38 vs 357 point of impact. Bullet weight also...

John, the problem is that recoil is not "... the form of force applied to the breechface which is part of the slide". Recoil is a force along the barrel because that is the direction the bullet is moving. The gun does not recoil because there is a "push" on the breechface, it recoils because the bullet is moving and there is an equal and opposite force in the other direction. No matter how much pressure is exerted on the breech face, if the bullet doesn't move, there is no recoil and no movement of the gun or the slide.
The statement about what happens when the bullet does not move is correct, but it has no bearing on this discussion, and nothing I have said contradicts it.

It is certainly true that recoil is a force applied in a direction parallel to the barrel and opposite to the direction of travel of the bullet, but if the quoted statement is meant to somehow imply that recoil is imparted magically to the entire gun, that is clearly incorrect.

The recoil force is applied to the breechface, and if the breechface can move independently of the rest of the gun, then it will do so. That is exactly the principle that recoil operated firearms operate on. If the recoil force were not applied to the breechface, recoil operated pistols would not function. Since they do, there is really no room for debate on that issue.

Recoil is a force applied in the opposite direction of the bullet travel as a consequence of the bullet moving forward. It is reasonable to state that recoil force is applied to the breechface although some of it is potentially applied to the barrel via the friction of the casing against the chamber walls.

In an autopistol, the recoil force results in the slide and barrel moving to the rear—opposite the direction of bullet travel. The slide moves because the recoil force was applied to the breechface and the barrel moves primarily because it is locked to the slide initially.

If recoil force were somehow imparted to the entire gun, then there would be nothing pushing the slide back separately from the frame and an recoil-operated autopistol would not cycle.
As to how much the gun moves in recoil while the bullet is still in the barrel, that depends on bullet velocity, bullet mass, gun mass, powder mass, and maybe other factors. If the gun will move very little, the maker may not feel a need to adjust the sights to compensate.
It is impossible to understand what’s happening without understanding that muzzle rise is NOT recoil. Muzzle rise is an EFFECT of recoil under certain circumstances.

In the first sentence, everything stated about recoil is true. HOWEVER, then, the second sentence continues as if recoil is still the topic, but in reality the topic has changed to muzzle rise. Recoil, in and of itself does not necessitate any sight compensation. Muzzle rise is not the same as recoil and if muzzle rise occurs while the bullet is still in the barrel then the sights will have to be set to compensate for it. Muzzle rise only occurs when the restraining force on the gun is below the point on the gun at which the recoil force is applied. As a consequence, if no significant restraining force is applied, or if the restraining force is applied at a point directly behind the point on the gun where the recoil foce is applied (as opposed to below it), there is no significant muzzle rise.

That is exactly the situation immediately after an autopistol is fired. There is no significant restraining force applied to the slide motion so it moves straight backwards INDEPENDENTLY OF THE FRAME until it meets significant resistance.
But muzzle flip is not caused by the barrel or slide being stopped by the frame, and if it were it would have no effect on the bullet which is long gone by the time the slide stops.
Muzzle flip (not recoil) in an autopistol IS caused by the barrel/slide being stopped by the frame and that is why muzzle flip has no significant effect on the bullet which is long gone by the time the slide stops.

That’s exactly what the diagrams show—they show that muzzle rise does NOT have any significant effect on the bullet in the autopistols because it IS long gone by the time the muzzle flips. That is because the muzzle doesn't flip until the slide/barrel hit the frame and the restraint of the shooter's hand causes the gun to torque upwards.

If muzzle rise did occur while the bullet was still in the bore, the boreline/sightline would show the same kind of compensation as is seen in the revolver. It would HAVE to.
I confess your drawings are puzzling, so there is some other factor involved. If we agree that the revolver is sighted to compensate for recoil while the bullet is in the barrel and we agree that that recoil causes the muzzle to rise, then those diagrams would show that the muzzle moves down in recoil, which I seriously doubt.
No, the drawings are not puzzling at all, they simply demonstrate that autopistols are different from revolvers. The diagrams are the evidence that explanation provided is correct.

The important concept is that recoil ONLY causes the muzzle to rise when the resistance to the recoil force causes the gun to torque upwards. Operating as if muzzle rise and recoil are inseparable or identical will make it impossible to understand the diagrams. Muzzle rise and recoil are not inseparable. For example, if there were just a slide/barrel floating in space and the cartridge was fired, the slide and barrel would move straight backwards. There would be no muzzle rise because there is nothing to cause the muzzle to torque upwards.

For the brief moment before the slide/barrel hits the frame, the space thought experiment is a great analogy for what happens when an autopistol is fired. When an autopistol is fired, there is initially nothing causing the muzzle to torque upwards because the slide and barrel can freely move straight backwards. So the muzzle doesn’t flip--the slide initially moves straight backwards with no significant muzzle flip because there is effectively nothing restraining the slide from moving in the direction that the recoil force is being applied or trying to change the direction.

Recoil instantly causes the muzzle to rise in the revolver because the entire revolver (frame/barrel/grip) is essentially one piece when assembled and therefore can only move as one piece. As soon as recoil begins to move the revolver, muzzle rise also begins. That is because the shooter’s hand immediately resists that motion and resists it at a point lower on the gun than the point at which the recoil force is applied. So recoil movement and muzzle rise in a revolver both begin at the same time, at the instant that the bullet begins to move. The recoil force is immediately restrained in such a way as to cause an upward torque and that means that the muzzle rise begins immediately.

Autopistols are DIFFERENT from revolvers. Of course, the recoil also begins instantly upon the bullet moving in an autopistol, as it must. The recoil force is applied to the breechface of the autopistol exactly as it is to the revolver, but that’s where the similarity ends. The huge difference between the revolver and the autopistol is that the barrel and breechface can initially can MOVE independently of the frame in an autopistol. So unlike the revolver where the restraint of the frame immediately causes muzzle rise, in an autopistol, the restraint of the frame by the shooter initially has no effect at all. Initially, there is no effective resistance to the recoil motion because the slide/barrel can move independently of the frame and that means that the slide/barrel move STRAIGHT BACK in recoil—in the direction the recoil force is applied.

The muzzle does not rise in an autopistol until something tries to change that straight back motion and that doesn’t happen until the slide/barrel motion is arrested by the frame and the restraint from the shooter's hand comes into play.

Since that happens long after the bullet is out of the bore, the muzzle rise in an autopistol doesn’t affect the bullet.
...those diagrams would show that the muzzle moves down in recoil...
What the diagrams show is that the muzzle of a locked breech autopistol doesn’t really move appreciably in the vertical plane while the bullet is in the barrel. Said a different way, what the diagrams show is that although we know that the slide clearly begins to recoil immediately, recoil in an autopistol does not result in muzzle rise until after the bullet is out of the bore.

Again, any confusion stems from viewing this problem as if muzzle rise is inseparable from recoil. It is not, and that is where the disconnect is occurring.

Without understanding that muzzle rise is not the same thing as recoil, it is impossible to grasp what the diagrams show is happening when an autopistol is fired. Muzzle rise is a POSSIBLE consequence of recoil, but it is not the same thing as recoil. One can’t say “muzzle rise” when “recoil” is the proper term and always have the statement involved remain accurate. One can’t say “recoil” when “muzzle rise” is the correct term without sometimes creating an inaccuracy. Recoil and muzzle rise are related in that recoil causes muzzle rise in some cases, but they are not the same thing and the terms can not be used interchangeably.

The reason that the autopistol bores are angled slightly upward is to create the ballistic trajectory necessary if the bullet is ever to impact in alignment with the sights. It isn’t because the muzzle moves down in recoil. Since the bore is below the sights, the bore must be angled slightly upward to get the bullet up to the line of the sights.
 
Now that you guys have schooled me concerning the physics surrounding point of aim with a revolver, I am seeing some problems with the physics involving the semi-autos.

It is said in a previous post, "Said a different way, what the diagrams show is that although we know that the slide clearly begins to recoil immediately, recoil in an autopistol does not result in muzzle rise until after the bullet is out of the bore. "

This must be incorrect. Force to cause the muzzle to rise due to the bore axis being above the shooter's grip begins as the bullet starts to move forward because the slide is not free to move backwards; it is moving backwards, but against the resistance provided by the slide spring.

Blue
 
If you look at post 17, I mentioned the recoil spring issue explicitly.

The recoil spring force isn't sufficient to cause a significant effect during the very short time the bullet is still in the muzzle. It acts to slow the slide velocity very slightly, but not enough to induce significant muzzle flip.

The same is true with the hammer spring in a hammer fired gun which also provides initial resistance to the slide movement as the slide cocks the hammer. It is also an insignificant effect in terms of muzzle rise as can be seen in the diagrams. If it were significant, there would be a difference between the diagrams for the two hammer fired autopistols vs. the striker fired Caracal autopistol and clearly, there is not.

But yes, there is some resistance and, as a consequence, at least some very small amount of muzzle rise as a result. That's why I have been careful throughout the thread to caveat my statements about slide resistance or muzzle rise in autopistols with the word "significant".

It all comes back to the diagrams. The diagrams clearly show that in the autopistols, there is no detectable compensation of the sights for muzzle rise. That can only mean that there is no significant muzzle rise in the autopistols until after the bullet is out of the bore. If there were significant muzzle rise with the bullet still in the bore, the sights would have to compensate for that rise and we would see the same kind of effect that we see in the revolver diagram.

If someone has another reasonable explanation for the diagrams, I'd be happy to hear it. I work on a daily basis with a physicist and I'll bounce it off him to see if it plays.
 
head is spinning

Fairly savvy bunch of moderators, wouldn't ya say?

