View Full Version : Interesting take on bore axis
Re-posted with permission
I've read countless times, including here, that some hanguns like HKs and sigs have a high bore axis making them less desirable. I kinda grew tired of this so i took my USP and placed it side by side the benchmark of all handguns, my colt 1911. surprise! these were taken without any tricks, both were taken from nearly exact same distance, and the same angle - in line with the line where the frame meets slide.
http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/Blazer-6/DSC_0080.jpg
measuring from where the thumb web is indexed, to the firing pin which of course is the approximare location of the center of the bore, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference! so, what's with all the "HKs have a higher bore axis thus more recoil / difficult to shoot / more muzzle flip / etc..."? I havent done this with a sig though. The glock is a different story being a hammerless weapon and thus having no need for a hammer axle - but these undesirability issues i'm talking of are largely based on a 1911 control group, the 1911 being the perfect pistol. I hope this thread will help convert those who have considered this bore axis thing as an HK undesirable trait.
and a comparison, in inches, with a Glock
HK
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/myersma2/545cdfc3.jpg
Glock
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/myersma2/643f509d.jpg
I see 0.25" difference
He appears to be using a 1911 with a legacy grip safety and not a high-ride beavertail. I guess we could also dredge up Moisin and compare things to an AR15 if we wanted to.
If you're interested in bore-axis you need to eliminate the fat-hand from the equation, and IMO use the most common example of each, to include the beavertail on the 1911. The right way to do this would be to take scale images and show the measurement from the centerline of the bore to the top of the backstrap.
Maybe I can get the original poster do something like that. I don't have that kinda time, and really don't care that much :). Just passin something interesting along
Maybe I can get the original poster do something like that. I don't have that kinda time, and really don't care that much :). Just passin something interesting along
I understand, but the internet is full of people putting out "data" that starts from a flawed premise and is motivated by a desire to prove a pre-conceived notion or justify a prior purchase or argument. Most of them don't even realize they are doing just that, but it's painfully obvious in a lot of cases to anyone reading it. Very few people seem to understand, or know, how to remove bias from their "reporting" and instead just vomit forth "information" of questionable value. Provided they can get enough people to rally 'round them and scream "nuh uh!" at any naysayers or anyone trying to inject some amount of intelligence into the discussion, it stands as "fact".
Well then we need a 'bore axis height' spreadsheet!
Physics is physics and Torque=Force x Length of the Lever Arm. All things being equal, a higher bore axis will increase the torque. Whether or not the difference in perceived recoil, sight tracking, etc. is worth mentioning is an individual thing.
Failure2Stop
04-06-12, 10:53
I have found bore-axis to be pretty much irrelevant compared to all the other features of a pistol when it comes to actual use.
I have found bore-axis to be pretty much irrelevant compared to all the other features of a pistol when it comes to actual use.
As have I....it is primarily used to justify one's purchase or dislikes.
Physics is physics and Torque=Force x Length of the Lever Arm. All things being equal, a higher bore axis will increase the torque.
True. It is science, but is it perceptible?
When I spent my days under the hoods of cars, I almost fell pray to the cold air intake fad. It's science, and K&N will tell you, with a $250 CAI system, you'll realize 8-12hp gain based on your motor. Makes sense, better airflow and more power. What they don't tell you is that they quote break horsepower. Not wheel horsepower. The actual felt (perceptible) gain after drivetrain loss is 1-3hp. Hardly perceptible or justifiable. But there is a difference backed by the science found in internal combustion engines.
All that is to say, no one argues there's a difference. But it becomes debating minutia at this point. Sheldon Coopers of the gun world....
misanthropist
04-06-12, 11:25
I am also bore-axis indifferent.
It is an issue where I tend to think that, all else being equal, I would take a lower bore axis over a higher one.
So if Glock ever starts making a G17 High, where everything is identical, but the bore axis is two inches up, I'll care.
But at the moment, the phrase "all else being equal" seems to exclude bore axis from serious consideration as a deciding factor in pistol selection. All else is never equal; slide mass differs, lock times differ, frame mass differs, recoil impulses differ...
Bore axis is something I don't worry about.
