TargetTalk

A forum to talk about Olympic style shooting, rifle or pistol, 10 meters to 50 meters, and whatever is in between. Hosted by Pilkguns.com
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:23 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:08 am 
Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
Respectfully,
Bubba
Danielhankiins-at-wmconnect.com.48523.0


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 12:10 pm 
Just as an FYI, I spent a good chunk of a week testing a 162 Short and was very pleasantly surprised. In terms of test-target performance, it was just as good or better than my LP10. In terms of shootability, it's a very nice pistol to shoot, with a less nose-heavy feel than the long version. The noise and recoil were demonstrably different from the long version, but not nearly as much of a crack as some of the early pistols (I[I'm thinking of the FWB C2 which sounds like a .22 going off!). My scores with the short version were a few points better than with my LP10, which says something as I've been shooting the LP10 for a year and had only been shooting the Morini for a day or two.
In balance, the long version gets a few more shots per cylinder fill (but the short version went over a hundred shots on a fill). And they both have that wonderful Morini electronic trigger...

Mark.
.48530.48523


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:52 pm 
Bubba, I have a tendency to shoot a little better with a lighter pistol. I went from a FWB Model 2, an excellent gun BTW, to a Morini 162EI short. My scores went up and have stayed there with an occassional bobble. I attribute this to the electronic trigger, but also the lighter weight of the short model. I just set my personal best with the Morini short. I'm not a top shooter so take this with a grain of salt, but I think the short model is the right gun for me. If you tend to like a heavy gun and put a lot of weight on them then you might prefer the long model. The Morini short has the same sight radius as the long model, but the rear sight is positioned further back. One slight drawback is that the short cylinders only hold enough air for about 80 shots. One other thing, as someone has posted is that if you want more weight you can use a 35mm film container and attach stick-on wheel weights.
: Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: Respectfully,
: Bubba

.48543.48523


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 5:04 pm 
Many years ago I was shooting both a stock FWB-65 & 80. I favored the 65 because all things equal in grips and balance, I shot a pretty consistant higher score in practice with the simpler trigger for some reason. After hearing so much about the successes with custom shortened barrel versions by some of the top guns, I jumped for the short version of the FWB-65mk11 when it was introduced by Beeman here in the states. My scores increased noticeably, but I was more used to the balance of the older pistols with a bit more fore-weight (shroud on the '65 and two weights on the 80). Beeman introduced the 2 piece clamp barrel weights about a year or so later that restored that balance. The combination worked very well with a very dramatic difference in groups just switching from one pistol to the other. Other then the barrel length, all else was the same. The original '65 was upgraded to the concentric springs and had the higher velocity of the latter versions. I could be wrong, but I always attributed that performance difference to shorter barrel time and not weight.
ds

: Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: Respectfully,
: Bubba

.48549.48523


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 9:38 pm 
hmmm ... I get over 100 shots per short Morini air cylinder ... probably at least 120.
I switched to the short Morini because of a sholder problem. Took care of that problem. I've shot my personal best with this pistol. Every once in a while I add the Morini weights ... find it too heavy and take them off again ...
A few years ago, three of the finalist in mens AP at the Crosman Matches had short pistols ... I believe one won ... and the other two were in the top five ?
makofoto-at-earthlink.net.48558.48530


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:27 am 
In all fairness, my scuba tank hasn't been filled in 5 months, so it is probably a little low. However, when it was first filled, I don't remember getting more than 90 shots per cylinder. Now if I were to use a hand pump, maybe I could squirt a little more air into each cylinder.
: hmmm ... I get over 100 shots per short Morini air cylinder ... probably at least 120.
: I switched to the short Morini because of a sholder problem. Took care of that problem. I've shot my personal best with this pistol. Every once in a while I add the Morini weights ... find it too heavy and take them off again ...
: A few years ago, three of the finalist in mens AP at the Crosman Matches had short pistols ... I believe one won ... and the other two were in the top five ?

.48562.48558


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:56 am 
Will the long air cylinders fit the short models? If so you could put a long cylinder on and have some weight out front and get more shots.

