Posted: 10/15/2010 5:41:52 AM EDT
|
In certain threads comparing XDs to other pistols, a common detractor for the XD is "High Bore Axis". My question is, OBJECTIVELY, exactly how "high" is the XD's "bore axis"? What about other guns? S&W M&P? Glock? H&K USP? 1911?
And no, I do not own an XD. I can understand that bore axis height affects controllability of recoil. That's the selling point for the Chiappa Rhino - low bore axis tames the .357 Magnum muzzle flip. And in that case, it is EASY to compare it SUBJECTIVELY to other revolvers. Rhino shoots from the bottom of the cylinder, every other wheelgun shoots from the top of the cylinder. Can't miss it. But subjectively comparing two semi-autos seems more difficult. After all, any difference is likely to be minimmal, perhaps in the quarter-of-an-inch range. So just SUBJECTIVELY saying "this is higher than that" doesn't cut it for me. The piece of parchment on my wall that says "Engineer" wants hard, measured numbers to compare. Anyone have the numbers? Real numbers? Links to where the data can be mined from? |
|
While the bore axis of a pistol is a real stat that has some implications for how the gun runs...the unpleasant truth is that the overwhelming majority of people shooting a handgun are far to incompetent in actually shooting a handgun for the bore axis to be a significant impediment to their shooting. If we were to produce a pie chart of the factors that prevent the average shooter from being able to shoot a handgun fast and accurately, bore axis would comprise such a tiny slice of the pie you'd barely be able to see it on the chart.
Making a selection of X weapon vs. Y weapon based on the bore axis is, as a result, pretty darn useless. Instead, focus on the reliability, durability, and serviceability of the firearm along with price point, accessories....hell just about anything else that actually fargin' matters. People who bitch about it incessantly are doing you the favor of identifying themselves as people who don't really understand what they are talking about. |
|
Quoted:
The problem will be your beginning and end point. Starting at the center of the bore is easy enough, but what is the other end? Trigger pivot point, some spot where the top of the hand rests (which will vary from one shooter to the next), what? I would say the point where the top of the web of your hand contacts the backstrap is the highest point at which you can control recoil. |
|
Quoted:
While the bore axis of a pistol is a real stat that has some implications for how the gun runs...the unpleasant truth is that the overwhelming majority of people shooting a handgun are far to incompetent in actually shooting a handgun for the bore axis to be a significant impediment to their shooting. If we were to produce a pie chart of the factors that prevent the average shooter from being able to shoot a handgun fast and accurately, bore axis would comprise such a tiny slice of the pie you'd barely be able to see it on the chart. Making a selection of X weapon vs. Y weapon based on the bore axis is, as a result, pretty darn useless. Instead, focus on the reliability, durability, and serviceability of the firearm along with price point, accessories....hell just about anything else that actually fargin' matters. People who bitch about it incessantly are doing you the favor of identifying themselves as people who don't really understand what they are talking about. Agreed. And yet FAR more important points like unlocking times, slide weight/speed, recoil spring weight, and hammer/striker spring weights that all impact recoil and feel (and are topics of endless debate in the AR15 forums) are largely ignored. |
It's going to be tough to convince an engineer to forget about a guns "bore-axis" as a determining factor when choosing a handgun. 
Bore-axis should be the least of your concerns. The feel of the gun in your hand and the placement of its controls should be the only things that come up when looking to get a handgun. 
|
|
Furyataurus and JW-777 both make a lot of sense with their posts. They are very knowledgeable guys.
