/k/ - Weapons

>>600491

I feel as though once you get to the length of barrel on the revolvers in the second pic, then you're just getting it for looks rather than functionality, because you would be better off getting a small rifle than a long revolver like that.

>>600505

327, 38 LC, 41 Magnum, 44 Russian are relatively rare and ammunition is expensive and hard to come by, brass too. 38 Special is by far the most common and ammunition is cheap, so is brass. 44 Magnum is common but still expensive, very hot to shoot but has the advantages of great power. 45 Colt is very common and cheap, still a popular cowboy gun that never lost its presence. 44-40 is less common but the hardcore love of cowboy shooters keeps it around, especially more cowboyish stuff.

Ballistically 327 Magnums offer high velocity and flatter shooting in a light recoiling round, but small bullets and light weights make them less than ideal performers in revolvers, but perhaps a snazzy small game gun in a rifle like the 32-20 did in the past. 38 LC is even weaker than 38 Special, more like a 38 S&W, enough to puncture a man with a revolver round but not much. 357 Magnum is of course a legendary revolver man killer, not a good choice for handgun hunting; in a rifle its power typically doubles and it is a capable murder machine and an acceptable choice for deer at short range. 41 Magnum is damn close to 44 Magnum in performance, but is so close in size (.410 to .429) that it almost makes no sense to own this rarer cartridge. Hunters liked the smaller bullet at similar weights to 44 Magnum for better BC and thus flatter shooting, police thought that a mild 41 Magnum could be the bridge between 44 and 357, but it never caught on. Its a decent cartridge at least.

44 Magnum is too powerful for a combat revolver at full power, but perfect at medium loads, flat shooting, hard hitting. In the rifle its magnificent. 44 Special is typically close to 45 ACP in terms of weight/velocity/power, although proper loads can exceed it and reach near 45 Colt. 44 Special was a long living and well performing police cartridge. Plenty of power and bullet size and weight to kill very well. 44 Russian has even less power, but like the 455 Webley it had enough weight and size to be considered for non expanding bullet self defense.

44-40 is stronger than 44 Special, nothing to brag about. Suffers from loads using lighter for cartridge bullets. It has superior case capacity than the 44 Magnum even, but its wide bottleneck case leads to thinner chamber walls and lower pressures even in rifles. In the age of 44 magnum rifles there is no reason other than nostalgia to hold onto the 44-40. 45 Colt outperforms the 45 ACP at much lower pressures, can be hot loaded in certain guns, offers a very large and effective bullet that simply works well with big non expanders and expanding bullets. The rifle performance is underwhelming but offers a short range deer rifle.

The final note comes down to the final economics of it all, if you buy factory only 327, 38LC, 41, 44 Russian, are all too expensive for regular shooting. However, an interesting note is that reloading some of the rarer shorter cases for your gun can SAVE you money if you know what you are doing. If you want to shoot light target loads one can get the same performance for less gunpowder with a 32 S&W than a 327 Federal. Same performance with less powder with a 38 SC or LC than a 38 Special or 357 Magnum. 44 Russian offers the ability to throw the same weight bullet at the same low velocity with less gun powder than its two bigger brothers, ect. 45 Scofield offers cost savings over 45 Colt. Also light loads at low pressure means your brass will last dozens of firings, so even expensive less common brass might pay for itself with powder savings.

Many times light loads in large cases like 45 Colt, 44 Magnum lead to large amounts of powder being burnt for low performance. Worse it leads to poor burn dynamics meaning dirtier firing, unburnt powder, massive muzzle blast in low power rounds, general poor performance. For light cowboy fucking around the shorter cases are better and save cash in the long run.

If you cast your own bullets like a manly man there is no difference in final costs for an "exotic" cartridge. 44 Russian can be potentially shot for 4 US cents a shot, even if factory cost is rape. 38 LC can potentially save money over 38 Special if one puts in the effort. Otherwise you are best sticking with the common calibers.

Did a bit of looking around, and i really want the blueprints for the pieper revolver carbine. A 9 round gas seal revolver carbine. Uses a proprietary case tho, id adjust the design to take 7.62×38r.

>>600602

Carbon fiber cylinders. It's tougher than steel, and steel liners can prevent abrasion. It would be very light and easy to pop in/out.

You could even make polycarbonate cylinders which are supposed to be disposable, and come preloaded from the factory with steel cased ammo that is cheaper than dirt.

t. Russian engineer.

>>600505

the Magnums are a world apart from the others, far more powerful .357 magnum/.357 Sig is IMO the perfect combat handgun load. 125 grain .357 caliber bullet at 1400+ fps is truly a man/animal stopper while still being fairly easy to shoot.

Keith designed the 44 magnum as basically an experimental load. The .357 was massively successful, and he was basically like, "what if I did the same thing with a big ass bullet?" That's the 44 magnum.

He realized that the 44 magnum was too much gun to ever be reasonably controllable in combat, but he still wanted to see if he could improve on the .357 magnum, so the 41 magnum was born. I really wish I could own one and get into reloading one day, because that's the only way you can shoot it. No one does ammo for the 41 magnum in any realistic sense, the gun world is governed particularly by memes, not rationality.

so yeah, 44 magnum isn't realistically possible as a combat handgun because there's simply too much recoil and blast, if you ever shoot one, you'll know instantly what I mean. However, it isn't really adequate as a rifle round, especially considering the options, so IMO the 44 magnum is a very, very overhyped/overrated round, I actually hate it tbh because it's really just useless. Of course, if you do conceal carry something like a 3 inch 629 and happen to hit someone will a full power 44 magnum load, they are absolutely going to die instantly, no questions asked. So I guess if you have serious anxiety about firepower, CC'ing a 3 inch 629 will certainly put your mind at ease, just get ready for a titantic fireball and ear deafening blast.

>>600739

also, I'm drunk

everything I said is correct but I think I said it in a very drunken way.

>>600740

You did fine

t. also drunk

>>600742

>>600742

I love you motherfuckers

this place is one of the few bright spots in my day, where I came come over and basically feel like I belong somewhere.

>>600743

That's not even difficult, the reason catch systems are complicated on the revolvers is BECAUSE they're all obsessed with retaining cylinders.

If you've already decided the cylinder is expendable, it wouldn't be hard to rig up a simple push-through system. Press a lever or pull trigger to unlock, put a fresh cylinder in one end which pushes the old cylinder out, release lever to lock.

>>600815

Or you could have a top-break system that ejects the whole cylinder.

>>600821

The whole reason top breaks went away in favour of solid frames is because magnum loads beat the fuck out of guns, and you need a solid frame to handle the meaty bang they make. If modern materials can take 42kpsi or even 50kpsi before 50% proofing as elmer keith intended for his .357 and 44 magnums then you will have a winner of a revolver.

>>600850

I remembered incorrectly, and the TOZ-81 was chambered for 5.45x39mm. The maximum pressure of that cartridge is 55kpsi, which is 10% more than required. Of course that is a single prototype revolver for cosmoauts, but it was made in the 1980s. I'm sure today we could make something similar.

>>600850

Another big reason is that most top breaks with few exceptions were manufactured and designed in, by, and for countries that were early adopters of the gun control pill and now look more like caliphates with every passing week as a result.

The USA liked swing-out cyilnders and England liked top breaks and one of those two still makes revolvers and the other mostly just chokes on mohammad's cock for a living.

>>600753

Don't be gay, /k/ is the best therapist

>>600952

Anon, trounds take more space than usual rounds, they are basically shells with 3 additional extensions, but there is still round cylindrical space inside, where the charge and bullet are stored, so they are use more space for the same amount of rounds/capacity/etc.

>>600505

everything.

>>601171

Déjà vu.

>>601206

>What else do you think needs to be done besides making it carry more ammo and changing the reloading system?

A better trigger. The problem is combining all this would just result in a handgun. revolvers are great weapons, but you just will not get an edge with them, kind of like a SbS shotgun. Beautiful, comfortable, satisfying, reliable, functional? Yes. Tactical? Not so much.

>>601201

Does that actually works? Doesn't seem efficient.

>>601206

>Do mechanical clockmakers even still exist now that everything has been digitized?

Every high-end watch and quite a few consumer grade ones are mechanical, anon. You've got plenty of watchmakers choices in that regard.

>Even if you wanted a mechanical clock, you could just 3D print all the gears at home and follow a walkthrough on YouTube to put them together instead of relying on a clockmaker.

You could do that if you want. I think the idea of asking a clockmaker too look at it for you is to A) take a lot of of frustration and and trial and error out of this and B) the watchmaker might come up with with something you won't, because making shit rotate in a timed and predictable manner is his entire life.

Somehow relevant.

>>601953

> a moon clip that holds the rounds parallel so they slot more easily into the cylinder.

What do you mean by that?

http://andersonwheeler.co.uk/the-gun-room/revolver/

Although it's about 8.3 times more expensive than what you want, and I'm not sure if it can really handle the hottest loads, but it's out there.

>>601963

>.357 Webley

hnnnnng

>>601925

One of the big selling points of a revolver is that there are no parts to lose. Adding a "feature" where you carry additional cylinders contradicts this.

>referencing the worst Fallout game

>>602041

>Bullets

They're cartridges you dumb fuck

>>601206

>Even if you wanted a mechanical clock, you could just 3D print all the gears at home and follow a walkthrough on YouTube to put them together instead of relying on a clockmaker.

I'm pretty sure 3D printers don't get anywhere near the required accuracy for that.

>>602050

Danke.

test

>>602086

That's making me think of the .22 caliber Kirst Konverter for the 1858 Remington; It's got the cylinder and a block that fits a few inches of .22 caliber barrel right into the existing barrel.

Maybe check out the ejector from the Medusa M47 while you've got an eye for versatility.

And since 3D printing has been mentioned:

does anybody think that desktop 3D printers can print sufficiently strong composite plastics to make black powder revolvers? We know there are challenges with modern smokeless powder, but I'd figure the lower stresses of black powder would make it easier to make a design that works.

>>602306

Here's this tech, it might be capable of handling even smokeless powder, but there are still problems with accuracy and heat.

>>601004

I might have figured out how to make a CT pistol: take the Steyr ACR's action with the annual gas piston and all, and put it into a "C96-style pistol", with the magazine forward of the trigger guard. The floating chamber would be over the trigger guard, so about the same position where it is on a traditional pistol (that has the magazine in the grip). It needs an ejector that redirects the spent case sideways, but you'd have plenty of space for that over the grip (and under the bolt). The only problem is that you can't put a light or a laser in that area, but I think you could have a laser and array of LEDs around the barrel as a single detachable unit.

Extra autism: scale it up for rimless 12 gauge shotgun shells, load said shells with gyrojets that have a starting propellant charge, and you made a bolter.

Although now that I think about it, you could alternatively put the magazine into the grip, and "push the action backward". So something like the Stealth Pistol from Deus Ex. Although that wouldn't actually make the pistol any smaller or more conceable, and a pistol is already short enough to be manoeuvrable.

