AP Compensators ; Gimmick or Necessity ?

[Elmas]

We all know of course that compensators are very effective and do work rather well for the .45 Cal Autos and other large caliber pistols.

The very high gas pressure buildup behind the projectile forcing it down the barrel and spun by the rifling with tremendous force...causing the gun in recoil to twist in a clockwise fashion and try to escape from the shooters grip upwards and to the left .
Compensators offer 'reverse thrust' that neutralizes to a great extent this 'muzzle jump'.

In Air Pistols , recoil backwards can hardly be felt or is very minimal , muzzle jump mostly occuring from user snatch and bad triggering or a poor hold than from the miniscule force of the .177 pellet .

Other than " looking good " and upping the $$ of the pistol , do they really 'compensate' , or is it all in the mind ??

Elmas

.

[Fred Mannis]

While the slots/openings cut into the shroud in front of the muzzle is called a 'compensator', it is my understanding that the function of these slots is to strip the exiting gases away from the pellet. This helps to make the trajectory more stable and the groups smaller. There is an effect on recoil, but this is minimal and not the primary function.

[Richard H]

We all know of course that compensators are very effective and do work rather well for the .45 Cal Autos and other large caliber pistols.

The very high gas pressure buildup behind the projectile forcing it down the barrel and spun by the rifling with tremendous force...causing the gun in recoil to twist in a clockwise fashion and try to escape from the shooters grip upwards and to the left .
Compensators offer 'reverse thrust' that neutralizes to a great extent this 'muzzle jump'.

In Air Pistols , recoil backwards can hardly be felt or is very minimal , muzzle jump mostly occuring from user snatch and bad triggering or a poor hold than from the miniscule force of the .177 pellet .

Other than " looking good " and upping the $$ of the pistol , do they really 'compensate' , or is it all in the mind ??

Elmas

.

You're lumping three different things into one, compensators , porting and recoil absorbing devices.

As Fred stated compensators strip the gas away from the pellet. If you really want to know take yours off and find out. Clamp your gun in a vice and shoot a group with comp on and with comp off, I'm pretty certain the group will be bigger with the comp off.

Have you every shot a pistol that doesn't have these devices? I have and there is a differnence, do they mean you'll score higher not necessarily so.

[greblleM]

I feel the difference between an AP40 with and without the holes along the barrel (not the compensator). First I thought it was becuase the steel barrel with the holes was heavier (100g) but when I put a 100g barrelweight on my aluminium barrel there was still a slight difference in feeling.

[Elmas]

.

You're lumping three different things into one, compensators , porting and recoil absorbing devices.

As Fred stated compensators strip the gas away from the pellet. If you really want to know take yours off and find out. Clamp your gun in a vice and shoot a group with comp on and with comp off, I'm pretty certain the group will be bigger with the comp off.

Have you every shot a pistol that doesn't have these devices? I have and there is a differnence, do they mean you'll score higher not necessarily so.

Without clamping guns in vises , coz I dont think anyone can 'outshoot' his gun !

I have the chance to compare the FWB model 2 and Model C20 CO2 pistols , with both the Tesro and Morini 62 MI AP's.

Carbon Dioxide propelled pellets hit the target backplate harder and get squashed and flattened completely , pellets from the air pistols hitting the steel backplate of my target holder tend to retain some semblance of a pellet . So the CO2 hit harder, are noisier but no 'felt' recoil nor muzzle jump. The test targets that came with the CO2 guns all show a single hole group just like the AP's . And there is no difference in accuracy in my hands of course...I shoot just as badly with both types.

I would have liked to try an Air Pistol without the fancy gadgetry to compare... but I do not have to hand an uncompensated specimen for a trial.

I think differences that can only be discerned by clamping a gun to a Vise , but cannot be felt in practice ..... seem to be " psychologically significant, but practically undiscernable" So they would fall into the slot of :'confidence boosters' in a sport in which the greatest enemy of the shooter is " self doubt" ?

Elmas

.