I'm trying to find a thread by Todd Green at HKPRO forum in which he also addresses the "bore height issue". But Todd goes a bit further and gives the history behind this bs term. IIRC, Todd writes that the whole 'high bore axis" issue was a promotion by Glock to attract more professional shooters to their brand some years ago when many guys were shooting Berettas and Sigs in competition. At any rate, I agree with you OP. I'd love to see some engineering/CAD drawings of various pistols. And I guess the bottom line is that, high or low bore axis; you can either shoot a handgun well or not. |
|
It's not so much the accuracy of the pistol that suffers. Guns like XD's and USP's have much more muzzle rise making shot-to-shot time longer (in my hands) compared to others like Glocks, M&P's, and 1911's. I don't have a shot timer, but it was noticibly slower in cadence while trying to make rapid hits on target with my XD and my former USP. But I'm not a pro, nor am I an engineer, so.... |
|
Quoted:
I don't have a shot timer Therein lies the problem. How something "feels" behind the gun isn't necessarily accurate in an objective sense. Personally speaking, when on the clock the maximum difference in my split times between using an M&P with a custom trigger (low bore axis, relatively light trigger) and a P30 with LEM (heavier, longer trigger pull, higher bore axis) has been a maximum of .02 seconds on a wide-open high-percentage target at close ranges. (Generally 6-8" circle at 7 yards or so) So at my absolute peak speed on a wide open target I I go from .17 splits to .19 splits...and again, that's with a higher bore axis AND a considerably longer trigger with a considerably longer reset. That kind of variation can be explained easily by just the fact that I'm still learning the P30's LEM trigger. I simply can't shoot any faster than that at my current skill level with any accuracy. Ratcheting things up, on the same high probability targets and range using an HK45 I was timed with .18 splits making hits at my peak speed. So even with a bigger gun with a high bore axis shooting a bigger bullet with a lot more recoil I'm still not off my top speed benchmark. Did the recoil feel different? Sure...a lot different at first. The clock doesn't lie, though. Inside of 100 rounds I was shooting the HK45 about as fast as I shoot an M&P in 9mm. ...so when I say that the bore axis discussion is largely internet masturbation, I'm basing it on that kind of hard measurement. |
|
More than once, I've had my ass kicked by a USPSA Grand Master shooting a more-or-less out of the box SIG 229. I have no doubt he would do so with an XD or anything else I chose to lend him.
I agree that a lower bore axis, considered in a vacuum, all else being equal, will give you a tiny edge in the end. But often, all else is not equal... and for 99% of shooters, there are so many other challenges to shooting well that bore axis should be WAY down the list of things to worry about. |
|
I won't disagree with anything said but will add my experience with 4" service model XD45C compared to Glock36 using +P ammunition. Run a couple hundred rounds through each and compare what you perceive as nastier recoil. Both my hands and wrists took a lot more pounding with XD compared to G36. With 5" inch guns it's not as obvious.
btw: Fort Benning International Sniper Comp is done. Roque4 and his partner Sgt. Fil placed 1st in 3 of 10 events. 50 cal shoot, night unknown target and loophole shoot. Against teams that were better equipped and the kind of guys that won't let their picture be taken. |
|
I think Jerry Miculek pretty well proves the whole theory wrong. My two cents, it all comes down to learning to track the front sight, knowing what you need to see at a particular range, a grip that makes it all possible and a trigger that allows you to keep the front sight aligned through the press. People talk about trigger reset, bore axis all this other bullshit when it comes to splits and excuses for what the PACT tells you. Hell I dont even notice the stuff like the reset of a trigger, all Im focused on is that front sight. ETA To actually give you an answer to your question, Id say it would have to be measured with an individual and a particular handgun. Most likely measured from the center of the bore to the centerline of the forearms if you shoot say isoceles type of stance since thats where you are trying to absorb the recoil. |
|
Quoted:
I think Jerry Miculek pretty well proves the whole theory wrong. My two cents, it all comes down to learning to track the front sight, knowing what you need to see at a particular range, a grip that makes it all possible and a trigger that allows you to keep the front sight aligned through the press. People talk about trigger reset, bore axis all this other bullshit when it comes to splits and excuses for what the PACT tells you. Hell I dont even notice the stuff like the reset of a trigger, all Im focused on is that front sight. ETA To actually give you an answer to your question, Id say it would have to be measured with an individual and a particular handgun. Most likely measured from the center of the bore to the centerline of the forearms if you shoot say isoceles type of stance since thats where you are trying to absorb the recoil. Ever notice how Jerry grips a revolver? eta "The next key feature of a proper revolver grip is to try and get the centerline of the barrel down to the centerline of your arm. If you achieve this, what happens when you discharge the shot, it’s going to recoil straight back. So what I’m going to do is get my hand as high as I can and still have the revolver functional." |
|
Quoted:
While the bore axis of a pistol is a real stat that has some implications for how the gun runs...the unpleasant truth is that the overwhelming majority of people shooting a handgun are far to incompetent in actually shooting a handgun for the bore axis to be a significant impediment to their shooting. If we were to produce a pie chart of the factors that prevent the average shooter from being able to shoot a handgun fast and accurately, bore axis would comprise such a tiny slice of the pie you'd barely be able to see it on the chart. Making a selection of X weapon vs. Y weapon based on the bore axis is, as a result, pretty darn useless. Instead, focus on the reliability, durability, and serviceability of the firearm along with price point, accessories....hell just about anything else that actually fargin' matters. People who bitch about it incessantly are doing you the favor of identifying themselves as people who don't really understand what they are talking about. I wish more people would listen to you. I was talking to my shooting buddy, and he was going on and on about the high bore axis of my XD(M) 9, and how his S&W M&P's bore axis was better. Mechanically this may have some bearing, but if it's as telling a trait as he thinks it is, how come I stomp all over him when it comes to marksmanship? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't have a shot timer Therein lies the problem. How something "feels" behind the gun isn't necessarily accurate in an objective sense. Personally speaking, when on the clock the maximum difference in my split times between using an M&P with a custom trigger (low bore axis, relatively light trigger) and a P30 with LEM (heavier, longer trigger pull, higher bore axis) has been a maximum of .02 seconds on a wide-open high-percentage target at close ranges. (Generally 6-8" circle at 7 yards or so) So at my absolute peak speed on a wide open target I I go from .17 splits to .19 splits...and again, that's with a higher bore axis AND a considerably longer trigger with a considerably longer reset. That kind of variation can be explained easily by just the fact that I'm still learning the P30's LEM trigger. I simply can't shoot any faster than that at my current skill level with any accuracy. Ratcheting things up, on the same high probability targets and range using an HK45 I was timed with .18 splits making hits at my peak speed. So even with a bigger gun with a high bore axis shooting a bigger bullet with a lot more recoil I'm still not off my top speed benchmark. Did the recoil feel different? Sure...a lot different at first. The clock doesn't lie, though. Inside of 100 rounds I was shooting the HK45 about as fast as I shoot an M&P in 9mm. ...so when I say that the bore axis discussion is largely internet masturbation, I'm basing it on that kind of hard measurement. I know when someone states something as "feels" the whole conversation turns subjective, which puts my argument on shaky ground from the get-go. All I'm saying is that the XD and HK in .40 have noticably more muzzle rise and time shot to shot (no, no timer was used, but it was easy to pick up on) than any G22 I've ever shot. With the low and hi axis 9mm's that I've shot, the difference was negligable, thereby agreeing with your ideas. My experience leads me to believe that's is not all a bunch of bull honky in some calibers, especially with something as notoriously snappy as .40 S&W. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think Jerry Miculek pretty well proves the whole theory wrong. My two cents, it all comes down to learning to track the front sight, knowing what you need to see at a particular range, a grip that makes it all possible and a trigger that allows you to keep the front sight aligned through the press. People talk about trigger reset, bore axis all this other bullshit when it comes to splits and excuses for what the PACT tells you. Hell I dont even notice the stuff like the reset of a trigger, all Im focused on is that front sight. ETA To actually give you an answer to your question, Id say it would have to be measured with an individual and a particular handgun. Most likely measured from the center of the bore to the centerline of the forearms if you shoot say isoceles type of stance since thats where you are trying to absorb the recoil. Ever notice how Jerry grips a revolver? eta "The next key feature of a proper revolver grip is to try and get the centerline of the barrel down to the centerline of your arm. If you achieve this, what happens when you discharge the shot, it’s going to recoil straight back. So what I’m going to do is get my hand as high as I can and still have the revolver functional." It would appear Jerry is well aware of the problem and has taken steps to reduce it. This hardly amounts to " Jerry Miculek pretty well proves the whole theory wrong." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't have a shot timer Therein lies the problem. How something "feels" behind the gun isn't necessarily accurate in an objective sense. Personally speaking, when on the clock the maximum difference in my split times between using an M&P with a custom trigger (low bore axis, relatively light trigger) and a P30 with LEM (heavier, longer trigger pull, higher bore axis) has been a maximum of .02 seconds on a wide-open high-percentage target at close ranges. (Generally 6-8" circle at 7 yards or so) So at my absolute peak speed on a wide open target I I go from .17 splits to .19 splits...and again, that's with a higher bore axis AND a considerably longer trigger with a considerably longer reset. That kind of variation can be explained easily by just the fact that I'm still learning the P30's LEM trigger. I simply can't shoot any faster than that at my current skill level with any accuracy. Ratcheting things up, on the same high probability targets and range using an HK45 I was timed with .18 splits making hits at my peak speed. So even with a bigger gun with a high bore axis shooting a bigger bullet with a lot more recoil I'm still not off my top speed benchmark. Did the recoil feel different? Sure...a lot different at first. The clock doesn't lie, though. Inside of 100 rounds I was shooting the HK45 about as fast as I shoot an M&P in 9mm. ...so when I say that the bore axis discussion is largely internet masturbation, I'm basing it on that kind of hard measurement. I know when someone states something as "feels" the whole conversation turns subjective, which puts my argument on shaky ground from the get-go. All I'm saying is that the XD and HK in .40 have noticably more muzzle rise and time shot to shot (no, no timer was used, but it was easy to pick up on) than any G22 I've ever shot. With the low and hi axis 9mm's that I've shot, the difference was negligable, thereby agreeing with your ideas. My experience leads me to believe that's is not all a bunch of bull honky in some calibers, especially with something as notoriously snappy as .40 S&W. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile and you automatically assume the different was do to the "bore axis" and not the fact that the g22 has both a larger grip and barrel then either pistol you mentioned in comparison... |
|
Quoted: and you automatically assume the different was do to the "bore axis" and not the fact that the g22 has both a larger grip and barrel then either pistol you mentioned in comparison... Yes. I don't see how the G22 has a larger barrel than an XD40 Tactical or a USP Fullsize. Not to mention that the USP grip is by no means tiny. I'm not even talking about recoil. I'm talking about muzzle rise. The Glock sights are far easier to track in the same caliber compared to an XD or a USP, in my experience. The mass of the slides also played into this too. The USP slide is huge, well built, and bullet proof, but it's also tall and that huge mass coming to a stop higher off the centerline of your forearms is going to result in more muzzle rise. Compared to the Glock's smaller slide dimensions, less weight, and it being lower to your hand, I can only deduce that it's one of the big reasons Glocks exhibit far less muzzle rise for me in .40 S&W than the others in my realm of experience. I haven't fired the USP or XD in 9mm, so I can't really comment on them. I doubt it's the same issue with the pussycat that the 9mm round is. |
|
First post nails it. Other than this, and a few people making germaine points about bore-axis not being that critical, I still see people posting a bunch of SUBJECTIVE opinions here. This being a technical forum, I must reiterate that I am looking for HARD NUMBERS which can be analyzed OBJECTIVELY.
Quoted:
The problem will be your beginning and end point. Starting at the center of the bore is easy enough, but what is the other end? Trigger pivot point, some spot where the top of the hand rests (which will vary from one shooter to the next), what? For discussion's sake, let's measure it as from the bottom of the trigger guard to the centerline of the bore axis. After all, some folks like to notch out the rear of the trigger guard to get a "higher hold", right? |
|
Quoted:
I haven't fired the USP or XD in 9mm, so I can't really comment on them. I doubt it's the same issue with the pussycat that the 9mm round is. I've fired all those guns in all those calibers. I carried a USP .40 compact for quite a while. Recoil and muzzle rise were far less objectionable than on a G22 or G23. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I haven't fired the USP or XD in 9mm, so I can't really comment on them. I doubt it's the same issue with the pussycat that the 9mm round is. I've fired all those guns in all those calibers. I carried a USP .40 compact for quite a while. Recoil and muzzle rise were far less objectionable than on a G22 or G23. I spose it's 100% subjective and all to how each individual pistol works for every person. I've found that the lower bore axis pistols help me shoot faster and have less muzzle rise. I shot the USP and XD within seconds of each other with the same ammo and the USP beat me up worse than the XD did. The more I post in this thread, the more I'm picking up on it being an issue for some, but not for others. The high bore axis pistols beat the hell out of me for some reason. I've got a pretty high, high thumbs hold that I can use on my other pistols that works really well (have to slightly modify it for the xd because of the location of the slide stop) and have no issues tracking the front sight. My one chance that I gave the USP (through the outlay of my hard earned money) will most likely be my last due to the way it shot. I'd like to shoot a 9mm version at some point for reference (especially the P30), but I'm never going down the .40 S&W route again in anything that's got what is commonly known to have a high bore axis. |
|
Quoted:
First post nails it. Other than this, and a few people making germaine points about bore-axis not being that critical, I still see people posting a bunch of SUBJECTIVE opinions here. This being a technical forum, I must reiterate that I am looking for HARD NUMBERS which can be analyzed OBJECTIVELY. Quoted:
The problem will be your beginning and end point. Starting at the center of the bore is easy enough, but what is the other end? Trigger pivot point, some spot where the top of the hand rests (which will vary from one shooter to the next), what? For discussion's sake, let's measure it as from the bottom of the trigger guard to the centerline of the bore axis. After all, some folks like to notch out the rear of the trigger guard to get a "higher hold", right? Quickly checked my 1911s...using this criteria they measure roughly 2.07". I have no Glocks, XDs or M&Ps - owners please chime in. |
|
Quoted:
First post nails it. Other than this, and a few people making germaine points about bore-axis not being that critical, I still see people posting a bunch of SUBJECTIVE opinions here. This being a technical forum, I must reiterate that I am looking for HARD NUMBERS which can be analyzed OBJECTIVELY. Quoted:
The problem will be your beginning and end point. Starting at the center of the bore is easy enough, but what is the other end? Trigger pivot point, some spot where the top of the hand rests (which will vary from one shooter to the next), what? For discussion's sake, let's measure it as from the bottom of the trigger guard to the centerline of the bore axis. After all, some folks like to notch out the rear of the trigger guard to get a "higher hold", right? You can analyze based on actual measurements, but since grips and handling vary from person to person you are not going to be able to draw any hard conclusions. A higher bore axis increase rotational forces produced during recoil. That is just physics. A longer lever arm with the same force produces more torque. Force times lever arm IS torque. Some guns provide better ways of controlling the basic physics, and some people have developed methods to overcome it. Even if you filmed people firing the gun and found the rise, you might find more skilled shooters have less rise, or can recover faster. The Olympic shooters with pistols with very low bores found out it lets them shoot faster with more accuracy. Some are VERY low, and directly aligned with the forearm of the shooter. They have gone to great lengths to reduce any rise from rotational torque. |
|
John Wayne,
