Marvel truth?

[Joe]

Listers,

 

    A thought about .22 lr match pistols. Being an owner of a Marvel Unit 1 conversion with a Ransom Rest test target badge of .745” shot at 50 yards with 5 rounds, does that mean the Marvel conversion is the most accurate .22 lr pistol in the world, under NRA standards for guns used in Conventional Pistol, when shot at 50 yards?

 

    My High Standard Victor 10-X won’t do that. Neither will my Walther GSP, or my Model 41. Though I don’t own a Feinwerkbau AW-93, I doubt that one would do it either. And that one is a $2500 pistol!

 

    Is all that Marvel talk just hype or what? Has anyone really thought about this? If true, why would anyone buy anything else? Opinions please.

[R Dan Pauley]

I agree, why would anyone buy anything else?   Truth is "most" target grade .22LR pistols are sub 1" capable at 50yd.  If your High Standard and your M41 smith won't do that then there is something wrong with your process.  Just guessing but I'd say you need more than a good bungee holding down your Ransom rest :-)

--
Post by sending email to bullsey...@googlegroups.com
 
Bullseye L List website: http://groups.google.com/d/forum/bullseye-l-list?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bullseye L list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bullseye-l-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Fred Bauer]

To be fair - and accurate in your judgments - shouldn't you compare your Marvel to your other guns under exactly the same conditions, and not rely on the test target badge?

---

From: jnov...@comcast.net
To: bullsey...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {Bullseye L List} Marvel truth?
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:02:37 -0400

[David Daniels]

There are many other factors involved in choosing a .22 rf for bullseye competition.  Some pistols shoot extremely well with one type of ammo, so testing all using any one ammo would not be truly equal.

Another thing is "fit" of the gun to the shooter; sights' quality of trigger; etc.  Most of these factors are not involved when testing from a Ransom Rest.

I believe that Brian Zins set most of his bullseye records using a Feinwerkbau AW-93.  Keep in mind that you do not have to shoot all Xs in order to clean a 50 yard target.

dd

p.s.  I "graduated" from a Browning Buckmark to a Pardini and then to a Marvel conversion.  However, I never saw an increase in my average over what it was with the Buckmark.

[Steve Turner]

My Marvel also has a test target of 0.7-something, however it is the least accurate of all my target 22's. Nonetheless, for several years my personal best was an 882 (with 93-95-97 at the long line) shot with it, even though I learned afterwards that it was not the best ammo for that gun (at least from the Ransom Rest). 

I don't worry much about 22 accuracy. Find a gun and ammo combination that is good enough, buy a case or two and just shoot it.

You can't draw conclusions from a 5 shot group. Statistically it is pretty meaningless, doubly so because you don't know the conditions under which it was fired (brand & lot of ammo, test fixture vs. on a 1911 etc.). 

Best regards,

Steve Turner

--

[Bruce Martindale]

Operability is different from Precision.

It could be the perfect one-holer in a machine rest, but if the grips don't fit your hand right, the trigger isn't smooth, the balance is wrong etc, or it malfunctions, then you won't be able to shoot well with it.

Good operability is difficult to assess as it is also linked to your ability and personal characteristics. A perfect grip for Brian likely won't fit me.

regards

---

From: Steve Turner <sdtu...@gmail.com>
To: Joe <jnov...@comcast.net>
Cc: Bullseye Forum <bullsey...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: {Bullseye L List} Marvel truth?

[David Rodgers]

Sorry but your marvel is really sub standard, I built four marvels the biggest group was .47, other three were sub 1/3'', yes I paid them extra for this kind of accuracy but did that make them the ultimate 22, not at all, when built as guns I could never bust 840 with any of them. I have shot high 860s many times with my AW93, its what you can do with the gun that makes it a ultimate 22 for you not the tested group size. Oh my aw93 test target was just one hole but it was at 25 meters I don't even know what it shoots at 50 yds.

On Monday, July 28, 2014 3:33 PM, 'Bruce Martindale' via Bullseye L list <bullsey...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Operability is different from Precision.

It could be the perfect one-holer in a machine rest, but if the grips don't fit your hand right, the trigger isn't smooth, the balance is wrong etc, or it malfunctions, then you won't be able to shoot well with it.

