Weapons design thread? Weapon design thread. Ever had a fever

Reminds me of the story of John browning and his brothers tinkering with a Winchester 1873 by attaching a gas piston to the lever. You can see the principle in his potato digger machine gun a few years later

>>33258903
so it's essentially a shitty Meatball without first-shot DA? It's an interesting idea, I'll give you that.

File: keanu woah.jpg (54KB, 560x375px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 560x375px

>>33258926
>M1895 is a gas-impinged lever action

>>33259098
Pretty much, yeah.

>>33258903
I've seen someone rig the ejector rod to act as a piston to automatically eject spent casings.

What I'd want to do is to also add a motor to cock the hammer immediately after ejection.

Or set it up in reverse, a piston cocks the hammer, and then a simple motor throws the springloaded ejector rod back a split second after the piston trips it.

This would of course be a toy.

>>33259098
Yeah nigguh.

>>33259098
door hinge and a string actually.

>>33258903
This is dumb as shit. All you have to do is take this beauty-
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=jPIyw2GPdlw
And using the casing to push the hammer.

>>33260024
>shared
Why the fuck would you do that and not just copy the URL?

>>33260218
Mobilefaggery.

>>33260363
I don't get that when I'm on my phone, what's his excuse?

>>33260370
I opened the video in the shitty app, sue me.

File: iso_tykki.jpg (43KB, 477x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 477x600px

I guess this thread is good enough

Came across this and wondered what caliber is it, and what would the muzzle velocity and power be

I don't know if it's even real.

>>33258903
If you wanted to add gas system, it would be more logical for it to go through cylinder axis.

>>33260380
Enjoy your cook offs and fitting a gas tube in a space already occupied by an ejector.

>>33260024
>the guy slapped a tube mag on his SAA
Neato. Now all you've got to do is fit a magazine into the grip doing the same thing.

>>33260410
His idea is dumb and gay but an SA revolver doesn't have an ejector star like a swing out cylinder gun, the ejector is in the tube next to the barrel.

>>33260410
SAA =/= Nugget

>>33260377
Doesn't even look like the barrel aligns with the chambers, and the hammer is way high if that we're the case.

A gas impinged AR-18 that uses about all AR-15 parts.

What do we shove in a 12 gauge shell to make the shotgun the best battle implement ever devised /k/?

>>33261731
>gas impinged
What did he mean by this

>>33261744
Modern gyro jets - solve the wind sensitivity by accelerating using the 12ga shell and powder,
Make it fancy as shit with homing projectiles or some shit.

>stupid and and expensive but cool

File: 1486477499104.png (349KB, 480x625px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 480x625px

>>33258903

Ive got a couple ideas right here:

DELAYED SLIDE RESET
using the same mechanics as bolt hold open and slide lock you have a catch hold the bolt/slide when it is cycling back into battery

when the trigger is released the slide/bolt is allowed to return and chamber another round
> this part may wear out like the rollers in h&k weapons but its worth it.

Benefits: You can use unusually low powered ammunition - 5.56 subsonic with a full power spring, or .38 special in a .357mag auto.

It shakes off the problems with duds failing to eject properly, and it also


here the second one
BOLT RESET RESIST
for full auto and bursts one issue is the high fire rate associated with them (burning up ammo or making it uncontrollable). But older and weaker calibers that rely on recoil had pretty low rates of fire such as the MP38 and M3.

When the bolt is returning into battery it gets caught by a second recoil spring that resists the bolt's forward motion and spring tension (one spring resisting another).

When the bolt goes to chamber another round the resistor spring catch is knocked out of the way allowing the bolt to snap forward like it normally would (while the resistor spring/catch snaps back into position so it can resist the return on another shot)

Put this in any modern rifle and you can efficiently control the cyclic rate by fine tuning the strength of the resistor spring.

you could have MP5s and M4s firing 400 rounds per minute (7/sec) making them bullshit easy to keep on target and reducing the amount of ammo required for suppressive fire.

> its not really the number of bullets you can lob downrange but How Long you can keep lobbing them that matters

>>33261926
* delayed slide reset makes the gun reliable and safer because you wont get spontaneous double taps either. I remember a report about a boy who was killed by a ricochet from an unintentional doubletap because some guy at a range was using hotloaded 9mm.

* you can also shoot overpressure rounds if the barrel can handle it because the faster recoiling slide isnt going to automatically cycle and misfeed or catch the spent case while its still ejecting.
> It'll beat on the frame and the slide catch but you can do it and it'll Function if its an emergency, or if thats your hot carry ammo you dont normally fire.

>>33261926
>delayed slide reset
already done in the Mars automatic pistol

>>33258903
You didn't dream that up, you just copied it from other anons who have responded to the questions about using a gas piston to index a cylinder in the QTDDTOTs the past few weeks.

>>33260380
This.
Break action system with a spring-loaded central ejector, gas piston runs down the cantilevered arm where the ejector rod would normally be, pushes a piston that cams the cylinder rearward out of a default gas seal and indexes one space on the return under spring pressure.

Basically a reverse-operated Nagant revolver, allows you to have a silenced revolver with gas seal without needing a heavy shitty trigger pull

File: hqdefault.jpg (24KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x360px

>>33258903
Take the constant recoil concept from the Ultimate 100 and find a way to shove it into a normal length reciever. Then put it in all the guns. Or in other words do what Jimijew Sullivan already did but won't show anybody.

File: rhino_6.jpg (11KB, 618x343px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 618x343px

In a gas sealing revolver, use the space above a 6 o'clock barrel for a suppressor. Wouldn't be whisper quiet but if the space is there anyways might as well use it.

>>33262271
That's...
Not a terrible idea, actually. Firing .22s and .38s out of that would be totally feasible, or even .410s

>>33262271
>tfw I have an idea for a striker-fired break-top .32 revolver and was wondering what the fuck to put above the barrel

>>33262582
>striker fired 32 revolver
muh dick
>top break
no.

>>33258903
If only there was a way to transfer a small amount of the kinetic energy in the recoil to the hammer directly.

File: shit_version_of_the_idea.jpg (240KB, 2550x2956px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 2550x2956px

Put a bunch of tube mags in a cylinder shape, and make it move to the next tube when a tube empties. Cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than helical mags.

>>33262810
top breaks are sexy though

There was a guy on /r/guns you rigged up a gas operated revolver it was cool looking but stupid. If I remember correctly he tapped gas from the end of the barrel with a manifold that directed it down a tube that actuated the ejector to kick out empty brass not sure how he worked the feed paw.

>>33262968
he had a tube "magazine" that fed directly into the chambers
it stuck a ways back towards the shooter and was just spring loaded

>>33262930
But they're shit anon.

>>33263088
>schofield is shit

get the fuck out of here.

File: Dumb idea.jpg (80KB, 1146x523px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1146x523px

>>33258903

>>33263273
It has historical value, and it's an interesting gun. It is also clearly worse than other revolvers from its era, like the SAA. The Schofield wasn't a bad gun at the time, but a new top break design would be terrible. They have a far shorter service life than any modern revolver (google "wobbly webley"), and swing out cylinders can reload as fast, if not faster, than top breaks.

>>33263503
>>33260024

File: .32 revolver.png (29KB, 3226x1731px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 3226x1731px

>>33262810
traditional actually would probably be easier to make.
Quick paintjob of it. Not to scale or 100% accurate, but basic idea is to get a super low bore axis. End bit is for a small plunger that goes into the chamber, not really for lockup but to help keep more of the gasses. No internals drawn; cylinder rotates/locks like normal revolver, and fires like any standard striker fire pistol. Main feature is the extremely low bore axis. I'm not a mechanic or engineer or anything like that so pls no make fun.

>>33264429
>traditional actually would probably be easier to make
I don't understand what you're saying here.
>end bit
The bit on the back end of the barrel? If you want to seal up gasses it's far easier to move the cylinder than the barrel. Another problem I see is that you haven't given any room for a traditional striker to fit. Boxy automatics are boxy in part to fit a long ass striker and spring behind the barrel. My idea to solve this was curving the striker down, but you'd need a more gradual curve than that drawing provides. Not hating, just like discussing this stuff.

>>33264019
Mechanicaly they are inferior to more "modern" swing out cylinders, but considering they came out when the 1851 Navy was still high tech, I don't think it's fair to call them shit. It dominated just about every other revolver for nearly two decades in terms of reload speed until colt finally had an answer to it in 1889 with the swing out cylinder. No the round it fired wasn't as potent as the .45 colt, but even as much as I love the SAA there's literally no comparison about how quickly you could get back in the fight with one of them compared to the colt, and it damn sure dominates cap and ball percussion revolvers that were around when it was released.

>Tl;dr different from the colt SAA, worse in some ways better than others.

>>33264560
>oper8ing inna west
>not switching to another gun instead of reloading
Enjoy getting killed.

