TargetTalk

If airpistols have recoil absorbers,with their minute energy outputs,why not something similar in a free pistol ? I trust someone more knowledgeable than my humble self might shed some light ....

jsealc21 wrote:If airpistols have recoil absorbers,with their minute energy outputs,why not something similar in a free pistol ? I trust someone more knowledgeable than my humble self might shed some light ....

Hi Johnathon, I'm less knowlegeable than you, therefore I don't know either.
But I do want to let you know that Raphael and I will be going to Prado next
Sunday morning; will you be going there too?

Tony G

paw080 wrote:

jsealc21 wrote:If airpistols have recoil absorbers,with their minute energy outputs,why not something similar in a free pistol ? I trust someone more knowledgeable than my humble self might shed some light ....

Hi Johnathon, I'm less knowlegeable than you, therefore I don't know either.
But I do want to let you know that Raphael and I will be going to Prado next
Sunday morning; will you be going there too?

Tony G[/quote}

I'll be there...what time ??

To start off the only reason you NEED a recoil absorber is when you need to get back on target for a follow up shot. In FP and AP there is no follow up shot so you would not need one. The only reason I think my LP10 has one is they could put one in very easy and it was a way to sell more pistols. I had an LP1 and then got an LP10 when it came out. My LP1 will still shoot just as many 10's as the LP10. My PR is still with the LP1 by 2 points, so the is not much difference.

Only because of the changes to the rapid fire rules did we see standard pistol change and add some method to absorb the recoil. There is also a much larger market for a SP than a FP.

Would it be fun to shoot a FP with the recoil of an AP? Yes, but we do not need it and I am not sure what would happen if FP makers came out a recoil absorbing version if it would sell. I think most people would not want to shell out for a new FP just for what is mostly a gimmick. Those in the market would buy it and others who have enough money to buy one just because would get one also.

Chris

paw080 wrote:

jsealc21 wrote:If airpistols have recoil absorbers,with their minute energy outputs,why not something similar in a free pistol ? I trust someone more knowledgeable than my humble self might shed some light ....

Hi Johnathon, I'm less knowlegeable than you, therefore I don't know either.
But I do want to let you know that Raphael and I will be going to Prado next
Sunday morning; will you be going there too?

Tony G

Prado means one in Chino Hills CA.?
I m in Rowland Heights maybe I could get some help from you
about air pistol shooting

Chris nailed the issue about recoil dead center. There is no advantage unless you are firing a sustained fire string. Good Shooting Bill Horton

E.K. wrote:

paw080 wrote:

jsealc21 wrote:If airpistols have recoil absorbers,with their minute energy outputs,why not something similar in a free pistol ? I trust someone more knowledgeable than my humble self might shed some light ....

Hi Johnathon, I'm less knowlegeable than you, therefore I don't know either.
But I do want to let you know that Raphael and I will be going to Prado next
Sunday morning; will you be going there too?

Tony G

Prado means one in Chino Hills CA.?
I m in Rowland Heights maybe I could get some help from you
about air pistol shooting

E.K. you are very welcome to join us...be aware the airgun range no longer functions. If you wish to try free pistol,you are more than welcome ...we'll be there at 8 a.m.

Chris wrote:To start off the only reason you NEED a recoil absorber is when you need to get back on target for a follow up shot. In FP and AP there is no follow up shot so you would not need one. The only reason I think my LP10 has one is they could put one in very easy and it was a way to sell more pistols. I had an LP1 and then got an LP10 when it came out. My LP1 will still shoot just as many 10's as the LP10. My PR is still with the LP1 by 2 points, so the is not much difference.

Only because of the changes to the rapid fire rules did we see standard pistol change and add some method to absorb the recoil. There is also a much larger market for a SP than a FP.

Would it be fun to shoot a FP with the recoil of an AP? Yes, but we do not need it and I am not sure what would happen if FP makers came out a recoil absorbing version if it would sell. I think most people would not want to shell out for a new FP just for what is mostly a gimmick. Those in the market would buy it and others who have enough money to buy one just because would get one also.