>>600743

>>601004

>>601925

>>602049

Trying not to sperg out too hard here (a lost cause; I'm 84.6% autism by volume) but I feel the need to protest the use of the term "pistol" as though it didn't also describe revolvers. Revolvers are pistols. "Semiauto" or "autoloader" may be appropriate terms for what you're thinking.

Not expecting to sway you; just feeling the need to offer some resistance to this trend, and I needed something to do to keep my mind busy while I wait for the bathroom.

>>602412

We actually only have the term "pistol"(пистолет, pistolyet) uses as a "handgun", while there are both "pistol" and "handgun" in english.

>>602657

Czech Republic has the best fun laws because they mannaged to ban communists from working in the government.

>>602685

Don't they still have an actual communist party? Even if they might be powerless or communist in name only for all I know.

>>602685

Fun fact: Hungary had less strict gun laws in communist era than what we have today.

>>602698

No idea, but having commie larpers is considerably less harmful to society than having (((soviet))) dynasties embedded into judicial, executive and legislative branches of the government. like we do

>>602699

It used be a legal requirement for Protestants to be armed with firearms just in case the Catholics tried to come back in this country, now you can't even shoot someone that enters your property.

>>602685

Ukraine banned commies as well and they have ok'ish gun laws last I checked.

>>602759

Ever since my ancestors came in here from bumfuck Inner Asia pretty much all my people had weapons up until the late 20th century. My great-grandfather even brought home his gun given to him in the Austro-Hungarian army. '90s were when the shitshow began. Even my grandfather had a hunting rifle before, my father told me about him and grandpa going out hunting in motherfucking late-communist era ('80s). Now I'm about to get one of those rubber-shooting revolvers because anything more serious than that is either ridiculously hard to get or expensive as hell.

>>602759

>banned commies as well

Yep, since 2014. We are literally punishing those "people" for commie pics on social media.

>ok'ish gun laws

It could've been better, we can own .50 BMG and knife laws are as relaxed as it gets, but if you wanna CC a handgun legally there's only one way - bribe for shit called "a reward weapon". Basically reward handguns are direct Constitution violation + we still don't have a dedicated gun law, just the Ministry of Internal Affairs gun regulation mandate which technically isn't legal as well. So things cannot stay like this forever because of illegality, and if any proposed dedicated gun law wouldn't be liberal enough it would piss off not only gun lobby (that grows more and more powerful thanks to the newly created libertarian party) but also all those bureaucrats and politicians with bribe handguns fearing of confiscation.

What made the Manurhin MR73 so great? Are there any American revolvers that have parity so I wouldn't have to pay a premium for a revolver that I couldn't get parts for it?

Could you make a break action that has such durability with today's metallurgy?

>unica 6 production restarted

>webley production restarted

Aw yus

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/08/23/the-colt-shields/

How would you react to a striker-fired revolver?

>>606635

Laugh.

>>606635

Wonder how you'd make it 'safe' without a manual safety or double-action-only trigger.

Isn't the SixTwelve underbarrel shotgun striker fired?

What about a gas operated striker fired semi-auto? Trigger only needs to operate the firing pin, gas cycles the cylinder.

Bonus points to make it drop-reloadable like a magazine.

What cheap revolver would you lads recommend?

>>606881

>poor fag

Ruger 6 series

>less poor fag

Used smith and wesson

Don't be a faggot and buy some dog shit charter arms or Windicator. Quality can be found for a non jew price in the used section and they'll continue to serve you well.

>>606907

>charter arms

Tell me, Strelok, how bad is it? I was interested in the Bulldog Classic simply for the fact it was a small revolver in .44spl

>>606919

Timing off enough to not blow up yet still shave bullets. It's priced too high for what it is that even taurus, EAA, or rock island shit is considered a better deal. It may be made in america but it's being squeezed by the big two (ruger and smith) on one end and the other has taurus/other imports.

If you have the cash to drop on a charter arms, then you have the patience to save an extra $100-200 for a used smith, a used ruger and ammo, or a new ruger sp101.

>>606933

checked. probably just ignore it, and go for another nice rifle. or a ruger vaquero for the big iron

>>600546

What's the name of the gun on fifth screencap of the second screencap of this post (the one who has an inclined grip and the recoil line close to the forearm) ?

What if. instead of the cylinder moving forward as in the hand nugget. a small sleeve cams back from the barrel and seals on the cylinder.

Would this cut down the trigger weight enough to be acceptable?

>>608558

See: >>600798

>>608787

I'd love an actual functioning blade runner gun.

>>608800

You'd think there would be someone making functional replicas of the Detective Special. I'd even be fine if it was chambered in something normal like .357 since I'm pretty sure the movie gun had some absurd space caliber for putting down replicants.

>>608860

If I recall they mashed together a Steyr and a 44mag to make it.

>>608894

It was a Charter Arms bulldog.

Anyone think a Ruger sp101 is good or should I save more shekles for a 1911 likely a used Springfield 1911 loaded . I already have a S&W 686+ with a 6 inch barrel and a reloading set I want to use even more than I do but I want something that's small and slimmer yet still has a grip that's fills the hand better than most J-frames.

>>608908

My nigga, I have a 686+ 6" and an SP101 (2.25" 357 mag DAO.)

The 686 is probably my favorite handgun of all time, so it pains me to say this, but in my opinion the little SP101 handles hot 357 loads (like Buffalo Bore's 180 gr Outdoorsman) better. The recoil is more like a straight-back punch than the flip you get with the 686.

It's a great little gun for close-range work, and she'll do okay out to 25 yards with some practice. Sights are surprisingly usable.

A lot of people don't like the stock grip, but I don't mind it. They'll switch it out with a Hogue before they've even put an effort into training themselves with it. It's small but surprisingly hand-filling. Honestly, I'd get a trigger job way before I changed the grip.

tl;dr It's a great little gun once you get used to it.

>>609114

Well thats settled. Honestly I was looking at it since I want a revolver that has battered wife syndrome in that I can steadily feed it hot handloads without it feeling like it'll snap or cause me nerve damage

>>609117

Well it's still much smaller than the 686, so it still has more perceived recoil, I just prefer the characteristics of its recoil and find it more controllable.

It feels every bit as solid as the Smith though. I babied her with .38 specials for a while before I worked up the confidence to hit her with .357s, but once I did I went straight to the hot loads because she just kept choochin' along like it was her job.

>>609117

The only 357 Magnums that can't handle normal high pressure in spec SAAMI loads are the K frame Smith & Wessons that S&W didn't even want to build but were pressured into making. The frame cracks lead to the L frame which is the 586 and 686 357 Magnums, still medium but built to take the full power magnums. The Sp101 is touted as being tough, but I don't think there are any problems with the other magnum medium frames like aforementioned 586/686 or the Colt's.

I don't recommend anyone go past SAAMI pressure loads. But if you like to run em hot and safe and you are still worried about it, or you run according to the book like me and don't want to worry about max loads that might get a little warmer than usual, than you sound like the kind of guy who would go full out N frame S&W like my 27, or an old 28, or these new fangled 8 shot 27 variants, or with a Ruger Blackhawk. Then you have absolute peace of mind that your frame will handle anything, 6 shot N frame will handle high pressure loads as well. As long as you don't get stupid and blow them up with retardation they will last more than a lifetime or two of max loads.

Just don't buy into the Ruger fanboiisms that their guns are indestructable, lots of people tried to prove they could not be destroyed and failed horribly. The smartest reloader is dumber than the book.

>>609143

Dude's looking for something smaller than an L-frame but beefier than a J-frame. Pretty much leaves him with K-frames and the SP101.

I agree, I don't believe Rugers are any tougher than their competition. The SP101 is exactly as tough as it needs to be to not only survive a steady diet of maxed-out SAAMI-spec loads, but to FEEL as solid as the larger L-frame while doing it.

Funnily enough, my 686 needs some Loctite on the ejector rod to keep it from walking out and locking up the cylinder when firing hot loads. This was a common problem in older Smiths that was fixed by switching the direction of the thread, but it still happens from time-to-time for some reason.

>>600745

I'm not sure if you're interested, but Canada has some Mateba Model 6 reproductions for $3000 maple pesos ($2300USD and some change). We can import shit from your country, so maybe you can import from ours?

http://www.tacticalimports.ca/model-6-unica-autorevolver-p-503.html

>>609482

I was wondering the same thing, and from what I've seen although the Mateba website states that they can export to the US, to my knowledge the ATF/Customs requires paperwork to import a firearm, and I think you have to have an FFL in order to do the paperwork, which would likely either blowing or paying a lot of cash to your local fun store owner.

>>609482

Looks like it was a pre-order thing.

>>610579

I already figured shipping and paper work would expensive. The better question is can any FFL pull it off?

>>610583

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-licensee-who-does-not-have-importer%E2%80%99s-license-make-occasional-importation

"May a licensed dealer who does not have an importer’s license make an occasional importation?

Yes. A licensee may make an occasional importation of a firearm for a nonlicensee or for the licensee’s personal use (not for resale). The licensee must first submit a ATF Form 6, Part I to the Imports Branch for approval. The licensee may then present the approved Form 6 and completed ATF Form 6A to the U.S. Customs Service. Contact the Bureau of ATF, Imports Branch, Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8320 for forms."

Looks like yes, you just need to ask the FFL really nicely.

>>600490

why weren't revolver rifles a thing?

>>611639

Ball and cap revolvers, when they first came out, were vulnerable to water. That's why they needed holsters all the time. to keep rain out. Putting a rifle in a holster would have been more difficult.

And by the time we invented water resistant cartridges, the cartridge concept came with better ways to autoload a rifle.

Also gas seal has always bothered people, on stronger calibers putting your hand in the wrong place can mangle a finger. And by the time gas seal revolvers took off (Nagant) there were better ways to autoload.

tl;dr march of technology left the concept in the dust

>>611659

The one in op's pic is mine. It's an incredible shooter and fun as fuck.

>>611700

There isn't tbh. Semi auto handguns are superior to revolvers in many ways and are not chosen only because both firearms are pretty underpowered and not very effective compared to shotguns or rifles. Recoil operated handguns have simpler mechanism, easier disassembly, better sights(interchangeable ones are a standard for handguns), more difficult reloading technique, good or decent triggers and thinner profile, as well as great capacity for even more powerful rounds. before not long ago revolvers had a great advantage over handguns called .357 magnum, while latter had expensive, long and unpopular for the public 10mm, but with the growing popularity of .357sig handguns clear the difference. Blowback operated handguns or gas delayed are just as accurate as revolver though the difference is not really that important because they are handguns.

You are better off with a semi auto in just about any situation, except maybe survival, in which i'd take a single action revolver because it'll live longer and can shoot black powder, but other than that there's not many reasons. You can use one effectively but it does not mean that you would not be more effective with a semiauto. It's mostly autism at that point.

>>611715

The problem with 9x25 is its overall length is greater than 10mm which manlets, women and weak people have a problem with. That cartridge is better off in guns like SMG's or hell even the C96.

