Why a high bore axis?

[HKGuns]

Oh boy! Yet another bore axis argument, good luck with that.

 

[JRWhit]

Personally, I think it makes a difference in concealability. For any given grip size, the higher the bore axis, the greater the overall height of the pistol and generally, the harder to conceal the grip. It apparently makes little difference in shootabiltiy, though.

I would think profile for carry would have more impact than flip.

I'm a little taken back by this thread. I recently,without any concern for bore axis, shot for the first time a m11-a1 aka 228. I was floored by how quickly and effortless the follow up shots were. Brought to my attention by this thread, this is compared to lower axis, striker fired pistols. The difference is night and day, and the slightly higher axis has been of no consequence.

I can see squeezing every ounce of performance out of a pistol for the highest end of competitors but I do not see any discernible advantage that would be noticed by most shooters. There are other factors, much more important to performance, employed in the sig that made a huge difference over the striker fired ones. I'm not by any means a brand snob. I try out whatever and if I like it, then it stays.

Quick questions. At the point that a shooter would be so concerned with milliseconds of advantage, would they not also be using muzzle breaks, or vented barrels? And would those not compensate for bore axis?

 

[Skribs]

Muzzle brakes or compensators may be good for competition, but they have definite side effects in an HD situation, such as a louder report (for you, safety issue especially if you don't have hearing prot) or brighter flash (bad for night defense), respectively. Low-bore-axis purists would say for an HD gun you need a low bore axis or high grip angle.

 

[Sam1911]

Quick questions. At the point that a shooter would be so concerned with milliseconds of advantage, would they not also be using muzzle breaks, or vented barrels? And would those not compensate for bore axis?

Well, sure. They can be of great benefit. However, 1) they are not legal in many forms of competition, and 2) many shooters just don't like them at all, and 3) that's just for competition. Almost no-one wants that stuff for their defensive weapons for other reasons.

 

[TestPilot]

It is relevant. It is just that it is not the only factor. Do you think anyone would pick a pistol that is exactly the same as Glock except it has a higher bore axis?

Of course people pick SIG, CZ, etc., but it is not because it has a high bore axis. It is because some other characteristics of those pistols make up for it.

Most of the high bore axis pistols are based on old design, and a lot of companies just made pistols based on the old design because it is easier and chaper that way, which is what made them lose the market to newer pistols.

I shoot my SIG better than Glocks. But, that is certainly not because it has a higher bore axis. I shoot better in spite of it.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Sam1911:
But we DON'T, and SHOULDN'T be attempting to "control" muzzle rise. That idea faltered in the '90s.

It depends on what you mean by controlling muzzle rise.

If you mean anticipating recoil and applying counter force as the gun recoils, then yes, that is usually counter productive.

But, it is also about putting the structure of the shooting platform behind it in a manner that recoil would have less disruptive effect.

 

[Sam1911]

What I mean is primarily embodied in the "push-pull" recoil control doctrine of the old Weaver technique, or anything of the sort that says bear down so you can restrict, minimize, or "control" the recoil and muzzle rise.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by mavracer:
One thing every body extoling the benefit of lower bore axis seem to ignore Newton's third law. While a higher bore axis gives the barrel more leverage to cause muzzle rise it also gives the hand more leverage to control muzzle rise.

Lever only gives leverage to one side. It does not go both ways.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Sam1911:
What I mean is primarily embodied in the "push-pull" recoil control doctrine of the old Weaver technique, or anything of the sort that says bear down so you can restrict, minimize, or "control" the recoil and muzzle rise.

If you are saying that the "pull down" aspect of "isometric tension" in classic Cooper's Modern Technique does not work as well as the people who made it thought it would, then I agree.

Push-pull wise, I don't know of any two handed technique that does not involve some degree of push-pull mechanic, besides cup and saucer. Even Isosceles which is prevalent in competitions now involve support hand proactively used to exerting rearward pressure.

It is more wiser to use the skeletal structure of the shooting platform more to bear the recoil force than trying to muscle the gun. However, some degree of muscle tension is inevitable to hold the gun on that platform. Even Classic Weaver is not really all about muscle force, which is the reason why it places a skeletal structure of a straight arm behind the pistol, but I do not think that aspect is communicated well.

