| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Category talk:Revolver: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Please don't bother me. I'm working on it quick.) |
VladVladson (talk | contribs) (→Make percussion revolvers a separate section?: new section) |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Surprisingly, i found it by accident. Although this one uses a box magazine, the general idea is the same. It's called the [http://www.forgottenweapons.com/early-automatic-pistols/landstad-1900/ Landstad 1900 Automatic Revolver]. Although it does not give a specific name for the action in question. [[User:Z008MJ|Z008MJ]] ([[User talk:Z008MJ|talk]]) 16:13, 20 December 2013 (EST) | Surprisingly, i found it by accident. Although this one uses a box magazine, the general idea is the same. It's called the [http://www.forgottenweapons.com/early-automatic-pistols/landstad-1900/ Landstad 1900 Automatic Revolver]. Although it does not give a specific name for the action in question. [[User:Z008MJ|Z008MJ]] ([[User talk:Z008MJ|talk]]) 16:13, 20 December 2013 (EST) | ||
==Recent Gallery Update== | |||
Not sure if this is really that much of an improvement - That said, if this is gonna be done, I think it would be beneficial to perhaps go a step further and have sections differentiated by overall size as is done with the pistols page. (This would include making a separate section for the 'fictional pieces, though I'd argue more that those ought to be omitted entirely, as those are not 'common' or 'basic' pieces nor will be readily encountered in media.) [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 01:44, 7 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
I'd agree with you here, but should I categorize them by average frame size? Some guns have longer/shorter barrel configurations that can really screw it up. -[[User:SeptemberJack|SeptemberJack]] ([[User talk:SeptemberJack|talk]]) 17:52, 7 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
Also, the gallery is mainly for users who don't know their revolvers - trying to go through about 100+ pages is a whole lot worse than scrolling through a gallery. | |||
P.S: There are many categories for revolver series - such as Arminius, H&R, Webley, and Rohm - and most of them have smaller compact revolvers and larger-frame revolvers. How, not trying to be mean, do you propose to solve that problem? | |||
: By 'categories' I think you mean 'makes'. That said, I think ignoring make/brand and just going by size - in this case, frame-size - seems to be a good basis. Again, it's more-or-less the same as how the pistols are done. Especially in terms of 'basic' models/images as they fall on a general pattern, even with older pieces - most smaller wheelguns (I/J-frame S&Ws, D-series Colts, etc) are short barreled (roughly 3" or less) or snubs (with the exception of the 'safety hammerless' style guns Iver Johnson Safety Automatic, Harrington and Richardson, etc which are also fairly small yet a tad longer), while mediums (K/L-frame S&Ws, Ruger Six series, etc) typically have 3-4" barrels and large frames (N-frames, Anaconda, Redhawk, Colt SAAs) are typically seen in configurations longer than 4". There are of course some outliers in terms of barrel length (IE there are large frame snubs, and likewise small-frame guns with long barrels) but as these are outliers, they're irrelevant when talking about 'basic' representations. Most IDs for revolvers boil down to frame styles and controls/features in any case. Can further differentiate size with era/projectile type (cap-and-ball vs cartridge). Eh, some thoughts. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] ([[User talk:StanTheMan|talk]]) 01:41, 8 September 2017 (EDT) | |||
| | |||
| | |||
[[ | == Make percussion revolvers a separate section? == | ||
Any reasons why percussion revolvers shouldn't be in a separate section (like revolving carbines are)? Revolvers with cartridge conversions may have to be listed twice, but that's the only issue I can think of. --[[User:VladVladson|VladVladson]] ([[User talk:VladVladson|talk]]) 15:56, 11 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:56, 11 October 2018
About revolvers and ammunition types ....
