Limited 6" SightTracker?

[jasmap]

Crap August. You beat me to it by a few months. And here I thought I was an innovator. Instead I'm just slow.

Jason,

Great minds think alike.....right now im thinking of Tera Patrick and Jenna Jameson... how about you?

Actually I was thinking Jenna Jameson and then Tera Patrick.

[HSMITH]

Venry, thanks much for the conversation. Quite a few people claim to know 'how', but I am not interested in that at all, a few others know 'why', and you sir, are one of them. I am very much concerned with 'why', not 'how'. I appreciate that you really do understand what I am getting at with combined weights, separate weights, slide speeds, etc, seems rare at times.

What I worry about with the 6" sight tracker is slide weight and controlling slide speed at reasonable levels to achieve the balance we need, but I know you aren't afraid to use machinery and are not held to conventional practices. I can't wait to see what you come up with. I know you can do it, but I can't think of many that could make it work well. I don't think it is something to be undertaken without knowing 'why' in advance, and that is why my opinion of the project is for the most part negative. It would be really easy to have it go poorly.....

[HoMiE]

At a match a while back, some guys where talking about 6" guns, but only having a 5" barrel. That is, the muzzle end would be bored out just enough, and you only have 5" rifling on a 6" slide. Is that a possible option? Are there guns built like that or was it just wishful thinking?

[Tacblack]

If you use a 2 port blank barrel and flute the bull barrel the over all weight would be about the same as a Fat Free 6" with a bull barrel I would think. You would have a Sight Tracker effect, only pick up a little end weight and have over all weight pretty low. Guessing this would be about 37-38 ounces?

[Radical Precision Designs]

At a match a while back, some guys where talking about 6" guns, but only having a 5" barrel. That is, the muzzle end would be bored out just enough, and you only have 5" rifling on a 6" slide. Is that a possible option? Are there guns built like that or was it just wishful thinking?

The prevailing reason why a 6" gun would be slugish is the added weight of the slide in itself. That total weight/mass needs to be moved back and forth (action-reaction) and that motion needs to be controlled/absorbed by the shooters hands. In a better balanced system you have those "reciprocating/interacting" parts cancel each other out as best possible, so that less motion is transferred to the shooters hands.

A few years ago (when it was allowed to experiment and shoot it at a match untill they told you it could be done no-more ) I took a single stack Colt Commander and went to town with it. The slide's barrel tunnel was reamed out to .800" (normal is around .700") and the barrrel was completely threaded (.575-40"). A full profile "sleeve" was installed into the barrel and relieved just enough to allow lock up. By doing this I accomplished two things. Transferred weight from the slide into the barrel, and allowed that slide to cycle like greased lightning. Since the major portion of perceived recoil is created by the slide after it unlocks and before it locks again, and because the combined mass/weight of barrel and slide helped soak up the power of the load fairly well, and the recoil spring was not too heavy (and yes I used a shock buffer), that particular combination worked much better than full sized 5" guns. It shot/cycled much faster and there was hardly any muzzle jump. After a few matches, complaints arose and I was told to shoot that gun only in Open.

Some of this knowledge is gained through parallel studies in other areas, and sometimes borrowed from real life. A few years back I was driving in a bi-forked intersection. I was driving straight through (with a stop light) while the road splitted to my right (without a stop light) As I came to the intersection (I was driving a 1500 GMC p/up) the stop light was red and there were already two vehicles (a full size van and a Toyota Corolla in front of it) that had come to a full stop. As I had just gotten to a full stop, there came from behind a medium/large truck that had failed to completely stop and hit me hard and pushed my smaller truck into the van in front of me, and the van in front of me was also pushed into the car in front of it. The forward-most car received extensive damage while the van in front of me and my truck looked like accordion bellows pressed in. I was virtually unharmed but shaken. I was amazed that the truck that hit me/us was able to maintain so much energy and pushed all three vehicles quite a few yards in front of our original stopped position. Soon enough a wrecker came and parked to our right in the bifurcation of the road. While parked there, a "rubber-necking" car plowed into the back of the wrecker. The wrecker barely moved while the car self destroyed. I could barely believe that the combined weight of our wrecked section/group with a combined set of six axles and twelve tires fully braked was moved so far forward, while the car hitting the truck/wrecker had not even budged it. Somewhere in there is the foundation (although a little bit vague) for calculating the formula for balancing the weights of our slide/barrel/springs according to our cartridge power.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Radical Precision Designs

[Radical Precision Designs]

If you use a 2 port blank barrel and flute the bull barrel the over all weight would be about the same as a Fat Free 6" with a bull barrel I would think. You would have a Sight Tracker effect, only pick up a little end weight and have over all weight pretty low. Guessing this would be about 37-38 ounces?

Shooting a Sight Tracker is unique experience in the way the front sight is presented during firing.