Physics aside, here is what has worked for me in the .38/.357 realm. This is based on 2 N-frames, a Ruger Sec-6 and a B-Hawk.

If zeroed for 125 gr JHP, full bore factory, ....148 gr WC factory would shoot to same POA, back to 25 yds. NOw that is my revolvers, and I suppose somebody else's could behave differently.

Problem is, I don't really shoot that much 125 JHP or .38 WC! But....ya might try that combo if looking for a common point of aim/point of impact.
 
"If you look at post 17, I mentioned the recoil spring issue explicitly."

And if you look at my post, I am merely questioning your direct, word for word, quote. In that quote there is no mention of "significant".

I back up my position with phyics, you back up yours with pencil sketches.

No offense intended, but read my post before you break my stones.

Blue1
 
And if you look at my post, I am merely questioning your direct, word for word, quote. In that quote there is no mention of "significant".
I've posted several pages of text on this thread and in course of that effort, I've used the word "significant" or "significantly" probably 20 times or more, including several times in the 1500-1600 word post which contains the quoted sentence.
I back up my position with phyics, you back up yours with pencil sketches.
I explained the physics and provided diagrams as well as an explanation of how the diagrams were obtained in case anyone cares to duplicate them for themselves.
No offense intended, but read my post before you break my stones.
I don't see how my response to your comment could reasonably be characterized as "breaking your stones"--It certainly wasn't intended to be hostile. You raised a point and I showed that I had answered that point earlier and that I had tried to keep the point in mind throughout the thread.
If zeroed for 125 gr JHP, full bore factory, ....148 gr WC factory would shoot to same POA, back to 25 yds.
Awhile back, I set up a spreadsheet that does a calculation/estimate of the POI effect due to bullet weight and velocity in a given gun. When I poke in typical numbers for a light wadcutter load (148gr @ 690fps) and a hotter 125gr load (125gr @ 830fps) in .38spl, the calculated/estimated difference in POI at 25 yards for those two loads is quite small.
 
Great thread and i thank all who have given their input. Both input and counter input.

I love a great descussion and to be honest, both sides to this is what i was hoping for so i hope more have input as well as more input from those that have already responded.

So without taking a bunch of time to quote who has said what exactly, so what i hear is manufacturers actually build revolvers with a slight barrel decline on purpose to compinsate for recoil? So my sp101s actually have a barrel tilt down, or is it the front sight is slightly higher on purpose to tilt it down? So, one way or another they are truely bult that was compaired to a semi?

Just off the top of my head i get the physics with the slide. I get the slide moves and may end in "slight rise by the spring tension" but not like a revolver.

Just find it curious is all and like to hear input to how this works out in real life. From those that had responded, from my limited experience, would you state that forcing extra control on the piece would solve some of this? Another way is learning how to handle a gun firmer to reduce differences in aim would help or hurt?
 
...manufacturers actually build revolvers with a slight barrel decline on purpose to compinsate for recoil? So my sp101s actually have a barrel tilt down, or is it the front sight is slightly higher on purpose to tilt it down?
The sights take care of whatever compensation is required to get the gun shooting to point of aim.
So, one way or another they are truely bult that was compaired to a semi?
It's not so much a difference in the construction as it is a difference in the way the sights are regulated.

If one tried to actually build a revolver with a barrel decline, different sights or different sight adjustments would still be required to deal with different barrel lengths unless the barrel decline was somehow altered with barrel length. Longer barrels mean more time in the bore and that means more time for muzzle rise to affect the bullet and the point of impact.
...would you state that forcing extra control on the piece would solve some of this? Another way is learning how to handle a gun firmer to reduce differences in aim would help or hurt?
In a revolver, theoretically, it would be possible to hold the gun in such a way as to resist the muzzle rise more effectively, and to the extent that the muzzle rise was affected while the bullet was still in the bore, the point of impact on the target would also be affected.

In practice, the times involved are very short and the forces involved are fairly impressive. Altering the grip may not have a significant effect unless one takes things to extremes. For example, although it wouldn't suprise me to find that holding a long barrel revolver extremely tightly and high on the grip could result in a detectable point of aim shift as compared to holding it very loosely and low on the grip, I wouldn't really expect to find that more reasonable differences in grip firmness or hand placement had significant effect.

In autopistols, given the obvious lack of compensation for muzzle rise in the sights, it seems that it would not really be possible to significantly affect the point of impact on the target by holding the gun differently in an attempt to control muzzle rise. Basically if the sights show no significant compensation for muzzle rise while the bullet is in the bore, that means muzzle rise isn't affecting the point of impact on the target significantly. In turn, that means that attempts to change the point of impact by controlling muzzle rise can't have any significant effect.

As to whether it would help or hurt, I don't think it's really a matter of helping or hurting unless one goes to extremes. One needs a fairly consistent and reasonably firm grip on a handgun for other reasons, and that should be sufficient to deal with the issues discussed in this thread.
 
Back
Top