Posted: 6/19/2014 9:49:14 PM EDT
|
I shoot competition one handed. On a good day, I can do a pretty good job of damping the recoil of the pistol. However, the torque of the bullet going down the barrel still "twists" the gun and moves the sight around substantially.
Somebody said, "why don't you use a barrel with a slower twist rate?" I thought, "that's not a bad idea." All the targets one engages with a pistol are pretty close and the bullets in .45 acp are pretty short. Maybe a barrel with lest twist would result in less torque at any, given power factor. Anybody have a solution for reducing torque in the 1911 (weight is not an option as the rules have strict limits for gun weight). Does anybody make a slower twist barrel for the 1911? Thanks for any insights from folks who've been down this road. |
|
I do not feel twist rate will do squat. Lighter loads are about all you can do
Experiment with different holding/ gripping methods maybe Talk to some skilled old school bullseye shooters who do all one handed shooting for tips. With one hand the gun will roll and as you call it torque nothing will change that |
|
I absolutely suck one handed with the 1911. I have small hands to began with, and can hit dead on with two hands. I shoot one handed, and the gun seems to torgue to the left, where my shots go. I am sure some of it is shooter error and my trigger postion.
I usally shoot at 8" steel plates at 25 yards with two hands with good sucess. If I am in a self defense situation and I have to shoot one handed, I sure hope they are close. Rubber grips help me maintain control, but overall do not like rubber grips, especially for concealed carry. |
|
I've never been real certain of the "torque theory". I'm more inclined to believe the gun recoils inward as you shoot one handed vs. two. For me shots hit to the to the left when shooting right handed and to the right when shooting left handed. I usually compensate when shooting one handed by moving the correct corner of the front sight to the aiming point rather than using the center of the front sight. I've found the change in POI from one hand to two hasn't been more than a couple inches at 25 yards with a .45.
Here's a couple targets I shot for the ARFCOM 25 MOA challenge. These were shot with a .22 so the effect isn't as damatic but it can definately be seen that the rough center of the group in the first target shot with one hand is over about an inch at 25 yards vs. the second target shot with two hands. You can't tell me a .22 lr has that much torque or recoil so I chalk it up to the wrist naturally "breaks" to the inside as recoil starts. One Hand: 
Two Hands: 
|
|
Quoted:
I've never been real certain of the "torque theory". I'm more inclined to believe the gun recoils inward as you shoot one handed vs. two. For me shots hit to the to the left when shooting right handed and to the right when shooting left handed. I usually compensate when shooting one handed by moving the correct corner of the front sight to the aiming point rather than using the center of the front sight. I've found the change in POI from one hand to two hasn't been more than a couple inches at 25 yards with a .45. Here's a couple targets I shot for the ARFCOM 25 MOA challenge. These were shot with a .22 so the effect isn't as damatic but it can definately be seen that the rough center of the group in the first target shot with one hand is over about an inch at 25 yards vs. the second target shot with two hands. You can't tell me a .22 lr has that much torque or recoil so I chalk it up to the wrist naturally "breaks" to the inside as recoil starts. One Hand: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/green_c/GUNS/IMG_3629_zpse2b16126.jpg Two Hands: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/green_c/GUNS/IMG_3630_zps182f77d2.jpg Torque isn't really a theory, but a rotary force imparted by (in this case) a spinning projectile. Short of changing physical factors like velocity, bullet weight, twist rate, weight of pistol, etc., that torque will be consistent regardless of whether you're shooting one handed or two. That doesn't diminish your point, however. Different holds will help you control recoil forces (including torque) differently. As for the theory of wrist-break direction, it certainly makes sense. It doesn't negate "torque theory," but it's another effect of it. To evaluate the difference wrist-break direction makes, try shooting groups both strong and weak handed. The torque won't change, but switching hands will reverse the wrist break and any significant effect should appear on your targets. Of course, it's not a perfect test, since our "strong side" grip tends to be...well, stronger. But the only alternative would be to swap the barrel with one of an opposite twist direction. All