Discuss

PITA to unlock

>>33369029
I'd operate with it.

>>33369029
Neat bit o' engineering.

>>33369039
Unlock what? Oh... Red Orchestra II?

>>33369029
Why? It's an old revolver with a unique design using foreskinesque cartridges that gives it the ability to be suppressed effectively. It's got a million pound trigger pull and fires a rather anemic round. A neat odd thing, but nothing more.

>>33369029
How about you stop sucking cock, and start with a talking point?

>>33369089
Ye

>>33369101

You're such a faggot.

Why hasn't anyone designed a revolver that sits in a natural breach seal and uses the force of recoil to push the cylinder back along a Jackhammer-esque track to index the cylinder?
Just put a gas piston in line with the cylinder where the ejection rod would be and use a springloaded front-end ejector button, would work fine on a captive break-action system.

Da fuck is wrong with you. God dammit I hate mall ninjas

>>33369029
But that literally wouldnt be any quieter.

>>33369923
>he doesn't recognize the Nagant revolver
This thread was made to bait you

>>33369101
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9738mmR#Background
Most current ammunition is target ammo, which gives it that reputation.

>>33369503
Great game.

>>33369923
You lost it.
The game that is.

>>33369970
>>33370277

Dammit

>>33369101
OG ammo was about on par with .38 Spl

>>33369029
>le memetic can revolver

What most people don't know, is that original Nagant was made in 1878 by two brothers, Emil and Leon. At that time it was cutting edge technology chambered in 9x22R black powder cartridge (typical of it's time). Relatively simple DA/SA, storing ejector inside cylinder axis that pivoted on a simple collar mounted on barrel. It was adopted by Belgian army and customs, Norwegians (as M/78) and many police forces of Europe.

In 1887 new smokeless 7,5mm version was adopted by Sweden (as m/87) and in '93 by Norway (as m/93). This version was later produced in Husqvarna for both countries (they had personal union at that time).

Somewhere around late 1880s, early 1890 Leon fallen for gas seal meme. This resulted in 1892 patent for gas seal Nagant (which wasn't first gas seal revolver, but it was simpler than earlier). This should be the end of Nagant story, because gas seal revolvers are genuinely retarded idea and main appeal of Nagant was its simplicity, but at around same time Russian Empire was transitioning into modern smokeless guns. Rest of story is known.

>>33370316
Yup. M1895 Nagant one of the few, if not the only, revolver that can be properly silenced. Too bad they didn't use a .45 cal cartridge though instead of a tiny subsonic .30 cal one. I'd rather 6 rounds of heavy subsonic .45 cal than 7 rounds of tiny subsonic .30/.31 cal. After all, if we're talking about subsonic ammo, the only way to improve on it is to make the bullets bigger and heavier since increasing velocity can't be done without making it supersonic. That's kind of what the Russians did with 9x39, what the Americans did on a smaller scale with .300 Blackout, and what the Russians REALLY went all-out with in regards to some kind of .50 cal subsonic cartridge in a silenced/suppressed firearm.

A heavier bullet maintains velocity better than a lighter bullet, and this is made clear when comparing M43 7.62x39 to M193 5.56x45.

>123gr 7.62x39 at muzzle from 16.3" barrel
About 2350 ft/s
>123gr 7.62x39 at 600yd (550m) from a 16.3" barrel
About 950 ft/s

>55gr M193 5.56x45 at muzzle of 20" barrel
About 3100 ft/s
>55gr M193 5.56x45 at 600yd (550m) from 20" barrel
About 1200 ft/s

Now this is off of memory so the numbers aren't 100% accurate, but they'll be very close. As you can see what began as a roughly 750 ft/s advantage for the smaller/lighter .223 cal bullet lowered to a mere 250 ft/s difference. If we went out to 800yd (730m) then chances are the velocity of the two bullets will have met, but obviously the bigger and heavier 7.62mm bullet would be more devastating on the target than a smaller and lighter 5.56mm bullet. Yeah I know, hitting a target at these distances with 7.62x39 would be quite difficult to say the least, but it demonstrates how a heavier bullet can lose velocity slower than a lighter bullet, and so if we're sticking with subsonic then going with a bigger/heavier bullet can both be more devastating on the target as well as have a slightly flatter trajectory due to maintaining velocity over a longer distance.