: In all fairness, my scuba tank hasn't been filled in 5 months, so it is probably a little low. However, when it was first filled, I don't remember getting more than 90 shots per cylinder. Now if I were to use a hand pump, maybe I could squirt a little more air into each cylinder.
: : hmmm ... I get over 100 shots per short Morini air cylinder ... probably at least 120.
: : I switched to the short Morini because of a sholder problem. Took care of that problem. I've shot my personal best with this pistol. Every once in a while I add the Morini weights ... find it too heavy and take them off again ...
: : A few years ago, three of the finalist in mens AP at the Crosman Matches had short pistols ... I believe one won ... and the other two were in the top five ?

shootingsports-at-ev1.net.48569.48562


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:28 pm 
: Will the long air cylinders fit the short models? If so you could put a long cylinder on and have some weight out front and get more shots.
The long and short cylinders are completely interchangeable, so you can shoot a long pistol with short cylinders, and vice versa. It looks kinda funny to see a short pistol with long cylinders, but it works just fine.

Mark.
.48594.48569


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:29 pm 
Michael ... and I use a 4,500 PSI Survivair tank ... that I try to remember to top off once a year ... :-) btw. I only fill my Morini cylinders to 3,000 PSI ... well, a tiny bit more because you always lose a little when they cool off ... although I try to fill VERY slowly.
makofoto-at-earthlink.net.48603.48562


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:24 am 
: Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols.
Dear Bubba,
It's not just about personal feel and taste. There is a bit of solid theory behind the length and weight of a target weapon. The controllability of a weapon is in direct proportion with its moment of inertia. What a moment of inertia is, you can look up in any text on elementary physics. With respect to guns, the idea is simple: the mass of a weapon is to be distributed as unevenly as possibe and concentrated at the extremities (muzzle and grip, muzzle and receiver, muzzle and buttstock). The more the moment of inertia, the more reluctant is the gun to turn around any axis perpendicular to the barrel axis. This readily explains the bloop tubes with air rifles (it's not just about sight extention, or else why bloop tubes with the running target rifles?) and predominance of long pistols with heavy compinsators. Of course, theory is much simpler than the practice. Big moment of inertia is good, but additional weight and the drift of the center of mass forward is not. That explains why certain pistols are better cut, like FWB 65, but with modern design long is better, though, of course, the long guns tax your skills harder, which is no pleasure per se :)
Best regards, Alexey
alexey931-at-list.ru.48616.48523


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 5:52 am 
That's interesting Alexey.
It may explain why I never was able to translate that success in later designs moving to a shorter barrel/cylinder. I alway felt that it was the shorter sight radius/barrel time that made for a more forgiving combination.
How does this polar distribution of the mass translate into successful designs? FWB and Walther shifted the mass centerward by moving the gas cylinders vertical over their previous horizontal designs. The current trends appear to concentrate all of the mass rearwards would also appear to be contradictory. I would also interpet that a design such as the TAU-7 or Hammerli Master would also be a more stable pistol.

dfs

: : Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols.
: Dear Bubba,
: It's not just about personal feel and taste. There is a bit of solid theory behind the length and weight of a target weapon. The controllability of a weapon is in direct proportion with its moment of inertia. What a moment of inertia is, you can look up in any text on elementary physics. With respect to guns, the idea is simple: the mass of a weapon is to be distributed as unevenly as possibe and concentrated at the extremities (muzzle and grip, muzzle and receiver, muzzle and buttstock). The more the moment of inertia, the more reluctant is the gun to turn around any axis perpendicular to the barrel axis. This readily explains the bloop tubes with air rifles (it's not just about sight extention, or else why bloop tubes with the running target rifles?) and predominance of long pistols with heavy compinsators. Of course, theory is much simpler than the practice. Big moment of inertia is good, but additional weight and the drift of the center of mass forward is not. That explains why certain pistols are better cut, like FWB 65, but with modern design long is better, though, of course, the long guns tax your skills harder, which is no pleasure per se :)
: Best regards, Alexey

.48618.48616


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:06 am 
: Dear Bubba,
: It's not just about personal feel and taste.
I agree, to some extent. The location of the moment can, However assist the shooter if the shooter can identify that moment and evaluate that usefulness or hinderance to him/her. I have been trying to centralize the weight distribution, leaving the pistols a little muzzle heavy, but not much.