The benchmark of what? I was under the impression that no matter one's stance on modern pistols, the 1911 was and will for the foreseeable future be, regarded as one of the most shoot-able options.
Either way, it's a minutia of a metric that I tend to scoff at when seen mentioned. Just another way to justify a purchase or choice I suppose. To each their own :)
I dunno. :D
Whatever the fellow quoted in your repost meant when he called it perfect etc.
Soooooooo are you thinking of buying something new with a higher bore axis? ;)
Soooooooo are you thinking of buying something new with a higher bore axis? ;)
Oh no, I'm quite happy with my HKs sky-high bore axis. You'll see me at the range/in classes looking about like this
:sarcastic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG-5i0Z60x4
and a comparison, in inches, with a Glock
HK
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/myersma2/545cdfc3.jpg
Glock
http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t294/myersma2/643f509d.jpg
I see 0.25" difference
I'm 100% not being confrontational - and I'm far from someone who preaches to people about their pistol choices - but if you look at the web of your hand on the HK, it's sitting quite a bit lower then where you begin measuring. Conversely, it looks like you've pressed the ruler deeper into the meat of your hand on the Glock. Looking at the pictures - and I may bust out the calipers at some point since you've got my wheels turning - I'd guess the difference is 0.75"+.
The real question is - how much does bore axis affect performance? I notice it, but I'm with F2S - it's not high on the list of things I look at. However, I did notice in one of the HK threads here someone said to the effect that "HK's having a poor bore axis ratio is a myth" but this can quantifiably be proven.
I think it's important as a consumer to make a list of what matters. For example, price matters to me. So cost of mags is one feature that may matter to me and not others.
I will say this though - I avoid guns that when an issue is brought up - proponents of the design say "training issue that can be overcome". If I have the choice, why bother overcoming a shortcoming?
If you make a list of all features of pistols, it's hard to argue against Glock. However, guns like the P30 and 1911 will beat it in certain classes like Accuracy. So it's up to the end user to decide if Accuracy outweighs something like Ease of Detail Stripping or Low Cost / High availability of parts.
That's my $0.02 on it. As the 1% of gun owners who nitpick down to every detail, I don't think bore axis should be completely ignored. It's just "how much does this affect you?".
You're right it isn't perfect.
Bottom line is, I don't think it's enough to make a difference. HK is still in business so I guess it doesn't bother too many ppl.
You're right it isn't perfect.
Bottom line is, I don't think it's enough to make a difference. HK is still in business so I guess it doesn't bother too many ppl.
Sorry, doing this from my phone and hit Send before being finished. Haha.
No, I have no issues at all against HK pistols. They are great firearms. I don't think sales numbers even fairly represent their value.
Something like a low bore axis affects performance to some degree - it's just how much? It's interesting to note that Todd G beat his FAST times with a P30, so the performance translation may not be that much - kind of like the K&N example you used.
True, someone that shoots as much as Todd can most likely overcome differences between pistols more quickly than someone like me could!
Failure2Stop
04-06-12, 17:20
True, someone that shoots as much as Todd can most likely overcome differences between pistols more quickly than someone like me could!
Once you get your grip ironed out it makes bore axis seem a lot less important than control layout. You don't have to be a ninja level shooter to have a good grip.
True. It is science, but is it perceptible?
When I spent my days under the hoods of cars, I almost fell pray to the cold air intake fad. It's science, and K&N will tell you, with a $250 CAI system, you'll realize 8-12hp gain based on your motor. Makes sense, better airflow and more power. What they don't tell you is that they quote break horsepower. Not wheel horsepower. The actual felt (perceptible) gain after drivetrain loss is 1-3hp. Hardly perceptible or justifiable. But there is a difference backed by the science found in internal combustion engines.
All that is to say, no one argues there's a difference. But it becomes debating minutia at this point. Sheldon Coopers of the gun world....
That's basically what he was saying in the part of his post you removed from quote tags...;)
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-06-12, 18:35
I like the idea of looking from the rear of the slide, but I think looking from the side also tells part of the story too- how well and low the gun sits in the hand- and how close the main hand can get to the bore with its grip under the trigger guard.
If height over bore where the determining issue, HK P7 and that Rhino pistols would rule the world.
