Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Johnny Swan, SASS #50322

short stroke speed

Recommended Posts

Has anyone ever figured the speed difference in seconds between a full stroke and a short stroke. So many install them so i have to assume it improves speed but how much.

Swan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever figured the speed difference in seconds between a full stroke and a short stroke. So many install them so i have to assume it improves speed but how much.

Swan

 

I've seen them shoot so fast that all 10 empties are all still in the air at the same time. Just sayin'

 

Big Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, lets do some math.

Cowboys and Indians 5th gen short stroke kit - takes the stroke down to the SASS imposed limit stroke of 4 1/8".

This is reduced from the "So called" full length stroke of anywhere from 6-7 inches of throw.

 

The current records for 10 out of the rifle are approx. 2 seconds

(I am going with 2 seconds because it makes the math easier - thank you)

That makes 5 out of the rifle 1 second (making my math even easier)

 

For five shots, that is 10 cycles of the lever (5 open - 5 closing) = 41 1/4" inches of travel per second.

 

At 6 inches of travel - It would take 1.45 seconds to make the same number of cycles.

At 7 inches of travel - 1.7 seconds to make the same number of cycles.

 

This of course rides on the assumption that the rifles are eqully slick and smooth.

There is a perhaps some added time for the longer stroke not allowing the shooter to lock their thumb in place as well too.

 

I FIRMLY beleive that an average shooter will get much more benefit out of just a well tuned and polished rifle ALONE than they will get from a short stroke ALONE.

But since most of the time, getting a short stroke installed also includes tuning, polishing and slicking - you get the best of both worlds.

 

Short strokes are nice and I compete with one and would be hard pressed to give it up, but don't expect that if you run your rifle in 8 seconds, you will suddenly be running it in 3. It aint gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speed on dump targets can be really fast. But, we don't do dump targets that often. The main benfit of a really smooth action and a short stroke kit is it saves time on target. Planting the thumb on the side and just flicking your fingers goes along way toward eliminating sight bobble. Sight bobble cost time on target (or at least time finding the target) Long stroke where you hand has to move off the gun to work the lever causes the front end of the gun to move more. With out the kit the toggle guns have longer strokes than the other guns we use.

Until about 6 or 7 years ago you didn't see that many toggler link guns. Before the short strokes came along the Marlin 1894's and Rossi/Win 92's pretty much ruled the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen them shoot so fast that all 10 empties are all still in the air at the same time. Just sayin'

 

Big Jake

Somewhere I have a picture of T-Bone Dooley running through the 10 shells falling going to the next gun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost impossible to measure without the use of a machine. Have seen two second runs for ten shots with box stock 73' and have seen multiple target runs for ten shots with short strokes go below two seconds. It all depends on the shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To many variables to tell. What short strokes have done is allow shooters with smaller hands to run the speeds that shooters with large hand can. I'd say up to 10 years ago a slicked up non short stroked 73 could run with any gun in the sport. Then in 2001 is when the short strokes really started getting popular. At that point there was still very little advantage over the other models of rifles because of target distance and size. However, in 2001 when I got my 1st short stroked rifle my rifle shooting improved tramendously. That was even an out dated model of short stroke.

 

A good example of a shooter that can run a nonshort stroked rifle is Shalako Joe. He won EOT overall with a nonshort stroked rifle. Of course he has hands like catchers mits.

 

With the distance and size of targets now versus 10 years ago I'd say most shooters need a short stroked rifle if they want to compete on a high level in the sport. Plus most people just find them more enjoyable to shoot.

 

Speed wise the 73 is still the most dominant rifle in the sport due to it's smoothness not because of it's shorter stroke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience is if you can run 10 shots at your maximum speed in 10 seconds with a unmodified gun, you can do it in 7 or 8 with a short stroke. I love mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever figured the speed difference in seconds between a full stroke and a short stroke. So many install them so i have to assume it improves speed but how much.

