XRe Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) Part 3... http://re-gun.com/20...-calling-shots/ Hopefully, this is all making sense, so far Edited February 19, 2012 by XRe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyshoots Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Good stuff! Thank you for putting in the time an energy to have all of the articles make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Good stuff! Thank you for putting in the time an energy to have all of the articles make sense. Cool, glad they're making sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvary45 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Part 3... http://re-gun.com/20...-calling-shots/ Hopefully, this is all making sense, so far Been waiting so patiently for this, here I go :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dravz Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Cool, glad they're making sense They most definitely are. I enjoy learning the science behind the shooting, so thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 4th installment is up http://re-gun.com/2012/02/flatlining-your-gun/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Part 5 is up http://re-gun.com/2012/02/open-flatter/ At least one more to go (hopefully only one!) - I need to get some more time to write, though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyGlock Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Very good read, thanks. Am i correct to understand here that the skill of calling the shot is an inate ability, not an acquired skill? No matter how one practices, the deciding factor is his eyes' ability or absence of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basman Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I'm coming a bit late to the party, but i have read the first two installments. great stuff! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Am i correct to understand here that the skill of calling the shot is an inate ability, not an acquired skill? No matter how one practices, the deciding factor is his eyes' ability or absence of it? Not at all - the innate ability is the way the eye itself works, but there's a lot of "attention skills" that need to be acquired in order to accurately call shots. Generally speaking, we don't know how to use the information our eyes are providing us when we start into shooting, and we need to learn how to do that as early as possible. Calling shots is more than just having working eyes What I'm getting into with these articles is that there's one factor about how the eyes see that we really can't change, and that because of that fact we don't really see what we think we see from behind the gun. And, there are some things we can do to our setup and load choices that help the eyes tell us a more accurate story... But we still have to learn what do do with that info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Good stuff, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoubleA Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Is this one of the reasons for the general consensus on using a heavy bullet besides just felt recoil? More time in the barrel so that everything adds up to give you more opportunities to catch the "frame" you need to call the shot. This was some great reading btw. Edited March 16, 2012 by DoubleA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 Is this one of the reasons for the general consensus on using a heavy bullet besides just felt recoil? More time in the barrel so that everything adds up to give you more opportunities to catch the "frame" you need to call the shot. Mostly, that consensus comes from reduced felt recoil - which is caused by sthe lower energy in the system that you get with a heavy bullet. There are some other posts on the forum (I'm having trouble finding them, right now) that discuss it at greater length, but basically the powder gasses and ejecta make up a significant fraction of the recoil energy involved when you shoot the gun. Moving to a heavier bullet allows you to use less powder (and sometimes move to a faster burning powder, too, which translates to even less powder still). That actually cuts back quite a bit on energy. Plus, a heavier bullet moving slower tends to have less energy than the lighter, faster bullet - so that's also less recoil energy. But, a heavier/slower bullet definitely changes the timing of the whole system. With less energy involved, the whole process accelerates less quickly. But it still happens very, very quickly. It might give us a bit more time to see it happen, but I kind of doubt it's that significant a change in time - maybe, but...??? This was some great reading btw. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvb Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 But, a heavier/slower bullet definitely changes the timing of the whole system. With less energy involved, the whole process accelerates less quickly. But it still happens very, very quickly. It might give us a bit more time to see it happen, but I kind of doubt it's that significant a change in time - maybe, but...??? Great work, Dave. What you state above is why I always say I like heavier bullets. Not because they are "flatter" or "kick less," but I feel I can call my shots better with them.... it seems as if the initial lifting of the front sight out of the notch happens just a bit slower. (with the added benefit of doing a better job knocking down steel.) I think it's all related. lower initial slide accelleration resulting in lower slide speed, less impact at the end of travel, and less force torqueing the muzzle up... -rvb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Unnatural Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Hi Dave I'm struggling to make sense of this all. To me your article series implies recoil behavior of the gun is subservient to the ability of calling shots. Before reading your articles I thought finding the best load was first a matter of the best perceived recoil with an acceptable precision. To reach this I would test different powders, bullet weights and different springs. Now I think the above process of testing different powders, bullets and springs is not to find the best perceived recoil but to find a load which helps me to call my shots best. The above is starting to make sense to me. Somewhere in this thread you discuss heavier bullets with less powder. This is were I lose your argumentation, isn't it a heavier bullet with a slower powder, like the N105 in Bob's loads you were shooting? I like a fast powder with a heavy bullet for the felt recoil off it, but I will be testing it with a faster powder soon. During testing I will not 'feel' but 'see' to evaluate the loads. Regards, Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Those are very good writings by Dave. The parts about rounding the FP stop is great; Matt Cheely did a long thread on that topic once. It's driven me crazy for year reading some inaccurate ideas about how a gun jumps up, what you see, how your body puts the gun back on target, and what you saw. I have noticed several people at matches over the year who blink on every single shot.