>>33264528
I meant a traditional swing out cylinder, rather than a break top. Also the moving cylinder probably would work better.

For the striker, I don't think there would need to be a whole lot of room. Only reason I think that is because there's no slide moving to pick up another cartridge so you don't need some long channel to reach the breech face. I also know there's not too much room for the striker in my 1914 mauser. Again, I'm no science man, so my thought may be completely disregarding some factor.

>>33264560
>No the round it fired wasn't as potent as the .45 colt
honestly, what's the difference in power between .45 schofield and .45 colt?

>>33264657
probably the amount/type of powder

>>33264657
Wikipedia says it pushed a 230 grain bullet at 730 fps, compared to probably 1000+ FPS from a Colt with a 7" barrel, as was standard for Schofields.

>>33258903
There's really nothing mechanically wrong with the idea of using a short stroke gas piston to operate the hammer/cylinder, really. That could be neat.

File: higuysthanksfortuningintoanothervideoonforgottenweaponsdotcomimianandtodaywerelookingat.jpg (16KB, 289x332px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 289x332px

>>33258903
It would require a little more than that, But i guess it could work. The real question is , Why?

You'd probably need a power source more advanced than what's available today, but I'd like to see a quasi mash-up of a rail gun and the EXACTO round.

Rifle launches a fin-stabilized sabot or flechette with a seeker head just below the speed of sound. The fins adjust mid-flight to steer the projectile towards a laser emitted by a designator embedded in the rifle.

Near-silent sentry removal at ranges and accuracy beyond what a subsonic bullet can offer. A 1 ounce projectile going ~900fps is going to fuck up anyone's day

>>33265687
So just a guided slug? I'm not seeing the rail gun influence

File: 1470682216249.gif (975KB, 229x302px) Image search: [Google]

975KB, 229x302px

>>33262271
wouldn't that make for a really inefficient silencer?

File: T8-Xsect.gif (10KB, 759x264px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 759x264px

>>33266146
What do you mean, inefficient? It doesn't do much but it takes up space that otherwise isn't being used, which is pretty damn efficient.

>>33266166
huh, I've never seen a silencer design like that

>>33266031
A slug fired from a conventional shotgun is fuck-loud? Even if you could load it so it fires subsonic and suppress it, good luck hitting anything past 100m

>>33266485
"A lot of people think a railgun is not going to make a lot of noise,” says Charles Garnett, the manager at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, VA. “It’s electrically fired, and they expect a whoosh and no sound.” In reality, when the bullet emerges, it lets out a crack as electricity arcs through the air like lightning.

>>33258903
Why hasn't somebody made a mechanically operated, spring-less magazine that's any good? I was thinking for a pistol you take the spring out of a box magazine, leaving just the body and follower, then put a lifting belt or something in the grip that pushes the follower up a position each time you fire. The follower will hold its compressed position when ejected, unless the mag is empty. This would allow you to make more reliable, easier to load, cheaper, and higher capacity magazines.

File: 1924019_1670575666517319_69831988883950881_n-1-660x409[1].jpg (64KB, 660x409px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 660x409px

>>33266989
Russians tried it

>>33267515
Not really what I'm talking about, but cool nonetheless.

File: 6946b20778d596c28896017449bbc6ad.jpg (45KB, 564x659px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 564x659px

I think this is my fever dream gun. A chain-revolver. If I remember right, only one exists and its in the Cody, Wyoming gun museum.

File: mag_fed_revolver.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

Why not just put a magazine on the thing, load fire and eject with a rotating cylinder that doesn't get too hot to prevent cook offs?
Make a pistol version, or bull pup a short barreled nfa version.

I've always thought a solenoid-driven firing pin could be interesting. That way you'd get an ultra-light electronic button trigger, like on that Remington from a few years ago, but it would still work with normal ammo.

>>33266989
Ian just did a video on a 1930s Italian handgun with pretty much exactly the mechanism you're describing.

The main issues are that it's complicated, expensive, and makes for heavy and bulky magazines and thereby a big fat uncomfortable grip.

File: crazy russian magazine concepts.jpg (253KB, 1000x1387px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1000x1387px

>>33266989
>>33267538
Does it look something like no, 7 or no. 5 here in pic related?

>>33266989
Ah, I just realized that you were talking about a mechanically-operated follower and not a mag with an internal belt like the one in Ian's video.

The main problem would still be adding additional complexity, cost, and bulk to the gun though. You're also adding a mechanism that disables the entire gun if it fails, instead of just a single magazine.

