Today I was at a local Steel Challenge match. It's not Cowboy, but we do shoot steel plates. Several of the shooters in my squad were shooting the match twice, once with a .22 and once with another gun. In addition, they would shoot a stage with one gun, then immediately shoot the stage again with the other. Recalling the lengthy, and sometimes heated, discussion regarding a minimum power factor for SASS matches, I thought it would be interesting to see if the no-recoil .22 is faster to shoot.
Starting position for .22 is different from all the other guns. Therefore, I wasn't able to use the total time for each string as a comparison. What I settled on was checking the split between the first 2 targets. It didn't matter what the times were, just the split time from target 1 to target 2. The guns shot by the shooters were all semi-auto types. Some with compensators and optics, some without. In general, both the .22 and the other gun were configured the same way. So I think the results of the comparison are accurate.
A little info on Steel Challenge might be helpful. We shot 7 of the 8 pre-defined stages today. Each stage has 5 targets. One of which is a designated stop plate and must be shot last. On 6 of the stages, 5 strings are shot, the worst time is tossed and the others are totaled for score. On the 7th stage, 4 runs are shot. There is movement on that stage, so I didn't use it in the comparison. The decision was made before anyone shot it. For each stage, I got 5 data points with a .22 and 5 data points with another gun, for each shooter.
Here's what I found. The split time I decided to use (between the first 2 targets) was slower with the .22 than the other gun. There was the odd split that was quicker with the .22, but that was the exception. For shooter A (no names here), the .22 was 0.05 seconds average slower on the split. For shooter B, the split was 0.07 seconds average slower with the .22. I could go on for a couple other shooters, but those serve to illustrate the point. Each shooter showed similar numbers with a low average difference of 0.05 and a high average difference of 0.10.
So why are the splits slower with a gun that has essentially no recoil? Now I need to theorize. Your body responds quicker to tactile input than to auditory input. What that means is that you react much quicker to something you feel than to something you hear.
How does that apply to shooting? With a no-recoil gun like the .22, the shooter reacts to the audible sound of the shot. That sound is used to trigger a response to go to the next target. With recoil, the tactile feel of the gun moving is the trigger for proceeding to the next target. It's all about how your body reacts to sensory input.
What does that mean for a CAS shooter? It means that you are hurting yourself if you are shooting loads so light that they have virtually no recoil. Based on the data presented, at best you will lose 0.40 seconds on a 10 shot string. For each 5 shots, there are 4 splits. 8 splits at .05 each = .40. Depending on your skill level, that could be much higher.
On a personal level, I found that I shoot 38's best with a 125gr bullet traveling at 725 fps. When I was shooting 45's, I had settled on a 200gr bullet traveling at 675 fps. Each shooter needs to find their own optimum load.
The quest for lighter and lighter recoil will do nothing but hurt the shooter that's on that quest.
UPDATE: JUNE 29
After several weeks of trying, I was finally able to get to the range to test out 2 different cowboy loads. The light load was really light. A 125gr TC travelling at approx 500 fps, though velocity fluctuations were very large. The other load is what I normally shoot, a 125gr bullet travelling at 725fps.
Badlands Bud was out at the range this morning as well, setting up for a match tomorrow. He was willing to help with the test. In the data set, Bud is "Shooter A" and I am "Shooter B."
The test was set to record the splits between 2 18x24 inch sized targets at about 7 yards. Close enough and big enough that aiming time wasn't a factor. Also, any splits where there was a miss were thrown out. As you would expect, there were a few instances where the split was faster with the "weak" load, but that wasn't the norm.
Here's a table with the raw data:
| W, Shooter A |
M, Shooter A |
W, Shooter B |
M, Shooter B |
| 0.29 |
0.27 |
0.35 |
0.34 |
| 0.22 |
0.24 |
0.32 |
0.34 |
| 0.22 |
0.2 |
0.39 |
0.29 |
| 0.21 |
0.2 |
0.29 |
0.28 |
| 0.2 |
0.19 |
0.31 |
0.32 |
| 0.2 |
0.16 |
0.33 |
0.35 |
| 0.18 |
0.12 |
0.32 |
0.34 |
| 0.18 |
0.18 |
0.34 |
0.28 |
| 0.2 |
0.19 |
0.34 |
0.29 |
| 0.21 |
0.2 |
|
|
| 0.21 |
0.19 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| AVG: 0.21 |
0.19 |
0.33 |
0.31 |
"W" refers to the 500fps load.
"M" refers to the 725fps load.
Shooter A is Badlands Bud.
Shooter B is Doc Shapiro.
The italicized numbers at the bottom are the averages of each column.
So what does this show?
The results are clear. The light loads resulted in a 0.02 second slower split between two targets than did the moderate load. This bears out the theory posited above that some recoil is needed for the fastest splits.
When we finished with the test, there was a little ammo left over. So we did a pure functional speed test. For both loads, the splits were faster than the timer was able to pick up. Implying that, for dump targets, there is also no advantage to the really light load.
Maybe this test will help to put some of this argument to rest. |
