TargetTalk

Been thinking about this for a while.
I'll use the Morini Air Pistol as an example but others are similar.
The short version moves the rear sight approx 35mm rearwards while maintaining the sight length.
The Barrel is 50mm shorter.
In theory, the shorter barrel will offer less barrel time, in turn giving better results.
What disadvantages does moving the sights closer to the eye offer, or is this a win/win situation.
I'm guessing the rear sight will be slightly more out of focus (being closer to the eye) and the balance will move more toward the hand.
All comments appreciated.
How many Short Morinis are used in International Competition?
Cheers.

Seen a few at minor international and also a few in use in UK, long barrelled is predominant from observation at both.

I have a 2nd 162EI that I installed a short barrel but that was for centre fire training. Shooting the two, I prefer the longer barrel as AP is a single shot precision event so no recoil recovery is involved, it also provides more representative training / similarity to the free pistol, for me. also a Morini.

As advantages to your proposed configuration. Shooting glasses lens, if used, will be the same as 25m ISSF events as overall pistol length is likely to be nearer your 25m guns than say a free pistol. The feel and balance will be more akin to 25m events as well. One friends specifically purchased a shorter barrelled version for this purpose. I lent him my spare longer 162EI but it was counter productive for his purpose.

I guess balance, optics and cross training are also a factor in the decision as well as the overall length. This assumes the sight radius remains constant as per your introduction.

Interesting things happen when the rear sight is moved further back on an air pistol. When the sight is at about (or slightly ahead of) the wrist pivot point and you flex your wrist, the rear sight appears relatively stationary or moves slightly in the same direction as the front sight (left or right) as the pistol moves.
But when the rear sight blade is actually to the rear of the wrist pivot point and your wrist flexes, the front sight moves in one direction and the rear moves in the opposite direction!
The result is that any apparent sight misalignment is exaggerated. That either prompts a correction or increases apprehension.
On sight radius and barrel length, quicker exit of the pellet (short barrel) is helpful, assuming no difference in barrel accuracy. The shorter sight radius does NOT automatically translate into less sighting accuracy -- in fact, if the front sight width/rear notch are set up properly for the shooter, the same accuracy is possible. (There's a test to do this -- e-mail me at nagelrk@netbistro.com for details).
It all comes down to weight and balance preference. A shorter barrel and shorter sight radius is no handicap.
So why do air pistols mostly have long barrels/long sight radius? A few guesses: (1)They started out that way when the first springers became competition guns; (2)Air pistol is viewed by many as a sort of 'indoor free pistol' event and (3) A longer sight radius DOES make sight alignment errors more apparent.

Thanks for the comments. Just to clarify, I'm talking maintaining the same sight length. Just moving it further to the rear.
Roy's point about the position relative to the pivot point of the wrist is interesting.

How is a shorter barrel "helpful?" If it's faster lock time, we've had the discussion on "Total Lock Time" several times over the last couple of years in this group . . .

While "Shorter Sight Radius" could plausibly be helpful for a variety of reasons, how does a shorter barrel affect your shot process?

Steve Swartz

I added the extension to my long barrel morini a few weeks ago. Yes there is more front sight movement. I added a little extra weight to the end of the cylinder and it quieted down.

Hi Steve -- good questions, so some thoughts: First, a shorter air pistol barrel can be just as accurate (maybe more so) as a long barrel, and a target pellet can approach 500 fps from a barrel as short as six inches (155mm). Both points can be proven, so short and long barrels are equal from that perspective.
Now, let's assume airgun makers use the same firing mechanism in short and long-barrelled versions of the same gun -- FAS AP609, Benelli, FWB P34, Pardini, etc. All of those airguns have long-barrel versions in the 240-250mm range, and shorter versions with barrels between 185 and 200 mm.
The only difference is barrel length -- all are accurate, all get the pellet up to target velocity, all have the same "lock time."
The only difference is that long barrels are 25% longer than short barrels.
Question: because none of us can hold perfectly still, and because pellets travel down the barrel at relatively low velocity compared to firearms, does a barrel that's 25% longer increase the 'waterhose effect' to a degree that will change a 10 to a 9?
Think camera shutter speeds and blurred pictures -- in a long-barreled airgun, the pellet accelerates and exits the barrel in, say, 1/600th of a second, while the pellet from the shorter-barreled gun clears the muzzle a few hundredths of a second quicker.
Could it make a difference? Maybe that's why the newest generation of match air rifles have only about half of their barrel length rifled -- the rest is a hollow tube to hold the front sight.

