So I was watching Hickock 45 who I really like review a Sig 2022 and he kept talking about the high rail on Sigs and how that was sort of a bad thing.... I've heard this mentioned on gun forums before and would just like to know what the deal is. Seems Glocks don't have this and for some reason according to some people that is better.

“Low bore axis” (usually misused/mispronounced as “bore access” is supposed to reduce felt recoil due to a lower leverage point relative to the hand, which is a pivot point. And the higher and greater the reciprocating mass, the more muzzle flip you supposedly will have, everything else being relative.

In actual practice it is a matter of preference IMO and doesn’t make too much difference. If you’re used to having your sights line up an inch above your hand and you switch to a pistol or revolver like an N or X frame with your sights 1.5 or 2” above, it’ll seem a little weird at first. But you can easily adjust.

Is there a link we can watch the same video?

Oh noes, da eebil boar access!

Realistically, the difference between SIG's and Glock's "bore axis" is a fraction of an inch, and a small one at that. Nobody complains about revolvers' high bore axes. The Chiappa Rhino and (I think) the Mateba automatic revolver, with the barrels lined up with the lower chamber, are the only attempts to deal with it that I have seen.

Generally, there are a lot of other factors that are beneficial/detrimental to good results with a given shooter. Don't worry about it.

I have a P226 (2010)and P229 (1996) in .40. Kept reading about the "snappy" .40 and muzzle rise on the forums. Couldn't understand what they were talking about.

Then I ran into a national gun writer friend of mine. Asked him about the "snappy" .40 and he asked with what gun. I said P229 .40. He said that the P229 is one of the guns that has no issues with the .40. So much for the "high bore axis" thing. He's now deceased, but had tested hundreds of guns over the decades.

I like Hickok45, but he always overstates high/low bore axis. He’s been used to shooting Glocks for years and years, but before that he shot and competed with Sigs. It really comes down to whatever you’ve gotten used to, plain and simple.

Bore axis can be noticeable but I am of the mind that some folks VASTLY overstate it’s effects both in the positive and negative.

Most striker fired guns tend to have a lower bore axis then most hammer fired guns simply because of the mechanical needs and packaging of the two systems.

Guns like CZs that have slides that ride on internal rails tend to have a low bore axis.

All that said CZ’s are really the only guns that “I personally” notice it to a larger degree and I think that has as much to do with the full length guide rails, metal construction combined with a low bore axis more then just bore axis.

Glocks certainly have a low bore axis but I don’t really tend to really notice it over a high bore axis gun in them.

Like I said for me personally I think it’s a vastly overstated measurement.

You have probably noticed that when you fire a handgun, there is a recoil impulse back toward you, but at the same time, the gun also tries to rotate up toward the sky.

The rotation effect is 100% due to the fact that the barrel is resting above your grip. If the barrel were below your grip, it would rotate "down" when you fire.

This is due to the nature of torque. Torque is proportional to the force involved (the recoil), but it is also proportional to distance between where the force is applied (the barrel) and the rotation axis (your grip).

Proportionality means that if you double the distance, you double the torque. This is why a wrench with a long handle gives you, with the same body strength, more ability to turn a rusty screw than a wrench with a short handle -- you can create more torque with the same amount of force.

So, if you want to generate more torque and muzzle flip during the firing of a handgun, you put more vertical distance between the barrel and your grip -- i.e. you create a "high bore axis." If you want less torque and muzzle flip, you reduce the distance between the barrel and your grip, creating a "lower bore axis."

This is slight off the direct topic, but sort of relevant.

My take is that guns designed for .40 handle it well and don't really present any issue over 9mm guns. I think the P229 is a prime example of this. Guns designed for 9mm and ported up to .40 do have issues.

I remember shooting gen 3 and gen 4 Glock 23s. With the Gen 4, which IIRC was designed around the .40, I remember thinking what's the big deal. With the Gen 3, I thought that it had a pretty good kick to it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nipper:
Generally, there are a lot of other factors that are beneficial/detrimental to good results with a given shooter. Don't worry about it.

I have a P226 (2010)and P229 (1996) in .40. Kept reading about the "snappy" .40 and muzzle rise on the forums. Couldn't understand what they were talking about.

