Sorry Im new to the whole weapons thing. Never held a gun (live

I can't tell if this is bait or not.

If you don't know anything about firearms, getting a flintlock or black powder firearm is a great way to remove your hands.

File: 1502750739343.png (107KB, 1200x1000px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x1000px

>>34958978
Totally bait. Reloading wheel gats easier? Lololololol.

File: 1497998615221.png (961KB, 1000x726px) Image search: [Google]

961KB, 1000x726px

I think DA revolvers exist still by the mear fact you can clear a simple malfunction by pulling the trigger again.

>>34958973
Flintlock is more complicated than any popular modern firearm.
Same shit if you get a black powder revolver.

You're going to add too big a charge, directly pour the powder in from the keg which can result in a hand grenade if there's an ember in the pipe, forget to put on percussion caps, fail to clean, wonder why your flint doesn't work after 30 shots, in general not understand the hammer and primer system of flintlock, add to little charge, handle hang fires incorrectly, the list goes on

Get a .22 pistol or revolver that has been made in the past 50 years.

>>34959006
You're also gonna get the wrong sized rounds, not use wax, and act surprised when you get a chainfire

Please don't just jump into the shooting of classic firearms.

>>34958986
If you don't know anything about black powder firearms, posting on 4chan is a great way to get laughed at.

>>34959011
>thinking it's the wax that prevents chain fires
Wew lad.

>>34959021
It will if you have undersized rounds. It prevents embers and such from getting in.

>>34959025
What the actual fuck. Please don't talk about things you don't actually own and have never fired.

>>34959030
Wax is used to seal the chamber. Provide an argument to the contrary if you have one. All you've done is say WOW UH YOU'RE WRONG WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS with nothing to back up your stance.

>>34959037
Alright. The was sprays out under recoil. Unless you mean behind the ball, in which case all you're doing is potentially dampening your powder. If your ball is so undersized that you're not shaving lead off to load the ball, then you have bigger worries than a chain fire, like the ball backing out under recoil. You can absolutely have chain fires with a properly sized ball. Powder can be ground to air float particle size and a trail deposited on the cylinder will ignite and burn into the chamber. A wax "seal" will not prevent this because it is flammable and does not prevent the powder from burning. If you want to prevent chain fires with any certainty, use a felt wad soaked in olive oil. Olive oil has a much higher flash and ignition temperature than wax and the felt wad will wipe away a powder chain left in the cylinder. Make sure the wad is a hair oversize so it wipes down the chamber walls.

>>34959049
I doubt that the other five cylinders containing wax would all spray out after the first shot.
That said, cylinders are not perfectly round regardless, so yes, even with a proper ball you can get a chain fire but having an undersized one causes it in all certainty.
Also I believe soy wax isn't flammable enough for an ember to ignite another chamber, but I digress. Wax in general is for covering the parts of the chamber that aren't perfectly round to match your ball, and I'm talking a good fat wad of the stuff.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, though.

>>34959074
Try it. Stick some wax in the end of some empty chambers and fire a single shot, look at how much wax will be left. The reason you would use a felt wad as opposed to wax is the felt wad is mechanically cleaning the chamber as it is forced down the sides. The felt conforms to the chamber walls and wipes all the powder below the ball. As long as you get an intact circle of lead to shave off, you are now chain fire safe.

File: M64-3right.jpg~original.jpg (110KB, 800x483px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x483px

>>34958973
>I dont want any of that new complicated shit
Well since you sound like a complete fucking tard, I'll suggest a basic bitch .38 Special revolver like a Smith & Wesson M64 or something, you'll never fuck that up short of a negligent discharge.

>>34958989
Yea no fucking way TX or OK are that low.

>>34959451
1. That's based on honest answers
2. Texas isn't actually No.1

>>34959435

Yeah. A standard modern revolver is a good idea. It's simple, it does the job, it's difficult to fuck up. And uses standard rounds, not something you need to assemble by hand, playing a weaponsmith.

Also, before buying, just go to a shooting range and rent a couple guns to try them out, find what you like, get basic instruction.

File: cbb.jpg (60KB, 680x818px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 680x818px

>>34958989
>Commiefornia has more gun ownership than your state
what the fuck Ohio, I thought you were red now

>>34958989
>>34959451
>>34959529

I think this map shows # of guns per 100 citizens instead of percentage of citizens who own (any number of) guns.

That is, one collector with 50 guns in an otherwise gunless population of 100 results in "50%".

California is quite rich and some people will have big collections. Completely different than rural states where every rural household of 5-7 people will have 2-3 guns.

>>34959548
Dunno about the other states, but California grossly underreports gun ownership. DOJ estimates there's something like 2 million unregistered "assault weapons" in the state. People get pretty tight lipped when nosy questions are asked.

>>34960318
They should, it's not the fucking state or fed's business to know.

>>34958973
As someone who shoots flintlocks, don't get one unless that's what you really want. Basic black powder shooting requires more equipment than basic modern gun shooting, and flintlocks are somewhat more difficult than percussion. Revolvers by contrast are much easier to start with (that's assuming we're talking about cartridge revolvers, not cap and ball)