In a standard slide mounted sight, the front sight moves back and forth with the slide and so long as you have a good grip the picture can be held pretty solidly. Since the front sight in the Sight Tracker is mounted in the barrel itself the front sight does not move back and forth and stays up front ... but since the barrel does tip up slightly upwards during cycling this makes the sight move up and down some. Of course the sight "should return to the same spot, if you have a proper grip, regardless of the mounting.

Since the front sight in the Sight Tracker does move up and down slightly even if the gun was to be mounted in a vise, it gives the impression of "dipping" while it is actually rising and returning to target. It takes a little bit of practice (just like everything else) to get used to this slight change, but once aclimated it provides an easier to focus on front sight.

As you noted the total weight of the "upper- slide/barrel assembly" can be indeed tailored to a specific weight. The bushing barrel does indeed have the potential/ability to be able to give a total lower overall weight ... if that is your specific goal.

[ong45]

Or why years ago they outlawed oversized or tungsten sleeves ???

I didn't think tungsten sleeved barrels were illegal ?

[Radical Precision Designs]

Or why years ago they outlawed oversized or tungsten sleeves ???

I didn't think tungsten sleeved barrels were illegal ?

Unless the Rule book was changed, I believe they are illegal for Limited. It has to do with adding weight to the finished barrel itself. If the complete barrel was made of tungsten it would not be an issue. Funny thing, you are allowed to remove weight from the parts but ... Please, correct me if I am wrong with the specific quote from the rule book. That would be an allowance that many of us would welcome.

[ong45]

I might be outing myself, i've been using sleeved barrels for years and know of a few top GM's who do the same.

Hope your wrong, have to research.

[JThompson]

At a match a while back, some guys where talking about 6" guns, but only having a 5" barrel. That is, the muzzle end would be bored out just enough, and you only have 5" rifling on a 6" slide. Is that a possible option? Are there guns built like that or was it just wishful thinking?

The prevailing reason why a 6" gun would be slugish is the added weight of the slide in itself. That total weight/mass needs to be moved back and forth (action-reaction) and that motion needs to be controlled/absorbed by the shooters hands. In a better balanced system you have those "reciprocating/interacting" parts cancel each other out as best possible, so that less motion is transferred to the shooters hands.

A few years ago (when it was allowed to experiment and shoot it at a match untill they told you it could be done no-more ) I took a single stack Colt Commander and went to town with it. The slide's barrel tunnel was reamed out to .800" (normal is around .700") and the barrrel was completely threaded (.575-40"). A full profile "sleeve" was installed into the barrel and relieved just enough to allow lock up. By doing this I accomplished two things. Transferred weight from the slide into the barrel, and allowed that slide to cycle like greased lightning. Since the major portion of perceived recoil is created by the slide after it unlocks and before it locks again, and because the combined mass/weight of barrel and slide helped soak up the power of the load fairly well, and the recoil spring was not too heavy (and yes I used a shock buffer), that particular combination worked much better than full sized 5" guns. It shot/cycled much faster and there was hardly any muzzle jump. After a few matches, complaints arose and I was told to shoot that gun only in Open.

Some of this knowledge is gained through parallel studies in other areas, and sometimes borrowed from real life. A few years back I was driving in a bi-forked intersection. I was driving straight through (with a stop light) while the road splitted to my right (without a stop light) As I came to the intersection (I was driving a 1500 GMC p/up) the stop light was red and there were already two vehicles (a full size van and a Toyota Corolla in front of it) that had come to a full stop. As I had just gotten to a full stop, there came from behind a medium/large truck that had failed to completely stop and hit me hard and pushed my smaller truck into the van in front of me, and the van in front of me was also pushed into the car in front of it. The forward-most car received extensive damage while the van in front of me and my truck looked like accordion bellows pressed in. I was virtually unharmed but shaken. I was amazed that the truck that hit me/us was able to maintain so much energy and pushed all three vehicles quite a few yards in front of our original stopped position. Soon enough a wrecker came and parked to our right in the bifurcation of the road. While parked there, a "rubber-necking" car plowed into the back of the wrecker. The wrecker barely moved while the car self destroyed. I could barely believe that the combined weight of our wrecked section/group with a combined set of six axles and twelve tires fully braked was moved so far forward, while the car hitting the truck/wrecker had not even budged it. Somewhere in there is the foundation (although a little bit vague) for calculating the formula for balancing the weights of our slide/barrel/springs according to our cartridge power.

So are you saying if you can keep most of the mass in the frame the effect of the slide can be mitigated, or that if the cycle can be channeled into the highest mass area of the gun you will have less flip. Like that car running into the large mass of the tow truck.

Fascinating read Venry...

[MoNsTeR]

I've shot an extended frame, bull barrel, full-weight slide 6" .40, and it doesn't dip. You guys are crazy, or death-gripping your guns, or running 14#+ springs, or something.

