Fort Benning Rapid Fire Match

j-team · Post by **j-team** » Sun May 15, 2005 2:43 am

Check this pic from the ISSF of Milev winning the WC with an equal world record.

http://www.issf.tv/foto.asp?mode=event& ... &currpic=1

For those familiar with the Pardini, look at the front sight and tell me if you think that the sight radius is 220mm.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:54 am

Compared to standard foresight, looks about 240 mm to me!

Bruce F · Post by **Bruce F** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:32 pm

Does anyone know what happened to Ralf Schumann (appears to have malfunctioned out in his first half) or to the other German who was disqualified ? Was it Trigger weight or ammo not meeting specifications ?

william · Post by **william** » Mon May 16, 2005 6:27 am

I'm not clever enough for Mr. j-team's subtlety - is there an accusation of cheating in there?

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Mon May 16, 2005 7:18 am

Well, I would expect there to be the mandatory weapons check before the competition... Could be trick of the perspective, and he could be using a shorter barrel + shroud. The spanish guy has had another interesting idea and is using a Schumann shroud with additional weights, and the old RFP shrouds are all shorter than the ones of the Pardini SP.

Anders Turebrand · Post by **Anders Turebrand** » Mon May 16, 2005 5:02 pm

My guess is that it slipped through equipment check.
A post front sight like that should be positioned on the middle of the barrel shroud (lengthwise)
Here´s another view http://pilkguns.com/2005/wcMRF/img_9430.htm

The gun looks like a GP with a SP shroud and slide (the slide is locked back in the picture) and a GP front sight.

A GP shroud is about 10 mm shorter than the SP shroud but it doesn´t work with a SP slide...

j-team · Post by **j-team** » Wed May 18, 2005 2:04 am

I'm not clever enough for Mr. j-team's subtlety - is there an accusation of cheating in there?

As I wasn't there in person I couldn't say. Because I don't know for sure:

-If the picture is of Milev actually shooting the World Cup.

-That the rearsight is still in it's "as issued" position.

-Or that the barrel/shroud is somehow shortened.

But, I can say for sure that the pistol appears to have a sight radius that is longer than the permitted 220mm.

What makes this serious is the fact that a World Record was equalled and an Olympic quota was won.

If I was the Russian Shooting Team management I would look into it as the Russian shooter who finished second may have missed out on a quota for his country.

Post by **Shin** » Wed May 18, 2005 8:48 am

j-team wrote:What makes this serious is the fact that a World Record was equalled and an Olympic quota was won.

There are no quota slots awarded in rapid fire this year.

j-team · Post by **j-team** » Wed May 18, 2005 11:56 pm

There are no quota slots awarded in rapid fire this year.

Well that's quite good in a way. As for the record I expect that it will be broken again soon probably in either Munich or Milan.

Pär Hylander · Post by **Pär Hylander** » Sat May 21, 2005 1:40 am

Anders Turebrand wrote:My guess is that it slipped through equipment check...

If there is a world record, there is probably an equipment control after the match also. I do not think that a nonconforming obvious detail like that would slip through two separate EC and the watching eyes of coaches and leaders from competing countries.

So if we assume the sightradius is ok, how is then the pistol configurated with that front sight that seems to be near the muzzle? Is the sight moved forward?

Anders Turebrand · Post by **Anders Turebrand** » Sat May 21, 2005 2:52 pm

Never assume anything... It will make an ass out of u and me :-)

It´s not possible to move the rear sight forward without raising it above frame, (not more than a few mm´s anyway)
With the rear sight in it´s normal position, the barrel shroud would have to be shortened to ~37 mm for the sight radius to be within regulation length given a front sight in that position.
The original shroud is about 67mm long, cutting it down by about 45% would be quite visible.

Equalled world record... possibly no second EC

Pär Hylander · Post by **Pär Hylander** » Wed May 25, 2005 7:16 am

Anders Turebrand wrote:Never assume anything... It will make an ass out of u and me :-)

It´s not possible to move the rear sight forward without raising it above frame, (not more than a few mm´s anyway)
With the rear sight in it´s normal position, the barrel shroud would have to be shortened to ~37 mm for the sight radius to be within regulation length given a front sight in that position.
The original shroud is about 67mm long, cutting it down by about 45% would be quite visible.

Equalled world record... possibly no second EC

I really seems like the sightradius is nonconforming.... No german style equipment control in the US obviusly ;-)

However, it is my opinion that a few cm of extra sightradius is not to significant for the results, so Emils performace was without a doubt world class!

RobStubbs · Post by **RobStubbs** » Wed May 25, 2005 9:08 am

Pär Hylander wrote: I really seems like the sightradius is nonconforming.... No german style equipment control in the US obviusly ;-)

I cannot believe that equipment control at a world cup wouldn't have picked this up. All guns are tested in a gun box for dimensions and if what you are saying is correct then the gun wouldn't fit.

Rob.

