Bore axis height bores me.

[Boats]

From time to time when someone asks for comparisons between two or more handguns, it seems invariable that someone will mention that, "Handgun A has a lower bore axis than handgun B." Of course, that is also proferred as though it were something critical.

I have fired many handguns, both pistols and revolvers, and I have found bore axis height to be so far down my list of concerns that when I see someone mention this as a purchasing factor I just roll my eyes and usually skip the post.

Jerry Miculek is undoubtedly among the fastest shooters in the world. He has primarily made his rep via Smith & Wesson revolvers. He also competitively shoots autos. The bore axis on every revolver ever made, (the weird Mateba excepted), is higher than the bore axis on any autopistol I have ever seen, yet even my lowly self can rapidly shoot a string of full .357 mag with negligible difference in split times compared to both my 1911s and my 9mm pistols. For me it all comes down to knowledge of the recoil characteristics of each gun and accounting for it by how I shoot it. In short, any influence bore axis height has from one handgun to another is easily remedied by practice.

So bore axis height makes no difference to me, and I suspect, most other shooters. Why then, do some insist that bore axis height matters at all?

 

[PowderBurn]

I agree. I really enjoy the challenge of learning to shoot a new gun well. Some are more challenging than others, but I don't avoid a particular make or model based on what I might have read about its bore axis.

 

[waktasz]

Yea, I hear SIGs suck because of that super high bore axis. I better stop carrying mine

 

[BigG]

heh - It's kinda like having an audio or camera buff quote stats about the equipment. What I want to know how does it sound or does it take good pictures. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I agree with you, Boats, when it gets down to comparing bore axes, I could GAS!

 

[Black Snowman]

Dispite it's "high bore axis" when I tried a friends SIG 220 I found nothing unpleasent about the way it shot. I could get back on target just fine except for the strange dot over square sight picture.

A low bore axis is a feature which can potentially affect the performance of a handgun but the final results are what matter. I'm more concerned about the things it would theorehticly effect. Like grip length for concealability or split times.

It's like saying a straight 6 motor is better. Depending on the application and implementation it may or may not be. It's just one element of design and not a result and in my book results are what counts.

 

[BigG]

Now would be a good time to look in the used racks of your local gunshoppe. Deer season is over and there are usually quite a few nice rifles, maybe a model 70 featherweight. HTH

 

[c22m22c]

bore axis is the height from the top of the hand to the sights...yes? in rough terms that is. if i'm correct about what it is...then i kinda agree. the mechanics of shooting are the same no matter what gun you have. sight alignment, sight picture, trigger, etc. regardless of bore axis.

i kinda disagree too. i'm not gonna buy something that i can't shoot as well as other guns i already own. that's the freedom of spending your own money. buy what you want, so to speak. teaching myself a new gun seems cool. but i know that if i don't shoot well with it, i'm gonna put it down, pick up a gun i DO shoot well with, and make myself feel better.

to each his own, though.

 

[psyopspec]

bore axis is the height from the top of the hand to the sights...yes?

Wouldn't stake a paycheck on it, but I think BA is the distance above lower reciever (or where the shooter's hand rests). Theory being that higher bore axis results in more recoil for being further up from the hands, where the force of lower BA turns the recoil into a puch straight back more than a jump.

 

[Ankeny]

Why then, do some insist that bore axis height matters at all?

Because the height of the bore does matter. The function of the grip is to minimize torque and maximize friction. Torque is equal to the force times the length of the lever arm. The lower your grip on the gun, the more torque and the more muzzle flip.

Lowering the bore axis is why you see competition shooters using as high a grip as possible. A high grip (low bore axis) and low reciprocating mass produces a flatter shooting platform with fewer sight tracking issues. Then again muzzle flip is no big deal if the sights track perfectly. I don't know that any of it really matters a whole lot outside of the competition world.

Heck, on my IPSC blasters I have as high a beavertail as I can find (so high I need to deactivate the grip safety) and the slides are light. On the flip side, my carry gun is a baby Glock.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Bore axis height can make a measurable difference in a bullseye match pistol. That saidâ„¢, I doubt it makes much difference in the real world when it comes to choosing a carry gun or a plinker.

 

[Fumbler]

I have own a Sig 228 and have shot many autos.
Bore axis height does make a difference in how the gun recoils.

BUT the difference to me is negligable. No matter what you're shooting you have to re-aim every single time you pull the trigger. An extra 3 degrees of muzzle flip on a 228 compared to a Glock 19 means nothing.

 

[wanderinwalker]

Learn to shoot a big magnum revolver well AND with speed, and bore-axis height becomes a non-issue outside of a dedicated competition gun IMO. In a dedicated competition pistol, yes, it can matter immensely. Same as the inline-recoil of an AR-15 coupled with its low-recoil cartridge makes the design so easy to shoot well in a hurry. (In a weighed match-prepped rifle, properly slung up, an AR-15 doesn't move the sights far enough to disturb aiming during rapid-fire strings.)

But if bore-axis were the only deciding factor in how well a gun shoots and how easy it is to shoot, the big magnums and "high-bore" semi-autos would not be as popular. Bore-axis relationship is but one of the deciding factors, combined with such things as ergonomics, gun weight, etc, etc.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

Some people just have to say something so they think they look smart. Sometimes its fun to keep them talking just to see what stupid things they can come up with. Last time a guy kept coming up with stupid things about the 30-30. I just had to laugh when he started to compare the 30-30 to a 338.

I'm sure that the bore axis is a real factor to some people but I'm not that good with a pistol and never will be and no longer that good (I used to be)with a rifle for it to make a difference.