>>611750

>fire from inside a pocket/handbag or from under a blanket

There is a very significant problem of the distance between barrel and a cylinder through which the gasses escape and might damage the pocket, hand, body or your cock, though tilting cylinder revolver that seal the chamber like the nagant were indeed used this way pretty often along with a suppressor. Nagant was quieter than semiautos as well.

>>611706

Wrong for several reasons.

>There are no automatic handguns in a caliber equivalent to 44 magnum or above that aren't retardedly large

>Revolvers have no minimum or maximum cartridge OAL, you can stick specials in magnums, and they also do not have recoil operating systems that are preferentially set to a certain pressure

>A rifle is much harder to keep out of the way whilst you need two hands, your pistol/revolver does not require either

>Certain revolver loads (454 casull) can actually trash intermediate rifle loads at the ranges handguns are designed for

>Revolvers are simpler to train with

>>611819

Now you are getting it. Revolvers can compete if you concentrate on their potential compactness and modularity. But you should go full out on these aspects and ignore the capacity. E.g. 7.92x57mm Mauser has a base diameter of 11.94mm, while .500S&W has a base diameter of 13.4mm In other words you could make a revolver rifle with cylinder that holds 5 rounds of either. It would be just an overly long cylinder for the .500S&W. If you had a quick-change barrel, then you could offer a rifle that can fire either of these cartridges, or whole hosts of related cartridges. A Mauser rifle couldn't do that. But you also have to make this whole deal attractive somehow.

>>611823

>Revolvers have no minimum or maximum cartridge OAL

That's not true, they do have a maximum OAL. You can just load shorter cartridges because they are rimmed (or have a moonclip that acts as the rim). But you could make a bolt action rifle that fires revolver ammo of varying length just the same (as long as you only used rimmed ammunition). The good old Lee-Enfield showed us that you can make a very good bolt-action rifle with a detachable 10-round double-stack magazine that can be loaded with chargers, even if you use rimmed ammunition. Or there is the Mannlicher M.95 with a rotary magazine that fires 6.5x53mmR. But at this point I'm just being pedantic, and you are correct as long as we are comparing automatic pistols to revolvers.

They also have a minimum OAL, because you can't load an infinitely thin cartridge into it. Even more, the shortest one you could design would be a plate (the rim) with a volcanic projectile glued to it. But I will lay down the autism for now.

>>611828

I actually appreciate you pulling me apart because it keeps me thinking consistently. Also I want to see a one use plate that launches a .38 caliber ball downrange now.

>>611823

>There are no automatic handguns in a caliber equivalent to 44 magnum or above that aren't retardedly large

.460 rowland.

>Revolvers have no minimum or maximum cartridge OAL

Yes, but this limitation can be overcome on the design stage .357magnum = .357sig, .44magnum = .460 rowland. Handguns allow using wider or bottlenecked cartridges instead.

>you can stick specials in magnums

Yes, that's an advantage. Though it's only important for training or a larping as a police officer getting killed because .38 spl managed to not be good enough vs an autoloading nigger using. Also training is better with the same recoiling round as your main one.

>A rifle is much harder to keep out of the way whilst you need two hands, your pistol/revolver does not require either

Yes, sidearms are better at being sidearms. Not much of a point for revolvers.

>Certain revolver loads (454 casull) can actually trash intermediate rifle loads at the ranges handguns are designed for

If you hit it and kill it, you do not need to explode it. You can also carry a rifle pistol and have a shit ton more firepower. Chamber it in 50 beowulf or 458 socom and you've got yourself an even bigger hand cannon.

>Revolvers are simpler to train with

Something about brainlets. Also, bad trigger surpasses the potential on later stages of expertise.

>>611819

I've got an autistic idea:

Make a revolver rifle with replaceable cylinder and barrel so that you can swap the stuff freely so your gun is better in being 10 different caliber guns than an AR.

>>611857

DMR does not need full auto capability. If revolver can be more accurate than a semi-auto battle rifle it could work, though i doubt that need to align the chamber and the barrel would grant the exceptional accuracy. You'd also have to make it single action(either only or capable) because of the trigger which is a lot more important in a DMR than in a pistol. Also, there is a problem with bottlenecked cartridges which are used in any long range rifle, can you design revolver rifle that accepts them without tilting the cylinder?

>>611850

Only issue with that is timing the cylinders and barrels after every change of caliber/barrel length.

>>611877

See: >>600798

Mauser came up with the solution a good 140 years ago.

>>611873

Well, i'd agree if today's service rifles were capable of doing what a DMR does - extending the range of the squad. Accurizing won't do because they are limited first and foremost not by the rifle but by the cartridge it uses, so to escape the limitation you'd have to use a different one, which is why battle rifles are often used as DMRs. Sure, full auto won't hurt but it won't be effective unless we've got a good intermediate cartridge so that you only would have to accurize the standard rifle to get range extention. You could get away with issuing m16 instead of m4s as DMRs but their effective range would extend by only about 100m.

So, to sum up, today you're looking at a rifle that fires full power cartridge like a battle rifle, it should be faster than a bolt action to be used in a squad but cheaper than an accurized semi-auto and just as accurate so that it has advantages over just a battle rifle with a scope. There's only a thin space for it to fit between sniper rifles(bolt action is cheap and accurate) and battle rifles(cheap and shooty), so that it's still cheap but more shooty than a bolt action and more accurate than a standard(not expensive accurized) battle rifle.

>>611897

>gap between 5.56 and 12.7

This comparison seems a bit out of place to me though. .50 is more of a specialized cartridge, while the main ones we have are 9mm for pistols, 556 as intermediate one and .308 as full sized one. I'd prefer it differently but that's what we've got right now. For a rifle to be USED as a DMR, not CALLED it should use a .308 so you've got to design yours around that. because 556 is bad for a DMR and revolvers serve no purpose here.

>a revolving sniper rifle would be a valid choice

I'm actually not sure. Bolt action is very accurate while revolver has moving cylinder that can be improperly aligned and accurizing is costly and so is a no-go. I don't actually know how would such a rifle compare to just an average battle rifle like m14, not talking about FAL or G3.

If it is indeed more accurate than a semi auto for the same cost or is cheaper and can be accurized for the difference in cost to be more accurate then you can just call it a "an accurate DMR". If it uses different ammo it's already a no-go because logistics.

>>611904

>how would such a rifle compare to just an average battle rifle

In terms of accuracy, i mean. Before looking at the sniper rifle place you should find out of it can reach accuracy level of a simple battle rifle.

>>611905

All of this for the price, you could accurize an open bolt firing rifle to the point of being as accurate as a sniper rifle but it'll cost as much as 20 of those rifles.

Fuck i need to get more sleep sometimes.

>>611908

>I can't imagine that making a revolving sniper rifle accurate would be all that expensive if it uses a 6 o'clock barrel as it should.

6 o'clock only helps mitigate the recoil, it does not improve accuracy of the weapon, only the shooter. It's more important for pistols than rifles due to shouldering, longer profile sights and stuff.

>Isn't a DMR an inherently accurized weapon to begin with?

DMR is a purpose of a weapon, not a comparison to another one. You can use a battle rifle like G3 both as a DMR, a service rifle and even a sniper one or SAW(?). Accurizing is increasing accuracy of a weapon so a bolt action rifle can be more accurate than an accurized lever action because bolt action is inherently more accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurizing

>>611908

>let's pretend we don't have any logistical restrictions for now

Ok, then we still need bottlenecked cartridges to get to the ranges we need or develop something completely different. Today, we've got 45-70 as the biggest cartridge that fits a revolver and it's not that far shooting. You either need to make something like .308 but straight walled or manage to use a .308. I'm no cartridge designer and know about case engineering even less than bullet construction, so i dunno. I'm using 308 just as the most common full sized rifle cartridge, it can be something else if you have something to offer.

>>611929

I think that going for a unique cartridge for a unique rifle is a road to failure unless it offers huge benefits which is not going to happen. Best thing would be to design a rifle for 7.62x54r, as it's rimmed and similar to .308, i think it could possibly be done. Nagant did use bottlenecked round so it's somehow possible, though you need to do it somehow without using trigger for any additional operations like cocking the hammer or tilting the cylinder. Maybe lock the cylinder against the barrel when cocking the hammer? I thing it would be fine with just single action so the use all these weird things could be powered by the hammer motions, not the trigger so it could be as good as one of a bolt action rifle.

>>611937

Autorevolver does not offer anything over a usual rifle, especially in the shape they are today. Box mags, quick reloads, automatic fire and recoil management are all against a revolver service rifle. You have Gatling gun as a HMG(?) that is revolver-like but it is even more outdated than revolvers. The only place where they would not look as very stupid larping is being a DMR, so semi auto or full auto is not a priority - accuracy and good trigger are.

>>611950

>Revolvers are more than capable of handling the recoil

It's not about revolvers, it's about people. Pump action shotgun has quite a bit more recoil than a semi auto one.

>But if you get caught while having a revolving DMR that isn't full auto, you're screwed

That's why you go as a team with other people. You are also screwed against a soldier with an m4 when you have a bolt action and there's only 100m between you, or a battle rifle vs SBR in close quarters.

>accurized service rifle DMR

DMR is by definition the rifle used to extend the squad effective range, i.e. range of a service rifle. Accurized service rifle DMR is a tautology.

>you need some other benefit to justify building and using a revolving rifle

Exactly, and the benefit should be followed by an affordable price, unless you want it to be an expensive gimmick like mateba revolvers. The only thing where it could be good is in being faster than lever actions but this will work only if it is ALSO at least somewhat more accurate than a standard(just a bit more expensive but not by much) battle rifle while having comparable to both cost.

/k/, how much would a nicely designed bolt action sniper rifle would cost in perfect economic conditions with similar resource prices to today's? How much would a G3 cost in similar conditions? I want to know the price limits in perfect environment to know what to compare this weird rifle to, how much it should cost to not be pointless.

>revolving flechette rifle

Flechettes do not really have anything to do with revolving/semiauto because flechette rounds can be used just as easily in a repeating rifle. The only potential that revolving thingies have is in usage of cased telescopic ammo, though this is still a moot point as cylinder is harder to lock than a single chamber.

>>611962

>I described it that way to distinguish it from a rifle designed to be a DMR from the get-go instead of being modified from an existing gun.

I'd say that intentions are less important then practical advantages and limitations. You might wanted to say accurized version of service rifle that takes a DMR role but it would already not be a service rifle.

>What if everybody else gets killed?

You take one of their guns. Or die.

>Flechettes give revolvers just as much ammo as regular guns

How? If revolver can fit 12 flechette rounds because they are as thing as a .22 then a box mag can take 40.

>Why would revolvers have a better time with this than other guns?

Cased telescoping shells are pushed out of the front instead of being pulled backwards by the ejector. It's done by moving the chamber down and pushing a new round out of the magazine in it and then returning it in place to fire. That way the spent shells are ejected forward. You can watch videos on youtube about Steyr ACR for visual info.

