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 Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:29 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Morini 162EI Short
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:30 pm 
Thinking about buying a Morini 162EI short. Would like to hear the pro's and con's with it. Thanks


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:28 pm
Posts: 258
Location: Victoria, Australia
If your are comparing the short with the long, there is really no difference except in weight. The cylinder in a short is shorter and so holds less air, but usually enough for 140 shots or two matches.

The sight radius is the same between the two models which is achieved by moving the rear sight closer to your eye on the short version. This also means the front sight is about 75mm closer (3" if you still talk the old imperial measurements) which may have some minor bearing on your ability to focus clearly.
Colin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Long & Short of it.....
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:43 pm
Posts: 1001
The short barrel being lighter, has a slightly smaller area of wobble and will pull a few 9.8/9.9's into the 10 ring. But also being lighter any trigger error will be pushed out into the 8 ring. If you have good trigger control it may be worth 2-3 points per match over the long barrel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:35 am 
"The short barrel being lighter, has a slightly smaller area of wobble and will pull a few 9.8/9.9's into the 10 ring."

I'm not quite sure I understand this. How would this work?

Steve


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Morini 162EI Short
PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:15 am 
What about perceived movement compared to long 162EI? More or less?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:43 pm
Posts: 1001
Hi Steve
The short barrel has a balance point further back in the hand and is a little lighter.
The hold wobble on a scat is a little smaller and has a faster cyclic frequency than the longer heavier barrel. Good shots released in this wobble give you a tighter group, hence pull some slightly outer shots into towards the centre. But poor trigger shots, pushed and grabbed shots will go a lot further out of the group than with the heavier long barrel. The extra weight of the long barrel will dampen the poor shots.
Higher sores are possible but the pistol is less forgiving to poor technique.
cheers
David


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Morini 162EI Short
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 772
Location: Berwick, PA
Darkhorse wrote:
What about perceived movement compared to long 162EI? More or less?


I have the short and have never shot the standard Morini, however, after shooting the AP and then going to my Hammerli FP perceived movement is huge with the FP.

I think the distance of the front sight from the eye can be a problem if one also shoots free pistol. I notice a different focus with the FP, however,If you shoot only the AP or have young eyes, it should not be a problem.

I have the added weights on my Morini and don't really notice extra movement because of a lighter pistol. When I shoot, the pistol only vibrates a little as the pellet exits. If there is any other movement, I did something wrong. I love the way this pistol reveals proper shot execution!

The only change I want is an adjustable roll on the second stage of the trigger.
Ben


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:07 pm 
David:

Interesting rationale, but I think it is counter to what a lot of other shooters have seen. That's why I had to ask, because what you described was the opposite of what a lot/most of other shooters have come to accept as "conventional thought" in this respect. Specifically:

"The hold wobble on the Scatt is a little smaller"
- perhaps for you personally- but most shooters experience smaller, more stable wobble with heavier/heavier muzzle gun. THey may fatigue faster . . . and there may be other disadvatages of a heavier gun with a "nose down" weight distribution, but a larger wobble area is not one of hte generally accepted "cons" of the long barrels. That's why so many top shooter use muzzle weights . . . and only a few use the shorty.

"faster cyclic frequency"
- You are absolutely correct here; the short barrel gives you a more rapid, less predictable wobble; some describe it as "squirrelly"

"good shots released in this wobble give you a tighter group"
- this is what sounded curious to me . . . are you suggesting a faster wobble makes the lag time between perception and shot release shorter? Actually, the distance travelled by the muzzle would be increased by a faster wobble; which is irrelevant in any case . . . it's a function of variability, not speed. The "twitchier" wobble is harder to predict and the short barrel guns have a reputation for "leaking" shots *outside* your hold, as opposed to "inside" your hold.

That's why the short barrels are generally thought of as less forgiving (as you note for "poor trigger shots").

But my points are, as usual, pretty irrelevant in any case.

If you like the shorty, that's great. You personally shoot better with it for some reason, and that's great. But I don't think your experience and perceptiopn would apply to most other shooters. In the end- my opinion doesn't matter. It's whatever works for you!

Steve


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:51 pm 
Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:
David:

That's why the short barrels are generally thought of as less forgiving (as you note for "poor trigger shots").


Steve

Short barrels and front heavy balance are two different things'
Short barrel becouse of shorter lock time will be more forgiving if balance is the same as longer barrel.
You can add some weight to the front of Morini Short, have the same balance and have shorter barrel.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:25 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Switzerland
No, you can't. You might get the same amount of torque on your wrist by adding weight, but the inertia of the front end will be different, as that increases exponentially to the distance from the turning point = your wrist. I find David's explanation absolutely plausible.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:42 pm 
Ahhh, the "lock time" argument.

I figured we would get to that eventually.

Oh well.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:51 pm 
Tycho:

Yes- it is interesting.

We have the same facts and understanding of some of the physics involved, but draw different conclusions apparently. Probably because while we may share the same understanding of the underlying physics, we do not share the same understanding of the process itself.