(Not lately, just starting to practice again.) May not as bad as what you see on some well-known TV shows but guys blinking and still making it to A class or higher. Some stuff I posted in another thread. I think the 2-3 degree sharp vision area has a little or a lot to do with people saying they can track sights well or their dot "doesn't leave the glass, ever" etc: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=147285 Been said before but Max and Todd in the midst of racking up their many Open Nationals trophies were using IMR 7625, known for being very quiet, very soft, very flippy (and for beating the hell out of your brass). Bob isn't the only great gunsmith who prefers Super over Supercomp, so did Dave Dawson. Also, the posts about HS6 (aka Winchester 540) powder are good. It's very consistent in jump, recoil, noise, velocity, and all that. Compared to a lot of other Open powders, HS6 lets you just pull the trigger, wait a short spell, pull trigger again. No other effort required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Hi Dave I'm struggling to make sense of this all. No worries - it's confusing stuff To me your article series implies recoil behavior of the gun is subservient to the ability of calling shots. What I'm really saying is that your ability to accurately call shots is dependent upon the recoil behavior of the gun - and that your eyes probably will not show you the difference. And, what "feels" best has no bearing on the situation (I long ago abandoned the notion that a soft, seemingly stable gun would provide the best scores for me - even though it'd be much more friendly to drive). Before reading your articles I thought finding the best load was first a matter of the best perceived recoil with an acceptable precision. To reach this I would test different powders, bullet weights and different springs. Now I think the above process of testing different powders, bullets and springs is not to find the best perceived recoil but to find a load which helps me to call my shots best. That is my opinion, yes - but really, in the end, you should be picking the load that gives you the best overall score. What's funny is that a lot of people shoot better scores with guns and load combinations they don't find to have the best perceived recoil characteristics. If we're trying to give our best performances, shouldn't our actual scores inform our load choices? The above is starting to make sense to me. Somewhere in this thread you discuss heavier bullets with less powder. This is were I lose your argumentation, isn't it a heavier bullet with a slower powder, like the N105 in Bob's loads you were shooting? You're confusing an Open gun with a non-Open gun In a Limited gun, it's true that a lot of folks prefer the faster powder combination for feel (it shoots softer). And, at the same time, the heavy bullet, fast powder combo has less energy involved in the system, which may contribute to slower movement of the gun away from point of aim, which aids shot calling. Certainly, shooting a load with less energy, the gun can safely be set up with a lighter recoil spring and a different FP stop geometry, and that helps the situation a bunch, as well. In an Open gun, we're using a slower powder (and frequently a lighter bullet), and using the extra energy generated to redirect the gun's movements in recoil - both during the early part of the cycle (which is critical to shot calling), and later where we can set the gun up differently (lighter recoil spring, different FP stop, etc) than a Limited gun. I like a fast powder with a heavy bullet for the felt recoil off it, but I will be testing it with a faster powder soon. During testing I will not 'feel' but 'see' to evaluate the loads. Do two things - verify that the holes are showing up where you call them, and compare your scores on various drills between the loads. Of course, this only works if you're driving the gun by the sights, and not blindly hosing at things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 It's driven me crazy for year reading some inaccurate ideas about how a gun jumps up, what you see, how your body puts the gun back on target, and what you saw. I have noticed several people at matches over the year who blink on every single shot.(Not lately, just starting to practice again.) May not as bad as what you see on some well-known TV shows but guys blinking and still making it to A class or higher. Yeah, I've seen some of that, too - it will eventually hinder them. The guys I see doing it frequently have up and down stages, too, and have phantom misses and Ds that they can't explain, etc - all the things you'd expect when someone's not calling shots. Some stuff I posted in another thread. I think the 2-3 degree sharp vision area has a little or a lot to do with people saying they can track sights well or their dot "doesn't leave the glass, ever" etc: http://www.brianenos...howtopic=147285 I tried to read the things you posted at the beginning of the thread, but just can't make much of it - too small Been said before but Max and Todd in the midst of racking up their many Open Nationals trophies were using IMR 7625, known for being very quiet, very soft, very flippy (and for beating the hell out of your brass). That's true - I'd actually conjecture that they might do better with a different load. I've never talked to Todd about his loads in his gun, but Max expressed that he preferred 7625 in part because it's fairly quiet and has low concussion. It's quite possible that both of those guys have a higher natural eye "frame rate" (I already pointed out that that's not a good analogy, but if I say "eye speed", it could mean a lot of different things ). Hard to say without convincing them to try it, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric nielsen Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) On the other thread the best part to read is the first 3 PDFs, just one page per PDF. For what you've been writing Dave, there is good info about "fixations" which are very different than the motion we can see in peripheral vision, which is what I'd call anything outside of the 2-3 degrees of sharp vision landing on the fovea. An interesting question is: IF you can keep the flip to a minimum (front-heavy balance, technique, ammo, gun setup...) can you maintain a fixation on a front sight that only moves up a fraction of an inch and back a fraction of an inch, i.e. the front sight on an Sight Tracker type gun. On my early-1990s Open gun with FS on comp, the answer seemed like yes, it wasn't leaving my central focus. But on some Sight Trackers I've shot, seemed like no but the ammo I was shooting over my chrono (friend's gun) clocked in at 188 power factor. PS - if you convince them to try Vectan SP2 they will actually do better AND we'll all get a new powder importer... Edited March 19, 2012 by eric nielsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 PS - if you convince them to try Vectan SP2 they will actually do better AND we'll all get a new powder importer... Vectan SP2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now