Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mars on November 11, 2010, 11:27:54 pm
-
I have a thing for revolvers, and every time I go to the range I feel like I'm the only one.
-
I had to make the 3rd option more obvious. :p
Let's all shoot Snuffleupagus!
-
The biggest problems with revolvers is that they are slow to reload and limited number of shots between reloading.
-
That's the thing I don't understand, I don't know why I like them better. I can find no logical reason.
-
I've never understood the revolver fascination. It used to be that you couldn't keep a non-revolver loaded, it would wear out the magazine springs, but this is more or less untrue now.
-
They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.
-
Because it's got six shots, more than enough to kill anything that moves, and the reload time is exhilarating.
They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.
Er... both revolvers and automatics can be found chambered in a wide range of cartridges, meaning you can find both revolvers and automatics with "big punch."
-
They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.
What, you going with a Nitro-Express .600 or something? 'cuz I'll bet an M1911 or a .45 chambered USP's stopping power against any reasonable revolver in existence.
-
They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.
naaaah
-
The biggest problem with shooting snuffleupagus is that it's so friggin hard to clean up the mess afterwards.
-
.357 round probably outdoes a .45 acp, but I could be wrong.
Then again, there are bigger rounds for both.
-
I feel like there are a lot of generalizations being made in here and it's only going to get worse... *sigh* this will be interesting to see in the morning.
-
Because it's got six shots, more than enough to kill anything that moves,
What about 7 people?
-
Revolvers are fine, but I'll prefer to shoot a '1911 any day. What I will immediately say is that a revolver, due to its construction, produces a naturally high moment upon the firer's wrist after firing in most designs. This makes taking an accurate second shot more time consuming for the average firer than in an automatic pistol.
Next, Kosh, that's a stupid thing to say. Automatic pistols and revolvers come in all shapes and sizes, calibres large and small. It is true that there are some rather oversized and over-powered revolvers out there, but the majority of revolvers will match pistols for load and projectile.
...Of course, I might take that back a bit if you were in fact referring to the high moment and thus more notable recoil found in most revolvers...
:nervous:
Because it's got six shots, more than enough to kill anything that moves,
What about 7 people?
Throw the gun. Hard.
-
I like to use a revolver with tac knife and command pro. This way I know that if my home is ever invaded, I can get up on the roof and get down behind them, then knife them each in the back really fast. If they shoot me I can usually tank two or three hits while I go in for the kill. Then I'll hide behind the sofa until my health regenerates.
If I get killed I usually leave a tactical insertion in my bedroom closet for when I respawn. Spawn points are really all over the ****ing place in this city.
-
Because it's got six shots, more than enough to kill anything that moves,
What about 7 people?
Well... that's seven things, and also a missed reference apparently. :blah:
Alright seriously now. Revolvers by their nature can't jam like an automatic. Also, the spent shells stay in the gun, which could be useful depending on your situation. And finally, they're just stylish. :)
-
7 shooter?
I really don't like any type of pistol. I'll take a good rifle any day.
-
doesn't pistol basically mean a single handed hand gun? isn't a revolver a type of pistol?
-
Assault rifles.
But if I had to pick which handgun design is more inferior, I would say revolvers are. Antiquated design, lacking magazine capacity compared to pistols, poor gas seal compared to chambered pistols.
That said I consider handguns in general mostly useless (though sadly not mostly harmless).
doesn't pistol basically mean a single handed hand gun? isn't a revolver a type of pistol?
No. Pistols are fired with both hands just as revolvers are. In pistols, the barrel and chamber are parts of same piece of metal, while on a revolver, the rounds are chambered on the revolving cylinder which contains multiple chambers that line up with the barrel when the weapon is loaded.
Pistols typically today mean semi-automatic pistols; the word has other meanings too, such as dueling pistols of the olden day (which were typically used with one hand for protocol reasons and to present as small a target as possible, since hitting was more of a statistical issue than anything based on aiming accuracy, so using two hands for added stability would have been less beneficial than reducing target profile).
