Is there more of a learning curve with longer barreled guns?

C

C0untZer0

Moderator
On another forum a member posted that there is a learnng curve for learning to shoot a Glock 34 accurately because of the greater forward mass - something like that. And the G34 takes longer to learn hw to shot accurately and the 17L takes longer still becuase its a larger pistol with an even linger sight radius and more forward mass. And something about the longer sight radius taking more time to aquire target? Maybe this is about taking more time to fire accurately in competition matches?

I don't understand this...
 
I politely disagree entirely. I think its just plain more complicated than that. Theres multiple factors at work, a well balanced well designed pistol that fits your hand is going to get better groups than a awkward uncomfortable pistol, regardless of any one single measurement.

I just think there's more going on at one time than just one factor.

you could have a long barreled weapon that's easier to shoot than some shorter, and harder to shoot than some shorter. And most of all it depends on the shooter's preferences and body.
 
Not from my experience.

My first pistol was a Glock 22, which I learned to shoot well. I then got a Glock 35 which is the longer barrelled version of the same gun. The G22 has a barrel length of 4.5", the G35 5.3". The very first time I shot my G35 I was much more accurate than I've ever been on my G22.

This has been my experience ever since. I shoot the G35 better than the G22 because of the longer barrel and sight radius. Maybe some people need to adjust due to heavier barrel weight, but I did not. The G35 shoots like a dream.
 
Learning curve to me implies some kind of time-to-meet-a-standard criteria.

Since longer sight radius means more accurate for the same effort, the assertion doesn't make sense to me.

For a beginning shooter I'd put a longer sight radius gun in their hands. Good hits and positive reinforcement would occur sooner.
 
My longest-barreled pistol is actually a target air pistol (IZH46M) -- it has an 11" barrel, an overall length of around 16", and weighs about three pounds. Can't compare it exactly to shooting powder-burners, as it has essentially no recoil and a very light trigger, but from the moment I first picked one up, I found it absurdly easy to shoot accurately, and the long barrel seemed to help, not hinder me...

Long sight radius equals better accuracy, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Aarond's Law #2 states,,,

"Every thing is a two-edged sword."

Meaning if you gain an advantage with a thing,,,
In general it will lose an advantage on another thing.

Longer barrels have a better sight radius,,,
Longer barrels are more unwieldy.

Traditionally target revolvers are 6" and longer,,,
The longer sight radius makes precise aiming a bit easier.

Traditionally combat revolvers are 4" and shorter,,,
The shorter barrel makes the gun easier to move around.

There are too many variables to make a definitive statement,,,
There is always an exception to any rule if challenged,,,
But in general these conditions will be true.

JMNSHO - YMWV

Aarond
 
And

Along that line of thinking (the double edged sword) your gain in accuracy with a longer sight radius also translates into a more "picky" sight picture. With a really long barrel even small trembles of the wrist or arm are amplified as the front sight moves around that much more. It could be distracting to the shooter although it's still more accurate. A temptation would be to take forever with each shot. In contrast, with a 2 inch J-frame's short sight radius the challenge doesn't seem to be to hold the sight picture still (although that still is part of it) but more to even detect what a good sight picture is. With each deviation in aim the front sight only moves a tiny bit.

Here's an illustration:
Ever try to shoot a rifle with scope that was way too powerful in magnification? The target moves all around even though you're not doing anything different. It takes longer to "feel good" about your sight picture and to commit to pulling the trigger. Whereas someone with too low a magnification - well the crosshairs SEEM to be steady in the middle of the target so you go ahead and take the shot. Both shooters might actually hit a similar spot but one took longer than the other. The shooter with the low mag has the illusion/suggestion of accuracy since he didn't see himself tremble and the one with high magnification had the illusion of inaccuracy since he did. (this might not make sense)

Maybe that poster you're talking about considers "accuracy" to include shooting with the same rate of fire, or regaining a nice-looking sight picture in the same amount of time. For accuracy/correct shot placement though I agree with the folks above, longer barrel/sight radius aids in accuracy. As for more forward mass: my only thought is that it would help reduce the "muzzle flip" part of recoil which is good. I haven't done a lot of swinging of muzzles from side to side though and maybe you'd be able to feel a difference in handling.

Oh wait - you mentioned competition.

That's my theory anyways :)
 
I have had trouble with follow-through using my G34 since I got it, although after a lot of dry-firing practice focusing on good sight picture and follow-through it is getting a lot better. I can do six or seven trigger pulls with nary a wobble in my my sight picture, at first, every time I pulled the trigger the front sight swerved to the right.

I took my H&K P7M8 out and I noticed it was so much easier to keep a good sight picture and good follow-through, but I think it's probably more than just a shorter sight radius.