Pär Hylander · Post by **Pär Hylander** » Wed May 25, 2005 2:12 pm

RobStubbs wrote:
Pär Hylander wrote: I really seems like the sightradius is nonconforming.... No german style equipment control in the US obviusly ;-)
I cannot believe that equipment control at a world cup wouldn't have picked this up. All guns are tested in a gun box for dimensions and if what you are saying is correct then the gun wouldn't fit.

Rob.

Well, I do think like you, it do not seem probably that something like that has slipped through the EC. However, the sightradius is not checked by the box and not seldom is the box the only measurment tool that is used (and the weight for the trigger of course) even att world cups.

Spencer C · Post by **Spencer C** » Wed May 25, 2005 9:05 pm

.... No german style equipment control in the US obviusly...

And very little in the factories.
A number of top $ european 'standard' pistols come with sight radius in excess of 220mm.

Spencer C

j-team · Post by **j-team** » Thu May 26, 2005 12:05 am

And very little in the factories.
A number of top $ european 'standard' pistols come with sight radius in excess of 220mm.

Yes, but usually only by a millimetre or two.

Spencer C · Post by **Spencer C** » Thu May 26, 2005 12:49 am

j-team wrote: Yes, but usually only by a millimetre or two.

There is no tolerance given in the rules for the maximum of 220mm.

About 15 years ago came along one brand that needed the rear sight set to sneak in at 220mm.

Then about 10 years ago came another brand that needed a bit taken off the rear of the front sight insert to get it back enough in the dovetail to make 220mm.

One I saw at EC last week was about 4mm and not amenable to shortening the rear of the sight insert (would not be enough without undercutting the sight blade, and the insert grubscrew fits to a drilling in the dovetail).
Either a longer dovetail, or repositioning the blade on the insert would work - I have seen some rough and ready gunsmithing to get pistols to 'pass' over the years, but this is becoming serious work.

Makes one wonder about pistols made for one specific purpose (i.e. ISSF 25m competition) that do not comply.
At EC the officials tell the shooter that the pistol does not comply and are the worst !@#$%$ in the world (shoot the messenger?).
The situation will not improve until some shooter sends the manufacturer and/or supplier a bill for transport, accommodation, entry fee, etc. under legislation relating to goods sold being suitable for the purpose for which they are sold... (this has happened for shotgun ammo)

Spencer C

Mark Briggs · Post by **Mark Briggs** » Thu May 26, 2005 8:36 pm

Hmmm, interesting discussion. Having watched RF guns go through the equipment check at the World Cup at Fort Benning, I can assure you they were rigorously checked. I can also assure you they were checked using;
a) trigger weight tester
b) weigh scale
c) maximum outside dimension box
d) metal measurement template for sight radius (the same template also is used to check several other parameters, but not being sure of how to describe them all, I'll just leave them out of this discussion)

I paid particular attention to this because I shoot an MG-2 for rapid fire. The gentleman ahead of me in the equipment check line also had an MG-2 and it failed equipment check (by a wide margin on one particular measurement). It wasn't until an ISSF official was brought in for consultation that equipment check officials were instructed that the textual description of the measurement in question was indeed correct, but that the diagram used to illustrate this measurement was in fact inaccurate and misleading. Once this clarification was made the MG-2 passed with flying colours. Whew - did that ever reduce my level of worry!

So, for those who feel there was inadequate equipment check at the Ft Benning World Cup, I would like to suggest this assumption was proven by my experience to be incorrect.

As an additional comment, I would like to state that all of my dealings with the Ft Benning WC officials were exemplary in nature. I left the match feeling they had done everything in their power to ensure a level and fair playing field for all shooters, and that they had done their utmost to facilitate an excellent match.

Quicky · Post by **Quicky** » Thu May 26, 2005 11:17 pm

Hi there,

I have just purchased an MG 2 for rapid fire, and was wondering which aspect of gun check , and which measurement was there confusion over?

I haven't been through a gun check with the gun yet, and want to be prepared.

many thanks

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Fri May 27, 2005 1:15 am

Mark Briggs wrote:Hmmm, interesting discussion. Having watched RF guns go through the equipment check at the World Cup at Fort Benning, I can assure you they were rigorously checked. I can also assure you they were checked using;
a) trigger weight tester
b) weigh scale
c) maximum outside dimension box
d) metal measurement template for sight radius (the same template also is used to check several other parameters, but not being sure of how to describe them all, I'll just leave them out of this discussion)

Thanks Mark, at last some sanity in a thread based on a photograph which could have had it's perspective changed electronically (stretched) to suit a web site layout.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the organisers of a World Cup, and the ISSF officials would jeapordise their respective futures by not having a correctly run equipment control section. I think we all accept that, regretably, mistakes can happen in the heat of a match but to suggest a major oversight in the relatively calm atmosphere surrounding equipment control beggars belief.

If there was such an obvious breech of the rules as some seem to be suggesting then it is a good bet that it would have been noticed and reported by other team officials and range officials.

TargetTalk

Fort Benning Rapid Fire Match

Fort Benning Rapid Fire Match

Re Mark Briggs MG 2