N/A Making an airgun something it was not intended to be

[Arzrover]

Over the years, I've been asked to get more power, change caliber, change the form, etc., for things in production. It has sometimes been fun and sometimes fairly tedious and frustrating. MOST of this is probably on me when I've "brainstormed around the campfire " with friends. I've been preoccupied with airguns since the late 70s and done a fair share of "upgrading" along the way to the level of accumulating the machine tools and experience to be ABLE to do these things. Some of the "upgrades" were instigated by nothing being available with that attribute and some were just "I've got this airgun... what can I do with it".
Case in point... a friend contacted me about converting a rifle to pistol for FT competition ... which I did and feel it went decently ... THAT project created the interest for me to look at my own collection and see what might be a candidate So my first attempt was convertingan EVOL 22 to legal comp pistol for FT... Now it's been campaigned a couple of times but is a bit light... While working on that, I noticed that I have a pile of old Red Wolf parts so when a fried offered up a small bottle, decided to make it a reality and set to work to see if it was possible ... the result is this:

which I campaigned this weekend at ROT somewhat unspectacularly, BUT which was absolutely a joy and was stellar on it's part...
Now, this thread idea was generated by a Wolverine thread earlier and the Wolverine is an absolutely wonderful rifle but has design limitations that I've repeatedly seen criticised because people buy it for what it is, then want to make it something it's not , and whine when it doesn't work out. There are a good number of potential examples of this.
Now there are a good sample of capable people out there that can likely make airguns do what they were not designed to do and I applaud them and enjoy the journey when they choose to share it... I just get somewhat irritated I guess by those that criticize one that doesn't do what THEY WANT, even though it's not designed for it...
So thanks for your attention on my little rant...
Bob

 

[jps2486]

You mean I can't convert my Crosman 150 to shoot bowling balls at 200 yards MOA?

 

[Motorhead]

I see getting in that 3" rule took some fore stock trimming. Very nicely done !!

 

[jps2486]

I see getting in that 3" rule took some fore stock trimming. Very nicely done !!

Why can't anyone explain why the 3 inch rule exists?

 

[Motorhead]

Why can't anyone explain why the 3 inch rule exists?

Why do you challenge it ?
3 inch rule is not difficult to achieve in most pistols out there used for PFT, it only becomes an issue for those of us making FT pistollas from rifles & therefor trim as needed for compliance.

* Tho question asked likely to deal with NOT providing a palm shelf type extension which would aid offhand where others that were under 3" might be at a disadvantage. State 3" and everyone is at a similar & equal disadvantage

 

[AirNGasman]

Why can't anyone explain why the 3 inch rule exists?

Being the individual most responsible for Pistol Field Target rules, I can explain it. I was not only one of the five PFT rules committee members (plus a Chairman) assembled by AAFTA to compose a set of pistol rules for the Board Of Governors to consider, but am also the individual that overthrew the Chairman of the rules committee in a hostile coup when his habitual missing in action threatened to destroy eight months of often contentious work by the rest of us.

I was the most vocal advocate of logic, reason and retaining some semblance of PISTOL in the pistol FT rules. No limit on fore-end depths DOESN'T!

You're welcome,
Ron

 

[jps2486]

I know we talked about this before,Ron, but I can’t understand what the advantage to the shooter would be if that dimension was more tan 3 inches. If anything, the center if gravity would be higher making the rifle more unstable, therefore a disadvantage.

 

[AirNGasman]

I can’t understand what the advantage to the shooter would be if that dimension was more tan 3 inches.

In my opinion, a more upright, less contorted shooting position. Also less pistolesque.

FWIW, had the liberal voices prevailed the only difference between an Open Class FT rifle and an FT pistol would be a pistol grip instead of a butt-stock.

.

 

[Franklink]

In my opinion, a more upright, less contorted shooting position. Also less pistolesque.

FWIW, had the liberal voices prevailed the only difference between an Open Class FT rifle and an FT pistol would be a pistol grip instead of a butt-stock.

View attachment 558707

.

Seems like that "pistol" is trying to compensate for something.

 

[Motorhead]

Rifles converted to AAFTA pistol legal are still pretty damn exotic with very few of them able to be shot like a true pistol ( One handed )

Picture 1) a pistol to FT pistol staying pistol looking and compact !!
Picture 2) a Rifle to Pistol conversion that is still fairly compact.
Picture 3) a Rifle to Extreme Pistol conversion & yes a Large and Heavy rig.
Picture #4) a Rifle to Pistol conversion and it to a fairly large and heavy rig.

All are AAFTA legal in the 25"/15"/3" rule ( Tho #3 ) is a >20 fpe rig and others are >12 fpe rigs.