-
Anything with a barrel less then a certain length (something like 18") is a pistol by definition weather it be single shot, 6 shooter, derringer, or a fully automatic machine gun.
While automatic pistols are faster firing and usually quicker to reload they do have drawbacks that revolvers don't (less prone to jamming for instance). Also revolvers can handle more powerful rounds (kick like a SOB) and are more accurate.
As already stated revolvers have less capacity and are slower to reload (not counting fast loaders). Some of the older ones also have issue with misfires and unloading can be dangerous as you may need to pull the hammer back into firing position to open it.
-
The only time I prefer a revolver is when I shoot the .44 Mag.
Otherwise I'll take a nice semi-auto pistol any day, especially the Colt Combat Commander (or any 1911 derivative really). The fascination with revolvers comes from people who've never used one, or those looking for style IMO.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I suppose revolvers COULD be a little better in nastier conditions.
-
Maybe I'm just crazy, but I don't like the way semis recoil as much.
-
a few weeks ago i went duck hunting. we found some ducks, loaded the shotgun, and got ready. i took aim while my brother in law fired off a 22 rifle to startle them. so the ducks are flying away and i fire a shot off, i miss, so i changed ducks. there was one flying away in the direction my gun was pointing. so i fired again, knocked a duck out of the flock and into the bay. apparently i clipped his wing, but he was alive and swimming away. so i unload another 5 shots at him. they all hit, because i see little splashes all around the duck. the little ****er was still alive, despite being smack dab in the middle of the shot each time. hes still swimming away, so i swap guns, take the 22 and put a bullet through that duck's head. getting the duck's rittled corpse involved a newb golden retriever, a raft, and a 12 foot steel pole. for what that little 22 lacked in power, it certainly made up for in accuracy. the shotgun was kinda fun despite the duck's rapidly diminishing luck. that said id rather have a rifle or a shotgun than a pistol, id have never been able to pull off that 22 shot with a 9mm.
-
a few weeks ago i went duck hunting. we found some ducks, loaded the shotgun, and got ready. i took aim while my brother in law fired off a 22 rifle to startle them. so the ducks are flying away and i fire a shot off, i miss, so i changed ducks. there was one flying away in the direction my gun was pointing. so i fired again, knocked a duck out of the flock and into the bay. apparently i clipped his wing, but he was alive and swimming away. so i unload another 5 shots at him. they all hit, because i see little splashes all around the duck. the little ****er was still alive, despite being smack dab in the middle of the shot each time. hes still swimming away, so i swap guns, take the 22 and put a bullet through that duck's head. getting the duck's rittled corpse involved a newb golden retriever, a raft, and a 12 foot steel pole. for what that little 22 lacked in power, it certainly made up for in accuracy. the shotgun was kinda fun despite the duck's rapidly diminishing luck. that said id rather have a rifle or a shotgun than a pistol, id have never been able to pull off that 22 shot with a 9mm.
(http://geeskomitee.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/duckhunt-dog-laugh.gif?w=500)
...I am weak. :p
-
You think that is bad when I was a kid me and my Dad were pheasant hunting. Heard a bunch of shots coming from a field above where we were down in a valley. Bird shot landing all around us. Pheasant flys right over the top of my gun and I fired. Dropped like a rock. Pick it up, rung it's neck and went home. Called my cousin to come get them (my Dad shot one earlier). Pulled mine out of the pouch on my jacket and the thing takes off trying to fly into the shed. I just closed the door. My cousin comes to get them and it's laying there apparently as dead as can be. He takes it home, goes to get it out of the car and it takes off and flies 2 blocks. Luckily he was stopped from firing at it in the middle of town. Anyway they found it. Cooked the 2 birds. Mine was so loaded with buckshot they couldn't eat it. My dads had 2 pellets in it on in the heart and one in the head.
-
I've never fired a pistol.
Though at one stage I could fully disassemble an F88T Austeyr and yell "Check safe, mag out!" at the top of my lungs whilst carrying out said action on range. :P
-
Revolvers
Pros:
- As long as the parts are still there, it will cycle and drop the pin. Whether the bullet goes off is its own decision.