True. It is science, but is it perceptible? Yeah, if there is substantial difference in the height. I can see the difference when I am tracking the sights, but there usually isn't any difference to speak of on the target face. There are so many other variables...
Grip angle affects bore axis also. The web of your hand is a fulcrum that pivots the gun in your hand. This pivots the hand on the wrist. A steeper grip angle like a glock brings the web of your hand more in line with your wrist theoreticly reducing torque.
Maybe the bore axis coupled with the grip angle is where a difference can be felt.... :sarcastic:
That said, I dont think its really gonna matter. Reliability, controls and accuracy all come first. Then this stuff is on the list of things I dont really consider when making a purchase. When I start hearing pros talk about how these things affect performance, I'll start looking more into it.
Grip angle affects bore axis also. The web of your hand is a fulcrum that pivots the gun in your hand. This pivots the hand on the wrist. A steeper grip angle like a glock brings the web of your hand more in line with your wrist theoreticly reducing torque.
It brings the bore axis down a little bit, but this is not the purpose of the glock grip angle. The glock grip angle actually increases torque.
The bones of your wrist essentially pivot on your radius and ulna. Pivoting of the wrist towards the ulna is known as wrist adduction or ulnar deviation. Pivoting of the wrist towards the radius is known as wrist abduction or radial deviation.
These two ranges of motion of the wrist from neutral are as follows:
adduction/ulnar deviation ~45 degrees
abduction/radial deviation ~15-20 degrees
What the Glock grip angle does do is force you into what for most people is close to the end of range of motion of their ulnar deviation which forces you to contract flexor capri ulnaris and extensor carpi ulnaris, the primary wrist adductors. Forced engagement of these muscles due to the grip angle in theory will force you into a more solid grip (unless the grip angle isn't near the limit of you ulnar deviation range of motion). This forced engagement of the wrist adductors is good for recoil control if you have no shooting exprerience. It is a lowest common denominator feature. That is the sole purpose of the Glock grip angle and the only reason I don't like Glocks.
An M&P or more 1911 style grip does not force you into ulnar deviation and thus does not force you to engage flexor carpi ulnaris & extensor capri ulnaris and thus does not force you to resist the recoil. This is fine, so long as you train yourself to engage these muscles to resist the recoil.
As a side note, notice that from ulnar deviation (a glock grip) your wrist can move a much greater distance due to recoil than from a neutral position (an M&P grip). Why then doesn't this anatomic ability to move a greater distance hinder recoil control? Due to the forced engagement of the wrist adductors from an ulnar deviated poistion.
It brings the bore axis down a little bit, but this is not the purpose of the glock grip angle.
The bones of your wrist essentially pivot on your radius and ulna. Pivoting of the wrist towards the ulna is known as wrist adduction or ulnar deviation. Pivoting of the wrist towards the radius is known as wrist abduction or radial deviation.
These two ranges of motion of the wrist from neutral are as follows:
adduction/ulnar deviation ~45 degrees
abduction/radial deviation ~15-20 degrees
What the Glock grip angle does do is force you into what for most people is close to the end of range of motion of their ulnar deviation which forces you to contract flexor capri ulnaris and extensor carpi ulnaris, the primary wrist adductors. Forced engagement of these muscles due to the grip angle in theory will force you into a more solid grip (unless the grip angle isn't near the limit of you ulnar deviation range of motion). This forced engagement of the wrist adductors is good for recoil control if you have no shooting exprerience. It is a lowest common denominator feature. That is the sole purpose of the Glock grip angle and the only reason I don't like Glocks.
An M&P or more 1911 style grip does not force you into ulnar deviation and thus does not force you to engage flexor carpi ulnaris & extensor capri ulnaris and thus does not force you to resist the recoil. This is fine, so long as you train yourself to engage these muscles to resist the recoil.
As a side note, notice that from ulnar deviation (a glock grip) your wrist can move a much greater distance due to recoil than from a neutral position (an M&P grip). Why then doesn't this anatomic ability to move a greater distance hinder recoil control? Due to the forced engagement of the wrist adductors from an ulnar deviated poistion.
