Revolver and cowboy gun thread

YEEEE HAAAW

Attached: 2c8b02ed3b0695196e00ab3509ec4010dd85f69447a8d5be95bc5d4aa5386bbd.gif (400x326, 279.69K)

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.

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.

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.

also, I'm drunk
everything I said is correct but I think I said it in a very drunken way.

You did fine
t. also drunk

I just looked this up because I've never heard of it before. It looks nice, and 9 rounds is an improvement on what most revolvers have, but when 15+1 pistols and 30-round AR mags are readily available in any place but Commiefornia and New Cuck it's hard to justify using one. I'd say you need at least 2/3 the ammo of a non-revolving gun to be a serious competitor, and then only in certain roles.

I was more interested in the design of the cylinder catch and cylinder release. You need it to be just as easy to use as a linear magazine catch and release or no one will adopt it.

For materials, you could make most of the gun out of carbon fiber, but you might remove so much weight from it that it can't take the recoil anymore. It seems like a waste of polycarbonate to make disposable cylinders though, because some types of polycarbonate are tough enough to use as permanent parts, a property that no other currently known plastic has. It'd be best to just make them as regular magazines that can be reloaded when you're not in the field.

Attached: 1491894645995.gif (555x371, 144.07K)

Have you thought about seeing a counselor? Don't bottle up your grief. It's not healthy for you.

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.

I'd go around it in a completely different way, because I'd combine the Mauser 1878 revolver with the Pancor Jackhammer.
youtube.com/watch?v=UzSXvhGdfzo
youtube.com/watch?v=-VKGhqIl4Gw
The Mauser revolver's design needs a barrel sleeve for the barrel to move in around, and the operating rod needs a semi-circular extension that wraps around the barrel. Of course, you also move the barrel to the 6 o'clock position. In single-action operation the trigger is exactly the same as in any other revolvers. In double-action you will also have to deal with the weight of the barrel, therefore I suspect the trigger pull would be heavier. But if you also drill gas ports in the barrel, then this will be a semi-automatic weapon any way (or you can make it fully automatic if you are crazy enough). The weapon would be quite modular, as the barrel is not fixed, and you can make cylinders that hold more or less cartridges. The pistol grip doesn't house anything, therefore you could replace that too. E.g. it would be possible to turn a five shot .357 Magnum revolver with a 3" barrel into a six shot .327 Fedeal Magnum revolver carbine with a 12" barrel simply by replacing the barrel, cylinder and grip.

As for loading,I don't think that the Medusa's cylinder is a good solution, but it would be possible to copy that too. I believe in top-break with moonclips. The revolver would look like a modernized Webley-Fosbery, even though it wouldn't have anything common with that. If you doubt the strenght of top-breaking revolvers, let me remind you that the soviet TOZ-81 was chambered for 7.62x39mm. The hinge would have to be placed in frong of the operating rod's extension. A bit of a mechanical problem is that you shouldn't be allowed to open the revolver when the hammer is cocked, because then the barrel would be pushed back into the cylinder by its own spring, and wouldn't aling with the operating rod's extension. I think the solution is a manual safety that has an additional position that an additional position that works as a decocker. You don't want the safe position to be the decocker, because then you can't carry it cocked and safe.

Attached: marsopen.jpg (1800x971 45.24 KB, 150.25K)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I came up with a few abortive ideas to increase a cylinder's ammo count, but I'm not really satisfied with any of them because the changes they'd require are so radical that none of the infrastructure needed for them is in place and they all introduce additional complexity. I'll just dump them here so we can all learn from their mistakes.