- Apparently intuitive to aim. My dad swears by it, but I can't feel it.
- Generally carries enough ammunition to get the job done.
Cons:
- Not as much ammo as automatics.
- Takes much longer to reload (even with quickloaders, the delay is agonizing).
Automatics
Pros:
- High rate of fire compared to revolvers
- Higher ammo capacity per magazine/clip
- Very easy and quick to reload
Cons:
- Less intuitive to aim
- Can and will jam just in time to mess you up bad.
Thinks I hear people say and have no idea how the concept entered their heads:
-Revolvers are more powerful. They shoot the same bullets. Fire a 9mm round out of an M9. Now fire the same type of bullet out of some kind of revolver. There is zero differnece in stopping power. Yes, higher caliber revolvers are more common than higher caliber automatics, but both exist.
- All revolvers have six shots. It varies between three (.40 Magnum/.410 shotgun revolver) and ten (.22 short).
- All automatics have higher recoil. It depends on the caliber, size of barrel (length and width together), chamber seal, and the way the action cycles the weapon.
Conclusion: Revolvers are more reliable, automatics are more useful in a pinch.
-
the only projectile weapons i've fired are airsoft pistols and a 66" recurve bow.
-
I have a miniature crossbow, it's fun and a projectile weapon.
-
Thank you Scotty for a remarkably thorough comparison.
I have a miniature crossbow, it's fun and a projectile weapon.
They are, I've never actually fired at a target before (I don't want to destroy the bolts)
-
Well as for the power thing yes you can get semi-autos up to a certain caliber and they tend to fire the same ammo. However you can get revolver that actually take rifle rounds and .50 caliber or even higher. If you ever watch a competition silhouette shoot I bet you don't see any semi-autos. They would probably explode from the pressure.
-
I'm british and will say that civilian ownership of guns is a bad thing and walk off
/me headdie walks off
-
Because it's got six shots, more than enough to kill anything that moves,
What about 7 people?
Get them to stand in a line and see how many you can get with one bullet. :p
-
There are options for quickly reloading revolvers. Speed loaders being the most obvious. Some weapons allow you to quickly swap the entire cylinder like the New Army 1858. Granted you'll never match the amount of bullets you can carry with a magazine fed weapon, but if you're looking to use the weapon in a tactical sense you shouldn't be sitting there sliding bullets into the cylinder one at a time.
-
guys, guns kill people :O
-
That's the thing I don't understand, I don't know why I like them better. I can find no logical reason.
I should think this is obvious. You've been watching too many Clint Eastwood movies - That'll make anyone into a revolver fanboy ;)
As for what I prefer to shoot? None of the above. Tried pistols, revolvers, assault rifles (2 models, plus a shortened carabine version), machine guns (light & heavy), AT4s and 'recoilless' rifles when I was in the service, and I'd have to say that for general use, I'd pick an assault rifle any day. For mindless fun, though, nothing beats a heavy machine gun. (Except, I suspect, a minigun, but we didn't have those :p - Or a light machine gun with an ammo belt made up entirely of tracers... at night. Now that was a sight to see.)
-
guys, guns kill people :O
no, I kill people
-
I've fired an assault rifle before on semi-automatic...
definitely gave me a feel for how much I'd suck at shooting a pistol or revolver. :p
I guess I'll stick with paintballs for the time being.
-
They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.
What, you going with a Nitro-Express .600 or something? 'cuz I'll bet an M1911 or a .45 chambered USP's stopping power against any reasonable revolver in existence.
You got me on that one.
-
I learned to shoot handgun with a .22 revolver, but I practice with a cheap Airsoft pistol that you have to pull the action back after every shot. I'm equally proficient single and both handed, though I doubt it would be so outside of target practice.
-
Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j42/gokyo/1858_new_army_lg.jpg)
-
Oh, jeez, I dunno. I've always thought the semi-autos looked more 'tough' than a revolver, which in contrast appears antiquated to me.
