Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:09 am
by Axel
Elmas wrote:
But I disagree with Steve Swartz re: his opinion about Muzzle Compensators. If your wrist is locked and your grip is firm ; no felt muzzle flip...not an iota ! I still find these techno marvels superfluous.
Now if Sergei Pyzhianov was in his top form in 2005 and not 1989, and set his amazing record with a pistol that had both a recoil absorber and muzzle compensator together with an electronic trigger! It would be very difficult for those who claim the dismissible value of these new devices to find anyone who agrees with them !
Elmas
.
Yes of course, we can speculate with lots of "if". But I prefer to look at reallity - noone has, yet, broken Pyzhianovs fatastic records - even with recent pistol developments.
Cheers,
Axel
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 7:59 am
by Guest
Elmas wrote:
But I disagree with Steve Swartz re: his opinion about Muzzle Compensators. If your wrist is locked and your grip is firm ; no felt muzzle flip...not an iota ! I still find these techno marvels superfluous.
Now if Sergei Pyzhianov was in his top form in 2005 and not 1989, and set his amazing record with a pistol that had both a recoil absorber and muzzle compensator together with an electronic trigger! It would be very difficult for those who claim the dismissible value of these new devices to find anyone who agrees with them !
Elmas
Lp1 didn't have recoil absorber: is only on lp10. ;)
I agree with Steve Swartz.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:22 am
by Richard H
Francesco wrote:Richard H wrote:Francesco wrote:I forgott:
Francesco wrote:No we don't have patents. We was first on precompressed air pistol, now everybody has. We was the first with manometers on the bottles, now everybody has. Electronic trigger the same, everybody can try and do. Who says that Steyr doesn't have an electronic trigger in mind. If you have a steyr LP5 look at the bottom of the frame, there is a hole the same diameter of our solenoid, guess why. I personally find that patents in sport shooting is only against the shooters and not an advantage to the factories. If I see how much cooperation there is between car company and I look shooting I must say we have a lot to learn from others.
I'm surprised that Morini holds no patents on the trigger, not so about precompressed or gauges though. Just becasue you stick a gauge on the end of a cylinder, wouldn't get you a patent and precompressed air guns have been around for 100's of years.
As for your analysis of the auto industry, I spent 15 years as a reliability/quality engineer in the auto industry, they have millions of patents which is any ever infringes they will excerise their leagl options to the fullest. The only patents that they share usually are safety related items such as air bags, seat belt retractors, and safety glass.
This discussion in no means is to detract from the fact that Morini makes and excellent pistol, as with most the decision usually comes down to two Morini or Steyr. I just find your arguements agianst Steyr's technology a bit lacking.
As to the question do the absorbers help, I can't prove whether they do and looking at records really doesn't answer that question either (if so we should all be shooting the FWB C2). Another way to look at the question does it hurt, for that I would say definately no, nor does having an electronic trigger. So the best would be to have a compensator, porting, absorber and electronic trigger (with one that actually allows you to adjust your grip).
As for the statement "it's just something else to go wrong", give me a break, how many have had absorber problems? I'd be far more worried about your electronic trigger than an absorber (I personally really wouldn't worry about either).
Never said that Steyr doesn't have an electronic trigger in mind, personally if they didn't they'd be pretty stupid, I just wonder whats taking them so long.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:45 am
by Guest
Elmas:
I suppose I wasn't entirely clear in my statement about recoil absorbers (useless) vs. compensators ("not to be confused with a muzzle compensator which contributes positively to accuracy and consistency").
I was referring to the uniform bleeding of gases from around the skirt at the moment of pellet exit from the muzzle- not recoil management.
I guess I can see the error in interpretation . . . but why would anyone write about how useless recoil reduction was and then turn around and claim benefit from recoil reduction?
Steve Swartz
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:50 am
by cdf
The Styer Absorber is pretty simple , and just about bullet proof . It will most probably never give trouble .
Personally , I shoot at about same level ( scores near identical ) with both my Styer and Morini . At my level it doesn't make much/any difference .
I suspect I would do at least as well with an LP1 as I do with my LP10 .
Chris
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:18 am
by Francesco
Richard H wrote:Francesco wrote:Richard H wrote:Francesco wrote:I forgott:
Francesco wrote:No we don't have patents. We was first on precompressed air pistol, now everybody has. We was the first with manometers on the bottles, now everybody has. Electronic trigger the same, everybody can try and do. Who says that Steyr doesn't have an electronic trigger in mind. If you have a steyr LP5 look at the bottom of the frame, there is a hole the same diameter of our solenoid, guess why. I personally find that patents in sport shooting is only against the shooters and not an advantage to the factories. If I see how much cooperation there is between car company and I look shooting I must say we have a lot to learn from others.
I'm surprised that Morini holds no patents on the trigger, not so about precompressed or gauges though. Just becasue you stick a gauge on the end of a cylinder, wouldn't get you a patent and precompressed air guns have been around for 100's of years.
As for your analysis of the auto industry, I spent 15 years as a reliability/quality engineer in the auto industry, they have millions of patents which is any ever infringes they will excerise their leagl options to the fullest. The only patents that they share usually are safety related items such as air bags, seat belt retractors, and safety glass.
This discussion in no means is to detract from the fact that Morini makes and excellent pistol, as with most the decision usually comes down to two Morini or Steyr. I just find your arguements agianst Steyr's technology a bit lacking.
As to the question do the absorbers help, I can't prove whether they do and looking at records really doesn't answer that question either (if so we should all be shooting the FWB C2). Another way to look at the question does it hurt, for that I would say definately no, nor does having an electronic trigger. So the best would be to have a compensator, porting, absorber and electronic trigger (with one that actually allows you to adjust your grip).
