Remove ads

Small Arms Commission Quest

Reader mode
If I understood correctly, we use something like manlicher en-bloc clips?

Are those loading strips similar to Mauser style striper clips or are they more like Hotchkiss machine gun feeding loading strips?
 
open_sketchbook said:
I feel exploring pistol designs which keep most of their action behind the grip might be really good for cavalry (a la the luger and C93), and I think a detachable box magazine is a fucking trap given how difficult it is to manufacture magazines that work consistently without spending a fuckload. I also think that Kaldhoff can go sulk in a corner while the big boys talk right now because if we can swing a big magazine of little bullets that might be preferable in the long run. I am kinda picturing a weapon that resembles a broomhandle but with mechanism shifted back so that the magazine can run through the handle maybe?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I got you fam. Behold!



C-93. Kinda shit though, given the giant mechanism. Still, its exactly what you asked for.
 
[x]Plan for the Future
-[x] Pistol is to be common across cavalry and infantry, as such the weapon must be of a locked breech design.
-[x]Pistol must hold at least 7 rounds in the detachable box magazine, have a trigger pull of at least 2.3kg, manual safety that is not a grip safety and ergonomic, easy to clean with little or no tools required for disassembly. Caliber must be at the least 7.5mm and muzzle velocity no less than 340m/s. Indication of a loaded chamber is also important.


Alright, see the thing is we already have a carbine, and honestly do we need separate projects? I mean yes the cavalry wants something beefy and manly but get them a flat shooting high velocity cartridge in a decently sized magazine and that'll do the job for them and the infantry just fine.

EDIT: @Grin_Reaper reminded me that people will just want that stuff anyway even if we already have a carbine and it will be less restrictive if we don't disqualify a popular option.
 
Last edited:
[X] Plan "Being Austria-Hungary doesn't mean we have to suck at logistics
 
Sarpedon said:
[x]Plan for the Future
-[x] Pistol is to be common across cavalry and infantry, as such the weapon must be of a locked breech design and will not accept a shoulder stock.
-[x]Pistol must hold at least 7 rounds in the detachable box magazine, have a trigger pull of at least 2.3kg, manual safety that is not a grip safety and ergonomic, easy to clean with little or no tools required for disassembly. Caliber must be at the least 7.5mm and muzzle velocity no less than 340m/s. indication of a loaded chamber is also important.


Alright, see the thing is we already have a carbine, and honestly do we need separate projects? I mean yes the cavalry wants something beefy and manly but get them a flat shooting high velocity cartridge in a decently sized magazine and that'll do the job for them and the infantry just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Please keep in mind that we're in the 1890s, aka when the Luger was state of the art. That means that double stack magazines aren't going to be a thing for awhile and magazines in general aren't going to be cheap for awhile. You're thinking in terms of what would work in the 1930s.

I would otherwise agree with some of your points though.
 
open_sketchbook said:
The mechanism of the C-93 is Actively Terrible, but I think the general layout is probably real nice given the era.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I find this... well, hilarious. The C-93's atrocious design layout makes elevating or depressing the gun at the wrist a bear, it is naturally back end heavy, it is heavy in general, and uncomfortable in the hand sure to its 90° grip. Its rather advanced and theoretically good action lived on, however, in the C-96 and P08 pistols.



The P08 has fewer in the action, but the principal of a toggle-lock breach for a high power round is still very present. The P08 also donated the 65° grip angle to most modern target pistols, and is still a joy to shoot a hundred years later.



The C-96 is at this point a very definitive weapon. While it lacks the P08's locked action, the broomhandle grip was world renowned for comfort and accessibility. What it looses in theatrical round power, it makes up for this in resiliant design and high velocity cartridge. With later potential improvements, it also becomes the basis of a PDW or machine pistol.
 
Michael Lewis said:
Please keep in mind that we're in the 1890s, aka when the Luger was state of the art. That means that double stack magazines aren't going to be a thing for awhile and magazines in general aren't going to be cheap for awhile. You're thinking in terms of what would work in the 1930s.

I would otherwise agree with some of your points though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not that far out of line, and doublestack magazines are doable at the moment.
 
[X] Plan "Being Austria-Hungary doesn't mean we have to suck at logistics
-[X] Design the competition in two parts: cavalry pistol and other pistol.
-[X] Require unified cartridge for both pistols, parts commonality preferred but not required.
-[X] Cavalry Type Requirements: Must be at least 7.5mm bore, external hammer, 9 inch barrel, and carry eight rounds or more. Locking breech is recomended.
-[X] Other Type Requirements: Must carry at least 9 rounds and reach equivalent muzzle velocity of current service pistols with at least six inch barrel, along with possessing a safety or external hammer. Longer barrels, detachable stocks, and detachable magazines are recommended.
 
[X] Plan Fuckit

If artillerymen, officers etc need a round that will penetrate a metal cuirass they are already so deep in the brown smelly stuff we should issue snorkels.
Something light, ergonomic, and low maintenance for them.
 
Michael Lewis said:
Please keep in mind that we're in the 1890s, aka when the Luger was state of the art. That means that double stack magazines aren't going to be a thing for awhile and magazines in general aren't going to be cheap for awhile. You're thinking in terms of what would work in the 1930s.

I would otherwise agree with some of your points though.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes of course we won't have double stack magazines hence why I chose 7 rounds as a minimum not 9 as you did which would require a double stack for any service strength cartridge, or require a larger handgun. Moreover, both the best quality autoloading pistols of the first generation, ie the Luger and the Schwartzlose 1898 satisfy my requirements, there is nothing about them that is 1930s.
 
