RobStubbs wrote:That doesn't quite fit with the fact that Ralf has been DQ'd for under velocity ammo on one ocassion. I also thought there was something in the rules that stated the guns had to be production models but that could well be my imagination
If a lot of the ammunition's power is being taken by an anti-recoil system then the bullet could be under the minimum velocity. This is all purely hypothetical of course as we really have no idea what that great lump under the barrel on his gun is.
As for a rule stating you must use production guns, 'fraid not.
Just for information ----what constitutes a "production gun," in other words how many must be produced in order to be homologated???? I feel certain the ISSF is not going to "crown" a champion if his gun is not a "production" gun-n'est ce pas???? Or I am I still naive at 75????
Bob Riegl wrote:Just for information ----what constitutes a "production gun,"
As far as I know there is no such thing under ISSF rules Bob, and certainly no rule that says you must use one.
The closest you will get is the first part of Rule 4.3.3.1:-
"At ISSF Championships, any manufacturer identification on all items of shooters' equipment must be the same as those on the same product sold to the public. Trademarks and company names must only be those of the product manufacturer and must only be used once per article."
That actually raises another interesting point that I hadn't previously thought of.
I believe that all guns imported into the US must have the importer's name on them. If you wanted to be pedantic that would mean you couldn't use them in an ISSF competition because of the above rule, they are not (necessarily) the product manufacturer.
David Levene wrote:
Once again Rob, 'fraid not. The velocity test is done from the shooter's gun.
I'm gonna give up whilst I'm ahead ;-) - I wish.
I have read my ISSF rule book, honest, just obviously not very well.
Oh and in your last bit does that mean 'morini' can only be marked once on the gun i.e. not on both gun and grip ? <if of course we were being that pedantic>
David Levene wrote:
Once again Rob, 'fraid not. The velocity test is done from the shooter's gun.
I'm gonna give up whilst I'm ahead ;-) - I wish.
I have read my ISSF rule book, honest, just obviously not very well.
Oh and in your last bit does that mean 'morini' can only be marked once on the gun i.e. not on both gun and grip ? <if of course we were being that pedantic>
Rob.
Realizing this is all just picking nits...
"Trademarks and company names must only be those of the product manufacturer and must only be used once per article."
I guess it depends on whether the gun & grip is considered one article or two. It's obviously two if you have a Morini gun and a Rink grip, but would it be one if it's a Morini gun and the Morini grip that is installed at the factory? But , the first part of the rule, "any manufacturer identification on all items of shooters' equipment must be the same as those on the same product sold to the public," would be met in that scenario.
David Levene wrote:
Once again Rob, 'fraid not. The velocity test is done from the shooter's gun.
I have read my ISSF rule book, honest, just obviously not very well.
Well it's not quite that simple Rob so I'll let you off.
You actually need to start with the velocity testing procedure issued by the ISSF in February 2005. The only problem there is that it specifically referred to "World Cups 2005". As there has been no subsequent procedure issued however, so far as I know, I think we are fairly safe in assuming that the stated procedure is the "spirit and intent" of the rules. I have emailed the ISSF asking for confirmation and await an answer. I would be amazed if there is any change.
RobStubbs wrote:Oh and in your last bit does that mean 'morini' can only be marked once on the gun i.e. not on both gun and grip ? <if of course we were being that pedantic>
Hey you're learning Rob. Give it a few more years and you can join the ranks of the true pedants.
OK, since we are in a pedantic mood here, I'd like to back up a couple of messages and discuss David's statement: "If a lot of the ammunition's power is being taken by an anti-recoil system ...."
The current production Pardini anti-recoil system, using weights and springs (the Heirich Ries system), would not take power from the ammunition (simple physics); so if power is being taken from the ammunition, that suggests, to me, that gas is being bled off from the barrel (thus reducing the pressure acting on the base of the bullet, thus reducing its acceleration and thus its velocity) to operate .... what? .... a counter-moving weight perhaps?
But unless a considerable volume of gas is being bled off, I think (without doing the calculations) that would have a minimal effect on bullet velocity. To significantly reduce bullet velocity, would not a considerable volume of gas need to be bled off? Where would that gas be vented? Or could enough gas be consumed in chambers in which the weights (pistons) move to obviate the need for venting - other than back through the barrel as the pistons return to their initial position (under the influence of springs) after the bullet exits the barrel?
Whew, I'm getting overboard on speculation here without doing the math, but David's statement got me thinking!
So... anyone else want to chime in?
Mike T.
No way the recoil damper can have an influence on bullet velocity. Rules forbid any gas operated compensation systems. The muzzle flashes do not come at every shot, so I think they are based on ammo variation. The Pardini has a really short barrel, so it's quite probable that not all powder is burned off at the muzzle. And if that block would be solid, the gun would be way over 1400gr. I'd bet that there's a moving recoil damper in there... Tesro uses sort of a pendulum, but I'm not sure if that is the way to go, or if anyone else went that way. If I look at the height of Ralf's weight, I'd guess on a vertical damper - anyone follow the discussion about Renault's system in Formula 1? I think he would have put "conventional" horizontal dampers higher up, nearer the barrel axis, as that is the better place for any weight...
OTH, it could all be a sham to make the rest of the world spend it's time guessing instead of training...