 

[Sam1911]

Rearward pressure? No. The pressure is side-to-side squeezing the grip panels of the gun. There really shouldn't be any appreciable pressure on the gun to the rear.

A push-pull situation puts unnecessary and detrimental stresses on the gun, and causes problems with accuracy.

 

[TestPilot]

Posted by Sam1911:
Rearward pressure? No. The pressure is side-to-side squeezing the grip panels of the gun. There really shouldn't be any appreciable pressure on the gun to the rear.

A push-pull situation puts unnecessary and detrimental stresses on the gun, and causes problems with accuracy.

If I tried to maintain a two handed grip using Isosceles purely by pressure on the left and right of the grip, the hands would seperate upon recoil.

In my case, intentional application of side pressure works against me.

 

[Sam1911]

Wha...? Lost me there.

I guess I'd have to see a diagram or video or something to understand your condition.

There are several great videos on line that illustrate how a Modern Iso. grip should work, without any front-rear squeeze component. (Google vids on grip by Jerry Miculek and Todd Jarrett for starters.)

But we're probably wandering into a totally different discussion now.

 

[browningguy]

So did one of you smart guys calculate bore height to determine what is high and what is low?

Obviously not, since I've seen the same 1911 listed as both by different shooters. But you guys have fun debating, I'm going to the range to shoot.

 

[Skribs]

It's all relative, browning. It's lower than some, higher than others.

 

[gym]

Similar to the CZ, CaniK and EAA, with the slide rails inside the frame, here is that pistol Sam was talking about, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOirbcsCQ1o, compared to other popular pistols. truly an amazing gun, with a 10 degree angle compared to an average of 16-17 for most others. But I saw that it was extremely expensive, if you can even get your hands on one. "strike one"

 

[Sam1911]

Hmmm...I always wondered what would happen if Mr. Rogers shot a bunch of pistols.

 

[Sam1911]

For what it's worth, I don't think the video really makes much of a case for the principle. They didn't show actual splits (i.e.: shot-to-shot) and what they did show only suggests in the broadest possible way what might happen, maybe, when using the guns in a dynamic setting.

In theory, 57 ms is longer than 46 ms, and 18 degrees is a lot higher of a rise than 10. But how much of a difference does that make to the shooter who's trying to put the next aimed shot on target? Hard to really say, for sure.

Not to side-track the thread, but some folks have handled the Strizh and said it was clunky and didn't have a good trigger and reset. That would more than overcome the angular advantages between it and some of its closer competitors, certainly.

I sure wouldn't run out and buy a SIG or HK, of course, but I don't see this quite compelling ... just yet. Gonna need to see it shot in real life, and shoot it myself under pressure before I'd jump.

 

[gym]

The new Steyer's caught my eye, just because of the aesthetics, ergo's and slide set-up, similar to the CZ. Also the way they weighted the front with the rail, it looks like a steady platform to fire quickly from. Also very inexpensive, but I have no knowledge of the actual gun other than pictures and what I read.

 

[strambo]

When times measured in tenths and hundredths of a second are critical to winning and living, the small advantage provided by lower bore axis is desirable and noticeable.

Bolded added by me.

Let's take a special operations multi-tour combat vet (who has killed in close combat with a handgun). When he gets out of the military, he hits the competition circuit. He first shoots a P226 for a couple years, then a Glock and is nationally ranked (in whatever action pistol discipline makes sense for the analogy).

He shoots a championship event with a glock and wins by 1/10th of a second. He shoots the same event with a Sig P226 and loses by 1/10th of a second. I can buy that.

He gets into a gunfight with a Glock and survives.

He gets into a gunfight with a P226 and dies...because the bore axis was too high and he just couldn't get his follow up shots off fast enough!

Utterly absurd...I can't envision that with a straight face.

If all else can truly be equal, you would pick the lower bore axis. But "all else" is different and significant. Price, quality, trigger type and action, reset, capacity, sights, ergonomics, grip size, aftermarket support and on and on.

 

[jerkface11]

I never even consider bore axis when buying a handgun. I go with what fits my hand the best in the caliber I want.

 

[twofifty]

Shouldn't that be?

I go with what shoots best in my hands, in the caliber I want.

Feeling or fitting best in the hand doesn't always equal shooting best in those same hands.

