absorbers works?

[Nano]

fsmte write in 29 Jul 2004
"example of this: Pyzhianov is record man in air pistol since 1989 used FWB model 2, today is obsolete, no body uses. "

I am thinking, if the "absorber", really works, these old pistol dont have and the world record is without the recoil absorber, offered by FWB, walther and Steyr in the latest models.

I don't agree with anybody uses it, somebody uses those pistol, at least in the countries fewer developed those they are guns quoted by the marksmen.
It moralizes enough having the gun record of the world.

The question is: does the absorbers really work?

Thank you,

Nano

[Absorbist]

Oh, yes, they do work very well, reducing muzzle movement to practically nil at discharge.
But when mileage increases they will bring a new variable into your shooting. And it grows worse with use.
The only way to prove an absorber is "bad" is to fire the gun hand-held from a support. Variable absorber action will then increase the vertical dispersion.

But when new and/or working properly they are very beneficial.

[Nano]

Absorbist:

Thank you for your answer, for my, this topic is a true mystery.

I have left the following doubt:
When the best pistols was spring powered, then they had some established records with that gun, then they came an entire generation of CO2 pistols, then the records are improved, new records settled down, then they came a series of new inventions as absorbers, bars of balance, muzzle brakes, however new records didn't settle down.
Do I ask you, we will have some new record soon?
was the record imposed in 1989 very exceptional?
Thank you again for your answer.

Nano

[David Levene]

was the record imposed in 1989 very exceptional?

Sergei Pyzhianov's 1989 record was indeed exceptional.

There are older records, Erich Buljung's 1983 Standard Pistol record of 584 for example, but none have withstood anywhere near the number of attempts to break it as the AP60. IMHO that makes it the greatest current shooting World Record.

[Richard H]

Basing your judgement on wether any of the new devices work on the breaking of the Men's WR is flawed. This is a bounded statistic (you can't shoot more than 600). What you have to look at is the distribution of the entire field. More people are shooting higher scores thus you get a skewed distribution with more people up against the WR.

Also the womens wr record was broken in 1998 (393) by Svetlana Smirnova. What she was shooting I couldn't tell you?

With only 6 points left to beat the WR it will be a very tough job my money is on Mikhal as he has come within 1 point acouple of times in tying it.

[Mark Briggs]

Let's come back to the original question about absorbers. Absorbist points out a very important aspect of absorbers. They are mechanical, and they will wear out and/or fail. Like ANY part of ANY firearm, they must be maintained regularly to ensure they continue to work properly throughout the life of the pistol. They Steyr rep can replace the moving parts of an LP-10 absorber in only a few minutes, so those who shoot at International matches often have their pistols rebuilt by the factory reps and thus very rarely have equipment-related problems.

As to the efficacy of the absorber, I would not hang my hat on their performance. I have both an LP-10 (with absorber) and an LP-1 (without absorber). Although both pistols are made by Steyr, and the LP-10 has a ported barrel too, I simply cannot shoot as well with the LP-10 as I can with the LP-1. In fact, I also have a Morini CM162EI Short and am able to out-shoot the LP-10 with the Morini.

From my personal observations, an absorber is a nice thing to have, but is not the largest factor contributing to the ability of an air pistol to achieve high scores in the hands of any given shooter. If I were to rank the features of a pistol that contribute to achieving high scores, in order of importance, they would be as follows (points estimates are worst-case):

1) Fit - if the pistol doesn't fit you, you won't shoot it well. The difference between one that fits and one that doesn't may be 50 or 60 points or more in a match
2) Trigger - a trigger that is not smooth and crisp or doesn't reliably break at the same draw weight will eat up points at an alarming rate. Again, the difference between a good trigger and a bad one might be 40 or 50 points. (Yes, there are some truly awful triggers out there, but thankfully, most of the competition-level guns have decent triggers.)
3) Adjustable sights - I'm talking about sights that allow you to adjust sight radius and width/depth of the rear notch. Customizing these settings allows you to achieve the optimum sight picture for your combination of eyes and arm length. Sights that don't allow for these adjustments might cost you 20 or 30 points in a match.
4) Compensator - a good compensator reduces muzzle jump on firing, thus allowing the shooter to have better follow-through and to be better able to "call the shot". Although the effects of a good compensator are not felt immediately, their ability to help us improve technique may be seen over the long run, resulting in score improvements of perhaps 10-15 points.
5) Recoil absorber & drilled barrel - provides further improvement on the shooters ability to produce consistant followthrough and calling of shots. May provide 5-10 points advantage.

