Revolvers vs. Autopistols
- Thread starter Bishop
- Start date
1610fps!!! Good Lord! Well, I know where I'm buying my ammunition from now on! (That muffled thud you just heard was my old speer handloaders manual being chucked out the window...)
Considering the loads you just described, I can certainly see your point. I wasn't trying to maintain my insistance, but just explain where my assumptions came from. No offense was intended.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
yeah. I was thinking of a 'police only' +p+ loading.
but that reminds me of one of my points. a revolver wont care if one chamber has +P+, the next a lightly loaded square nosed target load, the next a Silent 'Teleshot' type of round.
An autopistol with it's springs set for 'HOT' ammunition will continually have stoppages if you mix some light 'target' loads into it's feed. And most auto's I know don't like to feed bullets that don't have curved profiles.
And I have to agree with you. Even 9mm has recoil. Firing a .45 showed me what recoil could be. But a .44 magnum... that has KICK.
Garf.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
That's one thing I find amusing about traveler.. or any person or source talking about guns.
many of them refer to 9mm as if it were a singular thing.
In point of fact the 9mm (approx 0.357 inches) is the most common bullet diameter of a myriad of rounds with vastly different performances.
some of the first 'Cap & ball' black powder revolvers were .36 cal. during the time of 'heeled' rounds they got a little larger. That's why the 'ball' of .38 ammo is actually .357
and today. let me see..
9x17 (9mm short,.380 ACP), 9x18 (9mm Makarov), 9x19 (9mm parabellum, 9mm luger, just plain 'nine'), 9x21 dillon, 9x29 (.38 special), 9x33 (.357 magnum)
And I'm sure I missed a few .38 S&w, .38 super, and .357 SIG to name three.
you know I've met people who think the Desert Eagle .50 and the Browning M2HB .50 fire the same round? heh.
GARF
many of them refer to 9mm as if it were a singular thing.
In point of fact the 9mm (approx 0.357 inches) is the most common bullet diameter of a myriad of rounds with vastly different performances.
some of the first 'Cap & ball' black powder revolvers were .36 cal. during the time of 'heeled' rounds they got a little larger. That's why the 'ball' of .38 ammo is actually .357
and today. let me see..
9x17 (9mm short,.380 ACP), 9x18 (9mm Makarov), 9x19 (9mm parabellum, 9mm luger, just plain 'nine'), 9x21 dillon, 9x29 (.38 special), 9x33 (.357 magnum)
And I'm sure I missed a few .38 S&w, .38 super, and .357 SIG to name three.
you know I've met people who think the Desert Eagle .50 and the Browning M2HB .50 fire the same round? heh.
GARF
9mm mauser, 9mm Bergman-Bayard, 38 Short Colkt, 38 Long Colt, S&W 38-44, 9mm Glisanti,...
Just showing off. And in CT a handgun in 7.63x25 mauser through 455 Webley to 41 Magnum counts as a "revolver" or "autopistol". Any more detail is just character color.
Now we can start arguing about what kind of ammunition the "carbine" "rifle" and "asault rifle" fire.
Just showing off. And in CT a handgun in 7.63x25 mauser through 455 Webley to 41 Magnum counts as a "revolver" or "autopistol". Any more detail is just character color.
Now we can start arguing about what kind of ammunition the "carbine" "rifle" and "asault rifle" fire.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Heh... .30 M1 carbine of course.
Although I think IMTU I'd allow characters to own say... revolvers that fired autopistol or body pistol ammo. (and used those stats)
And I'd definitely steal the 'magnum revolver' concept and the TU hagiography that went with it for t4, it's too cool.
but back to the original topic.
I do see reasons why a player may want their character to own a revolver over an Autopistol even Technical as opposed to cultural ones.
my initial post on the comparisons I think is still valid. And I think the concept of environmental advantages to the revolver is worth exploring.
Garf.
Although I think IMTU I'd allow characters to own say... revolvers that fired autopistol or body pistol ammo. (and used those stats)
And I'd definitely steal the 'magnum revolver' concept and the TU hagiography that went with it for t4, it's too cool.
but back to the original topic.
I do see reasons why a player may want their character to own a revolver over an Autopistol even Technical as opposed to cultural ones.
my initial post on the comparisons I think is still valid. And I think the concept of environmental advantages to the revolver is worth exploring.
Garf.
My father in law has a very old revolver and a .38 police special revolver. If you lay the two of them out side by side there are some obvious improvements that have been made to the basic design.
The ancient revolver is a single action six shooter that breaks open like a single shot shotgun to reload the cylinder. The cylinder walls are relatively thin. AND the blow-by at the cylinder to barrel joint is rather impressive when the thing is fired... its almost as bright as the muzzle flash.
