|
If you look at post 17, I mentioned the recoil spring issue explicitly.
The recoil spring force isn't sufficient to cause a significant effect during the very short time the bullet is still in the muzzle. It acts to slow the slide velocity very slightly, but not enough to induce significant muzzle flip.
The same is true with the hammer spring in a hammer fired gun which also provides initial resistance to the slide movement as the slide cocks the hammer. It is also an insignificant effect in terms of muzzle rise as can be seen in the diagrams. If it were significant, there would be a difference between the diagrams for the two hammer fired autopistols vs. the striker fired Caracal autopistol and clearly, there is not.
But yes, there is some resistance and, as a consequence, at least some very small amount of muzzle rise as a result. That's why I have been careful throughout the thread to caveat my statements about slide resistance or muzzle rise in autopistols with the word "significant".
It all comes back to the diagrams. The diagrams clearly show that in the autopistols, there is no detectable compensation of the sights for muzzle rise. That can only mean that there is no significant muzzle rise in the autopistols until after the bullet is out of the bore. If there were significant muzzle rise with the bullet still in the bore, the sights would have to compensate for that rise and we would see the same kind of effect that we see in the revolver diagram.
If someone has another reasonable explanation for the diagrams, I'd be happy to hear it. I work on a daily basis with a physicist and I'll bounce it off him to see if it plays.
|