There is a bit of solid theory behind the length and weight of a target weapon. The controllability of a weapon is in direct proportion with its moment of inertia. What a moment of inertia is, you can look up in any text on elementary physics. With respect to guns, the idea is simple: the mass of a weapon is to be distributed as unevenly as possibe and concentrated at the extremities (muzzle and grip, muzzle and receiver, muzzle and buttstock). The more the moment of inertia, the more reluctant is the gun to turn around any axis perpendicular to the barrel axis.
I am not an engineer or architech, but I do have to deal with mooment of force sometimes in yacht and cargo survey.
This readily explains the bloop tubes with air rifles (it's not just about sight extention, or else why bloop tubes with the running target rifles?) and predominance of long pistols with heavy compinsators. Of course, theory is much simpler than the practice. Big moment of inertia is good, but additional weight and the drift of the center of mass forward is not. That explains why certain pistols are better cut, like FWB 65, but with modern design long is better, though, of course, the long guns tax your skills harder, which is no pleasure per se :)
Yes, I am beginning to use a shorter sight raduis on my cruuent 10 m pistols.
I cannot fault your explanation of the forces applied bothe from the weight of the pistol, and the placement of weight, and the conclusions you set forth. But I think that we all have the same problems with attaining high scores with pistols. Some folks have a problem in one area, and some another. We may be looking for a pistol that has designed in features and engineering that we percieve will give us a waty to compensate fororthat we blieve will help with a problem area that the invdividual has. Some of the pistols have made the attempt to include the features that aid with the most common challenges the shooter faces. But we are all individuals, and the carbon based life form that we are forced to use on this plannet is not without it's flaws, and those flaws can be common, and/or individual.
I reckon the trick is to pick a pistol that will help you correct the problems that the shooter percieves. If the choice of pistols does not cure or assist in resolving an issue, then we try to find one that does.
Then ther eare the folks that can pick up about any pistol and shoot a decent or even outstand score, having never seen or shot or fitted that pistol to his preferences.
Thanks for your input.
Respectfully,
Bubba
: Best regards, Alexey

DanielHankiins-at-wmconect.com.48619.48616


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:37 am 
: That's interesting Alexey.
: How does this polar distribution of the mass translate into successful designs? FWB and Walther shifted the mass centerward by moving the gas cylinders vertical over their previous horizontal designs.
Vertical gas cylinders shift the center of mass down, wich is not a bad thing. However, there is always enough mass along the barrel/barrel shroud and in the heavy compensator. Nevertheless, the top two guns in the current hit parade, Morini 162IE and Steyr LP10 and its clones have horizontal cylinders.
Best regards, Alexey
Alexey931-at-list.ru.48662.48618


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 12:07 pm 
Dave:
Why do you think shorter dwell time (or lock time, for that matter) provides an advantage? IIRC we "had that argument out" here in quite a bit of detail a while ago . . . shorter lock time in and of itself represents absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Well, except psychologically maybe.
Steve Swartz

: Many years ago I was shooting both a stock FWB-65 & 80. I favored the 65 because all things equal in grips and balance, I shot a pretty consistant higher score in practice with the simpler trigger for some reason. After hearing so much about the successes with custom shortened barrel versions by some of the top guns, I jumped for the short version of the FWB-65mk11 when it was introduced by Beeman here in the states. My scores increased noticeably, but I was more used to the balance of the older pistols with a bit more fore-weight (shroud on the '65 and two weights on the 80). Beeman introduced the 2 piece clamp barrel weights about a year or so later that restored that balance. The combination worked very well with a very dramatic difference in groups just switching from one pistol to the other. Other then the barrel length, all else was the same. The original '65 was upgraded to the concentric springs and had the higher velocity of the latter versions. I could be wrong, but I always attributed that performance difference to shorter barrel time and not weight.
: ds
:
: : Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: : My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: : Respectfully,
: : Bubba

leslieswartz-at-erinet.com.48697.48549


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 2:22 pm 
Perhaps it's not a valid argument nowadays with the equimpment so much more advanced. In the 80's it was and probably even more so with the Air rifle shooters. It wasn't so much the lock time of the trigger/valve release that was thought to be the problem. The relative slower velocity of the pellet exiting the barrel (barrel time) was thought to be the problem especially taking into account some of the slower velocities generated by the earlier spring and pneumatics. Sure, follow through had a lot to do with it too and you could theoretically pull a shot off before the pellet exited. When you had some of the most disciplined,top shooters (I think Don Nygord was among them) that attributed higher scores to custom shortened barrels, it was hard not to accept barrel as the reason.
dfs
: Dave:
: Why do you think shorter dwell time (or lock time, for that matter) provides an advantage? IIRC we "had that argument out" here in quite a bit of detail a while ago . . . shorter lock time in and of itself represents absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Well, except psychologically maybe.
: Steve Swartz

