doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Handling characteristics of some very lightweight

Sitting down with Don and having him explain the "compactness" factor of a gun was an enlightening experience for me. Having been a shooter and a gun-nut for as long as I've been able to read I understood that where weight was distributed in a gun affected the handling characteristics. But, the extent of my understanding was that longer heavier barrels made a gun muzzle heavier and dense wood in the butt would help counteract that. But, I never understood that a gun maker could control these factors as much as they can in the design and execution. I.e., the little Yildiz handles so well, in spite of it's very light weight, because what weight is there is distributed more "toward the ends" as opposed to being in the receiver. The receiver appears to be some type of alloy, and is physically probably about as small as could be made to accommodate two barrels. Good walnut and thicker walled barrels toward the muzzles really make a huge difference.

It is just amazing how well such an inexpensive gun can handle. There is just light years difference between it and something like a Stoeger Uplander .410. I appreciate fine workmanship in English guns as much as anyone, but I also have to give the devil his due. Whether by accident or by design the Turks got it right on this one.

Thanks again, Don.

SRH

It was most likely by accident.

Whatever. I've found that I back into more good luck than I ever run down, anyway.

SRH

Being a retired Rocket Scientist,(Lockheed-Martin) I dont much believe in charts..I do know that my kill ratio is better with my 8+lb 10 bore than it is with my less than 6 lb 16...AND I know the reason. I have to be much more deliberate with the 10 cuz it takes longer to get going...with the 16 I shoot way too quickly....

cazman, this is an excerp from my database of over 600 guns. I'm going to put up a couple of more for this thread. So far, this is the only way to quantify handling. Might I suggest we reserve "feel" for the third gun fit; first fit is stock dimensions, second is handling dimensions. "Feel," then would be gun gripping area size, shape, and texture.

Weight, balance, and unmounted swing effort (Moment of Inertia times ten)are obtained from test measurement. Mounted swing effort and HWR are calculated. Half Weight Radius (HWR) is calculated from twelve times the square root of quantity unmounted swing effort divided by ten divided by quantity weight divided by thirty two point two (for the Yildiz HWR = 12 X square root of ((1.48/10)/(4.90/32.2)) = 12 X Square root of 0.148/0.1522 = 12 X sq rt 0.9726 = 12 x .9862 = 11.83. To compare HWR, guns must be of the same weight. Primarily, HWR, once understood, is a descriptor of guns as individuals. 10 to 11 seems to be pretty much the ususal range of HWR with guns under 10 having unusually low swing efforts for their weights and guns above 11 having unusually high swing efforts for their weights.

Note, the Gibbs actually has a HWR of 9.41, not 12.00 (there was an key error in the copied formula).

Questions?

Being new to the chart and from your comments, I thought that the MOI @ CG was the number used for your final quantifier, but I guess that the HWR tells it all.

I wonder what a gun would be like with a steel receiver compared to the exact same gun with an aluminum receiver?

cazman, there is no single summative number. Like a set of stock fitting dimensions of LOP, drops, casts, etc., you need weight, balance, unmounted swing, and mounted swing. HWR gives you a "picture" of where the weight is located.

As to the steel vs aluminum reciever, the aluminum reciever would tend to reduce weight, move the balance forward (most of the receiver is behind the balance point), slightly reduce both swing numbers (any weight loss other than exactly at the CG/balance point will reduce moment of inertia, increase the HWR (the remaining weight becomes more spread out after the weight loss at the receiver). I'm sure the Yildiz has a very light receiver and relatively heavy barrels and stock.

Questions??

very interesting stuff. thanks.

Chuck, I don't have your exact gun, but see the chart for some sorta like it. I'll keep my eye out for one like yours. The Poli Extra is probably the closest.



It is, I expect just too light and low of swing efforts for your "touch" level. I'll get back with more text in a doy or so.

I'll have you a chart up in the next day or so. Bit short on time right now.