Remove ads

Gunsmith Katsumi - Akitsukuni Arms Design Quest

Reader mode
Remove ads
Character Sheet
  • Informational
    • Tachibana Katsumi

    Stress: 5/10

    Accomplishments
    Mechanical Engineering degree
    Got a job in your field
    Type 37 Special Purpose Rifle
    Type 38 Self-Loading Pistol

    Friends
    Maeda Rumi: Your roommate.
    Sanders Clara Rose: A colleague who works for Naylor, Sons & Daughters.

    Coworkers
    Mr. Watanabe: Your superior.
    Mr. Akutagawa: The boss of the company.

    Workshop 3
    Ms. Ikeda Nioh: Chemist. She also seems to be Mr Watanabe's personal secretary, but you're not sure if that's an official position.
    Mr. Yakade Yasuo: Physicist, specialized in ballistics. A living, breathing Technical Appendix C.
    Mx. Kusonoki Mayumi: Has a degree in materials science. Gets a look on their face when they say they know more about wood than anyone.
    Mr. Shiragiku Hideyoshi: Metalworker. Having met him, you've learned why metalworking is a craft and the meaning of the phrase "thinks himself heaven's gift to women".
    Mr. Kashiwa Ichiro: An apprentice gunsmith with a background in carpentry and actually using guns on people.

    Technologies
    Rifles (Familiar)
    Shotguns (Familiar)
    Pistols (Familiar)

    Rotate-and-pull bolts (Practical)
    Straight-pull bolts (Practical)
    Aperture sights (Practical)
    Stripper clips (Practical)
    Lever-delayed blowback operation (Practical)
    Double-stack magazines (Practical)
    Single-action handguns (Practical)
    En bloc clips (Conceptual)
    Simple blowback operation (Conceptual)
    Short recoil operation (Conceptual)
    Toggle-delayed blowback operation (Conceptual)
    Blow forward operation (Conceptual)
    Simple blowback operation (Conceptual)
    Double-action pistols (Conceptual)
    Automatic revolvers (Conceptual)
     
    Last edited:
  • Informational
    • [x] Pistol must use ammunition currently in widespread international service.
    [x] (No mandatory stipulation on action type)
    [x] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [x] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [x] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds

    Sadly this is far, far too light for us to be graced by the mighty Mars Automatic pistol. Honestly 650g empty is incredibly light for what is likely going to be a practical handgun on issue to drivers and the like. Otherwise some cheap straight blowback pistol would be ideal.

    Also a 1kg limit lets us see some more wild abominations and those are always really fun.
     
    Vebyast said:
    I feel like that means you can't use anything about it as evidence relating to the feasibility of bottom-cylinder revolvers, lol. It'd be like using the maxim gun's water jacket to argue against the portability of SMGs.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Hence why I phrased the whole thing as 'why the Mateba is a pain in the ass'. Not why 'bottom-cylinder revolvers are a pain in the ass'. I said the Mateba was the gun I was most familiar with that used this. So I am well aware half the list of issues is something unique to just the gun, and labeled the explanation as such.
    Vebyast said:
    If there have only ever been three attempts at bottom-cylinder revolvers, only one of which wasn't chambered in a rifle cartridge or gas-operated, I wouldn't say that that avenue has been anything like sufficiently well-explored to say that the design has been "solved".
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Now this is plain old fashioned misreading. When I say revolvers, it should've been pretty clear from the context I mean conventional top-cylinder revolvers. Why would I be saying a design has been solved when my argument is that said design is not worth exploring? It's just nonsensical.
     
    Always Late said:
    Hence why I phrased the whole thing as 'why the Mateba is a pain in the ass'. Not why 'bottom-cylinder revolvers are a pain in the ass'. I said the Mateba was the gun I was most familiar with that used this. So I am well aware half the list of issues is something unique to just the gun, and labeled the explanation as such.

    Now this is plain old fashioned misreading. When I say revolvers, it should've been pretty clear from the context I mean conventional top-cylinder revolvers. Why would I be saying a design has been solved when my argument is that said design is not worth exploring? It's just nonsensical.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I think that I phrased my sentence wrong. Allow me to try to clarify. If bottom-cylinder revolvers haven't been explored at all, how can you say that they're not worth exploring? And how can you say that revolvers in general are solved - which you are, if you're saying that bottom-cylinder revolvers aren't worth exploring - if bottom-cylinder revolvers haven't been explored at all?
     
    We are at a point in time in which you can still seriously play around with using revolvers as a military sidearm, so it is a tempting idea to see what manner of gun wizardry we could achieve.
     
    Vebyast said:
    I think that I phrased my sentence wrong. Allow me to try to clarify. If bottom-cylinder revolvers haven't been explored at all, how can you say that they're not worth exploring? And how can you say that revolvers in general are solved - which you are, if you're saying that bottom-cylinder revolvers aren't worth exploring - if bottom-cylinder revolvers haven't been explored at all?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    I can say that because I accept the data that exists as having validity, however small it may be. I would say bottom-cylinders have been explored. You, however fundamentally refuse to accept three attempts, or one very detailed one, as having any valid evidence to present or being in sufficient number to establish a pattern. If you would like for me to provide additional examples of revolvers of this type, I apologize for not possessing SEKRET DOKUMENS or access to the inner sanctums of the NRA. If you wish to argue that bottom-cylinder revolvers can be made without increasing mechanical complexity, by all means share. I'm interested in your proposition.
     
