TargetTalk

TenMetrePeter wrote:So given the box restriction and the need to maximise moment of inertia we seem to need a lightish pistol with the grip at the back and weight shifted toward the muzzle.
In fact a bit like every top end pistol out there?

Seems like so !

This is a situation where you are not allowed to 'think outside the box" .

Another solution would be to put the grip right under the muzzle (ignore how the trigger linkage would work - just for the sake of argument), so the barrel projects back over your forearm. That would similarly create a large polar moment, but it would move the CG closer to your shoulder, which would allow you to hold it up more easily.

Now the barrel weight would create a torque tipping your wrist up, instead of down. Dunno the ergonomic impact of that one.

You'd also have to think about the sights - being closer to your eye would present focus issues.

Interesting discussion! It opens up why we do things the way we do.

" so the barrel projects back over your forearm."

"...put the grip right under the muzzle (ignore how the trigger linkage would work - just for the sake of argument), so the barrel projects back over your forearm."

It's called a bullpup. After you've sorted out the trigger (electric can do that) you can decide what to do about the cylinder. Either it makes prohibited contact with the wrist / forearm, or it puts the bore axis & sights so far above the hand as to introduce a whole new set of problems. If Cesare hasn't come up with a way to do it it probably isn't worth doing, at least with the rule book currently in force.

As a reminder for you proponents of bullpup designs, don't forget Rule 8.4.1.1.a

Neither the grip nor any part of the pistol may be extended or constructed in
any way that would allow it to touch beyond the hand. The wrist must remain
visibly free when the pistol is held in the normal firing position.

Most bullpup firearms are designed to rest against the trigger arm...that would be a definite "no-go" under the ISSF rules.

The points made by J-team are difficult to ignore ["A lighter pistol is more effected by triggering errors (and yes, even the best in the world make slight errors occasionally with the trigger technique), weight has a dampening effect"].

I've owned a LP400 carbon for two and a half years. Wanted a lighter pistol because it's always easier to increase and redistribute extra weight when required. At 900g, it seemed easier to shoot well; but mistakes were severely punished. Consequently, I've added the pair of muzzle weights, wrapped 47g of thin sheet lead around the barrel (under the carbon jacket); hollowed-out the grip a wee bit and added some lead there as well. Current weight is 1030 with a full cylinder. Still not a heavy AP, and I'm not convinced it needs to be any heavier for me.

Gyroscopic stabilization!

ShootingSight wrote:Gyroscopic stabilization!

Rule 8.4.1.6
Movement or Oscillation Reduction Systems. Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes pistol oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.

Damn, David, you're just no fun!

Someone's got to (try to) keep you lot in line.

David Levene wrote:Someone's got to (try to) keep you lot in line.

You mean put a damper on creativity ?

Elmas

Elmas wrote:

David Levene wrote:Someone's got to (try to) keep you lot in line.

You mean put a damper on creativity ?

Elmas

Within the rules = Creativity

Outside the rules = Cheating

Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes pistol oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.

This is partly tongue in cheek David, but has anyone ever suggested that barrel weights could fit into that category? I it seems to be universally accepted that weights have a reducing, slowing or minimising effect on pistol movement.

deadeyedick wrote:

Any device, mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes pistol oscillations or movements before the shot is released is prohibited.

This is partly tongue in cheek David, but has anyone ever suggested that barrel weights could fit into that category? I it seems to be universally accepted that weights have a reducing, slowing or minimising effect on pistol movement.

I've never heard of it. Surely barrel weights are passive. If all else fails, what's the spirit and intent of the rule?

I think the key word is "actively". If it just sits there, it's OK.

I've actually help test a prototype gyro stabilizer for military sniper rifles. I was shooting standing, and it cut my wobble about 50%. It tended to argue with you if you had to change your aiming point, but once you settled, it was quite effective.