Good operability is difficult to assess as it is also linked to your ability and personal characteristics. A perfect grip for Brian likely won't fit me.

regards

From: Steve Turner <sdtu...@gmail.com>
To: Joe <jnov...@comcast.net>
Cc: Bullseye Forum <bullsey...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: {Bullseye L List} Marvel truth?

My Marvel also has a test target of 0.7-something, however it is the least accurate of all my target 22's. Nonetheless, for several years my personal best was an 882 (with 93-95-97 at the long line) shot with it, even though I learned afterwards that it was not the best ammo for that gun (at least from the Ransom Rest). 

I don't worry much about 22 accuracy. Find a gun and ammo combination that is good enough, buy a case or two and just shoot it.

You can't draw conclusions from a 5 shot group. Statistically it is pretty meaningless, doubly so because you don't know the conditions under which it was fired (brand & lot of ammo, test fixture vs. on a 1911 etc.). 

Best regards,

Steve Turner

[Mark Hayford]

I have found that reliability is more important precision. I would rather have a few 10s than a double alibi...and my Marvel has double alibied a few times in matches. I also think that shooting a .22 is just different than a .45 even if they share the same lower. I think there are many aspects about the Marvel that can reduce variability, but in the end that are different and shoot differently.

Mark  

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Joe <jnov...@comcast.net> wrote:

--

[Larry Lang]

Not only that, Mark, but of my 3 conversions there are some very noticeable differences. Grips, trigger length and crisp vs roll each its own personality. Still swapping parts and sorting which gives me the biggest smile.
Larry (WA)

On 7/28/2014 1:01 PM, Mark Hayford wrote:

[Stephen Price]

Just a thought... Didn't John Zurek set the Civilian 2700 score, 2679, while using a Marvel for the 22 leg of the match?

Stephen

--
Post by sending email to bullsey...@googlegroups.com
 
Bullseye L List website: http://groups.google.com/d/forum/bullseye-l-list?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bullseye L list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bullseye-l-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Stephen

 

 

Bill Jordan

 

Speed is Fine... but 

Accuracy is Final...

"There's a time for talking and there's a time for shooting.  Always know what time it is...." - Captain Roy Bergman, Missouri Highway Patrol (Ret.) (R.I.P.)

[Larry Lang]

That's right Stephen.
John Zurek is a great shooter, who's only recently gained the recognition he deserves.

The Marvel conversions and it's many clones are only a small part of the equation. The 1911 so called dedicated lower requires careful modification to perform like a target pistol. Most do not and still have that battle-hammer feel like many .45s.

I've been shooting Marvels and tweaking frame componenats since they first came online. My first was a low numbered A serial. I have 2 of the original Marvels and recently acquired an Advantage Arms Bob Marvel Custom Pro. I am still learning things at my advanced age.

What a feeling!
Larry (WA)

[Mark Schreiner]

Joe,

What a timely post as I had just yesterday done some Ransom Rest testing of 1911-22 guns and different ammo.  I was surprised at the results.  But before I share some info on that let me make a few other comments first.

I think that your email is really comparing the "potential capabilities" of the Marvel conversion that is tested on some sort of fixture while you compare against other complete guns, so those by themselves are not likely to be a 100% comparison.  As somebody else stated, put them on a Ransom Rest and do the testing yourself under similar conditions to determine your own results, however I understand not having at ones disposal all sorts of variety of guns to compare nor all the right RR inserts needed, so that is easier said than done in most cases.

I also agree with others regarding reliability and ergonomics as compared to purely the paper results from a Ransom Rest.  Of course type of ammo needs to be considered as well.  I guess picking the best ammo doesn't matter if I can't find that particular type of ammo to use for practice or more importantly a match, but otherwise it is a purely academic exercise, which has value as well for "potential" of a gun's capability.

