TargetTalk

finally recieved my MG4 (over 2 months late)

Just wondering if anyone has any base loads they have found that work well in the MG4.

Cheers

Congratulations !

Please post a review as soon as you are able to.

Regarding base loads, I seem to remember Tycho posting some.

Check the firing pin, sometimes it brokes.

Leon wrote:Congratulations !

Please post a review as soon as you are able to.

Regarding base loads, I seem to remember Tycho posting some.

Only a brief review, didnt get much tome to shoot yesterday:

First 5 shots were simple beautiful - factory fiocchi loads with 98gr HBWC
45 / 50 (group slightly hight right)
recoil recovery with factory was sweet, sights come back very fast.

The next 3 series was purely for sight alignment.
After sighted in, I can say the factory ammo was sweet to shoot with fast recovery.

Moving onto some reloads, that was a different story.
these loads were very consistant on the Hammerli 280, but the MG4 did not like the loads much at all.

Several loads did not eject clean, but I would expect that with a new gun, especially with reloads that may be a little soft.

Currently getting a new grip made for the MG4, so I will be back on the range soon to run in and test some loads.

Cheers

I'm using the same cartridges used in HP Pardini, 1.3 - 1.4 of N310 with Fiocchi (313) and Hornady (314) bullets, without significant differences between the two. Those with 1.3 have a lighter recoil.

I have been using 1.1gr. N310. Starline brass.
88gr. cast in .313dia.
90gr. Hornady swagged .314dia.
98gr. cast in .314 dia. Magnus&Dardas.

This is in 50ft. bullseye competition.

32cal guru Dave Wilson(also makes excellent custom 32 barrels for 50yd&meters) advised to use .314dia in the Pardini. Most barrels slugged between .313 and .315dia.

What do you other .32cal shooters use???

2 firing pin broken...

Talk to Stefano - there was a whole production series of bad firing pins. And I think they changed the slide design from the very first version, I got a complete new slide when my 2nd firing broke.

They've sent another slide...

i have seen one mg4 for sale that has a counterweight similar to the rf counterweight of mg2rf versions. is this the current standard version of mg4?

Don't think so. Got one of those myself, but as an addon. Cost around 200 EUR.

[quote="buonvento"] 2 firing pin broken... [/quote]

[quote="Tycho"] Talk to Stefano - there was a whole production series of bad firing pins.
And I think they changed the slide design from the very first version, I got a complete new slide when my 2nd firing broke. [/quote]

Here we (MG) go again....
This somehowe reminds me of the troubled early runs of MG2s.
Didn't they take a lesson om from their former mistakes?

Yawn... You've got nothing better to do? Shit happens, especially with suppliers. The MG4 all in all works very well, much better than the early MG2. And every .32 has some problems with parts breaking, except perhaps the P240, some wear and tear is part of the business. And we've seen bad batches of parts everywhere, with every manufacturer. The forum here is full of non-working Pardinis, and breaking Hammerlis, and nobody seems to complain about them. And Matchguns customer service is well above and beyond. So, the question is, do you want to go Formula 1, or not?

buonvento wrote:Check the firing pin, sometimes it brokes.

Firing the did break, after 350 rounds the last shot of rapid fire stage.
Parts have been replaced, but not confident in the gun yet...

Hopefully it works flawlessly at National Titles this week.

cheers

Tycho wrote:And every .32 has some problems with parts breaking, except perhaps the P240, some wear and tear is part of the business.

By the way, why is this? The .32 LWC is extremely light cartridge, even the "stiff" loads have energy levels about the same as fast .22 lr rounds. A bit more momentum. Is there something to making an accurate pistol that also intrinsically makes it weak? We have lots of pistols in 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 that take tens of thousands of rounds without a glitch. And the power of the loads used is something totally different. Of course, most of those guns are not great for accuracy, they have awful grips etc, but it's obviously possible to make a reliable high power handgun.

There is the problem with the weird .32 LWC round that may make it a bit difficult to achieve reliable feeding. But that should not cause firing pins, extractors, frames or other stuff break. Why the target pistols break? They don't need to be extremely light compared to the power of the cartridge. Many have the mechanics in front of the trigger, so even the fancy grip doesn't limit the amount of metal used.

