New Toy!! (gun porn inside)

[hbliam]

Maybe it is his backup weapon?

But then don't you have to qualify on the range with that new gun?

I know all departments I have been around make officer's  qualify to the same standards as their duty weapon

it's not a back up. but yes, we have to qualify quarterly with our duty weapon, back up, shotgun, MP5, and any gun we want to carry off duty. Our range is behind our station so it's not a big deal to go out back and qualify.

and normally your back up it's not held to the same standard as your duty weapon. for instance, at my last agency to qualify with my back up (S&W 342 PD, 1 3/4" 5 shot .38)I had to pass the regular qualification course which included 8 shots one handed (4 left, 4 right) from 25 yards. With a snub nose hammerless .38! It sucked. After you do that once the yearly requal is just 5 rounds in the head of the target from 7 yards. Realistically your backup will probably be used from less then 1-3 yards anyway.

[ducatiz]

What is the purpose of the ported barrel?

routes some of the high-pressure gases upward which offsets some of the recoil.

net result to ballistics is that it saps some energy from the projectile as well.

hard to tell if the recoil advantage is due to the porting or to the lost energy.

[NAKID]

routes some of the high-pressure gases upward which offsets some of the recoil.

net result to ballistics is that it saps some energy from the projectile as well.

hard to tell if the recoil advantage is due to the porting or to the lost energy.

I was thinking it would take some of the power away from the round but couldn't think of an upside...

[acalles]

routes some of the high-pressure gases upward which offsets some of the recoil.

net result to ballistics is that it saps some energy from the projectile as well.

hard to tell if the recoil advantage is due to the porting or to the lost energy.

probably a bit of both, but probably mostly from the gasses offsetting the muzzle lift, giving a preception of reducing recoil.

I question the thinking of it, especially in 9mm. even a sub compact 9mm's recoil is managable, and as mentioned, the flash and the powder coming back towards your face isn't good, terrible in a dark defensive situation..

if it does take enough energy from the projectile, thats energy lost from cycling the slide which could result in misfeeding. Not a fan of that idea.

For instance, I have a PPKS (.380) that will only reliably eat very hot ammo. I tried "reduced recoil" threw it and it jammed every round, to its credit the recoil was pretty light (felt like a .22)

[ducatiz]

probably a bit of both, but probably mostly from the gasses offsetting the muzzle lift, giving a preception of reducing recoil.

I question the thinking of it, especially in 9mm. even a sub compact 9mm's recoil is managable, and as mentioned, the flash and the powder coming back towards your face isn't good, terrible in a dark defensive situation..

if it does take enough energy from the projectile, thats energy lost from cycling the slide which could result in misfeeding. Not a fan of that idea.

For instance, I have a PPKS (.380) that will only reliably eat very hot ammo. I tried "reduced recoil" threw it and it jammed every round, to its credit the recoil was pretty light (felt like a .22)

the PPK's are all blowback, which makes me think you have a too-strong spring in that gun.  I would send it to Walther and get them to put a weaker spring in it -- probably drop a half pound and it will work find.  Those PPKs should work with any ammo!

I am also not a fan of porting on a small gun.  I don't see the need, but I know it's popular.  I am just concerned that with a 3" barrel, you are shaving off projectile performance.  If the barrel is bleeding off gases, then the projectile is no longer accelerating (or is accelerating at a much lower rate).  I wonder what the diameter of those porting holes is combined?  Seems you would lose quite a bit once the projectile clears 4 of them.

[cyrus buelton]

Tizzy' turned me onto CZ guns last year and the end result was me purchasing a CZ 85 9mm.


That gun literally has no recoil

[Sinister]

...I love my brother's friend...

Have you shared your feelings with your brother, or his friend? 




[laugh]Shit, dude, I couldn't resist....

[ducatiz]

Tizzy' turned me onto CZ guns last year and the end result was me purchasing a CZ 85 9mm.


That gun literally has no recoil

they are well balanced but they do have recoil.. i guess you have strong wrists from all that auto pleasuring you do.  but the recoil is well weighted since it's a steel-framed gun.

i do love the CZ guns though, I have a clutch of them.

[Sinister]

i do love the CZ guns though, I have a clutch of them.

More than a brace, eh?  Nice.