Your reasoning (about the "torque" or "moment arm") is why the longer barrel gives a slower, more predictable movement.

That is why "just adding weight to the end of the shorter barrel" does not produce the same effect (I think we agree here?).

But again- if you perceive the shroter barrel to be "more forgiving;" then it is more forgiving.

[Try this experiment: hold a meter stick and a decimeter stick of the same weight away from your body, pointing at a distant object. Try to move them. Try to hold them still. Which system exhibits the more rapid oscillation?]


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:51 am 
Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:

Your reasoning (about the "torque" or "moment arm") is why the longer barrel gives a slower, more predictable movement.

That is why "just adding weight to the end of the shorter barrel" does not produce the same effect (I think we agree here?).

No, I do not fully agree. First: The torque, I prefer your term "moment arm" BTW, is force (gravity) times arm length. You may achieve the same moment arm by just adding a bit more mass to the end of the shorter barrel. Do you agree?

I am sorry, but your consideration is basically wrong (and that's a pitty, cause you Steve are usually very well informed indeed). The topic here is what I may populistically designate"the resistance to angular acceleration". And that is not torque, it is "momentum of inertia". Which I think you at this point have realized yourself.
Similar to the familiar conepts acceleration and mass, your "moment arm" could be considered equivalent to "force", and "momentum of inertia" equivalent to "mass". Not very difficult.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:25 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Switzerland
Right, that momentum of inertia is exactly the point here - and it is not linear to the arm's length, but force x distance(squared). Pretty basic. Had a window seat during physics class 1, Guest? Try to catch up by reading Wikipedia or so. The logical conclusion is that a longer pistol has a higher resistance against changing it's state of movement than a shorter pistol, which may be a good thing if you tend to flinch or push, or a not so good thing if you have a good hold and a nicely functioning subconscious that coordinates the perceived movement with the trigger pull. It would probably be possible to build a short pistol with the same momentum of inertia as a long pistol, but then the balance would feel different. IMHO the bigger (and biggest) difference by far is the perceived wobble of the front sight, which is considerably less with a shorter sight radius, and therefore can lead to a more confident triger pull - and that is why in our experience (on club level) the best thing for newbies are long pistols with short sight radius.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:29 am 
Tycho wrote:
Right, that momentum of inertia is exactly the point here -

I think Tyco is wrong here.
Tyco ought to be instructed that momentum of inertia is an ability of an object, and is independent of any field of force (e.g. field of gravity).
Tyco is misinterpreting the term. He obviously believes inertia is the weight of an object.
To me, at least, Tyco appears a bit retarded.

If he just sits down and consider this matter for a while, he may understand...or so I hope, at least. Or are my hopes invain?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:25 am
Posts: 1046
Location: Switzerland
Argyl - try to start reading up on physics (and grammar, and spelling) instead of showing ignorance and short attention span and using inappropriate words. We are talking about two different things here, at least, and if your brain can't even multitask that, sorry for you. And in case you didn't notice, almost everybody else here agrees about the perceived facts. You got any personal problem, p.m. me, identify yourself and try to fight this out 1:1.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:15 pm 
" . . . with the same weight . . . " [o.k., mass]

Ummm- that's the whole point.

The meter/decimeter stick example should have cleared up the unintentional confusion.

(The intentional confusion is probably related to other issues and not those of physics.)

An earlier post stated "With the same weight" [sic] and obviously, the same weight distributed over a shorter arm will have less of a "torque" (moment arm) and therefore be "less able to resist" shooter's twitches than the longer, more stable system.

wait for it . . .

QED!

Or, the more "urban" interpretation: "SNAP!"

Steve

And lest we forget- the effect is in any case TRIVIAL as the wa-a-a-a-ay more significant issues totally overwhelm the physics in this particular case; so if you THINK your shorty is more forgiving, IT IS.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:17 pm 
. . . and just to "pile on" or "rub it in," remember the long barrel pistol actually weighs more, with more weight distributed at the muzzle, so the effect (resistance to pitch/yaw movement) is actually INCREASED.

Yeah, that's the ticket . . .

Steve


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:30 am 
Steve Swartz as Guest wrote:
. . . and just to "pile on" or "rub it in," remember the long barrel pistol actually weighs more, with more weight distributed at the muzzle, so the effect (resistance to pitch/yaw movement) is actually INCREASED.

Yeah, that's the ticket . . .

Steve


Yes, that is the ticket. I think mass is what you are thinking of, but that doesn't matter much here.
Your considerations are reasonable.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Out there, in space
PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:47 am 
Forgive me, but I could not reist:

Imagine an astronaut was allowed to bring his AP to the orbiting (in free fall that is) Spacelab during a mission. And of course he would want to enjoy the intriguing leisure time accupation of dry firing. (First fierarm ever brought to space?)

There would be no felt weight of the gun, no strain to the arm supporting the gun. But the restance to wobbling, jawing? It would be the very same as on the surface of the earth.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lalka686 and 5 guests


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