Part of it I think is that I don't have a good spot to place my left thumb. With my P7M8 I can get my left thumb partially in the trigger gaurd and it doesn't interfere with my trigger finger. I can't do that with the Glock. I seem to need more finger on the trigger to keep it from swerving right after the trigger breaks, and that means my left thumb can't be in there.

So I'm guessing that the 17L is going to be even more difficult to keep a good sight picture with and even harder to ensure good follow-through.
 
It is a little complicated.

A shorter sight radius provides greater speed and the illusion of stability. A longer sight radius is a little slower, but easier to shoot well if the sights are of good quality.

Another thing is dwell time. A bullet is going to spend more time in a longer barrel, so that's more time for the gun to wander between the firing pin hitting the primer and the bullet leaving the muzzle. Follow through is also important.

Some people claim that their longslide 1911's are less accurate than standard length versions due to this, but I don't know how much truth there is to that.

If you were going to extract a general statement from all of this, I'd say that generally speaking, it's easier to accurately fire a longer barreled pistol.
 
The longer barrel dwell time will require better technique.

Until the bullet exits the muzzle movement will affect it trajectory.

Is it a lot of time? No, but it will have a longer dwell.
 
Some people claim that their longslide 1911's are less accurate than standard length versions due to this, but I don't know how much truth there is to that.
Click to expand...

I own a Springfield Stainless Loaded which is nearly identical to my friends Longslide except for the 6" bull barrel.

Everyone who shoots both pistols shoots better with the Longslide without exception.

The additional mass up front combined with the longer sight radius make the Longslide a dream to shoot.
 
Generally, until the gun gets so long that weight is an issue, a longer barreled pistol is easier to shoot more accurately than an identical gun with a shorter barrel. Shorter barreled pistols are a concession to make the guns lighter and easier to carry, but the tradeoff is that they're harder to shoot as accurately.

The added mass out front stabilizes the gun somewhat, but the biggest benefit is the longer sight radius.

It used to be fairly common to see aftermarket front sights for target pistols that were designed so that they extended beyond the slide and it's still common to see dedicated target pistols designed so that the shooter can add more forward weight to the pistol to stabilize it.

It is true that the longer the bullet is in the barrel, the more time the shooter has to affect its flight. While that's a fairly minor issue, some match rifle shooters, particularly iron-sight shooters, are concerned enough about it that "bloop tubes" came into existence. A "bloop tube" is forward extension of the barrel that is bored out so that the bullet doesn't touch it. Again, it provides some forward weight for stabilization and also allows the sights to be mounted farther forward than would otherwise be possible.

I'm not aware of anything that corresponds directly to bloop tubes but that is used in pistols. My guess is that other shooter induced variables are so large that no one worries about the tiny contribution of additional barrel time.
 
The additional time in the barrel theory is absolute bunk.
Let's use the slow moving .45 ACP as an example.

At 850 feet per second the bullet is moving at 960 inches per second or 1/960th of a second per inch.
I seriously doubt that you can do anything dsifferent in 1/960th of a second.

PS: I don't want to go through the exercise of figuring out exactly how long it takes the bullet to accelerate in the barrel.
 
The additional time in the barrel theory is absolute bunk.
Let's use the slow moving .45 ACP as an example.

At 850 feet per second the bullet is moving at 960 inches per second or 1/960th of a second per inch.
I seriously doubt that you can do anything dsifferent in 1/960th of a second.
Click to expand...

It is not what you might do on purpose, it is what might happen.

Until the bullet is clear of the barrel its trajectory has not been set.

An extra inch of barrel from 4 inches to 5 inches is a 20% increase in barrel time.
Any shooter movement during barrel dwell affects POI.
 
850 feet per second would be 10200 inches per second.

I agree that it's probably not much of an issue in pistols because there are so many other shooter induced variables that dominate.

However, movement of the gun while the bullet is in the barrel can result in a surprising amount of deflection at a distant target. That's why match rifle shooters strive to minimize lock time and even worry about things like barrel time. Some of the very best rifle shooters even adjust their triggers to have a lot of overtravel to insure that the trigger stop doesn't occur until after the bullet is long gone.
 
I agree that it's probably not much of an issue in pistols because there are so many other shooter induced variables that dominate.
Click to expand...

Like trying to hold a pistol exactly fixed in space as the hammer falls.

If you test pistols from a Ransom rest you can start to get an idea of how much NOT having a rigid mount holding the gun does to accuracy.

Until the bullet has cleared the barrel ANY movement is going to affect the trajectory and point of impact.

The air rifle shooters have realized this a long time ago.

The longer barrel dwell puts a real premium on technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top