[benny hill]

Maybe you are jerking the trigger so hard you don't notice the dip? The heavy ones do dip in the front & very noticable after shooting a light 6".

[steel1212]

I've shot an extended frame, bull barrel, full-weight slide 6" .40, and it doesn't dip. You guys are crazy, or death-gripping your guns, or running 14#+ springs, or something.

To each his own but damn talking about shooting a brick what does that thing weigh!?!?!?

[jasmap]

Ok. I found a 6" Sight Tracker. Here's some pics on Mats Backstrom's site. He has a double stack and a single stack Sight Tracker that are both 6".

http://www.matsbackstrom.com/index_pages/Guns.html

[splashdown]

Wow, that's a long rib on that single stack barrel. I haven't seen that style before. Still, gotta be really nose heavy.

[jasmap]

From the way I read it, I don't think the 6" Sight Trackers are his IPSC guns. The nose being heavy may not be an issue in that case.

[shooting for M]

What about something like the new STI Tru-sight, except adding the "expantion chamber" to the end of a 5" gun? Or maybe just a longer barrel without the "expantion chamber"? Just another thought, you could keep the slide mass down, because it's a 5", and you could really lighten someting like that up with fluting. If the Tru-sight's legal maybe someone could try that. Again, just a thought, keeping the thread alive for a compadre.

Jason

[Flexmoney]

I think they'd have to first meet the '500 produced by a factory clause' to be legal in Limited or L10 in that configuration. ???

[mpolans]

Under the whole "500 produced rule" for PARTS (NOT whole guns), who has the burden of proof? The 2008 rule book specifies this for whole guns, but not parts:

"A complete handgun may be approved for USPSA Limited Division after

the NROI Manufacturer’s Declaration form stating that a minimum of 500

have been manufactured and available to the general public has been submitted

and NROI has inspected the handgun for compliance."

Does the shooter with the part in question have to, or is it a protesting shooter or match director that has to prove 500 parts were produced? Seems like it would be a big hassle if a shooter were to have to prove that every part in his gun was legal.

[splashdown]

The burden of proof lies with the manufacturer of the part (currently). That would suck if it goes from 500 components to 500 completed pistols in a particular configuration.

[Radical Precision Designs]

The burden of proof lies with the manufacturer of the part (currently). That would suck if it goes from 500 components to 500 completed pistols in a particular configuration.

Are you saying that to legalize the existing and/or future 6" Sight Trackers all that would be needed is for Schuemann Barrels (Wil Schuemann or Mike Callaway) to "write" a letter of request stating that at least 500 of these barrels have ever been produced and/or available for sale ??????

Maybe this may be possible more sooner than later ????

[splashdown]

Venry,

From the 2004 Rulebook under Appendix D7 - USPSA Limited Division

"16. Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes are specifically not allowed."

I also see the same language about "or components" in the 2008 DRAFT rules that I have.

So yeah, if Schuemann can show that he's made 500 six inch hybrid "sight tracker" barrels, a six inch sight tracker would be good to go.

[Radical Precision Designs]

Venry,

From the 2004 Rulebook under Appendix D7 - USPSA Limited Division

"16. Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced. Prototypes are specifically not allowed."

I also see the same language about "or components" in the 2008 DRAFT rules that I have.

So yeah, if Schuemann can show that he's made 500 six inch hybrid "sight tracker" barrels, a six inch sight tracker would be good to go.

So ... in that case ... those of us who know Wil and/or Mike, let's give them a call and request that they do put in that letter of request.

Especially if they see that this will bring them some additional business in the future.

[want2race]

I disagree with the sight dip caused by the barrel going into lockup. The barrel moves very little compared to inertia of the slide. Most shooters run light recoil springs. I still don't know why, other than it looks cool to rack the slide with one thumb over the top. At the range, I shot a mag using my 12.5 spring. Immediately following, swapped to an 18 pound spring. Reshoot another mag. The 18 pound spring had the slide closing before the gun fully recoiled in my hand. The slide closing so quickly counters the flip. It's similar in feel to shooting major then minor loads in the same gun. I then tried a 10 pound spring and the gun kicked up so hard I thought I was shooting 200pf loads. Trying to tame the flip caused my sight to dip once the slide finally did close (much delayed via soft spring).

Considering the sight tracker already has some weight removed, lightening if further and tuning the recoil (slide speed) via heavier recoil spring could be a very flat gun. Sight would dip you say? That happens when the slide closes after you've already tried to resist the recoil flip. I've heard it so many times. Heavy spring = nose tip. I say the spring wasn't heavy enough.

Then again, I always question the herd.

Edited November 23, 2007 by want2race

[jasmap]

Ok, go ahead and build one Venry and send it to me for T&E. I'm sure you'd be too busy to test it so I'll take that burden off of your back. I'm just looking out for you here.