    Always Late said:
    If you would like for me to provide additional examples of revolvers of this type, I apologize for not possessing SEKRET DOKUMENS or access to the inner sanctums of the NRA.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    What the fuck?

    You've already accepted that the Mateba isn't useful as evidence because it's a gas-operated clownshow; its success or lack thereof is useless for evaluating the effectiveness of bottom-cylinder revolvers. I don't even know why people call it a revolver.

    One of the other bottom-cylinder revolvers is useless for evaluating the effectiveness of bottom-cylinder revolvers because it's chambered in a damn rifle cartridge. A russian rifle cartridge, no less. Every handgun chambered for a rifle cartridge fails.

    The final bottom-cylinder revolver, the Rhino, doesn't look like it failed very much, if at all.

    There has been precisely one historical attempt at a pure, simple bottom-cylinder revolver without any other confounding factors. And you seem to be using that single attempt as evidence that the entire idea is so worthless that it's not even worth asking questions about. How do you claim that that one attempt failed so badly that it discredits the entire concept? All you've demonstrated to me so far is that nobody has tried, not that everybody will fail. If the first and only attempt at it ever didn't even fail, that doesn't suggest to me that the entire concept is a dead end, that suggests to me that it's a promising line of inquiry and maybe a second, more refined attempt will demonstrate some real wins.
    Always Late said:
    If you wish to argue that bottom-cylinder revolvers can be made without increasing mechanical complexity, by all means share. I
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Fucking what? I started off this fucking question by saying that I'm not a gun nut. I went googling and all I found was a bunch of people who didn't appear to know what they were talking about saying that bottom-cylinder revolvers were just more complex and not actually explaining why. I asked if someone could explain why. You don't seem to be able to explain why. You haven't even established that they are more complex! For all I know the Rhino has half as many moving parts as the "standard revolver" you're tongue-worshiping. The only gun you admit any familiarity at all with is the one that's barely even a revolver.

    What is your fucking problem?
     
    Last edited:
    Vebyast said:
    The final bottom-cylinder revolver, the Rhino, doesn't look like it failed very much, if at all.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Yeah. The Rhino is the only thing really applicable here, and it's selling reasonably well for an expensive and weirdly shaped gun in a fairly conservative market. Like the main reason nobody does it is because revolvers have looked pretty much the same for coming on two hundred years because it works well enough and the market is used to that.

    Basically, the same reason why semi-auto pistol ergonomics haven't changed dramatically since the introduction of the Hi-power either. It's good enough, it's familiar, and trying to sell something really new is very high risk.
     
    Last edited:
    FrangibleCover said:
    "As I'm sure you know, I've been very pleased with your work over the last few months and I thought I'd give you a challenge."
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    [X] Pistol must use ammunition currently in widespread international service.
    [X] (No mandatory stipulation on action type)
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds
     
    Vebyast said:
    What the fuck?

    You've already accepted that the Mateba isn't useful as evidence because it's a gas-operated clownshow; its success or lack thereof is useless for evaluating the effectiveness of bottom-cylinder revolvers. I don't even know why people call it a revolver.

    One of the other bottom-cylinder revolvers is useless for evaluating the effectiveness of bottom-cylinder revolvers because it's chambered in a damn rifle cartridge. A russian rifle cartridge, no less. Every handgun chambered for a rifle cartridge fails.

    The final bottom-cylinder revolver, the Rhino, doesn't look like it failed very much, if at all.

    There has been precisely one historical attempt at a pure, simple bottom-cylinder revolver without any other confounding factors. And you seem to be using that single attempt as evidence that the entire idea is so worthless that it's not even worth asking questions about. How do you claim that that one attempt failed so badly that it discredits the entire concept? All you've demonstrated to me so far is that nobody has tried, not that everybody will fail. If the first and only attempt at it ever didn't even fail, that doesn't suggest to me that the entire concept is a dead end, that suggests to me that it's a promising line of inquiry and maybe a second, more refined attempt will demonstrate some real wins.

    Fucking what? I started off this fucking question by saying that I'm not a gun nut. I went googling and all I found was a bunch of people who didn't appear to know what they were talking about saying that bottom-cylinder revolvers were just more complex and not actually explaining why. I asked if someone could explain why. You don't seem to be able to explain why. You haven't even established that they are more complex! For all I know the Rhino has half as many moving parts as the "standard revolver" you're tongue-worshiping. The only gun you admit any familiarity at all with is the one that's barely even a revolver.

    What is your fucking problem?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    My 'problem' is one, you refuse to accept the information I volunteered to you as relevant or fundamentally valid, and two you are acting like I have kicked your dog for answering your query and clarifying your misunderstandings. I apologize, but I can't change what engineers have done in the past.