[ducatiz]

More than a brace, eh?  Nice.

rofl.. actually the count of a clutch is relative to container size... and a brace is only two identical things...

only two actual CZ make, the others are Tanfoglio and IAI.  I have a Mini Desert Eagle in 41AE which rocks.  my cz85 is one of the original imports with no firing pin safety and a solid front sight.  they are better built than the B versions now available, but the B's are excellent by far. 

[Jarvicious]

Now that I've put a couple hundred rounds through it I figured I'd give an update. 

Coming from a background with minimal handgun usage, I immediately found this gun to have more kick than I thought it would.  As it turns out, it was just the ammo I was using.  I traded a clip full with my buddy yesterday and was amazed at what a difference it made.  I don't know if it was a smaller bullet or they just used a smaller load, but his rounds definitely shot smoother than the shit I've been using (and cost less to boot). 

I finally got my hands on his Glock (19 i think) and his wife's Kahr 9mm.  It was amusing to try the different guns with the different ammo and really reinforced my purchase decision.  We were discussing the ported barrel option at the range and the consensus was that it does help with the recoil.  It's a pretty mild effect though.  It kinda felt as though the ports didn't minimalize the distance the barrel jumped, but rather made it feel as though I had more control over the recoil (compared to the glock). 

I don't doubt that it saps some of the projectile energy, but what kind of effect do you honestly think even 100 (unlikely loss of power) would have on the gun's effectiveness?  Even if it's running, say, 800 fps (not likely given the barrel's length) shouldn't that be close to as effective as a +P round?  How much difference would 200 fps make?  I'm not being argumentative here (mostly  ), just looking for one of you folks with some gun exp. to lend some educated responses.  I have a feeling though that even if we determined the ports are counter productive, I still would have bought the same gun  .  I'm a trained designer that thinks more like an engineer so the never ending battle of form vs. function is pretty constant in my mind, but form won this one.

I was bored this morning so I did a little bit of math and the ports only account for the tiniest bit over 1% of the surface area of the barrel.  It's a pretty simple concept that when a cylindrical projectile is propelled from a larger cylinder, any exhaust prior to the end of the larger cylinder will cause a loss in back pressure, but I'm not about to run the math on just how much force there is behind X bullet with Y loss in velocity due to Z amount in pressure loss.  I'm not that bored.  Here's a pic of the barrel.  There are five ports on each side that vent through the slots in the top of the slide.

[hbliam]

Before we proceed any further repeat the following.

"Clips are for hair, magazines are for guns."

[Rameses]

Before we proceed any further repeat the following.

"Clips are for hair, magazines are for guns."

What about an M1 Garand?

[acalles]

It's a pretty simple concept that when a cylindrical projectile is propelled from a larger cylinder, any exhaust prior to the end of the larger cylinder will cause a loss in back pressure, but I'm not about to run the math on just how much force there is behind X bullet with Y loss in velocity due to Z amount in pressure loss.  I'm not that bored.  Here's a pic of the barrel.  There are five ports on each side that vent through the slots in the top of the slide.

well, instead of running crazy math numbers, you could get a chronograph and measure speed, then run the numbers threw something like this.

http://billstclair.com/energy.html

but Ammo is all different, lots of different powders with different burn rates, lots of different bullet weights from lots of manufactures.

lets say your shooting 115 grain ammo at 1200 fps. your energy is 368 ft/lbs.

if your drop that velocity to 800 fps your down to 163 ft/lbs/ even if your shooting 150 grain at that speed your down to 203 ft/lbs.

I would call that a unacceptable loss. if you only lose 100 fps your still at 306ft/lbs. which isn't bad.

chronoing a non ported bbl, against a your ported bbl, with the ammo you wish to carry would be the best way to figure in gains/losses.

[Jarvicious]

Chronograph - range 
Math - livingroom and a cup of coffee   

I've met quite a few folks with standard or match grade barrel XDs, but I'm not sure who might have a chronograph around here.  Any speed or energy testing would be strictly amusement and curiosity though.  If i start running ammo that jams once or twice per magazine (happy hbliam??  ) I'll strongly reconsider doing some research.  Otherwise, the gun is just something to gain experience with and to go playing around with on the weekends. 

I am enjoying getting back into shooting though.  Next time I see my parents I'm planning on stealing my .222 and taking it to a proper range.  Last time me and a buddy went out to his uncle's farm and screwed with it for a couple of hours, but didn't have much luck sighting in the scope.  I got home and was talking to dad about it and his words were something along these lines:  Shooting at 75 yards ehh?  Well, I guess that would prove difficult on a gun sighted in at 400.