>>33371544
19th Gas seal revolvers (including Nagant) predate suppresors.

1895 Nagant came early in smokeless era, back when .30-.32 caliber bullets were standard for european handguns.
Also the entire reason for gas seal was to boost speed, exact opposite what heavier bullet does (too bad you can get similar effect just by reducing cylinder gap).

>>33369029
It's pretty neat. It's fairly trim and light so it would make a pretty fedora assassin weapon.

Mine shoots 8 inch groups at 20 yards so there's that. And of the two I've shot, both liked to bind up if you tried to cylinder dump into retreating cowards and the trigger would get stuck after the third or fourth round

>>33369029
revolvers don't eject shells, smart, perfect assassination weapon

>>33371674
I hear that original 7.62x38r used in the Military is fairly potent. Not like the commercial stuff you can buy now which is lightly loaded just in case the M1895 you might be using is super old. I shot some Sellier & Belot stuff once, and it had just about zero recoil. May as well have been shooting .22lr. Also, even when firing in single-action, I couldn't hit diddily shit with it for some reason. Something like 10" groups at 5m away or something stupid like that. I've actually gotten hits on a roughly torso-sized target at 50m away with my P38 so it's not like I'm an overly terrible shot.

>>33372031
I don't think it was for me, but I'll still reply:

Define "fairly potent". It had more kinetic energy than original bp .38 spl, but with almost twice as light bullet.

>>33372479
By 'fairly potent' I meant 'more potent than modern loadings of 7.62x38r'.

>>33372031

I learned (after I sold mine) that a lot of the loadings exported were indoor gallery loads.

Still, mine had timing issues, but I'd still like to mess about with trying to can one.

File: VSSK.jpg (110KB, 1024x660px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x660px

>>33371544
>the Russians REALLY went all-out with in regards to some kind of .50 cal subsonic cartridge in a silenced/suppressed firearm.
I want a VSSK so bad

>>33372479

Not him but it's on-par with some of the lighter .32 H&R magnum loads. You can in fact shoot .32 H&R magnum through one but it's hard on the gun.

>>33369029
The one good thing about Nagant revolvers being $300 now is that retarded bubbas stop doing this.
>>33369039
>>33369089
The unlock shit is what pisses me off about RO2, especially when they aren't even using the proper Nagant revolver variant that was suppressed nor the proper suppressor.
>>33372031
>Also, even when firing in single-action, I couldn't hit diddily shit with it for some reason.
I'm pretty sure it's because of the wimpy loaded rounds. I never had problems with actual Soviet surplus ammo, but the wimpy commercial shit is all over the place.

>>33373171
Just look at that marvellous beastie... Russian firearms truly are my favourites. Or rather, Russian rifles. Their pistols... eh... not so much. Still, I'd feel far from unarmed with a TT-33, Makarov PM, or something like that. Perhaps one of those Gsh-16 or whatever they're called, even though I don't even know if they even produce it. I would happily carry a TT-33 if I could get a grip to make it more ergonomic for someone more used to western-style grips. M1911 is God-tier, CZ-75 is damn good too for a double-stack.

>>33373471
The part about RO2 upgrading that bugged me is that they didn't go with what was most popular and sometimes included things that weren't even in existance. Were there ANY PPSh-41s made without select-fire capabilities? I doubt it. Then there's the 35-rnd mags being more common than 71-rnd drums in late 1942-early1943; I highly doubt it. I also think the dual-mag MP40 should be a Lvl-50 upgrade instead of Lvl-25 to make it more rare.