Based on your first response, I would have to assume you have a very high skill level, certainly compared to the vast majority of shooters. A less skilled shooter may find the high bore axis more problematic than you do. Torque is torque; lots of practice may indeed aid in minimizing the effects of higher bore axis. I, for example, find it hard to shoot pistols like USP and XD; my P7 and my 1911 are butter for me. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First post nails it. Other than this, and a few people making germaine points about bore-axis not being that critical, I still see people posting a bunch of SUBJECTIVE opinions here. This being a technical forum, I must reiterate that I am looking for HARD NUMBERS which can be analyzed OBJECTIVELY. Quoted:
The problem will be your beginning and end point. Starting at the center of the bore is easy enough, but what is the other end? Trigger pivot point, some spot where the top of the hand rests (which will vary from one shooter to the next), what? For discussion's sake, let's measure it as from the bottom of the trigger guard to the centerline of the bore axis. After all, some folks like to notch out the rear of the trigger guard to get a "higher hold", right? You can analyze based on actual measurements, but since grips and handling vary from person to person you are not going to be able to draw any hard conclusions. A higher bore axis increase rotational forces produced during recoil. That is just physics. A longer lever arm with the same force produces more torque. Force times lever arm IS torque. Some guns provide better ways of controlling the basic physics, and some people have developed methods to overcome it. Even if you filmed people firing the gun and found the rise, you might find more skilled shooters have less rise, or can recover faster. The Olympic shooters with pistols with very low bores found out it lets them shoot faster with more accuracy. Some are VERY low, and directly aligned with the forearm of the shooter. They have gone to great lengths to reduce any rise from rotational torque. This. Also, I shoot faster splits with my G-19 than I did my XD-9, on the clock. With the XD I had the conscious feeling that I was being forced to wait on the muzzle to settle, which is why I sold it. Otherwise the trigger was just as good as my Glocks and the grip felt fine, just like my glocks. You cant escape physics, higher bore line = more muzzle flip. To the OP who claims to be an engineer, as an engineer, you should know that the number that matters in this system is the height of the bore over the location of the center of gravity of the gun/hand system. This varies depending on who and how the gun is held. Assuming identical recoil impulses imparted by the projectile, the resultant moment on the gun/hand system will be the force along the barrel axis x the distance from the bore to the CG. Your search for "hard numbers" is fruitless unless you measure them yourself for your hand in your shooting grip. I shoot USPSA and it has hammered home the fact that 0.01 seconds can be a lot of time. If a gun slows me on every sight recover by 0.01 seconds vs another gun, that is a big deal. Obviously you will not notice it as a newer shooter, but a more experienced shooter who shoots against the clock quite a bit, it is very noticeable. This is the reason you will NEVER see an HK or Sig pistol win any USPSA/IPSC type events on anything other than maybe a local level. |
|
Quoted:
I wish more people would listen to you. I was talking to my shooting buddy, and he was going on and on about the high bore axis of my XD(M) 9, and how his S&W M&P's bore axis was better. Mechanically this may have some bearing, but if it's as telling a trait as he thinks it is, how come I stomp all over him when it comes to marksmanship? Skill level. It trumps almost any mechanical advantage/disadvantage. This is the benefit of competitive shooting, you get to see where skill level and equipment meet. As with any competitive sport that uses equipment, the subtle nuances of differences in equipment do not become apparent until skill levels are high enough to take advantage of them. |
|
While I agree with the point that bore height is not as big a deal as its made out to be sometimes, and it can be overcome somewhat with proper grip and stance, it does make somewhat of a difference. For whatever reason, I could never shoot my XD40 tactical as quick as I could my G22. The recoil didnt feel any differnet, but muzzle flip was very much greater with the XD. I have never shot a standard XD, maybe the greater length and mass of the slide made a difference, dont know. Also, I had owned and shot the glock much longer than the XD. But when I got my M&P40, I shot it faster, and with less muzzle flip than my glock.
