polymer revolver?
- Thread starter skt666
- Start date
Somebody has always made at least 1 of EVERYTHING!
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1700/1717.htm
Randy
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/1700/1717.htm
Randy
Looking at that clunker I can see why no one else has
Lets see Carbon fiber cylinder, Palamor plastic grip, Barell made from cermaic plastic. Trigger made from tefelon coated somthing or other.
The Glock people must be running out to get one right now.
DUMBDUMBDUMBDUMB :barf:
Lets see Carbon fiber cylinder, Palamor plastic grip, Barell made from cermaic plastic. Trigger made from tefelon coated somthing or other.
The Glock people must be running out to get one right now.
DUMBDUMBDUMBDUMB :barf:
I do agree, that thing is pretty scary looking. I just think revolver people tend to be more traditional in what they like. Things like polymer have never caught on obviously, things like changing the barrel to the bottom for better bore-hand axis havent gotten many fans, hell, you dont even see that many hammerless models even. They just seem to be along the lines of if it ain't broke, dont fix it.
Randy
Randy
AdamGrier_atc
New member
Polymer revolver!?!?!?!?!
That's the oddest thing I have ever seen! As Hank Hill would say....
"That gun ain't right..."
That's the oddest thing I have ever seen! As Hank Hill would say....
"That gun ain't right..."
Handy,
Funny you should use that analogy. I'm not a huge fan of archaic pushrod V-twins, but this intrigues me.
Anyhow, your statement isn't quite accurate. The Ruger frame and lockwork is a big improvement over Smith's archaic removeable sideplate-type architecture in both strength and ease of production. Other than that, there have been a few attempts, mostly from Mateba, at building the proverbial better mousetrap, but they were mostly limited to specialized ISU guns or the "Neat, but why?" Unicas.
Revolvers offer three main strengths:
1) Powerful cartridges in compact packages.
2) Extremely powerful handgun rounds.
3) And, yes, nostalgia.
Unless it offers a true step forward in one of the first two (or a step backwards in the last one
), we're back to "Neat, but why?"
Funny you should use that analogy. I'm not a huge fan of archaic pushrod V-twins, but this intrigues me.
Anyhow, your statement isn't quite accurate. The Ruger frame and lockwork is a big improvement over Smith's archaic removeable sideplate-type architecture in both strength and ease of production. Other than that, there have been a few attempts, mostly from Mateba, at building the proverbial better mousetrap, but they were mostly limited to specialized ISU guns or the "Neat, but why?" Unicas.
Revolvers offer three main strengths:
1) Powerful cartridges in compact packages.
2) Extremely powerful handgun rounds.
3) And, yes, nostalgia.
Unless it offers a true step forward in one of the first two (or a step backwards in the last one
), we're back to "Neat, but why?"We've already had this conversation, Tam, but ISU demonstrated the strengths of low barreled revolver conversions. They worked just as well mechanically as the regular ones but had less muzzle rise.
Fast reloading removable cylinders.
Simplified lockwork that doesn't go out of time.
Universal extraction that takes rimmed or rimless cases.
Alternate cocking mechanisms.
These have all been tried, successfully. None are a bad idea and either make the revolver faster/easier to use, or cheaper and more durable. "Why?" Because the best way to do everything was not how it was done over a century ago. The Ruger "advance" is mainly that the frame could be enclosed because it was a casting in a shape not easily machined.
Fast reloading removable cylinders.
Simplified lockwork that doesn't go out of time.
Universal extraction that takes rimmed or rimless cases.
Alternate cocking mechanisms.
These have all been tried, successfully. None are a bad idea and either make the revolver faster/easier to use, or cheaper and more durable. "Why?" Because the best way to do everything was not how it was done over a century ago. The Ruger "advance" is mainly that the frame could be enclosed because it was a casting in a shape not easily machined.
Handy,
Yes, we've had this conversation before. Perhaps even to your satisfaction...
Anyhow, the ISU guns in question were unreasonably bulky vis a vis the barrel lengths offered, due to the inconvenience of the fact that the lockwork in a revolver must be placed somewhere aft of the cylinder, be it above and behind, below and behind, or directly abaft. Remember, one of the few remaining virtues of revolvers is their compact size relative to the horsepower of their chambering.
Which are faster than moonclips or speedloaders how, exactly?
Straw man. The lockwork introduced in the S&W Hand Ejectors of 1896 (and variously refined by Ruger, Dan Wesson, and S&W theirownselves since then) will remain "in time" through an amount of rounds that will crack the frame of (or otherwise deadline) your average service auto.
All the systems tried thus far are compromises, and fragile, unreliable ones at that. Fewer, rather than more, parts is the goal. Also, why must a gun be able to shoot so many cartridges? Do we denigrate the .45ACP P9S for being unable to digest .45 AutoRim? Is scorn heaped on the P210 for not shooting both 9x19mm and .38 Super?
The self-cocking Mateba was something of a red herring, especially with its lack of a decocking feature or any selectivity of mode, at least to those of us who prefer one consistent trigger pull as the default, with the option of selecting a different one should a precision shot call for it.
)
Anyhow, this isn't meant to turn into another "Is the sky really blue?" argument. I've just tossed it out as some food for thought... Consider that there are one or three niches that the revolver is still well suited for, and that (currently) evolutions of a 109 yr-old design fill them well. Darwin suggests, however, that devices better suited to fill these niches will eventually come along. Get to scribblin'. (I know that the guys at work are spending lots of skull sweat to put our Type 07 to good use!
)
Yes, we've had this conversation before. Perhaps even to your satisfaction...
Anyhow, the ISU guns in question were unreasonably bulky vis a vis the barrel lengths offered, due to the inconvenience of the fact that the lockwork in a revolver must be placed somewhere aft of the cylinder, be it above and behind, below and behind, or directly abaft. Remember, one of the few remaining virtues of revolvers is their compact size relative to the horsepower of their chambering.
Which are faster than moonclips or speedloaders how, exactly?
Straw man. The lockwork introduced in the S&W Hand Ejectors of 1896 (and variously refined by Ruger, Dan Wesson, and S&W theirownselves since then) will remain "in time" through an amount of rounds that will crack the frame of (or otherwise deadline) your average service auto.
All the systems tried thus far are compromises, and fragile, unreliable ones at that. Fewer, rather than more, parts is the goal. Also, why must a gun be able to shoot so many cartridges? Do we denigrate the .45ACP P9S for being unable to digest .45 AutoRim? Is scorn heaped on the P210 for not shooting both 9x19mm and .38 Super?
The self-cocking Mateba was something of a red herring, especially with its lack of a decocking feature or any selectivity of mode, at least to those of us who prefer one consistent trigger pull as the default, with the option of selecting a different one should a precision shot call for it.
"Successfully" is such a plastic word. (At least in the Greek definition of "plastic".
) In and of themselves, no, they're not bad ideas, but if, in exclusive pursuit of one ideal or another, they violate two or more of the revolver's Three Remaining Reasons For Existence, they then beg the question "Why not just find an autochucker solution to the problem?"
Yes and no. The best way to drive a specific type and size of nail has recently been discovered to be a pneumatic- or explosive-driven device. However, the best (and most portable) way to drive pretty much any kind of nail into any kind of surface is still a heavy weight on the end of a shaft, much like the Sumerians knew some 5,000 years ago.
It also allowed the lockwork to be removed and installed as a module, and simplified many other small parts greatly, easing both the costs and complexity of manufacture, as well as the required time and skill needed for maintenance.
Anyhow, this isn't meant to turn into another "Is the sky really blue?" argument. I've just tossed it out as some food for thought... Consider that there are one or three niches that the revolver is still well suited for, and that (currently) evolutions of a 109 yr-old design fill them well. Darwin suggests, however, that devices better suited to fill these niches will eventually come along. Get to scribblin'. (I know that the guys at work are spending lots of skull sweat to put our Type 07 to good use!
)For some reason I expected the motorcycle link to be of a V-rod. Tamara surprised me as usual.
Just for the record, even Harley has moved on. Yup, the V-rod is still a V twin, but its an overhead cam, watercooled, based on a road racer engine vtwin.
I have no idea how good it really is. but it does show change does seem to be inevitable.