Roy:

Hmm. O.K., let's walk through it. Total Lock Time (TLT) measured from when brain says "squeeze" to when pellet exits muzzle. Why is shorter better?

Pause to reflect a moment- if you have proper technique (and this is a big IF for many folks, I know), as long as TLT is **consistent** is shorter better?

Yes, I agree that a TLT of say 400 ms is a little bit of a struggle . . . but why is a TLT of 80 ms "better" than a TLT of 120 ms?

Again, you have to really think about what "proper technique" really means- and maybe how my definition might be totally different from yours (and then again, maybe not).

1) Achieve Perfect Alignment
2) Accept your minimum wobble
3) Let 'er rip (your subconscious times the release)

If that description of "proper technique" is accurate, then your mind can handle a 200 ms TLT just as easily as a 50 ms TLT.

How do those blackpowder guys do it?

Steve Swartz

God only knows but to some it makes a huge difference. Where I come from the "dwell" time (time after firing and before the bullet leaves the muzzle) is pretty important. I would also hazzard that it's a good reason for a bloop tube on rifles...longest allowable sight radius with the least amount of time in the barrel.

Steve Swartz wrote:Roy:

Hmm. O.K., let's walk through it. Total Lock Time (TLT) measured from when brain says "squeeze" to when pellet exits muzzle. Why is shorter better?

Pause to reflect a moment- if you have proper technique (and this is a big IF for many folks, I know), as long as TLT is **consistent** is shorter better?

Yes, I agree that a TLT of say 400 ms is a little bit of a struggle . . . but why is a TLT of 80 ms "better" than a TLT of 120 ms?

Again, you have to really think about what "proper technique" really means- and maybe how my definition might be totally different from yours (and then again, maybe not).

1) Achieve Perfect Alignment
2) Accept your minimum wobble
3) Let 'er rip (your subconscious times the release)

If that description of "proper technique" is accurate, then your mind can handle a 200 ms TLT just as easily as a 50 ms TLT.

How do those blackpowder guys do it?

Steve Swartz

"Dwell Time"?

Can you calculate the time the bullet/pellet is in the barrel? This factor is probably the least significant of all the factors.

If you can hold a firearm without falling over, sight alignment and trigger control are all you need to be concerned with. Master those and you got it whipped.

Barrel lengths are generally a matter of individual preference for balance.

Carry on!

OK,
Looks like the long/short barrel length has been talked over plenty before.
But what about moving the whole sight arrangement closer to the eye.
How about some disscussion on that.
2 points I can see.
More out of focus rear sight (more of a detriment for vertical stringing)
As Roy mentioned, relationship of rear sight to pivot point of wrist.

Certainly you can and certainly it makes a difference. I mean this is basic stuff. the reason for followthough is in part that after pulling the trigger and before the bullet or pellets moves out of the barrel, you an impart error.
sight alinment and trigger control are barely half the issue.
What about sight picture? what about follow through?

So yes I have great sight alingment and trigger control but I can't hold a sight picture and every time I squeeze the trigger I do well but my follow though doesn't exist? Yeah I'll comepete against a person any day like that - it's an easy win.

If follow through (via dwell time) were not an issue, then certainly lock time would be of no concern either...but oddly the shortest lock time, which gets you ramping for your dwell time makes a difference to many.

TomF wrote:"Dwell Time"?

Can you calculate the time the bullet/pellet is in the barrel? This factor is probably the least significant of all the factors.

If you can hold a firearm without falling over, sight alignment and trigger control are all you need to be concerned with. Master those and you got it whipped.

Barrel lengths are generally a matter of individual preference for balance.

Carry on!

cqarms, you have fallen for the old myth of follow through.

