The Revolver as an Offensive Tool

Status
Not open for further replies.
It isn't the gas seal that's "tricky", but the sliding cylinder lockwork that makes the gun more costly to build.


You want a disposable and quiet revolver? Make the majority of the gun out of plastic, with an ENCLOSED cylinder. Barrel gap becomes a non-issue when it just blows into an enclosed space. This might be dirty, but we were talking a gun of limited life.

I'll bet you could make everying but the springs, hammer, chamber liners, baffles and barrel liner from nylon.
 
That's more like it CarbineCaleb.

Saw your next post after my most recent. Handy is right about hammer noise. I have fired a suppressed semiautomatic and automatic. On a quiet night rapidly cycle the slide on your pistol and you will get the picture. Trust me the hammer falling on a revolver is much quieter. Does anybody know how easy it is to install a one litter plastic pop bottle improvised suppressor on a Nagant? :rolleyes: I want ATF to know I have no idea or experience with that. :rolleyes: The Chinese developed a .32acp semiautomatic intergrally suppressed pistol with the capability to lock the slide to prevent cycling noise. This eliminates rapid fire though if maximum suppression is desired. Also ammunition performance is very critical for reliability when hanging suppressors on semis.



"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
I don't how adaptable the cartridge design is, but I would think developing silenced ammunition that can be used in a normal revolver would be more cost effective given the very specialized application. The Russians have a couple of silent rounds for use in thier PSS Vul and SM4 pistols. From what I understand they use some form of built-in piston to contain the gases within the case.
 
Handy

I still think the development and production costs would be low relative to the value. But you may have a better idea with what you propose. Could you give a little more description. From what I understand the polymer frame of a Glock is not really cheaper to make than a cast steel frame. Intuitively you would think it is, but apparently it is not the materials that determine the major costs of manufacture. I am searching my brain for what I remember about the use of a sealed chamber on some weapon I once heard about. I am having a senior moment right now. Tell me more about how you do it.

Now I remember, the sealed chamber concept was use in a multi-fire speargun! Sorry I can't remember any more detail.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
Good Point ATW525.

I am not familar with these designs you mention. Tell me more. However, Nagant ammunition is very simple and coud easily be scaled up. The actual lock work of a Nagant really isn't aa complicated as perhaps Handy thinks. Get hold of one and take it a part. The system is really ingeniously simple. Perhaps the technology you mention is better and the same for what Handy is suggesting. I would need to hear more before changing my thinking that a modernized Nagant would be very simple to create, would have similar capability for the mission, and that it may be more cost efficient. Tell me more.



"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
WW,

The only thing I've ever heard to suggest plastic costs the same as steel is a comparison of cost per pound. Of course, one does not use a similar weight of plastic to make a frame as one does of steel. But a nylon garden spade is always cheaper than a sheet metal one.


More detail: Build the cylinder out of 8 or so chamber sized tubes of steel, embedded in a block of plastic. Outer circumfirence of the cylinder has a cog way to mate with gears - this is what indexes the barrel.

The body of the gun is a clamshell that closes over the cylinder - both trapping gases and aligning the cylinder with the barrel (nylon has good bearing properties). The barrel is a thin sleave type encased in one of the clamshell halves. The trigger and grip are located behind the cylinder, rather than below it, to bring the bore line down. Use a striker or similar for ignition.

Since the best ammo for suppression is low pressure, strength shouldn't be a huge issue. Given the mission, size should also be immaterial, since a plastic 8 shot revolver will be chunky. But the gun should weigh less than any auto, have a smooth trigger pull due to the lightly sprung, low friction internal parts and be easy to rechamber for different ammo. A fairly generous forcing cone will make up for any slop in the cylinder, but it may not need that - plastic gearing can be very precise.


All told, should be about as expensive as an alarm clock. Primary wear is going to come from burn erosion to the nylon components. You might only get a couple hundred rounds out of it - but that was the point.
 
Spartacus

In the movie at the end everyone stands up and claims to be Spartacus. Much like you gentlemen who take a perfectly good thread and turn it into a shouting match of I'm right you're wrong.
 