I'm actually considering to buy a second-hand MG4. Or maybe an older Pardini HP. Hämmerli and GSP are options as well, but I guess with those you can't get quite as leaning wrist (rake?) angle, which is what I want. My shooting is rather casual, I'm not going to wear out any decent gun, but of course it would be nice to limit the amount of spare parts and shop time needed. I, for one, do like the Formula 1 aspect of the MG. Fancy technology that even I can afford, unlike cars or motorbikes that would be as competitive in their own class. For the more classic aspect of gun technology, I have the IPSC standard stuff, which is not really the topic of this forum.

Mika

It is because all .32SWLWC are derived from .22 standard pistol and the .32SWLWC, especially the factory ammo, is more powerfull than a standard speed .22lr (remember that all match pistols are made to be used with standard speed .22lr, never use high speed .22lr in those pistols).

The choice of the .32SWLWC was made because it is an existing cartridge, it is a center fire, big enough cartridge (to comply with the center fire rule), it is accurate and weak to limit as much as possible the muzzle jump after each shot.

May be, it would be possible to develop a new, better cartridge for the center fire event, but seen the very small market, who would like to invest in such a development ?

Many thanks to Matchgun for investing in the development a new, innovative center fire pistol. Walther didn't make the effort to develop a center fire derivative of their new SSP.

jipe wrote:It is because all .32SWLWC are derived from .22 standard pistol and the .32SWLWC, especially the factory ammo, is more powerfull than a standard speed .22lr (remember that all match pistols are made to be used with standard speed .22lr, never use high speed .22lr in those pistols).

That's true, although some of the durability problems seem to affect the .22 lr pistols as well. On this forum I've read about soft-barreled Pardinis, cracking frames and other parts on Hämmerlis etc. Is it simply because the target guns are just used so much more than the plinker .22's? Somehow it feels so unnecessary. It should be absolutely no problem making an accurate gun in either .22 or .32 that would last almost forever. The problems seem to stem from design errors that could in many cases be anticipated or at least easily detected in rigorous testing. Or is it just that the market volume is too small to actually invest in testing the products and there is less demand for testing, as a broken gun means just an angry customer, not a dead officer or soldier?

The choice of the .32SWLWC was made because it is an existing cartridge, it is a center fire, big enough cartridge (to comply with the center fire rule), it is accurate and weak to limit as much as possible the muzzle jump after each shot.

I can see the reasoning, and I've read the threads discussing the choice of the caliber. I don't mind, for me it works (if the gun doesn't break...), and it's actually an interesting deviation from the traditional short case pistol rounds with mostly round nose or TC bullets.

Many thanks to Matchgun for investing in the development a new, innovative center fire pistol. Walther didn't make the effort to develop a center fire derivative of their new SSP.

Agree to that. New guns for sports that don't enjoy a lot of popularity are reason enough to applaud.

Mika

mika wrote:

jipe wrote:It is because all .32SWLWC are derived from .22 standard pistol and the .32SWLWC, especially the factory ammo, is more powerfull than a standard speed .22lr (remember that all match pistols are made to be used with standard speed .22lr, never use high speed .22lr in those pistols).

That's true, although some of the durability problems seem to affect the .22 lr pistols as well. On this forum I've read about soft-barreled Pardinis, cracking frames and other parts on Hämmerlis etc. Is it simply because the target guns are just used so much more than the plinker .22's? Somehow it feels so unnecessary. It should be absolutely no problem making an accurate gun in either .22 or .32 that would last almost forever. The problems seem to stem from design errors that could in many cases be anticipated or at least easily detected in rigorous testing. Or is it just that the market volume is too small to actually invest in testing the products and there is less demand for testing, as a broken gun means just an angry customer, not a dead officer or soldier?

The main problems affects breech and frames, not barrel as far as I knwo, and are often due to the use of too strong ammo. For the breech, manufacturers tries to reduce the weight of the breech as much as possible to reduce muzzle jump and any pistol movement. This makes the breech more fragile and also increase the effort on the frame in case of strong ammo (remember that all those pistols have non locked breech -> the energy of the shot is taken by the breech spring, some damping rubber and the frame).

A second problem is broken firing pin. It also must be as lightweight as possible what makes it also more fragile. The many shots made with the pistol always lead to broken firing pins, you must see the firing pin as a part that must be regularily replaced. Dry fire without damping can also cause the failure.

Last point, most manufacturers are small companies that use some other supplier to manufacture several parts of their pistols and manufacturing issues may occur.

I'm curious how everyone has been doing with this pistol over the last few years. I just stumbled upon it and its a very interesting pistol.

I enjoy shooting mine. Just need to get the trigger setup the same as my MG2, then it will be perfect.