That said, I wasn't brought up on Spaghetti Westerns like half of you lot. :D
-
Dirty Harry isn't a guy in a spaghetti western. He just makes punks ask themselves if they feel lucky with his .44 Magnum revolver.
-
avada kedavra, *****es
(http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/59500/Dirty-Harry-Potter-59839.jpg)
-
Dirty Harry isn't a guy in a spaghetti western. He just makes punks ask themselves if they feel lucky with his .44 Magnum revolver.
and what is Eastwood's ratio of westerns compared to non western movies
-
Dirty Harry isn't a guy in a spaghetti western. He just makes punks ask themselves if they feel lucky with his .44 Magnum revolver.
and what is Eastwood's ratio of westerns compared to non western movies
Probably split pretty evenly all together, and thats not even counting films he's directed.
-
Thinks I hear people say and have no idea how the concept entered their heads:
-Revolvers are more powerful. They shoot the same bullets. Fire a 9mm round out of an M9. Now fire the same type of bullet out of some kind of revolver. There is zero differnece in stopping power. Yes, higher caliber revolvers are more common than higher caliber automatics, but both exist.
Technically, if same cartridge and bullet is used in a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol, and energy losses from the inferior gas seal on the revolver are ignored, then the bullet fired with pistol will have slightly lower muzzle velocity.
Why? Because some of the energy of the gas expansion will be directed to cycle the weapon and chamber a new round, instead of propelling the bullet all the way through the barrel.
It's the same as with bolt action and automatic rifles. However, the energy lost to the cycling mechanism isn't significant enough to say that the "power" of the gun would diminish in any meaningful way.
- All automatics have higher recoil. It depends on the caliber, size of barrel (length and width together), chamber seal, and the way the action cycles the weapon.
Expanding from the previous, comparing the same cartridge and round fired with revolver and semi-auto pistol, the revolver will have slightly more recoil simply because the bullet should theoretically achieve slightly higher muzzle velocity.
However, the matter is not as simple as that. Part of the recoil comes from the combustion gases shooting forward from the muzzle after the round, and that part of the recoil can be reduced with different muzzle brake configurations. A good muzzle brake can make a big difference in the amount of overall recoil a weapon produces, even though the muzzle velocity and mass of the projectile stay constant.
Mostly, though, you are correct - there's no distinct difference in recoil between one weapon type and another, if projectile mass and muzzle velocity are the same. Bigger differences come from the geometry of individual weapons, which cause secondary recoil effects like muzzle climb.
-
I prefer target shooting with semi-automatic magazine-loaded pistols, but I readily acknowledge that a revolver is a much more reliable weapon if ever reliability is a pre-requisite. As all of my handgun shooting is done at a range, however, that isn't exactly a concern of mine =) Also, I'm fundamentally too lazy to shoot a weapon that must be reloaded after 6 shots when I can shoot a weapon that instead holds as many as 16 or 17.
The more interesting question really is what calibre people prefer. Since all I do is target shooting, all I shoot is .22 (Magnum). It's cheap, reliable, and perforates the target nicely - and it's much easier to be accurate with it.
-
Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.
(http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j42/gokyo/1858_new_army_lg.jpg)
Beretta 92FS?
-
Don't know, never shot a handgun
-
There are options for quickly reloading revolvers.
Nothing makes a revolver reload quicker than inserting a fresh clip into an automatic, barring user experience, which should be barred when objectively comparing the weapons.
They do offer a much bigger punch, maybe that's got something to do with it.
What, you going with a Nitro-Express .600 or something? 'cuz I'll bet an M1911 or a .45 chambered USP's stopping power against any reasonable revolver in existence.
Yes, ignore me why dontcha. You can find (or make) any caliber that you see in a revolver (with the possible exception of .410 shotgun) in an automatic. That also goes vice versa. There are revolvers that fire .45 ACP. I'd be willing to bet that there are automatics out there somewhere that fires a .600.
Herra does bring up good points, but even goes to admit that it's functionally identical.