Getting back to my LP-1 versus LP-10 situation. Although my LP-1 does not have an absorber, all the other factors stated above work in my favour in this pistol. While my LP-10 has a compensator, it has one big strike against it. The trigger isn't nearly as good as the trigger on my LP-1. The net result is that all the points the absorber may buy me are eaten up by a poor trigger. The LP-1 wins because it has a better trigger.

As further support for this theory I'll offer an analysis of Mens AP finalists at the Ft Benning World Cup. Of the 8 finalists, one shot an LP-10, one (Dumoulin) shot another brand of which I'm not sure (FWB or FAS?), and the remaining 6 shot Morini's. Note the Morini doesn't have an absorber, yet the Morini shooters managed to make the finals, which required a score of 582 if memory serves me correctly.

In summary, a recoil absorber may provide a technical advantage, but is only one variable in the man-machine interface which must be as nearly perfect as possible to produce high scores. The slight technical advantage offered by the absorber may be overwhelmed by the influence of one or more of the higher-order variables which, if not fully optimized, produce a significantly larger impact on scores.

In plain English - an aborber is probably an insignificantly small factor when it comes to breaking world records.

[Shin]

With only 6 points left to beat the WR it will be a very tough job my money is on Mikhal as he has come within 1 point acouple of times in tying it.

Mikhail shot 593 on last Russian championship. Here is the russian page:
http://shooting.km.ru/view/a933D120CBE9 ... 7036DC.htm

[Richard H]

Mark what do you mean by your last point about the finals in Benning and people having Morini's, some of the finalist in Munich had LP10's, most of the players who make the finals could shoot any reasonably decent match grade air pistol and make the finals. It's like saying everyone who at an apple died. I find one of the problems of mid and lower level shooters, mostly males (myself included), they tend to think that there is a technological way to get extra points.

Men are always looking for the air pistol that will get them points or testing ammo (rifle I agree it makes a big difference). I've notice women for the most part when reasonably talented seem to progress faster than men and I theorize that it's because thaey seem to focus on the process rather than equipment (it's just a very limited observation and maybe some food for more discussions).

The level that these people shoot at whole score won't tell you the truth, because the top shooters are gaining change that is so small it can't be observed by counting the number of tens, to see a difference you would most likely have to look at decimal scoreing.

It's also the law of diminishing returns. At a score of 500 it is relatively easy (through training or equipment ) to pick up 20, 30 or 40 points, at 550 it's almost imposible to pick up 20, 30 or 40 points. When shooting 585 to 593 any changes that you make would most likely be hidden in the statistical noise and when measuring to the whole number would not be noticable.

Shin I did see that but he has yet to do it in an ISSF sanction match to make it count for a WR. The other one I would bet on is Yifu Wang, I think he too has the potential to break the WR.

The original question is whether absorbers work, shoot one of each and I'm sure you'll agree that they work at what they are designed to do which is absorb recoil. Whether or not that gets you more points thats another question. I'm sure lesser shooters with poorer technique benefit more from them than elite shooters with excellent technique (as stated above the law of diminishing returns).

[Mark Briggs]

Richard,

My comment about the finals at Benning was intended to illustrate that one doesn't need to have an aborber in one's pistol in order to become a top-scoring shooter. The fact that non-absorber pistols were in the majority in the finals was intended to highlight the point. I didn't mention how inspiring it was to watch Nestruev move up the ranks on each shot. Of the 10 finals shot he only had one that wasn't a 10, and even than one was a darn good 9. It was amazing to watch! (Oh, by the way, he was shooting an LP-10.)

As for your male vs female comparison, I would have to suggest that my observations would tend to agree with yours. Most of the male shooters I know tend to be very equipment oriented. Perhaps there is much that we males can learn from our female counterparts in this arena.

Your summary of the benefits of absorbers is pretty much right on from where I stand. The same can be said for compensators on free pistols, and other technological advances. No matter what pistol is used, it's still the shooter that is the very largest contributor to score.

BTW - when are you going to upgrade and get a real free pistol? ;-) (You knew I wouldn't be able to resist making that comment, didn't you! LoL)

PS: Hope to see you at the Provincials on Canada Day!

[ruig]

Mikhail shot 593 on last Russian championship. Here is the russian page:
http://shooting.km.ru/view/a933D120CBE9 ... 7036DC.htm

And Russian record, as i remember is 595, established by Pyzhianov.

[Axel]

Anyone tried to remove the absorber from a LP10, removing the counter weight?

[Absorbist]

Thanks for all of you posting interesting comments.

I have only testfired the Steyr LP 10 a few times. But I have used the FWB 34 and 40 in matches.
In my opinion the absorbers of the FWB turns the gun motionless at firing. But the Steyr absorber does not remove all of the muzzle lift at firing.

When a gun is in itself totallly motionless at discharge, I think variable palm pressure/pressure distribution will inflluence the impactpoint less. (I cannot prove this, what are your opinions?).
All in all the more a gun is recoiling, the more disturbing the discharge will be to the shooter.

Does anybody remember the old FWB 65 side-spanner AP? It had a devise so the trigger pull could be snapped from 500 grams to "service pistol pull". And more: a screw would fix the "slide" to the frame, giving this spring operated gun a fierce recoil. As the factory stated "service pistol-like recoil". Very disturbing recoil indeed.

I think nobody coul shoot into the 580s with this recoil!

If you have the opportunity , try to shoot the old FWB 65 this way!

[Richard H]

Mark, I will be at the provincials and happily shooting my Walther FP. Which for everyone reading this post works flawlessly. It's funny you should mention that as I had a conversation at the club last night (probably while you were posting) about maybe getting a Morini FP.


Is Wayne in Milan?

[Nano]

Absorbist:

In my country, we don't have any gunsmith, I make the smallest arrangements to the FWB pistols.

I want to ask you a punctual question, a shooter of my club has a FWB P34 that shoots down with high pressure in the cylinder (200bar) and it shoots normal with 100 bar.
Could a reason that the absorver is working bad?
The gun is 4 years of use old, an adjustment was never made in absorbing.

Thank you for your answer,

Nano

[Shin]

Mark, it was Vladimir Goncharov, who shot LP-10, shot only one 9.6 and won men's AP. Other finalists shot:
Benelli (Nestruev), Pardini (Dumoulin), Benelli, Morini, Walther, Morini, FWB p40

[Absorbist]

Nono:
A FWB 34 was handed over to me by the importer for promoting purposes, I think. It used this gun a lot, and achieved a personal record with this gun the first year.
After two to three years my scores slowed down some.
I was surprized and disencouraged, because my technique and handsteadiness was as good or better.
I had problems keeping the impacts centered. There was some unexplainable vertical dispersion, in fact the gun was printing "divided" groops. Often in a 10 shot string, about half and half of the hits printed some say 5 - 7 mm apart, mostly vertically.

I inspected and cleaned the absorber, the problem was redused some, but it ws still there.
Muzzle velocity measurements indicated a very low variation in pellet speed.

You can do a rough inspection of the absorbers function yourself. After each shot is fired, very slowly open the loading gate of the fwb 34 or 40. You can then when feel when the loadinggate-lever stars to push the absorber-piston forward.
Some explanation on this topic can be found in the instruction manual of the gun, text and drawing.
I think cleaning can hold the absorber problem within acceptable limits. But the averall solution is a constructional improvement of the absorber.

[Steve Swartz]

Perhaps the "solution" is to reduce the total number of mechanical parts of the system.

Apply the principles of Process Variability Reduction in order to increase the consistency of action over multiple repetitions.

Design engineers familiar with the concept will agree that by streamlining the design, and improving the reliability and consistency of each element of the simplified system, great improvements in consistency can be achieved.

I would personally argue that consistency has a benefit to executing pistol shots with low variability. I would also suggest that the benefit of the additional mechainical complexity of "absorbers" might not overcome the disadvantage of the inherent loss in consistency and reliability.

Steve Swartz

[Mark Briggs]

Shin - thank you for that correction. As soon as I read it I thought "how dumb can I be?!?

Richard - Wayne, Brian L, Deep & Robert M are all in Milan.
And yes, you NEED a Morini. Just tell your wife you REALLY need the Morini! ;-)

[David M]

At the Olympics the chineese coach said to me, anybody can be trained to shoot a 570, to shoot a 580 you need talent and good training, to shoot a 590 you are a freak. He was talking about his own shooter .
Keep training, think tens.