Bore axis in autos

[halfmoonclip]

Smith & Wesson has been down this road, with its .35 pistols in the '30s, and more recently with its .22s....that is, putting the recoil spring above the barrel.
The most recent iteration of the Alien appears to be following this idea, and it seems a good one. Lowering the bore axis reduces muzzle flip and felt recoil (and it's one place SIG dropped the ball on its P320 series, with the same, higher bore axis of its old, DA/SA guns).
It's a mystery to me why gunmakers haven't pursued this idea.
Thoughts?
Moon

 

[nofendertom]

Agree ^^^^^^^ It seems most of the advancements (?) are in the direction of capacity. I think I saw an RIA model that is trying to address this issue.
Kahr has done it somewhat on their K9 pistols.

 

[chicharrones]

Hmmm.

Blowback S&Ws . . . and Alien gear race guns. If the spring is above the barrel, doesn't that reduce the ejection port size? Which is something we take for granted in a duty or carry pistol for reliable malfunction clearing?

 

[someguy2800]

The limitation on bore axis is really not the spring in the first place but the fact that 99% of centerfire pistols are tilting breach designs. You have to have the trigger opening in the frame and then enough room for the barrel to tilt down and unlock, and you need some physical space to incorporate the barrel locking block. The recoil spring is mostly in front of the trigger opening on most modern pistols so moving the recoil spring doesn't really buy you anything by moving it above the bore. To really improve the bore axis significantly over say a glock 17 you need to use a different locking mechanism than tilting breech.

 

[someguy2800]

Like on this p80 the main obstruction to getting the barrel lower is you need to make the locking block lower, but then you also need to redesign the trigger mechanism.





The Hudson H9 does that while remaining tilt breach and they just made the recoil spring shorter and fatter to fit in front of the trigger opening

 

[someguy2800]

To me though the meaningful measurement of bore Axis is the height of the bore compared to the height of the top of the back strap where I can get the web of my hand up into. If you look at the Hudson, it’s really not much of any better than a glock 17. The alien is quite a bit lower since the barrel is under the slide but it’s able to do that because it’s not a tilting breach action. Moving the recoil spring on top was just a side product of that.

 

[chicharrones]

Since I'm right handed, I didn't think of how being a left handed shooter could be problematic. See the 2:10 mark in the video below.

Laugo Alien at the Range

http://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeaponshttps://www.floatplane.com/channel/ForgottenWeapons/homeCool Forgotten Weapons merch! http://shop.forgottenweapons.com...

youtu.be

 

[9mmepiphany]

It's a mystery to me why gunmakers haven't pursued this idea.
Thoughts?

As mentioned already, it's because you still need room for the tilting barrel to drop down. The higher barrel placement , relative to the top of the magazine, also requires a longer feed ramp. The non-tilting barrel Beretta 92, even with the recoil spring below the barrel, is placed lower in the frame and rounds feed almost straight into the barrel from the mag. The lowest bore over hand measurement that I'm aware of is the Kahr...as they off-set their feed ramp.

Before the Alien the last duty gun I remember without a recoil spring placed under the barrel was the H&K P7, which had it's recoil spring concentric with the fixed barrel. It's bore line was just above the top of the hand and tit's magazine also fed straight into the barrel. Interestingly the space normally occupied by the recoil spring was where the gas cylinder/piston was located, but this didn't raise the barrel as it did not need to drop/tilt to unlock.

A interesting "Low Boreline" example would be the Chiappa Rhino revolver where the bore is below the top of the shooting hand's wrist

 

[jar]

I have always found the "bore axis" argument as silly and pointless as caliber wars and magazine capacity.

Boring.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I have always found the "bore axis" argument as silly and pointless as caliber wars and magazine capacity.

It is when it comes to actually shooting, but the explanation can be interesting for folks who don't understand the "why"

 

[halfmoonclip]

Random thoughts and responses:
-have a P7; yep, low bore axis
-yes, the Smiths had side E-ports, not sure it really was an issue, not everything has a huge E-port
-at last, I understand how the Hudson works; worthwhile all by itself!
-I've a passing notion that the Alien locking cam may actually tilt upward?
-allowing room for the locking mechanism really is an issue
-the Kahr does have an offset cam, which does allow a lower barrel
-handled a Steyr today; allows a really high hold, Lugerish grip angle; had one some years ago
-have a couple Rhinos, and there really is something to the lower bore axis

It is when it comes to actually shooting, but the explanation can be interesting for folks who don't understand the "why"

It can make a difference when shooting, but the "why", and "how" is what led me to ask.
Great answers guys; anything else?
Moon

 

[SimonRL]

I have always found the "bore axis" argument as silly and pointless as caliber wars and magazine capacity.

Boring.

I agree and I own a Archon Type B and the new Daniel H9 which both share a near identical bore axis height. Both are pretty flat shooters but the Archon more so. The Archon does not use a Browning action while the Daniel does. While low bore axis guns may not have quite the same muzzle flip they still have some and the recoil is not really lessened, so much as different. You can feel the Archon’s recoil come straight back in your hand. Almost everyone who shoots it for the first time says the same thing. The Daniel also comes backward, but the barrel tilts so you get a kind of hybrid recoil pulse. Both guns shoot very well, but the Archon, IMO, lives in another class entirely. It is a phenomenally easy gun to shoot and accurate in the extreme.

What’s interesting about the whole high/low bore axis is that I don’t think it has any real impact on shootability. Someone mentioned Sig messing up the P320 because of the high bore axis. You know what has the identical bore axis? A 1911. You can lay a 1911 on top of a P320 and the trigger, beavertail and barrel position are identical. When’s the last time someone said, “This 1911 is great, if only the bore axis was lower”. Never. Another great example is the Sig P226. It’s a tall gun with a high bore axis that is an unbelievable shooter straight out of the box. And give it the single action Legion treatment and it is without question as good a bang for the buck as you can get. I haven’t shot an Alien although I suspect one is in my future, but I think the architecture of that gun really make it an outlier when we’re talking bore axis because it’s design is one of a kind.

 

[jar]

The classic Sig P series pistols. P220, P210, P226, 228, 229 239 ... are all fantastic shooting pistols. The only one of the herd I could never truly Grok was my P225. Why it never felt right is something that's bothered me for near a half century now. I had a chance a couple years ago to shoot a Rino and while the recoil did feel different I didn't shoot it any better than my old rid hard and put up wet Western Marshal SAA clones.

But Bore Axis sells.

 

[trackskippy]

I do think bore axis is a thing. How much of one I suppose is up to the shooter and what they are used to and how much time they spend shooting with them. If all you shoot are guns with a higher bore axis, then you wont likely notice a thing. If all you shoot are guns with a lower bore axis, then I can't believe you dont/wont notice. I know I do, and its always been pretty obvious to me, especially at first when switching shooting a gun with a lower axis to one with a higher.

I have and shoot a lot of different guns regularly, 1911's, older, newer SIG P series, Beretta's, HP's, Glocks, etc. and since the bulk of my shooting is now with Glocks, the difference between them and the others is noticeable enough that I notice it right off with the first trigger pull. After that you settle right in and I don't really pay it much attention, but the faster and more reactively I shoot, I do notice that there is a difference in my speed and control. I know that I can shoot the Glocks faster, easier, and more naturally than the others, and Ive actually got more time in shooting those other guns than I do the Glocks.

I also had a Chiapa Rhino for a while and have a bunch of S&W revolvers, and there too there was a noticeable difference. The Chiapa has less muzzle flip and shoot a couple of hundred rounds at an outing, and you feel it in your shoulders the next day. Dont get that with the Smiths.

I think this, like anything else, is more likely simply that you know what you know and are comfortable with it sort of thing, and anything else you don't have the time in and experience with is different/infereior. Not saying you cant shoot well with any of them, as you certainly can, but once you actually start putting the time and effort in with all of them and experience things at a level where you can see the differences, you now know and see the differences and can make a more informed decision as to whats what.

 

[tarosean]

I have always found the "bore axis" argument as silly and pointless as caliber wars and magazine capacity.

Boring.

I wouldn't call it silly at all.. there is definitely something that can be the judge

 

[lysanderxiii]

Also, of interest, is the fact that the true Browning tilting barrel designs (1911, HP and S&W 39 and derivatives) have the bore axis angled muzzle down about 1 degree relative to the line of slide motion down when locked, and parallel to slide motion when unlocked. This effectively increases the distance between the hand and the line of recoil. More modern pistols, such as the Glock, or S&W M&P, have the barrel axis parallel to the frame rails when locked and a rather pronounced muzzle up angle when unlocked.

Also a low bore line . . . the slide has to clear the web of your thumb, so there is a limit to just how low you can go before you start to get inertial effects at the end of counter-recoil. (Too much mass above the hand slamming to a stop, causing a nose dive.)

EDIT: The reason Browning had the barrel parallel to the slide when unlocked is so the front slide bushing could be s close fitting circular ring for good support of the muzzle for accuracy. If you look closely at the front barrel bushing of a Glock it is an oval. as with any engineering design, it's a trade off.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Soviets thought "bore axis" was important enough to build the Margolin MTsZ-1 upside down ISU rapid fire pistol. The IOC and ISU thought it enough of an advantage to ban it, by requiring a bore axis above the hand.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The Soviets thought "bore axis" was important enough to build the Margolin MTsZ-1 upside down ISU rapid fire pistol. The IOC and ISU thought it enough of an advantage to ban it, by requiring a bore axis above the hand.

View attachment 1193606

Oh, there should be no doubt that location of the bore axis is important for rapid shooting. If you look at that pistol, it is a .22 LR, so the bolt throw is about an inch, and the entire reciprocating mass is concentric to the bore itself.