 

[bigjim]

Rabid Rabbit said:Some people just have to say something so they think they look smart. Sometimes its fun to keep them talking just to see what stupid things they can come up with. Last time a guy kept coming up with stupid things about the 30-30. I just had to laugh when he started to compare the 30-30 to a 338.

Wow, that could be true could you expand on that a bit for us?

 

[Richard.Howe]

Psycological, perceived, or real, I can tell a very distinct difference in my Sig 220 and my 1911s in their rear-rotational torque. I know that it could be caused by many different factors -- but science is science -- and torque equals force times distance, and it always will.

Rich

 

[Greymoor]

The only time I saw bore axis come into effect was when my wife was doing a side by side of three pistols to determine which was to be her CCW. She tried the Glock 26, Sig P239, Springfield XD9c. The combination of weight and axis started to hurt my wifes wrist after she fire a couple of mags in the XD9. She did not have the same problem with the G26, same weight lower axis. She also did not have the problem with the P239, heavier weight close to same height axis.

She actually liked the XD9s grip but just did not like the way it recoiled. She decided she liked the P239 the best and went with that. So for some, bore axis height can make a difference.

 

[zeke]

Fortunately we live in a country where everyone is entitled to express their opinion. With enough practice, anyone can adjust. Bore axis is real, and noticable. Many fine quality pistols have a high bore axis, doesn't mean they have other attributes that are more important. It gets more noticable in more powerful calibers that have more recoil, and does have an affect on shot recovery.

 

[BHPshooter]

I agree that it's not nearly as big an issue as it is made out to be, but it has its effects.

After shooting a string with my BHP, I proceeded to shoot another with my Dad's PT-92. There was noticeably more muzzle flip. But the sights realigned like they were supposed to, so it didn't really matter.

Bore axis is no big deal, but it is reality.

Wes

 

[bofe954]

I think the bore axis argument is a little different when comparing revos to autos. I think the movement of the slide makes bore axis more of a consideration in autos. Plus N frame 625's shooting minimum power level loads don't recoil much period.

 

[cratz2]

I've often cited bore axis when comparing two guns. In general, I find that it makes a difference. I've shot enough guns in enough calibers side by side to know that bore axis and grip angles make a difference in perceived recoil. That's not to say that if someone finds the recoil of a certain load unbearable in a SIG, it will seem like 22LR in a Glock or Steyr.

I've done some impromptu comparisons. Myself, my wife and an adult not familiar with shooting took out a G23 and a SIG Pro 2340. Using the same loads BOTH other shooters felt the G23 had less recoil even though I told them that the SIG should have less. (I don't agree with this, I was just trying to convince them of it.) My wife preferred how the G23 felt just holding it, but preferred how the G23 shot.

For me, more than the bore axis itself, the biggest difference between, say, a SIG 229 and a Glock 23 is the difference between the grip angles and the distance between my hand and the sights. I find the SIG grip angle more to my liking (being a 1911/BHP/CZ guy at heart) but when I draw any of my SIGs like I draw my 1911s or CZs, I can barely see the top of the front sight. I mean, just look at the back of a Glock vs a 226/228/229.

Now, in actual carry use or even if (God forbid) I had to use my gun for serious purposes within 15 yards or so, I doubt if there would be one full second difference between my PCR, a G23 a 229 or a SIG Pro. But I have more confidence in the PCR because both the sights line up as on my 1911s (ie better for me than with a SIG) and the grip angle naturally points better than a Glock. For me.

All of our opinions are equally worthless. These just happen to be mine.

 

[45R]

It bores me too. IT doesnt matter if I am shooting a Sig, Glock, 1911 or a wheelgun. What matters to me is the sight alignment and trigger pull when I am targeting paper.

 

[Yooper]

I'm more inclined to find a pair of grips which allow a good high hand placement than to fret about bore axis height, but I'm not a match shooter.

 

[Texian Pistolero]

The only time in my life where I found that "bore axis" was significant was in
evaluating the Walther P 38.

This was the basic combat handgun of the Nazi's in WWII.

It suffered from three deficiencies:

1) It's BORE AXIS was TOO friggin' HIGH!!!!"

but managable.

2)It was a single stack 9mm,

when double stack hi-cap 9mm was OBVIOUSLY more intelligent!!!

3)Many were of dubious wartime manufacture,

casting doubt as to whether they were safe with high pressure ammo.

otherwise, a high quality weapoin.

 

[esskay]

Rabid Rabbit said:Some people just have to say something so they think they look smart. Sometimes its fun to keep them talking just to see what stupid things they can come up with. Last time a guy kept coming up with stupid things about the 30-30. I just had to laugh when he started to compare the 30-30 to a 338.

Wow, that could be true could you expand on that a bit for us?

Too funny!

 

[Grunt]

I think that yes, high bore axis does make a differnce in shooting speed. However, I also think that it's so minimal as to not be a factor of any kind. Look, last summer usign several shooters with varying handgun shooting skill I was doing some tests of various full size .45 handguns side by side to include a Sig 220, Glock 21, H&K USP-45, Ruger P90, EAA Witness, a couple 5" 1911s and a S&W SW99. What I found in running El Presidente drills at 10 yards concerning bore axis height is that while there is a difference in your shot-to-shot speed, the difference was generally about .03 to .04 seconds. Even then it wasn't always in favor of the hanguns with the lower barrel axis but mainly in how well the handgun fit that particular persons hand that made more of a difference. It is my conclusion that while low bore axis might make a differnce in how fast you shoot, it's mainly hype and for the most part any advantage is so small it is negligable.