Swan

 

To many variables. Shooters abililty, shooters hand speed, target size and distance, target sequence are just some of the variables. Does a short stoke help? yes to some degree. Does a smoothed up action help? More so that the short stroke. Add the two together and there is more. Seconds worth? probably not.

 

Biggest time savings for nearly any shooter is....... don't miss, don't get P's,,, no jams, no safeties,,,, faster moment of feet to get to another shooting location within the stage. All of these improvements cost NO MONEY.

 

Blastmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a short-stroked rifle is sort of like driving a NASCAR car: Almost anyone could drive a bit faster with the NASCAR car (short-stroked rifle) and it would be fun to do so, but only the best drivers can bring the machine, car or rifle, to its full potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a short-stroked rifle is sort of like driving a NASCAR car: Almost anyone could drive a bit faster with the NASCAR car (short-stroked rifle) and it would be fun to do so, but only the best drivers can bring the machine, car or rifle, to its full potential.

 

 

I'm driving mine on a dirt track. Not near as fast as the big boys on a super speed way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So taking note of the replies it seems that the short-stroke can run 30% - 60% faster than a non Stroked 73 ......

 

 

Interesting .....

 

 

Jabez Cowboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If yer rifle is slick, and the stroke is short enough so ya can plant yer thumb and flick yer fingers, this translates to smooth, which means yer gonna miss less, chase the sights less, and fight the gun less.

 

I hve run both Spur Marlins (very short stroke) that were a thing of beauty if they didn't choke (which was sometimes frequent, sometimes infrequent, but always in the back of the mind). The actions were light.....

 

MY current rifle of choice is a Cody '73 with a long-ish short stroke but SMOOTH as all get out. I can still plant my thumb and flick my fingers, I can still rock and roll without having to fish for the sights, and I have developed great confidence the gun will go bang and eject empties perfectly every time. Will it make ME a champion, no (but I don't practice except maybe once every two years). Does it give me the tool needed to make the RIFLE runs as good as many who shoot far faster stages than I do? Uh yup, that it HAS done. A pretty solid indicator is a "disappearing" mover, where ya have a RR car mounted target that crosses in front of ya then goes behind a screen, then emerges later beyond the screen, after perhaps a 2-3 second wait. Most shooters at a big state match could get 4-6 shots off before the target went behind the screen. I would say very durn few 35-40 second duelists could do much more than 5 shots. The "top hands" all ran 8 rounds on the mover before it disappeared. I did too, with time to spare (I wish the rest of my game was that good). NO WAY that happens with a full stroke gun, at least not for me.

 

I would caution those contemplating the shortest short strokes to beware this. The gun has to perform the same work regardless of stroke length. There IS a point at which too short a stroke is like too short a wrench, it makes YOU work harder, effort stacks up, makes the action less smooth, compromising the speed most of us can generate. A modest short stroke (the old 3rd gen. or a Cody or Jimmy Spurs cut and weld) and slick slick slick, with light springs (but still enough mainspring for solid reliability) is the holy grail IMHO, and yes, I have run shorter stroked guns, but when they fight back the return on investment is lost.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really good enough to get deeply into this but I will say that after shooting a few matches with my ss/tuned guns, the first time I follow them with a box stock gun I do get a lot of the reality short strokes. Thats the ones where there is no round in the chambe when you pull the trigger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm driving mine on a dirt track. Not near as fast as the big boys on a super speed way.

 

Noz, as long as you're going WHEEEEEEEE!, you're happy and those around you are happy for you as well. It's all about the WHEEEEEEEE! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So taking note of the replies it seems that the short-stroke can run 30% - 60% faster than a non Stroked 73 ......

 

 

Interesting .....

 

 

Jabez Cowboy

 

Ah, no. No one is claiming that much gain by any stretch.

 

Take 2 rifles, equally smooth (or rough). One short stroked, the other not. 5 targets, double tap sweep. I would expect the difference to be less than 5%, and for "top 10" type shooters, measured in less than 1/2 a second.