My first idea is to use Dardick-style trounds. Triangles tessellate, allowing more tightly packed ammo clusters than with conventional rounds. Trounds aren't 100% exactly triangular, but they'd still fit together better than circular rounds. The idea is that the trounds would be arranged on the rim of the cylinder in an alternating pattern of upward and downward orientation, rotating while on the cylinder into the correct position to be fired, or possibly using a rotating barrel. This could raise the ammo capacity by as much as 100% with a similarly-sized bullet. The problem is getting them to rotate correctly. My second idea is to use a compound cylinder. You can do this with any type of round. Essentially your cylinder is now a triquetra-ish shape, and you have 3 smaller sub-cylinders in each third that carry at least 3 rounds each. You could raise the standard for revolvers to 9 rounds this way without substantially increasing the size of the cylinder, but you'd have to figure out a way to make each sub-cylinder rotate correctly. If you use trounds with this you could potentially get up to 18 rounds by packing them into 6-tround hexagonal sub-cylinders. Dardick did something somewhat like this, but he used a 3-barrel system with it, which ended up being far too heavy. My third idea is to simply use a more traditional magazine in a cylindrical shape. You could convert the cylinder into a spiraling magazine and dispense with making it rotate, using a torsion spring to move rounds into the firing position. This would be very similar to how a helical magazine operates. Or you could just use a helical magazine instead, but that would probably be too heavy.

These are all sufficiently wacky that I think somebody else will have something better and simpler. If nothing else, it's good to have bad ideas shot down preemptively so other people don't waste time on them.

Don't be gay, Zig Forums is the best therapist

user, 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.

What do you want from revolvers exactly? Because if we take away their supposed reliability and ignore the capacity, then the main difference lies in the placement of the chamber, as it also functions as the magazine in revolvers. And they can potentially have lower bore axis if the barrel is at the 6 o'clock position. So let's see what options we have so far:
The cartridge's maximum length is limited by the grip and most people have a hard time gripping it if the cartridge is longer than 7.62 Tokarev. The chamber has to "take away" the cartridge's length from the "working length" of the barrel. And the magazine has to be under the barrel, as such it's hard to make the bore axis low, and impossible to align it with the wrist.
Now the cartridge can be much longer, but again, the chamber is that much longer too. E.g. if you made a rimless .500 S&W for autoloaders that is 60mm long, then half of a 120mm long barrel would be the chamber. You could give such a pistol a revolver grip, even aling it with the wrist, but that will make it even longer.
You get more barrel for the same overall length, and you can align it with the wrist if you place it in the 6 o'clock position. You can even have a negative bore axis if you want to.
Now it's basically a semi-bullpup, you get the most barrel for a given length. The negatives are the worse bore axis and higher height.
The same as the previous, but with the capacity of a box magazine. At least in theory.

All in all, I think only pocket revolvers and hunting revolvers have a future. The former is because you can make pocket revolvers firing autoloader cartridges that are both smaller and more controllable than even subcompact semi-autos chambered for the same cartridge. And the later works because you can't stuff those long hunting cartridges into the grip of a pistol, and the compactness of a revolver is even more obvious if your other option is to place the magazine forward of the grip.

I can even illustrate that.

Attached: tround.png (1776x4488 136.91 KB, 1.4M)

everything.

You could conceivably fix this by engineering a new tround that isn't just a regular round with some stuff added on, but that would be costly and complicated. It'd be better to use existing cartridges.

I imagine the same as what any other revolver enthusiast wants, a viable alternative to a conventional gun. A feed system adaptable enough to use in any class of gun would be ideal. My idea is basically taking the picture you drew of the tri-circle and expanding the space between the circles until they're fully separated, adding a piece to hold them together and shrinking the circles themselves slightly. Out of all the stuff I listed, the compound cylinder is the idea I think is the least flawed. Still, even supposing you could come up with a compound cylinder that both fits in a reasonably sized gun and carries appreciably more ammo, I have no idea how to make each sub-cylinder rotate independently of the main cylinder body to align with the barrel at the right time. Maybe somebody will come up with something similar to this concept but with a way to fix that flaw. 18 rounds might be a bit much for this design, but 12 rounds should be easily doable and 15 rounds in either 3 sub-cylinders of 5 or 5 sub-cylinders of 3 isn't that much of a stretch. At 15 rounds it would basically be equal to a linear magazine, so you can probably stop there.

Attached: bond-bullpup-animation-gif-ready-Edit-no-bg-700.gif (700x394, 420.9K)

Déjà vu.

Attached: Russian Revolving Gun.jpg (552x652, 110.12K)

I doubt that you will ever meet your goals, as you have to address the weaknesses of the revolver that led to its decline.
Just tell a Swiss clockmaker what you want and he will design you the gearsystem without breaking a sweat. You want pic related without the ring gear, and you want to synchronize everything so that all 15 or 18 cartridges align with the barrel over the course of 3 full rotations. Now I take it will require additional gears between the sun and planet gears, so it will have lots of fiddly bits.
And you don't want to make one for every cylinder, so I think instead of a complete new cylinder you want to replace only the guts of the cylinder. Maybe you should just have the 3 rounds in their own cylinders (that has a central shaft connecting to the gear system) as a complete unit. Then you can single load a cylinder of 3 cartridges, or use moonclips or speedloaders. You can see how this is horribly overcomplicated, and how it has nothing to offer over a simple box magazine.

Attached: planetarygearset.jpg (343x336, 20.17K)

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

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

Well now that you mention it, can't you achieve the same results as all the fiddly bits by using the ring gear? As it rotates, all the sub-cylinders will rotate, putting a different chamber on the rim. Now just rotate the entire cylinder assembly as well to put the correct chamber in line with the barrel. Alternatively, instead of having the barrel aligned with the rim, you can put it in a position closer to the center of the cylinder assembly. For our purposes, the sun gear should also be much smaller than the planet gears instead of how your picture displays it.

Making each sub-cylinder replaceable just like the main cylinder is a great idea. It'd make refilling an empty cylinder much faster.

I definitely see that it's complicated. I hope there's a way to make it simpler than this, or to use a similar concept that can be made simpler. You could change the shape of the gears and possibly gain some additional benefits which may or may not be better than a box magazine, but that wouldn't get rid of any excess complexity.

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.

The main benefits of an epicyclic cylinder that I can currently point out are that it would quiet the revolver's operation because epicyclic gearing in general is good at this, and that a compound cylinder using 3-count sub-cylinders weighs slightly less than a conventional cylinder with the same amount of ammo. The difference isn't very much, though. Consider the case of an average revolver like the one in the OP picture. Let's say that the diameter of a single round is 1 unit. That would mean the total diameter of its 6-round cylinder is roughly 3 units, since the center segment is equivalent to 1 unit. This gives it a radius of 1.5 units. A 3-round sub-cylinder with the rounds arranged in a triangle would be around 2 units in diameter, meaning its radius will be 1 unit. The volume of a cylinder is πr²x. The volume of the sub-cylinder is πx, while the volume of the normal cylinder is 2.25*πx. Since it's going to take 2 sub-cylinders to get the same amount of ammo as a normal cylinder, the total volume of the compound cylinder is 2πx. The conclusion to draw from this is that the weight difference is only noticeable when the gun you're using is extremely heavy. So basically it only really has a weight benefit on a revolving autocannon. That means I should probably stop with this and get on to some other idea, but maybe someone will think of a legitimate use for an epicyclic cylinder. I have some other revolver stuff I've been theorizing anyway.

You should probably check outside your house for an army of rampaging Gekkos commanded by a man with a prosthetic hand.

Does that actually works? Doesn't seem efficient.

I just mathed out this concept. This was prompted by me having the idea to make the sub-cylinders into Reuleaux triangles to shave off some weight since they hold 3 rounds apiece. This is more or less exclusive to a compound cylinder because you can't retain the same amount of ammo making a normal cylinder into a Reuleaux triangle and still have the rounds align properly with the barrel unless you make a system that moves the axis of rotation along a circular path as well. That would complicate the design enormously. Then again this is getting pretty complex anyway, but in summation, the weight of the cylinder or sub-cylinder drops by about 1/3 from moving to a Reuleaux triangle with a maximum radius equal to the radius of the circle. That's substantial enough to warrant consideration. The proof is as follows:

