Usually, trigger pulls are discussed in terms of their maximum static weight necessary for sear break/hammer release. Secondarily, trigger distance is discussed - the amount of travel to complete firing either from trigger acquisition or from reset.
The P320 trigger causes me to wonder if it might not be worth it to start combining those two elements and looking at the amount of "Work" it takes to cause ignition. And that Work would be the product of the amount of force applied across the entire length of the trigger pull, including any secondary devices like tabs or possibly grip safeties.
Work or Joules required to fire isn't going to tell us a lot about how the gun shoots, but it will tell us about how many Joules needs to be put into the gun by external forces to cause ignition. An HK Light LEM has a static trigger pull of about 4.5 pounds. A P320 is more like 7 pounds. But the trigger distance is around 1/4 the distance of the LEM. Which one will fire with less outside force? Comparing Joules may offer a better answer.
It would be interesting to plot out the relative Joules required to fire different light triggered pistols to get a better idea how they actually compare, and what sort of Work input each one has available to accomplish internal functions like deactivating a firing pin safety or overcoming the sear. I think the results of such a comparison would be surprising just how different the amount of Work necessary to fire some guns is compared to others with 'firmer' trigger pulls.
It would also be possible to use such a system to make predictions about the likelihood of a trigger system to resist firing from impacts, which also impart work to the system. A gun with relatively low Joules required for ignition has less margin between safe and unsafe conditions that are affected by external force, parts wear, spring resistance and tolerance stacking.
It takes damned few joules to drop the hammer of my X5 Comp, with its Robert Burke action job. Ergs might be a more appropriate unit of measure. And the very short, very crisp, reset makes me smile.
The firing pin blocker will prevent the gun from firing if dropped.
"Joule of Work" by RX-79G does will not become a hit like "Duke of Earl" by Gene Chandler if lyrics will not be edited.
Please consider my well ment advice. Consult Wikipedia or a Physics book, compare terms like mass (M); work (W) and energy (P) = [Joule], learn what they mean and edit your post accordingly because it does not make sense the way it's written right now.
The answer you will get from your question can be used to calculate the amount of trigger pull it takes per pistol type to loose 1 lb of Body weight or the size of the snack after the Shooting session, but it does not give any Information about the drop safety of a semi Auto pistol nor anything else a concerned shooter might want to learn about.
Also, you cannot compare "Joules". "Joule" is a Standard SI unit for energy. There is neither a Glock Joule nor a SIG Joule nore an European Joule nor an american Joule . A Joule is a Joule.This message has been edited. Last edited by: OTD,
Use this if you are curious.
Don't know if you can see it, but the PhotoBucket hosted pic at the bottom of your post isn't displayed due to them blocking third party hosting. Gotta give them monthly $$ or find a different hosting site.
I switched to Flickr. Rudimentary, but does the basics:
An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing. --Nicholas Murray Butler
I don't know what a GlocK Joule is. My suggestion was to compare the "work" performed to move a trigger the required distance to fire.
What unit are you suggesting is correct to reflect overcoming resistance over a distance of movement?
Watt is defined as 1 Joule per second. Why do you want to bring time into the equation and use a rate unit like Watts?
OTD is referring to units of power vs units of energy.
As in, force can be applied without doing any work, so with respect to a guns trigger, power might be a more appropriate measure.
Example, a smurf is standing in the trigger guard pushing as hard as he can against the trigger, but the best he can muster is 6lbs of constant force.
The trigger, which requires 7lbs of force to fire, is now static but has a continuous load of 6lbs applied to it. How much work is being done?
However, the amount of energy required to fire a gun could certainly be calculated, just not sure how useful that would be as its not likely to tell anything about how likely it is to fire when dropped.
More useful might be calculating the momentum of the trigger on impact, using that to solve for the force, then comparing that value to the value required to release the striker.
This is more of an impulse momentum problem than one of either energy or power. J=∆P.
Change in momentum with respect to time.
I don't see energy or rates as appropriate because it really comes down to force and distance for what is a predictor of the design constraints of a safety system. In other words, work tells us what sort force and distance the system has to work with to manipulate the internal parts of the gun.
Drop firing energy is really separate from that question.
Exactly. I was editing my post above as you were typing. Its a linear impulse/plastic impact problem.
The hardness of the plastic that impacts the floor, hardness of the floor, mass moment enertia of the trigger relative to its axle, etc all would need to be measured and or calculated, to find the force the trigger will be applying to the trigger bar. It gets more complex because the triggers center of mass is on one side of the axle, the trigger bar on the other side creating s center of moments whos value must be known as well.
Then those values all compared to the force required to overcome the various springs and masses in the striker and safety parts.
I dont even own a p320
I just finished engineering mechanics last semester. I had to work out hundreds of these type of problems and it already seems to be ancient memories.
Like I said, consult Wikipidia or a Physics book and remember Algebra.
1 Watt = 1 kg x 9.81ms² x 1m of movement. -> kg x ms² x m -> kgm²s² = Nm = W OR kgm2s x s = 1J x s = Js -> 1W = 1 Js
Well, I did and had already, which is why your post didn't make any sense to me.
It seems reasonable to ask the person who is being pointedly critical why they object to Joules but think Joules per second would be superior.
I´m not arguing wiht you over the superiority of a physical unit. I´m pointing out to you that your original idea was written in a confusing manner based on what I believe a lack of knowledge of mechanics and physics.
|Sigforum K9 handler|
OTD, you are wasting your time, my friend.
Check out our customer appreciation class
"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011
"There are only two reasons why a proven technique doesn't work under stress: the shooter isn't adequately trained in it's application, or he/she doesn't really believe it will work because he/she is programmed for failure to begin with." BG
Watt's the point.
It's actually not a bad idea.
It's another way of quantifying a trigger pull. We know trigger pulls can be long or short, heavy or light.... Well what happens when you combine the two?
Force applied over distance is, surprise, work. Which, sorry OTD, is energy, and so is measured in the same units as energy. Because that's what work is, energy applied to a specific task.
Your trigger finger gets tired after a dry firing session for the same reason your legs are tired after walking up a few flights of stairs - you've been doing work.
When your trigger finger is doing work during the trigger pull, that work is being applied to other parts inside the gun - things are having forces applied to them over distance - to make the gun fire.
It's a bit abstract, but there should be areas where it could be useful.
You have to model more parts than just the trigger. It's been a while since I've taken physics and I'm not a gunsmith, but I have taken physics, I like to think about how things work, and I have detail stripped Sigs.
You have motion in translation and rotation, parts in different physical orientations..... Too complicated for the likes of me to model.
Just think about, say, the trigger and the firing pin block on (because it's what I have) a DA/SA old school P series. Any impact orientation that can get the inertia (well, KE and momentum) of the firing pin block plunger thing aligned against its spring, isn't going to be oriented ( well for the KE and momentum of the trigger) to torque the trigger around its pivot.
You have to assume that Sig engineers aren't total morons and have already done the overall calculations of, our internal mechanism requires such amount of energy to activate and our trigger does not have the required mass (and thus KE) to fire if the whole gun is moving below a certain rate of speed at impact, no matter the orientation.
But the gun isn't composed of two solid objects, I.e. 'trigger' and 'rest of gun'.
GregY you are right, I have seen my error. Thanks for pointing it out.
|Smarter than the |
First you need to learn how to spell. It's "jewel". Some triggers are jewels, and some are crap.
|Powered by Social Strata||Page 1 2|