Pure sex

pure sex

That's fucking retarded. If you're going to do something retarded with a revolver, make a bullpup revolver, not go in the opposite direction with whatever the fuck that is.

its for target shooting

>target shooting
>put the cylinder so far forward that the barrel is now 2" long, but is 500% bigger than an actual pocket 2" revolver
It's fucking stupid, but it looks awesome.

>i'm a nogunz faggot but i'll just keep having opinions on shit i know nothing about and crap them all over your threads forever and ever hurrdurr

how about you go fuck yourself.

Firstly this is Sup Forums not /k/ but please justify the design i'm curious

How can that possibly be anything other than unbearable for target shooting? It has to be the most front-heavy revolver

A bullpup revolver you say? What if we also made it a shotgun?

Its cool I forgot the pic, I'm retarded.

We've been there. Done that. Nobody wanted it.

Forgot pic.

No user, those are guns.

You have no reason to own a gun. Guns should be illegal. But its too late now you fucked everything up.

well people wanted this one, but when he sent it to the military for trials there was a clause basically that said "you cant sell this or do anything else with this till we decide we do or dont want it", and he went bankrupt waiting. its entirely possible this could have done well if he wasnt locked into this

The bore is straight in line with your grip meaning very little muzzle flip for faster follow up shots.

>watch the video of the guy with 1 of 10 of them in the united states
>how far his wrist flips up
>mfw imagining this guy trying to cut pancakes with a steak knife and failing because its too tough

I know this isn't a rifle but I vaguely recall somebody explaining to me why revolver rifles are impractical. It's a shame because I think they're cool. The only game I know of that has one is BF1. The revolving mechanism just makes it so much cooler.

This why is you are even more retarded than Mateba's retarded invention.

because theres a gap between the magazine and the barrel and gas explodes out of there, hitting your face/hand/whatever. which could be fixed, but no one bothered because its needlessly complex

More moving parts means more breaking. Plus especially in terms of rifles, you can fit a lot more ammo in a magazine than you can in a cylinder.

this was solved over 110 years ago, its just not worth the price/money

>a bullpup revolver

Ah yes, putting your hand in front of the cylinder gap sounds like a fabulous idea

No no no you see if there's ever a shooter in the building you'll be glad I brought my gun because I'll take him down in one shot without hurting anyone else because owning a gun instantly turns you into John Wick and doesn't just add more danger to the situation

>post count didnt go up
>its the same guy replying to himself for replies
>on Sup Forums
wow

again, see

If you're going to make a revolver that seals the cylinder gap, then why are you bothering to make a revolver? The entire point of revolvers is to be be simple and reliable.

What? Are you talking about the Nagant revolver's solution? Forcing the cylinder to make a gas seal makes the trigger extremely heavy and awful.

Other solutions like blast deflectors suck horribly.

noguns here, how powerful is that blast? Like how back would it fuck your hand up if you had it in the way?

no, the point of revolvers was to have multiple shots quickly. the cylinder gap was coincidental

yeah, i dont disagree with that. i said the cylinder gap is solved, not effectively.

It would rip the flesh off your bone.

>not owning a PSDR III you got from German Swat

Poorfags

Allegedly pic related and it seems about right from tests conducted on youtube

Depends on what you're shooting, scales all the way from just burns to blowing your thumb clean off.

nasty. Put a spoiler on that shit next time, I'm too new year's drunk for this shit

>no, the point of revolvers was to have multiple shots quickly. the cylinder gap was coincidental

I'm not talking about the original purpose, I'm talking about the modern purpose. The only reason to get a handgun today(outside of cartridge selection) is raw mechanical simplicity.

If you're going to start adding parts to move the cylinder back and forth, why not go all the way and just make a semi-automatic?

...

how much money do you need to buy one of these

Keyword being "was." In modern times they are used for their simplicity.

so how feasible is this

>to get a handgun

to get a revolver over a handgun*

around $4000, one of the rarer mateba models

To all the people bitching about a bullpup revolver with the gasses going into their arms...

Why not have the gas shoot down or up as opposed to the sides so you hands get hurt? Is that possible?

100% impossible

completely unfeasible. in a revolver, the cylinder is basically the chamber for each individual round.
let's say you had holes in the side of each chamber for new bullets to enter and empty casings to be extracted. that hole in the cylinder would cause the round's case to rupture when you tried to shoot it.

it would be more practical to just bring back the gas seal which was already invented

basically when you pull the trigger part way, a seal covers the chamber aligned with the barrel and none of the gas can escape, the main downside is it makes the trigger pull much heavier than it needs to be

Look more closely at the pictures of where that gas is coming from and seriously think about it spatially. That gas is coming from the gap between the barrel and the cylinder. It is going out in all directions.

That gap will always be there because you need room for the cylinder to...revolve.

Russia made ONE example of a cylinder that pushes the barrel into the opening of the cylinder to close that gap, and it has a fucking awful 25 pound trigger pull and everyone hates it.

>If you're going to start adding parts to move the cylinder back and forth
Why not just make a blast shield?

>blowing up your face and mantits instead of your fingers

there was nothing practical about the Nagant's gas seal, it required stupid special snowflake bottleneck rounds with the bullet set entirely in the cartridge.
those 32 conversions? if you get one, the gas seal doesn't work.

Couldn't it be self-sealing. Say the opening is on the right side so that the bullet can enter, then when the cylinder turns that opening would be flush with the top. Would probably be near impossible to make it airtight though.

was already invented, just with the magazine in the handle instead of off to the side

Because then you won't be able to kick out the cylinder?

