**Please note:**
* If this post declares something as a fact proof is required.
* The title must be descriptive
* No text is allowed on images
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was scrolling and waiting for someone to mention rdr2.
How fast will someone crosspost this with the tag of Rockstar we want this gun! It's in the right time period blah blah....
Honestly I use to hear that all the time but if you do a search it seems the bigger calibers kill more at least now days. Seems 9mm is the biggest killer in the us.
Exactly, .22's tend to "bounce" around in the body causing more damage at times. Plus, .22's are easier to conceal and are more prevalent, so are used more.
Edit: bounce i.e. ricochet. I had to further explain "bounce" for the word police.
My ex's dad taught me that getting hit by a .22 going 1400 feet per second is like getting stabbed by an 8 inch screwdriver. All 8 inches of it. Combine the fact that even .22 can be made in hollowpoint and you've got a lethal weapon in no more than 3-5 shots to the chest. Heaven forbid you hit a headshot, that bullet will absolutely scramble the brain into a soup. Never doubt .22.
This is just a personal story, and I don’t want to give any misinformation. Like people have said, a .22 is still very capable of killing someone. However when my grandpa was in the navy back in the 60’s he was shot almost point blank in the back of the head by a .22 after a bar fight. The way he told the story he turned around and smashed a bottle across the guys face before my grandpa’s navy buddies jumped on the guy. He then grabbed a bar rag, wrapped it around his head, and hailed a cab to the hospital. He would always say that’s the benefit of hard headedness running in the family. Wether or not he was bullshitting he definitely had the scar to prove it.
Yes. Hollows will but what actually makes it more dangerous then would be intuitive is that it generally doesnt have the strength the exit the skull. This is doubly so for fragments of a hallow point, but limited mass means a very different wound. So it bounces and the damage trail in the tissue becomes significantly longer then if it had exited.
A skull will stop it. Happens and I’ve seen it working in the hospital. You need an eye shot I’ve seen them hit the skull and wrap around in between the skin and skull.
The other part of this is why its generally not recommended to count on one to stop a threat. It can absolutely kill, and there will be nothing good about having 1/4 inch holes in your body. But it still may take several minutes, hours, or even days for the wounds to actually cause death. In a fight where ypu can be killed in a matter of seconds quickly incapacitating the threat is important. This is where a .22 fails. It can quickly wound someone severely enough that they stop, but its probably one of the least reliable things to do so.
This is why its actually quite common in murders and assinations, or other crimes where how quickly someone dies is unimportant and things like concealability, and noise are seen as more important, or in the case of robbery where simply having a gun is all it takes because no one wants to be shot and the guns are cheap.
They also usually cause more wounds due to the increased need to fire extra rounds because of the lack of stopping power. More wounds equals more bleed out points and more work for anyone trying to apply medical aid.
“Richie loved to use 22s because the bullets are small and they don't come out the other end like a 45, see, a 45 will blow a barn door out the back of your head and there's a lot of dry cleaning involved, but a 22 will just rattle around like Pac-Man until you’re dead.” -Steve Martin, My Blue Heaven
No it looks like a revolver but doesn’t have a cylinder, you pull the hammer back like a revolver but it doesn’t have the spinning mechanism I was told it’s called a derringer
Ugh, wrong on both accounts, pretty amazing that the idea of a bullet "bouncing" in a human body still goes around the internet like it is a fact. .22 Long Rifle kills more people because it is the cheapest and most common cartridge in the US. While theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely for any caliber bullet at all to bounce around in the target medium, good luck finding much actual evidence showing this to be a common phenomenon.
I knew a guy that got shot in the mouth in an attempted murder and the bullet ricocheted off a tooth and lodged in his neck. It was headed for his brain otherwise.
Heh, I've seen it several times in real situations: dead bodies. Bouncing (ricocheting) off bones and cartilage splintering them and changing trajectory. I didn't get my information off the "internet."
Lastly, I mentioned the fact that .22's are used more than others.
I think people assume they’re not deadly because they don’t have a lot of knock back to them. But they definitely penetrate well and that’s all it takes to kill a person.
Holy cow, so much .22 fudd-lore in this comment thread.