: : Many years ago I was shooting both a stock FWB-65 & 80. I favored the 65 because all things equal in grips and balance, I shot a pretty consistant higher score in practice with the simpler trigger for some reason. After hearing so much about the successes with custom shortened barrel versions by some of the top guns, I jumped for the short version of the FWB-65mk11 when it was introduced by Beeman here in the states. My scores increased noticeably, but I was more used to the balance of the older pistols with a bit more fore-weight (shroud on the '65 and two weights on the 80). Beeman introduced the 2 piece clamp barrel weights about a year or so later that restored that balance. The combination worked very well with a very dramatic difference in groups just switching from one pistol to the other. Other then the barrel length, all else was the same. The original '65 was upgraded to the concentric springs and had the higher velocity of the latter versions. I could be wrong, but I always attributed that performance difference to shorter barrel time and not weight.
: : ds
: :
: : : Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: : : My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: : : Respectfully,
: : : Bubba

.48749.48697


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 7:31 am 
Dave:
Think about the shot process, properly executed. Here's the paradox (applies equally well to mechanical lock time, dwell time, and the total lock time):
If you are properly executing the shot process, dwell time doesn't matter. If you are not properly executing the shot process, you have bigger things to worry about than dwell time.
Also- please consider that what thetop shooters *believe* works for them *does* work for them. You just can't trust some 580 (pistol) or 600 (rifle) shooter's favorite pixie dust. Tubb believes that moly coating "gives him an edge;" science has proven him to be full of b.s. but who cares? Tubb believes it gives him an edge, so it does.
Top benchrest shooters swear that cryo barrel treatment gives them a .13" reduction in group size. Nobody anywhere has ever shown cryo to have any effect on accuracy whatsoever; not even for extending accurate barrel life (although Precision Shooting made exactly that claim in a small sample tailored study).
With all due props to Don and other Gods Who Have Gone Before Us, just because wearing yuoujr underwear inside out gives them 10 points on hteir aggergate, doesn't mean it will work for us.
(Somebody ought to write a book on shooting "Folklore." Our community is rich with the oral traditions, histories, and stories of our great warriors. Fascinating!)
Steve Swartz

: Perhaps it's not a valid argument nowadays with the equimpment so much more advanced. In the 80's it was and probably even more so with the Air rifle shooters. It wasn't so much the lock time of the trigger/valve release that was thought to be the problem. The relative slower velocity of the pellet exiting the barrel (barrel time) was thought to be the problem especially taking into account some of the slower velocities generated by the earlier spring and pneumatics. Sure, follow through had a lot to do with it too and you could theoretically pull a shot off before the pellet exited. When you had some of the most disciplined,top shooters (I think Don Nygord was among them) that attributed higher scores to custom shortened barrels, it was hard not to accept barrel as the reason.
: dfs
: : Dave:
: : Why do you think shorter dwell time (or lock time, for that matter) provides an advantage? IIRC we "had that argument out" here in quite a bit of detail a while ago . . . shorter lock time in and of itself represents absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Well, except psychologically maybe.
: : Steve Swartz
:
: : : Many years ago I was shooting both a stock FWB-65 & 80. I favored the 65 because all things equal in grips and balance, I shot a pretty consistant higher score in practice with the simpler trigger for some reason. After hearing so much about the successes with custom shortened barrel versions by some of the top guns, I jumped for the short version of the FWB-65mk11 when it was introduced by Beeman here in the states. My scores increased noticeably, but I was more used to the balance of the older pistols with a bit more fore-weight (shroud on the '65 and two weights on the 80). Beeman introduced the 2 piece clamp barrel weights about a year or so later that restored that balance. The combination worked very well with a very dramatic difference in groups just switching from one pistol to the other. Other then the barrel length, all else was the same. The original '65 was upgraded to the concentric springs and had the higher velocity of the latter versions. I could be wrong, but I always attributed that performance difference to shorter barrel time and not weight.
: : : ds
: : :
: : : : Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: : : : My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: : : : Respectfully,
: : : : Bubba

