TargetTalk

In another thread a discussion was begun about the merits of lighter air pistols even though the OP was just asking about some guns in particular. I thought it would be more appropriate to move that part of the discussion to it's own thread, so here we are.

These are some of the comments I made, all my opinion only. Please feel free to add, commend or excoriate as you see fit.

I just sold my Steyr LP10 to re-buy (boy was I lucky!) the Walther LP400 Carbon I sold. For me, no comparison. The design of the Steyr feels like ancient history, like a Baikal IZH. The Walther is much quieter for backyard shooting, the loading port is easier, faster and a better design, the longer sight radius makes it more accurate, it shoots with a personality, not like a dead brick. It's much lighter and feels better balanced to begin with. All my opinion only. Take a look at the new FWB PX8, and you'll find a lot of what the Walther started for a new generation of air pistols.

I am a big proponent of lighter air pistols with a long sight radius, and convinced the first perfect score will be shot with one under 900 grams. Easy to prove. Go to your kitchen, find a can that weighs 800-1000 grams. Hold it as though it were a pistol and point it at an object as a target, dead still, for as long as you can. Put it down, rest a bit, then grab a can that weighs half that and do it again. Note how much longer you are able to hold it on target. Same with a lighter AP. You get a much longer window of time to line the shot up properly before fatigue sets in. Simple physics. The trick is getting the balance right on a lighter pistol and knowing that any aberrant movements you make are going to be magnified, so you have to be super smooth in everything you do. I don't buy the whole "I need the extra weight to keep my gun still" nonsense. If the gun wavers, something is wrong with your grip.
And if you really want the extreme example, after you're done with the cans, try just your finger. You could be a World Champion if your gun weighed as much as your hand. Walther, and now FWB, have been listening.

As much as I love all 7 of my IZH 46's and 46M's, Pardini K58, and FWB 100, their weight prevents me from holding them on target anywhere near as long as my sub-900 gram pcp's (2 Steyr LP10's, Walther LP400 Carbon, Air Arms Alfa Proj). Sure, you can work out until you can hoist an anchor, but who wants to spend time doing that? Being relaxed and comfortable is a big part of shooting well. All of this is my opinion only, and that, and a penny, won't even buy a piece of bubble gum anymore.

Then a gentleman wrote in and said: "Then you don’t believe the exercise motto of no pain, no gain? A lighter pistol won’t guarantee you’ll always be scoring ten’s. I do believe with proper training, a person will develop the necessary endurance and stamina to hold a heavier pistol for a longer period of time."

I replied:

Doesn't matter. That person who works out and can hold a heavy pistol for a long time can also hold a lighter pistol much longer. It's all about the window of time to accurately shoot in. The accepted norm at the moment is 5-7 seconds, if you haven't fired by then, put it down. A lighter pistol can increase that window (especially for someone who is trained and works out) to probably 6-10 seconds at least, but lets go with a conservative figure of an extra 2 seconds. During an entire 60 shot match, that's 2 extra MINUTES a good shooter has to score well. Now lets go back to the accepted 6 second window. 6 seconds for 60 shots is 360 seconds, so in an entire match you are only actually shooting for a total of 6 minutes. The extra 2 minutes would give you 33.333% more time to shoot. That's HUGE! And if you went with what I think is a more realistic window, 4 extra seconds, that's 66.666% more time. Think that would make a difference in your score? Until recently, the sport has had nothing but heavy pistols, so everyone used what was available. I think the new, lighter pistols with full sight radius (and that's the downfall of compact pistols, limited sight radius) are going to change everything. Exciting times coming up to see who will be the first real pro to go light (and dominate).

The weight doesn't guarantee anything, you still have to know how to shoot. It's just easier with a light pistol, and not such a turn-off to newbies when they pick up a Baikal 46M and give you the ol' "OMG this thing is heavy!"

All well in theory and it obviously suits you but...

