Seems more ergonomic.
Recoil is lower and easier to control.
Easier to reload.
Can eject out of the bottom, thus ambidextrous.
What am I missing?
The Neostead sort of did, and the UTS-15 loads from two top ports.
From a sporting standpoint, having your sight plane that far above the line of bore is awkward and pushes into unsingle territory. Most of the innovation in shotguns seems driven by law enforcement and civilian demand, which aren't always keen on change.
I fail to see how that is a problem...
>Seems more ergonomic.
>Recoil is lower and easier to control.
What matters is the distance separate from the center line, lower doesn't really accomplish that.
>Easier to reload.
>Can eject out of the bottom, thus ambidextrous.
Standard shotguns do this, and ejection doesn't make a difference for left handed shooters unless it's bullpup.
>What am I missing?
Yeah I skeet shoot on a semi regular basis. Got a friend with some land. I actually don't own a shotgun so I use his. He's got a bernelli super black eagle, which is nice.
Just asking a question dude. I'm no gunsmith, but with all the weird snowflake guns out there I would think somebody has experimented with a top loading shotgun. Couldn't find anything when I googled it though.
I'm just curious why. Is there some obvious disadvantage with this design?
Sorry. You seem new. Have you even looked at the stupid shit people do with shotguns to run them different ways with the exact same result? People will always answer non-existent questions, you doof.
You mean like the 1887 and the RMB, neither of which are complicated AT ALL and are you honestly saying that dropping a shell into a slot is harder than thumbing it up into one.
Just because things work the way there are doesn't mean there is no room for improvemnt. Stop trying to sound smart
OK, let's just give up on everything. No reason to try to improve anything. We're all using 1800-era revolvers cus they ain't broke so we didn't fix em.
Oh wait no, I like ask questions and make things better. So fuck off.
Of course,it's russian
Gives the same feel and swing as a regular O/U minus some weight. Nobody wants one but some rules require it.
The barrel is on the bottom and pumps forward. Shells slide down from the tube above. It's an extremely short action, I think it'd be much smaller/lighter than a Masterkey or an M26
Because I don't trust UTAS or whoever to actually have thought out a sight plane in their Tacticool Mall Ninja Elite©®, with parallel being the best you could hope for and because what works great for a trap hold doesn't always work out in sporting clays or field.
>What purpose has the pump action now?
General reliability? just sayin
Not a matter of two inches above or left or right. There is an intercept of bore axis and sight plane, at some distance, usually 30-40 yds in a trap gun. In tacticool guns, no one cares for the most part and puts a red dot on it, though most have a parallel sight plane.
I mention this for the impact is has sporting guns and why top feed hasn't been done there. Think of the difference between an 870 Wingmaster and an 870 Trap. The Wingmaster has an intercept of near parallel, but still hits slightly high at 35yds with a distribution of 70-30 or so above-below point of aim. The Trap is more offset due to it's sight plane, with a hold under giving 80-20 or 90-10 above-below, depending on adjustment.
Now, in the case of my DP-12, it is strictly parallel. 50-50 above-below until gravity starts to matter. This is made a little more awkward by having a sight plane three inches above and quite a bit left of the bore axis of the primary barrel. While it can be done, I expect to shoot 20 to 22 of 25 with it, versus even the Wingmaster I mentioned above and the 24 or 25 of 25 I would shoot with that.
TL, DR: The idea for top feed is great, but doing it on a tactical shotgun kills the fudd market. A top feed, bottom eject gun with a thought out sight plane would be great.
Honestly that was a little over my head. I shoot clay, but I'm an amateur just shooting for fun.
Seems like top loading would be easier to reload, be easier recoil, and if used for combat/home defense - throw a red dot on top. Plus if it ejects out the bottom bullpup would be easy (not saying that configuration would be desirable).
Really, I'm just curious why this hasn't been tried before. Like I said further up, I googled "top loading tube semi auto shotgun" and found nothing.
This design would be non traditional, sure. But I can't imagine any serious drawbacks, so it's weird that there doesn't seem to be any guns like this out there.
Again, just honestly curious. I'm not a gunsmith or anything.
There are no autos I know of, but there are the UTS-15 and the Neostead. I agree, there is no reason why it shouldn't work, but we are looking at the discontinued Neostead and the UTS-15 having serial numbers around 15000 last time I checked.
