 "Revolver" Rifles and another firearms question, Curiosity run rampant |
  |
 May 5 2005, 02:32 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 7-April 05 From: Charlottesville, VA, CAS Member No.: 7,303  |
After reading the discussion about how many people feel that revolvers are at least slightly more accurate than autoloaders due to various reasons, I was curious about how effective a "revolver-style" rifle would be.
I know that there were such rifles in the past, and a quick google suggested that they weren't very popular due to gas discharge close to the face of the operator. Were there any other flaws in their design? Having said that, would there be reasonable ways to correct those flaws? Moreover, would such a design bring any appreciable benefits to a long range rifle, such as accuracy? (the obvious benefit of a built-in brass collector is fairly small). I've heard that bolt-action rifles tend to be at least slightly more accurate than semi-auto rifles, so I wondered if maybe this would fit somewhere in between? But mostly, I'm just curious.. :D My other question comes from reading the rules and wondering about recoil and laser sights. Specifically, would a laser sight be at all useful on a fully automatic weapon? It would seem to me that once you're on full auto recoil would make the laser jump around so much that it would be pointless. Besides, anymore isn't full automatic fire more intended for suppression than actual wounding? Isn't this why they took full auto fire off the M16 as an option (since soldiers would just waste clips rather than aim)? Thanks a lot... The Other DSE |
 |
 
|
|
May 5 2005, 02:53 PM
Post
#2
|
|||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
Yes, it would. It helps with initial target acquisition, regardless of how many rounds you throw on target.
No. Automatic fire is useful for putting a lot of hurt on a target very quickly. It's less useful at range, at which point is largely for suppression, but really, it was taken off the M16 because the US military thought it would be cheaper to do that rather than train their soldiers. To date, we really have the only military in the world to have thought this was a good idea, and with the XM8, that is finally going away. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 5 2005, 03:11 PM
Post
#3
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 7-April 05 From: Charlottesville, VA, CAS Member No.: 7,303 |
Ack, my bad. I actually realized this. I should have asked "would it help after the initial target acquisition."
Ah... interesting. I guess I don't really know how accurate you can be with full auto. I've always assumed that the first couple rounds would be on target but after that it'd be a bit more of a crap shoot. Thanks Arethusa. I appreciate it... Now I just need to wait for Ray or one of the others to show up to educate me about the revolver rifle... :) The Other DSE |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 5 2005, 03:12 PM
Post
#4
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Yes: Revolvers, especially ye olde Western revolvers, would sometimes cook off several rounds from that same irritating gas discharge. That's a problem for rifles where the normal grip involves putting one hand in front of the revolver section. Hands make poor catcher mitts for several rifle bullets and fragments of the breech. As I understand, a bolt-action rifle should be able to give the same accuracy improvement benefits (vs. an automatic rifle) as a revolver. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 03:16 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 7,352 |
A revolver is not inherently more accurate than all other mechanisms.
A revolver has one big flaw: namely that the chamber is not integral with the barrel. This provides better inherent accuracy than most automatic handguns, which don't have a rigid connection between the frame, slide, and barrel. But this does not provide better inherent accuracy than a bolt-action rifle. Slapping a cylinder onto a rifle will result in worse accuracy than a bolt, but maybe better than an automatic mechanism. So you'd be sacrificing accuracy for a marginally better rate of fire than a bolt action, but a revolver mechanism would still be much slower than an automatic mechanism. |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 03:26 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,632 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Portland Oregon, USA Member No.: 1,304 |
As soon as lever action rifles became common, the revolver style rifles went away, because they were vastly inferior.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 03:37 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 7-April 05 From: Charlottesville, VA, CAS Member No.: 7,303 |
->Cray74
Actually, I think that a bolt action rifle would in fact be superior in terms of accuracy to a "revolver" rifle (god I feel silly just writing that). ->Sheffield Yeah, that would be my point. You have an increased magazine capacity over a bolt-action, but you may have more accuracy than a semi-automatic rifle. I certainly didn't think that it would be better than a semi-auto in terms of fire rate... So, it seems the consensus (so far) is that it would be a compromise between semi-auto and bolt-action (more accurate than semi-auto but with a better RoF than bolt-action). Now the question is whether or not the drawbacks could be worked around... The primary drawback that I've heard is the venting system. How do modern-day revolvers deal with this issue? Admittedly the chamber's not right in your face which undoubtedly helps, but I wasn't aware of modern-day revolvers cooking off their entire magazine, so the point that Cray brings up must have been resolved, no? The Other DSE (who really needs to stop obsessively checking the board :) ) |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2005, 05:16 PM
Post
#8
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
IMO, the variations in accuracy due to various types of repeating firearm mechanisms just aren't great enough to show in the low resolution of SR's system, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
The risk remained with revolver pistols but since the shooter didn't put a hand in front of the cylinder, it wasn't much of a problem if several rounds did cook off. The eventual resolution was brass cartridges. The first revolvers used cap-and-ball ammo with free-filled blackpowder. Interim fixes included smearing grease over the front of loaded cylinders to block sparks and flames. This had to be repeated with each loading, of course. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 5 2005, 05:24 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,632 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Portland Oregon, USA Member No.: 1,304 |
This was the reason for the "revolver rifle" in the first place. Six shots instead of one. I'm not sure if there were any of this type of weapon made for cartridges. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 5 2005, 05:50 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
There was probably no need. By the time brass cartridges became widespread, so did other styles of repeating rifles with larger magazine capacities than revolvers and safer designs. Like the lever action system. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th June 2026 - 03:13 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.