Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply Q&A (Are YOU using this?)
Internal vs. External bolts Goto Page: 1 2 3 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:47 pm
I noticed the other day that I've never seen a pistol with a fully internal bolt mechanism. I don't count AR pistols in this though, because those really aren't pistols IMO, they're just tiny rifles. If you watch any semi-auto handgun fire, A large potion of the external shell moves in order to cycle the round. I'll include a picture here because I have it, and it is awesome.

User Image

Notice how the slide racks back. Right. Now take any semi- or full-auto rifle. No real portion of the external shell moves at all, only the bolt itself and anything directly attached to it (e.g., a cocking handle). The same is true with an SMG. Why is this? Why are there no pistols with entirely immobile exteriors?  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:22 pm
They would be too bulky?  

OberFeldwebel


Man of the Demoneye

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:23 pm
My best guess would be the amount of available space that the gun takes up. In a rifle / shotgun, you can take as much space behind the reciever as you need (within reason). On a pistol, you are trying to keep it as compact as possible.

Again, best guess.  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:39 pm
Man of the Demoneye
My best guess would be the amount of available space that the gun takes up. In a rifle / shotgun, you can take as much space behind the reciever as you need (within reason). On a pistol, you are trying to keep it as compact as possible.

Again, best guess.
It can't be any bigger than a DEagle. I'm wondering if it would be possible to make a gas-piston pistol... It'd be far more conducive to mounting a small scope on, and the sights would have zero drift from slide wobble. I should draw this up sometime. I wish I had CAD and knew how to use it. sad  

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen


ArmasTermin

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:43 pm
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:10 pm
ArmasTermin
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?
It makes sense as to why they DON'T do it on rifles, but it doesn't explain why they DO do it on pistols.  

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen


ArmasTermin

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?
It makes sense as to why they DON'T do it on rifles, but it doesn't explain why they DO do it on pistols.


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:44 pm
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?
It makes sense as to why they DON'T do it on rifles, but it doesn't explain why they DO do it on pistols.


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.
From what I can see in my head, the pistol would need to be a tad taller to accomodate the gas tube and perhaps a bit longer in the back so the bolt can move and to fit the spring (if it's designed that way, which it may not be), but because there's no slide to bite that's not too much of an issue. Actually, on second thought, it might not need to be taller. Move the barrel down to where the traditional recoil spring would be and put the gas tube on top... With less recoil force coming from the lower firing chamber and lighter moving parts, it might even be more accurate and easier to handle.  

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen


ArmasTermin

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:32 pm
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?
It makes sense as to why they DON'T do it on rifles, but it doesn't explain why they DO do it on pistols.


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.
From what I can see in my head, the pistol would need to be a tad taller to accomodate the gas tube and perhaps a bit longer in the back so the bolt can move and to fit the spring (if it's designed that way, which it may not be), but because there's no slide to bite that's not too much of an issue. Actually, on second thought, it might not need to be taller. Move the barrel down to where the traditional recoil spring would be and put the gas tube on top... With less recoil force coming from the lower firing chamber and lighter moving parts, it might even be more accurate and easier to handle.


Try to draw out a design. Thinking like that is why the lead ball musket is now the M16.

Seriously, put some good thought in this and you might really get something.  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:44 am
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?
It makes sense as to why they DON'T do it on rifles, but it doesn't explain why they DO do it on pistols.


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.
From what I can see in my head, the pistol would need to be a tad taller to accomodate the gas tube and perhaps a bit longer in the back so the bolt can move and to fit the spring (if it's designed that way, which it may not be), but because there's no slide to bite that's not too much of an issue. Actually, on second thought, it might not need to be taller. Move the barrel down to where the traditional recoil spring would be and put the gas tube on top... With less recoil force coming from the lower firing chamber and lighter moving parts, it might even be more accurate and easier to handle.


Try to draw out a design. Thinking like that is why the lead ball musket is now the M16.

Seriously, put some good thought in this and you might really get something.
If only I had CAD. I should have been a MechE. But no, all I have is circuit design CAD...

Goddamn EE.  

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen


OberFeldwebel

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:04 am
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Weight must be one issue, scopes being another. Mounted optics on rifles are closer to the face than they are on pistols. You don't want a slide on a rifle pegging you in the cheek. So you make it a bolt and enclose it.

Makes sense, right?
It makes sense as to why they DON'T do it on rifles, but it doesn't explain why they DO do it on pistols.


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.
From what I can see in my head, the pistol would need to be a tad taller to accomodate the gas tube and perhaps a bit longer in the back so the bolt can move and to fit the spring (if it's designed that way, which it may not be), but because there's no slide to bite that's not too much of an issue. Actually, on second thought, it might not need to be taller. Move the barrel down to where the traditional recoil spring would be and put the gas tube on top... With less recoil force coming from the lower firing chamber and lighter moving parts, it might even be more accurate and easier to handle.