Follow through is encouraged so that you will concentrate enough to get the sights aligned(on target of course, why would you align them anywhere else) and the trigger pulled properly. The shot is out the barrel before the gun even moves. If you move off the point of aim or flinch it is done before or during your pulling the trigger. Movement AFTER you pull the trigger is not going to change the point of impact, with the exception of a few muzzel loaders. Dwell is so insignificant that it is widely ignored.

This has been discussed over and over and proven, but there is so much myth and mystery involved in firearms and perpetuated because most folks are too lazy or dont know how to do the physics involved to disprove the myth.

Like I said, if you can hold a firearm without falling over, sight alignment and trigger control are all you need to be concerned with.

Carry on!

So you say but I know it to be different. And yet again sight alignment without a good sight picture is useless. I can hold very good sight alignment, it's mating that sight alignment to a target and maintaining a good sight picture that's the hard part.

Fortunately I understand very well the "physics" involved, and in fact have the equipment to test it at short ranges and far, with airguns to destructive devices and you are sadly incorrect.
So until you have proof testing that says that it is, I would say go back to square one and remember sight alingment without a good sight picture is really nothing.

TomF wrote:cqarms, you have fallen for the old myth of follow through.

Follow through is encouraged so that you will concentrate enough to get the sights aligned(on target of course, why would you align them anywhere else) and the trigger pulled properly. The shot is out the barrel before the gun even moves. If you move off the point of aim or flinch it is done before or during your pulling the trigger. Movement AFTER you pull the trigger is not going to change the point of impact, with the exception of a few muzzel loaders. Dwell is so insignificant that it is widely ignored.

This has been discussed over and over and proven, but there is so much myth and mystery involved in firearms and perpetuated because most folks are too lazy or dont know how to do the physics involved to disprove the myth.

Like I said, if you can hold a firearm without falling over, sight alignment and trigger control are all you need to be concerned with.

Carry on!

cqbarms wrote:So you say but I know it to be different. And yet again sight alignment without a good sight picture is useless. I can hold very good sight alignment, it's mating that sight alignment to a target and maintaining a good sight picture that's the hard part.

IMHO sight alignment is way more important than what I understand "sight picture" to be i.e where the aligned sights are placed in relation to the target.

If the aligned sights were to be displaced by, for example, 2mm the error on the target would be much less than if the sight alignment was out by that same 2mm.

The principle of area aiming is that the sight picture can move, but the sight alignment shouldn't.

Again, depends on what you know. It's really a relationship of distances and planes.

If you are meaning that there is a 2mm difference in sight picture (realtionship of of sight to target) perceived from the shooters view, of the sight being low or high by 2mm viewed at say the front sight, that' is absolutely substantial!

If you are saying that in reality the sight picture is 2mm different high, low left, right, at the target (as a net effect of the difference in sight picture however that may be perceived by the shooter ) again...2mm is a LOT, it's the difference between a 10.x and a 10.x -2mm, a 10 and a 9, a 9 and an 8. Take a look at a scoring guage for finals...is 2mm at the target a lot? I would say so.

David Levene wrote:

cqbarms wrote:So you say but I know it to be different. And yet again sight alignment without a good sight picture is useless. I can hold very good sight alignment, it's mating that sight alignment to a target and maintaining a good sight picture that's the hard part.

IMHO sight alignment is way more important than what I understand "sight picture" to be i.e where the aligned sights are placed in relation to the target.

If the aligned sights were to be displaced by, for example, 2mm the error on the target would be much less than if the sight alignment was out by that same 2mm.

The principle of area aiming is that the sight picture can move, but the sight alignment shouldn't.

I guess I should have said sight alignment AND sight picture. But why would you align your sights on anything but your target???

Anyway, I'm done. Reality loses again.

Carry on!

1. If you were correct in your "reality" once a trigger is squeezed you could drop the gun right out of your hand, the pellet, bullet, or what have you would still hit where you aimed. There would not be enough time after the trigger was squeezed and the projectile left the barrel for anything to change where that projectile was going to impact. That I find incredible!

