|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 4, 2013, 10:04 PM | #26 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||||
April 5, 2013, 11:53 PM | #27 |
Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 37
|
38 vs 357 point of impact. Bullet weight also...
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? |
April 6, 2013, 12:42 AM | #28 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,989
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
|
|