Hmm, something I feel like I should explain for the non-gun afficionados in the thread. An automatic, with regards to handguns, is a weapon that loads the next bullet automatically at the end of the last pull of the trigger. A revolver doesn't do that. You have to pull the trigger again, and it will "chamber" the next round as the pin is pulled back. Just in case you guys thought I was talking about assault rifles or stuff.
-
ITT: no one knows the difference between clips and magazines, and no one has heard of .50 AE. :p
-
Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.
[lolshot]http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j42/gokyo/1858_new_army_lg.jpg[/lolshot]
Beretta 92FS?
Never much cared for the looks of the Beretta, as far as semi autos go the 1911 and its variants, especially the MEU SOC version, and the Jericho 941 generally appeal to my taste so far as looks are concerned.
@redsniper Garands take clips, M16s take magazines :P
-
Silencers. They work on most semiauto pistols. They work on like, 2 revolvers.
Not like silencers really do too much, but they're supposed to lower the sound enough so that you don't need ear protection.
Just random tangent about silencers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GbjXvH7xJA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GbjXvH7xJA)
I know the audio recording is pretty terrible, so it's impossible to tell the actual drop in volume, but that seems pretty effective to me (albeit from a ridiculously huge silencer)
-
There are no such thing as silencers. They are called suppressors. But you are correct in that they lower the sound enough to not damage hearing during operations. Along with dropping muzzle velocity enough to limit overpenetration, it's the only reason SWAT teams use them on stuff.
It also depends on what kind you get. There are some that are designed to work on revolvers. Most work on automatics. Some don't. It's really a nonissue.
-
Yeah, suppressor is the proper term, since they don't come close to 'silencing' a weapon. They don't even make them that quiet. They're supposed to just reduce the noise enough that it's hard to tell where the shots are coming from AFAIK.
EDIT: Wait wut? How do they lower muzzle velocity? I thought the suppressor diameter was larger than the barrel diameter, so it doesn't actually contact the bullet.
-
I'm quite sure silencers usually do not themselves drop bullet speed, and that you'd get something else (like special ammo) to do that for you. Also, silencing revolvers requires seals on the revolver itself (which most revolvers lack, and those that do I think are less reliable), after which any silencer that fits should work. Almost all semis have a locked breech until the bullet's out of the gun, so in theory, you could silence any one of those.
-
Suppressing (contrary to what hollywood wants you to think, they aren't silencers) a bullet involves allowing the gas to escape more slowly, as well as dropping muzzle velocity below supersonic speeds (cuz, you know, allowing the gasses to escape more slowly slows the bullet down). If the diameter is any larger, it's a miniscule difference.
(http://tml.travellercentral.com/suppressors/9mmsup.jpg)
Kolgena: You are correct that subsonic ammo also quiets the weapon, but suppressors try to accomplish the same goal.
-
cuz, you know, allowing the gasses to escape more slowly slows the bullet down
wat.
Go retake physics O.o
-
But.... no. The bullet is still passing through the same barrel, so the gases are contained in the barrel and propelling the bullet for the same amount of time. In an unsuppressed gun, once the bullet leaves the barrel all those gases will expand all over the place and make a loud noise. In a suppressed gun, once the bullet leaves the barrel those gases have to go through the baffles in the suppressor, which absorb some of the energy and reduce the sound.... but either way nothing is propelling the bullet anymore, I think...
Wait, are you saying the bullet is in contact with the suppressor?
-
Well functionality aside, aesthetically a revolver certainly is much more pleasing on the eye then a Glock.
I dunno, revolvers in general don't really look "G" to me if you know what I mean.
-
An automatic, with regards to handguns, is a weapon that loads the next bullet automatically at the end of the last pull of the trigger. A revolver doesn't do that. You have to pull the trigger again, and it will "chamber" the next round as the pin is pulled back. Just in case you guys thought I was talking about assault rifles or stuff.
Well, to be exact, automatic weapons will discharge the whole magazine/belt if you keep the trigger down.
Semi-automatic weapons discharge once and chamber the next round, but you have to let the trigger up (either fully or partially) to fire a second shot.