    I'll repeat myself, to be clear: If you don't think three existing samples are enough to validate a design, that's your opinion. You are entitled to one, more power to you. It doesn't mean you have a right to scream at me about gun designers past and present design choices that I have no control over. If you would like me to talk about or research something, I will gladly do what I can to fulfill that. If I can't do it, I'll apologize and explain why. If you want me to validate your prexisting opinions, I have no role there.
     
    I think my only opinion at this point is:

    [X] Pistol must use a revolver action

    If this quest is anything like Matsura's Planes, it's all about building cool stuff that would have worked but was too weird to be accepted in reality, and bottom-cylinder revolvers IMO look awesome. The mechanics must be pretty solid, given that IRL history's only published bottom-cylinder revolver succeeded despite the conservative market and having departed from hundreds of years of incremental refinement. And, finally, it's an opportunity to mess with our boss, who really needs to suffer. Just like tandem wings and pusher-prop dive-bombers, this is an opportunity for one creative win to change history. Let's have some fun.

    edit:
    Always Late said:
    My 'problem' is one, you refuse to accept the information I volunteered to you as relevant or fundamentally valid, and two you are acting like I have kicked your dog for answering your query and clarifying your misunderstandings. I apologize, but I can't change what engineers have done in the past.

    I'll repeat myself, to be clear: If you don't think three existing samples are enough to validate a design, that's your opinion. You are entitled to one, more power to you. It doesn't mean you have a right to scream at me about gun designers past and present design choices that I have no control over. If you would like me to talk about or research something, I will gladly do what I can to fulfill that. If I can't do it, I'll apologize and explain why. If you want me to validate your prexisting opinions, I have no role there.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Let me make this very, very clear.

    You can't even argue that every single gun designer in history failed to make bottom-cylinder revolvers work and failed so badly that we never even heard about their prototypes. If you google for "worst production firearms", you'll find that people are willing to make really incredibly shitty guns. If bottom-cylinder revolvers were really that bad, we'd see some of them on those lists of worst firearms ever. We don't.

    You have no real-world evidence. You have no principled arguments. When questioned, your response was to call me a SEKRET NRA rather than to find another angle or offer different evidence. When I asked further questions, you doubled down. The sole comment on this topic from someone other than you basically said "because people are traditionalists and it actually works pretty well", which seems to be well confirmed by your slavish adherence to "past and present gun designers".

    I'm done.
     
    Last edited:
    [X] Pistol must use ammunition currently in widespread international service.
    [X] Pistol must use an automatic action
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds
     
    Honestly I'm going to shy away from revolvers because not making a revolver gives us more options. Sure, we could build some bottom chamber monstrosity or LeMat 2 Imperial Boogaloo, but that's nothing compared to the wonderful world of early semiautomatic pistols. Are we going to be sensible and design a Makrov clone? Hell no. I expect long recoil forward magazine designs! I long for side breaking toggle locks! I see ball bearing rotors in our future, boys and girls and neither, and next to them are helical magazines and carbine conversions! Heck, we might even import some crazy Jewish guy and wind up with a gas operated monstrosity that can kill a horse through another horse!

    (And no credit to whoever figures out the last one's origins)
     
    [X] Pistol must use current Imperial service 9mm Type 33 ammunition.
    [X] Pistol must use a revolver action
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥100
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 650g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 6 rounds

    To be completely honest, I kind of want to design as small and cheap as we can. Much different set of constraints than making the "best" gun that we can.
     
    [x] Pistol must use ammunition with a calibre of at least .4 inches and a weight of at least 200 grains.
    [X] Pistol must use a revolver action
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds

    Because if we wanna make weird monsters, lets make weird monstrosities.
     
    [X] Pistol must use ammunition currently in widespread international service.
    [X] Pistol must use an automatic action
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 650g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds
     
    [X] Pistol must use current Imperial service 9mm Type 33 ammunition.
    [X] Pistol must use a revolver action
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds

    An eight-round revolver in 9mm Standard with otherwise minimal constraints. I am purposely voting for either the most interesting option, or the worst one.
     
    Early semi-autos are WILD, so designing one would be a blast, even if I love the classic revolver look.

    I'm thinking fixed magazine, 10-round box mag fed by stripper clips. :V
     
    Last edited:
    [X] Pistol must use current Imperial service 9mm Type 33 ammunition.
    [X] Pistol must use a revolver action
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥200
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 6 rounds
     
    [X] Pistol must use ammunition currently in widespread international service.
    [X] (No mandatory stipulation on action type)
    [X] Pistol must cost less than ¥100
    [X] Pistol must weigh less than 1000g unloaded
    [X] Pistol must hold at least 8 rounds
     
    @Sir_Travelsalot I'm honestly serious; there were some Austro-Hungarian pistols in the First World War that used stripper clips and a fixed box magazine in the handle; Steyer M1912, Roth–Steyr M1907, Roth-Sauer M1900...
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top