TargetTalk

I enjoy 10M AP shooting and may get a free pistol one of these days just for fun, so this is just a matter of curiosity for me. I'd like to know why some competition pistols have the magazine in front of the grip and others more have it located more conventionally. Is it just a matter of the optimum magazine angle required for feed reliability versus optimum grip angle? Both formats seem to be in use, so what are the up- and down-sides to the choice?

Sorry if this is obvious, but I'm still new to competition pistols and couldn't find anyplace in the forum where the various merits were discussed.

Thanks

Putting the mag ahead of the trigger allows more flexibility in grip design and in the magazine, which can be set up for maximum reliability.

On the other hand, putting the magazine in the grip minimizes changes in balance as the shots are fired.

Actually by putting the magazine in front of the trigger the bore line is lower on the pistol to legal limits for standard, center fire and rapid fire pistol. In theory it is easier to absorb the recoil and line up for a follow up shot. The sights will also be closer to the bore line limit which may assist the shooter somewhat.

Some pistols that have magazines in the grip do have more of a raked angle, High Standard M-102 series, FWB AW93 and the IZH 35 are a couple of examples.

I have a High Standard M-107 that I still use on occassion and have never had reliability issues with it. My Walther GSP Expert and other Walther GSP's I have fired have also had no reliability issues, so I do not think that reliabilty is an advantage or disadvantage in either design.

From my experience pistols have different balance points depending upon how the shooter can potentially set up a weight system. For example a Walther GSP for me tends to feel very nose heavy while the new Walther GSP Expert is on par balance wise with my High Standard.

An advantage for having a magazine in the grip is that the barrel lengths tend to be longer if someone finds that more to their liking. My Walther GSP Expert that fits in the box exactly, has a 4" barrel while my High Standard M-107 has a 5 1/2" barrel. The magazine system takes up some space if put in front of the trigger group.

The other choice is a MG2 or MG2 RF from Matchguns. The bore line is lower than on a traditional magazine in the grip design, the barrel is 6" which is better than a traditional magazine in front of the trigger design but there are trade offs.

I love my MG2 but the MG2 RF conversion kit did not work and it is about to go back to Matchguns to make it reliable. Being a new design people need to expect some teething problems. This will be resolved so this may be a moot point long term. The biggest disadvantage is on alibi strings. When you do have a jam, sometimes you have to take the entire top off to clear it successfully from the pistol. The magazine can sometime "rainbow" your rounds out of the tube feed mechanism if you accidentally hit the rentition system when unloading the pistol.

This ultimately comes down to what trade offs work best for your style of shooting and preferences.

I hope that helps!

Nick

Actually by putting the magazine in front of the trigger the bore line is lower on the pistol to legal limits for standard, center fire and rapid fire pistol. In theory it is easier to absorb the recoil and line up for a follow up shot. The sights will also be closer to the bore line limit which may assist the shooter somewhat.

Generally correct, however the Izh35 and AW93 have the lowest barrel line possible and full length barrels.

Putting the mag forward also allows much more space for the trigger and hammer mechanisms - which makes them easier to design.

Thanks for the replies. I wondered why both styles are still on the market - I would have thought that a radical difference in design would either supplant prior designs almost completely (as in spring vs CO2 vs CA) or die out.

I knew that getting the bore line down would have advantages. I just had trouble visualizing how the mag forward design would permit lowering it below what could be achieved by conventional design; it never occurred to me that space for the trigger mechanism would be a consideration.

So the major down side to the mag forward design is the change in balance? Are there other issues with complexity, maintenance, cost?

I really like the IZH35 and the AW93, but I disagree with JamesH's assessment of the IZH35 and the AW93 boreline since they sit higher in the hand (and more vertical) when compared to a MG2RF, Pardini or Walther GSP Expert. The manner that recoil is controlled compared to the pistols with magazines in front is different. Since the grip is not constrained by the magazine being in the grip, the grip can be positioned to take advantage of the ISSF rules to the maximum limits and allow for the shooter's arm to absorb the recoil straight back.

The question of which is easier to design is a moot point since the pistol is either reliable or it is not reliable.

It comes down to what advantages and disadvantages and what the shooter prefers. I actually shoot both types since I use a High Standard M-107 for a backup standard pistol. The recoil characteristics are different, but it does have a slightly longer barrel than the Walther GSP Expert and reacquiring the sights after each shot is taken requires more follow through.

I actually looked at a FWB AW93 and really liked it but it was heavier than the Walther GSP Expert that I already had and the MG2RF was really light and well balanced. Not to mention that the AW93 was (and still is) really pricey compared to the other two options. Both the IZH35 and the AW93 felt like a High Standard M-107 when they recoiled which I am actually used to.


Another issue why shooters have different preferences is how the gun feels when they line up to the target. Since I have had an elbow injury in the past, it is much easier for me to shoot a pistol that has the magazine in the grip. Some shooters I have seen have a hard time with the more relaxed grip angle. Again this is a preference.