In non-automatic weapons, the operator chambers the second round manually. In revolvers, this is done by rotating the wheel with either pulling the hammer back (single-action) or pulling the trigger which also pulls the hammer back and rotates the wheel (double action). In some ways, you could consider double-action revolvers to be "semi-automatic", but they are fully mechanically operated as opposed to gas piston operated and the mechanical work done to rotate the wheel requires longer trigger press than in gas piston operated semi-automatics.
From my limited experience, I didn't much care for the handguns and machine guns, but assault rifle was nice. :p
Regarding suppressors: Suppressors are mostly used to suppress the sound from the muzzle blast. They don't really have significant impact on the muzzle velocity of the round, but they're often used in conjunction with subsonic ammunition in order to also reduce the second most loud component of a gunshot sound - the shockwave from supersonic ammunition.
-
I'd be willing to bet that there are automatics out there somewhere that fires a .600.
As far as I am able to determine, there is not. It is a rifle cartridge, developed to kill-stop a friggin' charging rhino or hippo, and the revolver that fires them is itself similar in size to a shotgun. It would be utterly impractical as an automatic for the simple reason that if you keep the ammunition in the grip, your hand will not fit around the grip. The other reason is that attempting to fire a second shot in the next five seconds will certainly waste the round and probably result in getting hit in the face with your gun (actually, even odds it'll hit you in the face with the first round firing a .600 cartridge), this making an automatic action pointless; you might as well go bolt.
Why there's even a revolver that fires .600 is an utter mystery, but it does mean that you can indisputably claim revolvers are more powerful...if they're totally impractical.
-
Are we talking about this by any chance?
(http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Pfeifer.jpg)
-
I'd be willing to bet that there are automatics out there somewhere that fires a .600.
As far as I am able to determine, there is not. It is a rifle cartridge, developed to kill-stop a friggin' charging rhino or hippo, and the revolver that fires them is itself similar in size to a shotgun. It would be utterly impractical as an automatic for the simple reason that if you keep the ammunition in the grip, your hand will not fit around the grip. The other reason is that attempting to fire a second shot in the next five seconds will certainly waste the round and probably result in getting hit in the face with your gun (actually, even odds it'll hit you in the face with the first round firing a .600 cartridge), this making an automatic action pointless; you might as well go bolt.
Why there's even a revolver that fires .600 is an utter mystery, but it does mean that you can indisputably claim revolvers are more powerful...if they're totally impractical.
how about because a 50 desert eagle will break your wrist if you dont know what you are doing
-
That's just .50AE. Plenty of rounds, not to mention revolvers that fire them, are more powerful than a .50AE/desert eagle.
-
how about because a 50 desert eagle will break your wrist if you dont know what you are doing
That's .50AE. A .600 Nitro Express is more comparable to .50 BMG.
-
opps, miss read your post! apologies on that one, i read it as surprise the isn't such a revolver :nervous:
-
But.... no. The bullet is still passing through the same barrel, so the gases are contained in the barrel and propelling the bullet for the same amount of time. In an unsuppressed gun, once the bullet leaves the barrel all those gases will expand all over the place and make a loud noise. In a suppressed gun, once the bullet leaves the barrel those gases have to go through the baffles in the suppressor, which absorb some of the energy and reduce the sound.... but either way nothing is propelling the bullet anymore, I think...
Wait, are you saying the bullet is in contact with the suppressor?
No.
Suppressors work by providing an area for the gases to expand and cool prior to discharging from the weapon entirely. This reduces the noise associated with the shot (it no longer sounds like a gunshot) and it lowers the velocity of the bullet prior to discharging from the suppressor. While they don't reduce supersonic ammunition to subsonic, they do slow the bullet velocity and decrease energy delivered to the target over the same distance as an unsuppressed weapon.
The loudest part of a gunshot is the muzzle blast - the rapid expansion and cooling of the gases reduces that, and slows the bullet velocity as well.
