For rimfire position shooters, calfee

K

Kathy

Guest
My rimfire position shooting friends, especially Perry folks:

I want to discuss accuracy, and , lock time......I would like to discuss this with "serious" rimfire position shooters, especially those that have competed at Perry in the 6400 Prone.........anyone is welcome to respond...

This year, 2008, two shooters shot 6387's........in the 6400 Prone Championships......

My friends, in 1978, Mary Stidworthy fired a 6392!

Don't anyone be mad.....please....I want to know some facts...OK?

This prone championship is for shooters.....the best shooters....not equipment.........

But, here's where I'm not exactly sure what to say...ok,...has the equipment since 1978 not improved........? Or, does equipment really make any difference one way or the other?

My friends, here's where I'm going.....with this.....the world of rimfire position shooting has got caught up in lock-time........I sometimes think I can understand why.........but I also think the scores ain't advanced much in the last 20 years.........maybe if the equipment was absolutely capable of shooting 6400's day in and day out, the shooter still has to point the rifle and maybe the scores will never be any better......

But by gosh, I simply refuse to believe it.......this lock-time thing has stuck position shooters in a time warp........sorry.....

Maybe it's time postion shooter take a different approach..........

Please, anyone can respond, but I know there are some big time rimfire position shooter who post here...I'd love to here your thoughts........

Your friend, Bill Calfee

PS.....my position friends....we've been stuck in this lock-time, time warp, every since I've been on this old world......what if one could produce better accuracy, but, have a slower lock time.....could that better accuracy off-set the lock-time requirement? bc
 
Rifle & SHooter

Rifle & Shooter
I feel a 6400 Prone shooter needs a rifle as good as any BR shooter. The better rifle helps make for errors in the conditons and hold. To give an idea I use a Rem 40X action with a Pacific tool and gauge bolt and a Hall f/pin,with a Kelbly trigger all this was frozen and a Lilja smithed by Gene Davis.To this a heavy prone tuner,this was smited by Todd Taylor.
My very good friend Jerry Graves helpd with the tuner design. BR Shooting Jerry Graves.
This rifle will keep up with BR rifles.
Conditons this year at Perry were a little tough.Ask Tarl & Reya.
Rifle can not be none to good-
 
Short Barrels

Bill
Also
Todays 6400 Prone shooter like very short barrels....the bullet gets out of the barrel faster. All or most of the very great records were shot with 28" barrels.:)
 
I dont know how is this 6400 Camp Perry Match... but as the post was for position shooters I think I can say that you have to look of what happened on the last 20 years outside US, where the .22 Rimfire Position best rifles are shot: ISSF matches.

Take a look of what happened with the .22LR target and scores and you will understand that there was a huge improvement on accuracy of these rifles.

And, in position shooting, equipment count less than shooter skills.
 
Friend LRCampos

My friend:

I quote from you: "And, in position shooting, equipment count less than shooter skills."

LR, the same thing applies to Rimfire Benchrest......

Do you have any thoughts about my question I started this thread with?

See, it would be awesome if the quickest lock time also produced the absolute best accuracy, that would be cool..

But lets say it don't work like that.......lets say that maybe the absolute best accuracy is produced by ignition systems that don't have the fastest lock time.....

Here's the question again, for ANY position shooters viewing this......if one could have better accuracy, at the price of slower lock time, could a position shooter produce better scores, or is lock time so valuable that it simply outweighs the better accuracy?

Your friend, Bill Calfee
 
Bill,

Lock time is good, accuracy is better.

You know as well as anyone that Anschutz came into this country and has dominated rimfire shooting disciplines since that time. The great Anschutz triggers, light firing pins and, as Larry mentioned, longer barrels became what shooters wanted. No more 52s and no more 37s.

You are experimenting with a 52 firing pin by adding weight to provide ignition similar to a Turbo. 37 gunsmiths and Anschutz took the path of lighter firing pins and stronger springs. Big hammer, slower speed or smaller hammer, faster speed.

At this point, you must be convinced that the heavy firing pin moving slow is better than the lighter firing pin moving fast. Why?
 
Mr. Calfee,

I’ll state up front that I’m not a position or prone shooter, but I hope you won’t disregard my opinion on that basis alone because I have a fair amount of experience with attempting to quantify the importance of a firearm’s accuracy vs the marksmanship of the shooter for various shooting disciplines.

It’s my belief that until a prone shooter can "hard" hold at the level a Benchrest shooter can….faster lock time will be more beneficial than a very slight improvement in the rifle’s accuracy.