Here's an idea, how about a magazine where you can release or reduce the spring pressure while loading it? An easy way of accomplishing this would be to use a telescoping mag body, with the spring attached to the floorplate, which you could extend to decompress the spring.

>>33269473
It was dumb when you suggested it in that 9mm carbine thread, and it's not much better here.

While an auto revolver isn't a wonder of practicality compared to a magazine fed automatic pistol, I entirely fail to see a reason for a magazine feed on a revolver.
The Dardick was a bad idea not just because of proprietary ammo.

The idea really only has a practical application for artillery, aircraft and anti-air, where a really high rate of full auto fire is needed, along with a safe and reliable feed of big and heavy shells.

>>33258903
Blowing gas in your face isn't a good idea anon

>>33269496
The Italian pistol was just a big chain of links in a mag, which makes it too big, bulky, expensive, and low capacity. Moving that lifting mechanism into the pistol itself, leaving the magazine with just a follower, would really make a mechanical magazine viable.

>>33269590
Oh, guess I should finish reading the thread before posting.
>Cost
I can't imagine it'd add cost to a gun, as putting the mechanism in magazines would just make each one that much more expensive.
>what if it fails
Fair point, I guess my only answer is that there are also advantages with this when it comes to reliability. No spring to wear out in your holster or nightstand after many years, and the force of a slide slamming rounds into place with force and speed a spring can't provide. If engineered right I can't see why it wouldn't last tens of thousands of rounds.

>>33269745
The big plus for mag fed revolvers is capacity anon. Think about it, there's room for a 6 round magazine in a compact 9mm revolvers grip, all you need to do is get the mechanism out of the way. That gives you 11 rounds total, better than any single stack auto.

>>33260377
The "cylinder" is the rotor of an electric motor, the "vent rib" is a shelf bracket, it's an art project

Not really my idea, but the part of a Nagant revolver that pushes a round into the cylinder before firing it would allow the use of bottlenecked cartridges in revolvers. Revolver hunting/anti material rifles when?

>>33270290
Cylinder makes a wider gun, systen that feeds from the magazine into the cylinder makes for more size too.

A Glock 19 or M&P Compact fits 15+1 in a small package while also being simple, reliable and foolproof, not to talk about affordable.

>>33262929
>Put a bunch of tube mags in a cylinder shape, and make it move to the next tube when a tube empties. Cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than helical mags.

It would be easier to make it flip tubes with every trigger pull.

>>33271349
Revolvers are way thinner than automatics overall, even if a single stack magazine were fit in the grip. They're also simple, reliable, foolproof, and affordable.

>>33269745
I agree with this

>>33270290
>Think about it, there's room for a 6 round magazine in a compact 9mm revolvers grip, all you need to do is get the mechanism out of the way. That gives you 11 rounds total, better than any single stack auto.

What kind of stupid faggotry is this? You think you can just zip-dee-do and wave your little fairy hands around and make everything come together? Where the fuck is the mechanism supposed to disappear to? And then you have to add on the new feed mechanism to chamber the rounds from the magazine to the cylinder. Now you have a less reliable revolver with more moving parts (including a slide) that ejects gas like a hooker that just finished a helium enema. God damn you are an embarrassment.

>>33271913
I suppose you'd end up with some kind of ridiculous oversized action like in early toggle locks coming into the cylinder. You'd end up with a bigass receiver, nullifying the mechanical simplicity of a revolver.

>>33271402
Doesn't the Keltec KSG already do that

>>33271598
>They're also simple, reliable, foolproof, and affordable.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FEED SYSTEM you retard

File: download.jpg (12KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 259x194px

>>33261926
The xm214 could be dialed all the way down to 400 rpm, all the way up to 4,000. Why don't we make a shoulder-mounted version with a battery pack integrated into pic related and make them a squad automatic weapon?

>>33272426
It would still be very heavy for what it does.

>>33271598
A 5 shot .38, .36 (9mm) or .32 caliber cylinder will *maybe* be as thin as a single-stack, but not be arguably as easy to carry because it's less of a flat package.

>They're also simple, reliable, foolproof, and affordable.
Not when you're going to be trying to make a merger of a magazine fed automatic and a revolver, that shit is gonna get complex and expensive (just R&D alone will be a headache), it works for revolver cannons because they don't have to be particularly compact or lightweight (because they're crewed or mounted weapons).

Slide operated automatics are easy and affordable to make.
Double-action revolvers are easy and affordable to make.
Trying to make a gun that does both (for little good reason) isn't going to be easy, cheap, or even reliable.