Could someone explain why blackpowder revolvers can't fire smokeless ammunition? Yes, i know they are too weak to handle modern ammunition, but why are they too weak? Why can a modern Colt SAA reproduction fire smokeless ammo when an original vintage one cannot, aren't they basically the same gun? What part of the gun is changed to make it able to fire smokeless? Z008MJ (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2013 (EST)
- You kind of answered your own question, the old firearms aren't considered to be strong enough to handle the added stress and force that smokeless cartridges make when discharged, certainly at least not in hard and/or long-term use. The reproductions made these days, while aesthetically similar to the classics, are made like modern guns, with modern materials and to stronger tolerances than the older stuff. Keep in mind the metalworking and manufacturing of firearms wasn't as good 100-150 years ago and therefore the guns just weren't as strong and durable as they are today. It should be noted that smokeless rounds are a great deal more powerful than blackpowder rounds. When smokeless powder came out, many gunmakers had to re-manufacture their weapons much stronger in order to handle it (Some might have been strong enough to handle it as is, but many makers wisely chose not to count on that). Jacketed bullets even came about because smokeless powder gave such a higher velocity and force that plain lead bullets would potentially disintegrate when fired. In the case of revolvers, generally if you discount modern steel/alloys and metalworking, the frame and cylinder would be thicker/heavier, as would the trigger, hammer and other internal parts.
Technically an old gun CAN fire modern smokeless rounds if the chambering is correct, but I wouldn't say it's a wise idea to try it, especially not with any serious shooting. StanTheMan (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2013 (EST)
Thanks a lot for the good answer. Z008MJ (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2013 (EST)
What is this firearm mechanism called?
Yes, it's me again, but i have been unable to find any other weapon using this mechanism, and i have searched using every term i can think of to describe it. Can someone tell me if this exists, and if it does, what weapon uses it, and what the action is called?
Basically, it would be a rifle/shotgun with a single barrel and a tube magazine beneath the barrel. Instead of a typical lever/pump/bolt-action it would have two revolving chambers, one aligned to the barrel and one to the magazine, and like on a DA revolver, pulling the trigger would have the hamner cooked, the chambers switch place, and the top chamber fired. At the same time the spring in the magazine would push a cartride into the lower chamber, and the process could be repeated. I know this design probably would be inferior in durability and reliability to anything made from the beginning of the 20th century and onwards, if it even works, but i would still like to know if this kind of weapon exists and what the action is called then? Z008MJ (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (EST)
Surprisingly, i found it by accident. Although this one uses a box magazine, the general idea is the same. It's called the Landstad 1900 Automatic Revolver. Although it does not give a specific name for the action in question. Z008MJ (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2013 (EST)
Recent Gallery Update
Not sure if this is really that much of an improvement - That said, if this is gonna be done, I think it would be beneficial to perhaps go a step further and have sections differentiated by overall size as is done with the pistols page. (This would include making a separate section for the 'fictional pieces, though I'd argue more that those ought to be omitted entirely, as those are not 'common' or 'basic' pieces nor will be readily encountered in media.) StanTheMan (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
I'd agree with you here, but should I categorize them by average frame size? Some guns have longer/shorter barrel configurations that can really screw it up. -SeptemberJack (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2017 (EDT)
Also, the gallery is mainly for users who don't know their revolvers - trying to go through about 100+ pages is a whole lot worse than scrolling through a gallery.
P.S: There are many categories for revolver series - such as Arminius, H&R, Webley, and Rohm - and most of them have smaller compact revolvers and larger-frame revolvers. How, not trying to be mean, do you propose to solve that problem?
- By 'categories' I think you mean 'makes'. That said, I think ignoring make/brand and just going by size - in this case, frame-size - seems to be a good basis. Again, it's more-or-less the same as how the pistols are done. Especially in terms of 'basic' models/images as they fall on a general pattern, even with older pieces - most smaller wheelguns (I/J-frame S&Ws, D-series Colts, etc) are short barreled (roughly 3" or less) or snubs (with the exception of the 'safety hammerless' style guns Iver Johnson Safety Automatic, Harrington and Richardson, etc which are also fairly small yet a tad longer), while mediums (K/L-frame S&Ws, Ruger Six series, etc) typically have 3-4" barrels and large frames (N-frames, Anaconda, Redhawk, Colt SAAs) are typically seen in configurations longer than 4". There are of course some outliers in terms of barrel length (IE there are large frame snubs, and likewise small-frame guns with long barrels) but as these are outliers, they're irrelevant when talking about 'basic' representations. Most IDs for revolvers boil down to frame styles and controls/features in any case. Can further differentiate size with era/projectile type (cap-and-ball vs cartridge). Eh, some thoughts. StanTheMan (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2017 (EDT)
Make percussion revolvers a separate section?
Any reasons why percussion revolvers shouldn't be in a separate section (like revolving carbines are)? Revolvers with cartridge conversions may have to be listed twice, but that's the only issue I can think of. --VladVladson (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2018 (EDT)