2. There are plenty of people that align on non targets as part of training - blank walls, at basically nothing, just to build muscle memory - being able to stand an align your sights and squeeze a trigger doesn't make for a world class shooter or even a good shooter, necessarily.
The REAL pressure in shooting is bringing the sights onto the target, being able to hold or time your sight picture and the movement and the shot, doing that well and then being able to do it x number of times equally as well. I have FANTASTIC sight alignment...it's getting it on the target (sight picture) and being able to get the shot right -that's the tricky part.
Even more so you have to be able to do those things in an environment where it counts. Being the gold medallist of a personal basement range, although important in the whole cycle of shooting, is not the same as shooting shoulder to shoulder. Again a person that stands and can control the trigger and sight alignment won't fully have a chance.

Lastly look at how the mfg's build airguns to remove recoil...are you saying these anti-recoil systems are useless because only what happens before and during the trigger squeeze that matters? That once the trigger is "down", nothing during the projectiles time in the barrel can change where it impacts at the target? Oddly the recoil of an airgun, although very minute, still seems to be an area of focus for mfg's. Even more oddly the anti recoil systems don't even come into play until AFTER the "hammer is down"...If your reality is right, why should it matter? I assert that as one becomes more refined in their shooting ability, they have the ability to more precisely “impact” the point of impact of a shot with their natural skill after the trigger is down and before the bullet leaves the barrel.

I know from the systems we build and tests we do the devil is in the recoil and only a "system" that can compensate for it (shooter using follow through- or a highly complex recoil system) will be an accurate or at least repeatable one. Unfortunately that is my reality and the reality of the nature of a physical system...where acceleration, torque, released gas at high pressure, etc and so on come into play.

TomF wrote:I guess I should have said sight alignment AND sight picture. But why would you align your sights on anything but your target???

Anyway, I'm done. Reality loses again.

Carry on!

cqbarms wrote:If you are meaning that there is a 2mm difference in sight picture (realtionship of of sight to target) perceived from the shooters view, of the sight being low or high by 2mm viewed at say the front sight, that' is absolutely substantial!

If you are saying that in reality the sight picture is 2mm different high, low left, right, at the target (as a net effect of the difference in sight picture however that may be perceived by the shooter ) again...2mm is a LOT, it's the difference between a 10.x and a 10.x -2mm, a 10 and a 9, a 9 and an 8. Take a look at a scoring guage for finals...is 2mm at the target a lot? I would say so.

If the sights are perfectly aligned with each other but offset by 2mm then the shot will miss the centre of the target by 2mm.

If the there is a mis-alignment of the sights of 2mm then the shot will miss the centre of the target by 50-60mm (assuming 10m Air Pistol).

Think two kinds of sighting error -- parallel and angular.
Parallel sighting error occurs when the sights remain accurately aligned front to rear, but the gun drifts so it points to the outer part of the aiming area -- the sight picture has deteriorated. A 5mm drift in the sight picture = 5mm away from target centre -- a 9 or an 8.
Angular sighting error occurs when the front blade is not precisely in the centre of the rear notch, although the sight picture remains perfect (gun pointed correctly at the target).
A 1mm angular sighting error (sight misalignment) on an airgun with a 350mm sight radius translates into this:
1mm X 2.9 (multiplier of the sight radius to a metre) X 10 metres = a 29mm displacement of the shot on the target! Not a 10 but a 6!
Now, the tough part -- one of the biggest causes of angular sight error is jerking the trigger or pushing the gun on trigger release. And one of the factors in that is uncertainty over sight alignment AND sight picture -- often caused by the shooter using a pistol with a long sight radius (and maybe muzzle-heavy).
With some new shooters in our group, we've used a small hose clamp to reduce a sight radius from 350mm to 150mm, and guess what? They got the shot away easier, with less drift, less push or tug on the trigger, and tighter groups on the target.
Is it for everyone? No. but some shooters benefit from both a shorter sight radius and shorter barrel on air pistols -- that's why they're made.
My point in this and previous posts is that shooters shouldn't feel handicapped because they are more comfortable shooting a shorter gun -- properly set up (sights, pellet, velocity and fit/balance) it will deliver just as many centre 10s.