A lighter pistol is more effected by triggering errors (and yes, even the best in the world make slight errors occasionally with the trigger technique), weight has a dampening effect. And positioning of weight near the muzzle helps with this even more. Think of the golf club evolution from a flat blade to a hollowed out blade with all the weight (mass) around the periphery, they didn't just do that so it looked cool.

All well in theory and it obviously suits you but...

A lighter pistol is more effected by triggering errors (and yes, even the best in the world make slight errors occasionally with the trigger technique), weight has a dampening effect. And positioning of weight near the muzzle helps with this even more. Think of the golf club evolution from a flat blade to a hollowed out blade with all the weight (mass) around the periphery, they didn't just do that so it looked cool.

Is that so........

Let's look at the weight/balance of the equipment used by the worlds best precision shooters....

A longer hold may some some shooters but then eye fatigue could become a factor.

After a longer break from pistol shooting I returned to air pistol shooting in March. At first I used my LP10 solely because my other pistol, a FWB 100 needed repair. Since April I use both in turn.

I am practising dry-fire on 4 days (90 shots each day) and one day shooting (80 shots) - followed by a 2 day rest over the weekend. Since I have not decided which pistol to chose for a competition the training is split evenly between the two.

So far the race is open with a slight bias towards the heavier FWB.

I measure the average time of a shot and for dry-fire one shot takes ca. 12 seconds for both pistols - from raising of the arm to resting in the hold area and releasing the shot and lowering the arm again.

For shooting, the times are different (manual compressing the air for the FWB). A shot with the LP10 takes 22 seconds, a shot with the FWB 100 takes 26 seconds per shot. Quite consistently I keep the duration of time spent in the holding area somewhat as short as for dry-fire and start over again when the shot does not "want" to come..

My best result was 572 - shot in the late '80s with an even older Diana Model 10 and a weight of 1500 grams - sadly unreached/unsurpassed until now..

deadeyedick wrote:
Is that so........

Let's look at the weight/balance of the equipment used by the worlds best precision shooters....

Morini CM84E in your pic... weight is 1240grams

Where the weight "is, and is not" located is the the secret. Because the balance point is more towards the trigger the gun would probably shoot as accurately even if it were lighter...just less tiresome for the non Olympic shooter.
Material requirements/ expense, and design have a tremendous influence over such end results as weight.
My personal choice is light and well balanced...and still would be even if I were 25.

Let's see what the future determines.

I wouldn’t bet on it that lighter air pistols will be the wave of the future. Most top shooters still prefer the heavier “standard” version. However, manufacturers are always receiving input to tweak their air pistols to near perfection.

For the OP, here’s the flagship model of your beloved Walther LP400 carbon for you to drool over...

kevinweiho wrote:I wouldn’t bet on it that lighter air pistols will be the wave of the future. Most top shooters still prefer the heavier “standard” version. However, manufacturers are always receiving input to tweak their air pistols to near perfection.

For the OP, here’s the flagship model of your beloved Walther LP400 carbon for you to drool over...

Woooo!!!!
Me like it!!!!

Yes..SWEET gun but unfortunately only 130 manufactured. Celebrating their 130 years.

Not to want to derail the thread, but the comment about eye fatigue setting in is not correct. Eye fatigue is only a factor if you are using the incorrect shooting lens. If your lens is +0.75 diopters over any distance correction, your eye's relaxed focal point is where it needs to be for pistol, and there is no eye strain or fatigue to aiming.

As to weight, I am surprised at the picture of the LP400. If they were trying to shave weight, it still has a lot of metal on it that could be replaced by plastic. Even aluminum still has a density of 3, many plastics are under 1.

As to weight distribution, the important thing is not weight, it is torque, which is weight x moment arm. This factors in to three parts of the conversation so far. A comment was made about weight at the tip of the barrel having a greater stabilizing effect. This is true, however what is really true is that more weight far from the pistol's pivot point has a greater stabilizing effect. Assuming the pivot point is the wrist, you want weight far from the wrist. However, the second area of torque importance is that I presume you do not want the CG of the pistol far from your wrist, as this creates torque on the wrist. So the real solution is that you want the pistol to have a high polar moment. So you could have weight at the tip of the barrel, as long as you had a couterweight sticking back from the wrist.