>>611974

>missing case

It's not caseless, dude, it uses a polymer case. Stop spreading this disinfo all over the place, you're making people look bad when you say this shit. And the problem with loading into a revolver cylinder wouldn't have anything to do with a case anyway, it's the fact that cartridges in a cylinder need an external surface to headspace on. In most rounds this is a case head rim, but you can get away with using a rimless round if you ream the cylinder out to fit either a tapered cartridge (such as 9x19 Parabellum, which could headspace on the case wall since it's wider at the back) or a necked cartridge (such as 5.56 NATO, which could obviously headspace on the shoulder).

>Cased

Straight walled, rolled polymer case in place of brass. It is not caseless. It has a case. Only idiots believe it is caseless ammo.

>Telescopic

The bullet is seated flush with the case mouth instead of extended out in front of it. In other words, the case wall telescopes around the bullet.

>Ammunition

Should be obvious.

>>611982

CTA is not caseless, you fucking retard. Google it. You should hold yourself to the standard of doing the minimum amount of research necessary before you post here.

>>611974

>You can afford to make the cylinder bigger and/or use one or more of the gimmicks

And a box will always have more volume than the outer layer of a cylinder, even if you manage to put 2 layers of chambers in it like some of the older revolvers did. It's just easier to expand a completely hollow box rather than along the edge of the circle.

>A revolver doesn't have to eject the casing

If you want it to be usable for anything other than a DMR(that if it manages to be more accurate than a semiauto, which is doubtful) you have to refill the cylinder automatically because automatic fire with an 8(being generous) rounds is not even funny.

>A revolver would have better performance with caseless telescoping ammo if anything

Doubtful because heat sinks can be installed onto the chamber as well for the same volume and better effectiveness in managing heat. Wasn't really helpful, as we can see by the lack of usage of caseless ammo.

>Having replaceable cylinders also helps avoid cookoff

The cylinders are very close to each other so only replacing whole cylinder would be of any use. Some rifles or MGs have easily replaceable barrels which are replaced with the chamber.

Cased telescopic ammo might be of use in revolvers because they already have a separate from the barrel chamber by design but the point is moot as i said because it's easier to lock a chamber moving vertically than one going circles and locking on every one of 5 chambers. You already have box fed rifle with multiple chambers inside, no exposed hammers and basically the slightly modified mechanism of ACR at which point it's not really a revolver and there's no point in this autism.

Also, this anon >>611978 was right pointing out that CTA stands for cased telescopic ammo, not caseless, and they are different things but they are cycled/operated quite differently and so it's correct to refer as CTA only to CASED ammo. Caseless ammo does not have such a word thing i don't remember the name of because English is not my 1st language.

>>612032

>I could see it going up to as high as 18 rounds with compound cylinders

Which cost a lot, bulky, long to reload, take a lot of space outside of the gun and still are 2 times less then a standard plastic mag.

>a new caseless ammo gun

Whatever, i don't care about shitty prototypes from people who never learn. Into the trash caseless meme goes.

>>612042

>we decided to throw ammo capacity and fire rate concerns out and just make a revolving rifle in 7.62 caseless telescoped rounds

Caseless ammo is called just caseless ammo. There is cased telescopic ammo but caseless ammo is not called telescopic.

>you could just get a revolving sniper rifle instead

Are you drunk or stupid? In no way a revolver could be a sniper rifle because it will be less accurate than a blot action gun that is at least just as cheap, has simpler construction, uses conventional ammo and lasts longer. In long range precision shooting it stands no chance against a bolt action rifle, even a cheap shitty one. It could work only if it offered accuracy higher than a battle rifle because it would then be something like a precision rifle but is faster than a bolt action. If it would be balanced that way and overall score would be at least not much below average it could be used, even if just by hunters. By score i mean average of price, accuracy, shooting speed and maybe capacity.

>I thought of a way to improve the appearance and the balance of this gun

Make the grip straight and make a stock similar to Winchester, i dunno about balance but i think it's easily fixable because the action is pretty light and compact.

What exactly do you want from the gun? By keeping the revolver mechanism you implement disadvantages and limitations that can only be overcome by changing the mechanism like it has been done before. Want a rifle but a revolver as well? Make a bigger Nagant, add a stock and a barrel onto it and you have it. Is it not pure autism? No.

If you are going to design a rifle like that, though your knowledge does look insufficient for that, look at it like a hunting rifle. If it would do what a lever action can, it would probably live. Start with exploring some of the revolver designs, especially ones like Nagant, explore data on competing weapons, their triggers, why are they better, etc. If you come up with a single action rifle that can shoot something like 7.62x54r and has good trigger and accuracy of a standard M14, it'll work. I bet it'd even have some autistic fans. I suggested trying to make the cocking lever do the job that is now done by the trigger so it can be improved up to at least "average". It will make the rifle single action only but it is not that big of an issues for that kind of rifle and is the only option to not make it an autistic abomination that does the job poorly in any situation. That's all i can suggest to you, good luck.

>>612062

unfortunately, the faith in things does not make change them towards the goal. Accuracy of a rifle is determined by multiple things such as barrel harmonics, the fitting of the parts, consistency of their motion and many others. Properly aligning the cylinder with the barrel is a difficult task in itself, making it to the point of being comparable to a fixed chamber is even harder. There's also the issue of locking bolt, or lack thereof - the cartridge can travel backwards and to the side during firing because of the distance between the back wall and the chamber so the bullet position can be not very consistent which leads to even less accuracy.

>>612069

No reason to. Bolt action is more robust and capable of withstanding the pressures while revolver has a cylinder. Could compare it to barett but i don't really see a point.

>>612092

>locking mechanism similar to a bolt lock on the cylinder

Can't really imagine it without space magic clockwork stuff.

>What about putting a cartridge stopper of some kind

I think pushing the barrel backwards against the cylinder and the cylinder against the back wall would do a better jot, though moving barrel is not a very good idea, especially a rifle one. Maybe push the whole mechanism forward so that cylinder is seated between the wall and the barrel?

>>612097

Maybe just have a moving back wall will do, yes, without mechanism. Then it pushes onto the cylinder which is aligned with the barrel and the circular notch that extends from the barrel is inserted into the cylinder front like it does in Nagant. It forms a seal to block gasses from escaping and helps aligning the cylinder and the barrel. Then locking the cylinder from the back with some notches on the back side and fitting it so that its wobble is minimal might give some OK accuracy. There's a problem of actually operating all this steampunk abomination but it could be locked by pulling the hammer back and reset only after the trigger is released, not pulled.

>>612100

Now that i think about it, i got too far into autism. The back wall will basically act as a blot and without locking it some way other than holding the trigger it'll just blow away itself and your face after detonation.

>>612105

>How do the shells not get pushed out by the blowback*

Forgive my illiteracy, i'm a bit sleepy and got cold few days ago.

>>612154

>Guns that don't have a locking bolt can't use a true DMR round

G3 is lever delayed blowback, does not lock the bolt and is more accurate than gas operated system in general. It's just i was trying to get the back wall that acts as a bolt moving and held forward only by the trigger.

>cylinder that locks is similarly required to build a revolving precision rifle

It just has to withstand the pressure effectively. Today's .50 cal revolvers can do that and have fixed back wall thing that acts like a bolt so i don't see why it cannot be done.

I think the best way would be fixed cylinder with reloading like in SAA but it's more tightly fitted to the rod it's on and to the back wall to reduce the wobbliness of the round in there. The best way to seal the thing would be a chamber or barrel extension that does not move the actual long and heavy fixed rifle barrel but seals the gasses and aligns the barrel, though latter is lacking because moving chamber extension/shroud thing is not the same as a 1 axis rotating cylinder locking onto a fixed to the frame lug, so alignment should be further improved. Reloading can also be done in a more comfortable way but something like side-opening or break opening cylinder would be devastating for either accuracy or price without some clever design i cannot think of without actually thinking about it.

The best innovation I can think of in regard to improving the revolver action is to miniaturize the ADEN and chamber it in 45-70. Why? The /k/ube fucking demands it, that's why? Are you too homosexual to admit you want a revolver cannon spamming out a pound of fat lead in a rifle sized package every half second? Tell me why you'd rather take a pounding in the ass than pound the target with hard cast?

recent urge to get a Schofield, such a cool looking and functioning revolver.

>>612215

G3 is not heavier than other guns of it's class. Fal is 9.5.

>The bolt also has a weird system based on its "half-locked" predecessor where instead of being a pure blowback gun, the bolt is partially held in place by friction and not just mechanical leverage and a spring.

That's what you call "delayed blowback", it allows to fire big rounds without making the bolt extremely big.There's roller delayed and lever delayed blowback with latter being simpler but both transferring the motion of the bolt onto another part first, effectively slowing the movement down.

>Would it damage the accuracy too much?

Yes, too many moving parts to just take it out. Even just side/top opening with a fixed cylinder would work better because the cylinder is fixed and causes less wear and moves less. Remember, your cylinder is the chamber and its alignment is crucial to accuracy so you want to keep it in place as tightly as possible and lock it similarly because even the slightest wobble would cause inconsistency at the very beginning of the action and so can lead to extreme loss of accuracy later.

>>612198

>45-70

I want 7.62x54r for a BFG.

>>612292

>Honestly, most guns of the battle rifle class are too heavy.

I don't think so, plenty of weight comes from the longer barrel. If you compare it to an AR, of course it'll be heavy but comparing to an AK or HK33 it's really not that much of a difference.

>What's the lightest a precision rifle could reasonably be?

Bull barrel alone required for a "precision rifle" would probably make the rifle as heavy as a usual battle rifle.

>Friction isn't normally a big part of a delayed blowback system.

I didn't say it is so i don't really get why you said that. I just tried to explain it in case you didn't know about that.

>Although that's not a terribly big deal for a precision rifle, fortunately.

Without proper reload even the advantage of faster fire rate/simpler shooting process disappears because of the huge reduction in overall fire rate due to longer reload. Not important for a hunting rifle but still.

>>612310

>That might be a good thing to look at to make a compact precision rifle, but not if it damages the precision too much.

Shorter barrel might not hurt accuracy if other things like sights and scope are built around it but generally longer barrel is important because it offers higher velocities and so flatter shooting. For long range the velocity is even more important because of increase in drop.

>Because the G3 has it.

Has what? Lack of dependence on friction? I never said anything about friction so i don't see what are you trying to correct.

>I'm going for something that works as a general precision rifle

Better start with a thing that does not blow up, throws lead in the general direction, shoots rifle round and does not gas you in the face and then work from there. If it manages to do that without being an overengineered expensive unreliable waste of tool steel then you could try to add a decent trigger, think of different reloading, modular construction, accurizing it and all other stuff. Even hunting rifle is a bit too high for the project but try to at least get to there is you're serious, even if a hunting rifle does not sound too edgy.

>So could we have the back wall slide back or rotate away instead?

