MG as .32

jer · Post by **jer** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:16 pm

Gehmann added MG4 to lists. If first ones has as good quality as first MG-2s, maybe its better to wait for a moment.

http://www.gehmann.net/pages/e-productc ... ies&id=140

No, not me, yet · Post by **No, not me, yet** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:21 pm

jer wrote:Gehmann added MG4 to lists. If first ones has as good quality as first MG-2s, maybe its better to wait for a moment.

"Words of wisdom"....

Ernie Rodriguez · Post by **Ernie Rodriguez** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:05 pm

As good a success as I had with my MG-2 .22Cal-I think waiting awhile for this pistol to prove itself is a very wise idea :-)

Not mee, yet · Post by **Not mee, yet** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:12 pm

Ernie Rodriguez wrote:As good a success as I had with my MG-2 .22Cal-I think waiting awhile for this pistol to prove itself is a very wise idea :-)

"Success" ?
Yes, that experience of yours was a definite success.
(Just kidding)

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:28 pm

Just a thought if everyone waits, how will it ever get fixed? Just wondering.

Na, not mee, yet · Post by **Na, not mee, yet** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:57 am

Richard H wrote:Just a thought if everyone waits, how will it ever get fixed? Just wondering.

The MG factory had better test, modyfy, "fix" the gun prior to shipping to customers.
The MG32 has spend very short time from "planning" to marketing. I worry about that.
Will they again ginnipig teh customers?
Have the poor customers suffer from all the trouble of "testing out the gun" for the MG factory.
I AM NOT GONNA TO BE THAT FOOLHARTED ONCE MORE

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:00 am

Hi,

The MG.4 does not start from scratch as MG.2!
If MG.2 is a step in the right direction when it comes to recoil then a .32 version can be even more favorable, right?
A .32 has more punch to move things and, if handloading, you can adjust your load, crimp and many other things.

I think it does makes sence to buy a .MG.4 if you are in to center fire matches because it may have a REAL edge.
But, if you are just plinking for fun you may be better off with something else!

Kent

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:07 pm

The MG4 was nearly finished one year ago and laid up so the MG2 could be updated and the latest knowledge integrated into the MG4, too. I ordered one today, let's see what comes...

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:55 pm

Tycho wrote:The MG4 was nearly finished one year ago and laid up so the MG2 could be updated and the latest knowledge integrated into the MG4, too. I ordered one today, let's see what comes...

I'm sure you'll let us know what you think of it. The only question I had about the design is the tubular magazine, when full you have all that weight of the .32's out front. The C of G is really going to change from 1st to last shot.

dhurt · Post by **dhurt** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:05 pm

Of interest to U.S. bullseye shooters, what twist are the barrels? It would be great to be able to purchase a .32 that will stabalize bullets at 50 yards. Thanks, Dwaine.

Ernie Rodriguez · Post by **Ernie Rodriguez** » Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:58 pm

Stefano C.-Tell us that Matchgun company put a 1:10 twist in the MG-4 pistol,rather than the old 1:16 twist that was prevalent in the ISSF pistols of the past.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:56 am

Reinhamre wrote:If MG.2 is a step in the right direction when it comes to recoil then a .32 version can be even more favorable, right?

I'm a bit confused by this comment Kent.

I will admit that I haven't shot an MG2 so cannot comment on its recoil recovery in Standard Pistol or Rapid Fire Pistol.

No matter how beneficial the recoil recovery is in those events, I fail to see how it (or a similar MG4 design) can be a significant improvement over current guns for ISSF Centre Fire. Recoil recovery (within reason) is simply not an issue in that event.

Mike M. · Post by **Mike M.** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:27 am

If they DID go with a 1-10 twist, and can get the gun to run, they might just have a real winner.

Reinhamre · Post by **Reinhamre** » Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 am

Richard H wrote:[ The only question I had about the design is the tubular magazine, when full you have all that weight of the .32's out front. The C of G is really going to change from 1st to last shot.

It may not be that much after all, 1 is ready in the chamber and 2:nd on its way up, third right under the one in the chamber. I understand that the balance point will be just under the cartridge in the chamber +/- 1 (except for the first shot) and the balance point is further back than on a SP20 or a Pardini HP because the barrel is longer.

And David, yes I may have taken a short cut here and added all the positive things that has been sad about MG2 and boiled it down to just recoil. On the other hand, it is nice to combine dry fire and live fire some time. It is easier to call shots when recoil is lower but that is a personal experience. I still have my highest result in slow fire with a SIG 210-6

Kent

bjsulla · Post by **bjsulla** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:20 pm

Tycho wrote:The MG4 was nearly finished one year ago and laid up so the MG2 could be updated and the latest knowledge integrated into the MG4, too. I ordered one today, let's see what comes...

Have you received the gun yet? I would really like some more information about this gun.

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:48 pm

Did you really expect MG to be punctual about a new release? Should have been last year, but I'll be surprised whenever it comes - nothing personal, but it's a small company and a small market. But I'm sure looking forward to it, will be interesting.

Richard H · Post by **Richard H** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:40 pm

Maybe they are making sure it works, so the masses won't complain about "how dare they release product thats not fit to be released, they should have tested it more to make sure that it will never fail no matter what I do to it".

56 · Post by 56 » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:43 am

disencouraged owner of two continously malfunctioning MGs wrote: Maybe they are making sure it works, so the masses won't complain about "how dare they release a product that will surely always fail no matter what I do to it".

56 · Post by 56 » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:47 am

Tycho wrote: But I'm sure looking forward to it, will be interesting.

To me, the only topic of interest is the malfunction percentage...
Fairly high, i am afraid...Based on enduring experiense, that is...

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:35 pm

So don't buy one.

TargetTalk

MG as .32

MG as .32

Re: MG as .32

MG-4 .32 Cal Pistol

Re: MG-4 .32 Cal Pistol

The MG fac. had better make a reliable gun prior to shipping

MG-4 .32 Cal Pistol

Interesting failure percentage?