What change next for the revolver? I think more drop in modules and parts. Precision CNC machining will both make this both possible and mandatory. Prices should drop, and if designed correctly, performance improve. Or at least be more consistent. Or maybe not. Changes in manufacturing technique could drive changes in metallurgy too. I think it is inevitable that less and less labor will be used to manufacture just about anything.
Mike
Just for the record, even Harley has moved on. Yup, the V-rod is still a V twin, but its an overhead cam, watercooled, based on a road racer engine vtwin.
I have no idea how good it really is. but it does show change does seem to be inevitable.
What change next for the revolver? I think more drop in modules and parts. Precision CNC machining will both make this both possible and mandatory. Prices should drop, and if designed correctly, performance improve. Or at least be more consistent. Or maybe not. Changes in manufacturing technique could drive changes in metallurgy too. I think it is inevitable that less and less labor will be used to manufacture just about anything.
Mike
For all the modern conveniences, most road vehicles still have 4 wheels, poppet valves, and sling an even number of cylinders around a central crankshaft. RX7 == mateba, RWD = revolver, FWD = semiauto, generica, etc. etc. etc. Just because they figured a good way of doing something 110 years ago doesn't mean that it's *bad* today.
Still, back on topic.... the russian polymer revolver is wierd. Therefore, i want one, badly.
And for the "fast removable cylinder" point, I submit: Jerry Miculek.
EDIT: as for drop in, replaceable CNC parts, isn't there a French revolver like that, right now?
Still, back on topic.... the russian polymer revolver is wierd. Therefore, i want one, badly.
And for the "fast removable cylinder" point, I submit: Jerry Miculek.
EDIT: as for drop in, replaceable CNC parts, isn't there a French revolver like that, right now?
Tamara,
The advantage of a revolver is the ability to digest wildly different recoiling cartridges. It wouldn't matter if a Sig 210 could chamber .38 Super and 9mm since that is not the whole story on function. For a revolver, it is the whole story. So a rimless extraction system has a place. The ONE system of that variety worked okay, and is still in production. Want to bet there's more than one way to make it work?
"Which are faster than... exactly?" DA revolvers require TWO seperate operations for ejection. I'm talking about bringing it down to the auto's one.
"Simplified lockwork". Simple is also cheaper. You can make a revolver that doesn't require precise part fit, but retain all the good accuracy qualities. Or is this only a good thing when Ruger does it?
"Alternate cocking mechanisms". I'm not talking about the Mateba. No one has explored strikers and cocking levers.
"Low barreled revolvers are bulky due to their hammer mech." See above - strikers and cocking levers.
Tam, I'm not suggesting that anyone's beloved revolver be tossed in the waistbasket. But while autos have seen a fair amount of experimentation the revolvers have seen none. There are many things that could be tried to take advantage of what a revolver uniquely does (varied rounds, light weight, no cycling parts) while building a gun that has the internal simplicity of a Glock. I'm not sure why you scoff at this, except to observe that your personal tastes in firearms run to the Victorian.
The advantage of a revolver is the ability to digest wildly different recoiling cartridges. It wouldn't matter if a Sig 210 could chamber .38 Super and 9mm since that is not the whole story on function. For a revolver, it is the whole story. So a rimless extraction system has a place. The ONE system of that variety worked okay, and is still in production. Want to bet there's more than one way to make it work?
"Which are faster than... exactly?" DA revolvers require TWO seperate operations for ejection. I'm talking about bringing it down to the auto's one.
"Simplified lockwork". Simple is also cheaper. You can make a revolver that doesn't require precise part fit, but retain all the good accuracy qualities. Or is this only a good thing when Ruger does it?
"Alternate cocking mechanisms". I'm not talking about the Mateba. No one has explored strikers and cocking levers.
"Low barreled revolvers are bulky due to their hammer mech." See above - strikers and cocking levers.
Tam, I'm not suggesting that anyone's beloved revolver be tossed in the waistbasket. But while autos have seen a fair amount of experimentation the revolvers have seen none. There are many things that could be tried to take advantage of what a revolver uniquely does (varied rounds, light weight, no cycling parts) while building a gun that has the internal simplicity of a Glock. I'm not sure why you scoff at this, except to observe that your personal tastes in firearms run to the Victorian.