[X] Plan "Being Austria-Hungary doesn't mean we have to suck at logistics
-[X] Design the competition in two parts: cavalry pistol and other pistol.
-[X] Require unified cartridge for both pistols, parts commonality preferred but not required.
-[X] Cavalry Type Requirements: Must be at least 7.5mm bore, external hammer, 9 inch barrel, and carry eight rounds or more. Locking breech is recomended.
-[X] Other Type Requirements: Must carry at least 9 rounds and reach equivalent muzzle velocity of current service pistols with at least six inch barrel, along with possessing a safety or external hammer. Longer barrels, detachable stocks, and detachable magazines are recommended.
 
[X] Plan Fuckit
-[X] Design the competition in two parts: cavalry pistol and other pistol.
-[X] Cavalry Type Requirements: Must be at least 7.5mm bore, external hammer, 9 inch barrel, and carry eight rounds or more. Locking breech is recomended.
-[X] Other Type Requirements: Must carry at least 9 rounds and reach equivalent muzzle velocity of current service pistols with at least six inch barrel, along with possessing a safety or external hammer. Longer barrels, detachable stocks, and detachable magazines are recommended.

The oldest semi auto pistol cartridges still being made that i'm aware of are .380 9mm and .45acp.
 
Sarpedon said:
I mean yes the cavalry wants something beefy and manly but get them a flat shooting high velocity cartridge in a decently sized magazine and that'll do the job for them and the infantry just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Sarpedon said:
Yes of course we won't have double stack magazines hence why I chose 7 rounds as a minimum not 9 as you did which would require a double stack for any service strength cartridge, or require a larger handgun. Moreover, both the best quality autoloading pistols of the first generation, ie the Luger and the Schwartzlose 1898 satisfy my requirements, there is nothing about them that is 1930s.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I see. It looks like we just had a different idea of what counts as a "decently sized magazine".
NothingNow said:
It's not that far out of line, and doublestack magazines are doable at the moment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doable at the moment for how much money? Remember that magazines in general weren't cheap for quite some time after their introduction (this is why some early handguns had heel magazine releases -- you weren't going to just throw away something that expensive so your hand would be down there catching the magazine anyways).
 
All right let's talk about methods used to load our semi-auto pistol. Firstly we have stripper clips, which are the simplest in terms of design, production, and cost. However as a practical method for reloading, they have the problem of you have to smash down the magazine spring all at once, which for larger capacity or magazines holding larger heavier rounds is not easy. It will be sticky and hard to depress the spring in ideal conditions, never mind those of stress, or in poor weather/at night. Also removing rounds to clear a jam or what have you is a disaster since it will at best spray rounds everywhere. As to an en bloc, well those have the issue of durability, but more importantly how they are ejected or removed from the action? Is it going to drop out of the action in the bottom, with the requisite avenue for debris and mud and dust to foul it up? Are there going to be springs to eject it, increasing the size and complexity of the pistol, along with more small parts to break and thus repair in the field? Granted, detachable magazines will be more expensive, and can be damaged in use, but they are generally more idiot proof/less finicky with regards to the actual process of reloading. Bringing hand to hand is not really a motion you can fuck up, even in times of stress or the dark.

On another note, without double stack magazines going for more than 7-8 rounds of a solid caliber requires a much bigger gun then is necessary or probably even desirable for the Infantry. Again this is going to be something for closer ranges, a sidearm in case the officers don't have their men around, or the artillery cannot reach their carbine in time. if we want more we need to increase weight and size or decrease caliber, neither of which is desirable.

Michael Lewis said:
I see. It looks like we just had a different idea of what counts as a "decently sized magazine".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Within the limitations of the time, I mean the only early semi auto service pistols over 8 rounds were basically the Roth-Krnka and the C96 for things that were not .32ACP. Granted a double stack would be fantastic, but we need to see whats available.

EDIT: I think in the beginning we need to be more general in our requirements and then narrow down as we get a better idea whats out there, and I think the larger magazine requirement with a solid service cartridge works against that.
 
Last edited:
[x]Plan for the Future

Sarpedon said:
EDIT: I think in the beginning we need to be more general in our requirements and then narrow down as we get a better idea whats out there, and I think the larger magazine requirement with a solid service cartridge works against that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed. Remember, people, we're not sending out a list of requirements and saying "Design a pistol to meet this", we're putting together a list of requirements and asking "What pistols currently on the market meet this?"
 
[x]Plan for the Future
-[x] Pistol is to be common across cavalry and infantry, as such the weapon must be of a locked breech design.
-[x]Pistol must hold at least 7 rounds in the detachable box magazine, have a trigger pull of at least 2.3kg, manual safety that is not a grip safety and ergonomic, easy to clean with little or no tools required for disassembly. Caliber must be at the least 7.5mm and muzzle velocity no less than 340m/s. Indication of a loaded chamber is also important.

I'd suggest we perhaps fend off the cavalry complaints by promising them a longer barrelled version of the officer's sidearm, getting more oomph out of the common cartridge.
 
[x]Plan for the Future
-[x] Pistol is to be common across cavalry and infantry, as such the weapon must be of a locked breech design.
-[x]Pistol must hold at least 7 rounds in the detachable box magazine, have a trigger pull of at least 2.3kg, manual safety that is not a grip safety and ergonomic, easy to clean with little or no tools required for disassembly. Caliber must be at the least 7.5mm and muzzle velocity no less than 340m/s. Indication of a loaded chamber is also important.

I think it's worth noting that iterative improvements to the comparatively limited issue of pistols is a far simpler matter than it would be for the enormous production runs of the service rifle, so we can more than afford to take a degree of risk and gamble on various features that have the most promising future.
 
The problem of having the pistol the same between officers and cavalry is you get a pistol too big for officers, too small for cavalry or both.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top