Chris

If it would be "fun" to shoot a FP with the recoil of an AP....then would it not be an advantage to reduce the recoil of the FP? After all ,is the "displacement" of the hand by the recoiling pistol not a variable i.e. it is not a constant shot to shot,as it is subject to the human condition. If it is a variable,and could be reduced,then is this not a good thing ? I am not trying to minimise the amount of training and technique necessary,as I am definitely one who does not train enough. I am merely curious,and enjoy debate.

jsealc21 wrote:

Chris wrote:To start off the only reason you NEED a recoil absorber is when you need to get back on target for a follow up shot. In FP and AP there is no follow up shot so you would not need one. The only reason I think my LP10 has one is they could put one in very easy and it was a way to sell more pistols. I had an LP1 and then got an LP10 when it came out. My LP1 will still shoot just as many 10's as the LP10. My PR is still with the LP1 by 2 points, so the is not much difference.

Only because of the changes to the rapid fire rules did we see standard pistol change and add some method to absorb the recoil. There is also a much larger market for a SP than a FP.

Would it be fun to shoot a FP with the recoil of an AP? Yes, but we do not need it and I am not sure what would happen if FP makers came out a recoil absorbing version if it would sell. I think most people would not want to shell out for a new FP just for what is mostly a gimmick. Those in the market would buy it and others who have enough money to buy one just because would get one also.

Chris

If it would be "fun" to shoot a FP with the recoil of an AP....then would it not be an advantage to reduce the recoil of the FP? After all ,is the "displacement" of the hand by the recoiling pistol not a variable i.e. it is not a constant shot to shot,as it is subject to the human condition. If it is a variable,and could be reduced,then is this not a good thing ? I am not trying to minimise the amount of training and technique necessary,as I am definitely one who does not train enough. I am merely curious,and enjoy debate.

I suspect that is why the typical free pistol grip is designed the way it is. You can't shoot a match that lasts almost two hours without taking your hand off the gun repeatedly. The free pistol grip holds your hand like a glove. I don't think I could find many ways to screw up my grip so I will have to focus on screwing up my hold, my trigger pull, my sight alignment, my stance and my breathing. :-) Isabel

Fun but not needed. I could see a small part of the population as they have started to shoot and are a little gun shy they may benefit from not having any recoil with a FP.

Just by the design of the pistol, grip and axis of the barrel with respect to the hand and arm the recoil is less than say a 208.

Also if you put in the required hours of training you will soon be at the point where you will not notice the recoil and thus it is now a non issue. Some years ago I shot for part of the season with both of my feet parallel to the target and it was really cool what it did to the recoil while shooting FP. It was reduced a lot.

Chris

jsealc21 wrote:


I'll be there...what time ??

I'll try to be there at 8:30, I've invited an interested guy from the Field Target match
to come out Sunday morning also. He tried out my Morini 84E after the FT
shoot last month and has been hooked on the experience. I told him that
you would probably bring a Toz ; he wanted to look at a real one, not pics
of one. Do you need more 25 yard scaled down targets? I'm working tonight and
tomorrow night, so I'll have the opportunity to print what you need....

Tony G

I'm with jsealc21 on this. Isn't the free pistol supposed to be the ultimate in handgun accuracy? Those designers who placed the barrel line really low with respect to the hand did it for the express purpose of minimizing muzzle deviation caused by recoil.

The way the gun recoils will vary from shot to shot because the gun is supported by a variable structure - the hand. OK, the variation can be minimized by practice and good technique, but it remains a variable.

I take it we are considering a mechanical recoil reducer, not a muzzle brake or compensator (not the same thing, despite previous posts!). A mechanical system is certainly possible (I have an idea up my sleeve...)

Just to widen the debate: why do free pistols have such long barrels? In a recoiling gun, the shortest barrel time is beneficial: the muzzle has less time to move whilst the bullet is in the barrel. The desirable long sight radius can be achieved by a 'bloop tube' or a muzzle brake / compensator.

Shooting Kiwi wrote:I'm with jsealc21 on this. Isn't the free pistol supposed to be the ultimate in handgun accuracy? Those designers who placed the barrel line really low with respect to the hand did it for the express purpose of minimizing muzzle deviation caused by recoil.

The way the gun recoils will vary from shot to shot because the gun is supported by a variable structure - the hand. OK, the variation can be minimized by practice and good technique, but it remains a variable.

I take it we are considering a mechanical recoil reducer, not a muzzle brake or compensator (not the same thing, despite previous posts!). A mechanical system is certainly possible (I have an idea up my sleeve...)