Anyway, to answer your question as succinctly as I can…No, I would not give up faster lock time for any shooting discipline where holding ability is of paramount importance because I don’t believe the very slight “possible” gain in accuracy would be enough to overcome the detrimental effects of diminished lock time for position shooters.

I would also say it’s possible that these minuscule changes in accuracy for better or worse are so small as to be inconsequential for anything other than Benchrest and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, I would dearly love to see someone prove it because it would require some pretty sophisticated testing methodology which I would have a great interest in seeing.
 
What Did It Agg

Jackie on the CF Forum says this>
"what does it Agg" ? That said it all.
Who wins with what and with what score?
The AGG,will answer it all. :)
 
LRCampos said:
I dont know how is this 6400 Camp Perry Match... but as the post was for position shooters I think I can say that you have to look of what happened on the last 20 years outside US, where the .22 Rimfire Position best rifles are shot: ISSF matches.

Take a look of what happened with the .22LR target and scores and you will understand that there was a huge improvement on accuracy of these rifles.

And, in position shooting, equipment count less than shooter skills.
Click to expand...

LRCampos, I’m in a simlar position to you as I don’t know anything about Camp Perry.

As far as 22 accuracy goes, it’s hard to say if there has been a lot off improvement. There’s been targets that have changed over the last 40 years, but I can show team scores that were better that long ago, than what is being shoot today.

Yes the person shooting is the most important, but without a good jacket, sling and glove, scores well drop! Rifle is less important, but I’d be happy to take any gain that comes along.

Bill, I be very happy to accept any gain in accuracy, even if lock time is a little slower as long as rhythm isn’t broken or slowed to much.

Thanks John
 
In center fire bench rest and rimfire bench rest much of the gains are attributed to gains in better optics. One claim that can not be made by the position shooters. The control (if you could have such a thing) would be shooters with better vision.

Figure out how to do that, sign me up.:eek:
 
I've shot ISSF prone, but never to a level wher I could answer that question.

However, the relative value of the factors contributing to every serious competitor's performance (firearm accuracy, function, position tuning etc) have been pretty well answered since the advent of SCATT and other computer-aided analysis programs that track rifle movement before & after dry firing. I was both embarassed & in awe the first & only time I was wired onto one of those devices. The damn thing virtually predicted our relative performances.

One thing that I did recall was that the effect of fiiring pin fall was evident on the aim trace, but of course, the variation that might occur during live firing wasn't able to be analysed.
 
Perry 2008 Winners Used

1.Rifle an Anschutz/Hart self smithed
2. Hall/ balance unkonwn
3.Winchester 52/Benchmark smith unkown
.............................................................

I know of several NIB 52's most of them E's & D's.

:) :)
 
My friends

My friends:

Some good thoughts by you.......thanks.....

I've always believed, like friend Husker said, that position shooters rate lock time extremely important......it just makes sense.....

My all time favorite quote, one that has guided me in my attempts to improve accuracy is by Sir Philip Sidney " Nothing is achieved before it is thoroughly attempted"......

An example: When I first got into attempting to do rimfire, about 25 years or so ago, one day I got to looking at the 22 Long Rifle cartridge case.....I noticed the case had no taper, perfectly straight sided......but every chambering reamer ever made cut a taper to the chamber.....

I'm one of them guys from Missouri, I got to be showed....so I says to myself, Calfee, how come, for a hundred years, everyone has stuck this striaght sided cartridge case into a tapered chamber...? Didn't make no sense to me.......I mean, did it help extraction, or feeding?

So I ground me up a straight sided reamer.....and cut a chamber....and low and behold, the extraction was flawless, and the feeding was flawless and something else, the accuracy was better.......the rest is history...I've used straight sided reamers ever since and a bunch of other folks do to....cause they produce better accuracy...

Here's the point.......it took a dumb old guy like Bill Calfee to figure, after a hundred years, that we don't need a tapered chamber for the 22 rimfire case........

See my friends, sometimes we find ourselves doing things just cause "that's the way they have always been done".....like the chambers..

Fast forward to the subject at hand, lock time......My gut is telling me right this minute that there just may be a possibility that position shooters could produce better scores, especially X's, if they had more uniform ignition......

And as it stands at this time, unless something changes, the most uniform ignition comes when we don't require the firing pin spring to completely control ignition.