My gripes with Rising Storm is mostly with the M1918A2 BAR I think. If someone can show me proof that people actually used fucking foregrip furniture, then perhaps I'll let that slide. Then the Lvl.50 BAR with that God-awful bipod should be made unable to shoulder-fire since the Type 96 or whatever 6.5 Arisaka Japanese LMG weighs about the same yet cannot be shoulder-fired. Ultimately, they should either allow the Japanese to have shoulder-firing LMGs, or remove the BAR's ability to be shoulder-fired. At best, it can be shoulder-fired only with the first configuration with the bipod removed, but even then if you can get it to Lvl.50 it's pretty much only good for suppressive fire due to how unsturdy the irons are. If you want to HIT anything with the BAR, you NEED to rest it. That would offer the best realism in my opinion.

As for the 7.62x38r thing, yeah, S&B loads were pretty anemic. I'd have loved to chronograph it, wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 900 ft/s, and that's with really small/light .30 cal pistol bullets too.

>>33373577
That dual mag MP40 shouldn't even be in the game. It was a prototype that very few were made and I don't think any were field trialed.

The BAR is only annoying because the Japanese never can have recon, but what you've said is only the tip of the balancing problems of RS.

>As for the 7.62x38r thing, yeah, S&B loads were pretty anemic. I'd have loved to chronograph it, wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 900 ft/s, and that's with really small/light .30 cal pistol bullets too.
I've only shot commercial PPU and Soviet surplus. IIRC the PPU is like 700 ft/s, while the original military stuff is like 1,200. I think they based their loadings off of the target loads, but must use the wrong bullet weight or something.

File: 1483415501095.webm (2MB, 940x529px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 940x529px

very yes

>>33374322
You shouldn't push rocks.

Need a C clamp to squueeeze that trigger though.

>>33374322
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!11
https://youtu.be/TQCgzi4j3eM

>>33374716

F

>>33373171
Why don't people make copies of this gun or VSS?

>>33373483
Gsh-18s are neat but the finish/machining on many of them looks super-rough straight from the factory. It probably doesn't inhibit performance but it makes the guns look like shit up close.

>>33375000
IIRC Molot is making a VSS clone for the domestic civilian market. As for the VSSK, it shoots a proprietary subsonic .50 round. There's many less expensive rifle choices that are better when used outside of the niche role that the VSSK was designed for.

>>33371544
>>33371000
>>33371674
The reason the Russians went for .30 was because the revolvers could use the same button press rifling machines their rifles and machineguns are made with.

>>33376169
So they could use the same drilled stock and .30 cal was already in use by several other countries at the time.
Button rifling was another 50 years later.

>>33371000
>gas sealed revolvers are retarded
A century ago, sure. Nowadays they're a viable design that needs to be developed further.

>>33371544
>heavier is better because it works better at long range
>so let me apply that same logic to pistols you'll be using at a maximum of 50 feet and desire a shitty 45 when 147 grain 9mm does the same thing

>>33376671
somehow i find hard to believe that fundamental laws of universe changed since then

>>33376730
Kinetic energy is equal to one half the mass multiplied times the velocity squared.

More weight typically means more mass.

More mass at the same velocity means more kinetic energy.

More kinetic energy (also with more weight usually comes more momentum but I'll touch on that in a moment) means better penetration usually.

Can't remember how to calculate our momentum but basically if you're going to have to have a slow cartridge, you might as well make up for it with it being heavy.

Also, I'm not actually the guy you were arguing with, just an anon who decided to join the fun.

>>33376730
>heavier is better because it works at long range
>heavier is better
>is better
>better

Were you born retarded or did you have to work on it? I never said 7.62x39 is better than 5.56. I was merely pointing out how heavier bullets CAN MAINTAIN VELOCITY BETTER than lighter bullets. That is one aspect. ONE thing that I said heavier bullets can do better than lighter ones, and you sperg out and claim that I said heavier bullets are all-out better than lighter ones.

Get off the internet if you've got such thin skin, and quit acting like a whiney little bitch.

>>33377446
If we assume conservation of momentum for different bullet weights for same powder load, then increasing mass of bullet will automatically reduce velocity.

People used to do heavy,slow bullets because it allows you to use lower pressure while retaining certain energy level.

>>33369589
The mateba is a gas operated revolver.

>>33373577
>The part about RO2 upgrading that bugged me is that they didn't go with what was most popular and sometimes included things that weren't even in existance. Were there ANY PPSh-41s made without select-fire capabilities? I doubt it. Then there's the 35-rnd mags being more common than 71-rnd drums in late 1942-early1943; I highly doubt it. I also think the dual-mag MP40 should be a Lvl-50 upgrade instead of Lvl-25 to make it more rare.

Weren't soldier issued with one maybe two drum magazine due feed and spring retention problems which forced them to load 67 rounds instead of 71?

I do remember reading about this somewhere way before RO2 as I was seeing those magazines as a major pain in the ass,and somewhere along the lines it was said 2 magazine or just one and the rest being normal 35 round magazines for better ergonomics.

Also the MP-40 with dual mag was some kind of poetic license tossed in by Yoshillo so it was the MKb 42 beside him saying it was used on Stalingrad and they had the proofs but nothing was posted cause reasons and cause various pandering to the CoD crowd

>>33369029

It's a meme gun

>>33379256

Wat

>>33369525
>claims a namefag

>>33369525

On the other hand, so am I!

File: gun-animated-gif-9.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>>33369589
>>33382118
the mateba Unica 6 auto revolver uses the recoil of the the gun to slide the entire upper assembly of the gun backwards which indexes the revolver and cocks the hammer. Pic related is the webley fosbery autorevoler. the mateba unica 6 operates in a similar way.

>>33382252

I wouldn't say that's gas operated, that's just a weird short recoil action. Gas operated would mean some gas is bled off to cycle the action. I'm sure you could make am action that bleeds off some gas to impinge on the pin that rotates the cylinder

>>33382081
I don't think they started using stick mags for the PPSh-41 until later, but the thing about the PPSh-41 mags is that they all had milled feed lips. This meant that you had to keep the mags with the firearm they were made with otherwise you might experience feeding issues. That's what I hear. I would certainly believe though that after a while they started giving some people half drums and half sticks or something like that just to make it cheaper/easier to outfit them instead of giving ALL drums. Also, early prototypes of the Mkb.42(H) were in fact used on the Eastern front at some point, either in 1942 or in early 1943 as I recall. I hear it wasn't at the Battle of Stalingrad however so whether they were used at Stalingrad is very debatable as far as I know but they WERE at the Eastern Front... though only like... 70 of them or something. Maybe less. Pretty sure it was less than 100.

>>33369589
>>33382789
Do you really need to ask why nobody has done this? Recoil operated auto revolvers have many disadvantages and only one advantage. Bringing a gas piston into the works, and using a shitty break action would make for a further complicated and expensive gun (weaker too), while improving nothing.

>>33382789
Truth. That Webley-Fosbery is not gas operated. It operates, to my knowledge, under inertia of recoil. The 'slide' of sorts cycles back to cock the hammer somehow while also indexing to another chamber. Very cool design, would love one for a range toy if they were made nowadays and provided they're not too expensive, but in the trenches of WWI where mud/dirt can get into the action? Nope, I'll take just a standard Webley, please. Better yet, an M1911. I believe the M1911 was the best side-arm available in WWI provided you have gloves to protect from hammer bite. The C96 with a shoulder stock would be even better since it'd be a carbine, but that's using it as a carbine, not a side-arm. It is rather funny though; C96 is a pretty crummy pistol, but with the stock it makes for a fantastic carbine.

As for WWII, well, the P38 is the most advanced design in terms of features. The P35/Hi Power is the most advanced design in terms of mag capacity. I still love the M1911A1 to bits. Ultimately I'd prefer either Hi Power or M1911A1. TT-33 would be awesome if not for that damn grip angle. Tokegypt FTW!

>>33369029
i dont take orders from faggot OPs

File: cool-cats.jpg (129KB, 504x700px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 504x700px

>>33370098
This. Picked up some corrosive soviet surplus ammo due to cheap, and it's far snappier than the sedate PPU stuff. Modern ammo brass drops right out of the cylinder with a tap of the finger at the front at most, the soviet brass flares _hard_ and every round needs to be forced out with the ejector rod.