The third area is that torque also plays a role in holding the pistol up, because the weight of the pistol x its distance from your shoulder gives you the torque that is being applied to your shoulder and limits how long you can hold it up.

So putting those three points together, an ideal pistol would do things like take the air cylinder, and stick it out the back of the grip, so it would extend back under your forearm. This would simultaneously move weight away from your wrist to increase polar moment and stabilize the pistol, and would move the pistol's center of gravity closer to your wrist and shoulder, reducing the torque exerted by both those joints.

Dunno the rules. Is there any reason you could not have a rear projecting cylinder? A quick look on the Internet (so it has to be true) shows the Hammerli AP20 gets part way there, by projecting the air cylinder down. That's a start. But just about all the others have it under the barrel.

ShootingSight wrote:...
So putting those two points together, an ideal pistol would do things like take the air cylinder, and stick it out the back of the grip, so it would extend back under your forearm. This would simultaneously move weight away from your wrist to stabilize the pistol, and would move the pistol's center of gravity closer to your shoulder, reducing the torque exerted by your shoulder.

Ah a bullpup pistol!
There must be a rule against it- or there will be one day. Plus it needs to fit in the official box.
Air Arms Alpha has the cylinder in the grip. Dont see them taking over.

I was thinking about a quasi bullpup design. THe disadvantage of a real bullpup is that the firing pin is aft of the bolt, so the FCG has to be back there, and that means linkages between the trigger and the sear, which give a poor trigger.

I do not know how air pistol triggers work, but because you are ducting air, it seems the trigger could be a little removed from the breech, and you use a tube to get from the trigger to the breech ....

If this works, I would move the grip up part way, to balance the gun. That shouldn't affect the box size.

I'd also look at hollowing out the grip to make that the air tank. Granted, cylinder shapes are cheaper and easier to make, but there is an awful lot of volu,e inside that grip that could get put to better use if cost were not the primary driver.

ShootingSight wrote:
So putting those three points together, an ideal pistol would do things like take the air cylinder, and stick it out the back of the grip, so it would extend back under your forearm. This would simultaneously move weight away from your wrist to increase polar moment and stabilize the pistol, and would move the pistol's center of gravity closer to your wrist and shoulder, reducing the torque exerted by both those joints.

Dunno the rules. Is there any reason you could not have a rear projecting cylinder? A quick look on the Internet (so it has to be true) shows the Hammerli AP20 gets part way there, by projecting the air cylinder down. That's a start. But just about all the others have it under the barrel.

Now all you've got to do is work out how to get it into the Equipment Control measuring box.

I'd think that was the spirit of the FWB C-25 design with its central ovoid cylinder.

If sales are a good barometer of design efficiency, it must have sucked.

Putting the centre of mass at, or closer to, the pivot point (wrist) might place less stress on the wrist but it is also the least stable option.

As Renzo points out the FWB C25 wasn't exactly a huge success. Another flop was the Hammerli 230 & 232 RF pistol.

Don't confuse center of gravity with polar moment.

If you have all the mass at the wrist pivot point in a small sphere of metal, the CG will match the wrist, but the polar moment is low. That is unstable.

If you have half the mass on a long rod projecting forward, and half the mass on a long rod projecting back as a counterweight, the CG will still be at the wrist, but the polar moment will be high, which is stable.

Whatever the physics , a pistol must be aesthetically pleasing to be popular . Some of the models that strayed from under the barrel cylinders were not popular .

The shooter who posted the Walther LP 400 put it there to be admired .

Those of us with pistols that have attachable weights should consider experimenting .

Elmas

The answer to your questions: It has to fit in the box.

So given the box restriction and the need to maximise moment of inertia we seem to need a lightish pistol with the grip at the back and weight shifted toward the muzzle.
In fact a bit like every top end pistol out there?