IMO the actual numbers are interesting to say the least, but it is so highly subjective from shooter to shooter it will be all but impossible to say something like " M&P>Glock>Sig>XD ". Because for some that may be backwards, and take someone like John_Wayne777 that shoots more in a year than most of us will in a lifetime and there probably isnt enough difference in any of the pistols to matter. |
|
Quoted:
While the bore axis of a pistol is a real stat that has some implications for how the gun runs...the unpleasant truth is that the overwhelming majority of people shooting a handgun are far to incompetent in actually shooting a handgun for the bore axis to be a significant impediment to their shooting. If we were to produce a pie chart of the factors that prevent the average shooter from being able to shoot a handgun fast and accurately, bore axis would comprise such a tiny slice of the pie you'd barely be able to see it on the chart. Making a selection of X weapon vs. Y weapon based on the bore axis is, as a result, pretty darn useless. Instead, focus on the reliability, durability, and serviceability of the firearm along with price point, accessories....hell just about anything else that actually fargin' matters. People who bitch about it incessantly are doing you the favor of identifying themselves as people who don't really understand what they are talking about. What he said.  While we don't necessarily agree on everything, I find the above statement 100 percent true. This topic reminds of the picture of the dork on one side worried about barrel twist and all the minute details and the soldier on the right saying he can pick up any weapon on the battlefield and inflict casualties.
|
|
See, everytime hi bore vs low bore. It's exampled with XD as hi & Glock as low. Both being what you should measure to see difference. As to skill level. It's not what really controls muzzle rise. Sight aquisition yes, after muzzle drop. What controls rise is fore arm & hand strength... Combined with a skill set. Shoot a G36 compared with XD45C ammunition being equal +P loads. Then report you don't find noticable diffrence. 50 rounds through XD45C & my fingers felt stung all over. G36 just handles recoil better. You could argue plastic wrapped Glock mags help & you'd be right. Bore axis being XD's weak point. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
When it comes to something like this, I don't really care what the numbers are. Shoot both (and XD and a Glock) and see how they do for you? From what I've seen, most people who have shot both will both (and are being honest) feel and see a noticeable increase in muzzle jump with the XD then they do with the Glock using the same grip\hold.
Split times this, Jerry Miculek that  That doesn't prove there is no difference between the 2 weapons, all it show is a person with enough training and practice can over come those types of subtle differences, to the point of being almost meaningless. The average person doesn't have (or are not willing to commit) that kind of time and resources to training and practice.
Quoted:
What controls rise is fore arm & hand strength... Combined with a skill set. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Strength plays into it but even the Rock (Dwayne Johnson) will experience excessive muzzle rise if he has not been taught how to properly hold the weapon or how to apply his strength. On the other hand, people much smaller and weaker can do a very good job controlling muzzle rise with the right training and enough practice. IMO, it's skill, derived from training and practice first, physical strength second is a distant second. |
|
Spacemandspiff & John Wayne mostly have it right: without at least a shot timer you are subjectively shooting in the dark (so to speak) & most people are terrible at pistol shooting depite what they think of themselves. Go to a competition without prior experience & tell us how you make out.
Best advice is obtain several thousand rounds of ammo & head to a USPSA shoot, a weeklong training class or major IDPA shoot. You will probably get more benefit from the above than from simply switching to a lower bore axis. It is all about accuracy at speed with a sizeable caliber. BUT - to the extent it matters (and it matters to those who can shoot) the guns with the lowest axis of bore are: H&K P7, Steyr M series and S&W M&P. The new Caracal also seems rather low. |
|
Quoted:
Spacemandspiff & John Wayne mostly have it most people are terrible at pistol shooting depite what they think of themselves. Go to a competition without prior experience & tell us how you make out. Best advice is obtain several thousand rounds of ammo & head to a USPSA shoot, a weeklong training class or major IDPA shoot. You will probably get more benefit from the above than from simply switching to a lower bore axis. It is all about accuracy at speed with a sizeable caliber. BUT - to the extent it matters (and it matters to those who can shoot) the guns with the lowest axis of bore are: H&K P7, Steyr M series and S&W M&P. The new Caracal also seems rather low. the M&P, Steyr M, and Glock have about the same bore axis location. I know the steyr claimed to be lower than glock, but I used to own both and they were nearly identical in my hands. |