[PaulT]

Firstly, a correctly set-up competition air pistol (matched pellet to gun & velocity) shot from vice or clamp will produce superb groups, apart from verification for elite shooter of equipment, for novice, it parks any doubt in equipment!

For general testing, we just clamp the cylinders and this provides a decent enough picture of decent pellet/ammunition combinations, plus of course the novice comfort factor! When a pellet can be placed on top of a card with a 5 shot group and not drop through, the shooter need look no further than themselves for areas of improvement!

For elite shooters, the method of clamping will surely be relevant as this will need to simulate as far as possible “from hand” shooting so clamping the grip to a bar would be the most sensible and not dissimilar to the rests used for cartridge pistols for many years. These would factor in any movement where “recoil suppression” systems are not used.

We caught a teaser for a Morini compensator but have not been able to obtain one. I confess I did like the “dead” feeling of the LP10 when fired.

Paul

[Mark Briggs]

Elmas,

Your last post brought a new variable into the equation, one which has nothing to do with compensator performance. Co2 feels very different to shoot than does compressed air. I have a Steyr LP-1 with compensator. This pistol originally used Co2 and produced fantastic test groups. I then converted the pistol to compressed air and adjusted the muzzle velocity to the same value as I had been using with Co2. The end result was that recoil was perceptably increased with compressed air. As a result my personal opinion is that Co2 feels 'softer' to shoot than does compressed air.

I spent many hours group testing my LP-1 while it was powered by compressed air and could never get it to reproduce the same tight groups as when it was using Co2, despite testing over a wide range of velocities. I gave up and converted back to Co2, adjusted the velocity back to the original value, and produced the very tight group which I have come to expect from this pistol.

From what you've written about Co2-propelled pellets smashing completely on the backstop it is evident that your Co2 pistols are shooting at significantly greater velocity than your compressed air pistol. Despite this you say the Co2 guns don't seem to have as much recoil or muzzle flip. Obviously this is a question of propellant rather than compensator. One needs to be very careful about evaluating for only one variable when designing a test...

Oh, by the way... I removed the comp from my CM162EI Short and shot some groups with it. They were about the same size as with the compensator. I did the same test with my LP1 and found the groups were marginally larger when the compensator was not used. My feeling is that a compensator, if properly designed, may be able to improve group size. The Steyr comp also appears to reduce muzzle rise on firing, but that is a highly subjective evaluation on my part, not an empirical measurement.

[Elmas]

Elmas,

Your last post brought a new variable into the equation, one which has nothing to do with compensator performance. Co2 feels very different to shoot than does compressed air.

*****************

IFrom what you've written about Co2-propelled pellets smashing completely on the backstop it is evident that your Co2 pistols are shooting at significantly greater velocity than your compressed air pistol. Despite this you say the Co2 guns don't seem to have as much recoil or muzzle flip. Obviously this is a question of propellant rather than compensator. One needs to be very careful about evaluating for only one variable when designing a test...

******************

. My feeling is that a compensator, if properly designed, may be able to improve group size. The Steyr comp also appears to reduce muzzle rise on firing, but that is a highly subjective evaluation on my part, not an empirical measurement.

Thank you Mark for your input .

I think I said that there was little noticeable difference in recoil or muzzle flip with both the CO2 and Compressed Air pistols I tried .
Since we can hardly outshoot our different pistols... it will all come down to personal preferences.

I like my Tesro with its vented barrel front end , provides a nice perch for the front sight and certainly looks more photogenic than a plain uncompensated barrel with the frontsight stuck on .

I now know , that most shooters on here are quite happy with the new technologies... and may be looking forward to even more ! Maybe someone will design an AP with the Cylinder sitting on top of the barrel , to get the barrel deeper into the axis of the extended arm who knows ?
Then we may find people who say this definitely helps reduce recoil problems and will no longer be happy to shoot with 'barrel on top' designs !!
Note how some modern Free Pistol models have the muzzle damping weights ( traditionally sitting below barrel ) now situated on top... So its not as far fetched a design probablity than one would think !

Elmas

.