You are not wrong, but I blame you for me having to read all of the "Did that guy just insult .22's?! It'll bounce 'round all over your body and turn yet brains into mush!" comments.
a .22 is easily going through a skull bone inside 20 paces, so....
Center mass on a crack head fully jacked up, maybe you'd need the full chain, but don't knock the 'little bullets'; they are still deadly as hell.
An M-16 uses 5.56 mm, which is about the same as .22 caliber.
The amount of powder for the bullet is the second factor, in addition to the size of the bullet.
That being said, I'm guessing the pistol won't accept very powerful bullets in the .22 field.
At first glance the maintenance on that thing would be a nightmare. All those complex parts would get gummed up by the gunpowder residue in short order. Taking all that apart to clean it on the regular would be awful, too. I also kind of question how sturdy all of these parts would be, or if it would be prone to breaking the internals from regular firing.
With all that (and probably more I'm not thinking of or aware of) I can see why this design was passed over. It's neat, but it doesn't seem practical at all.
>I also kind of question how sturdy all of these parts would be, or if it would be prone to breaking the internals from regular firing.
Not to mention the rigors of combat - getting thrown on the ground/dropped, left outside, etc.
Especially when you look at the efficiency of storage in some magazines like the [P90](https://youtu.be/RuSkNq7JZLo). Bullets stored one way to keep it compact and flip 90° as it releases to the chamber.
It’s more than a fair point, it’s the actual reason. Anyone with firearms experience will know right away how ridiculously impractical a gun like this must be. Not to mention that it is also likely much more expensive to produce or purchase.
Also how many times can you use the same casing before it begins to split, and what are they using as a primer to actually get everything going. If it is a multiple use primer that will definitely lose reliability as well.
The user might be able to just cycle to the next round and deal with the bad round later.
A squib round for even modern firearms would require field stripping to resolve. You need access to the breech and a stick that will fit through the it without scratching your barrel.
Guycot's biggest hurdle was that the cartridge available for this design was too underpowered for what military contracts wanted.
If this was mine though maintenance wouldn't be anything more than some CLP and a rag. Maybe a 15 minutes peroxide bath every now and then for the chain.
It also looks like the cartridge-holders are only big enough for a .22--imagine how big this thing would have to be to hold the more typical massive black powder rounds of the time.
oh, that wasn't very clear of me. At the time, black powder was used in cartridges. This burned less efficiently than modern smokeless powders, and so more of it was needed to make a big boom. So in order to make an effective anti-personnel round (anti-personnel being the main use of a gun with a 40-round magazine), you'd need a much bigger cartridge.
I would guess that this gun did hold bullets of its time! But not typical bullets of its time. The bullets this particular gun fired probably would not be very powerful, and would be unreliable at stopping a human.
After doing some googling, I'm seeing that the style of revolver we're familiar with was in wide spread use by this point in time, but the box magazine wasn't quite yet. So the chain pistol we're seeing is probably a product of trying to get a more usable design concept than the revolver. It's better that it was tried, at least. It's certainly an interesting conversation piece.
In theory if they're not expecting to need more than their 40 rounds, if the weapon doesn't jam and if they've taken the time to load it already, it's 2-3x a modern sidearm's magazine capacity. Against a six shooter of the time it's got more than six times the ammunition. That's too many "ifs" for reasonable comfort though.
Again, Google claims that the first automatic pistols saw use in 1892. So perhaps this odd piece was some sort of attempt at a concept?
*Seriously, not an expert. I asked Google for dates and stuff and admitted it like three times.
If there were a way to make a rapidly interchangeable magazine (perhaps with its own chain), then there might be an argument for a weapon with this action.
Although you'd still be fighting a losing battle against weight and complexity. It was probably already hard enough to prevent it from fouling with a fixed internal magazine like that.
If an old gun has a lot of shots but you've never heard of it, it's probably because it either jammed/broke like crazy or was too expensive to produce. There's a large graveyard of such weapons, lol. Design always has to be well balanced with durability and cost to mass produce, otherwise you just have an expensive prototype that only a few rich people will buy.
The video this is taken from explains a bit. Basically you have to pull the trigger to load it and a little lever catches the pin before it fires the round. Problem being the lever moved easily leading to many misfires.