Nah, it acts like the bolt and so making it move would require additional reinforcement to withstand the pressures without wear, bending, stuff like that. It's just better be as extension of the solid frame though i think it will need reinforcements anyway, though not as many as it could need be it moving. I think that barrel extension that is pulled backwards so that the cylinder is moved backwards and pressed against the back wall. That way you can align the cylinder with some notches on the back wall and holes for the notches in the cylinder and it also comes with safety because you can make the firing pin/striker touch the primer only when the cylinder is pressed against the back wall.

>You could have the cylinder lock fix the back wall in place when it's ready to fire because the cylinder is now laterally immobile.

I described the idea of pushing the back wall forward so that it locks the cylinder against the notch extension of the barrel similar to nagant but with the back wall doing pushing instead of the cylinder. I think it's a bad idea because it's moving, it has to lock somehow which introduces unnecessary complexity and it requires moving some part of the mechanism with it or some huge redesign. Bad idea overall.

I think the best way to lock to cylinder would be round notches and holes on it and the back/front(depends on what part is moving). Something similar to how ball detents work but without springs and they should just lock without moving and unlocking. I'd draw that but i only have paint now so soz.

>>612335

>Gotta aim high.

Gotta get the basics first and expand from there. That way you don't have to dump the project because it got to be unsustainable or haven't given acceptable results.

>It'd be nice to be able to reload without having to move a major component

I think for the prototypes the hinge-from-the-side reloading scheme(SAA) would do the job and then you could either make it swinging out, top breaking or somehow hinging to the side at an angle by disconnecting one end of the rod from the frame, though this is not good because the rod is responsible for the position of the cylinder in all 3 axis.

>a piece that only folds back behind the stationary cylinder's 12 o'clock chamber and lets you reload from there

You're probably using rimmed or necked cartridges so they cannot be taken out of the front. It's easier to just use the reload scheme of the SAA, with lugs bing onlt in 11, 1, 5 and 7 o'clock positions, right between the chambers so that you can use the side space of the back wall for stuff like reloading hinge.

>>612350

>he only thing that matters is that you have enough space

It's easier to find free space to the side than on the top, it's easier to open and use and maybe even build.

>fix all my problems with revolvers not having autofire: Underslung machine pistols

That's really very, very, autistic.You could just have a sidearm and not make it all one complicated, herd to use, hard to replace and maintain package. There's a reason nobody does this and the only things similar to this are a grenade launcher and a shotgun. First goes well with a service rifle because of explosives on the battlefield and grenades needing throwing and second is used to breech the doors with it, not actually shoot people. You have a job to do, if it's long range shooting then do your job and shoot from range - then you'll be good with a sidearm for emergency, be it a compact SMG or a pistol. If you're going to do fighting close-mid range you'll use a service rifle, maybe with a grenade launcher or something - using intermediate rounds and automatic fire, not some revolving gimmick.

Also, weight =/= accuracy so hauling stuff on your rifle won't do shit, only throw off the balance and slightly reduce recoil.

Your compact revolving rifle will never be as compact as the shittiest bullpup even tavor and revolver bullpup is even worse than just a revolver, a lot worse.

>Why bother with a full auto or burst revolver when the standard full auto isn't so damn restricted in terms of ammo

The only restriction i can think of is black powder. Other than that an adjustable gas block will fix all your problems with ammo. Still, i think that to make revolvers usable you need to go to single action.

>it has real potential to be good at: single shots with a ton of power and accuracy.

Revolvers are not more powerful by design, it's just they have .357 magnum while handguns have been stuck with 9mm for a while but it's just a historical thing and state military retardation, not a pro of the revolvers.

Revolvers are not more accurate, it's just they are compared with recoil operated guns that don't have fixed barrels, most if not all target pistols are either fixed barrel semiauto or break action single shot. For a reason.

>>612365

Now that i think of it, it doesn't even have to be good or accurate or something, that's not that important for hunting because it's not done on long ranges that often. it should be comfortable, durable, reliable and, most importantly of all things - C L A S S Y. Yes, that's right, it's the reason for popularity of lever action for hunting - their style and culture. They are not very accurate, not fast to reload, have average at best triggers and cannot accept pointed bullets in their tube mags but they work, are reasonably reliable and comfortable, nicely balanced and are beautiful. So, to get there and not be dreaming but have a design of a working firearm that once can be held in hands without looking like a trenchcoat weeb with a trillby you just have to make it at least good enough for hunting and make it look great, which is not that hard with revolvers.

I think it's possible for revolver rifle to get to the accuracy level of a lever action without extreme investments and keep it cheap and simple while reloading will not be a problem even if it's SAA style(henry lever actions have the stupidest reloading mechanism i've seen, it looks like muzzleloading somewhat), followup shots are not that important but should be comparable to lever action while keeping our rifle single action. Capacity is also similar to lever actions so it passes. I'm concerned with durability but it's an issue with actual design which we don't have.

Also, 7.62x54r is good but we don't need that thing because we're not shooting that far so the best cartridge to choose would be 30-30(because king of rimmed cartridges) or maybe .357 because i love it and the combination of rifle/sidearm in the same round. Go with the former if we're striving for being really on par with lever actions or .357 if we're going to simplify the cylinder construction and engineering and expand onto other cartridges later(which i suggest).

I'd help with designing the mechanism but i'm pretty bad at engineering and shit and have never done my project 3d printer after i bought motors for it. Could probably continue it if we get to later stages of development. It'd really be cool to have such a design, have the plans for it under free license and watch not only some /k/ gunsmiths maybe starting a company and selling them but some chinks finding it out and making it spread all over the world and cause shit.

>>612374

>Sidearms could use a lot more SMG-like traits

There's stuff like vbr-b but they are not very concealable even if not hard to carry so they do not spread that much. If open carry and full auto was more common, it'd be pretty popular.

>How many bullpups aren't 5.56?

Not many, though we don't have any good bullpups at all today, with the exception of AUG maybe, i dunno. They still have a long way to go.

>Revolver bullpups exist

No, i was just saying that it's a very bad idea.

>>612377

pp2000 and beretta 93r

>>612383

pp2000 is a bit too bulky, it's like an mp5k but with grip where the mag goes, not in the back. beretta looks pretty nice though.

>>612389

>Any revolver is by default classy.

They haven't mounted rails on them yet, i bet someone will tacticool your rifle if it gets somewhat mass produced.

>We can go so much further than this though.

Small steps to the great future. If it can be made into a viable option then it can lead to further models or at least more attention to the ideas it's based on.

>There's room for this sort of thing.

Of course, especially if we manage to add the feature of barrel/cylinder interchangeability so that you can swap them for different calibers. It wouldn't be that hard, even if a bit bulky for smaller ones, or at least design different models, it would be easier with a working gun in hand.

>Which cartridges are a good option?

I suggested 357 because it's straight walled so the cylinder is simpler to design and manufacture, though 30-30 would be a bit better if you get to production. I'd still go with the former because other calibers could be designed afterwards while complexity can prevent leaving the stage.

>There should be a great deal more interest in ultra-compact SMGs/PDWs.

There is, the problem is that they need full auto and so civvies cannot get them while state rejects them on the basis of complicating logistics, so they're stuck with 556 SBRs.

>>612395

> civvies cannot get them

Also they tend to have stocks(SBRs) and AP ammo so other regulations and impracticality and bulkiness for an overglorified pistol(civ model) don't help.

>>611845

If you could get .460 rowland to not beat the fuck out of the gun and make it out of better materials I'll hand you the advantage for the autoloader being the better gun for pretty much all power levels barring the .454 casull and the .460 smith and wesson tbh going past 454 is an exercise in retardation anyway. The only advantage after that the revolver has is flawless function with all ammo types.

>>612397

Well, there are no guns designed for .460 rowland so it's pretty obvious that guns designed around .45 would break faster if you double the pressure bit i pointed it out as more of a proof of concept. There are few people who carry either as well.

Double actions are pretty complicated and difficult to fix though, they are not the bolt action of the sidearms, at least not double actions.

>>611759

Why has no one attempted to build a gas powered revolver? Just bleed gas into a small tube running underneath the sight rail (downside, this might force a slightly taller profile above the cylinder to fit it) and have it act on a piston that impacts an extra spur on the top of the hammer. Arrange the piston in a manner that allows it to uncover a small pressure bleed port situated right above where the cylinder gap is and you can run everything from the hottest to the softest loads out there as long as the piston mass is tuned to run with with the softest load.

I'm guessing there are issues related to the shock load placed on the clockwork as this would otherwise solve all the known issues with autorevolvers. I assume that jolting the hammer rearward at a high rate of acceleration would be harsh on all the relatively tiny internals found in revolvers. That said, you might be able to eliminate the shock on the system by using a long action piston mounted under the cylinder to put its energy into a clockwork spring. Put a camming surface on the piston and have it work against a plane like an archimedes screw that winds a spring, then release the energy from that spring (which will be softer in terms od acceleration) in a way that operates the whole mechanism.

What do you fags think about black powder weapons in general?

>>612407

Not much reason to, i suppose. Revolver are mostly manually operated guns so instead of adding some automation it'd be easier to go with a simple handgun where that'd be done in a simpler way.or more effective in case of steyr GB and gas delayed blowback There was a Mateba revolver that did it though, but it was more of a collector's piece afaik.

>>612408

A way to get to funs in a no fun country. Need plenty of cleaning. The smoke disguises your figure and makes it all dramatic. Might smell nice.

>>612407

Mateba did, both the unica six and the grifone use a gas port to advance the cylinder and set the trigger to single action mode which is probably why they haven't imported them here ffs

>>612399

As it turns out there is at least one gun designed for it.

https://www.ammoland.com/2009/12/masterpiece-arms-introduces-the-new-460-rowland-pistol/#axzz5SjNdB5O3

>>612416

Well, that's nice. It's more of a civilian "SMG" though, practically speaking.

>>612474

The notch on top right of the front cylinder is an alternative to the round detent mechanism.

>>612490

Try protonvpn anon, it's free.

>>612490

Not that I have any idea how to draw a blueprint or render a good-looking 3D model

Me neither. Why do you think i'm using paint? We're fantasizing about basic features now, not precise dimensions and tolerances. Try that, post some revolver mechanism blueprints you think can be useful, give new ideas, i dunno. It was your dream to have revolver rifle at the first place make it closer to being real, i'm mostly fine with a 357 lever action if i could ever get one and doing this due to having nothing else to do, lack of social interactions and autism so why don't you try something as well, especially since you are interested and probably have learned some stuff about revolver mechanisms.

>>612496

Pretty weird and pointless but whatever. You'll need proper sealing of the cylinder/barrel gap anyway so if you're serious you'll need to think that out just for any design. That's why i recommended the rifle that utilizes the mechanism as its only feature so you can start from the working system.

>>611639

The biggest reason they didn't become more of a thing is because the leaver action was faster to reload and it didn't have the gas escaping the cylinder gap onto your fore arm.

>>611715

.38super is a real thing

>>612539

>what blueprints would be useful

Nagant 1895 was a great revolver capable of many things with a simple construction and great longlivety.

>semi-auto and full auto with a change of barrel and cylinder and a few other pieces

Pretty stupid and pointless, also unreachable. Keep it simple keep it working and don't make your gun take longer to reload than to shoot.

