locking system where the bolt pivots down against a shoulder to prevent recoil from unlocking the bolt. Direct impingement would rotate the bolt upwards and through a cam groove to cycle the action
The shoulder needs to be way shorter though looking at this again, it would be impossible for the round to enter or exit the barrel with this geometry
I have to wonder if any existing guns use a similar locking mechanism though
So a tilting bolt action i.e. FAL?
Whereas your design seems to force the bolt upwards by direct impingement, the fal is locked by the bolt carrier.
In addition, the use of direct impingement on the bolt itself would cause 2 things to happen that will effect the reliability.
1, Bounceback, flinging the bolt upward will then cause it to bounce off the upper receiver unless it is open top, as well as the fact there's no other mechanisms allowing for it to actually reciprocate backwards
2. The buildup of soot would basically make it impossible for it to then be seated correctly, and so would be prone to having the bolt not be fully "closed"
Looked more into the FAL’s locking system, I see a lot of people claiming a potential disadvantage to be that you need a reinforced receiver to lock the bolt in battery, but what’s stopping you from just using lugs in the same fashion as a rotating bolt? If you had lugs on the bolt face that drop into alignment with lugs on the breach you wouldn’t need a strengthened receiver
Look closer, anon, the locking shoulder is at the opposite end from the barrel. You lose the benefit of a separate trunnion or barrel extension when you have to make it the whole length of the receiver anyway.
That’s the point I’m trying to address, why not have the locking shoulder at the front of the barrel? By having the bolt face tilt or slide, instead of the rear of the bolt, you’d eliminate the need for a rear locking surface, it could all be in the front trunion
11 months ago
Anonymous
>By having the bolt face tilt or slide
If you keep the pivot at the front, then as you bring the locking shoulder closer to the pivot point, you increase the angle of tilt required to clear it, and the boltface and extractor have to accomodate that tilt as it locks or unlocks. If you switch to pivoting around the back of the bolt (which lets you keep a small tilt angle), or to sliding instead of tilting, the boltface and extractor will have to accommodate that vertical movement instead.
Neither issue is insurmountable, but it's a significant complication for no obvious benefit compared to a rotating bolt action.
One of the reasons rotating bolt actions are so popular is because conventional cartridges are rotationally symmetric; rotating about the chamber axis to lock/unlock doesn't create any potential collision.
>bolt pivots down against a shoulder to prevent recoil from unlocking the bolt.
It doesn't, though; bolt thrust below the pivot will flip it right open.
https://i.imgur.com/wgol57n.png
Ok guys, i figured it out
by using a slotted bolt face instead of a circular one, the bolt an lift out of the shoulder, grabbing onto the rim of the cartridge with an extractor, allowing for a straight pull out of the chamber
This one's better, with the pivot in back, bolt thrust jams it closed, and with proper gas port tuning it should be able to overcome that when you want it to.
>locking system where the bolt pivots down against a shoulder to prevent recoil from unlocking the bolt.
Similar setups have been done before, although there's the issue of uneven forces on the bolt, meaing that you'll run into longevity issues with higher pressure cartridges, and will need to make the system a lot beefer than if the forces were more even. The closest thing to that system IIRC how a break action rifle/shotgun works.
>Direct impingement would rotate the bolt upwards and through a cam groove to cycle the action
You mean acting directly on the bolt, or with a bolt carrier?
https://i.imgur.com/FhYDI92.png
If the cams were used as locking lugs instead of using a shoulder, you could even fit a sneaky little fire control group back here, but maybe it would be better to just cut the center of the shoulder piece out and place that stuff inside for strength
>Sneaky little fire control group
I'm a gun design wannabe and I've thought of that exact idea a while back. I don't want to say impossible, but the length of your barrel extesnion/feed ramp are limited by the length of the magazine's feed lips and cartridge. >I have to wonder if any existing guns use a similar locking mechanism though
Arisaka Type 96/99 LMGs, That one Italian semi auto rifle from the 30s (Breda?, and the US Krag-Jorgensens have a similar arrangement. "Low Wall" Winchester 1885s too.
https://i.imgur.com/IZLxBIP.jpg
I think I’m on to something bros
First off your cam track is backwards and lacks the extra length needed for dwell time. I've thought of a similar arrangement for a delayed blowback SMG but I'm focusing on other stuff right now.
Anyway OP what's the purpose of this compared to a conventional system?
>Arisaka Type 96/99 LMGs
Not necessarily true, The Arisakas used a hinge locking block, and from what I can tell, the shoulder locking the bolt in isnt supposed to move >US Krag-Jorgensens
Thats just a bolt action, what are you on about
>sneaky little fcgs
Not sure what context you're looking at, but in terms of designing a pistols with no trigger bar/etc. that passes around the magwell, it doesn't get sneakier than the Maxim-Silverman.