>Caseless magazine feed revolver

the frame of a revolver isn't a pressure-bearing component, like a barrel, chamber, or cylinder.
there are companies that make revolvers with POLYMER frames now, because all the pressure/explosion of the round going off is on the barrel and cylinder, and not the frame itself.
unless you were using the correct steels and built a revolver from the ground up for this purpose, doing what you're suggesting is just asking for a KB

Or just don't make a revolver bullpup.

did he died?

Perfectly feasible, and don't listen to the fucking idiots telling you otherwise.

neat, ty.

based solely on that image there is no way that gun should even feed, and if it somehow feeds and fires then it will explode
you can remedy that sort of by doing this >401828773 but that is clearly not what they were doing and you would be doing so many modifications that its not even the same gun
also the cases are clearly not triangles

why do we even have drums or clipazines

it should all just be belt feed ammo with a backpack

The Dardick used caseless rounds, find a way to do it like the Bioshock revolver where it uses regular cased rounds and had a detachable magazine
I was originally going to post the Dardick, but the mechanism just isn't the same

You only need the blast shield on the support arm side, meaning you can kick out the cylinder on the other side.

Or attach the shield to the cylinder making it kick out with the cylinder.

Or have the shield flip out of the way.

it's not caseless, you just put a little .22 into one of those triangle looking things and then load it into the magazine
its like belt fed but minus the belt

the topstrap would blow out if you did that, especially if you modified a regular revolver, as is done in Bioshock with the upgrade system
see

I saw some mentions of caseless rounds. Have there been any big advancements in that area recently? Any good videos about them?

not caseless, just a typical round with the rounded triangular plastic sheath

"caseless" ammo like the g11 uses, the case is actually made of the propellant, so effectively the "case" leaves the barrel behind the bullet

>the topstrap would blow out if you did that
Agreed, and this is why it's literally impossible to have firearms that have chambers in them. It's just not possible to manufacture a lump of metal capable of having a roof that contains the pressure of firing a cartridge.

nobody's really looked into using caseless seriously since the G11, partially because of the problems with ammo cooking off that it had

Personally I find revolvers to be complete shit, just use an automatic.

>special snowflake bottleneck rounds
You realise that every round ever invented used to be a special snowflake round only good in one gun, right?

I hate this complaint so much. "IT DOESN'T USE PRE-EXISTING COMMON AMMUNITION THEREFORE IT'S SHIT AND I REFUSE TO BUY IT."

You people are literally holding the field back.

Yeah I forgot about trounds. The shape reminded me of caseless ammo

Wtf is the pont of that wont that be unesssessirrilly front heavy with a tiny willy barrel?

read the rest of the post you fucking faglord

>because gun manufacturers get it right all the time

gee maybe if you read the fucking thread

You said
>especially
implying that it would always happen in every case, just to a greater extent in this specific case.

Not to mention that you have no idea what modifications were made to the revolver - perhaps one was a new frame with a reinforced topstrap to act as the chamber roof.

>gee maybe if you read the fucking thread

i'm far to drunk for any of that

dude alcohol lmao xD

Fuck off.

Wait this is a video thread but its abou gubs

i guess technically, the new blitzer railgun uses caseless ammo

but that has its own problems, mainly the projectile trying to weld itself to the rails

umm??????

The finger? Yes, he passed away.

not him but I'm drunk too

toasting to you rn desu

>being too underaged to drink on new year

go ask your mum she might let you have a 1 (one) beer

TWAT

Anonymous, given that we're assuming a bullpup revolver, your hand would be in front of, and under the cylinder. Any "blast shield" would need to cover both sides and under the cylinder.

You can't attach the shield to the cylinder because it needs to rotate freely.

A blast shield you can flip in or out of the way would work if it were strong enough, but at that point you're getting into "literally why though?"

>ha ha, i will pretend he was complaining about people drinking and not complaining about my abysmally shit post

The thing is that it isn't even a gun, it looks like one and functions nearly like one, but it's not a gun.

>complining about shitposting on Sup Forums

HOW FUCKING NEW ARE YOOOOOOOOOU

I was thinking of revolving rifles, not a bullpup.

For a bullpup I'd just have the cyclinder fully enclosed but the right side enclosure would be latched shut, so you can open it. You could even have it pop open automatically like a magazine hold open works.

>"literally why though?"
Why not?

i fucking want one

>Sup Forums is a designated shitposting website, i go to other websites if i want quality discussion
This is the attitude of a newfag.

Some of us actually remember when it was possible to have quality discussion here, instead of just retards shitposting and then saying "BUT SHITPOSTING IS WHAT THIS WEBSITE IS FOR!!!" when called out.

In short
>>>/plebbit/

Kill yourself, cancer.

>tfw uncircumcised ammunition

chan is a designated shitposting website
It is

Also i've been here since newfags couldn't 7, that's about 10 years to you :3

>Also i've been here since newfags couldn't 7, that's about 10 years to you :3
>about 10 years
>2018-10 = 2008
>admitting to being a project chanology fag
wew

wew lad you sure got me

>The only reason to get a handgun today(outside of cartridge selection) is raw mechanical simplicity
no. still wrong. revolvers are not simple, and theres vastly more reasons

...

agree
revolvers are much more complex, the reason why they're still used is for reliability. a well-looked after and maintained revolver will never fail, whereas an automatic can jam, fail to eject, etc

>he doesn't know that modern firearms have greater reliability than revolvers

in the 1950s your logic was true.

Nowadays there's a reason why handguns are standard-issue instead of revolvers for most countries