|
Quoted:
To the OP who claims to be an engineer, as an engineer, you should know that the number that matters in this system is the height of the bore over the location of the center of gravity of the gun/hand system. This varies depending on who and how the gun is held. Assuming identical recoil impulses imparted by the projectile, the resultant moment on the gun/hand system will be the force along the barrel axis x the distance from the bore to the CG. Your search for "hard numbers" is fruitless unless you measure them yourself for your hand in your shooting grip. The human element is the hardest to master, no doubt. That is true in many ways, not the least is "how you measure grip". That's why I settled on "bottom of the trigger guard" a few posts back. Because most of us will have their highest (non-trigger) finger riding up against the bottom of said trigger guard. Now that's CERTAINLY not all that ecompasses a grip, but it is a start. To everyone else saying, "Take both and a couple of thousand rounds out and shoot," that's easier (and cheaper) said than done. Your approach is the old "cut and try" method while my approach is the analytical one. Hard numbers are independent of observer's preferrence (flavor of kool-aid). Sometimes hard numbers tell us things we find counter-intuitive. And yes, I do shoot plenty. I am NOT a new shooter. Although I mostly shoot wheelguns, with some past extensive trigger time on the 1911 platform. I TRULY do not have a dog in the fight called "XD vs. Glock vs. M&P". |
|
I don't want to get off topic or de-rail this man's thread. You look at the top 10 men shooting whatever hand gun and they have developed forearm & hand strength. Most have huge forearms. Competition aside for a moment. Shoot both guns mentioned with +P ammunition. Then get back to me. I can promise you'll feel the difference between hi and lo bore axis. It's not conjecture on my part. Just plain unbiased observation from someone who owns both brands of handguns and compared the two models first hand. Not sayin I can' shoot a hi bore axis handgun because I can. Matter of fact both quite well. Just pointing out issue while reflecting the extra attention required in my stance and grip when comparing two short slide 45acp's. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
First post nails it. Other than this, and a few people making germaine points about bore-axis not being that critical, I still see people posting a bunch of SUBJECTIVE opinions here. This being a technical forum, I must reiterate that I am looking for HARD NUMBERS which can be analyzed OBJECTIVELY. Quoted:
The problem will be your beginning and end point. Starting at the center of the bore is easy enough, but what is the other end? Trigger pivot point, some spot where the top of the hand rests (which will vary from one shooter to the next), what? For discussion's sake, let's measure it as from the bottom of the trigger guard to the centerline of the bore axis. After all, some folks like to notch out the rear of the trigger guard to get a "higher hold", right? You can analyze based on actual measurements, but since grips and handling vary from person to person you are not going to be able to draw any hard conclusions. A higher bore axis increase rotational forces produced during recoil. That is just physics. A longer lever arm with the same force produces more torque. Force times lever arm IS torque. Some guns provide better ways of controlling the basic physics, and some people have developed methods to overcome it. Even if you filmed people firing the gun and found the rise, you might find more skilled shooters have less rise, or can recover faster. The Olympic shooters with pistols with very low bores found out it lets them shoot faster with more accuracy. Some are VERY low, and directly aligned with the forearm of the shooter. They have gone to great lengths to reduce any rise from rotational torque. +1 for physics |
|
Man, I hate having facts distort a good story:
http://www.northcarolinasportsman.com/details.php?id=252 "The Production Division was awash with professional talent, but Rob Leatham emerged to win the title for Springfield Armory. Shooting the new Springfield XD, Leatham out-gunned former European champion Angus Hobdell of CZ-USA. Production shooters must use a double-action or striker-fired pistol with virtually no modifications. " Of course if you talk about "the top 10 USPSA shooters"....they are all SPONSORED and are usually so good, the pistol type doesn't really matter". Hell, the top 6 are Glock, Glock, S&W, CZ, and Springfield...all factory guys shooting factory guns. Big surprise.
Most of the USPSA guys here don't use Glocks. They nearly all use Tanfoglios or a double stack 1911 equivalent. And production is a mix of everything. |