- time between sear release and shot away (quicker is better)
Steve Swartz[quote]
Steve,
Aren't you the person who scathingly denounced the Target Talk posters who were concerned about lock time? (I think my memory is correct, but if I'm wrong, I apologize.) Is the statement above a change of heart? Have you now "seen the light"? Inquiring minds want to know.
Fred
Grip on Morini CM162M
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Steve Swartz
Fred:
What a great point- lots to think about here! The relationship between the shot process and trigger control with lock time thrown in . . .
1) Great memory!
2) Yep, that was me.
3) Nope, haven't changed my mind.
4) IIRC (which I might not- Good Catch if I don't!) we had to assume for the Lock Time argument that you weren't "jerking the trigger" or were at least jerking the trigger very consistently . . . remember hte discussion about black powder shooters where lock time was measured with a calendar? Point was that as long as your technique was good, your training would "calibrate" to whatever lock time you had, making it irrelevant.
Now for this discussion (why the force profile of mechanical triggers make them harder to control) we actually have to assume something else; my position is that you have to have *better* grip/trigger control to account for the force imbalance with a mechanical- it's easier for an electronic. (Oh No! The "More Forgiving" Discussion Again!)
5) Assuming your technique is good (see Mike's post), lock time doesn't matter (as long as it is consistent). As he notes as well, if your grip and trigger control are perfect, you can even dampen the effects of a mechanical trigger.
However
5) If you are *not* completely damping the natural sharp force imbalance of a mechanical trigger as the sear releases, longer "dwell time" (part of, not all of, total lock time) is not your friend.
I'm pretty sure that during the last major blow-out thread on Lock Time we all agreed pretty quickly that "mental lock time," "mechanical lock time," and "dwell time" were each unique animals and had different effects on shots.
a. "Mental Lock Time" was irrelevant as long as it was consistent and you trained with the same shot process over a long period of time
b. "Mechanical Lock Time" was also irrelevant as long as a. above held, and was also consistent, and you weren't jerking the trigger- but even if you did, most match guns now have pretty fast MLTs so you wouldn't lose more than a mm or so
c. "Dwell Time" was also irrelevant as long as 1. and 2. above were true- again, assuming you are not jerking the trigger.
Today, however, we are assuming that you are jerking the trigger- the point is, it's harder to master a mechanical trigger . . . making it more likely for Us Mortals to have some "non zero amount of jerk" as the sear releases.
Obviously, it is possible to shoot lots of tens with a mechanical trigger, just as it is possible to miss a lot of tens with an electronic trigger. To keep the discussion straight, you have to compare apples-apples though.
Does this make sense, or does it sound like I'm shuffling around on you too much?
Steve Swartz
What a great point- lots to think about here! The relationship between the shot process and trigger control with lock time thrown in . . .
1) Great memory!
2) Yep, that was me.
3) Nope, haven't changed my mind.
4) IIRC (which I might not- Good Catch if I don't!) we had to assume for the Lock Time argument that you weren't "jerking the trigger" or were at least jerking the trigger very consistently . . . remember hte discussion about black powder shooters where lock time was measured with a calendar? Point was that as long as your technique was good, your training would "calibrate" to whatever lock time you had, making it irrelevant.
Now for this discussion (why the force profile of mechanical triggers make them harder to control) we actually have to assume something else; my position is that you have to have *better* grip/trigger control to account for the force imbalance with a mechanical- it's easier for an electronic. (Oh No! The "More Forgiving" Discussion Again!)
5) Assuming your technique is good (see Mike's post), lock time doesn't matter (as long as it is consistent). As he notes as well, if your grip and trigger control are perfect, you can even dampen the effects of a mechanical trigger.
However
5) If you are *not* completely damping the natural sharp force imbalance of a mechanical trigger as the sear releases, longer "dwell time" (part of, not all of, total lock time) is not your friend.
I'm pretty sure that during the last major blow-out thread on Lock Time we all agreed pretty quickly that "mental lock time," "mechanical lock time," and "dwell time" were each unique animals and had different effects on shots.
a. "Mental Lock Time" was irrelevant as long as it was consistent and you trained with the same shot process over a long period of time
b. "Mechanical Lock Time" was also irrelevant as long as a. above held, and was also consistent, and you weren't jerking the trigger- but even if you did, most match guns now have pretty fast MLTs so you wouldn't lose more than a mm or so
c. "Dwell Time" was also irrelevant as long as 1. and 2. above were true- again, assuming you are not jerking the trigger.
Today, however, we are assuming that you are jerking the trigger- the point is, it's harder to master a mechanical trigger . . . making it more likely for Us Mortals to have some "non zero amount of jerk" as the sear releases.
Obviously, it is possible to shoot lots of tens with a mechanical trigger, just as it is possible to miss a lot of tens with an electronic trigger. To keep the discussion straight, you have to compare apples-apples though.
Does this make sense, or does it sound like I'm shuffling around on you too much?
Steve Swartz
-
Steve Swartz
Fred:
"Scathing?" Me? Hope it wasn't interpreted that way . . . wasn't meant to be . . . indeed, I used to be on the faster lock time is better side of the argument myself (heck, just gives me one more reason to love electronic triggers) until some very knowledgeable people convinced me otherwise.
Steve
"Scathing?" Me? Hope it wasn't interpreted that way . . . wasn't meant to be . . . indeed, I used to be on the faster lock time is better side of the argument myself (heck, just gives me one more reason to love electronic triggers) until some very knowledgeable people convinced me otherwise.
Steve