PS: Did you notice the barrel shroud of the Spaniard's MG2? Looks like the (in)famous "Rapid Fire Kit", and it actually seems to work - at least he made it to the final...
from Rule 8.16.0 -
"Compensators, muzzle brakes, perforated barrels
or any device(s) functioning in a similar manner
are not allowed."
Tycho, you noted "Rules forbid any gas operated compensation systems."
As you can see, the rule does have a qualification, to wit, "... functioning in a similar manner ..."
I would argue that the gas-operated piston I was attempting to describe does not operate by the venting of gases in the manner of muzzle brakes and perforated barrels. That is, it does not function in a similar manner.
Now if the rule said " .... or any device(s) providing a similar effect are not allowed.", then I would agree that a gas-operated piston would not be allowed, but then, the mechanical dampers on the Pardini SP and on the FWB AW93 would not be allowed. Since they are allowed, I posit that it is not recoil modification (or compensation), per se, that is prohibited, but rather recoil modification effected by the venting of gases in the manner of muzzle brakes and vented barrels.
Or am I off base here in that the ISSF has already ruled on such a design (gas-operated piston to modify recoil characteristic)?
No flames intended here, just open discussion.
Mike T.
Mike T. wrote:OK, since we are in a pedantic mood here, I'd like to back up a couple of messages and discuss David's statement: "If a lot of the ammunition's power is being taken by an anti-recoil system ...."
Even while writing that post that I was wondering if it was possible under the rules, and I still don't know.
If I knew a way then I would probably be a gun designer making a living working on the next generation of guns.
As it was I plead that, not knowing what Schuman's gun works, I did say that it was hypothetical ;-)
There is of course the possibility that the "thing" under Schuman's barrel is just a weight. With his past record though I somehow doubt it.
Mike T. - you're right (had to read up on it); my memory was probably influenced by some ISSF Judge telling me that any holes in the barrel were beyond discussion when we started discussing new RFP developments some years ago. It would be interesting to go and try that out that at some worldcup... On the other hand, if I remember the compensator induced speed losses with the .22 short right, I doubt that you could draw off enough gas to move a substantial mass AND comply with the speed rule at the muzzle. If it would be possible, I'd expect to see no muzzle jump at all, because then a fine tuned contra-weight (moving forward at the same time the slide goes backward) could/would/should eliminate the whole recoil impulse. And as we know from the Hammerli 230, gas tubes are a notorious problem with the .22. I agree with David that nothing (or not much) seems to be beyond Ralf's ambitions, but I doubt that he would risk disqualification for this.
This pendulum system will move the mass vertical and not in the length direction of the gun (as Pardini, Walther Expert........) Maybe it,s better ??? Anyhow I think a damping system with help of springs and a moving mass must be adjusted perfectly to ammunition to have any (positive) effect.
Regards
Tor Ingvaldsen
It is interesting to note the recoil systems being developed for the new RF guns, such as the Tesro RDS and the as yet unknown "Schuman" device.
The Walther GSP Expert has 2 spring loaded cylinders as a recoil system, and an optional weight adds 2 more of the cylinder systems. If memory serves, the manual states that they are "factory adjusted" and should be left alone. (The adjustment varies the spring preload compression.) Has anyone experimented with this system to determine how well it actually works and if adjustment to optimize for a specific ammunition is of benefit?
JP! After the the Walther Expert came to the market I listen about a test in Sweden. It was done by topshooters and the recoilsystem was tested in and out of function, as this was a "blind" test it was said that none of the shooters could detect any difference in the recoil/feel. Maybe some Swedish people on this forum can confirm/tell about this test ???
In my Pardini I have thinked about replace the springs with some nylon rods just for a test with blocked weights, but I rather train and improve elements in my shooting than tangle with this. Besides this test can not be measured with any numers or facts as a result, it's only what I think.......or think I think............
I think that you mean the test where the pistols were arranged in some kind of "recoil rig". The distance the pistol moved backwards where measured. The conclusion was that the "recoil weight" made no difference (any other result would of course be sensational, because the Newtons laws of motion...)
There is one more test published in Nationellt Pistolskytte och Sportskytten, its more focused at properties for RFP. National team class shooters where used for the test. Written in swedish, I can email it if you are intrested
Hi Tor and Par! Could you post the outcome of the test in the article you mention?
Certainly the recoil energy generated by a particular cartridge cannot be reduced with weights and springs. However, the force-time profile of that recoil might be changed to spread it out over a slightly longer time and possibly reduce the maximum "impact" of the recoil, and thus, the amount of muzzle lift. That's the theory, anyway! The "distance moved" in a rest test isn't likely to show any difference since the total energy is not changed, as you mentioned.
Interestingly, the one live fire from the hand test you mentioned didn't appear to provide any benefit, based on feedback from the athletes. Possibly the difference was so slight that they were not aware enough to sense it. Regardless of theoretic "benefit", if no difference in muzzle rise is actually felt or noticed, then there may be no benefit on a practical basis. (Other than the effect of the added mass hanging out there at the end of the barrel!)
I suspect that an athlete of Ralph Schuman's caliber (bad pun fully intended) would be able to sense a difference if a particular device is of some benefit.
