Lock Time, Glock vs 1911, Spring/Firing Pin effects, Gun type comparisons

[Nom de Forum]

Seems you disprove your own assertions.

Really? Please specifically identify where I have written something where I have disproved my own assertions.

It's a handgun that has limited range, if it cannot capitalize on that strong point it's akin to putting a dragster on the Tail of the Dragon.

This is just wrong and silly. Pistol competitors every day capitalize on the small amount of increased accuracy faster lock times provide. How much they capitalize on lock time depends on what they are shooting. I think I have now provided more than enough evidence of the benefit of faster lock time. Your last post has me wondering if you are just trolling me now.

 

[tuj]

ok let me ask this, if the difference between hammer-fired and striker-fired lock-time was significant, how come none of the Olympic target pistols used in rapid fire competition are striker-fired? I'm thinking FWB AW93, Pardini SP, Walther GSP, IZH-35M. All of these pistols have an enclosed hammer.

I will grant you that Olympic free pistols are essentially very short bolt action single shot rifles, so their mechanism I believe is even faster than a striker-fired gun.

 

[Nom de Forum]

ok let me ask this, if the difference between hammer-fired and striker-fired lock-time was significant, how come none of the Olympic target pistols used in rapid fire competition are striker-fired? I'm thinking FWB AW93, Pardini SP, Walther GSP, IZH-35M. All of these pistols have an enclosed hammer.

I will grant you that Olympic free pistols are essentially very short bolt action single shot rifles, so their mechanism I believe is even faster than a striker-fired gun.

I do not know the answer to your question about "Olympic target pistols used in rapid fire competition" and would like to know myself. I suspect other design factors for these types of pistols supersede having the faster lock time of a striker system delivering the same amount of energy. If you find a definitive answer before me please post it to the thread with references.

If an Olympic free pistol is as you say "essentially (a) very short bolt action single shot rifle" and does not have a hammer, it is a striker fired gun.

 

[chuckpro]

Weevil

Yes i am aware of that the BATF considers the Glock as a DAO and the BATF is never wrong.:banghead: The hk LEM is also considered a DAO(but is pre-set) and the Sig DAK is DAO but sig also makes a DAO version. All of the above mentioned actions have completely different trigger feel but are DAO and it is a personal preference as to what a shooter prefers. I personally prefer the LEM but i know people that hate it.

I do agree with you that the Glock trigger is not a precision trigger. And to the rest of the thread, Lock time has little to do with handgun accuracy. It can makes a difference in precision riffle shooting.

 

[Nom de Forum]

......... I do agree with you that the Glock trigger is not a precision trigger. And to the rest of the thread, Lock time has little to do with handgun accuracy. It can makes a difference in precision riffle shooting.

I agree about the Glock trigger.

How much lock time has to do with handgun accuracy for shooting at the most demanding of targets I do not know. It is certainly only a "little" consideration but factors into the decisions made by people designing pistols for the greatest accuracy that is practical.

 

[Weevil]

Well the reason we have all these kinda sorta DAOs is that a lot of LEAs require their officers to carry a gun classified as a DAO.

There's no real reason to only partially cock the mainspring, other than to get the pistol classified as a DAO. Yeah, yeah it supposedly won't set off the primer in theory, but that's the firing-pin block's job anyway.

But then again you see a lot of LEO's carrying Glocks and M&Ps, DAK, LEMs.....etc, and almost none carrying XDs, even though the Glock and XD are virtually identical except for the cocking of the mainspring, and of course their classification by the BATF.

 

[chuckpro]

Weevil

Yes you are correct, it does require two actions to fire. I just think there is a difference between a true DAO and a Pre-set fire mechanism. Something that a lot of people don't understand. You obviously understand the difference and i apologize for trying to correct you. Sorry for the confusion.

Chuck

 

[chuckpro]

Well the reason we have all these kinda sorta DAOs is that a lot of LEAs require their officers to carry a gun classified as a DAO.

There's no real reason to only partially cock the mainspring, other than to get the pistol classified as a DAO. Yeah, yeah it supposedly won't set off the primer in theory, but that's the firing-pin block's job anyway.

But then again you see a lot of LEO's carrying Glocks and M&Ps, DAK, LEMs.....etc, and almost none carrying XDs, even though the Glock and XD are virtually identical except for the cocking of the mainspring, and of course their classification by the BATF.