-
a few weeks ago i went duck hunting. we found some ducks, loaded the shotgun, and got ready. i took aim while my brother in law fired off a 22 rifle to startle them. so the ducks are flying away and i fire a shot off, i miss, so i changed ducks. there was one flying away in the direction my gun was pointing. so i fired again, knocked a duck out of the flock and into the bay. apparently i clipped his wing, but he was alive and swimming away. so i unload another 5 shots at him. they all hit, because i see little splashes all around the duck. the little ****er was still alive, despite being smack dab in the middle of the shot each time. hes still swimming away, so i swap guns, take the 22 and put a bullet through that duck's head. getting the duck's rittled corpse involved a newb golden retriever, a raft, and a 12 foot steel pole. for what that little 22 lacked in power, it certainly made up for in accuracy. the shotgun was kinda fun despite the duck's rapidly diminishing luck. that said id rather have a rifle or a shotgun than a pistol, id have never been able to pull off that 22 shot with a 9mm.
(http://geeskomitee.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/duckhunt-dog-laugh.gif?w=500)
...I am weak. :p
brownie points for the classic image. but i did manage to bring home a duck. never managed to actually eat it, the thing was horrible. i think il stick to grouse.
-
Suppressors also work by causing the sound waves to cancel themselves out somewhat. The shape of the chambers and exhausts makes a huge difference.
For those of you who say they aren't silencers you've never had one made by a good machinist. My Dad made a couple for some local law enforcement. A BB gun sounds like artillery in comparison to unloading a full clip with the suppressor.
-
While they don't reduce supersonic ammunition to subsonic, they do slow the bullet velocity and decrease energy delivered to the target over the same distance as an unsuppressed weapon.
Not true, unless it has wipers, which have been chucked on most silencers since they give out after a mag or so. Give me a physical reason why normal suppressors would slow down a bullet.
The difference between speeds of fired bullets from a silenced or unsilenced weapon would be close to null. Both bullets would have the same velocity coming out of the effective barrel, after which the unsilenced bullet flies through air while the silenced bullet flies through a tube that it never comes into contact with. Nothing in said tube can slow the bullet down. If anything, it'll speed the bullet up if there's still a pressure gradient from compressed gasses behind the bullet (which is usually not the case, or would contribute almost nothing)
I'm curious about the above anecdotal account of a really good silencer. Were they like, huge and fired wet, or something?
-
The difference between speeds of fired bullets from a silenced or unsilenced weapon would be close to null. Both bullets would have the same velocity coming out of the effective barrel, after which the unsilenced bullet flies through air while the silenced bullet flies through a tube that it never comes into contact with. Nothing in said tube can slow the bullet down. If anything, it'll speed the bullet up if there's still a pressure gradient from compressed gasses behind the bullet (which is usually not the case, or would contribute almost nothing)
There's air in the suppressor.
When the bullet leaves the muzzle, it doesn't have a gas seal any more to keep the expanding exhaust gases behind it. Any acceleration by the exhaust gases after the muzzle can be largely ignored, since velocity of the exhaust gases as they escape the barrel drops down very fast. This works in either free air and in suppressor. When the bullet enters the suppressor, the hot exhaust gases behind it start to rapidly spread through the suppressor, but they will move slower than the bullet at the muzzle (by Bernoulli's law, when the tube rapidly expands, flow velocity drops down) which means the bullet is now traveling along the suppressor's hollow inside tube, which is filled with air.
The movement of the air is restricted by the suppressor, which means it is harder for the bullet to move away from its path compared to when it moves through free undisturbed air, which means some of the bullet's kinetic energy is wasted on that, and the bullet slows down a bit.
You can demonstrate the effect by taking some ball (table tennis ball would be ideal) and appropriately sized cardboard tube - one whose diametre is slightly larger than the ball's diametre.
Then you can commence a simple experiment: Drop the table tennis ball from the height of the cardboard tubes' length, a few times freely, to measure the fall time.
Then, drop the ball through the cardboard tube and measure the fall time.
You'll notice that the ball will fall through the cardboard tube significantly slower (and if the tube is long enough you will observe that the terminal velocity is significantly smaller, too).