 

[mavracer]

Lever only gives leverage to one side. It does not go both ways.

Right a lever can only lift you can't lower it back down and we really need to just call it a see or a saw not a seesaw.

For what it's worth, I don't think the video really makes much of a case for the principle.

It sure doesn't show any correlation between muzzle rise and bore height, the Charachal and Glock are 18 and 20 mm bore height and both have more rise than the Witness which has a 30mm height and the Beretta with the highest bore height of 34mm has less rise than the Charachal that is the second lowest bore height on the video.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Bolded added by me.

Let's take a special operations multi-tour combat vet (who has killed in close combat with a handgun). When he gets out of the military, he hits the competition circuit. He first shoots a P226 for a couple years, then a Glock and is nationally ranked (in whatever action pistol discipline makes sense for the analogy).

Oh boy, here we go through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole. Ok, say we do “take a special operations multi-tour combat vet (who has killed in close combat with a handgun)”, there are not too many of those readily available, but I used to work with Special Operations types wearing various uniforms so I have some understanding of them. I don’t really know why anyone would think their training and experience provides any special understanding of bore axis design for pistols. There was definitely no special information about it in the syllabus for 18B students when I was at JFKSWC.

He shoots a championship event with a glock and wins by 1/10th of a second. He shoots the same event with a Sig P226 and loses by 1/10th of a second. I can buy that.

Yeah, that could happen to anyone, but really is not sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions.

He gets into a gunfight with a Glock and survives.

Good for him, he will make Gaston’s day if he convinces the naive it was all because he had a Glock.

He gets into a gunfight with a P226 and dies...because the bore axis was too high and he just couldn't get his follow up shots off fast enough!

Well, that could be the reason for losing the fight and his life, but on a list of probable reasons for losing a gun fight and dying it would be near the bottom of the list. It still is a possible reason though, no matter how improbable.

Utterly absurd...I can't envision that with a straight face.

What is “utterly absurd” is everything you wrote above this sentence to dismiss a very real factor that contributes to accurate fast firing of a pistol.

If all else can truly be equal, you would pick the lower bore axis.

This reassures me that you are not completely uncomprehending of the value of low bore axis height as factor influencing muzzle flip. Thank you for admitting you agree with me.

But "all else" is different and significant. Price, quality, trigger type and action, reset, capacity, sights, ergonomics, grip size, aftermarket support and on and on.

No, “all else” does not have to be “different and significant” if you are discussing advantages and disadvantages of low bore axis height as a design feature. It is in fact difficult to use pistols of different design to precisely and accurately demonstrate how low bore axis reduces muzzle flip. The link in post #90 is a perfect example of this difficulty. In the linked video some pistols with higher bore axis had a lower degree of muzzle flip than pistols with a lower bore axis. This should come as no surprise if for no other reason than none of these pistols weight the same, an inconsistent human being is doing shooting instead of a machine that has repeatable precision, length of barrel, center of gravity, etc. Create a test where all factors are precisely equal except bore axis height and you will demonstrate how low bore axis height reduces muzzle flip. This is rather difficult and expensive compared to making a video that does not use the scientific method but is definitely more than adequate to promote the marketing of your pistol to the naive. Fortunately a discussion is more than adequate for persons of average intelligence to understand the benefit derived from low bore axis if patience and unnecessary technical words and concepts are avoided.

Price, quality, trigger type, reset, sights, aftermarket support a factor in muzzle flip? You are making it very difficult for me to maintain a “straight face”. Bold added by me.

 

[Nom de Forum]

........It sure doesn't show any correlation between muzzle rise and bore height, the Charachal and Glock are 18 and 20 mm bore height and both have more rise than the Witness which has a 30mm height and the Beretta with the highest bore height of 34mm has less rise than the Charachal that is the second lowest bore height on the video.

It does not show an accurate correlation between muzzle rise and bore height. I don't think you understand why a pistol with higher bore height could have a lower degree of muzzle rise in this video. Read my post preceding this one and you will understand why. It does show a great sales increasing deception that will impress the naive and annoy cognoscente.

 

[TestPilot]

Right a lever can only lift you can't lower it back down and we really need to just call it a see or a saw not a seesaw.

If you think seesaw which puts objects at equal distance from the fulcrum is a lever, you really need basic physics lesson.