Could not agree more.

 

[benzy2]

As for the DAO issue, isnt a 1911 with a positive engagement sear/hammer interaction in reality a DAO trigger? The trigger is slightly cocking the hammer, but it is cocking it by definition.

I would argue that lock time doesn't have an impact on accuracy but not as is commonly argued.

I know a few high power shooters who only shoot from one direction of the natural wobble. They have adjusted their sights to match their wobble rate and lock time. When they see a 10x from their direction of choice they break the shot, while the barrel hasn't quite caught up to the sight picture. If you sight in to a perfect true windage, a perfect sight picture will never break a perfect shot as the wobble is always there. True windage zero does allow approach from either side of the target with less error if you aren't sure which side you are coming in from. It doesn't seem one sighting method is necessarily better than another, just dependent on the situation and what your requirements happen to be.

A longer lock time makes things potentially worse but if you know what you've got you can adjust to it in certain situations. I'd rather shorter lock time than longer, but its a ways down the list of important traits. Lock time differences, especially for handguns, seem to either be too minimal to matter or can directly be adjusted for in the situations their differences do hold value.

 

[Nom de Forum]

benzy2 wrote

As for the DAO issue, isnt a 1911 with a positive engagement sear/hammer interaction in reality a DAO trigger? The trigger is slightly cocking the hammer, but it is cocking it by definition.

No. No it is not by any traditional or accepted definition.

I would argue that lock time doesn't have an impact on accuracy but not as is commonly argued.

I know a few high power shooters who only shoot from one direction of the natural wobble. They have adjusted their sights to match their wobble rate and lock time. When they see a 10x from their direction of choice they break the shot, while the barrel hasn't quite caught up to the sight picture. If you sight in to a perfect true windage, a perfect sight picture will never break a perfect shot as the wobble is always there. True windage zero does allow approach from either side of the target with less error if you aren't sure which side you are coming in from. It doesn't seem one sighting method is necessarily better than another, just dependent on the situation and what your requirements happen to be.

A longer lock time makes things potentially worse but if you know what you've got you can adjust to it in certain situations. I'd rather shorter lock time than longer, but its a ways down the list of important traits. Lock time differences, especially for handguns, seem to either be too minimal to matter or can directly be adjusted for in the situations their differences do hold value.

Sorry I must strongly disagree. There is no way a person can make adjustments to their shooting stance or sights that would compensate for lock time. Lock time is too short in duration for compensation by human actions or reactions. Your sights can not be adjusted to compensate if for no other reason than whatever direction movement occurs during the microseconds of locktime can no be predicted.

chuckpro wrote

And to the rest of the thread, Lock time has little to do with handgun accuracy. It can makes a difference in precision riffle shooting.

After just a minimal amount of research on Olympic pistol shooting lock time is a consideration for handgun accuracy. The Free Pistols are striker fired and the reason is better accuracy in part because of faster lock time.

tuj wrote

ok let me ask this, if the difference between hammer-fired and striker-fired lock-time was significant, how come none of the Olympic target pistols used in rapid fire competition are striker-fired? I'm thinking FWB AW93, Pardini SP, Walther GSP, IZH-35M. All of these pistols have an enclosed hammer.

The Walther SSP is striker fired and the Walther SSP-E has a trigger that releases the sear electronically.

tuj wrote

I will grant you that Olympic free pistols are essentially very short bolt action single shot rifles, so their mechanism I believe is even faster than a striker-fired gun.

The Free Pistols I have looked at so far appear to be all striker fired. Since these pistols are used for the most accuracy demanding discipline lock time is certainly a concern.

 

[MrBorland]

The Free Pistols I have looked at so far appear to be all striker fired. Since these pistols are used for the most accuracy demanding discipline lock time is certainly a concern.

It could be more an issue of low bore axis than lock time. True target pistols (e.g. Free pistols) have low bore axes, yet, by design, a hammer tends to raise the bore axis, so it's not surprising a Free pistol would eschew the hammer.

The other disadvantage a hammer would have in these pistols is that the relatively heavy hammer would jar the muzzle more upon hammer strike.

The use of a striker in these pistols may enhance accuracy by lowering lock time, but my bet is that this effect is secondary.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It could be more an issue of low bore axis than lock time. True target pistols (e.g. Free pistols) have low bore axes, yet, by design, a hammer tends to raise the bore axis, so it's not surprising a Free pistol would eschew the hammer.