Circle area = πr²
Side length of an equilateral triangle inscribed in a circle = 2r sin(π/3) = h
Reuleaux triangle area = (1/2)(π - √3)h²
= (1/2)(π - √3)4r² sin²(π/3)
= (3/2)r²(π - √3)

Reuleaux triangle area/circle area = {(3/2)r²(π - √3)}/(πr²)
= {(3/2)(π - √3)}/(π)
= ~0.67

Keeping this to the compound cylinder design is better because it keeps the complexity inside the cylinder instead of the gun frame. This will be very important later since it works with another crazy idea I thought up. Since you have to have a polygon capable of tessellation in order to pack rounds efficiently and keep them aligned with the barrel, and Reuleaux polygons are only shapes of constant width if they have an odd number of sides, using any system of sub-cylinders in the shape of Reuleaux polygons limits you to either 3 or 5-round sub-cylinders because 2, 4 and 6 are even, no convex polygon with 7 or more sides can tessellate, and any number of rounds under 3 provides no cause for using a compound cylinder anyway. Remember also that an equilateral pentagon is incapable of tessellation, whereas this is not the case for an equilateral triangle; only non-equilateral pentagons can tessellate. This means that the preferred round count for a Reuleaux sub-cylinder will be 3.

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

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.

I've seen designs for revolvers in various places that have a very clockpunk/steampunk aesthetic, and to the best of my knowledge, the first attempts at building revolvers ended up being very clockwork-like. Of course we can't discount Togusa's 2006M lookalike autorevolver as the most cyberpunk of all guns. Call it LARPing if you like, but you can give revolvers just about any visual style, while normal guns are far more limited in this way.

I've been sitting on this, but I decided to just go ahead and post it. I worked a bit to condense it all into one post since I sometimes ramble and most people are hesitant to respond to that. Anyway, I thought of an additional two ideas.

First up is a potential method of making a compound cylinder perform burst fire. Imagine a cylinder that has a tiny assembly in it that works much like a rotary engine (with pistons and not something like the Wankel). When you pull the trigger, the first piston in it is released and its spring pushes it radially toward the bullet to strike it on the rim. The gun fires and the expanding gas pushes the piston back from whence it came, driving kinetic energy into the counter-rotating crankshaft of the rotary striker group and rotating the cylinder to the next chamber, where this process happens again until all rounds have been fired. All you have to do is let this mechanism keep going until all 3 (or 5, if it's what you prefer) rounds are expended instead of interrupting it with the trigger group. You reduce the number of strikers in a group and thus the number of moving parts in this burst fire system by using a compound cylinder. This makes it less prone to failure. To cycle to the next sub-cylinder, another propellant charge sits in the rear of the sub-cylinder. Another striker that only activates when all the sub-cylinder's rounds have been fired is near this charge. This striker hits the extra propellant, which doesn't fire a projectile but instead simply cycles the gun. If this system fails to operate properly, you can correct the problem with a simple double-action trigger pull.

Second is that it's now possible to solve both the revolver's reload speed problem and its ammo capacity problem simultaneously by moving the cylinder to the front of the trigger guard like the Mateba MTR-8, which allows you to reload cylinders from the bottom. The MTR-8 also has high capacity for a revolver due to the location of its cylinder enabling it to be larger, with 8 rounds of .38 Special or .357 Magnum coming standard compared to the 6 Unica's 6. Combining this relocation of the cylinder with a Reuleaux triangle cylinder, compound or not, creates a cylinder of nearly the same mass that carries 12 rounds. This isn't up to the lofty heights of 15+1, but it's enough to be competitive against normal pistols. Another MTR model, the MTRC-20 carbine, carries a staggering 20 rounds of .22 LR. If you apply the same 50% bonus to something in .22 caliber or close to it such as 5.56, a full load of 30 rounds finally becomes available to a wheel gunner without a cylinder that breaks the scales.

Looking at getting a schofield from uberti for plinking and fun, and because i've always wanted a top-break. Is uberti a decent manufacturer?