That's pretty interesting and seems to jive with Surf's explanations on youtube in more layman terms. I would offer a slight quibble with the move from kineseology to what sounded like an implication that this recoil control leverage applies to inexperienced shooters (ok) but maybe not to experienced shooters? If your bones muscles and joints are comparable - both groups could employ this leverage.
This may be the science behind why after more than a dozen years of mostly Glock shooting, I can't seem to re-spool up on the 1911 for control at speed like I did back in the '80's. I thought I was just getting old. :D
Once you get your grip ironed out it makes bore axis seem a lot less important than control layout. You don't have to be a ninja level shooter to have a good grip.
Good point. Having that as a constant helped me when going from the G19 to P30.
It brings the bore axis down a little bit, but this is not the purpose of the glock grip angle. The glock grip angle actually increases torque.
The bones of your wrist essentially pivot on your radius and ulna. Pivoting of the wrist towards the ulna is known as wrist adduction or ulnar deviation. Pivoting of the wrist towards the radius is known as wrist abduction or radial deviation.
These two ranges of motion of the wrist from neutral are as follows:
adduction/ulnar deviation ~45 degrees
abduction/radial deviation ~15-20 degrees
What the Glock grip angle does do is force you into what for most people is close to the end of range of motion of their ulnar deviation which forces you to contract flexor capri ulnaris and extensor carpi ulnaris, the primary wrist adductors. Forced engagement of these muscles due to the grip angle in theory will force you into a more solid grip (unless the grip angle isn't near the limit of you ulnar deviation range of motion). This forced engagement of the wrist adductors is good for recoil control if you have no shooting exprerience. It is a lowest common denominator feature. That is the sole purpose of the Glock grip angle and the only reason I don't like Glocks.
An M&P or more 1911 style grip does not force you into ulnar deviation and thus does not force you to engage flexor carpi ulnaris & extensor capri ulnaris and thus does not force you to resist the recoil. This is fine, so long as you train yourself to engage these muscles to resist the recoil.
As a side note, notice that from ulnar deviation (a glock grip) your wrist can move a much greater distance due to recoil than from a neutral position (an M&P grip). Why then doesn't this anatomic ability to move a greater distance hinder recoil control? Due to the forced engagement of the wrist adductors from an ulnar deviated poistion.
Now I feel smart :) interesting perspective
I would offer a slight quibble with the move from kineseology to what sounded like an implication that this recoil control leverage applies to inexperienced shooters (ok) but maybe not to experienced shooters? If your bones muscles and joints are comparable - both groups could employ this leverage.
I wasn't clear. The idea of forcing ulnar deviation to engage wrist adductors for recoil control benefits inexperienced shooters most of all -they are forced to put ulnar torque on their wrist to help manage recoil which is something they may not necessarily know to do or how to do. Like I said, it is a lowest common denominator feature. If you know to do it you don't need to be forced into doing it by an awkward grip angle.
I wasn't clear. The idea of forcing ulnar deviation to engage wrist adductors for recoil control benefits inexperienced shooters most of all -they are forced to put ulnar torque on their wrist to help manage recoil which is something they may not necessarily know to do or how to do. Like I said, it is a lowest common denominator feature. If you know to do it you don't need to be forced into doing it by an awkward grip angle.
This shit is gold panzerr. Thanks! Are you a doctor or something? :D
Wow, thank you for the detailed reply.
I did notice that when using an isosceles stance, you would have to torque the grip, but when using a modern, iso, with an aggressive thumbs foreward, using my cz, the sights dip down making the glock angle more natural to aim.... For me.
One question, how does bringing the line of recoil more inline with both fulcrums increase torque? I feel like I'm missing something. Or did you mean increasing the user induced torque (as in muscle tension)? The more inline they all are, the less vertical movement a given amount of recoil will make.
Again, I understand all this doesnt really matter, Im just more curious than anything.
Once you get your grip ironed out it makes bore axis seem a lot less important than control layout. You don't have to be a ninja level shooter to have a good grip.
I could not agree more!
Anyway, HK USP (full size) problems with tracking is not bore axis. It is fancy recoil system.