The other disadvantage a hammer would have in these pistols is that the relatively heavy hammer would jar the muzzle more upon hammer strike.

The use of a striker in these pistols may enhance accuracy by lowering lock time, but my bet is that this effect is secondary.

I agree that a hammer would have a jarring effect. I am not sure the low bore axis necessitates a striker. When looking at the angular design of these pistols the area behind the breech appears to have the room for using a hammer and still have the low bore axis. You are probably right that reduced lock time is a secondary effect but I suspect that even when designing to use strikers designers attempt to create the fastest lock time possible because accuracy is the sum of many different small details. The fact that the Walther SSP Rapid Fire pistol has a striker and can be electronically activated is a strong indication lock time is a consideration in design for even less accurate pistols than the Free Pistols.

 

[MrBorland]

I am not sure the low bore axis necessitates a striker.

I don't know that it necessitates a striker, but it helps. From: http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/remington-r51-hammer-advantages.html:

"The major advantage of striker fired pistols has always been the low bore axis; it’s easier to design a gun that sits lower in the hand if you don’t need the vertical space for a hammer to operate."

I agree that a hammer would have a jarring effect.

I've been a fan of radically-bobbed light hammers. On my revolver, it lets me tune the weight down without loss of reliability. Because the lower hammer mass is offset by lower spring tension, lock time is likely not much different. Nonetheless, up until I shot the barrel out, the gun was a serious tack driver, and the absence of muzzle jar can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmy5mkjpUNI

 

[Nom de Forum]

I don't know that it necessitates a striker, but it helps. From: http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_files/remington-r51-hammer-advantages.html:

"The major advantage of striker fired pistols has always been the low bore axis; it’s easier to design a gun that sits lower in the hand if you don’t need the vertical space for a hammer to operate."



I've been a fan of radically-bobbed light hammers. On my revolver, it lets me tune the weight down without loss of reliability. Because the lower hammer mass is offset by lower spring tension, lock time is likely not much different. Nonetheless, up until I shot the barrel out, the gun was a serious tack driver, and the absence of muzzle jar can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmy5mkjpUNI

That is an impressive video. How reliable is the primer ignition on that revolver? I have seen revolvers, especially Pythons, that when made so light and smooth they occasionally fail to detonate the primer. Would you trust that revolver to consistently fire in adverse conditions?

The Grant Cunningham article is interesting but I suspect the R51 was built with a hammer because the original design had a hammer, not because of any perceived advantage over a striker. The concerns about recoil spring weight and wear IMO may be technically correct but unlikely in a properly maintained pistol. The same argument could be made that the hammer spring in combination with the recoil spring could short cycle the slide preventing ejection, another unlikely event in a properly maintained pistol. In either case I would rather have to bump the slide closed to fire than have a casing jammed in the ejection port. Again both are unlikely events due to spring tension effects of strikers or hammers.

I will continue to research the technology, especially in regard to Olympic quality semiautomatics, and post what I find.

 

[MrBorland]

How reliable is the primer ignition on that revolver? I have seen revolvers, especially Pythons, that when made so light and smooth they occasionally fail to detonate the primer. Would you trust that revolver to consistently fire in adverse conditions?

It's tuned down to a 7.5lb trigger pull, which is relatively conservative for a de rigueur match revolver. At any rate, it's very reliable, and has shot everything I've fed it, including CCI-primed ammo. It's dead nuts reliable enough that I feel comfortable carrying it in cold weather.

One caveat about light hammers is that with less momentum comes less resistance to internal friction, so überlight hammers work best when everything else inside the gun is in spec, straight and true. I suppose an überlight hammer could be more susceptible to adverse conditions if those conditions included getting a lot of gritty crud inside the action, but that's not yet shown itself to be an issue to me.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It's tuned down to a 7.5lb trigger pull, which is relatively conservative for a de rigueur match revolver. At any rate, it's very reliable, and has shot everything I've fed it, including CCI-primed ammo.

Funny, because when I shot PPC with a S&W K-frame (yes, that one), that would have been Federal primer only territory. The fact that it will pop CCI primers is huge

I still remember the awe that overcame me the first time I rolled back a trigger of Randy Lee's 627 with it's 6lb trigger...that was a Federal primer only gun

 

[Nom de Forum]

I had an interesting conversation with a Pardini representative. While strictly not related to lock time, it does relate to getting the bullet out of the barrel faster. He told me they determined that in short pistol barrels having the firing pin strike at the 12 o'clock position gave faster ignition of the powder than the previously used 6 o'clock strike position. Just another minor detail in the accuracy equation. More later on that conversation.

