Why hasn't anybody tried their hand at a mass market automatic

If it's so clear then why don't you enlighten us as to how it'd work cunt

>>34412894
I was thinking a gas piston through the cylinder would do the trick.

>auto ejecting
>feed from a magazine
>revolver
What's the point of a cylinder if it feeds from a magazine and ejects casings? What's the point of making something like that?

>>34412836
I still want a select fire Brown Bess.

>>34413039
The process doesn't happen in the blink of an eye for starters, allowing you to have a weaker magazine spring. Using a system other than having the slide feed cartridges would improve reliability. Using something like gas to eject cases would also prove more reliable. The main reason though would be to improve capacity, making it competitive with short recoil guns in that regard. The idea would be to give it almost all the advantages of automatics and revolvers.

>>34412836
There's almost no point if all you have if 6 shots

File: Mateba.jpg (614KB, 1826x1157px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 1826x1157px

>>34412836
>in decades
the Meatball only ceased production about a decade ago IIRC

>to be competitive with automatics you'd likely need to make it auto ejecting and feed from a magazine
if I want a magazine-fed pistol I'll get a normal semi-automatic, the only reason I'd ever buy one of your abominations is for novelty. Revolvers occupy a different market niche than semi-automatics, you don't need to get ridiculous to create a marketable idea because your competition wouldn't be the average semi-auto pistol anyway.

>>34414526
wat

the point of an autorevolver is that every shot feels like single action, it feels fantastic to shoot even if you only have six rounds to play around with.

>>34415096
>the Meatball
Hence "mass market"
>one of your abominations
Just because it sounds weird and different doesn't mean it has to be an expensive gimmick.

>>34415714
>Just because it's an expensive gimmick that doesn't mean it has to be an expensive gimmick.

>>34415730
>it's an expensive gimmick
Sticking a gas tube in a revolver isn't expensive, and giving a revolver greater capacity isn't a gimmick.

>decent quality revolvers are already somewhat pricey compared to an equivalent quality semi
>revolvers are known for high reliability due to solid construction, sealed firing assembly, and overall time tested design
>Why don't people want to buy a hilariously expensive and finicky gun that brings nothing new to the table while combining the reliability issues inherent to a semiauto with the capacity, size, and weight of a revolver?
Golly I wonder. Best case scenario you make an engineering marvel that offers nothing over existing designs, just presenting them in a more obtuse way. Worse case scenario you have a worse version of existing platforms that has no reason to justify the $1000+ price.

>>34415939
>A fucking gas tube
>hilariously expensive
>any less reliable than normal revolver
>finicky
>auto cocking feeding and ejecting revolver that's never been done before brings nothing new to the table
What did he mean by this?
>weight
Use an entirely polymer frame, it's 2017
>size
Revolvers are about the same size as autos
>solid construction, sealed firing assembly
Both of those could be present
>overall time tested design
Ah yes the famously unreliable Glock gen 1 proves that new designs are shit

>>34412836

To touch on a different idea: what about an electric revolver?

> Programmable trigger allows you to set your trigger pull as light or heavy as you like, with multiple settings possible
> No more hammer required, since it's electric- the "hammer can instead be used to choose the firing mode
>battery and chip are held within the handle
> further advancements in technology could allow for staged firing of projectiles from multi-shot casings
> when combined with a Nagant-style sealing system, could allow for a viable six'o-clock revolver by eliminating shitty trigger problems as well as the cylinder gap issue

Obviously, this idea's going to require some serious work, but I think that it could be workable if the right minds took a crack at it. The biggest issues I see are the possibility of the battery not holding enough power to make the weapon practical, and the possibility that the weapon will be too expensive in the end to be commercially viable.

>>34416341
>Programmable trigger
Expensive and/or unreliable, hence why guns remain mechanical devices
>battery held within handle
Again, the trouble is that nobody wants a gun that runs out of battery.
>multi shot casings
Those will never be viable.

>>34416157
He has a point, revolvers are mostly about aesthetic and aren't the most practical choice. Therefore people who like revolvers will sneer at anything that might make it even a little more complicated, no matter what improvement it brings. Anyone who actually wanted a better gun would just take a semi-auto unless they wanted a huge cartridge in a handgun.

>>34417716
Revolvers are already incredibly complex retard. The revolvers are simple meme needs to die. And they do offer a number of advantages over semi-autos. Although those advantages are often situational

>>34417757
They have an arbitrary amount of complexity that was decided at some point in time and revolver lovers will never let it go. Just look at this thread. The mere mention of another feature is sacrilege.

Because building an extremely expensive Rube Goldberg gun to solve a problem you made up because you have an emotional investment in revolvers isn't profitable. Look at the Mateba, it's only popular because it was in muh animu, and because its a novelty. Or the Webley-Fosbery, of which ~5000 were produced. Or the Landstad, which is basically what you described, a magazine fed revolver, that couldn't even make it past a prototype in the era of bizarre shit like the Howell automatic rifle.

The answer to nearly every one of these "Why doesn't anyone make a ______" questions is "because it's impractical, expensive, and won't cut a profit." Guns have to work and have to make money for the company in order to even be considered. Most people would rather buy a cheap Taurus than a (conservative estimate) $3000 contraption that has some vague, purported benefits. The number of gun enthusiasts who will buy shit like that is incredibly small. Look at the number of people buying SIG and Glock plasti-fantasti pistols versus the number of people buying $2-4000 1911s.


con't

I'd also love to see your analysis for why you think an incredibly complicated design like what you're describing will be more reliable than the 100 year old, well tested and mature technology of the Browning style operating mechanism. I suspect it's pulled out of your ass, because I highly doubt you have any actual engineering or design experience to back up your assertions or your "designs." If you do magically have any sort of title, you should ask for your money back, because clearly you didn't learn the importance of "simplicity" in your unfruitful education. And before you display your full arrogance and compare yourself to John Moses Browning, "because he didn't have any fancy degrees in muh engineering," bear in mind he was an actual gunsmith and had actual patents to prove he had a background sufficient in design.

Virtually every realistic gun design has been tried several times, and what we've got now are still in production because they're superior in one regard or another to whatever fantasy design gets you off.

>>34418058
Because the feature adds nothing to the functionality of the firearms.

>>34418326
>>34418334
A lot of bait in one post anon
>solve a problem you made up
Capacity and reliability aren't made up problems
>because you have an emotional investment
Except I don't
>Look at a gun in no way like what I proposed
Not an argument
>Webley Fosbery
Ah yes because we reached peak gun design in 1896
>Landstad
See above
>impractical, expensive
Citation needed
>$3000 contraption
Kek you're very good at this
>Muh time tested
Reliability is reliability friend

Any more autistic page long rants?

>>34418837
It's a made up problem because capacity and reliability aren't an issue with modern autoloaders. They particularly aren't going to be issues that will be resolved by creating a more complicated mechanism.

Got any real arguments other than "bait! bait!" and "you can't compare my fantasy autorevolver to actual autorevovlers that failed for the same reason my idea will fail?"

I highly suspect you don't.

>>34419072
>capacity and reliability aren't a problem
So are you saying that improving these two things isn't important, or...?
>more complicated mechanism
But it's not.
>Got any real arguments
Yeah, already listed.

>>34413051
Underrated post.

>>34419442
>Yeah, already listed.
What did you list? all you basically said was
"No" and "It's simple"
If it's so simple why don't you draw up some dumb ass design to share with the rest of the class?

>>34421195
Because that's a waste of time, and I'd rather spark up some discussion here, but nobody ever takes the bait. Frankly I think a gas tube through the cylinder would work fine.

>>34421270
Where's this gas tube gonna go? Looking to get a handful hot gas anytime you want to shoot your cheaply made memevolver?

>>34415871
Yes it is. And a cheap gimmick at that. There are loads of with revolvers that don't hold six cartridges, like the hand nugget.

>>34413191
But it would have neither and reliability has been a buzzword since the 80s. Nobody has bothered because it's a terrible idea