Of course, the Maxim-Silverman rewieners the striker inertially, when the bolt reaches its end of travel and the striker keeps going, which I'm not convinced is a great system, but the sear arrangement can still be used with a striker wienered by other means.
Nah.
See it got that lil red pipe? That pipe take of the explosion out, put in on the lever, make the lever come up. Lever got hold that old bullet take it right out, dump it down.
See that green piece that come thru? That lock it down bro. You gotta press down bro. Lock right in place.
But the pipe come thru let it come up.
That dark red thing? That the bullet clip bro. Oe pool up, the lever git it, go right on the barrel dude. Right in.
Lock that shit down on the green tab? Ready to rock bro, ready to rock.
Ok guys, i figured it out
by using a slotted bolt face instead of a circular one, the bolt an lift out of the shoulder, grabbing onto the rim of the cartridge with an extractor, allowing for a straight pull out of the chamber
If the cams were used as locking lugs instead of using a shoulder, you could even fit a sneaky little fire control group back here, but maybe it would be better to just cut the center of the shoulder piece out and place that stuff inside for strength
If the cams were used as locking lugs instead of using a shoulder, you could even fit a sneaky little fire control group back here, but maybe it would be better to just cut the center of the shoulder piece out and place that stuff inside for strength
In the first drawing the cartridge is lined up with the chamber while the breech block is on top of the Tetris piece. The bottom of the barrel is flush with the bottom of the Tetris piece.
In the second drawing the breech block has dropped down to the lower step of the Tetris piece and the barrel is still in the same position. But the cartridge is still lined up with the chamber.
The bolt face is slotted instead of circular. The top of the bolt face supports the rim of the cartridge when in battery, and slides into place with the camming action of the bolt. When the bolt reciprocates, the bolt face raises back up and grabs onto the cartridge with the extractor at the bottom of the bolt face, which then travels rearward with the bolt carrier
this is one of those questions where the answer is "yeah that might work, but why would you do that?"
It's not the strongest design and doesn't offer apparent advantages over existing proven designs.
When I first drew this up, the advantage in my head was you can lower the cartridge from the magazine to the chamber for a very low height over bore, but then I realized this isn’t feasible since the cartridge wouldn’t have clearance to enter or exit the chamber. The only advantage I see now is simplicity over a rotating bolt design, and less complex geometry to machine on the breach face (I can’t imagine radial lugs are something that’s simple to manufacture)
A falling block action
I'm like 80%sure that's what textron did during the NGSW Weapon trials. Although possible, there's def a better way of doing this.
That’s the point I’m trying to address, why not have the locking shoulder at the front of the barrel? By having the bolt face tilt or slide, instead of the rear of the bolt, you’d eliminate the need for a rear locking surface, it could all be in the front trunion
I'm not too sure what you mean by this? Like having the bolt be locked into an extended area of the chamber i.e. ar15? That or you could just simply have the bolt carrier lock into lugs extending from the breech of the barrel.
In either case, most of your designs have been already tried and manufactured by others. The early 20th century was a wild time for firearms design.
Steyr's ACR did it first, and the fact that a bullpup wasn't designed around this action is a travesty.
Ok, hear me out. A horizontally fluted chamber could possibly allow the brass to expand and lock in long enough on a low pressure cartridge to kind of work like a blowback design. Maybe use something with really tough brass loaded to lower pressures like .454 Casull loaded to .45 Colt pressure.
Midcentury jank, only made it to production a few times with small caliber pistols and even then the benefits were marginal. On a semi-related note, the SIG STGW57/510 has a chamber ring, which is actually used to prevent bolt-bounce.
>Arisaka Type 96/99 LMGs
Not necessarily true, The Arisakas used a hinge locking block, and from what I can tell, the shoulder locking the bolt in isnt supposed to move >US Krag-Jorgensens
Thats just a bolt action, what are you on about
>Not necessarily true, The Arisakas used a hinge locking block,
The T96 and 99 used a verrtically sliding locking block, which interacts with one large asymmetrical locking lug on the breechblock. >and from what I can tell, the shoulder locking the bolt in isnt supposed to move
Wait, I'm a little confused. In your action as described in
https://i.imgur.com/IZLxBIP.jpg
I think I’m on to something bros
, the locking shoulder is supposed to move?
>Thats just a bolt action, what are you on about
A bolt action with a single asymmetrical locking lug, meaning that your hypothetical locking system would have the same lmitations. How said locking lugs are cammed into place is irrelevant.
can you make a ramp at a steep angle in the receiver, with a roller that rides along it, that is in turn connected with an arm to the bolt? after firing the bolt pushes back on the arm, which makes the roller push against the ramp to delay the opening, and when pressure drops enough the roller clears the ramp and opens the bolt. basically delay horizontal movement of the bolt with a vertical obstacle
Yeah, it is in the same line of thinking as the roller delayed blowback system. But instead of two rollers acting against a steep angle inside the trunnion, it is a singular roller acting against a steep angle inside the receiver
Ok, hear me out. A horizontally fluted chamber could possibly allow the brass to expand and lock in long enough on a low pressure cartridge to kind of work like a blowback design. Maybe use something with really tough brass loaded to lower pressures like .454 Casull loaded to .45 Colt pressure.