 

[benzy2]

No. No it is not by any traditional or accepted definition

Does the hammer cock back on a positive engagement 1911? Two actions, one pull. Call it what you want but its two actions the same as a glock.

Sorry I must strongly disagree. There is no way a person can make adjustments to their shooting stance or sights that would compensate for lock time. Lock time is too short in duration for compensation by human actions or reactions. Your sights can not be adjusted to compensate if for no other reason than whatever direction movement occurs during the microseconds of locktime can no be predicted.

The fact you can't tell a difference doesn't mean it doesn't appear to top tier shooters.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Does the hammer cock back on a positive engagement 1911? Two actions, one pull. Call it what you want but its two actions the same as a glock.

But a correctly tuned sear/hammer engagement doesn't level/push the hammer back...much as a correctly tuned revolver doesn't when manually cocked to single action...it just slides off and releases.

DA has long been defined as lifting a hammer from rest, levering it to the rear and releasing it...that is cocking and releasing it

 

[Nom de Forum]

Does the hammer cock back on a positive engagement 1911? Two actions, one pull. Call it what you want but its two actions the same as a glock.

Have you ever done a trigger job on a 1911? I used to do them on 1911 National Match pistols. It is not "two actions, one pull".

The fact you can't tell a difference doesn't mean it doesn't appear to top tier shooters

It has nothing to do with my abilities. It has to do with the fact you don't know any shooters from the planet Krypton. It is not humanly possible to make a physical action or reaction during the duration of lock time to compensate for any sight movement. Human reaction is measured in hundredths of a second, lock time is measured in thousandths of a second.

 

[tuj]

The major advantage of striker fired pistols has always been the low bore axis; it’s easier to design a gun that sits lower in the hand if you don’t need the vertical space for a hammer to operate.

This isn't always true. Look at the IZH-35M. It has one of the lowest bore axis of any pistol I can think of. One of the reasons for this is that the hammer swings *down* from the top.

 

[Nom de Forum]

This isn't always true. Look at the IZH-35M. It has one of the lowest bore axis of any pistol I can think of. One of the reasons for this is that the hammer swings *down* from the top.

A very clever design choice but is the bore axis lower than the striker fired Walther SSP?

 

[tuj]

A very clever design choice but is the bore axis lower than the striker fired Walther SSP?

Honestly, I'd say the IZH-35M is a little lower in axis. The SSP and the Pardini SP have about the same axis as they both use highly canted grips while the IZH-35M is a little more upright, making it hard to compare. In any case, the barrel is of minimum height above the trigger on the IZH-35M, compared to the other two guns. No one publishes an official 'bore-axis height' for their pistol that I know of.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Thanks for the great photos! They are all very low, but after looking at your photos and some others online I think you are right about the IZH-35M having the lowest bore axis. It is very interesting how the designers create such a low bore axis. I have not seen any published bore axis heights either.

 

[tuj]

No worries. I find it interesting that Walther moved to a striker-fired system as they feel it imparts no rotational inertia to the gun, according to the literature on their site. That said, there are an awful lot of ISSF/Olympic shooters that are shooting the Pardini, or the Russians that still use the IZH-35M (MP-438 is the 'updated' version).

The izzy was my first real target pistol. I love it to death but it has many flaws. The Pardini SP I shoot now is so much better. I have never shot a Walther SSP (or even seen one, no one in our club has one), but I have shot a GSP-Expert and was less than impressed; just didn't feel right to me.

Anyway, in conclusion, I think we can say that all of the free-pistols used in ISSF/Olympics are striker fired. This is almost certainly because of lock-time. Here is a great diagram of the fairly unique mechanism of the Matchguns MG5 free pistol.

http://youtu.be/9faasFZEOiA

Now that being said, unless you are an Olympic shooter with that level of equipment and ammo, I don't think lock-time difference between hammers and strikers matter that much. You'll notice that at 50m with lots of time, the free pistol with striker is the design all the manufacturers have converged on, while in the rapid fire event at 25m, there is still a lot of innovation taking place in the guns. For example, the MG2 is quite unique.