Then I ran into a national gun writer friend of mine. Asked him about the "snappy" .40 and he asked with what gun. I said P229 .40. He said that the P229 is one of the guns that has no issues with the .40. So much for the "high bore axis" thing. He's now deceased, but had tested hundreds of guns over the decades.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Guns like CZs that have slides that ride on internal rails tend to have a low bore axis.
.

This is often repeated but if you think about it, in a hammer fired pistol, moving the frame rails to the outside of the slide doesn’t actually lower the bore. It just makes the frame look taller relative to the slide. Your relationship between your hand at the tang and the bore in the slide is the same.

I need to take some measurements and try to create some diagrams, but even holding a CZ75 next to a 1911 and a P226 and eyeballing where the actual bore is relative to your grip, they are pretty much identical.

If lower bore access was that big a deal, we'd all know at least a couple of people who'd swear that the only reasonable thing to do would be to give up Glocks for Caracals, which have a marginally lower bore axis. Last I heard...well, I haven't heard anything about Caracals lately.

quote:

Originally posted by metric:
You have probably noticed that when you fire a handgun, [snip] a "lower bore axis."

I think we all understand the physics behind a low bore axis, but the thread title mentions "sight picture", so I was wondering what Hickok45 said about it specifically.

With semi automatics, I have no real issue with the bore axis of any pistol I've handled or shot. The difference is fairly insignificant to me. I probably prefer a lower bore axis, but I've never really noticed a practical difference and can switch from Glock to Sig and back without issue.

With revolvers on the other hand, I find the height of the sights above my grip can have a noticeable effect on the speed with which I can obtain a good sight picture. Not an issue at all with J or K frame sized revolvers, but N frames tend to mess with me. This is purely a "me" issue and has nothing to do with the design of the pistol. I don't shoot a lot of N frame revolvers regularly. When I do shoot them, it takes a bit to get the ol brain to cooperate.

The whole “bore axis” argument is over blown. Bore axis is probably less than 10 percent of the total package of semi automatic pistol recoil control and the “because physics” behind it.

Moreover, it seems to be over blown as a crutch of why people can’t shoot a handgun well. Springing and lock up play a larger part on the mechanical side, and grip is king on the shooter side. I shoot Glocks as well as I shoot SIGs. I don’t notice one to be softer shooting than the other. And the gun dipping is way more of a concern to me than any effect, real or perceived, of bore axis.

I shoot M&P's, Glocks, and CZ's 99.9% of the time I'm pistol shooting. Those all have a lower bore axis than a Sig P series and I do notice I have to grip a bit tighter to mitigate the slightly extra muzzle flip on a Sig.
I feel that it's not a significant difference but for the average shooter small differences can be distracting and that probably is why it gets overblown. Similar to the grip angle issues people complain about when shooting a Glock.
In my humble and amateur opinion it's not that big of a deal that I would let it be a factor in what pistol I wanted to use.

In regards to sight picture I can say that it takes me an extra second from out of the holster when I'm not used to such a high slide. When I bring the pistol up I'm usually looking at the base of the hammer on a Sig because that's where I'm used to acquiring my sight picture on shorter slide pistol. After a mag or two it's a non issue.

quote:

E]
I think we all understand the physics behind a low bore axis, but the thread title mentions "sight picture", so I was wondering what Hickok45 said about it specifically.

I don't know that he said that, I was just trying to explain what he said and it had been several days since I watched the youtube video...

Anyone who believes this “Pistols with high bore axis handicap you when shooting fast” foolishness has not been paying attention to the fact that 1911-platform pistols continue to win against all comers in practical, speed-shooting competition, as they have for 60-odd years. It’s because people who win know how to shoot, and lots of other factors weigh into performance much more heavily.

It’s just become so tiresome to refute technically, so I don’t bother anymore. Please just learn to shoot, listen to folks who know better, and don’t worry about it.

Listen to Jerry. He speaks truth:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
The whole “bore axis” argument is over blown. Bore axis is probably less than 10 percent of the total package of semi automatic pistol recoil control and the “because physics” behind it.

Moreover, it seems to be over blown as a crutch of why people can’t shoot a handgun well. Springing and lock up play a larger part on the mechanical side, and grip is king on the shooter side. I shoot Glocks as well as I shoot SIGs. I don’t notice one to be softer shooting than the other. And the gun dipping is way more of a concern to me than any effect, real or perceived, of bore axis.