TargetTalk

J-team.... your missing the point. ITS NOT A STANDARD PISTOL!!!! Lets try this again. 1. Lower velocity ammo 2. Recoil reducing springs 3. tungsten weights 4, Electric triggers. The only thing you have in common with a standard pistol is a 1000gr trigger. Which I'm sure is adjustable 3 ways from Sunday. You make it sound like your shooting a High Standard. Which I did by the way, when I started. Its become a money game plain and simple. Manufacturers needed to sell something different and the ISSF bought it. Simple as that.

tenx9 wrote:ITS NOT A STANDARD PISTOL!!!! Lets try this again. 1. Lower velocity ammo 2. Recoil reducing springs 3. tungsten weights 4, Electric triggers.

Which of these things would make the gun unsuitable for Standard Pistol.
In fact, you can use lower velocity ammunition in Standard Pistol than you can for RFP if you want to.

Thanks, I've alway aspired to have a topic named after me.

I think David has answered for me.

And for what it's worth, no I don't shoot a high standard (or have ever owned one). I have a late model Pardini SP.

j-team wrote:Thanks, I've alway aspired to have a topic named after me.

I think David has answered for me.

omg are you THE j-team? can i have your autograph?

Quite possibly, the greatest effect that the RFP pistol specifications rule changes have had is the improvement in technology for the Standard and Sport Pistol events.

With the new hi-tech RFP pistols, we should see the Standard and Sport Pistol scores improve dramatically, shouldn't we?

I think this is a positive side effect of the changes - even if it wasn't planned.

Of course, we mere mortals have to spend $2,000+ to take advantage of it.

Shouldn't complain - that is a beginning teacher's fortnightly take-home pay. That's what my "state-of-the-art" Walther GSP cost me in 1972 when I was a beginning teacher ($169, I think).

One thing that some of the Rapid pistols have lost in the quest for reduced recoil and lower velocity is outright accuracy. The rapid 10 ring is large, twice the size of a standard target, so it does not matter, until you shoot them for Standard pistol.

... but do they have reduced accuracy? If so, how significantly?

I have heard this before but without any comparative data, it may be an assumption. I haven't seen any data apart from Spencer's Morini CM22M RF article in which he claims to achieve 50mm groups with most ammo (not really acceptable) and 25mm groups with about half the tests (not bad).

Given that accuracy has many variables (firearm/ammo/temperature/firearm cleanliness/ammo batch/etc), I would like to see a genuine, valid test of these firearms with different ammo types.

I'm not disagreeing with David but I am a data-holic! I would love to see the data. For example, what size test groups were included with new RFP pistols (Morini/Pardini/Matchguns, etc)? Those with them may respond - please.

I think the loss of accuray is a myth.

When I first ordered my Pardini with the RF barrel (supposedly a different chamber to reduce recoil) some said to me "oh didn't you realise they are less accurate".

So, the day it arrived I went straight to the machine rest and shot a 12mm group (10 shots) with Lapua pistol king. I haven't worried about the loss of accuray since.

But the RF Pardini has the light slide - and it's a fact that a heavy slide is good for accuracy, because it delays the movement of the pistol. Probably negligible for the normal shooter, though.

Tycho wrote:But the RF Pardini has the light slide - and it's a fact that a heavy slide is good for accuracy, because it delays the movement of the pistol. Probably negligible for the normal shooter, though.

That's good because I can't afford to buy the light slide! I still use the heavy one.