So, what did I do yesterday?  Since late 2012 I have been shooting a slightly modified GSG 1911-22 and have wanted to put it on a RR to test it out, but hadn't found time to do so until yesterday.  Using the 1911-22 has improved my skills with the full-bore 1911 for CF & 45.  I also have in the past couple of months been using an Advantage Arms Marvel Custom Pro conversion on an older 1911 lower that I rebuilt. The Marvel is topped off with a UltraDot Target while the GSG is topped off with a Bushnell TRS-25 on a bridge mount. This was at an outdoor range and conditions at that time of day (about 2 hours before a T'storm) were fairly wind still. 

Each gun I fired 25 rounds at a target at 50 yards to get things settled in before starting to do the gun/ammo testing.  I started with the AA Marvel Conversion.  I used CCI SV (paper box), Remington Target (paper box), Wolf Match Target, Eley Sport and Eley Target (yellow box) ammo.  I was noticing a larger pattern than I would have expected in this situation.  As I investigated further I found that when resetting the RR and checking that the dot was centered on the target it seemed to move around quite a bit.  I did two targets for each ammo, 10 shots per target, one without readjusting the RR (in case the dot was moving or there was some other situation causing it to move) and one that I recentered the dot after each shot (what a PITA that was!).  I got similar results with either method.  My best target kept all in the 10-ring, barely, not what I would call very exceptional.  The CCI SV ammo was a total spread of about 2.95" (center-to-center of the holes) which would keep it in the 10-ring which is 3.35" diameter.  Eley Yellow Box was the best but was only marginally so at 2.3".  It surely should have been better than that so I was surprised and dismayed at the results.  Oh, Wolf ammo didn't feed reliably unless I loaded single rounds in the chamber, but was not reliable for a match.  All the other ammo fed okay for the most part.  I have had some minor FTF issues that I still need to resolve with that gun in practice, though, and have had an alibi or two in a match including a double alibi.  Oh, one other thing of note that I might attribute somewhat poor results is that the upper left grip screw bushing come out of the frame when I took the grips off, so that was one less point for locating the frame in the RR grip adapter.  However, I think the biggest cause of the larger spread was the fact that I had some fairly significant play between the slide and frame.  I could move the back of the slide from the 3-oclock to the 9-oclock portions of the outer edge of the 8-ring (black at 50 yards).  I think that is where the largest source of uncertainty and accuracy is likely coming from and would like to address this with my gunsmith soon.

How good or poor do you all think the GSG did?  Frankly, at the end of last season as I was on the cusp of achieving Sharpshooter I felt like my full-bore 1911 held a tighter group at 50 yards (when I did my part right) than the GSG, so I expected the GSG to fair not quite so well.  The best target was a spread of 2.70" with CCI SV ammo, good enough to hold the 10-ring, but not fabulous.  The thing I noticed otherwise was that I didn't have to chase the dot by resetting the RR as the dot held on the center of the target upon resetting the RR every time, and I also noticed less slop between the slide and frame.  I did all of my testing just by simply resetting the RR and shooting another shot.  

Okay, so a $300 (base price) gun versus a conversion kit that cost more than double that just for the kit, plus the lower, and the GSG did pretty okay!  Do I want to keep shooting the GSG, though?  Not really.  It has occasional alibis as well, and it is significantly lighter than the full-bore 1911 (which I really noticed when spring came around and I started to handle the 45 again!).  Can I get more performance out of the Marvel or was there something else funky with the setup (maybe due to the one screw bushing that was not providing a "locating feature" when used with the RR)?  I'm pretty sure of it!

A couple of weeks ago in our weekly practice I shot a 900 with the Marvel and ended up with 10 more X-s than I usually get, so something was working better for me, at least that night!

Mark

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Joe <jnov...@comcast.net> wrote:

Listers,

 

[David Rodgers]

You should never use a dot to ransome rest,  test the gun not the optics. As to a nearly 3'' group id say for that gun that was good. A ruger mk2 or 3 , a sw41, buckmark will shoot a inch or so, marverls , nelsons, aw93s ,pardinis,hamerlies will all shoot sub one inch if in good condition with most good ammo. Id suggest getting a better more accurate gun and use the gsg for plinking.

[Ed Masaki]

Advantage Arms Bob Marvel Custom Pro. I am still learning things at my advanced age.
What a feeling!
Larry (WA)

    JUST LIKE ME LARRY.   WHAT AGE ARE YOU?  LIKE ME 40?   ED