The entire reason for making something like a revolver cannon is to have a high rate of fire with big, long and heavy cannon shells that you can't really reliably (or safely) manhandle at this rate of fire with a conventional system.

Your idea isn't that far off from making a handgun or carbine operating on a Gatling system "just because".

>>33271402
There is a shotgun that does that, a detachable assembly of four tube magazines (a long and a short version available). You manually rotate the assembly to the next tube when your current one runs out.

I'm not sure how well this actually functions or how good this idea is, but it exists and has been manufactured.

>>33272040
>comparing feeding a bullet forcefully in the blink of an eye to feeding a bullet into a cylinder between shots
There would be no reliability problems with such a magazine if it were engineered correctly. Why are you so mad?

>>33271913
>>33272009
For one, don't use a hammer to fire it. Curve a striker around the magazine. The "feed mechanism" for the magazine would literally be a ramp to guide bullets into the cylinder. That's it. I'm not the anon who suggested whatever retarded gas system for it, just a magazine.

>>33273115
>if it were engineered correctly
Which would be expensive, and of questionable value.

I've always wanted a totally variable rifle.

The stock bolts directly to the receiver and the receiver can be swapped for different size receivers that all share a common mag well with adjuster blocks. Bolt heads and barrels designed to be easily removed to change calibers. Essentially three receiver sizes: small, medium and large. Each size designed for the widest range of calibers and pressures and include a full kit for one caliber or as many as you like.

The only downsides I see is possible NFA and having like a shitton of proprietary magazines. Designing mags to fit multiple calibers would be a plus but they couldn't be made to fit common designs for locking into place.

>>33273240
you could use a chassy system like beretta and sig. That'll get it so there's just one serialized part constant throughout the changes.

>>33273314
I was thinking the magwell part could be like a lower and have that serialized.

>>33273191
Adding a ramp to the gun for more reliable feeding isn't expensive. Doubling the capacity of a revolver is very valuable.

>>33271402
100lb trigger

>>33273407
automatic gun rotates it automatically

>>33273405
I don't think you'll be able to fit as many extra rounds as you want while retaining the same rough size as a compact automatic.

Maybe two or three, and for all the expense and difficulty in making it work, an extended baseplate and a round in the chamber would give you comparable capacity.

>>33273477
The grip would be about the same size as a single stack 9 if it were to fit a single stack 9 magazine. Which is to say, slightly bigger than a large-ish revolver grip.

>>33273407
unrelated but ive always wondered this. why not add a wind up mechanism that upon release of the trigger pulls the hammer back? like on the streetsweeper shotgun, how you wind up the..cylinder magazine thing, and when you release the trigger it rotates to the next round?

you could have the trigger pull of a single action combined with the mechanics of a double action, every shot. sure, youd have to wind this thing up, but if you could wind it up to be good for 50 shots worth of usage, on a revolver thats more then youll realistically ever need in non-stop combat where you dont get a chance to wind up, and for civillian use and target shooting, it would be neat.

but apply this to all sorts of actions. like, any sort of automatic rifle, your firing away and you get a dud or hangfire, and you dont even notice it cept a lack of recoil because the guns being cycled by this wind up spring. or in a pump action shotgun with a non ?reciprocating? pump, so its the mechanics of a pump, that you can pump manually if something fails?

im guessing tho that if this was feasible or pratical, it would of been done already, but in that case id expect some sorta experimental prototypes that just never made it beyond a few examples, and i dont think ive ever seen one

>>33273858
It'd be a big gun

File: aadgk.jpg (212KB, 1200x798px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1200x798px

>>33276126

File: 3630584151_db71ea1b65.jpg (120KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 500x375px

>>33263503
>>33258903
I feel like your idea would work in theory (and in real life, if only for a few shots). If I were to improve on it it would be to move the gas piston to the center pin. That being said, practical concerns make it a bad idea.

1. If we are going by OP's pic (and presumably the time period when single action revolvers were relevant) then it would be a black powder gun and black powder would gum up any gas piston system after about a dozen rounds.

2. Directly cocking the hammer with a gas piston would put way too much strain on the hand revolving the cylinder and the foot stopping it, which commonly break under normal thumb operation on guns of that era. Keep in mind that Matebas rotate their cylinders under the much more tame power of thier slide return spring and Webley automatics have massive a stud that operates in the slide zig-zag grooves on their cylinder that does away with having to put strain on tiny hand and foot parts.

this could work in theory, but in practice the high speeds at which it cocks at would damage the cylinder stop very quickly.