You are not going to be able to duplicate that in a practical 9mm.

 

[Jim Watson]

That was the point, it was a competitive advantage in a .22.
Do it with a centerfire automatic on an existing operating system, no; but somebody mentioned the Rhino revolver and there was also the Mateba.

What is the bore axis height of an Astra 400? It looks pretty tall, but a blowback designed with height in mind could get very low without getting into Laugo novelties.

 

[Old Dog]

I have always found the "bore axis" argument as silly and pointless as caliber wars and magazine capacity.

Boring.

Thank you. Concur completely.

Someone mentioned Sig messing up the P320 because of the high bore axis. You know what has the identical bore axis? A 1911. You can lay a 1911 on top of a P320 and the trigger, beavertail and barrel position are identical. When’s the last time someone said, “This 1911 is great, if only the bore axis was lower”. Never. Another great example is the Sig P226. It’s a tall gun with a high bore axis that is an unbelievable shooter straight out of the box. And give it the single action Legion treatment and it is without question as good a bang for the buck as you can get.

Good points. Haven't shot competition for a few years, but I think I'd stake my times with the 226 Legion SAO against any 9mm pistol with "lower bore axis."

I do think bore axis is a thing. How much of one I suppose is up to the shooter and what they are used to and how much time they spend shooting with them. I

Really? Just how much difference does bore axis make to the average shooter?

I wouldn't call it silly at all.. there is definitely something that can be the judge

I shot against timers for years and never really noticed a difference. Especially since migrating from .45 ACP to 9mm. At the highest levels, pro shooters may be concerned about the slight fraction of a split-second, but for the recreational shooter and self-defense minded gun-owner, much ado about nothing.

So in internet threads about "what handgun should I buy for accuracy and reliability?" how often do we see folks asking as a follow-up "with the lowest bore axis of any pistol?"

 

[9mmepiphany]

EDIT: The reason Browning had the barrel parallel to the slide when unlocked is so the front slide bushing could be s close fitting circular ring for good support of the muzzle for accuracy. If you look closely at the front barrel bushing of a Glock it is an oval. as with any engineering design, it's a trade off.

It isn't a trade off as much as a reflection of the limitations of machining at the time Browning designed the 1911.

Most modern semi-auto pistols don't use a front bushing because they don't have to. The hole in the slide that you are referring to as the "bushing" isn't oval (that would take a lot of machining). It only looks like that way because the hole wasn't bored parallel to the top of the slide...it's bored at a downward angle. This allows the slide to lock up the barrel between the front and rear of that hole through the slide. Same principle, just angling the hole rather than the barrel

 

[9mmepiphany]

The Chiapa has less muzzle flip and shoot a couple of hundred rounds at an outing, and you feel it in your shoulders the next day. Dont get that with the Smiths.

You're locking your elbows. If your stop, the pain in your shoulder won't happen

 

[trackskippy]

You're locking your elbows. If your stop, the pain in your shoulder won't happen

If I was, I was doing it subconsciously. I don't normally lock them with everything else, so I kind of doubt that was the case. Its the only handgun Ive owned/shot that Ive experienced that with too.

 

[trackskippy]

Really? Just how much difference does bore axis make to the average shooter?

Probably not a whole lot to someone who doesn't shoot a whole lot and is locked into one type of gun and doesn't know the difference, and probably even whats being discussed here.

I just find it hard to believe that you wont/dont notice the difference, especially once you switch over to a gun with a lower axis, and then shoot the snot out of it for a while, and then switch back to shooting one that has a higher one down the road. Its not a big deal, especially if you don't know any better, but if you know the difference, there is a noticeable difference.

Does it mean you cant shoot either of them well, of course not, but I do think if you shoot them all enough to be familiar with them, you will settle on the one you shoot better with, and for me, that's been the Glocks and similar guns that allow me to get my hand up closer to that bore line.

 

[Old Dog]

Probably not a whole lot to someone who doesn't shoot a whole lot and is locked into one type of gun and doesn't know the difference, and probably even whats being discussed here.

I just find it hard to believe that you wont/dont notice the difference, especially once you switch over to a gun with a lower axis, and then shoot the snot out of it for a while, and then switch back to shooting one that has a higher one down the road. Its not a big deal, especially if you don't know any better, but if you know the difference, there is a noticeable difference.

Heh. I shoot a lot, even in retirement. Have for years (and was a certified LE firearms instructor for many years after being a military small arms instructor).

I work on shooting the best I can with the gun I have in hand. I'd like to think I "know any better," but I do get a kick out of those that tout Glocks as having the lowest bore axis of the modern pistols out there...

As far as the Laugo Alien goes, not seeing any of these $5200 - $8000 pistols in the wild. And pretty much all the reports I've read is the Alien is a slower-shooting pistol due to its gas-delayed action, so the advertised "lowest bore axis ever" seems to be negated.