According to my Father-in-law, the .38 police revolver in question has a dual duty cylinder and is rated to accept either .357mag or .38special-x ammo. (I'm not too familiar with the cartridges, but he claims that this is safe practice. Seems a bit iffy to me though.) The cylinder is a swing out design, with much heavier walls and a more sturdy frame. Blow-by is vastly less than the older weapon.
If we assume that revolvers stay "in fashion" due mostly to the points made in previous posts, then it seems reasonable to also assume that the technology is not going to be stagnant.
I could see revolvers of sufficient caliber being ported to accept either conventional or snub ammo, or a plethora of specialized rounds. Better gas seals, better barrels, improved materials, etc., could all go a long way to ensuring the utility of these weapons to high tech travellers.
The ancient revolver is a single action six shooter that breaks open like a single shot shotgun to reload the cylinder. The cylinder walls are relatively thin. AND the blow-by at the cylinder to barrel joint is rather impressive when the thing is fired... its almost as bright as the muzzle flash.
According to my Father-in-law, the .38 police revolver in question has a dual duty cylinder and is rated to accept either .357mag or .38special-x ammo. (I'm not too familiar with the cartridges, but he claims that this is safe practice. Seems a bit iffy to me though.) The cylinder is a swing out design, with much heavier walls and a more sturdy frame. Blow-by is vastly less than the older weapon.
If we assume that revolvers stay "in fashion" due mostly to the points made in previous posts, then it seems reasonable to also assume that the technology is not going to be stagnant.
I could see revolvers of sufficient caliber being ported to accept either conventional or snub ammo, or a plethora of specialized rounds. Better gas seals, better barrels, improved materials, etc., could all go a long way to ensuring the utility of these weapons to high tech travellers.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
The whole point of the .357 magnum's increased cartridge length was to prevent it from being fired out of old .38 revolvers that didn't have the strength to handle it.
A revolver capable of fireing .357 magnum, can also safely fire .38 special. (although usually they are named after the former and not the latter). (a trick, note, that an autopistol chambered for .357 magnum cannot pull.)
so .. .yeah. Good point.
older revolvers were even worse. They loaded from a 'side gate' one chamber at a time. Though cylinder could be removed, allowing somone with a spare cylinder to have a bulky kind of speed loader... sorta...
hmm... that reminds me. I don't think Traveller makes any mention of speed loaders....
These are special circular, 6 place, clamps that allow a wheelgunner to reload 6 rounds at once. makeing reloading ... ALMOST... as fast as an autopistoleer changing clips.
GARF.
A revolver capable of fireing .357 magnum, can also safely fire .38 special. (although usually they are named after the former and not the latter). (a trick, note, that an autopistol chambered for .357 magnum cannot pull.)
so .. .yeah. Good point.
older revolvers were even worse. They loaded from a 'side gate' one chamber at a time. Though cylinder could be removed, allowing somone with a spare cylinder to have a bulky kind of speed loader... sorta...
hmm... that reminds me. I don't think Traveller makes any mention of speed loaders....
These are special circular, 6 place, clamps that allow a wheelgunner to reload 6 rounds at once. makeing reloading ... ALMOST... as fast as an autopistoleer changing clips.
GARF.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Good catch, it wasn't officially introduced until TNE so the old CT diehards and even the MT proponents might have been missing it. I checked T20 just now and it is included there
trader jim
SOC-14 1K
i dont care what kind of weapon it is OR even what caliber it is - it could even be a PLASMA BLASTER or ANYTHING for that matter - just as long as i can kill the SUM BITCH on 8+ to hit!!!!!
BANG your dead sucker!!!!
BANG your dead sucker!!!!
Sooooo....
Going back to the main topic....
In game, there is really no benefit to using a revolver in preference to a autopistol other than nostalgia, unless you are hard up for cash, or trying to fit in on a low tech world.
Questions about use under water, or in vacuum, or in other wise bad conditions are not handled by the rules.
Am I correct?
Going back to the main topic....
In game, there is really no benefit to using a revolver in preference to a autopistol other than nostalgia, unless you are hard up for cash, or trying to fit in on a low tech world.
Questions about use under water, or in vacuum, or in other wise bad conditions are not handled by the rules.
Am I correct?
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Going strictly by the rules. there's no reason to own a Revolver over an autopistol. Unless you have homebrew to take into account environmental conditions or cultural reasons.
but then going strictly by the rules and ignoring the fluff... Why would I care about the Imperium's attitude towards psionics?
Why would I care about any of the game history or news flashes.
Ignoring the fluff, why don't I just role dice against the charts and demand my rewards. Who cares about that RP stuff anyway?
Garf.
but then going strictly by the rules and ignoring the fluff... Why would I care about the Imperium's attitude towards psionics?
Why would I care about any of the game history or news flashes.