Oh, HELL yes!!! :D A .44 magnum wheelgun is one great hand weapon, offensive, defensive or other. It is capable of killing a two-legged vermin at any distance that they are visible.

I doubt that you could say that for the 9mm!

In addition, a .44 magnum can be loaded with .44 special HPs for up close combat where rapid follow up shots may be required.

It would not be my first choice as a CCW gun, but that wasn't the question...
 
Webleywielder
still think an offensive situation where a revolver would be superior to the brass spitter is for dog and sentry elimination. As I stated earlier in the thread, a suppressor equiped gas-sealed revolver of modern design would eliminate the sound of a recipoicating slide, the sound of bouncing brass, and the sound of an inadvertantly dropped magazine, while maintaining the rapid fire capability of a shell shucker. Using heavy, very slow bullets would further reduce the firing signature. Does anyone on TFL have any comments on this idea?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a bad idea; but as a dedicated tool, a break-action single shot would be simpler and potentially extremely accurate.
 
jvlip3

I agree with you, but I'm not one of them. The two culprits are on my ignore list, and I don't know, or care what they are posting. There doesn't seem to be many with a sense of humor on TFL these days, and if there is, it is soon derailed by those two Spartacus'... :( I'm posting less these days...Go figure :rolleyes:
 
Reply to Handy and Lak, and a message concerning the Bullrock Ignore List.

Handy.

Interesting concept you have there. I think it would require more time to develop than an updated Nagant though. I think different point of impact problems would take some time to solve due to multiple barrels. I am not saying it could not be. I have to tell you though I think the updated Nagant has a much higher KISS factor from the standpoint of development and accuracy. Nagants are already more than accurate enough for the job. If the Soviets can reverse engineer an entire B-29 Superfortress, I think updating a Nagant would be a piece of cake for the U.S. Army Ordinance Corp. What you propose may be a superior technological leap, but I keep remembering how easy it is for these leaps to fall short. The SPIW comes to mind. I think you and I will have to politely agree to disagree.

Lak

I agree with you about accuracy and simplicity. Considering how much controversy there is over any handgun's ability to deliver consistant "one shot stops", I think rapid fire capbability is necessary. A revolver has more than enough accuracy for typical maximum engagement ranges before a suppressed rifle is a better option. While sentrys and sometimes dogs are alone, they are often coupled as a dog/handler team.

A message concerning the Bullrock Ignore List,

I wish I could tell everyone how heavy the sorrow weighs on my mind due to being placed on the Bullrock Ignore List. Unfortuanately, science has yet to develope anything that can measure something so infinitesimal. What a shame such extreme intolerance of ideas, opinions, and modes of expression exist on TFL. Let us all hope that this remains a very limited phenomenon on TFL.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun".
 
So, what's the vote on the offensive revolver?
Anyone have their opinion of the revolver changed pro or con after reading here?
Handy,
Maybe you could eventually understand that the existance of a 15 round mag has nothing to do with the shooter's ability, since you seem to be confusing equipment and people
Click to expand...
You've missed the point again. We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.
 
Well, don't be afraid to attempt to restate and clarify those ideas so even reactive, sarcastic, thoughtless, Lee Marvin fans will be able to get your gist.
 
I think I nailed it back on page 1:
it's kind of a silly question, isn't it? --just a good way to start a fight.
Click to expand...
That being said I think a revolver or single stack shooter is probably (and definitely should be) more aware of ammo management than his brethren packing a hi-cap autoloader. THAT observation should be taken as a very broad generalization and recognize there are exceptions on both sides.

It is kind of peculiar that no one has mentioned a fairly well documented use of a revolver as an offensive tool in recent times (though the example is probably too specialized to draw any conclusions from). That is the Navy SEAL teams use of the Models 66 and 686 under some conditions--i.e., swimming through water with high silt content (no autoloaders including their vaunted P226s can handle it--magazines mainly) for assaults on ships or other facilities where tight, constrained spaces might make a long gun less than ideal.
 
I think there is a difference between a sidearm backing up a rifle and calling a handgun "offensive". This implies that it is the primary.

As far as I've heard, the revolvers were utilized in the same way as the Sigs: backup.


The Seals do provide the only example of a handgun being termed "offensive" that I can think of - the MK23.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top