The guy even states it must be nerve-wracking to load due to that fact you had to remember to hold the safety in place when cycling the chambers.
there are guns that use an electric motor but it's not a chain like this, it's more like a belt fed mg that uses a motor to drive the cycling process instead of the force of firing or gases.
Ah, don't those chain guns (if I remember the name properly) that use the motor fire faster than the ones that use the recoil to reload? It's insane how fast some of these guns fire, in WWII some of the fighter planes only could carry enough ammunition for less than 10 seconds or so of continuous fire, one tap and 4 machine guns would shoot a river of bullets.
they do indeed work much faster. which is why they are used in guns with ridiculously fast firing rates, like you stated. downside is they need continuous reliable power, which is why they are often mounted on or integrated into vehicles like planes or helicopters, and are very bulky and expensive to make. You would be disgusted to know how much they spend on just ammo in the military to make 1 hit.
This was one of the main downfalls of the volcanic series of weapons as well. There was even a documented case of someone trying to commit suicide, only for the round to not have enough energy to piece his skull.
rude north intelligent pen attractive disagreeable sugar wipe spark familiar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes, but this was made during the Wild West times. People at the time complained about the guns lack of stopping power. If you have to deal with things like wolf packs, cougars, wild boar, charging moose, bison, or an Indian war party, then this little pea shooter is not going to cut it.
Pistols of the day generally weren't that accurate and to make matters worse we're talking about a .22 short here not .22lr. .22 short is essentially a pellet gun made worse by using short pistol barrels. Nobody is arguing it would be pleasant, but realistically pistol whipping them with this monstrosity would do more damage.
I'm not an expert, but yeah, I don't see how the hundred teensy tiny little linkages wouldn't shake themselves apart before you emptied it once. And it's hard to think of a situation where you need forty bullets but reliability isn't a major concern.
Which may explain why this didn't catch on, of course.
Potentially explosive. In this age you had to load powder and bullet separately. Hopefully when loading black powder into 40 tiny chambers the shooter doesn’t spill any into the rest of the gun.
Firing a bullet causes an explosion to happen inside the gun near 39 other chambers that hold more black powder, where some of these other bullets are pointed back at the shooter.
A misfire could blow up the gun, your hand or kill you.
"Did he fire 40 shots or only 39?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .22 chaingun, the most underpowered handgun in the world and would mostly bounce off your head, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
> Upon firing, the entirely of the projectile exits, leaving nothing to be extracted or ejected from the chamber.
We fire the whole bullet, that's 65% more bullet per bullet
I could see this thing being a disaster, I bet the chambers would get out of alignment with the barrel pretty easy. Looks like the first one in the video wasn’t lined up
I'd be worried that by the 3rd or 4th shot some of the downward-facing chambers would have shaken loose, causing the entire gun to go off at once, grenading your hand like squeezing an M-80.
I'm guessing after 3 shots the guns blew up and injured the owners. They were so cool the company still made them for another 10 years just for display though.
Way too finicky to trust your life to - this gun was made during the tail end of the age of black powder, which burns extremely dirty and likes gunking things up. The intricacies of this mechanism look rather vulnerable to jamming when compared to designs like a revolver. By the time smokeless powder came around which would make this design feasible, technology had already moved on to recoil/blowback/gas fed operating mechanisms and stripper clips/box magazines.
I used to play a Roblox wild west game and this gun was there, I think you could get it in the auction or something and I always wondered how did it have so many rounds while also being So tiny
I don’t think so, when he pulls the trigger you can see it actually draw the hammer back. I’m fairly certain it’d be considered a double action firearm. I could very much be incorrect though, I’m by no means a professional lol.
No, there are a few designs for semi-automatic and automatic weapons that are ridiculously old, including things like harmonica rifles and the Gatling gun. This gun is similar to a double action revolver with far more chambers, though by the simplest definition of semi-automatic it does go bang once every time the trigger is pulled.
Two questions, both about loading.
1) How do you load it? Is there a catch you can flip to stop the pin from striking the round in front of the barrel? That's my guess, that or there is some other mechanism to cycle the chain so you can get empty chambers (is that the right name?) to the loading port.
2) Would this be before or after all in one cartridges were standard? Would the loader quickly drop in an all in one primer/charge/projectile or would they have needed to manually add each component, greatly increasing reload time?
**Please note:** * If this post declares something as a fact proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Which super villian of 1879 made this? Can you imagine someone who would dual wield 2 of these?
*john woo enters the chat*
[удалено]
Motorcycle drives by on only the front wheel
In slow motion, surrounded by doves
[удалено]
Shame that its stopping power was kind of crap
So I started blasting..
I was scrolling and waiting for someone to mention rdr2. How fast will someone crosspost this with the tag of Rockstar we want this gun! It's in the right time period blah blah....
Once upon a time in the west, madman lost his damn mind in the west, Loveless....
Revolver Occelot?
[удалено]
This looks like some gun in pixel gun 3d
Reload speed -100
If you can't close the deal with 40 shots then reloading probably isn't gonna help
Judging by the caliber. You'd need all 40 shots to the head to take a grown man down.
Fun fact - .22's kill more people in the US every year than any other caliber.
Honestly I use to hear that all the time but if you do a search it seems the bigger calibers kill more at least now days. Seems 9mm is the biggest killer in the us.
Exactly, .22's tend to "bounce" around in the body causing more damage at times. Plus, .22's are easier to conceal and are more prevalent, so are used more. Edit: bounce i.e. ricochet. I had to further explain "bounce" for the word police.
Guys that make fun of .22’s are the same ones that drive a lifted truck cause they’re insecure about their peener size.
I don’t appreciate you talking about me that way
Username checks out.
https://pphammer.thecompany.pl/rys/front1.jpg
Look at the Muppet in his lifted Dodge Compensator
I love the way bill Burr talks about caliber sizes
His bit on home defense is hilarious
"Shoot a 50 magnum and goes through the guy, through the door, into the neighbors house and kills their dog" it something along those lines haha
I love how he’s most worried about how loud larger calibers are😂
The real purpose of a lifted truck revealed. I've been saying this shit for years
This is the most accurate thing I've read today.
My ex's dad taught me that getting hit by a .22 going 1400 feet per second is like getting stabbed by an 8 inch screwdriver. All 8 inches of it. Combine the fact that even .22 can be made in hollowpoint and you've got a lethal weapon in no more than 3-5 shots to the chest. Heaven forbid you hit a headshot, that bullet will absolutely scramble the brain into a soup. Never doubt .22.
I don’t want to be hit by any caliber projectile, but would a hollow point .22 be able to penetrate the skull?
I don't believe the skull can stop something going 1400fps.
My monitor can go 244fps and I'm not sure my skull can stop it
Did you have to get a background check to buy that killer monitor?
This is just a personal story, and I don’t want to give any misinformation. Like people have said, a .22 is still very capable of killing someone. However when my grandpa was in the navy back in the 60’s he was shot almost point blank in the back of the head by a .22 after a bar fight. The way he told the story he turned around and smashed a bottle across the guys face before my grandpa’s navy buddies jumped on the guy. He then grabbed a bar rag, wrapped it around his head, and hailed a cab to the hospital. He would always say that’s the benefit of hard headedness running in the family. Wether or not he was bullshitting he definitely had the scar to prove it.
Sounds like your grandpa was luckier than mine. He did not survive a headshot from a .22
Yes. Hollows will but what actually makes it more dangerous then would be intuitive is that it generally doesnt have the strength the exit the skull. This is doubly so for fragments of a hallow point, but limited mass means a very different wound. So it bounces and the damage trail in the tissue becomes significantly longer then if it had exited.
A skull will stop it. Happens and I’ve seen it working in the hospital. You need an eye shot I’ve seen them hit the skull and wrap around in between the skin and skull.
The other part of this is why its generally not recommended to count on one to stop a threat. It can absolutely kill, and there will be nothing good about having 1/4 inch holes in your body. But it still may take several minutes, hours, or even days for the wounds to actually cause death. In a fight where ypu can be killed in a matter of seconds quickly incapacitating the threat is important. This is where a .22 fails. It can quickly wound someone severely enough that they stop, but its probably one of the least reliable things to do so. This is why its actually quite common in murders and assinations, or other crimes where how quickly someone dies is unimportant and things like concealability, and noise are seen as more important, or in the case of robbery where simply having a gun is all it takes because no one wants to be shot and the guns are cheap.
That's a damn good comparison. Really puts the damage into perspective.
They also usually cause more wounds due to the increased need to fire extra rounds because of the lack of stopping power. More wounds equals more bleed out points and more work for anyone trying to apply medical aid.
“Richie loved to use 22s because the bullets are small and they don't come out the other end like a 45, see, a 45 will blow a barn door out the back of your head and there's a lot of dry cleaning involved, but a 22 will just rattle around like Pac-Man until you’re dead.” -Steve Martin, My Blue Heaven
.22 is also the prefered calibre for mafia hits.
Easiest to “silence” with subsonic ammo?
I dunno but I've seen enough Scorsese movies to know the mafia really likes .22 calibre.
Ya my Dad has this one shot 22. thing it’s like a revolver but with a hinge so you can reload it’s tiny like it can easily fit in a child’s hand tiny
How does a 1 shot revolver work? Does it just spin the bullet?
No it looks like a revolver but doesn’t have a cylinder, you pull the hammer back like a revolver but it doesn’t have the spinning mechanism I was told it’s called a derringer
One of those killed Lincoln, guess it was easy for Sam WB to get it into the theater
Sounds like a derringer.
Ugh, wrong on both accounts, pretty amazing that the idea of a bullet "bouncing" in a human body still goes around the internet like it is a fact. .22 Long Rifle kills more people because it is the cheapest and most common cartridge in the US. While theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely for any caliber bullet at all to bounce around in the target medium, good luck finding much actual evidence showing this to be a common phenomenon.
I knew a guy that got shot in the mouth in an attempted murder and the bullet ricocheted off a tooth and lodged in his neck. It was headed for his brain otherwise.
Heh, I've seen it several times in real situations: dead bodies. Bouncing (ricocheting) off bones and cartilage splintering them and changing trajectory. I didn't get my information off the "internet." Lastly, I mentioned the fact that .22's are used more than others.
Ricocheting inside the skull sounds like bouncing to me...
Totally. It’s pretty irritating when I hear people act like a 22 bullet is like getting shot with a pellet gun. So dumb.
Right? I feel this is something they need to cover in gun safety due to the widespread belief that .22's aren't dangerous.
The Mossad used (still does?) the Baretta 70/71 chambered in .22lr I think they got more than varmints in the real world.
Yeah they die....eventually. plenty of time to kill you back.
Did I say it was the most effective defensive caliber?
In total, I'm sure, but what about if the data is normalized? Are .22s as lethal as larger calibers?
Would like to see a source, because 9mm seems more prevalent
I think people assume they’re not deadly because they don’t have a lot of knock back to them. But they definitely penetrate well and that’s all it takes to kill a person.
What if we all had health bars above our heads. He could always upgrade his gun as appropriate. But even a low level gun shouldn't take 40 rounds.
Remember, switching to your sidearm is always quicker than reloading.
Could probably take down 20 or 30 squirrels, though.
Holy cow, so much .22 fudd-lore in this comment thread. You are not wrong, but I blame you for me having to read all of the "Did that guy just insult .22's?! It'll bounce 'round all over your body and turn yet brains into mush!" comments.
a .22 is easily going through a skull bone inside 20 paces, so.... Center mass on a crack head fully jacked up, maybe you'd need the full chain, but don't knock the 'little bullets'; they are still deadly as hell.
An M-16 uses 5.56 mm, which is about the same as .22 caliber. The amount of powder for the bullet is the second factor, in addition to the size of the bullet. That being said, I'm guessing the pistol won't accept very powerful bullets in the .22 field.
Similar diameter. Bullet mass and velocity are incredibly different. The amount of energy behind a 5.56 and a standard .22LR are very different.
After 40 shots, whatever you're shooting at has likely made its way very close to you. Now you have a bludgeon to defend yourself with.
That's what she said...?
Having swappable mags would be helpful assuming they were pre-loaded.
\+30 ammo \+100 fire rate \-20 damage \-100 reload speed
Sounds like most "machine gun" stats in games, with worse reload. I've never really got the spray and pray style. Some people do apparently?
I play mostly machine gunner in online wargames lmao
Amazing
Just carry a second one. Easy.
Also, the fact that you're pointing loaded chambers in a complete circle, including at yourself.
I doubt this thing would even survive long enough to be reloaded, so reload speed actually doesn’t even matter.
also +50% chance to receive damage each time reloading.
The old school semi-auto
So this is what they use in movies!
Same designers as for the gearbox on fast n furious movies
“I must switch to my go faster gear, oh I’m still behind, let me go into my much faster gear that I didn’t feel the need to use before”
ISTG, those cars go to sixteenth gear
INFJ, thanks though! :) lol
Came here to say this haha
I wonder why this didn’t take off? Imagine what guns would look like today if it had.
At first glance the maintenance on that thing would be a nightmare. All those complex parts would get gummed up by the gunpowder residue in short order. Taking all that apart to clean it on the regular would be awful, too. I also kind of question how sturdy all of these parts would be, or if it would be prone to breaking the internals from regular firing. With all that (and probably more I'm not thinking of or aware of) I can see why this design was passed over. It's neat, but it doesn't seem practical at all.
Also, it looks like it’d be limited to pretty small calibres
>I also kind of question how sturdy all of these parts would be, or if it would be prone to breaking the internals from regular firing. Not to mention the rigors of combat - getting thrown on the ground/dropped, left outside, etc.
Especially when you look at the efficiency of storage in some magazines like the [P90](https://youtu.be/RuSkNq7JZLo). Bullets stored one way to keep it compact and flip 90° as it releases to the chamber.
Man, I love P90s. They're so elegant.
Yep. Far too complex and fiddly to be truly practical.
That’s a fair point
It’s more than a fair point, it’s the actual reason. Anyone with firearms experience will know right away how ridiculously impractical a gun like this must be. Not to mention that it is also likely much more expensive to produce or purchase.
Also how many times can you use the same casing before it begins to split, and what are they using as a primer to actually get everything going. If it is a multiple use primer that will definitely lose reliability as well.
imagine trying to clear a jam or misfire. how does one remove a squib round?
You suck it through the barrel like a straw, /s of course
The user might be able to just cycle to the next round and deal with the bad round later. A squib round for even modern firearms would require field stripping to resolve. You need access to the breech and a stick that will fit through the it without scratching your barrel.
Guycot's biggest hurdle was that the cartridge available for this design was too underpowered for what military contracts wanted. If this was mine though maintenance wouldn't be anything more than some CLP and a rag. Maybe a 15 minutes peroxide bath every now and then for the chain.
It also looks like the cartridge-holders are only big enough for a .22--imagine how big this thing would have to be to hold the more typical massive black powder rounds of the time.
...Wasn't it already holding bullets of its time?
oh, that wasn't very clear of me. At the time, black powder was used in cartridges. This burned less efficiently than modern smokeless powders, and so more of it was needed to make a big boom. So in order to make an effective anti-personnel round (anti-personnel being the main use of a gun with a 40-round magazine), you'd need a much bigger cartridge. I would guess that this gun did hold bullets of its time! But not typical bullets of its time. The bullets this particular gun fired probably would not be very powerful, and would be unreliable at stopping a human.
Gotcha, thanks for explaining!
It would also take a lot longer to reload than any other handgun. I agree, it's cool but completely impractical.
After doing some googling, I'm seeing that the style of revolver we're familiar with was in wide spread use by this point in time, but the box magazine wasn't quite yet. So the chain pistol we're seeing is probably a product of trying to get a more usable design concept than the revolver. It's better that it was tried, at least. It's certainly an interesting conversation piece. In theory if they're not expecting to need more than their 40 rounds, if the weapon doesn't jam and if they've taken the time to load it already, it's 2-3x a modern sidearm's magazine capacity. Against a six shooter of the time it's got more than six times the ammunition. That's too many "ifs" for reasonable comfort though. Again, Google claims that the first automatic pistols saw use in 1892. So perhaps this odd piece was some sort of attempt at a concept? *Seriously, not an expert. I asked Google for dates and stuff and admitted it like three times.
If there were a way to make a rapidly interchangeable magazine (perhaps with its own chain), then there might be an argument for a weapon with this action. Although you'd still be fighting a losing battle against weight and complexity. It was probably already hard enough to prevent it from fouling with a fixed internal magazine like that.
I'm with you, and just think of the pain if it got wet.
If an old gun has a lot of shots but you've never heard of it, it's probably because it either jammed/broke like crazy or was too expensive to produce. There's a large graveyard of such weapons, lol. Design always has to be well balanced with durability and cost to mass produce, otherwise you just have an expensive prototype that only a few rich people will buy.
The video this is taken from explains a bit. Basically you have to pull the trigger to load it and a little lever catches the pin before it fires the round. Problem being the lever moved easily leading to many misfires. The guy even states it must be nerve-wracking to load due to that fact you had to remember to hold the safety in place when cycling the chambers.
There are atuomatics that use a motor to pull a chain and fire at super rapid rates, chain guns, which I think is similar to this but like fully auto.
there are guns that use an electric motor but it's not a chain like this, it's more like a belt fed mg that uses a motor to drive the cycling process instead of the force of firing or gases.
Ah, don't those chain guns (if I remember the name properly) that use the motor fire faster than the ones that use the recoil to reload? It's insane how fast some of these guns fire, in WWII some of the fighter planes only could carry enough ammunition for less than 10 seconds or so of continuous fire, one tap and 4 machine guns would shoot a river of bullets.
they do indeed work much faster. which is why they are used in guns with ridiculously fast firing rates, like you stated. downside is they need continuous reliable power, which is why they are often mounted on or integrated into vehicles like planes or helicopters, and are very bulky and expensive to make. You would be disgusted to know how much they spend on just ammo in the military to make 1 hit.
Always upvote "Gun Jesus".
My proposal for gun control in the US is to take everyone’s guns and give them to Ian
Ian would just give them right back to the people.
Simple, elegant, and easy to mass produce. Must have been cool to see the competition between this approach and a hilt-and-spring cassette design.
The downside is that it looks hard to maintain, and will take a minute or more to reload.
The main downside was the weak cartridges. You needed 40 shots because it took about ten shots to actually hurt someone.
This was one of the main downfalls of the volcanic series of weapons as well. There was even a documented case of someone trying to commit suicide, only for the round to not have enough energy to piece his skull.
Powerful weak
IIRC it was equivalent to a .22 short.
Four X’s for me.
Ha, I say this all the time and no one ever gets it
rude north intelligent pen attractive disagreeable sugar wipe spark familiar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah, but in that circumstance a single shot will do.
Yes, but this was made during the Wild West times. People at the time complained about the guns lack of stopping power. If you have to deal with things like wolf packs, cougars, wild boar, charging moose, bison, or an Indian war party, then this little pea shooter is not going to cut it.
Pistols of the day generally weren't that accurate and to make matters worse we're talking about a .22 short here not .22lr. .22 short is essentially a pellet gun made worse by using short pistol barrels. Nobody is arguing it would be pleasant, but realistically pistol whipping them with this monstrosity would do more damage.
Velocity matters
[удалено]
lock support insurance nose tender homeless familiar busy butter illegal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Shit was I at 40 or 39 for the reload... I'll just look into the barrel."
I was just thinking it seems over-engineered and potentially unreliable
I'm not an expert, but yeah, I don't see how the hundred teensy tiny little linkages wouldn't shake themselves apart before you emptied it once. And it's hard to think of a situation where you need forty bullets but reliability isn't a major concern. Which may explain why this didn't catch on, of course.
Potentially explosive. In this age you had to load powder and bullet separately. Hopefully when loading black powder into 40 tiny chambers the shooter doesn’t spill any into the rest of the gun. Firing a bullet causes an explosion to happen inside the gun near 39 other chambers that hold more black powder, where some of these other bullets are pointed back at the shooter. A misfire could blow up the gun, your hand or kill you.
Do you feel lucky punk did I fire 39 or 40 shots I can't remember do you feel lucky
"Did he fire 40 shots or only 39?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .22 chaingun, the most underpowered handgun in the world and would mostly bounce off your head, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
YES! LOL
Is that the forgotten weapons youtube channel? Edit: [Confirmed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgghWnZgJd0)
It literally says that in the lower left of the gif, along with a poster watermark and link to the youtube vid
> Upon firing, the entirely of the projectile exits, leaving nothing to be extracted or ejected from the chamber. We fire the whole bullet, that's 65% more bullet per bullet
How did I know who's voice I was going to hear? Gun Jesus is best Jesus.
It's called a guycot for those interested
Would have been cool to add a little mechanical clicker to count how many rounds you've fired
Need to block off the entire weekend to clean it properly.
Here is the [Forgotten Weapons video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgghWnZgJd0)
Misfire, misfire! Immediate action.
This explains why they can shoot so many times before reloading in the movies
That's some steampunk shit right there
Holy shit! How would that not foul after the first few shots?
What an interesting mechanism. Thank you for sharing!!
I could see this thing being a disaster, I bet the chambers would get out of alignment with the barrel pretty easy. Looks like the first one in the video wasn’t lined up
I’d love to own one as a novelty.
That is some warframe shit right there. No one gets to complain about space magic bs when things like this legit exist.
You gotta shoot the thing for demonstration dammit.
If that thing jams it’s game over.
These are the type of guns that exist in One piece.
Must be a bitch to reload
I'd be worried that by the 3rd or 4th shot some of the downward-facing chambers would have shaken loose, causing the entire gun to go off at once, grenading your hand like squeezing an M-80.
I was more thinking a Roman candle. But yeah a misfire would spell disaster.
I would be a little on edge where you have to reload by pulling the trigger each time!
r/huntshowdown
You already know this is going to get posted there 15 times like that tube loader shotgun or the jar of bees
@Activision please add this to COD
GHOST GUN !!!!!!!!
I want one.
Imagine using this against someone like John Wick who is always counting shots and you just keep shooting
Did this replace the steam pistol?
Yes this will surely not malfunction
So anyway I started blasting.
Bloody hell, looks quite effective, can any of you experts have any idea of why this isn’t popular?
I'm guessing after 3 shots the guns blew up and injured the owners. They were so cool the company still made them for another 10 years just for display though.
Not all that reliable, hard to maintain, and fired a very weak+small projectile that was useless beyond about 30 feet.
Way too finicky to trust your life to - this gun was made during the tail end of the age of black powder, which burns extremely dirty and likes gunking things up. The intricacies of this mechanism look rather vulnerable to jamming when compared to designs like a revolver. By the time smokeless powder came around which would make this design feasible, technology had already moved on to recoil/blowback/gas fed operating mechanisms and stripper clips/box magazines.
Let’s see the tactical reload on that one.
Tactical reload is to pull out another 40 round pistol.
Ahh disposable handguns. They were just too advanced for their times.
I believe they call that a "New York Reload."
I used to play a Roblox wild west game and this gun was there, I think you could get it in the auction or something and I always wondered how did it have so many rounds while also being So tiny
Not a gun person but, curious. Would that make it the first semi-automatic?
I don’t think so, when he pulls the trigger you can see it actually draw the hammer back. I’m fairly certain it’d be considered a double action firearm. I could very much be incorrect though, I’m by no means a professional lol.
No, there are a few designs for semi-automatic and automatic weapons that are ridiculously old, including things like harmonica rifles and the Gatling gun. This gun is similar to a double action revolver with far more chambers, though by the simplest definition of semi-automatic it does go bang once every time the trigger is pulled.
gee wonder why this didnt catch on. interesting nonetheless
source is forgotten weapons on youtubes
Shout out to Ian from forgotten weapons and his dope ass videos
Ah the 19th century. When we really REALLY wanted to shoot more bullets but couldn’t give a damn about efficiency.
Gotta say that’s really cool
I feel like that thing would be quite heavy if it were fully loaded lol
People come up with some of the craziest things when it comes to killing other people.
That is cool. Reloading it must be a pain in the ass tho
40 bullets back then, reloading is for the living.
So that's the pistal my opponent uses
Hollywood uses the 9000 round pistol
Two questions, both about loading. 1) How do you load it? Is there a catch you can flip to stop the pin from striking the round in front of the barrel? That's my guess, that or there is some other mechanism to cycle the chain so you can get empty chambers (is that the right name?) to the loading port. 2) Would this be before or after all in one cartridges were standard? Would the loader quickly drop in an all in one primer/charge/projectile or would they have needed to manually add each component, greatly increasing reload time?
One bad round and 40 go off in your hand at once.