Ignoring the fluff, why don't I just role dice against the charts and demand my rewards. Who cares about that RP stuff anyway?
Garf.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
Is there any difference in the rules you missed?
No
Should there be?
Maybe.
it depends on how nit picky you are as a Ref/Player group. Some players make a point of RPing the careful maintenance (or lack thereof) of their firearms. For them, I would adjust for reliability issues and adjust those adjustments in favour or against their firearms choices as suggested in earlier posts.
If I was playing a campaign were environmental issues were a factor or law/tech levels limited firearms choices I might play off the real and percieved differences of Revolver's vs. Autopistols. It adds to the fun.
And I've certainly discovered, had suggested to me, or re-thought for clarity, several reasons why NPC's might reasonably be so armed.
Topic Useful (but probably now closed.)
Garf
ps - A friend of mine (commenting on Warhammer and how varied it's lessons are) noted that different people can play the same game against the Same IC opponent and come up with wildly differing lessons learned. Recently an A&E special noted the same thing about Jurors veiwing and cogitating alone on the same evidence for months can be shocked at how different their opinions are once they get down to business in the jury room. Fortunately we don't after to agree here. Vive la Difference!!
No
Should there be?
Maybe.
it depends on how nit picky you are as a Ref/Player group. Some players make a point of RPing the careful maintenance (or lack thereof) of their firearms. For them, I would adjust for reliability issues and adjust those adjustments in favour or against their firearms choices as suggested in earlier posts.
If I was playing a campaign were environmental issues were a factor or law/tech levels limited firearms choices I might play off the real and percieved differences of Revolver's vs. Autopistols. It adds to the fun.
And I've certainly discovered, had suggested to me, or re-thought for clarity, several reasons why NPC's might reasonably be so armed.
Topic Useful (but probably now closed.)
Garf
ps - A friend of mine (commenting on Warhammer and how varied it's lessons are) noted that different people can play the same game against the Same IC opponent and come up with wildly differing lessons learned. Recently an A&E special noted the same thing about Jurors veiwing and cogitating alone on the same evidence for months can be shocked at how different their opinions are once they get down to business in the jury room. Fortunately we don't after to agree here. Vive la Difference!!
The care and maintenance of a revolver is much less than for an automatic. When exposed to harsh conditions, salt water, mud, vacuum, the revolver will still function as designed. The same conditions applied to an automatic will produce a very unsatisfying noise not at all like a gunshot. Both will need a good cleaning after exposure to hostile elements, but the auto will have an increase in function failure due to dirt in the mechanism, parts frozen in crystalized lube, broken corroded parts. The whole idea of a revolver is less to go wrong when the world plays by Murphy's rules.
The big question is, more rounds and fast reload, vs being sure the bullet will actually go down range every time in all conditions.
----------------------------------
In the end, Murphy will rule
The big question is, more rounds and fast reload, vs being sure the bullet will actually go down range every time in all conditions.
----------------------------------
In the end, Murphy will rule
trader jim
SOC-14 1K
vegascat - yes - i can see your an AMMO man -
i totaly agree with you. MAYBY ill listen when you speak about munitions.
i totaly agree with you. MAYBY ill listen when you speak about munitions.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
The 'six for sure' Arugment was one reason The US gun market held out longer than Europe over switching to automatics.
The reliability issue has been reduced, in perception, if not in reality, otherwise, why would military and para military firearms be almost exclusively autopistols?
Supposedly in Vietnam, 'Tunnel Rats' crawled into dark muddy holes relying on the 1911. (I don't know I wasn't IN vietnam I wasn't even in Junior High by the time the americans pulled out.)
Revolvers would only have an advantage over Automatics in cases of extreme neglect or extreme weather.
The Canadian Armed Forces has a special program. Called Rangers. In the CF a ranger is a northerner, mostly likely but not exclusivly, a native Inuit Trapper or Hunter. For signing on to the program and leading the occasional CF regulars around his turf during training or war, The Ranger gets a rifle and an effectively unlimited supply of ammo. Despite the fact that CF issue is an M-16 clone. The rangers use (usually wwII vintage) Bolt action rifles, which when lubricated with graphite or similar non oil or water based lubricants are MUCH more reliable in the naar constant 40 below weather that is winter North of 60.
I suspect in similar conditions the revolver would beat out the autopistol too.
Like wise gravity variances and corrosive atomospheres would bring the General utiliy of revolvers beyond that of automatics despite their improved engineering and manufacture.
So... 'Six for sure' would be an issue again in the TU but I'm not sure it is now.
The reliability issue has been reduced, in perception, if not in reality, otherwise, why would military and para military firearms be almost exclusively autopistols?
Supposedly in Vietnam, 'Tunnel Rats' crawled into dark muddy holes relying on the 1911. (I don't know I wasn't IN vietnam I wasn't even in Junior High by the time the americans pulled out.)