Same happens with suppressor and bullet, albeit in much smaller scale and with less significant effect, but the suppressor does slow down the round while it is traveling through the tube, as compared to a round traveling in free air.
-
Huh, see I considered that earlier, but I would have thought the effect of the air in front of the bullet would be negligible... maybe not...
-
It's not going to be very big effect on a bullet, but it's there. I am hesitant to go into any actual figures - empirical testing in this kind of cases is the only thing that produces reliable values anyway - but I would estimate a velocity drop of somewhere around 3-5%, maybe ten percent at most. There are probably high quality suppressors that have a negligible impact on the velocity of the projectile.
Does someone have actual data on how different suppressors affect muzzle velocity on different weapons?
-
No but I do know that using one actually increases the pressure in the barrel so it may overcome the affect of the air pressure slow down. Use one on a high powered rifle that wasn't meant for it and you can blow up the gun.
-
It's not going to be very big effect on a bullet, but it's there. I am hesitant to go into any actual figures - empirical testing in this kind of cases is the only thing that produces reliable values anyway - but I would estimate a velocity drop of somewhere around 3-5%, maybe ten percent at most. There are probably high quality suppressors that have a negligible impact on the velocity of the projectile.
Does someone have actual data on how different suppressors affect muzzle velocity on different weapons?
Alas, no. I do know that some integral suppressors (like on the H&K MP5SD5 variant) are efficient enough that the velocity drop is negligible. A buddy of mine on another forum made a fancy graph on this very topic several years ago, but he's been AWOL for some time so I don't think I'll be able to find it again. EDIT: Some quick Googling yields references to velocity drop on various websites of suppressor manufacturers. http://www.srtarms.com/selecting.htm However, there are also references to modern suppressors which actually increase velocity, to the tune of 30-50 feet/sec.
FUBAR, I was going to mention the wave cancellation properties of some modern suppressors, but it isn't universal to all.
Truthfully, you can build a crude but effective suppressor with limited use time with nothing more than a bunch of steel wool and a pop (soda, for you Americans) bottle.
-
or a pillow.
What no love for muzzle loading flintlocks in that poll? :P
-
That's the thing I don't understand, I don't know why I like them better. I can find no logical reason.
They don't jam. And for a pistol, they appear to use less complicated parts and operation compared to pistols with clips.
-
(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ClipMagazineLesson.jpg)
BTW there is a revolver that can be effectively silenced: the Nagant M1895.
-
I have yet to shoot a revolver, so I guess Snuffy wins this time...
About reload times:
Pistol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA
Revolver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PDzE55esIE
And as for my favorite (from the guns I actually fired- M4, AK-47, M14, Sig P226, FN FAL): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVuy_aIohoc&feature=related
Up next on my to-shoot list are the .44 Magnum, the kar98k, and the Mosin.
The Mosin having the most epic muzzleflash I've ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW2Bl1xPhHw&feature=related
P.S. @ zack: Guns shoot bullets.
-
guys, guns kill people :O
many of the guns ive fired over the past few months have been to make animals stop moving long enough so you could convert them into meat. i haven't used one or seen one used on people yet.
-
I prefer autoloaders. I tend to carry a 5 shot .38spl +p revolver. It's light, it will kill bad guys, and it stays concealed. Reality dictates I will not be in a prolonged firefight.
But at the range I prefer a nice modern autoloading pistol. I alternate between my Sig in .40 and it's .22lr counterpart, and my 1911 in 45 cap and it's 22 conversion barrel. If I carried for duty it would be the Sig.
Slide cycling is satisfying.
Revolvers are a lost art though. My favorites are the black powder civil war replicas. I have 3 in .36 caliber.
-
snuffy +1
I like more pistols, must say.
-
lol.
nerds with guns.
that's dangerous
-
not as dangerous as rednecks with guns
-
(http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/ClipMagazineLesson.jpg)
BTW there is a revolver that can be effectively silenced: the Nagant M1895.
Point taken, but mine still stands aside from the clip magazine issue when i should have said magazine.
-
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/