Diminishing returns of innovation ?

[G-ManBart]

For every action...there is an oposite and equal reaction

However a bullet of a certain mass is propelled to a known velocity...

The force will be the same...I see no way caseless can defy this law of physics.

cost to manufacture ...is the only thing holding comp design back.

Jim

Jim,

They still have recoil, but nowhere near as much flip. With semi-autos a very large percentage of the flip happens when that big ole hunk of steel we call a slide bottoms out at the end of it's travel. Certainly, some of it is because our hand is below the boreline, but when you watch super slow motion video, it's always when the slide stops that the muzzle really rises. Guns using caseless ammo don't need the same massive slide (or bolt) to extract and eject the empty so they can use totally different action types...rotary feed etc. Getting that all combined into a handgun is going to take some time and effort, but eventually it'll happen. R,

[SharonAnne9x23]

unless there is a quantum leap in technology to reduce cost I do not see caseless ammo making much of a dent in practical shooting. You cannot reload caseless. No case.

[Sean Gaines]

Any Open gun today can shoot .10 splits (heck, they return to battery in 0.06 or so) and hit any target we use in IPSC. How many shooters can do that? Will a better comp change that significantly?

Caseless ammo would do what? Give us three or four more rounds in the mag? and forget about reloading it to 'work the comp' or whatever.

no but maybe someone who can shoot a .20 split on a target at 15ys, with a better comp design maybe able to shoot a 15 split and still get his hit. I think thats why we put so much emphasis on our gear. We want the best gear to give us that little advantage so we can get the best possible score.

Heck look at golf clubs

[davecutts]

... I think thats why we put so much emphasis on our gear. We want the best gear to give us that little advantage so we can get the best possible score.

Heck look at golf clubs

Finally some sense.

You all waste your time and money figuring out this superdupercomp, I'm going to practice, we'll see who wins.

[Sean Gaines]

... I think thats why we put so much emphasis on our gear. We want the best gear to give us that little advantage so we can get the best possible score.

Heck look at golf clubs

Finally some sense.

You all waste your time and money figuring out this superdupercomp, I'm going to practice, we'll see who wins.

With that said in mind, not only is our gear and our equipment going to get better, but the quality of shooter that we have today are only going to get alot better. look at rob doing a 5 sec el prez in shooter ready, along time ago and that was on fire. Now we have people trying to break 3 seconds. I can only imagine what the shooters will be doing in another 15years.

You keep practicing, because everyone else is going to get better at shooting, becasue the levels we have today are just being pushed and pushed. And the upgrades in gear will come with time. Unless you have some spare time to make some thing that would reveloutionize the performance of the gun. I dont see anything out there that would enhance the gun to the extreme that would take an A class shooter to a Gm level with something they added to thier gun overnight.

at the same time, there will be little inovations will come along that will enhance your gun, not only in relaiblility, but in ease of shooting, but like I said early it will come with time, it just wont be thrown out there all at once.

[ChrisMcCracken]

Maybe some of you know of something like I'm going to describe, if so I'd be interested in hearing about it. I could imagine advancements in open guns coming from reducing the number of moving parts. Make the barrel, comp, frame, and what would amount to the slide out of one single fixed piece of metal and have a small low-weight bolt that cycles. The dot could then be mounted to the gun directly, like the doctor optics today but without the moving slide. The inertia would be reduced, and thus felt recoil. The question then is how long can you make the bore of a barrel last so the whole gun doesn't need to be replaced, or make the barrel replaceable but pinned into the frame. Cycle timing for barrel and slide would be much simplified into bolt movement.

[rishii]

it's kinda been done, take a look at the hogue avenger

http://getgrip.com/main/whatsnew/avenger.html

the down side is, it only made in 45. when I read about it, the 1st thing that popped in my mind was, if only they made it in super and threaded the barrel, it would make a sweet open gun, plus I'd win the ugly gun contest

[TMC]

it's kinda been done, take a look at the hogue avenger

http://getgrip.com/main/whatsnew/avenger.html

the down side is, it only made in 45. when I read about it, the 1st thing that popped in my mind was, if only they made it in super and threaded the barrel, it would make a sweet open gun, plus I'd win the ugly gun contest

They do have an Avenger it in 9mm, Neil shot it last year at the steel challenge.

Edited April 4, 2009 by TMC

[Sean Gaines]

Maybe some of you know of something like I'm going to describe, if so I'd be interested in hearing about it. I could imagine advancements in open guns coming from reducing the number of moving parts. Make the barrel, comp, frame, and what would amount to the slide out of one single fixed piece of metal and have a small low-weight bolt that cycles. The dot could then be mounted to the gun directly, like the doctor optics today but without the moving slide. The inertia would be reduced, and thus felt recoil. The question then is how long can you make the bore of a barrel last so the whole gun doesn't need to be replaced, or make the barrel replaceable but pinned into the frame. Cycle timing for barrel and slide would be much simplified into bolt movement.

the Makarov is like that, with the exception of the comp, and that gun kicks more than any of my 9mm's, but I see were your going with it though

[Toolguy]

Luger too.

[38supPat]

With that said in mind, not only is our gear and our equipment going to get better, but the quality of shooter that we have today are only going to get alot better. look at rob doing a 5 sec el prez in shooter ready, along time ago and that was on fire. Now we have people trying to break 3 seconds. I can only imagine what the shooters will be doing in another 15years.

That was also a two port, iron sight, singlestack gun. All the 3 sec El prez's attempts I see online are using full size steel USPSA silhouette targets and just trying to hang hits on them, not shoot A's, while Robs demo was on Pepper Poppers, quite a difference in target. Realistically running close to 4 sec is what I see in actual matches. Anyone know what the HHF is on El Prez in the classifier book? Years ago Gungames put up $10,000 dollars to any one that could do it under 4 all A's (the actual time was like 3.96) Lots claimed they could, but no one ever took home that money, at one event, the Canadian Nationals, where GG put up this money, I won a timer because I was the only one that did it in 6 sec all A's, no one beat that. To be honest not that much has changed, I think the top shooters are much more consistant and make fewer mistakes, but aren't that much faster all in all.

[G-ManBart]

... I think thats why we put so much emphasis on our gear. We want the best gear to give us that little advantage so we can get the best possible score.

Heck look at golf clubs

Finally some sense.

You all waste your time and money figuring out this superdupercomp, I'm going to practice, we'll see who wins.

The other choice is to let some of the manufacturers and gunsmiths figure out the superdupercomp, keep practicing while they're doing that, and then just buy the product of all that research

[38supPat]

For S&G's I checked some current Steel challenge times against 1991, which was the first year early optics started to show up, and the top shooters were fairly split on who was using and who wasn't.

These are the best times I found with a quick scan

Roundabout 2008 1.96sec

Roundabout 1991 2.17

5 to go 2008 2.38

5 to go 1991 2.55

Smoke and Hope 2008 1.84

Smoke and Hope 1991 1.87

Speed option 2008 2.33

Speed option 1991 2.84

Outer Limits 2008 3.73

Outer Limits 1991 3.13 (in 1991 you didn't have to move between boxes)

After 18 years and countless holster, comp, optic and other innovations, thats not a huge difference on stage times

[Loves2Shoot]

I can only imagine what the shooters will be doing in another 15years.

I just hope there are shooters in 15 years...

That critical observation aside, I would think we are already near the edge of human performance, and it will take someone special to shoot at that edge all the time to really shake things up.

[G-ManBart]

For S&G's I checked some current Steel challenge times against 1991, which was the first year early optics started to show up, and the top shooters were fairly split on who was using and who wasn't.

These are the best times I found with a quick scan

Roundabout 2008 1.96sec

Roundabout 1991 2.17

5 to go 2008 2.38

5 to go 1991 2.55

Smoke and Hope 2008 1.84

Smoke and Hope 1991 1.87

Speed option 2008 2.33

Speed option 1991 2.84

Outer Limits 2008 3.73

Outer Limits 1991 3.13 (in 1991 you didn't have to move between boxes)

After 18 years and countless holster, comp, optic and other innovations, thats not a huge difference on stage times

If my ballpark math is right that's about 7% faster on Roudabout, 10% on S&H, 26% on SO....forget OL as the movement changed things.

Regardless, SC stages don't really show much as they're only one shot per taget....after optics, not much else is going to help you go faster. R,

Edited April 5, 2009 by G-ManBart

[38supPat]

The only difference really is the requirement for two shots on target, and since the best comp to worst is only going to maybe make a couple of hundreths difference it that situation.

[BritinUSA]

That critical observation aside, I would think we are already near the edge of human performance, and it will take someone special to shoot at that edge all the time to really shake things up.

I agree; And the net effect of that is that now more people will reach that plateau (or diminishing returns) with regard to performance. The competition for the top slot at every match will become more intense as the winner will be decided by fewer points. Women will start to close the gender gap in our sport, though probably never completely.

Roger Bannister became the first person to run the 4 minute mile in 1954. In just three years 16 more people would accomplish it. Once a limit has been breached then the flood will start. The physical/visual requirements of this sport will reach a peak (they may be very close already) and the number of top shooters around the world will multiply.

Our matches will become more exciting, and winners and losers at all our premier events will be measured in hundredths of a point.

Edited April 5, 2009 by BritinUSA

[38supPat]

The biggest difference I notice is the level of accuracy required. On any given stage you just cannot afford to give up any points. If you don't shoot every stage one or two points down you are giving up too much. Looking up the US Nationals Open division, all but 3 or 4 stages were won with a score no more that 4 points down.

[BritinUSA]

The biggest difference I notice is the level of accuracy required. On any given stage you just cannot afford to give up any points. If you don't shoot every stage one or two points down you are giving up too much. Looking up the US Nationals Open division, all but 3 or 4 stages were won with a score no more that 4 points down.

I've noticed the same thing over the past few years.

Of the three elements to shooting - Speed, Accuracy and Power - only the first two can separate 1st from 2nd. Everyone either makes Major or they don't. As the speed element approaches a peak/plateau then accuracy becomes the dominant deciding factor. There is no doubt that the points become more and more critical. A couple of years before we stopped shooting in England, many shooters were okay with 'C's and 'D's. Nowadays, a 'D' is a miss and too many 'C's on a single stage will destroy any championship hopes.

[Rob D]

I've always thought electronic ignition would be a big part of future firearms. The trigger mechanism could feel EXACTLY the way you want it to feel without limitation since it would just be an electronic switch. Aside from that, you remove the forces of the hammer, firing pin, etc that might do a little bit to stir the sights.

Obviously this isn't going to work with our current ammunition, but we might see it several decades down the road. Just a thought.

[kimel]

There are electronic and pneumatic/hydraulic triggers now that fire otherwise normal guns with normal ammo. I doubt the cycle time on pneumatic/hydraulic would be fast enough for our purposes but electronic releases shouldn't suffer from that if done correctly. Probably use some sort of servo to release the hammer.

Better EMI/RFI shield the heck out of it though or some dolt with a cell phone could lead to problems. Not sure the advantage gained would be worth it though.