Meanwhile, law enforcement keeps buying the same variants of sporting guns they have used for years. The design would be scary and new for most people, which is why I think sticking a Browning logo on it and selling it as the greatest duck gun since the BPS would be the way to go.
Apparently the ATF is just gay.
"Kunzman managed to import a total of three Neostead shotguns into the United States before getting a call from BATF informing him that the technical department has had a change in personnel and the new person in charge of importation held a different view regarding the importability of the Neostead. The BATF claimed that the weapon didn't meet the requirements as a sporting shotgun," from Wikipedia.
Yeah man seems like a top loading tube semi auto would have a bunch of minor advantages, and no major disadvantages off the top of my head.
I'm really curious why this configuration hasn't been tried before.
>upgrading obsolete firearms being useful
I never understood why the gun market cares so much about how "traditional" a gun looks. Form follows function, a beautiful machine is one that works well. Whatever though.
Re: neostead and uts15, those guns are tacticool bullpups, and as such are a niche market. Do you think a top loading tube semi auto bird-murderer would be hard to sell?
Lots of minor advantages for this design, the only disadvantage (that I can tell) is that it's different-looking.
Because "traditional" is synonymous with "it works" for most people. Like I said above, I think a sporting gun would be the way to go early in production. Top feed, bottom eject would be ideal for hunting from a blind, whether pump or semi.
Even the most unrepentant Fuddites will usually accept something that works and they will pay a $300 premium for bluing and a piece of dead tree.
Why not have a shotgun with an adjustable sight plane? I never understood why nobody's ever done this aside from "oh it's a shotgun you don't need that."
I'd love to make a top-feed pump with a 7+1 capacity capable of taking 3 inch 12 gauge shells no problem, ambidextrous controls, adjustable sight, rail top and bottom, adjustable stock with an adjustable cheek rest. I think my ideal MSRP for that would be about $650
I want to be angered by this but I just can't.
Most competition guns have adjustable ribs and stocks. Most good stocks have adjustable rise and length of pull. It is expensive to do right and most people don't know enough to care.
I don't know if you could get all that in a pump, if you were making it in the US. Maybe if you had an established manufacturer doing the work.
If I ever figure out how to make a truly robotic factory I'll get my manufacturer license and do this, right along with all the handful of other fun and commercially viable ideas I've gotten over the years.
The idea is novel enough that the Turks might do it. Standard Manufacturing seems to run on crazy too, so there's them.
If I was a master gunsmith and was mind bogglingly rich, I would just sit around and produce single units of the guns /k/ designs and make the world jealous. Or die firing an Aspie 9000 Terminator in 50BMG.
Fuck the Turks. If I had the money I'd start up a firearms company in what will probably be an independent Kurdistan, and I'd test all those kooky /k/ ideas (the ones that don't involve nuggets at least) out to see if they'd work in modern combat.
To be fair, we're mostly using firearm designs from a century ago with only slight updates here and there. Sweeping innovation isn't exactly on the horizon anytime soon unless we adopt some new cartridge type.
Instead of having to lift the shotgun up, you can let it rest on the sling while you reload from the top.
The shotgun in pic related barrel is dead center of the butt plate, I'd say that would help with recoil a lot.
>>Easier to reload.
Actually, with the newer load 2/load 4 method of reloading it would be. With the old method of grabbing a hand full from a shotshell caddy it wouldn't be though.
This video shows loading from a shotshell caddy and the load 2 method:
The load 4 method just has the shells set up so you can grab 4 at a time instead of 2 and then load them 2 at a time like the load 2 method. The load 2 method can also be done when pulling shells out of a bandoleer, belt, or other loop type shell holder, you just grab the first shell by the brass section between your pointer and your palm with the primer facing up and the second between your pinkey and your palm.
Thanks dude, that was pretty interesting.
After watching that vid, I'm kinda thinking that a top loading weapon would be much easier to reload.
Imagine if you could just lower it from your shoulder, holding the gun with your offhand and using your primary to jam some shells in. You wouldn't even move the gun that far away from the firing position. If you had ammo in a chest rig or strapped to the stock, your reloading hand would only move a few inches, and then you're back on target. No muss, no fuss.
Worth an experiment, anyway.