In theory, yeah. Like a blowback mechanism. I'm sure there's flaws I'm not considering and there's a trillion better options, but I bet you could get it to work in a limited capacity. May need a special case design to allow early expansion while still keeping the case head intact.
Exactly, but even more exaggerated to compensate for a complete lack of bolt, besides maybe a really fricking heavy hammer spring and a plate surrounding the point of the hammer to support the case head a tiny bit more.
Done and tried, in general, not a good idea
Yeah, this is all an exercise in being so obsessed with whether or not you could that you never stop to think whether or not you should.
Ackley did some experiments with, IIRC, 30-30 Improved, where the brass gripped the chamber hard enough to completely handle the bolt thrust, no chamber grooves/flutes/rings required. Of course, it only works when it's clean and dry.
Auto dildo for your homosexual butthole? Probably.
Black person wtf am i looking at?
locking system where the bolt pivots down against a shoulder to prevent recoil from unlocking the bolt. Direct impingement would rotate the bolt upwards and through a cam groove to cycle the action
The shoulder needs to be way shorter though looking at this again, it would be impossible for the round to enter or exit the barrel with this geometry
I have to wonder if any existing guns use a similar locking mechanism though
So a tilting bolt action i.e. FAL?
Whereas your design seems to force the bolt upwards by direct impingement, the fal is locked by the bolt carrier.
In addition, the use of direct impingement on the bolt itself would cause 2 things to happen that will effect the reliability.
1, Bounceback, flinging the bolt upward will then cause it to bounce off the upper receiver unless it is open top, as well as the fact there's no other mechanisms allowing for it to actually reciprocate backwards
2. The buildup of soot would basically make it impossible for it to then be seated correctly, and so would be prone to having the bolt not be fully "closed"
Looked more into the FAL’s locking system, I see a lot of people claiming a potential disadvantage to be that you need a reinforced receiver to lock the bolt in battery, but what’s stopping you from just using lugs in the same fashion as a rotating bolt? If you had lugs on the bolt face that drop into alignment with lugs on the breach you wouldn’t need a strengthened receiver
Look closer, anon, the locking shoulder is at the opposite end from the barrel. You lose the benefit of a separate trunnion or barrel extension when you have to make it the whole length of the receiver anyway.
That’s the point I’m trying to address, why not have the locking shoulder at the front of the barrel? By having the bolt face tilt or slide, instead of the rear of the bolt, you’d eliminate the need for a rear locking surface, it could all be in the front trunion
>By having the bolt face tilt or slide
If you keep the pivot at the front, then as you bring the locking shoulder closer to the pivot point, you increase the angle of tilt required to clear it, and the boltface and extractor have to accomodate that tilt as it locks or unlocks. If you switch to pivoting around the back of the bolt (which lets you keep a small tilt angle), or to sliding instead of tilting, the boltface and extractor will have to accommodate that vertical movement instead.
Neither issue is insurmountable, but it's a significant complication for no obvious benefit compared to a rotating bolt action.
One of the reasons rotating bolt actions are so popular is because conventional cartridges are rotationally symmetric; rotating about the chamber axis to lock/unlock doesn't create any potential collision.
>bolt pivots down against a shoulder to prevent recoil from unlocking the bolt.
It doesn't, though; bolt thrust below the pivot will flip it right open.
This one's better, with the pivot in back, bolt thrust jams it closed, and with proper gas port tuning it should be able to overcome that when you want it to.
graduate high school first
ok i kind of get it. you're trying to do some bulpup shit. keep trying
>locking system where the bolt pivots down against a shoulder to prevent recoil from unlocking the bolt.
Similar setups have been done before, although there's the issue of uneven forces on the bolt, meaing that you'll run into longevity issues with higher pressure cartridges, and will need to make the system a lot beefer than if the forces were more even. The closest thing to that system IIRC how a break action rifle/shotgun works.
>Direct impingement would rotate the bolt upwards and through a cam groove to cycle the action
You mean acting directly on the bolt, or with a bolt carrier?
>Sneaky little fire control group
I'm a gun design wannabe and I've thought of that exact idea a while back. I don't want to say impossible, but the length of your barrel extesnion/feed ramp are limited by the length of the magazine's feed lips and cartridge.
>I have to wonder if any existing guns use a similar locking mechanism though
Arisaka Type 96/99 LMGs, That one Italian semi auto rifle from the 30s (Breda?, and the US Krag-Jorgensens have a similar arrangement. "Low Wall" Winchester 1885s too.