leslieswartz-at-erinet.com.48770.48749


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:17 pm 
I couldn't agree with you more that the mental aspect is perhaps one of the most important components to this sport. I don't want to be an iconoclast and certainly respect those who have excelled with whatever "edge" they've thought was responsible for their success. That was also a time when washing and sizing your pellets was vouge too! I have to look at this from my own objective experience. I developed very consistant pattern to my groupings with the FWB-65. Moving to the short version with all else exactly identical, everything "tightened up" considerably. As I mentioned, this same effect didn't translate to the Model 2/Model 2 short with the same results. I doubt that this was mental and my preconception that the short version was an elixir to better performance. Maybe Alexey offered a clue in the observation of shifting masses, which of course was the principle of FWB's recoil reduction. Too bad there wasn't a short version of the Diana M10 back then to see if the counter-opposing GISS mechanism would have not been prone to this effect.
dfs
: Dave:
: Think about the shot process, properly executed. Here's the paradox (applies equally well to mechanical lock time, dwell time, and the total lock time):
: If you are properly executing the shot process, dwell time doesn't matter. If you are not properly executing the shot process, you have bigger things to worry about than dwell time.
: Also- please consider that what thetop shooters *believe* works for them *does* work for them. You just can't trust some 580 (pistol) or 600 (rifle) shooter's favorite pixie dust. Tubb believes that moly coating "gives him an edge;" science has proven him to be full of b.s. but who cares? Tubb believes it gives him an edge, so it does.
: Top benchrest shooters swear that cryo barrel treatment gives them a .13" reduction in group size. Nobody anywhere has ever shown cryo to have any effect on accuracy whatsoever; not even for extending accurate barrel life (although Precision Shooting made exactly that claim in a small sample tailored study).
: With all due props to Don and other Gods Who Have Gone Before Us, just because wearing yuoujr underwear inside out gives them 10 points on hteir aggergate, doesn't mean it will work for us.
: (Somebody ought to write a book on shooting "Folklore." Our community is rich with the oral traditions, histories, and stories of our great warriors. Fascinating!)
: Steve Swartz

: : Perhaps it's not a valid argument nowadays with the equimpment so much more advanced. In the 80's it was and probably even more so with the Air rifle shooters. It wasn't so much the lock time of the trigger/valve release that was thought to be the problem. The relative slower velocity of the pellet exiting the barrel (barrel time) was thought to be the problem especially taking into account some of the slower velocities generated by the earlier spring and pneumatics. Sure, follow through had a lot to do with it too and you could theoretically pull a shot off before the pellet exited. When you had some of the most disciplined,top shooters (I think Don Nygord was among them) that attributed higher scores to custom shortened barrels, it was hard not to accept barrel as the reason.
: : dfs
: : : Dave:
: : : Why do you think shorter dwell time (or lock time, for that matter) provides an advantage? IIRC we "had that argument out" here in quite a bit of detail a while ago . . . shorter lock time in and of itself represents absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Well, except psychologically maybe.
: : : Steve Swartz
: :
: : : : Many years ago I was shooting both a stock FWB-65 & 80. I favored the 65 because all things equal in grips and balance, I shot a pretty consistant higher score in practice with the simpler trigger for some reason. After hearing so much about the successes with custom shortened barrel versions by some of the top guns, I jumped for the short version of the FWB-65mk11 when it was introduced by Beeman here in the states. My scores increased noticeably, but I was more used to the balance of the older pistols with a bit more fore-weight (shroud on the '65 and two weights on the 80). Beeman introduced the 2 piece clamp barrel weights about a year or so later that restored that balance. The combination worked very well with a very dramatic difference in groups just switching from one pistol to the other. Other then the barrel length, all else was the same. The original '65 was upgraded to the concentric springs and had the higher velocity of the latter versions. I could be wrong, but I always attributed that performance difference to shorter barrel time and not weight.
: : : : ds
: : : :
: : : : : Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: : : : : My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: : : : : Respectfully,
: : : : : Bubba

.48779.48770


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:13 pm 
Dave:
Any physical difference in actual accuracy would only be detectable through exhastive laboratory testing. There is absolutely no way the actual physical accuracy differences would be detectable- let alone noticeable- to a human shooter even over a large number of trials.
The ergonomic and psychological effects would, of course, be very noticeable. The shorter gun more than likely felt better in your hand. It may have even been less accurate. The slight loss of actual physical accuracy would have been totally overwhelmed by the ergonomics and your personal preference.
Now, if you had some machine-rest testing results, that would be a different story.
Steve Swartz