>not necessarily an insurmountable one

You could go use a simple bolt action rifle in .308 as well and have a thing that shoots and argue that the disadvantage is not that bad but it would still get you killed.

>gimmick cylinder

it's not that bad, just make it like a chamber of a barrel is made and repeat for each one of them. If your cylinder isn't throwaway(which it should not be) then it's no big deal.

>extended mags

Bias. Even straight 20rd box mags are a lot better option because of reload speed and cost alone, not saying about weight and capacity.

You don't use double action because of the trigger, you don't use automatic fire because it is literally worse than just doing single shots for the capacity and semi auto is unnecessary complicated and useless for a revolver that can be operated easily manually with one hand due to rifle grip. What and who are you trying to prove? It's just as pointless as belt-fed bolt action or recoil-operated 22lr machine gun.

>>612551

>the idea is to start with a precision rifle

No, the idea is to start with something that can shoot bullets. Not and automatic rifle, not a precision rifle, not an assault rifle, not a modular rifle, nor anything else. How can i say this more clearly?

> Just run away?

There's not much difference between their mag capacity due to how they will fight but if there is an advantage - they die.

>Someone's probably going to try these

Probably not. Somebody who is capable of actually designing something like that won't waste his time on such stupid shit. You're a pretty good proof of that and i'm starting to get tired of it. Next time you'll say you want automatic muzzleloader or something instead of something interesting that could make sense i'll pass.

>>612551

Have you read Hatcher's Notebook?

Until you have, stop talking about designing firearms.

>>612541

>Nagant 1895 was a great revolver capable of many things with a simple construction and great longlivety.

As an avid revolver shooter, the Nagant sucks to shoot.

>>612656

i didn't say it was pleasant to shoot but its construction has 1 spring and is notable to have been made out of metal bed parts iirc. If we can repurpose the construction to be more usable with single action then its heavy terrible trigger would not be a problem.

>>612657

>how is it possible to design something if you don't focus on what it's going to be used for

By building a platform on which to expand modifications. There are no revolver of similar construction today, with nagant being the closest.

>If you design a jet

You don't design a fucking jet, you try to nigger rig a glider when you don't know shit about aircraft and learn stuff like aerodynamics, wing shape and weight distribution from there. once you have the model of how the stuff works you improve the design. Don't talk shit about planes if you didn't even look at the history of aircraft.

>>612657

>No, but I'll go and read it if it has valuable information.

It is immensely useful.

It is extremely information dense and backed up by 40 years of research.

The US Army had more man power and money spent on small arms development than anyone else in history during that period.

In a single lifetime, the US military went from the trap door springfeild with black powder to the Garand and the Browning .50.

Mr. Hatcher was present and involved with the research and development and did a good job of recording it.

And it's not just the history; he recorded a lot of the technical information that was gathered.

It is considered essential reading for anyone who does professional work on modern firearms.

I highly recommend anyone with more than a passing interest in firearms read it; whether you just like to shoot or you want to fix and build them.

>>612662

>I think there's a really cool possibility here and I want to do the necessary study to not just be an idea guy.

Ok, good luck with that, anon. I'll probably be here raping the msPaint with these autistic designs for a while.

>>612655

Woudn't the connection between the striker and the locking lugs be extremely fragile?

>>613075

I'd like to make it lock in backwards position somehow so that cocking the striker would only pull the thing, not hold it. Unlocking would happen on releasing the trigger similar to the AR trigger disconnector. The locking piece might be in the front and so will be able to handle the pressure of explosion better. Actually a good idea. I'll try to draw it as quickly as i can.

Not gonna lie, the only reason I concidered buying a single action is because of revolver ocelot

>>614498

>It may be a bit too early to worry about putting a 6 o'clock barrel on it, but it's hard not to notice the lack of it.

There's no point to. Like, at all. It's not a handgun to mess with such things.

>Aside from that, it seems like a very complicated design with a lot of small parts.

Have you ever seen a double action revolver's insides? This design has few pretty simple and nicely isolated and not spring loaded parts, so i see no problem with it, aside from it being in the opposite state from "finished".

>Any gun that has a locking mechanism will be more complicated than one that doesn't

You need proper locking mechanism to contain the pressures of a rifle, as delaying the bolt is not an option for revolver as you've got nothing to delay.

>worm gear

Interesting but it won't help sealing the gap and rotation is already managed by an simpler mechanism. It could work but there's not much room for improvements so it's more of an alternative to the existing function. It keeps the cylinder nicely aligned so there's no need for other complicated mechanisms to do it but my design uses an already existing function that solves our problem while allowing to use an existing rotating mechanism with slight alterations, hopefully.

>Is this system a viable method of revolver operation, or should I just abandon it now before putting any detailed work into it?

Revilver using this would probably be pretty bulky but it could work and properly designed system might be even simpler than the current one, as well as allow greater durability as the locking mechanism tends to become less solid over time and leads to reduced accuracy. I remember hearing about one manufacturer that used to make revolvers with a different or more tightly locking mechanism and got reputation for accuracy. I'd say it can be tried but it's not something that cannot be done using existing designs and is unlikely to be as compact so it's not a priority. If you like the design - give it a try but i'd take a lot of effort to master it, especially since it'd likely to require redesign of the whole revolver mechanism to be practical.

>>613431

Post more pictures. I need whacking material.

>>614805

>Would it really not work to reduce recoil that much?

No. It's important for handguns because you absorb recoil with your hand and so higher axis of the recoil force creates muzzle flip which is bad. It doesn't really reduce felt recoil that much but works similar to how a compensator would helping reduce time to get sights on target. Rifles have stock and so the recoil goes into the shoulder anyway. It might do something but it would require a lot of additional engineering for an unnoticeable advantage.

>This design is a separate thing from what you're working on.

The problem is that your design does not really offer a way to solve the gap issue unless you use my mechanism but i've already thought of utilizing the mechanism for other functions as well so it would be more complex and its advantages wouldn't be utilized as well as they could be.

>I was hoping for it to be if not more compact than current revolvers then at least not significantly larger, but I like the simplicity and especially the durability.

We're talking about revolver rifles so i don't think that size would be an issue. It might be a bit thicker but other than that there are plenty of ling actions that do fine while this one does not have a bolt moving and so is by design a bit shorter.

>The idea is that the ratchet/striker assembly would work as a sort of bolt equivalent.

It's hard for me to imagine that. From my understanding, the back wall behind the cylinder works as the bolt, holding the cartridge in place and contains firing pin/striker. It's a part of the frame and so is solid which aids durability and reduces bulk required to contain the same pressure.

>>612413

>Might smell nice

Can confirm, it does smell nice

>>614959

>pack more components closer together

It's actually not a great thing as they cannot be overbuild and/or can cause additional wear on each other, require better fitting etc. Bigger = less dependent on tolerances.

>What else could the barrel extension be used for?

It pushes the cylinder back onto the lugs locking it in place and holding the shells from moving backwards. I'm pretty fond of the design.

> it shouldn't have substantially more mass than an average weapon of its role

i don't think it will. Bolt is nothing but a solid frame and so weights less and therefore compensates for the additional weight of the round lugs that lock the extension backwards.

>It should theoretically have everything it needs to be a semi-auto revolver with ease.

Ok, i didn't really get it but if you find time to make a template of it then please post it here, it would be interesting even if it doesn't fit into the rifle's design because of single-action only mechanism.

>>615080

Your mechanism has an advantage of not needing to lock the cylinder when firing because it's already locked with the worm gear but that's all so if my mechanism is required to seal the chamber then it's easier to use my method of locking the cylinder because it utilizes the mechanism by adding very few parts and possibly even using slightly altered parts from other models because of conventional design.

>>616017

Reminds me of Arma 3, and thats a good thing.

>>613431

nice

>>616017

I've been wanting to buy one, but I've heard of QC issues. How do you like it?

>>616603

It could work and i already offered the mechanism but it has plenty of issues:

Your bolt was fixed and not it's moving

You have to add more material to it to compensate for moving parts, it would increase wear because it's still not a part of the frame, increase complexity and would require moving the whole mechanism to the back of the frame what is an aesthetic and technical issue as it'd increase bulk and might prevent usage of our reloading method. You also now have to move the bolt instead of the extension and the issue of holding it is a lot bigger because all the pressure will be directed at the bolt instead of all inner walls of the extension. Are you expecting to hold all of it by holding the trigger or something? Your bolt needs to be locking but circular lugs from my design won't work because they're too weak to prevent what is essentially blowback. Even if you manage to make a construction that can do that it'll still be weaker than the one of the lever action or especially the robust locking mechanism of bolt action.

>That's probably about as good as it's going to get for precision on a non-locking revolver rifle.

A non-locking revolver rifle is a bad idea that will never live because

>it'll gas you with every shot

>it'll burn you with every shot

>it'll get burnt powder all over you

>it'll have inconsistency and lack of performance because of pressure leak

>all of this will just not make it as good as even a shitty lever action - the thing we're aiming to match in performance

And all these issues are greater than in a pistol because of length of the barrel and possibly ammunition.

Could you help me find the trigger mechanism blueprints or 3d models of colt saa and nagant? These are the 2 models i'll plan to use as the basis of my own design, though the mechanism of operating revolver with not the trigger but the hammer is a bit unusual as single actions have a very simple analog of it.

>>616707

Well, i'm not going to say i know what i'm doing but i'm still pretty serious about it and have plenty of autism and free time to back it up. It sure can be done without this but it's useful to use time-proven designs or at least help me in further understanding. I want to repurpose the mechanism so that the work to operate the gun is done by cocking it like an advanced single action. Nagant is one of the simplest double action revolvers so i thought it may be useful in adding functions to a single action. Thanks for the image.

>>616731

>plenty of autism and free time

Not enough to look up your own shit though, huh?

>>617015

>Sealing the cylinder removes the need for any additional locking mechanisms.

How so? You remember that you still need to align the MOVING cylinder with the barrel, even if it's shrouded?

>Maybe having only a partial shroud would be better to stop cookoff and cut down on some weight.

Doesn't really solve an issue. It probably can be done but it feels messy for me, literally and figuratively. It doesn't really matter whether it's a full shroud or only part of the cylinder is covered, the principle is the same and you still should seal the gasses from going in the gap anyway, either by bearing or some flaps/things be the seal on the cylinder or encase it entirely.

>This is true for most revolvers, but this is a revolving rifle.

You asked about why don't revolvers have cylinder shroud - that's why. We don't have revolver rifles for different reasons but we still only have short revolvers today.

>>618160

The number is under the grips.

>>618160

Nice gun, I seem to recall the serial number on my S&W 15-3 being on the frame under the chamber, or maybe i'm remembering incorrectly, I'm not going to check.

Those are nice guns, take care of them anon.

>>618088

on one hand

>the seam

on the other, it looks pretty cool.

Whats the upside to owning a revolver instead of a standard semi-auto pistol?