Revolvers would only have an advantage over Automatics in cases of extreme neglect or extreme weather.
The Canadian Armed Forces has a special program. Called Rangers. In the CF a ranger is a northerner, mostly likely but not exclusivly, a native Inuit Trapper or Hunter. For signing on to the program and leading the occasional CF regulars around his turf during training or war, The Ranger gets a rifle and an effectively unlimited supply of ammo. Despite the fact that CF issue is an M-16 clone. The rangers use (usually wwII vintage) Bolt action rifles, which when lubricated with graphite or similar non oil or water based lubricants are MUCH more reliable in the naar constant 40 below weather that is winter North of 60.
I suspect in similar conditions the revolver would beat out the autopistol too.
Like wise gravity variances and corrosive atomospheres would bring the General utiliy of revolvers beyond that of automatics despite their improved engineering and manufacture.
So... 'Six for sure' would be an issue again in the TU but I'm not sure it is now.
Revolvers do fail, particularly if neglected and abused. I have seen a Ruger jam (malfunction not misfire) and I know several guys who have neve seen an auto fail. You cannot be sure, just more confident.Originally posted by vegascat:
The big question is, more rounds and fast reload, vs being sure the bullet will actually go down range every time in all conditions.
And Garf, I missed being drafted by one year but I went to college with Viet Nam vets and have talked to a lot of combat vets since (I once played Twilight 2000 with a retired infantry sergeant). AFAIK the most common weapopn for tunnel rats was the Colt M1911A1, although .38 and .357 revolvers were available. In the early 1970's the army developed a silent revolver for 'rats, but it was to late.
M1911A1 was (still) the standard issue sidearm for us Tank crews in Saudi. (Each "Tank" had its own M16, but that was used only when the crew needed more firepower than the pistol could provide... but didn't need the whole tank.)
What I can tell you is that sand is murder on firearms. Weapons that were lubricated with CLP (teflon cleaning/lubricating oil) collected so much sand that they started to look like sand sculptures. Weapons that weren't lubricated dry rusted or damn near welded their own actions shut. The special purpose oil that was issued to replace the CLP was even worse. It collected sand AND allowed rusting.
The .45's actually fared VERY well under the circumstances. They rusted like everything else, but worked smoothly anyway. Their MAGAZINES on the other hand were another story. If you didn't take apart the magazine for cleaning EACH AND EVERY DAY, the sand would gum it up beyond any hope of ever getting off more than two rounds. And GOD help you if you forgot the clean the spare "clips" for more than a day or two!
I've heard similar complaints from the chopper pilots who showed up at the ALoC on occasion about their .38 revolvers... but having no practical experience with them, I can't validate the claim. If they were like everything else, they probably gummed up around every moving part they had.
My point? I'm sure I had a point when I started this post...
Oh yeah... the weapon is pretty much only as good as its user. Neglect it, abuse it, fill it with sand and rust, and it will likely neglect you when you need it. Some designs (like the M1911A1, undoubtedly one of my favorites) are more resistant to these conditions than other are.
There are valid reasons why revolvers would remain in service LONG after the automatics take dominance. The revolver design does have some reliability advantages over automatics IN GENERAL. The specific cases will, of course, vary with the design. At least that's the way it seems to me.
What I can tell you is that sand is murder on firearms. Weapons that were lubricated with CLP (teflon cleaning/lubricating oil) collected so much sand that they started to look like sand sculptures. Weapons that weren't lubricated dry rusted or damn near welded their own actions shut. The special purpose oil that was issued to replace the CLP was even worse. It collected sand AND allowed rusting.
The .45's actually fared VERY well under the circumstances. They rusted like everything else, but worked smoothly anyway. Their MAGAZINES on the other hand were another story. If you didn't take apart the magazine for cleaning EACH AND EVERY DAY, the sand would gum it up beyond any hope of ever getting off more than two rounds. And GOD help you if you forgot the clean the spare "clips" for more than a day or two!
I've heard similar complaints from the chopper pilots who showed up at the ALoC on occasion about their .38 revolvers... but having no practical experience with them, I can't validate the claim. If they were like everything else, they probably gummed up around every moving part they had.
My point? I'm sure I had a point when I started this post...
Oh yeah... the weapon is pretty much only as good as its user. Neglect it, abuse it, fill it with sand and rust, and it will likely neglect you when you need it. Some designs (like the M1911A1, undoubtedly one of my favorites) are more resistant to these conditions than other are.
There are valid reasons why revolvers would remain in service LONG after the automatics take dominance. The revolver design does have some reliability advantages over automatics IN GENERAL. The specific cases will, of course, vary with the design. At least that's the way it seems to me.