Everything you said sounds like an overcomplicated shitshow. There is little to no market for autorevolvers, especially burst fire ones. I could see a gas-powered revolver selling in the same sort of niche market as the Mateba, but not as a useful gun. You'll never see a police force buy them.
Inserting a new cylinder sounds like a great way to reduce reload speeds on paper until you realize that nobody wants to carry 2 ~1/2lb 8-shot cylinders. Its too heavy. You'd be better off designing a moon clip that holds the rounds parallel so they slot more easily into the cylinder.

If you want to design an exciting new revolver, design a top-break that can handle the hottest .357 you can throw at it for under/around 1200. There's no .357 magnum top-break out there. that i know of

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1500x820, 567.22K)

Somehow relevant.

What do you mean by that?

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.

hnnnnng

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.

...

Have you ever used a pic related?
The main problem with them is that the bullets are not parallel to each other and don't immediately fit into the cylinder without some fidgeting or a fuckton of practice.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (320x195, 131.73K)

They're cartridges you dumb fuck

The fewer pistons there are in each sub-cylinder, the less likely the burst fire mechanism will fail. Still, it is pretty damn complicated. I'd be open to suggestions on other ways to achieve the same functionality. Also, the Wankel engine has no pistons. There's a massive gulf between rotary engines with pistons and those without.

My thought was not to use them as a standard-issue gun. It'd be more of a specialty gun that only a few people carry, but that has the basic features required to not be totally crippled if you have to go up against someone with a standard gun.

The idea is that you get more than 8 shots per by changing the shape of the cylinder. You could try to make an expendable cylinder out of lighter materials, as >>800730 suggests.

Maybe for you. I'd actually like that option, though, unless somebody figures out how to build an exponentially better speedloader than anyone currently has. Maybe just build a movable mounting bracket on the gun to hold your speedloader(s) and flip a switch to reload the cylinder from the bracket?

This. I think more than a few people would appreciate an advancement over current speedloaders. I read that even with a speedloader, it takes at least 2.5 seconds to reload a revolver even for the best revolver experts in the world. That's just not going to cut it when Abdul McJihad has 15+1 even with just a pistol.

Shit, I mean . I just got out of bed. Need caffeine.

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

This book exists. It's fine. Mostly you need 2 things: appropriate gear ratios (super easy) and the correct pendulum length (easily made adjustable with 3D printing). Your biggest problem will probably be efficiency loss from bearings, but the clock should still be reasonably accurate.

Attached: 51jYjuw4PqL._SX373_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg (375x499, 39.27K)

I'm getting a new shotgun, but due to the shithouse laws cuntland has, I can't get it in my house till next week. What I did get was some pictures of the proof marks- what I gather is that it was made in 1986 a little out of the cowboy era but double barrels are thrown under the cowboy label

Attached: 20180817_144431.jpg (3456x3456, 2.91M)

You're not building a hand watch, you're building a wall clock. Parts can be as big and inaccurate as you need them.

Checkmate atheist.

Attached: 0e1d0529-a565-4773-9a7a-3ef3ac8fc899.jpg (1000x773, 103.4K)

Danke.

What I'd like to make is a supremely modular cylinder that basically makes replacing the cylinder equivalent to replacing the entire gun, but that's probably way too ambitious. Ideally all components that the gun needs to fire would be bound up in the cylinder except the trigger group. Maintenance would be a breeze because all you'd have to do to fix almost any problem is just throw in a new cylinder.

test

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.

Like a pepperbox? Meatstorm tried to do that, they wanted to have guns which were disposable. A multi barrel pistol holding 40 rounds, made entirely of plastic and working off a simple electric button trigger and a watch battery. The pistol itself could be made for under $10, and be quite effective while the bullets last.

None of these pictures are correct by the way, they're drawn by "artists".

Attached: Untitled.png (900x360 22.57 KB, 51.26K)

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

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.

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.

