re: A rule of thumb on changing point of impact on fixed sighted guns

quote:

---

With all that said, how can the gun below hit exact point of aim at 25 yds with the top of the front sight aligned exactly with the top of the rear sight (top of the frame in front of the hammer)?

---

That is how the manufacturer designed the sights and they did it with a specific load.

quote:

---

Bonus question: With the gun held completely rigid / encased in concrete, etc, is it possible to hit exact POI at 25 yds with the top of the front sight aligned with the top of the rear sight?

---

This would be your question and logic. I would say yes but it's almost impossible to test because it would mess with barrel harmonics and natural flow of the gun.

Could it be that it's not necessarily the weight of the bullet but how "hot" it is? Mass is not the larger variable in energy calculations, velocity is.

In the OP you said that slower rounds shoot higher. Well that is definitely not true especially if the bullet was the same weight. There would be less recoil with the slower bullets.

I'll read on it more tomorrow

Recoil vs Muzzle flip will be tomorrow. Newton's 3rd law says that the gun travels in opposite direction once fired. Muzzle flip I believe is when the recoil can't be absorbed any more by going backward so it moves up.

So to calculate when Muzzle flip starts is the time it spends going back then expels the energy upwards.

*unless the range is beyond where the bullet crosses back below the line of sight.

quote:

---

Zero to do with recoil. See chart I posted, based on weapon zero and flight path of bullet based on velocity and mass.

---

H.M.,
The trajectory chart shows good some good info (and I really do like Varmint Al's website. I'd suggest everyone who likes to hunt and shoot to read it. ), but it doesn't apply to the situation described by the OP. As I understand the OP's situation, we're comparing point of impact of two loads (one high and one load) shot from the same handgun at short range using open sights. That's not what the graph shows. The graph shows the trajectory of high velocity rounds shot from a rifle using a scope; in addition, the rounds are all zeroed for 100 yds. In the chart, it looks as if the lower velocity rounds are hitting higher because the graph is showing the mid-trange trajectory. OTOH, we're looking for the point of impact on the target, not a midrange impact. The graph is basically a representation of the line of sight trajectory (the zero horizontal line) and the bore axis trajectory (the curved lines of the different bullet trajectories). Here's a good drawing that better clarifies the trajectory of the bore axis versus that of the line of sight. If one were to sight in the 4000 fps muzzle velocity load in the graph to hit dead on at 100 yards then shoot the 2550 fps muzzle load at 100 yards, the 2550 fps load is obviously going to hit lower. That's simply physics. The situation described by the OP occurs because something is interfering w/ physics. After doing a non-exhaustive google search, I still think it's the effect of recoil as I've not seen a discussion to make me think otherwise. OTOH, if someone wants to do a more thorough google search and finds contradictory info, I'll be glad to read it.

When shot from the same handgun and using similar wt bullets, a low velocity round will hit higher on the target than does a high velocity round. At some distance, the effects of gravity will take over and the lower velocity round will start hitting lower on the target than the high velocity round. I don't know at what distance that happens. That sounds like a good science fair experiment to do. Maybe if I someday have grand kids I'll suggest it to one of them.

Why do you seem upset over this? I'm not trying to ruffle feathers. I used a revolver as an example above but the same is true for a pistol in my experience.

quote:

---

Many videos and formulas have been presented that the original statement is incorrect

---

Your own video showed the gun moving up before the bullet left the barrel?

Again, I'm not trying to start controversy. Would be cool if we could all go shooting.

I'm not upset. I am just convinced that I am right. That does not mean that I am not open to listening to the other side but I'm not convinced, yet.

The video may have shown movement. I cannot remember and am already replying. However, anything could cause that movement. Pulling the trigger is most likely what happened. I do know that I posted two videos that show zero movement. Two different types of pistols too.

I'll go by bass pro tomorrow to try it with a 1911. I'll report back as honestly as I can. Eager for sure.

quote:

---

With all that said, how can the gun below hit exact point of aim at 25 yds with the top of the front sight aligned exactly with the top of the rear sight (top of the frame in front of the hammer)?

Bonus question: With the gun held completely rigid / encased in concrete, etc, is it possible to hit exact POI at 25 yds with the top of the front sight aligned with the top of the rear sight?

Note the top of the front sight is taller than the top of the rear sight.

Note #2: The barrel on an SAA is not installed at an upwards angle.

---

I havent been able to read anymore of this thread but the pic caught my eye, lol. I am not familiar with this type of pistol but I have a question...

Some rifles/pistols in the past have a bore that is drilled at an angel in the barrel, is this one? A nonconcentric bore was thought to provide more accuracy and batter harmonics.

Pic so people are on the same page in terms.