of this discussion of accuracy, however, is largely a non-issue for most shooting situations. Considering the short time the bullet moves down the barrel (imparting force) and the relatively small amount of pistol movement that occurs before the projectile exits the muzzle, the effect on torque on point of impact is not particularly significant for most purposes. Notice that your 1-handed group is not way off target, even at 25 yards. Now interpolate that effect to defensive shooting distances. A 1" shift at 25yds is probably more like a quarter-inch in a typical defensive scenario. With all of the other factors affecting accuracy in a life-and-death shooting, this torque effect on accuracy is a fart in a tornado. The far more serious effect of torque is its effect on the shooter's ability to recover a sight picture for the follow-up shot...and the causation, through repeated experiences with that effect, of those nasty twins: flinch and trigger-jerk. There are plenty of logical suggestions to reduce the effect--lighter loads, different grip technique, heavier pistol, muzzle weights, reverse-twist barrels--but more important than any of them is consistent, conscious practice. The 1911 twists for everyone, but some people shoot them better than others. Focus on what those better shooters do and try to replicate their performance. |
|
Quoted:
Torque isn't really a theory, but a rotary force imparted by (in this case) a spinning projectile. Short of changing physical factors like velocity, bullet weight, twist rate, weight of pistol, etc., that torque will be consistent regardless of whether you're shooting one handed or two. Oh yeah... I'm not say torque doesn't exist. Just blaming the POI change on your next statement more than actual torque. That doesn't diminish your point, however. Different holds will help you control recoil forces (including torque) differently. As for the theory of wrist-break direction, it certainly makes sense. It doesn't negate "torque theory," but it's another effect of it. To evaluate the difference wrist-break direction makes, try shooting groups both strong and weak handed. The torque won't change, but switching hands will reverse the wrist break and any significant effect should appear on your targets. Of course, it's not a perfect test, since our "strong side" grip tends to be...well, stronger. But the only alternative would be to swap the barrel with one of an opposite twist direction. I agree... I just tried shooting 3 groups this afternoon, left (weak), right, and two handed. I would rate my results as inconclusive. The left hand was shifted slightly to the right but the right hand and two hand groups were both centered. Now for the fine print: I was shooting a 6" GP-100 with light .38 specials so I don't think the gun was moving as much as it could. I should have used .357 mags but didn't have any handy. Next my right hand is well trained from lots of bullseye shooting over the last 12 years. Whereas I've only started to train my left hand more seriously in the last 2 or 3 years. All of this discussion of accuracy, however, is largely a non-issue for most shooting situations. Considering the short time the bullet moves down the barrel (imparting force) and the relatively small amount of pistol movement that occurs before the projectile exits the muzzle, the effect on torque on point of impact is not particularly significant for most purposes. Notice that your 1-handed group is not way off target, even at 25 yards. Now interpolate that effect to defensive shooting distances. A 1" shift at 25yds is probably more like a quarter-inch in a typical defensive scenario. With all of the other factors affecting accuracy in a life-and-death shooting, this torque effect on accuracy is a fart in a tornado. I agree completely. My left shift at 25 yards for my test today was 1.5 inches. I only see this being a concern in small game hunting or target work. The far more serious effect of torque is its effect on the shooter's ability to recover a sight picture for the follow-up shot...and the causation, through repeated experiences with that effect, of those nasty twins: flinch and trigger-jerk. There are plenty of logical suggestions to reduce the effect--lighter loads, different grip technique, heavier pistol, muzzle weights, reverse-twist barrels--but more important than any of them is consistent, conscious practice. The 1911 twists for everyone, but some people shoot them better than others. Focus on what those better shooters do and try to replicate their performance. Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never been real certain of the "torque theory". I'm more inclined to believe the gun recoils inward as you shoot one handed vs. two. For me shots hit to the to the left when shooting right handed and to the right when shooting left handed. I usually compensate when shooting one handed by moving the correct corner of the front sight to the aiming point rather than using the center of the front sight. I've found the change in POI from one hand to two hasn't been more than a couple inches at 25 yards with a .45. Here's a couple targets I shot for the ARFCOM 25 MOA challenge. These were shot with a .22 so the effect isn't as damatic but it can definately be seen that the rough center of the group in the first target shot with one hand is over about an inch at 25 yards vs. the second target shot with two hands. You can't tell me a .22 lr has that much torque or recoil so I chalk it up to the wrist naturally "breaks" to the inside as recoil starts. One Hand: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/green_c/GUNS/IMG_3629_zpse2b16126.jpg Two Hands: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/green_c/GUNS/IMG_3630_zps182f77d2.jpg Torque isn't really a theory, but a rotary force imparted by (in this case) a spinning projectile. Short of changing physical factors like velocity, bullet weight, twist rate, weight of pistol, etc., that torque will be consistent regardless of whether you're shooting one handed or two. Oh yeah... I'm not say torque doesn't exist. Just blaming the POI change on your next statement more than actual torque. That doesn't diminish your point, however. Different holds will help you control recoil forces (including torque) differently. As for the theory of wrist-break direction, it certainly makes sense. It doesn't negate "torque theory," but it's another effect of it. To evaluate the difference wrist-break direction makes, try shooting groups both strong and weak handed. The torque won't change, but switching hands will reverse the wrist break and any significant effect should appear on your targets. Of course, it's not a perfect test, since our "strong side" grip tends to be...well, stronger. But the only alternative would be to swap the barrel with one of an opposite twist direction. I agree... I just tried shooting 3 groups this afternoon, left (weak), right, and two handed. I would rate my results as inconclusive. The left hand was shifted slightly to the right but the right hand and two hand groups were both centered. Now for the fine print: I was shooting a 6" GP-100 with light .38 specials so I don't think the gun was moving as much as it could. I should have used .357 mags but didn't have any handy. Next my right hand is well trained from lots of bullseye shooting over the last 12 years. Whereas I've only started to train my left hand more seriously in the last 2 or 3 years. All of this discussion of accuracy, however, is largely a non-issue for most shooting situations. Considering the short time the bullet moves down the barrel (imparting force) and the relatively small amount of pistol movement that occurs before the projectile exits the muzzle, the effect on torque on point of impact is not particularly significant for most purposes. Notice that your 1-handed group is not way off target, even at 25 yards. Now interpolate that effect to defensive shooting distances. A 1" shift at 25yds is probably more like a quarter-inch in a typical defensive scenario. With all of the other factors affecting accuracy in a life-and-death shooting, this torque effect on accuracy is a fart in a tornado. I agree completely. My left shift at 25 yards for my test today was 1.5 inches. I only see this being a concern in small game hunting or target work. The far more serious effect of torque is its effect on the shooter's ability to recover a sight picture for the follow-up shot...and the causation, through repeated experiences with that effect, of those nasty twins: flinch and trigger-jerk. There are plenty of logical suggestions to reduce the effect--lighter loads, different grip technique, heavier pistol, muzzle weights, reverse-twist barrels--but more important than any of them is consistent, conscious practice. The 1911 twists for everyone, but some people shoot them better than others. Focus on what those better shooters do and try to replicate their performance. On a related note my POI shifted up about 1.5 inches for both the left and right hand only groups vs. the two hand group. Your statement in red is the key. I'm wondering if the different results on the two earlier targets I posted are more a result of shooting on two different days rather than torque or wrist break. Quite simply. the test I performed to confirm my theory has done nothing of the sort. OTOH maybe my test is telling me you can train the POI change away. In the last 12 years I have shot many more rounds with my right hand than my left or even two hands. All I know is I'll have to shoot some more. Rats. 
|
