Hammerli or conversion?

I've been on the lookout for a hammerli 208s which are hard to find and very expensive if you do find one. I would like to know if I should continue my search or go with a conversion for my .45? What is the better of the two options? Or should I just stick with my trusty model 41?

The advantage to a conversion is keeping things as much as possible the same.  You can have a dedicated lower built (my recommendation) for your conversion and duplicate your trigger pull on your CF or 45.  It really is a matter of personal choice.

Pick one and stay with it? - I like shooting a couple other 22s better, but my two lifetime personal best 22 match scores 3? years ago (back to back matches) are with the Marvel / old Kimber lower - with the very short, black, stock Mil-Spec trigger in it - Trigger finger almost to the tip on that trigger.    --

 One thing about the 208s  -Unless you pay too much, it's like money in the bank.        -- Russ

highest score I ever shot was with a 208s, (was averaging 870, 871 several times as a high) and a personal best of rapid fire back to back 200 with a 100-10x and a 100-8 x . I think they are one of the best target pistols you can get, ive owned 6 very well built conversions and only managed to shoot within 30 points of the 208s, I now shoot a aw93, have shot it within 3 points of the 208s. All these guns were super accurate the difference in them was the triggers, so imo you can do better with these high end guns over a conversion because of the adjustability of the trigger over the best trigger you can get on a 1911.

I'm at the stage in my shooting that I want my 22, CF & 45 to be as similar as possible (1911's with roll triggers).  I believe my Nelson will easily take me to Master, once there I will start to look at a Euro 22 as a reward to myself, most likely a Pardini.

Get a good deal on a 208s and like Russ said - money in the bank.

-Dave

I was lucky enough to score a 208s this fall, for less than what a Marvel with a custom lower. This was quite an anomaly for the going rate of 208s', and mine included an aimpoint 3000, old but still good. I had been using a Marvel with a range officer lower that had no changes from the factory settings other than pull weight. I had some issues, but i know it really needed better springs to function better with the conversion. With the marvel, I had recently been shooting lower to mid 90's on the short line and mid 80s at the long.  My first 10 shots with the 208s at 25 yards, after it was zeroed by a local master, I felt like I shot the ground, ceiling and the target next to me. (we were indoors with ideal conditions) When the target returned it was a 99-5x. For me that is great! It may have been a combo of new gun syndrome, a smaller crisper dot, and a proper match trigger. I have not shot it in a match yet, but practices have produced similar results. The recoil of it took some getting use to as it feels different.

I then took it outdoors to 50 yards to test ammo. Through I only shot 5 rounds of each ammo, the one I'll be using produced a 50-3x(of 5 shots) with the three X's between the top of the X and the top arch of the X ring. The other two were inch away 10s, like I said before, I don't shoot that well. A well tuned marvel with a lower might produce the same results for me, but this is what I have to work with.

Shoot what you like, I took a gamble on the Hammerli without ever shooting one before and I think it will work out well.  If you have access to both, try them both out and see whats the most accurate for you in YOUR hands.

I have a Marvel conversion that shoots very accurately and, even better, feeds flawlessly.  Joe Chambers did a wonderful roll trigger on that gun for me and I shot it well for a year like that until the Hammerli bug bit.  Luckily I stumbled across an unfired 208s in February.  So far my high 900 score is 877 which is over 10 points above my high with the conversion.  Hammerlis with 2 stage triggers are pure pleasure to shoot.  Setting the trigger for length, weight and roll is very easy (Thank You Ed Hall for explaining it several times!).  The only compaint about my Hammerli is the need to constantly bruss the chamber.  It doesn't take much fouling to prevent the round from fully seating and causing a light strike.
I'd like to have one of Joe's new 22 conversions with his dedicated lower built to match the wad gun he's making for me but am verly content with the Hammerli now.

"I'd like to have one of Joe's new 22 conversions with his dedicated lower built to match the wad gun he's making for me but am verly content with the Hammerli now."

Steve B.
Would you provide details of Joe C.'s conversion? Is it the same as the, Marvel, AA, Nelson but 'smithed to his demands?

Ron Habegger

Flytrap1 wrote:I've been on the lookout for a hammerli 208s which are hard to find and very expensive if you do find one. I would like to know if I should continue my search or go with a conversion for my .45? What is the better of the two options? Or should I just stick with my trusty model 41?

Mostly it depends what you can or will spend. There are a large no of top shooters using 208's. There also many in the other classes. The best form of complimenting?

If your 41 is not as accurate as the Hammerli a different brl can be obtained. There is a 'smith in AZ who installs deadly accurate liners. Also the ability to chg brls might be considered an advantage. Herrett Trainers imitate the 1911 frame but it's  not a 1911.

Ed Hall will tell you (Paraphrasing) shoot the '41 and use the savings for practice ammo!!  Best idea yet!

Ron Habegger

http://tonybrong.blogspot.com/2014/08/ccp-22-conversion-unit.html

Here's a brief writeup.  Joe is a sponsor here, if you contact him be prepared to talk for awhile he's a very friendly guy.

I'd think that it is a very personal choice.  No two shooters have the same size hands.  Hammerli, S&W, High Standard, Ruger, conversions.. Good scores have been shot with pretty much everything.  The only thing I'd recommend would be to have a dedicated frame built for the 1911 based gun.

Herschel Andersons bullseye high score record set in 1974 which still stands 22 portion was shot with a SW 41.

It has been noted here on our forum that it's not necessarily the best pistols winning the matches but the best shooters.

Most of us get the itch for a new gun and often we rationalize it as a need.
Also, how many of the dicussions here would not take place.

Ron Habegger

Testing is the key.. Whatever the make/manufacturer.
I have seen some big name pistols, that did not group exceptionally well..and required attention.. Assuming Hammerli, Pardini, etc. out of the box is sub inch...may not be the case..And, the super HM's can see that the gun is off call with in a few shots..  I recently had a 208s pass thru the shop.. It was not very impressive. But that can be fixed... with a liner. The base  gun itself is great.. as  is the 41 mentioned above.. I seldom see a 41 out of the box that is great, but it can be made so. Conversions get a lot of attention. If you like a conversion, fine..I have done a bunch of them.. I am not a big fan..
Accuracy is very important.. The tighter it shoots, the better human error is mitigated.  Of course the guys at the very top already know that..
I'd say the top three at Perry last year had pistols that were extremely exceptional..
Jerry

Ignorance is bliss! I had been shooting my Hammerli for 5 or 6 years with Eley, Lapua and RWS. I was regularly in the 890's so I thought everything was fine. Then when I started shooting for AMU I had lot testing done on my pistol. The best group it could muster was 1.5" with Eley Tenex. That kinda burst my bubble. I sold it because that wasn't good enough. Didn't know about barrel liners back then :p (
Jon

Jon;
That must have been before the AMU started lining the Hammerlis..??

DavidR wrote:Herschel Andersons bullseye high score record set in 1974 which still stands 22 portion was shot with a SW 41.

Was it a stock S&W M41? As in, was it a showroom Chevy or a Nascar Chevy?

Stephen

That was in 1994-1995 time frame, so they weren't doing them yet.
Jon

Sa-tevp wrote:

DavidR wrote:Herschel Andersons bullseye high score record set in 1974 which still stands 22 portion was shot with a SW 41.

Was it a stock S&W M41? As in, was it a showroom Chevy or a Nascar Chevy?

Stephen

Ive seen the gun, it appeared to be a standard 5.5" bull barrel 41 but it could of had a relined barrel but this was 1974 so I bet it was just a good shooter, he was shooting for the military then. Of the 41s I have owned, all were older ones built pre 1980 and all were great shooters.