Why do quad-barrel gatling guns look so terrible compared to six, five, or even three-barreled designs?

Why do quad-barrel gatling guns look so terrible compared to six, five, or even three-barreled designs?
Also gatling gun thread because they’re cool and they go actually go brrrr

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    do actually go*

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    has anyone ever tried to make an actual autoloading gatling gun driven by gas or recoil? motor driven has obvious advantages but in a time before good power sources or very small ones i could see it

    and maybe you subconsciously associate it with circle packing. 3 is maximally compact, 6 +1 in the middle is maximally compact, 5 +1 in the middle is still kinda compact

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds terribly impractical or just downright impossible. The gas pressure isn't constant I assume. How would it even work? It can't.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        make a "slip ring" of sorts that can capture the gaz from every barrel without being interrupted.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Gas trap gatling gun

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Instead of coming up with fake problems and fake half assed solutions you should no shit kill your self.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Instead of tearing others down to make yourself feel better, maybe you should try to build yourself up.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        At the end of each barrel you have an asymmetrical muzzle brake that vents gas tangentially to the direction that you want it to rotate.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Soviet gatling guns were all gas powered, such as the one on the Hind.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        intereresting, this isnt the type of weapon i know much about id never have thought this was once common

        Sounds terribly impractical or just downright impossible. The gas pressure isn't constant I assume. How would it even work? It can't.

        well my response would have been that im sure there would be a way but to really answer this id basically have to design a gun. but ive thought about it a bit before seeing the other post and a "delayed blowback" mechanism where the bolt can move slightly forcing the whole thing to rotate would avoid any difficulties tapping gas alltogether

        how do the soviet guns tap gas, multiple pistons?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      One in the middle design negates the advantage of rotating barrels, ypu simply up the rpm to compensate for the lack of middle barrel.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      yes

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Because square, it's something that should look round so when it's a square it looks shit.

      Soviets did it, big advantage is it gets up to full speed faster than a motor driven gun, big disadvantage is it can't handle multiple misfires in a row. It can handle 1 with the inertia carrying it though but it needs charging cartrides in case it gets 2 in a row.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Russian
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YakB-12.7_machine_gun
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-630
      And they suck from maintenance point of view clearing gas engine is a chore.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    i once summarized why i believe this is the case, but can't find the post in the archive.
    to make it short : in technology that we see daily, 3 or 6 are more commonly arranged on a circle rotating around a center axis (like nuts on a tire), whereas 4 items are far more likely to be arranged as some form of rectangle and move on an x/y axis grid and so we expect them to just that we don't "feel" they have a rotating axis at their center.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >look so terrible
    What?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Think it's personal preference, I prefer the 4 barrel design over 3 looks wise. It's also slightly more space efficient which leads to better cooling and longevity in general.
    To add more sexo to the thread, here's a webm I made(if you got any mp4/twitter links of gats you want converted I gotchu).

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >anotha one

      https://i.imgur.com/tS7dVbW.jpeg

      yes

      I really like the design of that looks wise, still don't understand the purpose of the excess mass coming to a cone besides maybe aerodynamics or to maybe help with the recoil as Soviet autocannons love to shoot the airframe they're on?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Probably helps to control vibration somehow. It was originally designed for ships so I don't think aerodynamics was a major concern.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          That's even more interesting, maybe vibration as the spinning excess mass will act like a flywheel to help prevent side to side movement?
          I should look into that more but I don't know anything about russian moonrunes

          Think it's personal preference, I prefer the 4 barrel design over 3 looks wise. It's also slightly more space efficient which leads to better cooling and longevity in general.
          To add more sexo to the thread, here's a webm I made(if you got any mp4/twitter links of gats you want converted I gotchu).

          >anotha one
          [...]
          I really like the design of that looks wise, still don't understand the purpose of the excess mass coming to a cone besides maybe aerodynamics or to maybe help with the recoil as Soviet autocannons love to shoot the airframe they're on?

          this one is pretty neat

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That's even more interesting, maybe vibration as the spinning excess mass will act like a flywheel to help prevent side to side movement?
        I should look into that more but I don't know anything about russian moonrunes
        [...]
        [...]
        this one is pretty neat

        one other potwntial reason:
        There's likely to still be a material amount of gas exiting the previously fired barrel when the next bullet reaches the muzzle so the cone may help keep that bullet from being deflected a bit and increase accuracy.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >checked
          There's a 2 inch ish gap between barrel and the extension device, if anything the further out extension of the cone may harm it as it's more surface area for the gas to take affect on vs a flat plane front end like we do on our rotary guns.
          I'm thinking it has to deal with recoil or vibration control in my highly uneducated opinion.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    That's just you. If anything, 5 barrels is the worst looking.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Dakka not strong enough

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *