← Home ← Back to /k/

Thread 64121429

119 posts 96 images /k/
Anonymous No.64121429 >>64121445 >>64121640 >>64123206 >>64126996 >>64127315 >>64128121
Post pistol locking/action systems
no reposts
must post example
can't think of one? you lost

I'll start: roller locked
Anonymous No.64121445 >>64130629
>>64121429 (OP)
Rolling block.
Anonymous No.64121640 >>64126847
>>64121429 (OP)
Simple blowback
Anonymous No.64122018 >>64122177 >>64122180 >>64127398
Straight pull locked bolt
Anonymous No.64122169 >>64122329
Walther/Beretta style tilting locking block.
Presumably we are excluding delayed and unlocked actions?

Also, I wish the CZ52 was a better executed and designed gun, because I think roller-locking for a short-recoil pistol is neat, gives you similar benefits to a tilting locking block.
Anonymous No.64122177 >>64122303
>>64122018
>Straight pull
but that's wrong you retard
Anonymous No.64122180 >>64122303 >>64126166 >>64130629
"Hesitation-locked."

>>64122018
It's not straight-pull though, it's a turnbolt like on a Mauser or Enfield, if you don't turn to unlock the bolt first, you won't be able to pull it back.
Anonymous No.64122303 >>64122314 >>64123242 >>64126166 >>64126347 >>64126414
>>64122177
>>64122180
It's locked by the *turn* of the bolt, Retards.

>"Hesitation"
>turnbolt like on a Mauser
Wrong.
Those have a handle. Welrod bolt is pulled straight back. It turns to unlock. Mechanism is not like the rifle bolts or breech, it directly feeds.
In no way is it "like" the bolt action rifles.
Anonymous No.64122314 >>64122332
>>64122303
>It's locked by the *turn* of the bolt
Which means it is NOT a straight pull.

>It turns to unlock.
Yes. Which means it's not a straight pull.

>Mechanism is not like the rifle bolts or breech
It's exactly like a bolt-action rifle. Only difference is where you grab the bolt. Welrod has a knob at the back instead of an offset handle
Anonymous No.64122329 >>64123192 >>64130754
>>64122169
>Also, I wish the CZ52 was a better executed and designed gun
What's funny is that for the longest time the lore was the CZ52 was actually a very sturdy pistol, moreso than the Tokarev, when it was anything but.
Anonymous No.64122332 >>64122520 >>64123242
>>64122314
>exactly like a bolt-action rifle
No it is not.
Internal feed mechanism and breech is *nothing like* a Mauser or Enfield.
Now SHUT THE FUCK UP.

>straight pull
It turns to lock. Straight pull back. It *HAS TO BE LOCKED* which is why the knob at rear end of the bolt turns 90deg to engage the dual lugs, another dissimilarity with all rifle bolts. NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER TO A RIFLE MECHANISM, in several aspects.
Fucking midwit.
Anonymous No.64122453
Toggle lock
>how was this not the first post
Anonymous No.64122520 >>64122548
>>64122332
>It turns to lock.
Which makes it not straight pull.

Normally "straight pull" refers to actions which lock automatically, requiring ONLY a straight pull and no rotation. For example, Blaser R8 or Swiss K31.

> turns 90deg to engage the dual lugs
Right, I'm glad we agree it's not a straight pull.

>NO SIMILARITY WHATSOEVER TO A RIFLE MECHANISM,
Except the lugs. And the magazine. And the bolt. It's just a bog standard bolt-action with a rotary knob instead of an offset handle.
Anonymous No.64122548 >>64123061 >>64123242
>>64122520
>the lugs
Mauser and Enfield have 3 lugs each, latter rotates sixty degrees and each with *with additional notch-engagement* and final breech lock, the feed mechanisms are totally different, the chambers and boltfaces of the rifles are totally different from the silenced-pistol Welrod which has its lugs at rear of the bolt knob. Completely different mechanics, dimensions, shapes, flanges, channels, locks EVERYTHING different.

>'Normally'
(You) do not know what the fuck (You)'re posting about. Straight pull doesn't have to pertain exclusively to 'automatic lock' actions.
Anonymous No.64122626
Rotating barrel
Anonymous No.64122720 >>64126865
tilting barrel
Anonymous No.64122970
Flintlock
Anonymous No.64123061 >>64123138 >>64130629
pederson hesitation lock

>>64122548
can't tell if you're esl and retarded or just retarded
Anonymous No.64123138
>>64123061
>hurr durr
Just shut the fuck up midwit.
Straight pull locked bolt
Anonymous No.64123146
Blow-FORWARD, bitches
Anonymous No.64123174
gas delayed blowback
grip-squeeze cocked
Anonymous No.64123192 >>64123218 >>64123247 >>64130732
>>64122329
The design isn't an issue at all, the problem was the parts were practically made out of soviet pig iron. The bearings tend to squish and deform extremely quickly, the firing pin is literally brittle, and most of them eventually start firing when decocked. If you replace the parts with modern, strong, heat-treated ones, it is a fantastic pistol. The QC when they made them was just very bad and sketchy all around.
Anonymous No.64123197
Wheel locked
Anonymous No.64123206 >>64123212 >>64123213
>>64121429 (OP)
Fixed barrel, gas operated, rotating bolt.
Anonymous No.64123208
gas delayed blowback
Anonymous No.64123212 >>64123233
>>64123206
I want to see a desert eagle chambered in a normal pistol round. You would probably need the weakest spring in the world to make it cycle
Anonymous No.64123213 >>64123346
>>64123206
Barrel removed to show bolt, recoil springs, and gas piston.
Anonymous No.64123218 >>64123247
>>64123192
NTA but the '52's chamber support is criminally thin. It's why you'd find instances where it would split along the bottom. The pistol all-around is just fucked.
Anonymous No.64123219 >>64125584
bolt action single shot
Anonymous No.64123233
>>64123212
It would be a function of gas volume and how big the gas port is at the chamber . The current platform will run .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .429DE and .50AE using the same recoil springs. A scaled down Deagle with the same interchangeable barrel/bolt system to run with a reasonable double stack mag grip size that could run 9x19mm, 10mm and some other common calibers would be neat. The fixed barrel is very accurate and the gas system soaks up a lot of recoil.
Anonymous No.64123239 >>64123280
Single shot artillery breach
Anonymous No.64123242 >>64123430 >>64123441
>>64122303
>Those have a handle.
Irrelevant.

>Welrod bolt is pulled straight back.
No it isn't, there's no cam mechanism which turns the bolt for you, or which untilts the bolt for you, like on actual straight pull rifles.

>Mechanism is not like the rifle bolts or breech, it directly feeds.
Completely fucking irrelevant.

>>64122332
Nigger, it's effectively like if you cut off the bolt handle on a turn bolt rifle and had a knurled texture for grasping and turning it, it's the same motion.

>>64122548
>Mauser and Enfield have 3 lugs each, latter rotates sixty degrees and each with *with additional notch-engagement* and final breech lock, the feed mechanisms are totally different
Irrelevant.

>the chambers and boltfaces of the rifles are totally different from the silenced-pistol W
Welrod which has its lugs at rear of the bolt knob.
Also irrelevant.

>Completely different mechanics, dimensions, shapes, flanges, channels, locks EVERYTHING different.
There's indeed multiple different ways to make a turn bolt action, yes.
Anonymous No.64123247 >>64123267
>>64123192
The design isn't that good either.

>>64123218
Yes, there's all kinds of design which just isn't good. The decocker being a deathtrap is one more such thing.
Anonymous No.64123267 >>64123338
>>64123247
The Vz52 is honestly a rare L for Czechshit weapons. At least it was just a pistol, but goddamn it is such a massive cockup that somehow made it into serial production.
Anonymous No.64123280 >>64123519 >>64126414
>>64123239
>artillery breach
What's that? You mean an interupted screw breach?
Anonymous No.64123287 >>64128035
no action
Anonymous No.64123338 >>64123350 >>64123434
>>64123267
Part of the problem is that the pistol had originally been designed for 9mm Luger, and was then hurriedly adapted to 7.62mm Tokarev for Warsaw Pact compliance, more or less like a factory caliber conversion, so as far as the pistol is concerned it's like you're always running +P.
That doesn't exactly excuse the infamously brittle firing pin, or the too literal decocker (if you were to Mexican Carry it), but it's one of the reasons for its problems.

And yeah, it's like the polar opposite of the CZ75, a really good pistol everyone likes. Always had this fantasy in my head of a CZ75 variant in 7.62mm Tokarev, or hell, some kind of weird hybrid of the CZ52 and CZ75.
Picture a double-stack frame with a DA/SA trigger and inverted slide rails, but then a roller-locked short-recoil action with that same kind of stylish angular slide. Either 9mm or 7.62mm, it'd be cool in either.

Oh yeah, and speaking of rollers, here's the H&K P9, which was their roller-delayed 9mm pistol.
Anonymous No.64123346 >>64123507
>>64123213
basically a mini semi-auto rifle action, pure sex
Anonymous No.64123350 >>64123371
>>64123338
>Always had this fantasy in my head of a CZ75 variant in 7.62mm Tokarev
what about the 7.5 fuck brno?
Anonymous No.64123371
>>64123350
That one's cool, but it's also a rather large pistol, like the Mk.23 or Desert Eagle, and 7.5mm Bruno is definitely a good cut above 7.62mm Tokarev in power, you're not getting power like that even out of PPSh-41.
Anonymous No.64123430
>>64123242
>wall of plebbitspacedspew
Shut the fuck up brainlet
Anonymous No.64123434
>>64123338
>H&K P9, which was their roller-delayed 9mm pistol
fixed barrel
Anonymous No.64123441 >>64124760 >>64125456
>>64123242
>'Nigger, it's effectively like if you'
None of what (You) posted is correct, all of it is Wrong. A bolt action pistol (which the Welrod is *not*, has a totally different chamber-breech-EVERYTHING) is posted upthread. Stay off of the internet
Anonymous No.64123507
>>64123346
My brother pointed out that the slide is also the OP rod and bolt carrier.
Anonymous No.64123519 >>64123521
>>64123280
It uses a rotating breech block instead of an interrupted screw. The Lone Eagle was generally chambered in bottleneck rifle cartridges.
Anonymous No.64123521
>>64123519
the breech was rotated counter clockwise to lock
Anonymous No.64123599 >>64125464
rocket launcher
Anonymous No.64124760 >>64125356
>>64123441
fucking moron esl nigger
Anonymous No.64125356 >>64125527
>>64124760
>hurr durr "muh esl!!!!111!1!1111111"
Brainlets on /k/ how about 'muh putler' nafotroon
Anonymous No.64125456 >>64125584
>>64123441
You are an autistic retard, the Welrod is a bolt-action pistol whether you like it or not.
Anonymous No.64125464
>>64123599
>magazine with no feed lips
>reverse hammer which slams the cartridge onto a fixed firing pin
>no actual locking or anything
>action is just a steel tube and then a breech 'area' of sort with gas vents on it
Too unique to be good.
Anonymous No.64125527 >>64125584
>>64125356
you are esl and don't understand what a straight pull bolt action is. that's the only possible explanation for your severe retardation.
Anonymous No.64125584 >>64125886
>>64125456
>>64125527
>bolt-action pistol
Wrong.
This >>64123219 <--is


>"muh straight pull"
That is what the Welrod is. The 'bolt' only has lugs at the rear for locking, it pulls straight back and ejects the cartridge
Remington XP-100 *is* a bolt action pistol. (design after a full size rifle bolt action)
Fucking midwits.
Anonymous No.64125886 >>64126338
>>64125584
I hate that you're out there somewhere so confidently wrong about some rudimentary.

What part of bolt-action is confusing? It's a manually cycled bolt you have to turn and pull. The "turn" part means you aren't pulling straight.

I dont even understand *how* you believe what you're saying. Who told you the welrod is a straight-pull bolt action? How is it possible you think a bolt action is only a bolt action if it has lugs only at the front? I'm genuinely trying to understand you here. Are you saying its a straight pull because the bolt itself doesnt turn, and the the lugs turn independently to unlock? Because that's not what straight-pull means. It means you pull straight back on the bolt to unlock it. How are you getting this wrong?

There are plenty of bolt-action weapons that only have rear locking lugs that rotate with bolts that dont rotate. Bolt action shotguns and bolt action .22 LRs typically have rear lugs only. Those old sears bolt action shotguns have 2 part bolts where the front part doesnt rotate.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. The welrod is a well-documented firearm, does anyone on earth agree with you on this? Does anyone on earth agree with your definition of "straight-pull"? I hate to be like, "source?" But shit dude youre so obviously wrong I have to make sure im not missing something.

Anyway fuck all that, here's a benelli b76, an inertia-locked pistol that some claim is actually lever-delayed.
Anonymous No.64126166 >>64126338 >>64126414
John Browning's first automatic pistol design, using the same kind of swinging gas-lever he would later use for the famous Potatodigger machinegun.

The only guns I know of which use this type of actuation is Browning's prototypes and then the Potatodigger machinegun, a gun which actually functions remarkably well in spite of the slightly goofy operation.

>>64122303
"Hesitation-locked" is how John Pedersen, the designer of the Remington 51 pistol in this post: >>64122180 described its delayed action in his own patent, you fucking mongoloid.

Go and find me a source describing the Welrod pistol as being straight pull, while you're at it, you utter dipshit.
Anonymous No.64126338 >>64126537
>>64125886
>>64126166
>wallsoftext 'find me a source' HURR DURR 'anyway fuck all that
Fuck off Brainlet.

>"well documented firearm"
Who calls it a 'bolt action'?
It's not a Remington XP-100 <----That is a bolt action.
Are (You) **FUCKING RETARD** going to convince us that the Welrod is 'same as' an XP-100?
Fuck (You) midwit.

Welrod is straight pull locked bolt. It's a unique firearm action designed for a specific purpose, analogous to no other

Fucking retarded midwit 13-year-old Brainlets on 4chan jfc
Anonymous No.64126347 >>64126355
>>64122303
Has to be b8, no one can actually be this stupid.
Anonymous No.64126352
>rear lugs
Mauser K98 has a rear lug, as do many bolt action rifle designs. Nothing to do with design of the Welrod which is *TOTALLY DIFFERENT*
Rear-mounting of lugs on a bolt has no similarity or analog, to the Welrod design. It is unique among modern firearms, it was designed to interface with a chamber designed for integrally suppressed firing of a pistol cartridge and also be a relatively simple inexpensive-to-manufacture tool. You can't 'compare' it to other manually-operated bolts or bolt action long guns, period.
Anonymous No.64126355
>>64126347
Fuck off moron.
Walls of texts sperging the fuck out and absolutely no refutation of the central point just more hair-on-fire
>'b-but iddd hazzzz to fit in muh CatEgoRy'
Anonymous No.64126364
>'about some rudimentary'
ok ESL
Anonymous No.64126414 >>64126434
>>64123280
Nope, a rotating breechblock. It's very similar in principle to the "French 75" field gun. Other artillery pieces often use a vertically or horizontally sliding breechblock and I'm pretty sure there's a pistol with a vertically sliding breech (falling block) somewhere out there...

>>64122303
Not sure if intentional trolling or pure retardation.

>>64126166
>swinging gas-lever
Lovely!
Anonymous No.64126434
>>64126414
>hurr durr muh trolling
Stay off of the internet. Permanently
Total midwits in a midwit OP "topic"
Anonymous No.64126537 >>64126568
>>64126338
So Its a one-of-a-kind bolt action. Literally because you turn to unlock the bolt, then pull the bolt back. You have to at least admit that's the commonly understood definition of a bolt action.

The lugs, locking surfaces, shape, form, or whatever you're arbitrarily deciding the welrod is, has nothing to do with the term bolt action. Bolt action or straight pull is defined by what your hands are doing to manually cycle the action. Lever action and pump action firearms have all kinds of mechanisms. But if you swing a lever its a lever action. If you pump a pump, its a pump-action. If you pull a bolt straight back, its a straight pull. If you turn a bolt and pull it back, its a traditional bolt action. It's reductive, but it is what the words mean.

>>you could at least contribute to the thread. Fixed barrel, angular gas trap roller-delay. I actually dont know much about the Wolf ultramatics, there's very few people on the internet willing to take them apart.
Anonymous No.64126568 >>64126605
>>64126537
>more wall-o-text
Straight pull locked bolt.

>"turn a bolt and pull it back = 'traditional' bolt action" / "it's reductive"
No, it's you being picrel
Sorry the Welrod doesn't fit into your VideoGamer categories on/off 1s and 0s metagrid
Anonymous No.64126578
>contribute to the thread
64123174, 64123208, 64123599 and of course the head-exploder 64122018
Anonymous No.64126605 >>64126612
>>64126568
I know its stupid to ask, but how is the welrod anything but a traditional bolt action?
Anonymous No.64126612 >>64126762
>>64126605
Well for one, it's not like a Swiss K11/K31 rifle
for another, it's not like a Remington XP-100

Yes *OBVIOUSLY* it is "bolt action" or 'bolt operated' mechanism. The bolt, has to be manually operated. Agreed?
Anonymous No.64126623
Single shot โ€ฆ screw on barrel?
Anonymous No.64126762 >>64126778
>>64126612
I mean, id say its pretty fundamentally similar to any traditional bolt action, including the xp100

You hand a welrod to someone who's never used a welrod before, do you A) tell them to pull straight on the knurled bolt or B) tell them to rotate the knurled bolt, then pull it back?

>>electrically fired, multibarrel dart/harpoon gun.
Anonymous No.64126778 >>64126811 >>64126886
>>64126762
>"pretty fundamentally similar to any traditional bolt action"
Lotta words flowery language

When we're using these words to describe or name a firearm action/mechanism, it doesn't merely or solely refer to (e.g. "pump") the physical hand motion itself. That's all I'm pointing out, and that it's not so reducible, simple cut-and-dried for this topic (of firearm mechanical actions)
Anonymous No.64126811 >>64126857
>>64126778
it has two bolt lugs that have to manually be turned to clear the locking abutments so you can pull the bolt back. it's a bolt action.
Anonymous No.64126847 >>64126858
>>64121640
what about complicated blowback?
Anonymous No.64126857
>>64126811
checked, See *-------------------> 64126612
Anonymous No.64126858
>>64126847
or pretty fundamentally similar to Traditional blowback
Anonymous No.64126865 >>64127651
>>64122720
big gun or small hand?
Anonymous No.64126867
roller locked fixed barrel

with

gas delayed blowback
grip-squeeze cocked
Anonymous No.64126886 >>64126956 >>64126978 >>64128049
>>64126778
I meant exactly what I said, want me to just call it a typical bolt action? Welrods have a linear striker, a rotary lock you have to rotate yourself, and a linear bolt. It looks like the striker is cocked on closing, which is different from the standard mauser action, but its not that weird. If it had a normal bolt handle sticking off the side instead of just a knurled knob, it barely be any different from a 'normal' traditional bolt action.

If you rotate a bolt and pull it back yourself, its a bolt action.

If you're trying to say "by that definition, liberators are bolt action." Well that's just fucking retarded. Liberators have a sliding breechplate and a striker that swivels out of the way.

>>short recoil vertical sliding locking block
Anonymous No.64126956
>>64126886
>Liberator picrel
Had nothing to do with text of my post, just a pic randomly uploaded to topic
dgaf about yr walls of feelstext
Anonymous No.64126978
>>64126886
>posting Burtโ€™s pic
Delete this cuh
Anonymous No.64126996
>>64121429 (OP)
Gas operated, breech locked cross bolt
Anonymous No.64127198
direct blowback internal hammer ('H')
with decocker, first handgun to have one
Anonymous No.64127315
>>64121429 (OP)
bow
Anonymous No.64127398 >>64127755
>>64122018
What is it about this gun that attracts retards like flies to shit? There are still people repeating the ancient fuddlore that the sound was something like 70 decibels.
Anonymous No.64127576
Long recoil
Anonymous No.64127604
short recoil with barrel/bolt locking block
Anonymous No.64127651
>>64126865
>pinky ring
Small gay hands
Anonymous No.64127751 >>64127774
Blish Locked
Anonymous No.64127755
This one is blowback, but sort of delayed, the Kimball pistol, in .30 Carbine, and the one-off select-fire variant to boot.

While there's no rollers, levers, or gas ports for delaying this slide, what the Kimball does is that it has an annular ring machined into its chamber, which the brass casing expands into as the case is fired, which is then forced to be straightened out as pressure pushes back against the breech.

Virtually the opposite of the lateral flutes in the chamber of a G3 rifle, this concept has previously been used in the Fritz-Mann pistol, a little .25 Auto pocket piece, but even with that little cartridge it tends to spit out bulged cases. The Kimball pistols meanwhile were widely described as terrifying to shoot, urban legend states that the slide came loose and lodged itself into someone's eyesocket, but that's almost certainly just someone's imagination.

Most successfully, this concept was used for the FG-42 by Louis Stange, a rifle/LMG using a long-stroke gas piston and rotating bolt, the chamber's profile intentionally not being shaped after the taper of 7.92mm Mauser, making the casing and its shoulder expand into that space. The entire point was really just for increasing margins to allow for weight savings elsewhere.

>>64127398
Isn't that because some source somewhere claimed it was as low as 70db, even though that wasn't really correct, but people have just repeated it?
Anonymous No.64127774 >>64127825 >>64127932 >>64129861
>>64127751
>Blish Lock
Weird way to spell direct blowback.
Anonymous No.64127825 >>64127954
>>64127774
Referring to the model of Thompson in his pic?
idk which one that is (can't read the rollmarks)
Anonymous No.64127932 >>64127954
>>64127774
It technically works as an independent system, just not in the tommy gun and, iirc, wouldn't really work on any gun that'd be man portable. I don't recall if it's based on an existing naval cannon that works on the same principle or if it's based on a hypothetical naval cannon principle though.
Anonymous No.64127954 >>64127989
>>64127825
>>64127932
The "Blish lock" doesn't do anything in any gun aside from ad mass to the reciprocating parts. The entire "Blish principle" supposes that dissimilar metals undergo a non-linear increase in the coefficient of friction when placed under sufficient pressure. This doesn't happen. It's an entirely false premise. The laws of physics just don't work like that.
Anonymous No.64127989 >>64128013 >>64129597
>>64127954
One google later
>The Blish lock resulted from John Blish's observation of large naval guns. He noticed that the breech blocks of naval guns with interrupted thread breeches remained closed when fired with full charges, but tended to unscrew when fired with light charges. He concluded that dissimilar metals have a tendency to adhere to each other when subjected to very high pressure. This principle of metallic adhesion of dissimilar metals became known as the Blish principle. Blish put this theory to use in a delayed-blowback breech mechanism. He developed a working model that used a simple wedge as the delay mechanism, and was eventually assigned U.S. patent 1,131,319 on March 9, 1915.

>Despite the patent and use of the system in the Thompson submachine gun, the Blish principle found little scientific backing.[1] In the simplified WWII M1 Thompson re-design, the Blish locking block was removed without substantial change to the gun's function with the .45 ACP cartridge. The Blish principle did provide delay in the Thompson prototypes using the .45 Remingtonโ€“Thompson and .30 Carbine cartridges which generate higher pressure than the .45 ACP, a pistol round. With high power rifle cartridges such as .30-06 Springfield, the delay offered by the Blish principle was not enough to prevent the violent ejection of fired cartridge casings being hazardous to bystanders. The autorifles developed by Thompson, Colt, and BSA in the 1920s using the Blish principle never went beyond the prototype or trial stage.
Anonymous No.64128013 >>64129597 >>64129876
>>64127989
>The Blish principle did provide delay in the Thompson prototypes using the .45 Remingtonโ€“Thompson and .30 Carbine cartridges which generate higher pressure than the .45 ACP, a pistol round. With high power rifle cartridges such as .30-06 Springfield, the delay offered by the Blish principle was not enough to prevent the violent ejection of fired cartridge casings being hazardous to bystanders. The autorifles developed by Thompson, Colt, and BSA in the 1920s using the Blish principle never went beyond the prototype or trial stage.

That's an incorrect assessment which suggests the Blish action works to some degree, it doesn't.
While these firearms do operate with a delaying mechanism, it's completely unrelated to the Blish principle.
The delaying mechanism is simple mechanical disadvantage, like a lever delayed gun, or a roller delayed gun.
Blish's idea that bronze/brass magically sticks to steel under pressure doesn't factor into the equation.
While there are such parts in the gun, they don't actually do anything.

If you look inside an early Thompson gun with the Blish lock, you'll see that there are felt oiler pads that apply a film of oil to the "locking block" ever time the bolt cycles to the rear. If the entire idea is that the bronze locking block will act as a friction brake and stick to the steel of the receiver, why in the ever-loving fuck would you apply oil to the breaking surfaces? If the different metals need to stick to each other to delay the opening of the bolt, putting oil between the surfaces would make the system completely ineffective.

There's also the fact that the rate of fire on such a gun doesn't change depending on whether or not it's lubricated.'
If the bronze "locking block" actually did stick to the receiver and delay the action, oiling the gun would increase the rate of fire substantially.
Anonymous No.64128035 >>64128056
Did we ever figure out wtf picrel is? I remember some time ago we all put our heads together trying to figure out how itโ€™s not just simple short recoil operation with a redundant gas port/expansion chamber/barrel sleeve, but we just couldnโ€™t do it. Has the case been cracked since?

>>64123287
The first firearm. I was reading up about the history of the gunpowder era yesterday. Kinda cool Iโ€™m seeing an anon posting about it now.

Boy did it take some centuries before the Chinese figured out what to do with gunpowder. Decades IIRC between discovering the magic alchemical potion of gunpowder (burned a guyโ€™s house down) to revisiting it, managing to contain it, and writing down their discovery. โ€œCAUTION: black potion go boom, be loud, hot, fireโ€
Anonymous No.64128049 >>64128078
>>64126886
>short recoil vertical sliding locking block

I havenโ€™t seen the insides of the Rock island gun but from what you describe, this is how the Arsenal Strike One worked. Barrel went straight back and a locking block dropped to disengage the barrel from the slide. Kinda neat. A Rotating barrel would be ideal but it kinda precludes the use of any muzzle device.
Anonymous No.64128056 >>64128071
>>64128035
>Did we ever figure out wtf picrel is?
Short recoil, rotating barrel with a single locking lug located on top of the chamber.
It also has a gas operated recoil booster device, similar to a Vicker's gun, with gas ports near the muzzle that vent gas into a cavity in the barrel shroud, shoving the barrel backwards to ensure it recoils hard enough to cycle.
That's why there are gas rings on the outside of the barrel.
Anonymous No.64128071 >>64128098
>>64128056
Begs the question: why? Short recoil works fine for every other pistol in every other caliber. Why is the gas assist required for this gun?
Anonymous No.64128078
>>64128049
>short recoil vertical sliding locking block
Not a new idea, just implemented a bit differently.
See the Bergmann-Bayard model 1910, and the Finnish Lathi model 1935 pistols.
The Mauser C96 and some Nambu pistols work similarly, but they have pivoting locking blocks rather than sliding ones.
Anonymous No.64128098
>>64128071
5.7 isn't exactly the most potent cartridge out there, meaning there's not a whole lot of recoil energy to work with.
Maybe the engineers determined that the barrel needed a harder push than just recoil alone to reliably cycle the comparatively chunky slide, especially if some owner decides to slap a massive optic on the thing, increasing the slide mass.
The only other rotating barrel 5.7mm pistol I know of is the new KelTec PR57, that doesn't have a recoil booster system, but it has a much lighter slide than the S&W.
Anonymous No.64128118
Short recoil, flapper locking.

Fun Fact: A prototype semi-auto rifle using the same system cost one of the Mauser brothers (Paul I think) an eye when it fired unlocked / out of battery.
Anonymous No.64128121
>>64121429 (OP)
Rotating barrel has been mentioned a few times, but I wonder if this is different enough to warrant a mention.

The Russian GSh-18.
Anonymous No.64129597 >>64129648
>>64127989
>>64128013
so (boiling it down) the claim is that, as to its use in Thompson designs the Blish provided 'some' (?) delay in the blowback for .45 ACP chambering but none at all for the higher-power cartridge guns?

Where is the empirical evidence on that claim,
i.e. has someone compared even the various iterations of Thompson smgs 1921 / 1928 / M1 in .45 ACP to measure "degree of blowback" (or whatever) in each firearm
Anonymous No.64129648 >>64129917
>>64129597
The Blish principle isn't real. If it was, it would violate several established and irrefutable laws of physics.
The only people who think it's real are lead-brained boomers, and they're just parroting hollow claims made in 100 year old advertisements without any form of critical examination of the claims therein.

The early model Thompson guns with the Blish lock have a much higher rate of fire than the later simplified Thompson guns that don't have it.
And the reason for this is that the Blish lock does nothing, and the later Thompson guns simply have heavier bolts, a feature that genuinely does reduce bolt velocity and reduce the rate of fire.
Anonymous No.64129861 >>64129951
>>64127774
The way John Thompson's Blish-lock action functions in practice is that it delays the unlocked bolt. Not particularly well, which is why the Thompson SMGs would tend to shear their 'locking' blocks fairly often, and which is why when the US Army drafted up the M1A1 pattern, they had gotten the action simplified to a simple straight-blowback action, which in practice works just as good, but without that one part breaking every now and then.

For John Thompson's semi-automatic rifles, it was worse, because while .45 Auto is a comparatively chill and low pressure pistol cartridge, .30-06 Springfield is instead your standard full powered infantry rifle cartridge of the day, so the limitations of his concept were MUCH more apparent.
The .30-06 rifles and machineguns had oiler pads to lubricate cartridges, as to ensure extraction would happen properly, and this was some very lively extraction and ejection indeed.
Testing accounts mentions ejected .30-06 casings embedding themselves into nearby wooden posts (the mouth of the case sticking into the wood),
Anonymous No.64129876 >>64129951
>>64128013
>That's an incorrect assessment which suggests the Blish action works to some degree
It basically functions as a bad delaying mechanism, the way I've heard it, a subtle mechanical delay to the bolt movement but in a way which wears itself out very quickly. The actual mechanical function of it is different in pracice from what the designers imagined, and it's not because of friction or dissimilar metals.
Anonymous No.64129917 >>64129951
>>64129648
The Blish principle isn't real, but that doesn't mean that the Blish "Lock" wasn't doing something differently from what the designers thought it was.
The notion was that pressure ensured that the action would stay locked for long enough, but in reality that wasn't happening at all. It was primarily the weight of the bolt (blowback), and then secondarily the mechanical travel of the "locking" block (delay). The practical matter is that it was an unlocked bolt which was too light, with a mechanical delay which wasn't delaying enough and which was fragile.

Compare to the H&K G3, which comparatively has enough bolt weight and also a functional mechanical delay which doesn't beat itself to death, but it has a set of lateral flutes cut into the chamber to let in gas from the bore, to ensure that the case can't stick to the chamber and so that it can extract at the relatively high pressures. In a practical sense that's doing the same thing as oiler pads.
The G3 is a deliberate and calculated design by engineers who fully understood everything about what they were doing, compared to the designers of the Thomspon autorifles, where the oiler pads were an insufficient addition to try to address the problems of an action which still didn't function well.
Anonymous No.64129951
>>64129861
>>64129876
>>64129917
Thanks anon.
Anonymous No.64130585
Here's an obscure one, a pistol designed by one A.J Thomas, it's a .45 Auto pistol with an unlocked breech, and what looks like a grip safety, but in fact this also is an actuating lever where, get this, your grip on the pistol works as the delaying mechanism for the slide.

So, a "hand-delayed" blowback action? Never saw much production, but there's a few of these pistols around.
Anonymous No.64130629
>>64121445
>Rolling block
Anon he said PIS-
>opens pic
Oh
>>64122180
>>64123061
I used to want one of these until I found out how dogshit the disassembly is. It honestly offers nothing above a Colt Pocket Hammerless except a slightly more compact slide.
Anonymous No.64130732
>>64123192
The design is absolutely an issue. The chamber walls (particularly the hood) are too thin. It doesnโ€™t matter what kind of Soviet pot metal the rollers are made out of because the chamber blows out well before you get anywhere near action failure.

Also as others have pointed out, some questionable design choices were made. My biggest gripe is the non-existent sights. They make the sights on pocket pistols seem reasonable, and for what? Concealability?
Anonymous No.64130754 >>64131368 >>64131861
>>64122329
How did that even get started? I've even seen ancient Usenet posts with some guy testing both guns to destruction and showing how the CZ failed long before the Tokarev and the comments are just full of shit like
>nuh uh you're wrong
>well MY CZ survived pissin' hot loads just fine!
>i can't believe you destroyed perfectly good guns!
>that's dangerous you're making handloaders look like careless assholes
Anonymous No.64131368 >>64131871 >>64131886
>>64130754
It got started because one gun writer opined that because it was roller locked it must be extremely strong and everyone followed like lemmings. You must understand that this was pre internet, so someone could be forgiven for not fact checking the typical failure mode of an uncommon (at the time) firearm. Today itโ€™s less forgivable, which is why I aggressively bully nogunz and booksmart autists for having shit opinions on action vs brass strength. (Hint: the weakest part of any competently designed firearm is the brass bit holding the pressure in the chamber. Just where the fuck did you think it was going to fail?)

> ancient Usenet posts with some guy testing both guns to destruction
The guyโ€™s name is Clark Magneson. Iโ€™m not doxxing him, heโ€™s posted it all over the internet. Heโ€™s a (now) retired engineer that got a kick out of applying his skill set to changing the way that we think about load data. During the Golden Age of Milsurp ~25 years ago, guys like me were buying, shooting, and selling interesting shit, but Clark was buying in bulk for destructive testing. Iโ€™m pretty sure that he validated 45 Super before itโ€™s "owners" ever had the idea to do it.

He still posts occasionally on a few forums but heโ€™s slowing down. Heโ€™s banned from most of the usual spots for posting his load data, which QL calculated at well over 100,000 psi in some cases. I understand that he still has both eyes and all ten fingers. The guy is an absolute legend in certain circles. Some of his discoveries are still not acknowledged by the industry, but at least the cz-52 bullshit is closed. You canโ€™t imagine how widespread that fiction was 25 years ago.
>t. was a regular on rec.guns for those that even know what the fuck Usenet was
>yeah, Iโ€™m that old, but heโ€™s a few decades older
Anonymous No.64131861 >>64132306
>>64130754
I'm assuming that most of those people haven't actually tried to handload up CZ52s very much.

I've seen some people argue angrily that the CZ52 can't have a weak action because the G3 and MG42 have rollers and those are strong and good, even though the G3 doesn't even lock, and setting aside the much better manufacture, material, and design of those guns.
Anonymous No.64131871
>>64131368
>ok, here's a little Browning in .25 Auto
>what if I put in a mega strong recoil spring and then load the case with the hottest ++P++ load I can figure out
>difficult to rack, but it cycled perfectly fine
Clark's a cool fucking guy.
Anonymous No.64131886
>>64131368
>Heโ€™s banned from most of the usual spots for posting his load data
Anonymous No.64132306 >>64132422
>>64131861
> most of those people haven't actually tried to handload up CZ52s very much
Most of those people havenโ€™t shot a CZ-52 very much, if it all. To be fair though, 7.62x25mm used to be dirt cheap. Iโ€™d imagine that your average boomer on a magazine-or-two-per-year-or-two firing schedule sate still working through their 20 year old stash of Chinese ammo.

> seen some people argue angrily that the CZ52 can't have a weak action because the G3 and MG42 have rollers and those are strong and good
Those people donโ€™t read much. Even the reloading manual publishers have acknowledged that the CZ is not the indestructible tank it was once thought to be. (Thanks Clark!). Youโ€™ll also sometimes encounter autists that get focused on theory but have little grounding in practice become confused by the differences between action strengths and typical failure modes.
>hint - itโ€™s almost always the brass
>unless itโ€™s a complete piece of combloc shit, and then the chamber letโ€™s go before the case does
>in either case, any action strength beyond merely adequate is irrelevant
Anonymous No.64132422 >>64132696
>>64132306
>>in either case, any action strength beyond merely adequate is irrelevant
Kind of, but then you had P.O Ackley doing completely wild bullshit tests on WW2-era bolt-action rifles, with the 7.7mm Arisaka being the only one he couldn't actually grenade the action on.
Anonymous No.64132696
>>64132422
Now weโ€™re going into the weeds and things get more complicated, and since Iโ€™m away from home and on a tablet Iโ€™m going to refrain from writing a book. To keep it brief, some of those fire led receivers were caused by case failures, and the ones that werenโ€™t featured uncommonly good case support (Mauser), uncommon good gas venting (Arisaka), rimmed or semi rimmed cartridge case with an uncommonly small extraction groove (Arisaka again), or even all three (Arisaka yet again.). Ackley was convinced that it was the strongest action but if you examine one up close, thereโ€™s nothing magical about the locking lug engagement. The steel is certainly nothing special. What it did better than anything else at the time, through a combination of cartridge, chamber, and receiver design was to keep large volumes of high pressure gas out of the action.

My "itโ€™s usually the brass" comment excludes rimmed or semirimmed cartridges because in those cases, we normally have fully supported chambers, massively thick case heads, and no extractor grooves to weaken them. Here we should expect a different failure mode. (Generally a ruptured chamber with a revolver, but it can theoretically be an action failure with a rifle depending on how the action locks.)

So yes, action strength can matter, but only after we corrected every other potential failure mode first, and even then it would only matter with an overload thatโ€™s either deliberate or criminally retarded.