Is there a functional reason for why the mass of the bolt has to be behind the chamber on an open bolt action? Why not just put the mass of the bolt infront of the chamber, around the barrel, and leave just enough of the bolt to withstand the pressure of the cartridge? You could shave off a lot of the rear from an bullpup pistol that way.
its already a thing, its called a Telescoping Bolt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescoping_bolt
All of this is still unnecessarily behind the chamber. Why not move the recoil spring and everything infront of the chamber? Who cares if morons hurt their hands when the back of the bolt moves outside of the chassis.
The idea is to cover the ejection port when the bolt is closed which is or isn't mandatory.6
What you're describing would require substantial extension springs, when firearms almost exclusively use various forms of compression springs. And in order to not block magazine feeding, the springs and bolt would have to be above the barrel, past the chamber. When I've had my slumber I shall provide an illustration of what your bold innovative design would end up looking like
>What you're describing would require substantial extension springs
I don't see how, as you could move the mass of the bolt way forward, and have the compression spring seated between the chamber and the mass.
Fuck, I didn't mean to put the spring over the bar.
that's not how you draw sections
don't most pistols put the spring in front of the chamber?
Yeah but I didn't realize that part of the function of the bolt is to hold down the rest of the ammo in the magazine. I thought the bulk of the mass behind the chamber was mainly to house the striker assembly, which wouldn't be needed in an open bolt action.
IIRC most of the SIG 550 models works like that. (the top gun in the picture)
obviously it's not an open bolt gun but i'm pretty sure that's sorta what they did.
the spring wraps around the op rod.
Now every time the bolt recoils, it needs to violently force rounds back down into the magazine from the front, which could potentially force the projectile into the case deeper than is acceptable, impacting your feeding and potentially causing unsafe overpressure situations.
In all other designs the rear portion of the bolt covers the mag until firing and recoil pushes it rearward, which is probably the sole reason it still exists and a design like yours wasn't used.
I just now realized that it is there probably just to hold the rounds on the magazine from flying out.
...so for it to work there would have to be a mechanism holding down the rounds on the magazine while the bolt is in the forward position.
Right, which is going to invite more parts, complexity, and the chance that something is going to malfunction, which is kind of against the whole point of having a dead-simple blowback submachine gun in the first place.
I guess there could be a Ruger Mark type bolt that, when pulled back in an open bolt gun, would also indicate that the gun is cocked. If it is already at the rearwards position before you fire the gun, the user probably wouldn't have time to move their hand behind the bolt before it returns there after firing.
It wouldn't be exactly the shape of the Ruger Mark bolt ofc, since it has the open space in the middle, which in this case, would have to be filled to hold down the ammo in the magazine.
Retard many firearms have compression springs way forwards like the SIG SG 550
>Why not move the recoil spring and everything in front of the chamber?
heat
Nope, it's feeding. You don't want the back of the bolt in *front* of the top cartridge in the magazine where it can snag the bullet tip as it cycles back forcefully, not unless you enjoy destroying your magazines after one shot. For non-self-destructing magazines and reliable feeding you want the bolt to hit the top cartridge from the rear *only*, then holding down the next cartridge in the magazine until it cycles again. You could cut away the upper rear part of the bolt, leaving a long tab on the bottom rear to manage the cartridges in the magazine, but this doesn't reduce the amount of space behind the chamber, so there's no point.
Because a number of firearms do that already (mainly rifles off the top of my head, which don't make the fullest use of this)
>Who cares if morons hurt their hands when the back of the bolt moves outside of the chassis.
Handguns are sort of an example of this in practice.
I think the real answer to your question is that no one wants the specific firearm you're envisioning.
I have no doubt that if your design was made, people would add a rear extension to get the right LOP for a stock anyway, and for a handgun a mag in front would be better balanced than a bullpup.
>for a handgun a mag in front would be better balanced than a bullpup
How much of a difference does the distance of the end of the barrel from your hand make in felt "rotational" upwards recoil? My (probably retarded) gut instinct is that the longer the barrel, the more there is upwards recoil as the "lever", so to say, is longer. If we assume that the mass of the barrel does not dampen the upwards recoil that is.
>How much of a difference
Not much. The bullet isn't really accelerating much past the first few inches. What the extra barrel length does is fuck with accuracy due to high amplitude barrel ringing.
>If we assume that the mass of the barrel does not dampen the upwards recoil that is.
That is a bad assumption. The extra mass of a longer barrel reduces recoil more than the added length might increase it. I have a number of revolvers ranging from snubbies to long barrel silhouette guns. The long barrel guns are always lower recoiling than the shorter ones.
What the fuck is an UZI you retard???
someone tell me why this isn't the most practical form factor for a smg/pcc, with the butt extended downward into a stock and a rail cover on the rear section of picatinny for your cheek
Literally only ATF fuckery. It would be considered an SBR and therefore illegal without a cuckstamp.
Probably just because SMG/PCC is a dead end development for military and LEO use so nothing particularly interesting is getting made.
No reason at all OP. In fact you are the first person ever to think of this specific issue and everyone else is just dumb for not manufacturing weapons this way. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the design being unfeasible, and more just a lack of creativity!
This is precisely why I made the thread!
Congratulations friend. Hopefully your impeccable nack for innovation revolutionizes firearms manufacturing for the foreseeable future. Have a good day.
You too friend.