>>625760

>you've got common and effective ammo, unlike 10mm or 357sig that are both uncommon and cost more, though sig is gaining popularity

>easier to use but harder to use effectively

>last longer than polymer, though generally not an issue for both

>you look like a cowboy, yeehaw

>>618160

serial number is just above the crane when you have the cylinder open.

>>625760

Reliability, can just keep pulling the trigger if you get a bad round.

>>625760

Much easier to reload revolver rounds in my experience. I've also found they're easier to shoot at long distances than semi automatics but that's mostly due to me practicing with my revolvers more.

>>625760

higher caliber rounds

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/11/27/a-unique-speedloader-for-revolvers-the-link-loader/

Revolvers are still obsolete, but this would be great for some stylish shooting.

>>625760

Fixed barrel auto loaders might have better inherent accuracy than a revolver in many cases, but a revolver tends to be far more accurate inherently than standard combat auto loaders with non fixed barrels. Thus one of the greatest theoretical advantages of a high end combat revolver is extremely high reliability combined with high accuracy potential. GIGN knew of this and kept their 357 Magnums around. Sure, most handgun action is close range so its a moot point in most cases, but in some situations it can be helpful. Also makes it a better hunting gun than a combat auto loader, good revolvers can have good enough accuracy to kill animals at range, a Glock 10mm does not. Even if you take up hobby or serious bullseye shooting, an average decent combat revolver can compete far better than an off the rack combat auto loader. A $300 police surplus S&W Model 10 can shoot better than many bullseye shooters can shoot, far better than any brand new combat auto loader for $200 more.

As mentioned by another poster, easier to reload in general. Easier to keep track of brass, rim controlled headspace or even moonclip controlled headspace makes reloading a breeze. Auto loaders generally headspace ont he neck, making crimping a difficult task in many cases, not so with a revolver. Crimp light to save your brass, crimp hard to prevent bullet movement under recoil or maximize slow powder burn, its up to you. Too much, or too little crimp will cause major issues with function in an auto loader.

Revolvers can be as reliable with any load or bullet as any other load or bullet. Revolvers aren't sensitive to bullet shape because there is no feed ramp, they are as reliable with light powder puff target loads as full house maxed hot loads. Even some combat auto loaders might not like this bullet or that load, but a revolver does not care. Too much power or espeically too little power in an auto loader might cause cycling problems that can get you killed, best to stay with ammunition of the correct power/pressure to help ensure proper cycling in an auto loader. Johnny Brokedick who can't afford to practice much with his self defense ammunition doesnt' have to worry if he loads up his gun with high end self defense rounds, they will work just fine. He might have nasty surprise if he loads his magazine in his auto loader and only finds out they won't cycle his weapon in a self defense, life or death scenario.

Vietnam poster makes note that if a dud happens in a revolver, all you have to do is load the next cylinder. I'd also point out that all manual guns are meant to be cycled manually, this means they are better suited to tough cycling than any auto loader. A guy with a dirty revolver that's sticky just needs to put a little bit more pressure into pulling the double action or pulling back the hammer single action, his gummy dirty gun still works, even if we yell at him for poor maintenance later. The guy with a dirty gummy auto loader might find the gun won't cycle or go into battery at all. We don't get the chance to give him hell over a dirty gun after the fact because he's dead. Things like wrong lubrication and/or cold temperatures the revolver can be forced to work where an auto loader might not work or is far harder to force into battery and made to work with malfunctions.

>>631441

Actually, the cylinder gap's main problem is not loss of pressure but inconsistency that prevents accuracy and gassing the shooter.

http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

I've also already pointed out a few times before that automatic cycling is not necessary and might probably be a hindrance even if you could ever properly design it.

>This is the only way to completely close off the space between the chamber, the barrel and the back of the gun without relying on an automatic mechanism or a shroud.

Another idea of changing it, as well as the one in Nagant construction both allow sealing the gasses off.

>>626238

>(((Deagle)))

I don't know anything about the Grizzly but I imagine it costs a fair bit more than the average revolver

>>631489

>The Nagant mechanism has additional complexity though

Yes, you can't have a gun that shoots better than a single shot rifle without making it more complex than a single shot.

>The pepperbox rifle

Just go with single shot, this is retarded.

>>631644

There you go, a lot better.

>>602715

>having commie larpers is considerably less harmful to society than having (((soviet))) dynasties embedded into judicial, executive and legislative branches of the government.

Very this.

>>631848

>I don't have the slightest idea why you bother to read any of my posts at this point

I've got nothing better to do, in the very least. This board is pretty nice and comfy place, despite many attempts to ruin it. I'm not that good at small talk so i'm lucky to have a place where i can have a company and talk on subjects i can be invested in.

If you're going to continue the design, post it here - someone might give an advice, point at a mistake or even help further improve it.

>>631903

Main problem woth moving back wall would be strength and weight, not just complex mechanism. Do you want it to once be shot straightly in your face? Cylinder moving forward could work but it would allow more space for casing to move more which would make accuracy very bad. Could try though.

>>631932

Can't imagine this, really.

>>631939

It was okay, iirc. It did have a very bad trigger and its cartridge wouldn't allow much but it was okay for its job. I imagine facing problems with this design if using a different cartridge though, bottlenecked or even just not-cased ones.

>>600489

Any 22 revolvers with grips not made for a child's or woman's hand? A threaded barrel would be cool option as well

>>634790

Cylinder gap does nit hinder efficiency that much, it's a small variable. http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/gaptests.html

>>634790

>non-bumpfire pump action

Actually, how about a magazine-fed bumpfire action for rimmed cartridges? That sounds like fun to me, especially if you go with a Krag-style magazine that has a guide for chargers.

>>634792

Seems fun, though i wouldn't mind something like bumpfire assault lightning carbine for me too.

>>634794

I found out that cylinder gap isn't that much of an issue and that you can shield your hand from the blast from it. My ideas are still pretty cool and do help align the cylinder as well but these things can be partially fixed by using simpler means that could also reuse current technologies. Sure, suppressors are a no-go and cleaning would take a bit more time but these things would be compensated by the cool factor so why not? Especially since the blast would be smaller if you go with carbine barrel, which you should as .357 mag is pointless from 16"+ barrel anyway.

>>634800

>there aren't any real physical problems with >>634786

I've not looked deep into it yet, i'm kinda lazy now. Nor i've looked into that mateba construction.

>a revolver sniper rifle

Nope, a revolver hunting carbine with the same or less range as a lever action is the only way you have.

>getting the maximum possible range and power

45-70 lever action analog you have, duh

>there isn't a rimmed cartridge made for this purpose yet

It was made long before sniper rifles did, it's called 7.62x54r aka .308 rimmed. It's bottlenecked though, so there's that. You don't need to use it though, as the purpose of the gun is not there. Better look for or design around 30-30 as it is also bottlenecked and is very popular and widespread where you're aiming. 357mag and 35-70 are good but you'll have to offer something in between, preferably without relying on rimless cartridges like 500sw.

> But shouldn't you gain the ability to use non-rimmed rounds in a revolver by using the disc?

You can use tapered cartridges even without it, as well as use a moon clip like they do now with rimless cartridge revolvers.

>>634811

>Is it readily available though?

The cartridge that was used by the Russian Empire from 1891 to its fall, by the USSR from its inception to its fall, by the Warsaw Pact during its entire existence, and by the Russian Federation from 1991 to this day? No, it's an extremely rare cartridge, a true collector's item.

>>634811

I'm going to sleep now so i'll look into it after i wake up tomorrow. For now i've got a weird idea of having the cylinder locked "by default" and only unlock to rotate when swinging it out or rotating. Something like 1mm in the forward position against some neck that goes into the edge of the chamber. You can unlock it either by pulling it backwards or making the barrel edge/neck/extension like a ramp so that it can be rotated after falling in. I also don't like the use of locking lugs - too much machining and unneeded application. Just use some bland gas operated intermediate rifle instead for the same cost, because "bland" and "good enough" are the modern motos of the military and cucked arms manufacturers.

>>634813

There is a rimmed .308, its called the .307 Winchester.

>>634786

Ok, i'm here.

>The MTR-8 is reputedly very accurate despite the shortness of its barrel

The length of the barrel does not impact accuracy, it only decreases velocity gain and increases trajectory, but consistency of shots is still highly dependent on the barrel quality, not length.

>It seems that the cylinder disc can help the chamber retain gas pressure by forming a seal over the back of the chamber

Brass already expands and forms a seal in any revolver, but what this thing might do is reduce the space between the cartridge and back wall(bolt) akin to having tight tolerance between back side of the cylinder and back wall, so the cartridge doesn't move as much when fired and aids accuracy. I suspect that using this feature it might be easier to do that then to work with back wall directly, as it's a part of the frame and contains firing mechanism.

>Combining this with a Nagant-style moving cylinder allows both sides of the chamber to be completely sealed during the firing process

It makes the feature pointless, as you move the cylinder forward, making the tight seating of the cartridge and the cylinder disc nonexistent.

>ealing the back and the front of the chamber simultaneously

If you're going to implement moving cylinder mechanism just look at my previous design - it pushes cylinder against the back wall, securing the cartridge and seals the gasses, all while simultaneously locking the cylinder in place. All while requiring possible even less parts than some of your inspirational designs.

>You can also have the cylinder relocated and/or use a 6:00 barrel for maximum accuracy assist

I already noted a while ago that the only thing that 6:00 barrel does is lower bore axis, which only reduces felt recoil, muzzle climb and makes consecutive shots faster. It doesn't increase accuracy and may even lower it due to shifted balance and it will do nothing in a non-handgun design, as stock almost completely negates the issue of bore axis. Try to understand what a feature does instead of imagining things or at least pay more attention to others' words and corrections next time.

>you can add a set of locking lugs to this

Now this is an interesting feature. You'd have to make the cylinder disc thick enough to act as a regular bolt and locking would probably require additional actions to reload but it could work, though it won't really go well with other designs. It's additional weight that will fatigue your finder either when pulling the trigger or when cocking the hammer, as you have to not only pull the cylinder but the bolt as well, and the bolt is also required for each chamber. You could mate it with nagant system but it'd require plenty of redesign to remove problems with nagant. You could use it in a normal revolver with a cylinder gap but it won't offer much compared to a model with a tight gap between back wall and the cylinder.

>>635608

>My idea was to have a powerful enough hammer to move the disc forward with the cylinder and maintain the seal.

I appreciate the unsuppressed levels of autism but even a sledgehammer is unlikely to stop blowback of a firearm. Especially if it's more powerful than 9mm. You also have to actually hit the primer instead of using the hammer as basically the bolt mover. Lol.

>Very interesting choice of words to describe my ideas there

I meant all those matebas and sheeit, they are very complex mechanically.

>I actually got the impression that a 6:00 barrel at worst does nothing for accuracy

At worst you don't get a working gun. At best, it's a fancy gimmick that would need you to raise sights more while requiring more parts and a lot more engineering.

>I can't see the harm in it even if it does nothing extra

A LOT more engineering.

