Free Pistol Lock Times
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
dhurt
Free Pistol Lock Times
The TOZ is supposed to be more forgiving to the shooters scores. Doe's the TOZ have a faster lock time than other free pistols? Are there any gurus out there that know the lock times of various pistols in milliseconds? If the answer isn't lock time, why should the TOZ be more forgiving?
-
Steve Swartz
dhurt:
We've had this thread out a couple of times over the last couple of years; you might want to check the old messages for some of the "back and forth" on this issue.
To the best of my (flawed! biased!) recollection, general consensus (consensii?) seem to be reached that "lock time" is very critical- just not hte way you would normally think. The mechanical aspects of lock time (fire control plus barrel dwell time) are not that important, as long as they are consistent. The human component of lock time, well, that's what teh shot process is really all about, now isn't it?
=8^)
OBTW- 10-20 ms mechanical lock time is pretty much standard; faster for some, slower for others; but not really an issue at all.
As to why some people claim the Toz is "more forgiving," well, you'll have to ask them that. I've heard some shooters make that claim. Have not observed it myself, nor have I ever heard a rational justification/evidence to support it, sorry. Best thing I heard was because the boreline was lower than other guns, the recoil was "straighter" and that made the gun more "forgiving."
Steve
We've had this thread out a couple of times over the last couple of years; you might want to check the old messages for some of the "back and forth" on this issue.
To the best of my (flawed! biased!) recollection, general consensus (consensii?) seem to be reached that "lock time" is very critical- just not hte way you would normally think. The mechanical aspects of lock time (fire control plus barrel dwell time) are not that important, as long as they are consistent. The human component of lock time, well, that's what teh shot process is really all about, now isn't it?
=8^)
OBTW- 10-20 ms mechanical lock time is pretty much standard; faster for some, slower for others; but not really an issue at all.
As to why some people claim the Toz is "more forgiving," well, you'll have to ask them that. I've heard some shooters make that claim. Have not observed it myself, nor have I ever heard a rational justification/evidence to support it, sorry. Best thing I heard was because the boreline was lower than other guns, the recoil was "straighter" and that made the gun more "forgiving."
Steve
-
Guest
dhurt,
There was an article in ISSF News in 2002 (the last of a series of three titled "Free Thinking About The Free Pistol") which discussed the TOZ trigger in some detail, and why it made the pistol more user-friendly. The argument was that the particular design of the TOZ set-trigger mechanism: 1) lessened the internal mechanical shocks associated with shot release, and 2) gave better trigger ergonomics, because the trigger pivot (& not just the shoe) shifted fore-and-aft and swivelled to fit to the shooter. Whether this is correct, who can say? Certainly the TOZ has had an extraordinarily long run at the top of the charts and that can't be an accident.
My own limited experience is that the TOZ trigger is vastly more adjustable to the forefinger than others. That alone, regardless of trigger pivot geometry and balance of lock forces, has got to pay a dividend in clean shot release.
-D
There was an article in ISSF News in 2002 (the last of a series of three titled "Free Thinking About The Free Pistol") which discussed the TOZ trigger in some detail, and why it made the pistol more user-friendly. The argument was that the particular design of the TOZ set-trigger mechanism: 1) lessened the internal mechanical shocks associated with shot release, and 2) gave better trigger ergonomics, because the trigger pivot (& not just the shoe) shifted fore-and-aft and swivelled to fit to the shooter. Whether this is correct, who can say? Certainly the TOZ has had an extraordinarily long run at the top of the charts and that can't be an accident.
My own limited experience is that the TOZ trigger is vastly more adjustable to the forefinger than others. That alone, regardless of trigger pivot geometry and balance of lock forces, has got to pay a dividend in clean shot release.
-D
-
Jimmy B.
Just an FYI,
The factory specs for the Hammerli 152 electronic FP is 1.7 millsecs.
One of the TOZ FP's claim to fame is that, I believe, it was the first FP to use a striker type short travel firing pin and sear within the falling block. Previous FPs like the Hammerli 100 series used a passive firing pin which was struck by a seperate internal hammer. This alone gave the TOZ an edge in terms of locktime and a less jarring release. The Hammerli 150 and 152 were introduced with these borrowed features as well as the lower bore line.
The factory specs for the Hammerli 152 electronic FP is 1.7 millsecs.
One of the TOZ FP's claim to fame is that, I believe, it was the first FP to use a striker type short travel firing pin and sear within the falling block. Previous FPs like the Hammerli 100 series used a passive firing pin which was struck by a seperate internal hammer. This alone gave the TOZ an edge in terms of locktime and a less jarring release. The Hammerli 150 and 152 were introduced with these borrowed features as well as the lower bore line.