Now, could I quote from myself please: "Here's the question again, for ANY position shooters viewing this......if one could have better accuracy, at the price of slower lock time, could a position shooter produce better scores, or is lock time so valuable that it simply outweighs the better accuracy?"

Thanks again for your folks excellent comments so far....but I'd love to hear some thoughts from position shooters, especially some that have excelled on a National level....

Your friend, Bill Calfee
 
Last edited:
Slow & Fast

I am wondering??
Do I have to submit a list of records & scores to go on ??
Or can I just start "chating ".... < pause>
OK, with a slow pin fall and I have to say here I have rifle with 6 pin hit. I do love that feature. OK slow pin hit...you have to hold longer,you need a very fine rifle for this.
What I realy like is a sharp break and it is there ...there quartering the cross hair for an X. I work at getting my rifle to that point.
So
I want FAST Fall and a X it is that simple.I work or a smith does.At this point in time that is Gene Davis or Todd Taylor,both BR smiths working on Prone rifles.
But
Jerry Graves lead the way to them.
Fast & a X.... no time to hold position,lets get the next one on it's way.Same deal break fast an X.
 
My Opinion

As a former position shooter as well as BR, I can not tell the difference in lock time. True some triggers feel better than others, and to me that made most of the difference. Since my eye sight and deteriorated, so have my scores. I guess I've shot 52's for longer than most on this board, and I feel that trigger improvements have help my score the most. Another thing, is you need the best uniform barrel as well as the best uniform ammo you can buy if you're committed to winning. I'm will to try to anything to help this sport. I'm going to bring back my old 52D, and rework a few things and see if it can compete again. I usually don't agree with BC, but with this one he makes a little sense. Now where did I put that old 40 year old Freedland reamer?
 
Lock time

I am not certain that a "slower" lock time would have as much impact on a prone shooter vs a position shooter. In the standing position I am certain that you would like the faster lock time, and Anschutz worked at developing a faster lock time. I assume that you are addressing this issue towards Anschutz owners, the overwhelming brand used by both prone and position shooters. As a prone shooter I am listening, what would be involved in slowing down the lock time on an Anschutz? A few more "X's" are always nice.
 
Kathy said:
My friends:

Some good thoughts by you.......thanks.....

I've always believed, like friend Husker said, that position shooters rate lock time extremely important......it just makes sense.....

My all time favorite quote, one that has guided me in my attempts to improve accuracy is by Sir Philip Sidney " Nothing is achieved before it is thoroughly attempted"......

An example: When I first got into attempting to do rimfire, about 25 years or so ago, one day I got to looking at the 22 Long Rifle cartridge case.....I noticed the case had no taper, perfectly straight sided......but every chambering reamer ever made cut a taper to the chamber.....

I'm one of them guys from Missouri, I got to be showed....so I says to myself, Calfee, how come, for a hundred years, everyone has stuck this striaght sided cartridge case into a tapered chamber...? Didn't make no sense to me.......I mean, did it help extraction, or feeding?

So I ground me up a straight sided reamer.....and cut a chamber....and low and behold, the extraction was flawless, and the feeding was flawless and something else, the accuracy was better.......the rest is history...I've used straight sided reamers ever since and a bunch of other folks do to....cause they produce better accuracy...

Here's the point.......it took a dumb old guy like Bill Calfee to figure, after a hundred years, that we don't need a tapered chamber for the 22 rimfire case........

See my friends, sometimes we find ourselves doing things just cause "that's the way they have always been done".....like the chambers..

Fast forward to the subject at hand, lock time......My gut is telling me right this minute that there just may be a possibility that position shooters could produce better scores, especially X's, if they had more uniform ignition......

And as it stands at this time, unless something changes, the most uniform ignition comes when we don't require the firing pin spring to completely control ignition.

Now, could I quote from myself please: "Here's the question again, for ANY position shooters viewing this......if one could have better accuracy, at the price of slower lock time, could a position shooter produce better scores, or is lock time so valuable that it simply outweighs the better accuracy?"

Thanks again for your folks excellent comments so far....but I'd love to hear some thoughts from position shooters, especially some that have excelled on a National level....

Your friend, Bill Calfee
Click to expand...

Best answer so far! Makes since to me.

HuskerP7M8 said:
Mr. Calfee,

I’ll state up front that I’m not a position or prone shooter, but I hope you won’t disregard my opinion on that basis alone because I have a fair amount of experience with attempting to quantify the importance of a firearm’s accuracy vs the marksmanship of the shooter for various shooting disciplines.