>I was thinking of incorporating the locking lugs separately from the cylinder disc

My thought was that they disc locks onto the cylinder so you've basically got a locked chamber with a cartridge there. Whether the actual lugs and grooves are located on the cylinder or the disc and vice versa doesn't really matter, it's a general principle for now anyway.

>How would you go about this?

You have the same moving cylinder moving forward but now you've got a thick disc-bolt locked onto it from the other side so when the bullet leaves the chamber the case doesn't move backwards as much and helps accuracy. It would be problematic to implement the mechanism due to the whole action of moving the cylinder is operated by the trigger pull, as well as holding the cylinder in forward position, so you either get lots of stress from the cylinder pushed backwards when firing or you get your trigger forcefully pushed into its starting position, probably hurting your finger. If you can release the mechanism right after firing so the blowback happens only after combustion when the cylinder is already released you could pull this off but it's still problematic and i'm unsure if it'd actually improve anything with that setup.

>>635622

The thing with nagant is that its cartridges are pushed back when firing, allowing the cylinder to hold still and maintain the seal, while if we secure them with the cylinder then blowback would move the whole construction and won't work.

>>635643

>You'd do this by having a narrow piece on the face of the hammerhead that goes through a tiny hole in the disc

It'd connect with the primer before it does with the disc and starts pushing afterwards, otherwise it won't work.

>That all sounds very complicated. There has to be an easier way

I offered a solution - push the cylinder backwards instead of forward and use a barrel/chamber extension to contain the gasses. That way you won't actually have pressure pushing directly against your mechanisms all while containing the gasses in the single chamber and align the cylinder. I've already mentioned it and even drawn a schematic.

>>600739

Could you use a .44 Magnum round for a semiautomatic carbine? I assume that it would find its niche there (and that trying to control a full retard spray of .44 Mag would be its own punishment). It sounds like a round that would fit that role almost perfectly, being more powerful than something you'd want to put through a pistol; but lighter, and at least potentially cheaper when compared to rifle rounds. Use it with hollowpoints or frangibles and it sounds like something that would be perfect for police/urban use (you don't need the range of a full rifle, but ideally you want to keep the one hit incapacitation potential without risking over-penetration).

>>635948

Well a flintlock or even matchlock pistol is classified as a restricted firearm which is in the same class as the glock

>>636011

.357./44 mag in rifles don't kick very much given they're pistol caliber. There is a selfloader in .44mag, the Ruger Deerfield.

My Pietta 1873 SAA 1st gen is annoying the fuck out of me. The rivet holding the firing pin into the hammer broke after a few hundred dry fires onto snapcaps before I could even take it to the range. Then I got a new rivet after waiting three weeks for it to arrive and got it into place very poorly honestly, I'm an idiot when it comes to tools and shit so I ended up only getting two thirds of it into place before it started peening like crazy so I ground the rest off and now it's fucking broken again.

I just ordered a new hammer for the damn thing so I hope that fixes it, but is there any way to just completely fix the firing pin into the hammer without using a rivet? Maybe soldering or something? Is there any reason not to do this?

>>637722

As long as the bulletclip fits in the ammohole propper and the shooting tube can withstand the explosion, it should be fine. Probably no more so than .38 special in a revolver chambered for .357

>>637722

The biggest problem is the increase in freebore before they hit the forcing cone. You get gas leaking past the bullet and you can't ensure the projectile swages into the rifling the same way each shot.

How significant is this? Fuck if I know.

>>636876

>Pietta

That was your first mistake. If you find yourself wanting a different one, shell out for either Uberti or Cimarron.

>firing pin

Original 1873 revolvers had the pin integrated into the hammer, so soldering, welding, or otherwise permanently affixing it is perfectly acceptable. Pietta only rivets it in because they're cheap bastards.

>>637722

There's fairly insignificant performance loss for most practical use, issues would only be apparent at longer ranges. The most popular revolver for this is the .410 Judge using .45LC and despite being a Taurus it seems to work just fine with no negative effects.

The shape of the projectile ensures it will make it into the barrel, at the very least, despite the excess chamber length it has to clear.

>>637750

>You get gas leaking past the bullet

That happens with normal use, to a somewhat lesser extent.

>>637745

>>637750

>>637752

So it's only a problem if you mind the wasted material, but not a reason for sleepless nights. Now for a trickier question: what if you gave a .357 Magnum revolver a 7.62 barrel, and used moonclips to fire 7.62 Tokarev? I really can't decide if it would work just fine, or if you'd have bullet fragments flying all over the place.

>>637772

I've read that Taurus has really improved their QC, but I'm still reluctant to get anything from a company that makes a gun that will go off from shaking it.

>>637766

Unless you have a cylinder with 7.62 Tok chambers, you're going to have a lot of split/blown out cases and I don't know what will direct the bullet into the barrel properly.

>>637818

Didn't Ian throw some 7.62 tok into that Medusa he was lent and found it had decent accuracy?

>>637835

No, it didn't, because it's too small a projectile to engage the rifling.

>>637752

I bought the Pietta because it was my only option for a SAA that had four hammer stages and no trigger safety except for an actual Colt.

Thanks for the help, anon.

>>635943

That is the Pachmayr logo on the grip. The stamps on the crane are factory assembly/inspection marks (not sure which you meant).

I have my dad's old Smith 19-3 (bought new by my grandfather) and it is my favorite shooter by far. I spent so much time with it that no other trigger feels right. Pic related with a lot more wear.

Recently retired it to the safe until my nephew is old enough to have it. I'll probably snag a 686 at some point.

What seals the rear of a cylinder exactly? Is the cartridge just pushed against the frame from the pressure of firing? And if that so, then why do aluminium frames work just fine?

>>638657

I think the friction caused by the force exerted on the walls of the chamber from the expansion of the brass plays a part in it too. I don't know how much, but if it's enough to make it explode without support, then it must be pretty high.

>>638680

That's my first idea too, but it begs the question: would a cylinder function just fine if you e.g. put it into a vice and hit the primer of a cartridge with a nail and a hammer?

>>638704

The cylinder would be fine, but I think the spent brass would fly backwards if there wasn't anything to stop it. Just look at blowback actions.

>>638783

Pump actions rifles use detachable magazines, lever actions have a tube - Henry has rifles with detachable magazines but they're expensive so they can get fucked.

Lever action rifles require comparatively more movement to cycle the action, and you're removing your dominant hand from the grip each time.

>>641918

Case probably wouldn't have enough strength to not blow up in the gaps through which links connect. It could also cause a chain reaction, igniting other cartridges. Moonclip holds the cartridges on their rim so that doesn't happen, there's probably a reason for that.

I'm a gun virgin with $500 to spend, which revolver would you recommend?

>>638783

>one of the fuddest types of firearm banned

TOP

O

P

CUCK

U

C

K

>>651798

>Smith & Wesson so shitty ecks dee

I have an S&W 686 with a few years on it, no internal lock. It's the nicest revolver I've ever handled and was willing to actually abuse. I buy Underwood 125gr bonded JHP for defensive and hunting ammo, 1700-1750 ft/s, and I haven't noticed any abnormal gas blow-by with it. The timing is better than some Rugers and pretty much any non-grandpa Colt I've handled, very little wiggle room at all. If I cock back the hammer for single action I can keep an inch group at 10 meters. Where are you getting your information from? Is this just shilling?

Also, .38 Special is literally inferior to 9mm Parabellum, why would you ever recommend this? The only way to achieve similar or better performance is to run it through a dedicated .357 Magnum pistol so you don't damage the gun, and even then you're spending a lot of money and pushing the limits for no reason when you should really just be using something that isn't a 120 year old black powder cartridge. I'm seriously questioning your experience, man.

>.44 Special

That's even weaker than the .38, you fucking mongoloid. At the very least use .44-40 Winchester if you want to LARP as a cowboy or a 1920s detective, because that round actually has higher loading tolerances than .44 Magnum.

good of place as any: just picked up a pair of S&W 642s.

This 4 part series is quite good. Vid related shows and describes how the Chiappa Rhino works.

>>664604

.460 S&W is loaded with fast burning pistol powders that will offer little benefit at long barrel lengths in comparison to slower burning powders with lower peak pressures. .45-70 also has much greater case capacity, meaning that in a rifle that can take it, it can be loaded much hotter without exceeding the pressure limits of the case. .45-70 is also typically loaded with a 405 grain bullet and 450 is not uncommon, offering penetration and hydrostatic shock potential that are unmatched due to the heavier bullet's much greater momentum.

Look up load data from real shooters. .45-70 is capable of far more than what the mainstream ammo producers make of it, because they're paranoid about fudds blowing up ancient Springfield Trapdoors with smokeless powder loads. 3500 ft-lbs is well within achievable range with a strong rifle.

I know that this video is pure faggotry, but I want to know if there is even a modicum of truth in the claim that lever action rifles are slower than bolt action firearms.

>>664672

So it's an old cartridge that is still held back by the old rifles it was designed for.

>>665932

If you're comparing them with a bolt action with a stripper clip guide, they are absolutely slower to load. I shot lever guns a few times, and found them awkward to cycle, but I think someone experienced could cycle them as fast as you could a bolt action.

>>665932

You can cycle lever actions faster than bolt actions, for sure, as well as not lose the sight picture in the process. Pump action would be even faster still, but it's heavier, bulkier and is also more front-heavy.

In terms of reloading mags go first, stripper clips go second, then revolver clips, than manual loading, with revolvers, being a bit faster than bolt actions and lever(pump) actions which are somewhat similar.

A lever action is by no means an optimal choice and a bolt action is cheaper, a lot longer range and versatility but i'd take a lever action or pump action for shorter ranges over it, with the former one if i was going to carry it around and shoot for fun as well, while the latter if we'd be going full tactical for manual action.

>>665932

It's a matter of experience. Someone who doesn't use a lever action rifle much will always pussyfoot the lever and stuggle with it. It's the same with autofags who ride the slide instead of just letting it go. once you gain confidence with one you can cycle them retardedly fast.

>>665932

>.45-70

In short, yes. I kinda want to see Remington-Keene reproductions, since those were strong rifles (with an amazing 10-round capacity), or maybe someone can design a box magazine gun to use it. .45-70 Automatic in AR-10s when?

>>665958

>.45-70 Automatic in AR-10s when?

Quite a while ago, actually, and in AR15 platform as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.458_SOCOM

>>665958

>I kinda want to see Remington-Keene reproductions,

It's not the same, but there are dudes converting Mosins to 45-70.

>>665962

Seen a few SMLE conversions to .45-70 myself. though I've heard speak of converting a m1a over to said cartridge

>>666001

I'd like to see an M1A converted to 458 win mag. There are conversions available for M1 Garands in the caliber.

>>632645

yes and no. Puma 1873 is Army Colt clone in 22lr, but grips seem very small to my large adult hands.

IIRC, average height/size of Americans grew a lot from 1873 to 1973

>>665962

there's also a bunch of Siamese contract mausers that have been converted to 45-70 floating around as well.

>>637772

The Danny Devito of revolvers.