: I couldn't agree with you more that the mental aspect is perhaps one of the most important components to this sport. I don't want to be an iconoclast and certainly respect those who have excelled with whatever "edge" they've thought was responsible for their success. That was also a time when washing and sizing your pellets was vouge too! I have to look at this from my own objective experience. I developed very consistant pattern to my groupings with the FWB-65. Moving to the short version with all else exactly identical, everything "tightened up" considerably. As I mentioned, this same effect didn't translate to the Model 2/Model 2 short with the same results. I doubt that this was mental and my preconception that the short version was an elixir to better performance. Maybe Alexey offered a clue in the observation of shifting masses, which of course was the principle of FWB's recoil reduction. Too bad there wasn't a short version of the Diana M10 back then to see if the counter-opposing GISS mechanism would have not been prone to this effect.
: dfs
: : Dave:
: : Think about the shot process, properly executed. Here's the paradox (applies equally well to mechanical lock time, dwell time, and the total lock time):
: : If you are properly executing the shot process, dwell time doesn't matter. If you are not properly executing the shot process, you have bigger things to worry about than dwell time.
: : Also- please consider that what thetop shooters *believe* works for them *does* work for them. You just can't trust some 580 (pistol) or 600 (rifle) shooter's favorite pixie dust. Tubb believes that moly coating "gives him an edge;" science has proven him to be full of b.s. but who cares? Tubb believes it gives him an edge, so it does.
: : Top benchrest shooters swear that cryo barrel treatment gives them a .13" reduction in group size. Nobody anywhere has ever shown cryo to have any effect on accuracy whatsoever; not even for extending accurate barrel life (although Precision Shooting made exactly that claim in a small sample tailored study).
: : With all due props to Don and other Gods Who Have Gone Before Us, just because wearing yuoujr underwear inside out gives them 10 points on hteir aggergate, doesn't mean it will work for us.
: : (Somebody ought to write a book on shooting "Folklore." Our community is rich with the oral traditions, histories, and stories of our great warriors. Fascinating!)
: : Steve Swartz
:
: : : Perhaps it's not a valid argument nowadays with the equimpment so much more advanced. In the 80's it was and probably even more so with the Air rifle shooters. It wasn't so much the lock time of the trigger/valve release that was thought to be the problem. The relative slower velocity of the pellet exiting the barrel (barrel time) was thought to be the problem especially taking into account some of the slower velocities generated by the earlier spring and pneumatics. Sure, follow through had a lot to do with it too and you could theoretically pull a shot off before the pellet exited. When you had some of the most disciplined,top shooters (I think Don Nygord was among them) that attributed higher scores to custom shortened barrels, it was hard not to accept barrel as the reason.
: : : dfs
: : : : Dave:
: : : : Why do you think shorter dwell time (or lock time, for that matter) provides an advantage? IIRC we "had that argument out" here in quite a bit of detail a while ago . . . shorter lock time in and of itself represents absolutely no advantage whatsoever. Well, except psychologically maybe.
: : : : Steve Swartz
: : :
: : : : : Many years ago I was shooting both a stock FWB-65 & 80. I favored the 65 because all things equal in grips and balance, I shot a pretty consistant higher score in practice with the simpler trigger for some reason. After hearing so much about the successes with custom shortened barrel versions by some of the top guns, I jumped for the short version of the FWB-65mk11 when it was introduced by Beeman here in the states. My scores increased noticeably, but I was more used to the balance of the older pistols with a bit more fore-weight (shroud on the '65 and two weights on the 80). Beeman introduced the 2 piece clamp barrel weights about a year or so later that restored that balance. The combination worked very well with a very dramatic difference in groups just switching from one pistol to the other. Other then the barrel length, all else was the same. The original '65 was upgraded to the concentric springs and had the higher velocity of the latter versions. I could be wrong, but I always attributed that performance difference to shorter barrel time and not weight.
: : : : : ds
: : : : :
: : : : : : Some time back, but not far enough back to be in the archives, there was a lot of talk about the Junior and Short versions of some of the 10m pistols. Morini 162 EI Short seems to be a popular purchase. I have heard good things about the Anschutz LP@ JR. I wish they would not call these things Junior, so that when somebody asks what you shoot you do not have to tell them you are using a junior.
: : : : : : My question is, how many of ya'll still have these jr. and short models. Have they lived up to your expetations? I thank you in advance for any reply to the above.
: : : : : : Respectfully,
: : : : : : Bubba

leslieswartz-at-erinet.com.48878.48779


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group