38 vs 357 point of impact. Bullet weight also...

[JohnKSa]

And if you look at my post, I am merely questioning your direct, word for word, quote. In that quote there is no mention of "significant".

I've posted several pages of text on this thread and in course of that effort, I've used the word "significant" or "significantly" probably 20 times or more, including several times in the 1500-1600 word post which contains the quoted sentence.

I back up my position with phyics, you back up yours with pencil sketches.

I explained the physics and provided diagrams as well as an explanation of how the diagrams were obtained in case anyone cares to duplicate them for themselves.

No offense intended, but read my post before you break my stones.

I don't see how my response to your comment could reasonably be characterized as "breaking your stones"--It certainly wasn't intended to be hostile. You raised a point and I showed that I had answered that point earlier and that I had tried to keep the point in mind throughout the thread.

If zeroed for 125 gr JHP, full bore factory, ....148 gr WC factory would shoot to same POA, back to 25 yds.

Awhile back, I set up a spreadsheet that does a calculation/estimate of the POI effect due to bullet weight and velocity in a given gun. When I poke in typical numbers for a light wadcutter load (148gr @ 690fps) and a hotter 125gr load (125gr @ 830fps) in .38spl, the calculated/estimated difference in POI at 25 yards for those two loads is quite small.

[Dman23]

Great thread and i thank all who have given their input. Both input and counter input.

I love a great descussion and to be honest, both sides to this is what i was hoping for so i hope more have input as well as more input from those that have already responded.

So without taking a bunch of time to quote who has said what exactly, so what i hear is manufacturers actually build revolvers with a slight barrel decline on purpose to compinsate for recoil? So my sp101s actually have a barrel tilt down, or is it the front sight is slightly higher on purpose to tilt it down? So, one way or another they are truely bult that was compaired to a semi?

Just off the top of my head i get the physics with the slide. I get the slide moves and may end in "slight rise by the spring tension" but not like a revolver.

Just find it curious is all and like to hear input to how this works out in real life. From those that had responded, from my limited experience, would you state that forcing extra control on the piece would solve some of this? Another way is learning how to handle a gun firmer to reduce differences in aim would help or hurt?

[JohnKSa]

...manufacturers actually build revolvers with a slight barrel decline on purpose to compinsate for recoil? So my sp101s actually have a barrel tilt down, or is it the front sight is slightly higher on purpose to tilt it down?

The sights take care of whatever compensation is required to get the gun shooting to point of aim.

So, one way or another they are truely bult that was compaired to a semi?

It's not so much a difference in the construction as it is a difference in the way the sights are regulated.

If one tried to actually build a revolver with a barrel decline, different sights or different sight adjustments would still be required to deal with different barrel lengths unless the barrel decline was somehow altered with barrel length. Longer barrels mean more time in the bore and that means more time for muzzle rise to affect the bullet and the point of impact.

...would you state that forcing extra control on the piece would solve some of this? Another way is learning how to handle a gun firmer to reduce differences in aim would help or hurt?

In a revolver, theoretically, it would be possible to hold the gun in such a way as to resist the muzzle rise more effectively, and to the extent that the muzzle rise was affected while the bullet was still in the bore, the point of impact on the target would also be affected.

In practice, the times involved are very short and the forces involved are fairly impressive. Altering the grip may not have a significant effect unless one takes things to extremes. For example, although it wouldn't suprise me to find that holding a long barrel revolver extremely tightly and high on the grip could result in a detectable point of aim shift as compared to holding it very loosely and low on the grip, I wouldn't really expect to find that more reasonable differences in grip firmness or hand placement had significant effect.

In autopistols, given the obvious lack of compensation for muzzle rise in the sights, it seems that it would not really be possible to significantly affect the point of impact on the target by holding the gun differently in an attempt to control muzzle rise. Basically if the sights show no significant compensation for muzzle rise while the bullet is in the bore, that means muzzle rise isn't affecting the point of impact on the target significantly. In turn, that means that attempts to change the point of impact by controlling muzzle rise can't have any significant effect.

As to whether it would help or hurt, I don't think it's really a matter of helping or hurting unless one goes to extremes. One needs a fairly consistent and reasonably firm grip on a handgun for other reasons, and that should be sufficient to deal with the issues discussed in this thread.