 

In the end, it's the shooter that has to operate the rifle and accurately hit the targets. The rifle is nothing but a tool for the job. Or in the case of CAS, it's effectively sporting equipment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not scientific by any means, but I went from a '92 with the NKJ action job to a short-stroked '66. I easily cut my rifle engagment times almost in half (even more if there's a dump or multiple taps on a single target). I attribute most of that to the rifle staying more steady than the actual length of the lever throw (as Nate points out in his post above). The '92 is slick, but the movement involved to chamber the next round tended to require me to re-acquire the target after every shot.....with the short-stroked '66, the front sight stays pretty much on the target/where I'm pointing it. Rifle, for me, went from my slowest gun to my fastest gun through this transition.

 

YMMV/FWIW.

 

Chick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not scientific by any means, but I went from a '92 with the NKJ action job to a short-stroked '66. I easily cut my rifle engagment times almost in half (even more if there's a dump or multiple taps on a single target). I attribute most of that to the rifle staying more steady than the actual length of the lever throw (as Nate points out in his post above). The '92 is slick, but the movement involved to chamber the next round tended to require me to re-acquire the target after every shot.....with the short-stroked '66, the front sight stays pretty much on the target/where I'm pointing it. Rifle, for me, went from my slowest gun to my fastest gun through this transition.

 

YMMV/FWIW.

 

Chick

 

Interesting reading a lot of the accounts like this. I can remember back pre "Covenant" when we were assured short-stroked rifles weren't actually faster -- that they were just "smoother" or "worked like they were supposed to..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Creeker said

12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking how much a short-stroke speeds up a shooter is like asking if Nike made Michael Jordan jump higher. The answer is Michael Jordan can jump and he has nice shoes. In other words, the better shooters are likely to move to better/faster rifles. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:FlagAm: If you can cycle faster without moving off the target - because the stroke of the lever is smoother as well as shorter - re-acquiring the target for the next shot is proportionately quicker - than, I would say it is a big "YEE-HAW! :FlagAm: IMHO - KCD B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noz, as long as you're going WHEEEEEEEE!, you're happy and those around you are happy for you as well. It's all about the WHEEEEEEEE! :D

 

WHEEEEEEEEE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deuce can run his Spur Special for 10 rounds in 1.73 seconds (probably less on some days).

 

He can run a NON short-stroked Marlin for 10 rounds in probably under 2.0 seconds.

 

This time variance is a real time of .27 seconds (about 1/4th of 1 second) for the complete 10 rounds.

 

There are 9 lever throws during this process of both UP and Downward cycles for a total of 18 Lever Functions.

 

This equates to a DECREASE of .015 seconds to lower the lever and another .015 seconds to swing it back up and close the action on his Spur Special.

 

Can the SS decrease your time and run faster?...........sure. Pure physics and logic oughta tell you that.

 

Can most of us mere humans discern this increase.....probably not.

 

Once most folks acquire their new toys with a nice, smooth action and SS mod, some of the faster shooters start practicing more. Which leads to faster times.

 

And if those same speed abilities were used to practice with a NON SS rifle, the shooters times would get faster also.

 

Fellers, I hate to tell some of you this but using the excuse of getting your behinds kicked because 'the other feller' used a SS rifle, is not realistic. It ain't just the rifle, but its the pistols and SG also that the champions use to whoop out those incredible speeds.

 

So go ahead and keep telling yourself that its all in the rifle.

 

As for me, I use a NON SS Marlin and don't seem to have these problems of insecurity over someone elses equipment.

 

Now, can someone explain to me how a DECREASE of up to 60% can be attributed to shooting a SS rifle?

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting reading a lot of the accounts like this. I can remember back pre "Covenant" when we were assured short-stroked rifles weren't actually faster -- that they were just "smoother" or "worked like they were supposed to..."

