light gun or heavy gun, which is better?

So in an effort to determine if I shoot long slides or front heavy guns better, I monkey rigged a counter weight for my 5” gun that could be easily removed and reinstalled with no effect on the gun itself. (see previous post “Saturday Silliness”).  I then shot it both with and without the counter weight to get an idea of how it feels.

To determine, to the best of my ability, any differences between the “light” and “heavy”, I devised the following protocol.  Shoot three NMC’s per session, one with the “light” gun, one with the “heavy” gun and one with a Rock River long slide as a control.  The order in which the three guns were shot was randomized but each gun was shot first two times, second two times, third two times for a total of six  shooting sessions.


All scores were fired on 50’ targets.  Scores for slow fire, sustained fire, and the “300” aggregate were recorded for each gun and are given in the table below. Yellow is the first gun shot during the session, blue is the second, green is the third.





Initially it looks like the rock river and heavy Caspian are very similar and that the light Caspian results in about 3 points lower scores on average. 



To determine if order of firing had any significant affect, the averages of the first, second and third groups were calculated and shown in the figure below. it is clear that guns fires later shoot better scores so randomization was a good idea and hopefully counteracts at least some of this trend in the experiment.   


 




another variable is how I "felt" when shooting during each session. in order to get an idea of if my physiological condition impacted scores, I averaged the three groups of data acquired during each session.  I then subtracted the average from each of the scores fired with the three guns.  that data is below.  positive values are those higher than average, negative values are those lower than average.  the bottom line is the "average" deviation from the daily averages.    again, data shows that the Rock River and heavy caspian are very close at +1 while the light caspian is a -2.  Again the data indicate the light gun results in 3 points less on a 300.







So, my take away from this little experiment - 1) I shoot heavier guns better.  2) there is not much difference between a gun that has a stationary mass our front, or a 6" slide which reciprocates more slowly.  Now, I've got some direction on what gun I'll be building. I know I feel I know how it operates it should be a good shooter once complete... If I can get the Caspian slide cut straight.

Will confess I didn’t follow all the detail, but do agree with the conclusion

Dude, you're shooting Master-level and you're asking the Internet which to choose?  

Seriously, kudos and pick which one feels best. You didn't say how much rest time you took between strings/sessions, but you might want to consider the way they feel after extended strings. The long barrel would give me more wobble as the match wore on, for sure.

I have had heavy guns and light guns. The most important, in my opinion, is to find the balance that is best for you. I personally do best with a barrel heavy gun.

-TT- wrote:Dude, you're shooting Master-level and you're asking the Internet which to choose?  

Seriously, kudos and pick which one feels best. You didn't say how much rest time you took between strings/sessions, but you might want to consider the way they feel after extended strings. The long barrel would give me more wobble as the match wore on, for sure.

TT, not asking, just sharing my experience.  ;-) 

I shot the 3-300's in about an hour so not too fast, but fast enough.  My next step is to shoot 600's, caspian heavy vs Rock river head to head to see if I like the differences in how they feel as they are different.  that's probably another month of dinking around... might have the gun built by next season... might...

3-300's in an hour is not much, IMO. Shoot it at match pace, and shoot three of them like you would at a day's event. Then see if the heavy gun throws you off in those final Rapids. If it does, you could add a weight to a shorter gun instead (like on those little "tactical rails" in front of the trigger), so you could adapt over the day by taking them off, or whatever. Anyway it's just an idea - I've found that I like the weight, but not 6" out front.

Interesting project. However, F=mass*acceleration. With more mass out front your muscles and hold will fatigue faster than less mass. Also, I think +- 3 points is not significant stats wise.

mhayford45 wrote:Interesting project. However, F=mass*acceleration. With more mass out front your muscles and hold will fatigue faster than less mass. Also, I think +- 3 points is not significant stats wise.

Is a sample size of 18 scores stastically significant? Maybe, maybe not so you can argue if  an average of +/-3 points is a big deal, and if your a sharpshooter, I'd agree, its probably not enought to get real excited over. I'm shooting in the mid 860s with the 45 so 9 additional points  is pretty significant toward my goal of High Master.

I used to shoot the long slide and went away from it for some reason I can't remember. Fatigue however was never an issue.

I think, in my mind anyway, the more telling is the fact that 5 of 6 sessions had the heavy guns shooting better than the light one. And for the one lone session, the light gun was shot last, which is prone to a bit of bias (high) in the experiment, so i take that with a grain of salt.

If some one tells me "if you do "this" you'll add an average of 27 points on a 2700 83% of the time". I'm gonna probaby do what ever the "this" is.

The only thing I will add is if you have even a remote possibility of a bias on what you think the outcome might be, that's what the outcome will be.  The subconscious is very powerful. 

The test would be more credible if done with several different participants and also being blind to the results, until all testing is complete.

Note if you are building a gun and want the possibility of adding weight build one with an under-lug.  Then use a scope mount and try different length solid 1" bars held by the scope mount to get the weight you want.  I've been thinking about doing this for some time. 
- Dave

Just like for Goldilocks, there is a weight that is just right.  Long ago when I was young and studly, this 6oz weight I made was just right.  Now that I am old and studly, it is too much. 

dronning wrote:The only thing I will add is if you have even a remote possibility of a bias on what you think the outcome might be, that's what the outcome will be.  The subconscious is very powerful. 

The test would be more credible if done with several different participants and also being blind to the results, until all testing is complete.

Note if you are building a gun and want the possibility of adding weight build one with an under-lug.  Then use a scope mount and try different length solid 1" bars held by the scope mount to get the weight you want.  I've been thinking about doing this for some time. 
- Dave

Dave, my Caspian has in integral weaver rail on the dust cover.  Once I get my new gun built (machined the slide rails last night) you're welcome to borrow mine to play with.  I'm in West Fargo, and suspect we've shot together at some point in the past few decades.

rob

Have you considered if the location of the extra mass makes a difference?  For example, what if you put brass grips on your gun and took off the weight out front?

mpolans wrote:Have you considered if the location of the extra mass makes a difference?  For example, what if you put brass grips on your gun and took off the weight out front?

it absolutely makes a difference... for me, out front is far better as it seems to calm things (wiggle) down.

This is a fun thread... however, with the mass extended out front the moment of inertia changes significantly. It would require more torque to move the mass out front, less wiggle, but after the gun fires and torque is applied it requires more torque to return the mass to its initial position, makes recovery more challenging. 

As it was said above there is just a right mass and moment of inertia which provides the shooter the best overall compromise.   I also have found that over the years less mass out front is more stable.

mhayford45 wrote:This is a fun thread... however, with the mass extended out front the moment of inertia changes significantly. It would require more torque to move the mass out front, less wiggle, but after the gun fires and torque is applied it requires more torque to return the mass to its initial position, makes recovery more challenging. 

 The torque force during recoil is a function of slide velocity/energy when it impacts the frame. If a 5" slide is used the "torque" is the same as a 5" gun Now, if you have that extra inch of slide and barrel hanging out, that doesn't reciprocate it's counteracting the energy of the slide and reducing muzzle flip (torque) so overall movement should be less... how much? I'll let you know once i build the gun...

Shot a 900 in 45 minutes with the heavy caspian... yeah, I think that'll work... not sure why it's upside down though...