It’s my belief that until a prone shooter can "hard" hold at the level a Benchrest shooter can….faster lock time will be more beneficial than a very slight improvement in the rifle’s accuracy.

Anyway, to answer your question as succinctly as I can…No, I would not give up faster lock time for any shooting discipline where holding ability is of paramount importance because I don’t believe the very slight “possible” gain in accuracy would be enough to overcome the detrimental effects of diminished lock time for position shooters.

I would also say it’s possible that these minuscule changes in accuracy for better or worse are so small as to be inconsequential for anything other than Benchrest and I would challenge anyone to prove otherwise. In fact, I would dearly love to see someone prove it because it would require some pretty sophisticated testing methodology which I would have a great interest in seeing.
Click to expand...

It has to do with the dynamics of the time/space conundrum!

D R
 
Friend rbs

Friend rbs:

I quote from you........."As a prone shooter I am listening, what would be involved in slowing down the lock time on an Anschutz? A few more "X's" are always nice."

I'm not trying to slow down lock time on purpose.....that's not the idea...it just happens that to produce the most uniform ignition, at least till something else is invented, requires a very heavy firing pin.....a firing pin spring, unless it was a valve spring from a Chrysler Hemi, can't move a heavy pin as quickly as a light pin.....

A heavy flywheel on an automobile engine smooths out the piston impulses and makes the engine run smoother.....the same thing with ignition....a heavy firing pin only needs to be started by the spring, momentum produces the consistent, uniform ignition required for killer accuracy...

Thanks again for your comments.....

Your friend, BC
 
What about some numbers

Bill, this is an interesting question. I have shot a fair amount of prone smallbore, though not at a seriously competitive level. I have also shot a fair amount of prone highpower and have had some minor success there. One year I won the anyrifle/iron sight 1,000 yard match (Leech Cup) at Camp Perry.

It should be mentioned that in NRA Conventional Prone and Highpower Long Range about half the shooting is with metallic sights and half with scopes.

As I look at this I see a couple of different factors. One is lock time which I view as the time from sear release to the onset of primer ignition. The other is barrel time which I think of as the time it takes the bullet to get from the case to the muzzle crown.

For purposes of this post I'll say that the "total time" is the sum of the two components above.

Making some rough assumptions, isn't lock time a much greater portion of total time in a centerfire rifle than in a smallbore rifle?

Say in a typical prone rimfire rifle barrel time is roughly 3 milliseconds and locktime is roughly 2.2 milliseconds.

In a centerfire rifle the barrel time is under 1.5 milliseconds or about half that of a rimfire.

If true, those numbers would suggest that there is more potential fruit in improving centerfire lock time than in rimfire lock time.

Prone marksmanship with iron sights is a different animal. Human characteristics limit the precision and the steadiness of the hold. Those limitations are given a much greater opportunity to wreak havoc while the bullet is traveling down the bore than when the firing pin is falling off the sear.

For the shooting I do, I'll take consistent accuracy improvements over lock time improvements.

FWIW

P.S. On edit - Bill, back in the day when Mary Stidworthy was shooting well, I think it safe to say that lock time was no better than it is today. That could also be said about barrels, stocks, and a host of other items. Also, tuners were not near as common though there were some crude prototypes in evidence.

So on the face of it, much of the hardware has gotten better but the scores have not. From my first and second hand observations I'm inclined to believe that the shooters have gotten better too. Better coats, slings, spectacles, etc., have all contributed to what should be higher NRA Conventional Outdoor Prone scores.

What's that leave?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kathy, it's all governed by physics...

Lock time is determined by acceleration given the pin by the spring. If stroke of pin remains same then lock time is function of acceleration only. High acceleration means low lock time.

It all follows a natural law which is: a=F/M. This says the acceleration of the pin equals the force F exerted by the spring divided by the mass (weight) of the pin. If this ratio of F/M remains same as changes are made to pin or spring then the lock time will remain same. In addition to the spring accelerating the pin it also has to accelerate it's own weight. Using a stiffer spring usually means a heavier spring, so when you put M for the pin in the equation you also have to include an M for the spring. (Normally you would use 1/2 the spring weight.)

All this involves a little calculating as you try to juggle pin and spring weight and spring loads, but if you are going to try and set these values along with lock time then you need to use a little math. If you measure the weight of spring and pin in pounds and divide by 32.16 then you will have their mass. If you then measure the spring load in pounds and put all the values in the equation you will come up with acceleration in feet per second per second.

It's not really that complicated - I bet even Tim can do it!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top