 

Maybe I need to restate my previous in order to make sense. :wacko:

 

I think (therefore it is my opinion and not necessarily fact :rolleyes: ) that the length of throw on my '92 was long enough to cause the rifle sights to move off of the target. This occurred because my shoulder joint needed to move in order to accommodate the length of throw. My '92 is very slick, so I don't think (again, my opinion) that it was the smoothness of the action, but rather the result of my shoulder joint movement which caused me to reacquire the target.

 

Today, with my short-stroked '66, I no longer have any movement (or very little) at the shoulder joint (and very little at the elbow for that matter), so the sights stay where I'm pointing.

 

I hope this clarifies my previous post.

 

 

Chick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I need to restate my previous in order to make sense. :wacko:

 

I think (therefore it is my opinion and not necessarily fact :rolleyes: ) that the length of throw on my '92 was long enough to cause the rifle sights to move off of the target. This occurred because my shoulder joint needed to move in order to accommodate the length of throw. My '92 is very slick, so I don't think (again, my opinion) that it was the smoothness of the action, but rather the result of my shoulder joint movement which caused me to reacquire the target.

 

Today, with my short-stroked '66, I no longer have any movement (or very little) at the shoulder joint (and very little at the elbow for that matter), so the sights stay where I'm pointing.

 

I hope this clarifies my previous post.

 

 

Chick

 

Could also be that the '92 just plain old didn't fit ya.

 

Making a comparison like this isn't particularly valid. There are too many different variables. Fit and rifle weight are just 2 of 'em.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is kinda, sorta a test.

 

I recently bought a .45LC rifle with a 3rd Gen short stroke and compared it to my 5th Gen set up. ON the .38 5th Gen., off the table with hands at sides my 10 round sweep was a 3.38. With the 3rd Gen, again off the table with hands at sides it was a 3.68. If it was a full stroke, I would guess it would be around 4.0 seconds based on the gap between these two.

 

So, if you could do that on 10 stages of fire, that would be a total of 6.2 seconds for the entire match. At the top of the food chain this makes a big difference, but for the middle of the pack shooter, maybe not so much.

 

Just a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

do you remember the actual times between the 1st shot and 10th shot?

 

that would be a better way to determine splits, etc.

 

just curious.

 

 

..........Widder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless someone can figure out how to cut transition times with a short stroke kit ...... all of this is mostly irrelevant......

 

 

Stan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post has been deleted since the original poster got his knickers in a wad over nothing. :o Apologies have been forwarded from this knucklehead poster, so there's "nothing to see......move along." :)

 

Chick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I really needed someone, especially a well-known shooter/instuctor, to label me "invalid."

 

Next time, I won't bother to state "in my opinion" or anything like that. In fact, next time, I just won't even bother posting a response.

 

Later

 

Chick

 

*sigh* I didn't label you at all, nor did I intend to. I was just mentioning that comparing 2 different rifles isn't a good comparison due to many different factors including weight, different sights, barrel length, fit, sight radius, action, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently bought a .45LC rifle with a 3rd Gen short stroke and compared it to my 5th Gen set up.

* On the .38 5th Gen., off the table with hands at sides my 10 round sweep was a 3.38.

* With the (.45 Colt) 3rd Gen, again off the table with hands at sides it was a 3.68.

(Emphasis and words added to show the differences)

 

I'll bet, just to be contrary, that the difference in time is due to the larger cartridge, heavier recoil, more mass moving around, rather than the difference between 3rd gen and 5th gen short stroke.

 

So, let's reserve judgment until we get two rifles that are more closely matched.

 

Good luck, GJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the whole match ya can't save enough time to make up for one shotgun miss or even a fumbled reload!!!!

 

BH :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could also be that the '92 just plain old didn't fit ya.

 

Making a comparison like this isn't particularly valid. There are too many different variables. Fit and rifle weight are just 2 of 'em.

 

Doc -- what is a valid comparison and have you done one? I believe the short stroke offers some sort of advantage or people wouldn't use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.