Try to draw out a design. Thinking like that is why the lead ball musket is now the M16.

Seriously, put some good thought in this and you might really get something.
If only I had CAD. I should have been a MechE. But no, all I have is circuit design CAD...

Goddamn EE.


You can always pirate a copy of CAD.
I did that for my CAD class in highschool so that I could work on my assignments at home.  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:35 am
OberFeldwebel
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.
From what I can see in my head, the pistol would need to be a tad taller to accomodate the gas tube and perhaps a bit longer in the back so the bolt can move and to fit the spring (if it's designed that way, which it may not be), but because there's no slide to bite that's not too much of an issue. Actually, on second thought, it might not need to be taller. Move the barrel down to where the traditional recoil spring would be and put the gas tube on top... With less recoil force coming from the lower firing chamber and lighter moving parts, it might even be more accurate and easier to handle.


Try to draw out a design. Thinking like that is why the lead ball musket is now the M16.

Seriously, put some good thought in this and you might really get something.
If only I had CAD. I should have been a MechE. But no, all I have is circuit design CAD...

Goddamn EE.


You can always pirate a copy of CAD.
I did that for my CAD class in highschool so that I could work on my assignments at home.
Then I run into the two distinct problems of "I have a mac" and "I don't know how to use CAD".

Whoa, really weird idea here. With a gas system, it would be possible to make the barrel itself the moving part. The barrel slides forward out of the gun to eject and chamber each round. It sounds like a bad idea, but I can't give a reason as to why. I think it'd require rimmed rounds though, so maybe .22 only.

EDIT: Ooh, HighDesign, which is apparently very good, has a free trial version. biggrin  

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen


OberFeldwebel

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:17 am
Fresnel
OberFeldwebel
Fresnel
ArmasTermin
Fresnel
ArmasTermin


Because it would take more space and be more cumbersome. I would think.
From what I can see in my head, the pistol would need to be a tad taller to accomodate the gas tube and perhaps a bit longer in the back so the bolt can move and to fit the spring (if it's designed that way, which it may not be), but because there's no slide to bite that's not too much of an issue. Actually, on second thought, it might not need to be taller. Move the barrel down to where the traditional recoil spring would be and put the gas tube on top... With less recoil force coming from the lower firing chamber and lighter moving parts, it might even be more accurate and easier to handle.


Try to draw out a design. Thinking like that is why the lead ball musket is now the M16.

Seriously, put some good thought in this and you might really get something.
If only I had CAD. I should have been a MechE. But no, all I have is circuit design CAD...

Goddamn EE.


You can always pirate a copy of CAD.
I did that for my CAD class in highschool so that I could work on my assignments at home.
Then I run into the two distinct problems of "I have a mac" and "I don't know how to use CAD".

Whoa, really weird idea here. With a gas system, it would be possible to make the barrel itself the moving part. The barrel slides forward out of the gun to eject and chamber each round. It sounds like a bad idea, but I can't give a reason as to why. I think it'd require rimmed rounds though, so maybe .22 only.

EDIT: Ooh, HighDesign, which is apparently very good, has a free trial version. biggrin


Or you could go into business and make your own rimmed calibers.
9x19R?  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:55 pm
OberFeldwebel
Fresnel
OberFeldwebel
Fresnel
ArmasTermin


Try to draw out a design. Thinking like that is why the lead ball musket is now the M16.

Seriously, put some good thought in this and you might really get something.
If only I had CAD. I should have been a MechE. But no, all I have is circuit design CAD...

Goddamn EE.


You can always pirate a copy of CAD.
I did that for my CAD class in highschool so that I could work on my assignments at home.
Then I run into the two distinct problems of "I have a mac" and "I don't know how to use CAD".

Whoa, really weird idea here. With a gas system, it would be possible to make the barrel itself the moving part. The barrel slides forward out of the gun to eject and chamber each round. It sounds like a bad idea, but I can't give a reason as to why. I think it'd require rimmed rounds though, so maybe .22 only.

EDIT: Ooh, HighDesign, which is apparently very good, has a free trial version. biggrin


Or you could go into business and make your own rimmed calibers.
9x19R?
Yeah, I just got to thinking about that again today and slapped myself. If the barrel moves, so does your point of aim. stressed  

Fresnel
Crew

Citizen


Stoic Socialist

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 7:02 pm
User Image

[/thread]  
Reply
Q&A (Are YOU using this?)

Goto Page: 1 2 3 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum