACTIVE movement or oscillation reduction system
8) No aiming device activated firing system

I don't think I've missed anything (but probably have as I've already added 6, 7 & 8).

There are obviously operating rules e.g. can only be loaded with 1 round at a time but that isn't an EC rule as such.

[rmca]

Quite correct David.

What I meant was that there is no specification table like in Rapid Fire or Standard Pistol, limiting pistol dimensions, weigh, distance between sights, grip dimensions and format, etc...

I would boil down your list to:

1) Mustn't touch beyond the hand
2) Only open sights
3) Must be fired by the hand holding the gun
4) Must be .22LR
5) All components for electronic triggers must be contained within the frame or grip
6) No ACTIVE movement or oscillation reduction system

Number 8 is redundant because you already have numbers 2 and 3.
The "must be safe" part... well, if is pointing down range...
How safe can a 10 gram trigger be if it isn't used properly...

[jliston48]

That grip in the photo seems to be contacting the arm beyond the wrist. I would have to see the shooter holding it and demonstrating the range of movement to be sure but it looks illegal to me.

Really, you don't have to ask others' opinions. You know when the grip is contacting the arm - or restricting wrist movement.

If you are not sure, put a small elastic band around your wrist at the location you would define as your wrist joint then grip the pistol. If the grip contacts your arm beyond the band, it must be modified or changed.

Remember that the final decision comes from the Firearms Examiner. My advice always is to make his/her job easy - you don't need to be arguing and sawing/filing when you want to be preparing for a competition match.

[rmca]

you don't need to be arguing and sawing/filing when you want to be preparing for a competition match.

Wise words!

[Freepistol]

I think the legality of the grip is moot. The grip looks too large to me, Joel and if you have room to add "felt to lift your hand", it is too large. The grip is one of the important components in FP shooting. If the rear of the grip is "slapping" your wrist/hand during recoil, the pistol is recoiling without your hand and maybe your wrist is breaking. The pistol and your hand need to recoil as one unit. The grip should hold your hand and can be tested by first aiming your empty pistol at a normal height target. Then point it straight at the floor next to your forward foot and relax your fingers. The pistol should not move from your hand. I think yours will---don't drop it!

Additionally, the Steyr is a relatively heavy pistol. It is one of the coolest looking ones ever made, however, it takes some muscle to get it on target and hold it steady for 60+ shots. I don't mean to insult you, however, you don't have huge forearms nor large bones. You either need to work out or choose a lighter pistol. I don't want to discourage you from shooting such a cool piece, just realize what you have to do to have fun with it!

HTH
Ben

[Makris D. G.]

Joel

One of the beauties of free pistol is that there aren't many rules to comply with

I can only think of:-

1) Mustn't touch beyond the hand
2) Only open sights
3) Must be fired by the hand holding the gun
4) Must be .22LR
5) Must be safe
6) All components for electronic triggers must be contained within the frame or grip
7) No ACTIVE movement or oscillation reduction system
8) No aiming device activated firing system

I don't think I've missed anything (but probably have as I've already added 6, 7 & 8).

There are obviously operating rules e.g. can only be loaded with 1 round at a time but that isn't an EC rule as such.

After a lengthy debate about a gentleman using .22 shorts in all levels of competition here (Greece) I was informed by a member of the national shooting federation that they emailed ISSF and the answer was that they can allow him to use the .22 short ammo as it offers no real advantage. I was further scolded that the most important part of being a Judge is applying your own judgement. To my cries that the rules say "must be .22LR" so no personal judgement required, the answer was that in the English language, "must be" is more of a suggestion, while "has to be" is the definite wording to disallow something......
Any comments?

[David Levene]

To my cries that the rules say "must be .22LR" so no personal judgement required, the answer was that in the English language, "must be" is more of a suggestion, while "has to be" is the definite wording to disallow something......
Any comments?

"Must be" needs no interpretation. It is the same as "has to be".

"Should be" is different and in some circumstances (but I would suggest not this one) could allow some choice.

They are of course free to allow someone to use .22 short unless it is an ISSF controlled competition.

[Makris D. G.]

To my cries that the rules say "must be .22LR" so no personal judgement required, the answer was that in the English language, "must be" is more of a suggestion, while "has to be" is the definite wording to disallow something......
Any comments?

"Must be" needs no interpretation. It is the same as "has to be".

"Should be" is different and in some circumstances (but I would suggest not this one) could allow some choice.

They are of course free to allow someone to use .22 short unless it is an ISSF controlled competition.

Well the gentleman in question hides his shorts in LR boxes, and after the more vocal comments by some competitors, puts each short case in his pocket and scatters a few LR cases for good measure so its not quite "allowed" up to this point... but we will see...

[jr]

As a linguist by profession, this is particularly interesting to me. The "Any caliber 5.6 mm (.22”) rimfire pistol chambered for Long
Rifle cartridges may be used," in the rules (8.4.3.3.) appears to be unambiguously structured, even if the sentence structure is awkward.

"any" is a determiner that here refers to "pistol"
"caliber 5.6 mm (.22") rimfire" is adjectival and here also modifies "pistol".
"chambered for Long Rifle cartridges" is a limitation that imposes a restriction on the pistol itself, specifically its chamber dimensions (not permitting, for example, a Walther Olympia chambered in .22 short).
"5.6 mm (.22") ... Long Rifle" is, of course, a specific cartridge that is defined by the C.I.P.
"may be used" refers back to the head of the noun phrase, in this case "pistol"

The rule would probably have been clearer if it were phrased differently, such as: "Any pistol may be used provided that said pistol is chambered for the 5.6 mm (.22") Long Rifle rimfire cartridge." or "Any 5.6 mm (.22") rimfire pistol that is chambered for the Long Rifle cartridge."

However, if we think about the implications of that rule for a while we might note that it gets even more complicated. We observe that ISSF is talking about the pistol and not about the cartridges used by a particular shooter in a match. We said no Walther Olympia is allowed if it's chambered in .22 short, but what if we want to shoot a a .22 short cartridge through a Hämmerli 100? So to take care of that possibility ISSF has a separate rule for ammunition (8.4.4.) (¡there sure are a lot of rules for "free" pistol, eh!). For 50m pistol, under "Other Specifications", ISSF rules require that the ammunition be "Rimfire Long Rifle".

So we have the Illocutionary Meaning of the ISSF rule on the pistol itself: the ISSF's intended meaning probably is to only allow .22LR ammo in .22LR pistols. Then we have the Perlocutionary Meaning of the same rule: the fact that competitors and judges are generally conditioned to think of only using .22LR ammo in .22LR guns. However, the Propositional Meaning of the rule (~ the 'literal' meaning) is more interesting. Even though 8.4.3.3. says nothing about what cartridges shooters choose to use in their pistols as long as those pistols are chambered for .22LR, rule 8.4.4. does, in fact, say that ammo must be "Rimfire Long Rifle".

Interestingly, as currently written, the rules do allow for an extremely wide range of different loads with bullet weights anywhere from 20gr to 60gr and muzzle velocities anywhere from slower-than-a-typical-air-pistol to screamingly-fast-supersonic (e.g., Aguila Colibrí, CCI Stinger).

After a lengthy debate about a gentleman using .22 shorts in all levels of competition here (Greece) I was informed by a member of the national shooting federation that they emailed ISSF and the answer was that they can allow him to use the .22 short ammo as it offers no real advantage. I was further scolded that the most important part of being a Judge is applying your own judgement.

I can't speak to this authoritatively since I don't have access to the original message from ISSF to your national shooting federation member, but it appears that what ISSF is saying to him/her is basically something like 'don't worry about that rule, it doesn't really matter'. Essentially this means that with regard to .22 shorts, that 'they' (= your matches in Greece) 'can allow' (= don't "have to" follow the rule book) because they (ISSF) don't think it matters. It seems like ISSF's response is not so much about the rules per se but rather about (1) allowing some level of local autonomy in local matches, and (2) not taking the rules too seriously unless there is some kind of competitive advantage.

It's too bad that you were scolded for this because it sounds like what you did was indeed to apply your own judgment in a very logical and reasonable manner (and even in agreement with the rules, so there's that...).

To my cries that the rules say "must be .22LR" so no personal judgement required, the answer was that in the English language, "must be" is more of a suggestion, while "has to be" is the definite wording to disallow something......

"Balderdash" (as we say in the English language). That's just plain wrong. In no variant of English of which I am aware is "must be" anything less than "has to be" in the context of a rule book. In this case, all the different types of meaning are the same. It is clear: It must be a .22LR pistol (and not something else, like a .22LR rifle held with one arm), it must be chambered for .22LR (and not something else, like .22 Short), and the ammunition must be Rimfire Long Rifle (and not something else, like .22 CB). Since you're in Greece, I will assume that at least part of the issue is that one or more other people (e.g. that national shooting federation member) must have one or more translations of "must be" available to them in Greek which may vary significantly from the original meaning. For example, see http://biblesuite.com/greek/1163.htm for a whole bunch of possible translations of a somewhat similar lexeme in biblical Greek. But anyway, in the context of a rule book, "must be" indicates obligation or necessity in English - it's not a suggestion.

TL;DR
ISSF rules for 50m pistol only allow .22LR ammo in .22LR pistols.
Language is extremely complex. Guns are, too. And so are rules. And when that all collides...wow!

[Makris D. G.]

Well JR that is pretty much my position and understanding of the rules, and if a deviation is decided by the federation, there should be a clear announcement to all competitors...

To clarify, I am not a judge, just a complaining competitor, I was just put in my place by the "judgement" comment.

[jr]

Well the gentleman in question hides his shorts in LR boxes, and after the more vocal comments by some competitors, puts each short case in his pocket and scatters a few LR cases for good measure so its not quite "allowed" up to this point... but we will see...

That's just funny.

Anyway, I guess I've done the linguistics part, but are there any psychologists out there who want to comment on this guy? Is that superstitious or ritual behavior?

Or are .22 shorts better than .22LR and maybe he's on to something??

[David Levene]

Well the gentleman in question hides his shorts in LR boxes, and after the more vocal comments by some competitors, puts each short case in his pocket and scatters a few LR cases for good measure so its not quite "allowed" up to this point... but we will see...

It really depends how close the organisers are sticking to ISSF rules.

Even if they do not actually "allow" the use of .22 shorts, they might not want to go as far as applying rule 6.12.7 a or b (penalties for open or concealed infringements).

[RandomShotz]

Aside from the legitimacy of using .22 Shorts, wouldn't there be an issue with the increase in the length of the jump from case to rifling? Whatever advantage this person thinks he is gaining from the use of a lower power cartridge, it seems there would be a more than compensating loss of accuracy in the system. Unless, of course, the barrel is actually chambered for the .22 Short, in which case he is unarguably in violation of the rules. IMHO.

Roger

[j-team]

Aside from the legitimacy of using .22 Shorts, wouldn't there be an issue with the increase in the length of the jump from case to rifling?

What about .22long then? Has a lighter bullet (same as .22 short) but full length case like .22lr.

I have fired .22 short from a Free pistol (Hammerli 152). I couldn't hit a magpie at 50m, must have been the ammo, it couldn't have possibly been me!