The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

MistAgain wrote:Trying to get my head around this bit.................Always being imported by the manufacturer, who already has established network within the UK

Did the RFD who was going to import it have a subsidiary company in USA ?

And if the RFD really has an established network within the UK , wha was the harm in saying who the importer?RFD was . There are certainly a few people on this board who would have asked the RFD to continue testing as they were interested in this gun . If it was legal .

What you fail to grasp the concept of is that sometimes things don’t work out. Sometimes manufacturers aren’t fully happy to market something they are not happy with.

Maybe stupidly i mentioned it on here that there was a concept in the making. People got their hopes up and with most things started questions which could not be answered at the time. When they are answered they weren’t happy with the answers.

And so that makes me a troll... . Although it would make me a pretty bad one seeing as I don’t and have not pushed any company names or prices etc... so what have I achieved with my “trolling”.

Gh0st wrote:There’s No secrecy. It was built and tested.

The whole idea for it was to be used as a practical pistol. It was found that it was great for plinking but when put under more load the aftermarket slide (As Glock don’t make a .22 slide and barrel) would jam. Tested various brands of .22 and could not find anything that would resolve it. So the decision was made to change tact and use a .22 that does not rely on a slide mechanism. Simple as that.

As for being a troll. Well that’s your opinion. It’s a forum where everyone hides behind their keyboards and voices their “opinions”.

Is this the same Glock .22 Long Barrel pistol that Suffolk Rifles tried to get produced, he had contacts/builders in the US, or another one.

bnz41 wrote:

Gh0st wrote:There’s No secrecy. It was built and tested.

The whole idea for it was to be used as a practical pistol. It was found that it was great for plinking but when put under more load the aftermarket slide (As Glock don’t make a .22 slide and barrel) would jam. Tested various brands of .22 and could not find anything that would resolve it. So the decision was made to change tact and use a .22 that does not rely on a slide mechanism. Simple as that.

As for being a troll. Well that’s your opinion. It’s a forum where everyone hides behind their keyboards and voices their “opinions”.

Is this the same Glock .22 Long Barrel pistol that Suffolk Rifles tried to get produced, he had contacts/builders in the US, or another one.

Completely unrelated. Makes for interesting reading if you can be bothered...

Gh0st wrote:

bnz41 wrote:

Gh0st wrote:There’s No secrecy. It was built and tested.

The whole idea for it was to be used as a practical pistol. It was found that it was great for plinking but when put under more load the aftermarket slide (As Glock don’t make a .22 slide and barrel) would jam. Tested various brands of .22 and could not find anything that would resolve it. So the decision was made to change tact and use a .22 that does not rely on a slide mechanism. Simple as that.

As for being a troll. Well that’s your opinion. It’s a forum where everyone hides behind their keyboards and voices their “opinions”.

Is this the same Glock .22 Long Barrel pistol that Suffolk Rifles tried to get produced, he had contacts/builders in the US, or another one.

Completely unrelated. Makes for interesting reading if you can be bothered...

Interesting reading where...?

sarcasm... but again if your bored try the search function.

bnz41 wrote:

Gh0st wrote:There’s No secrecy. It was built and tested.

The whole idea for it was to be used as a practical pistol. It was found that it was great for plinking but when put under more load the aftermarket slide (As Glock don’t make a .22 slide and barrel) would jam. Tested various brands of .22 and could not find anything that would resolve it. So the decision was made to change tact and use a .22 that does not rely on a slide mechanism. Simple as that.

As for being a troll. Well that’s your opinion. It’s a forum where everyone hides behind their keyboards and voices their “opinions”.

Is this the same Glock .22 Long Barrel pistol that Suffolk Rifles tried to get produced, he had contacts/builders in the US, or another one.

No its not the same one .

Neal's gun wasnt a real Glock , it had aftermarket frame ,slide and Barrel , so it was 100% legal . As long as he didnt call it a Glock !

It did get into the UK with no problems , it was tested both in USA and here and was near as dammit perfect. Probably because it was built by a proper gunsmith in the USA and not some escapee from deliverance country on his kitchen table .

Remind me why it isn’t on the market place now?

Your misinformation actually cracks me up. Who said the gunsmith in question was from the USA.. another example of you slandering without the correct information.... bored now. New record please.

another example of you slandering without the correct information...

Slander is the spoken word , libel is the written word .

And for a legal case to have a leg to stand on , a person , a group of people or a company has to be clearly identified .

Sorry was that an answer as to why the Suffolk Rifles Glock wasn’t on the market now?

Ok, what ever, you just keep speculating away from your keyboard.

Gh0st wrote: sarcasm... but again if your bored try the search function.

And you're not a troll...?

I'm out. You just can't have a conversation with someone with this attitude.

"You're wrong, but I'm not going to give you any information on why you're wrong because I don't have any, that's for you to go and find to prove my point for me, even in the face of all of these conflicting facts you are presenting.." - That right there, that's you.