If no one knows this, I am definitely the type that gets down to very small details, or in other words I start splitting hairs to get increases in my own performance. I do a lot of video (the majority never gets posted) as a training method. Kinda like a golfer using video to break down their golf swing. I do this for myself and students. Video and results on target showed some interesting things.
I do like a lower bore axis, but can shoot anything pretty well. Also moving the hand placement more towards the center of the pistol with a deeper undercut at the web of the hand is a good thing. Having more of a high ride beavertail on say a 1911 is good also.
One thing I noticed about the Glock in particular is that I became a fan of the grip angle and this is from a 1911 guy. I really didn't care for Glocks in the past. Yes it is true. The different grip angle was not comfortable and the Gen3's and earlier were not as ergonomic for my smaller sized hands. But once I started getting more comfortable with the Glock I noticed some interesting side effects that really showed on video and in my performance. For a good thumbs forward combat grip we preach a rotated and locked out support hand. I also noted that my primary hand on the Glock had more forward rotation and the overall grip and primary wrist was more stable, which is the same theory with the canted support hand. So a canted support hand with a more canted primary hand led to an increase in recoil management and speed of follow up shots greatly increased. I tested this heavily in several pistols in same caliber types and results followed my initial hypothesis. I shot a video discussing "Why Glock" and mention this phenomenon. After researching it more I actually came across a video made prior to mine where Dave Sevigney discussed this same thing with his shooting with the Glock pistol and what he talks about the higher angle and the "camming" action of the wrists that it takes to get the sights on target.
So for myself I might actually get better results from a Euro style grip angle like the Glock as opposed to say a 1911 *gasp* grip angle that more Americans are used to. I might actually be more concerned with grip angle as opposed to the actual height over bore topic. But then again as mentioned ergo's plays a big big role in my choices, which is why I like the Gen 4's ergo's over say the Gen 3's.
comparing the grip angle on a 1911 to a Glock leaves a lot out of the equation. the 1911 is (usually) an all steel gun. the slide velocity of the low pressure round is such that a good shooter can shoot very fast just as the mass of the slide returns to battery. it's a system that works very well to those who practice it.
the technical discussion of the Glock grip angle seems more relevant to recoil control than bore height. a lot of shooters shoot high bore guns like HK and SIG very well. it's the indian, not the arrow...
For myself in a similar caliber, the steel frame pistol will help absorb recoil. For the 1911 with a high cut beavertail, I am able to get more leverage with the web area of my hand on the weapon and the beavertail helps to decrease muzzle rise / flip. So speed with the 1911 is good. But I would still hypothesize that on the same 1911 with a steeper grip angle I may benefit more. Now my practiced point of aim will be altered but that is a training issue.
Now my Sigs have a similar grip angle as that of a 1911 with a curved main spring housing. Both have a similar height over bore axis from my calibrated eyes and feel on the weapon. I will say that I shoot a Sig .40 S&W far more than any other pistol. Now if I shoot my standard P226 vs say an Elite or Tac Ops, I have better management in the Elite or Tac Ops on virtually the same pistol because of the added beavertail.
So in essence, whether 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP I should be able to perform better with a steel pistol with a beavertail. So why do I perform better with a Glock in any caliber vs another steel pistol of the same caliber head to head? Maybe its just me, but I think that grip angle and bore axis play a big role. Which one is bigger? Not really sure but I like to have an increase in grip angle and a hand placement higher to the axis of the bore and a beavertail, provided I can manipulate the controls of the pistol well.
So again I shoot my 1911's and Sigs extremely well and I would also agree that the shooter is the big factor. But if I had my choice of preferences in a pistol, grip angle and bore axis would definitely play a big role. I can hunt with standard poplar target arrows, but I would rather have a good compound bow and use something like an Easton AAC tipped with a high quality broadhead. :)
The low bore axis on Glocks, etc. is merely one additional feature that makes them easy to shoot fast and accurately for a wide range of skill levels. Todd G. can master the HK, just as Ernest Langdon can master darn near anything. What's important is what a baseline shooter can do with various platforms. That's one of several reasons you don't see HK's and Sigs dominating dynamic handgun competitions.
There are a great many factors that influence this and bore axis IS one of them. It's just not the be all end all that some make it out to be. If HK or Sig came out with a new design tomorrow that outclassed all the others in every other performance metric except bore axis, you'd begin seeing them in more top shooter's hands very quickly.
Thanks folks for the (detailed) insight, very interesting!
For myself in a similar caliber, the steel frame pistol will help absorb recoil. For the 1911 with a high cut beavertail, I am able to get more leverage with the web area of my hand on the weapon and the beavertail helps to decrease muzzle rise / flip. So speed with the 1911 is good. But I would still hypothesize that on the same 1911 with a steeper grip angle I may benefit more. Now my practiced point of aim will be altered but that is a training issue.
Now my Sigs have a similar grip angle as that of a 1911 with a curved main spring housing. Both have a similar height over bore axis from my calibrated eyes and feel on the weapon. I will say that I shoot a Sig .40 S&W far more than any other pistol. Now if I shoot my standard P226 vs say an Elite or Tac Ops, I have better management in the Elite or Tac Ops on virtually the same pistol because of the added beavertail.
So in essence, whether 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP I should be able to perform better with a steel pistol with a beavertail. So why do I perform better with a Glock in any caliber vs another steel pistol of the same caliber head to head? Maybe its just me, but I think that grip angle and bore axis play a big role. Which one is bigger? Not really sure but I like to have an increase in grip angle and a hand placement higher to the axis of the bore and a beavertail, provided I can manipulate the controls of the pistol well.
So again I shoot my 1911's and Sigs extremely well and I would also agree that the shooter is the big factor. But if I had my choice of preferences in a pistol, grip angle and bore axis would definitely play a big role. I can hunt with standard poplar target arrows, but I would rather have a good compound bow and use something like an Easton AAC tipped with a high quality broadhead. :)
you make a very good point that I think might be lost on, or not valid, for other shooters with less skill.
as an analogy, when I was roadracing motorcycles there were different classes - stock, modified, and "formula". formula bikes were at the highest level of performance with stock at the lowest end. you could race in higher classes with a lower performance bike but not down.
but in amateur racing, it was curious that unless a race had a rider was an expert or pro "cherry-picking" races, most riders did well even two classes higher up.
formula I and II bikes were generally two-strokes with incredibly powerful but short powerbands, intimidating brakes, and the handling was brutally sharp. there was no doubt that the bikes were much more technically advanced to the task of racing, but unless you had the skill to take advantage of that, that aspect was of no benefit. in fact, they were often more difficult for an average rider to ride well at all.
so it seems with shooting - any fraction of percentage advantages in the tool itself can and usually will be dwarfed by the individual's performance. for someone like you who can find the last hundredth of a second in split times, small changes in equipment will be evident whereas I feel that for the average shooter, they would be better off choosing a platform and working to perfect their technique till they find limitations.
I find all these discussions on bore height, grip angle, etc., etc. for the average individual, to be straining at gnats...
snip....I find all these discussions on bore height, grip angle, etc., etc. for the average individual, to be straining at gnats...I couldn't agree more. It really is splitting hairs and most shooters will see little difference.
I also used to amateur race as a teen. I am 44 years old and still own a 1KRR. Man I need to grow up someday. ;)
Gary1911A1
04-12-12, 14:43
I recently purchased a PPQ in 9MM which I shot at the same range session with my Glock 19 with the same ammo and was surprised when I couldn't notice any difference in Bill Drills. Now I did note the PPQ had a better trigger which allowed me to actually out shoot my much shot 19 so maybe the trigger made any increase in muzzle flip unnoticed by me. Maybe there's more to shooting than bore axis. I seem to recall something about trigger quality and sights.:D
I couldn't agree more. It really is splitting hairs and most shooters will see little difference.
I also used to amateur race as a teen. I am 44 years old and still own a 1KRR. Man I need to grow up someday. ;)
that KRR is a beast. I sold my Ducati 996 a couple years ago as I don't bounce as well as I used to. I've still got two Ducatis and an Aprillia but they are more "comfort" oriented.
I'm not going to tell you my age but if you are 44 and raced in your teens, then me being 25-28 yrs old at the time, we probably raced around the same time... :cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.