I will try to keep that in mind, but the problem is that revolver doesn't have the word pistol in it, so you can leave out the word(s) that describe the other kind of pistol, and people will still understand what you mean. And some unnecessary information: in Hungarian we also use revolver, but we have forgópisztoly for a more technical term. It literally means "revolving pistol". An automatic would be öntöltő pisztoly, and that means self-loading pistol. As far as I know we don't have a technical term for autorevolver, but I'd use önműködő forgópisztoly, and that would be "self-working revolving pistol". Of course, önműködő revolver is also a possibility if you want to sound a bit less autistic.

Attached: göröghetek.gif (380x490, 134.24K)

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

I guess it would more or less end up being a miniature pepperbox small enough to be used as the cylinder in a more conventionally sized revolver frame. I'm also wondering if it'd be simpler to operate a burst fire sub-cylinder with recoil operation or some other system. Gas systems usually only get used for rifle cartridges. There's nothing stopping a revolver from doing that, though. I'm also coming to the belief that a 5x5 compound cylinder (that's 5 Reuleaux polygon sub-cylinders with 5 sides and therefore 5 rounds each) would be more volume-efficient than using a Reuleaux triangle, despite the latter having better mass efficiency, so if you had this system in a rifle it may be better to have the 5x5 for more ammo and even for the additional weight to stabilize the gun against recoil.

Can any of you homosexuals own guns or are you as cucked as the rest of the ex-USSRzone?

Attached: 0959f50e9e6188cfd7dfd890944d7dd380c04269ffe5be1fd3e0b9c6c1b3fe62.png (469x452, 208.3K)

I wish I could user, I wish we could…

Attached: 575px-Feszty_Árpád_Árpád_vezér-0223.jpg (575x600, 63.41K)

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

I'm going to go ahead and bump this thread with a very obvious suggestion for improving revolvers' ammo capacity that would completely do away with the necessity of using a substantially larger or more mechanically complex cylinder: Make it into a needler. With a round that has a very small diameter, the difference between a linear magazine and a revolver cylinder becomes practically moot. You could even have a multi-barreled setup without making the gun overly heavy by doing this, meaning you could have burst fire without any need to rotate a sub-cylinder. Of course, you'd have all the myriad problems of needler rounds such as their tendency to get blown off course easily by crosswinds, but research into a better needler round could fix this.

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?

I'm getting hard thinking that they will restart production of Unica 6. Thank Gods for videogames.

Attached: IMG_4801-920x690.jpg (920x690, 109.09K)

Aw yus

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

That's pretty cool. I know there have been some old revolvers that used replaceable cylinders, but I thought none of them were more recent than about 150 years ago. You're not going to be making a .357 Magnum cylinder out of Zytel though, let alone anything that has even more stopping power than that.

I thought more about how to do burst fire on a compound cylinder and realized you don't need a secondary charge. You just have to put the barrel more toward the center instead of on the rim. Every chamber on a Reuleaux sub-cylinder will rotate past that point seamlessly and move to the next sub-cylinder without skipping a beat. I still have no idea how to make a mini-rotary engine that works reliably enough for this though. I probably need to try something else.

Attached: dong.jpg (933x542 55.16 KB, 39.65K)

Where is the handgun? I wish to larp as Deckard for ten minutes before getting bored.

Attached: a91ad0b6baf74ea4bbd77b180346650e1a2c8c14845e9b5c59603cb173e11d9b.jpg (432x624, 36.51K)

How would you react to a striker-fired revolver?

Laugh.

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?

Ruger 6 series
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.

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

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.

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

You just missed out on buying a new Smith snub for 260-ish, friend. Pic related.
Hopefully you find something good.
brownells.com/firearms/handguns/revolver/bodyguard-38-crimson-trace-1-9in-38-special-matte-black-5rd-prod92341.aspx?avad=avant&aid=35987&cm_mmc=affiliate-_-Itwine-_-Avantlink-_-Custom Link&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=Avantlink&utm_content=NA&utm_campaign=Itwine>>606881

Attached: 638.jpg (360x480, 12.91K)

Might as well just go full auto. I'd be interested to see some more revolver designs that use gas operation though.

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) ?

I don't know, but I know that more revolvers need to be designed with that kind of inclined grip and a 6:00 barrel.

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?