As for the statement "it's just something else to go wrong", give me a break, how many have had absorber problems? I'd be far more worried about your electronic trigger than an absorber (I personally really wouldn't worry about either).
Never said that Steyr doesn't have an electronic trigger in mind, personally if they didn't they'd be pretty stupid, I just wonder whats taking them so long.
I was writing about the valve, this was possible to patent because the precompressed air pistols you think are the lever one not with cylinder and 200 bar pressure. In any case there was from my site no complain on Steyr technology I am friend of stayr people from so many years that I will never complain their product. Steyr and Morini has about 70% from all shooters at competition and sharing this with steyr is for me not a problem.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:28 am
by Francesco
And I any case remember:
If a pistol without absorber has 80 single parts you can have 80 pieces that can break.
If a pistol with absorber has 100 single parts you can have 100 pieces that can break.
More parts more probality to get malfunction. Try to consider this too.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:51 pm
by Richard H
Francesco wrote:And I any case remember:
If a pistol without absorber has 80 single parts you can have 80 pieces that can break.
If a pistol with absorber has 100 single parts you can have 100 pieces that can break.
More parts more probality to get malfunction. Try to consider this too.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:05 pm
by Fred
Richard H wrote:
A little history lesson 1700's they had pre-compressed air rifles with air resevoirs usually spheres (so I guess maybe you were the first to put it in a cylinder instead of a shpere but it doubt that too) (removable at that). So you did not invent precomressed air guns by any stretch of the imagination.
Since I mentioned early precompressed pneumatics first, I feel I should clarify. I objected to Mr. Morini's apparent claim to have invented them (I suspect that the claim was really meant to apply only to the modern version, as he is probably well aware of the early guns).
Francesco never claimed to have invented the modern version, but simply to have been first with it, and to have chosen not to patent it. The modern version is far different from the early one in much more than the shape of the container. It also comprises a great deal that probably could have been patented, e.g. the pressure regulator, which was not used on earlier precompressed guns, but is vital for accurate target work.
By the way, I'm sure Francesco must be correct about the timing of the first Morini and Hammerli APs, but strangely we didn't see the Morinis here in northern California until the Hammerlis had been out for some time - don't know why. That's why I made the incorrect assumption.
FredB
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:13 pm
by Elmas
Anonymous wrote:Elmas:
I suppose I wasn't entirely clear in my statement about recoil absorbers (useless) vs. compensators ("not to be confused with a muzzle compensator which contributes positively to accuracy and consistency").
I was referring to the uniform bleeding of gases from around the skirt at the moment of pellet exit from the muzzle- not recoil management.
I guess I can see the error in interpretation . . . but why would anyone write about how useless recoil reduction was and then turn around and claim benefit from recoil reduction?
Steve Swartz
I can see now that you are probably referring to 'pellet flight stablizer' and not muzzle flip compensator .
Sorry for misunderstanding your original posting.
Elmas
.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:23 pm
by Richard H
Francesco I think its just one of those areas, you both make a fine product and trying to decide between which one to purchase is a good problem to have. I don't think anyone can go really wrong with either of them, they are probably to of the finest air pistols made.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:31 pm
by CROB
I have a FWB P40 which has the gas recoil absorber. A few months ago i had trouble with it (see previous TT post), which I resolved by cleaning.
My shooting buddy has an LP10, and her absorber is currently misbehaving. There is a noticeable 'kick' after the shot breaks, which crept in slowly and she didn't notice, but was obvious to anyone else. Hopefully it will also be resolved by cleaning.
In short, when they work, they are great but when they don't they have a tendency to be inconsistent. Is that enough to drop your score?
At least for the FWB there is an option to disable the absorber - not sure about the Steyr.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:39 pm
by Richard H
CROB wrote:I have a FWB P40 which has the gas recoil absorber. A few months ago i had trouble with it (see previous TT post), which I resolved by cleaning.
My shooting buddy has an LP10, and her absorber is currently misbehaving. There is a noticeable 'kick' after the shot breaks, which crept in slowly and she didn't notice, but was obvious to anyone else. Hopefully it will also be resolved by cleaning.
In short, when they work, they are great but when they don't they have a tendency to be inconsistent. Is that enough to drop your score?
At least for the FWB there is an option to disable the absorber - not sure about the Steyr.
That "kick" is what you'd have with out the Absorber.
So the arguement some are proposing is they don't do anything, folowed by if they aren't working you're going to lose points.
Which is it you can't have it both ways.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:45 pm
by David Levene
CROB wrote:In short, when they work, they are great but when they don't they have a tendency to be inconsistent. Is that enough to drop your score?
If you notice it then it is disturbing your concentration. That alone, without any physical effects, can be enough to drop your score.
Steyr LP10 with Electronic Trigger
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 9:29 am
by Anon
JulianY wrote:
I think an LP10E is only a matter of time.
J
steyr IS working on an electronic trigger...
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:08 am
by cdf
They would be fools not to at least consider an electronic trigger .
Chris
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:00 pm
by Anon
they think that it will take approx. one year until it will be availaible on market.
LP10E
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:01 am
by ANON
they said that it will be possible to change the trigger unit of the LP10 to the electronic one, so this will very likely be the most desirable gun...
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:12 am
by RobStubbs
Anon wrote:they think that it will take approx. one year until it will be availaible on market.
Yep and as has been said before this isn't the first time such 'information' has been stated, by more obviously reliable sources than 'ANON'. I won't hold my breath, just yet.
Rob.
LP10E
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:07 pm
by ANON
my sources are workers from steyr...