Just to widen the debate: why do free pistols have such long barrels? In a recoiling gun, the shortest barrel time is beneficial: the muzzle has less time to move whilst the bullet is in the barrel. The desirable long sight radius can be achieved by a 'bloop tube' or a muzzle brake / compensator.

thanks,mate...
yes,a mechanical recoil absorber was the basis of my query...the muzzle brake/ compensator has been well flogged.With regard to the barrel length ,I seem to remember somebody did a test of a "mini-barrel" in a rest,and concluded the length itself was not an accuracy factor. So,now we need a bloop tube comp. Do we call Irosa ?

Chris wrote:To start off the only reason you NEED a recoil absorber is when you need to get back on target for a follow up shot. In FP and AP there is no follow up shot so you would not need one. The only reason I think my LP10 has one is they could put one in very easy and it was a way to sell more pistols.

Well, Steyr was the first with the absorber but since then several other brands followed (at least FWB, Walther and Anschutz and I think Tesro). Absorber came also to air rifles. Is that only for commercial reasons, I don't think so, even if you can do top scores without it, it at least makes shooting more confortable.

The recoil absorber is also to reduce muzzle jump, the muzzle brake and holes on top of the barrel bring a similar benefit => even if FP is single shot, people like to have less muzzle jump and therefore an absorber may help.

Now the design of an absorber for a fire arm must be quite different than for an air gun since you need a firing pin in the breech and the air in AP/AR is clean while it is polluted by powder residue in a fire arm and also the recoil to absorb is much stronger (much more energy in a .22lr than in a .177 7.5J AP or AR). FP is such a small market compared to AP and AR (look at the very limited number of remaining manufacturers/models) than I doubt that anybody will invest in studying/developping an absorber for a FP.

Another justification for a recoil 'absorber' has just occurred to me.

In a gun in which recoil significantly moves the muzzle whilst the bullet is in the barrel, the sights do not point at the target centre at the moment of ignition. The recoil deflects the gun so that bullet hits the target centre (I wish!). As we all know, the muzzle comes up.

Discounting barrel vibration effects (my brain can't cope), a low charge will cause a low muzzle velocity, thus the bullet will drop further in flight. However, the recoil will also be less, so the muzzle will swing up less before the bullet exits. So there are two additive phenomena causing a low POI. Similarly for a higher charge. We all hope that our ammo has tight quality control, but it isn't perfect, and there is data on the spread of muzzle velocity from different types of ammo.

A mechanical 'recoil absorber' might therefore remove one further variable, by removing muzzle deflection differences resulting from charge variations. Don't suppose it would be a big effect though...

Shooting Kiwi wrote:...a low charge will cause a low muzzle velocity, thus the bullet will drop further in flight. However, the recoil will also be less, so the muzzle will swing up less before the bullet exits...So there are two additive phenomena causing a low POI...

one of the noticable effects of running out of gas is that the first few shots go higher on the target.

Spencer wrote:

Shooting Kiwi wrote:...a low charge will cause a low muzzle velocity, thus the bullet will drop further in flight. However, the recoil will also be less, so the muzzle will swing up less before the bullet exits...So there are two additive phenomena causing a low POI...

one of the noticable effects of running out of gas is that the first few shots go higher on the target.

In what gun are you talking - gas as in air, or gas as in power (i.e the low charge referred to above) ? My LP10 certainly starts shooting low when the air starts running out - as physics would predict.

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:In what gun are you talking - gas as in air, or gas as in power (i.e the low charge referred to above) ? My LP10 certainly starts shooting low when the air starts running out - as physics would predict.
Rob.

certainly this effect occurs with CO2 pistols - presumably the longer time in the barrel gives a higher trajectory; greater than the gravity drop due to the slightly lower velocity. The effect is only for two or three shots; after that the shots (quickly) will get progressively lower

Spencer

Spencer wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:In what gun are you talking - gas as in air, or gas as in power (i.e the low charge referred to above) ? My LP10 certainly starts shooting low when the air starts running out - as physics would predict.
Rob.

certainly this effect occurs with CO2 pistols - presumably the longer time in the barrel gives a higher trajectory; greater than the gravity drop due to the slightly lower velocity. The effect is only for two or three shots; after that the shots (quickly) will get progressively lower

Spencer

OK, well the thread is about free pistol and the post you quoted was about 'charge' and not gas.

Following you off thread though, I've never noticed that in air and I fail to see how anything other than a 'burst' of higher pressure gas could cause a trajectory rise.

Rob.