First off your cam track is backwards and lacks the extra length needed for dwell time. I've thought of a similar arrangement for a delayed blowback SMG but I'm focusing on other stuff right now.
Anyway OP what's the purpose of this compared to a conventional system?
>Arisaka Type 96/99 LMGs
Not necessarily true, The Arisakas used a hinge locking block, and from what I can tell, the shoulder locking the bolt in isnt supposed to move
>US Krag-Jorgensens
Thats just a bolt action, what are you on about
>sneaky little fcgs
Not sure what context you're looking at, but in terms of designing a pistols with no trigger bar/etc. that passes around the magwell, it doesn't get sneakier than the Maxim-Silverman.
Of course, the Maxim-Silverman rewieners the striker inertially, when the bolt reaches its end of travel and the striker keeps going, which I'm not convinced is a great system, but the sear arrangement can still be used with a striker wienered by other means.
How would one handle a FCG on a bolt that ends halfway past the magazine? Something moronic short like 1" long.
would a direct impingement bullpup pistol work? maybe, but not this one because to feed the next round you need to eject the spent case
How is that going to eject a spent casing?
Nah.
See it got that lil red pipe? That pipe take of the explosion out, put in on the lever, make the lever come up. Lever got hold that old bullet take it right out, dump it down.
See that green piece that come thru? That lock it down bro. You gotta press down bro. Lock right in place.
But the pipe come thru let it come up.
That dark red thing? That the bullet clip bro. Oe pool up, the lever git it, go right on the barrel dude. Right in.
Lock that shit down on the green tab? Ready to rock bro, ready to rock.
Add arrows or make it an animation
Yeah bro that shit will work 100%. Genius move bro thanks for putting this out there this is awesome.
Ok guys, i figured it out
by using a slotted bolt face instead of a circular one, the bolt an lift out of the shoulder, grabbing onto the rim of the cartridge with an extractor, allowing for a straight pull out of the chamber
Was this gun designed in Papers, Please?
Magazine is too high, the block in front of the magazine isn't needed, and the hinge needs to be lower to reduce the amount of movement from recoil.
If the cams were used as locking lugs instead of using a shoulder, you could even fit a sneaky little fire control group back here, but maybe it would be better to just cut the center of the shoulder piece out and place that stuff inside for strength
I think I’m on to something bros
In the first drawing the cartridge is lined up with the chamber while the breech block is on top of the Tetris piece. The bottom of the barrel is flush with the bottom of the Tetris piece.
In the second drawing the breech block has dropped down to the lower step of the Tetris piece and the barrel is still in the same position. But the cartridge is still lined up with the chamber.
How is this accomplished?
The bolt face is slotted instead of circular. The top of the bolt face supports the rim of the cartridge when in battery, and slides into place with the camming action of the bolt. When the bolt reciprocates, the bolt face raises back up and grabs onto the cartridge with the extractor at the bottom of the bolt face, which then travels rearward with the bolt carrier
When I first drew this up, the advantage in my head was you can lower the cartridge from the magazine to the chamber for a very low height over bore, but then I realized this isn’t feasible since the cartridge wouldn’t have clearance to enter or exit the chamber. The only advantage I see now is simplicity over a rotating bolt design, and less complex geometry to machine on the breach face (I can’t imagine radial lugs are something that’s simple to manufacture)
...it's just a poorly drawn AR, how could you possibly be confused by this?
A falling block action
I'm like 80%sure that's what textron did during the NGSW Weapon trials. Although possible, there's def a better way of doing this.
I'm not too sure what you mean by this? Like having the bolt be locked into an extended area of the chamber i.e. ar15? That or you could just simply have the bolt carrier lock into lugs extending from the breech of the barrel.
In either case, most of your designs have been already tried and manufactured by others. The early 20th century was a wild time for firearms design.
Textron did a falling... chamber? Probably the most robust semi-auto action I've ever seen in theory.
Steyr's ACR did it first, and the fact that a bullpup wasn't designed around this action is a travesty.
Midcentury jank, only made it to production a few times with small caliber pistols and even then the benefits were marginal. On a semi-related note, the SIG STGW57/510 has a chamber ring, which is actually used to prevent bolt-bounce.
>Not necessarily true, The Arisakas used a hinge locking block,
The T96 and 99 used a verrtically sliding locking block, which interacts with one large asymmetrical locking lug on the breechblock.
>and from what I can tell, the shoulder locking the bolt in isnt supposed to move
Wait, I'm a little confused. In your action as described in
, the locking shoulder is supposed to move?
>Thats just a bolt action, what are you on about
A bolt action with a single asymmetrical locking lug, meaning that your hypothetical locking system would have the same lmitations. How said locking lugs are cammed into place is irrelevant.
this is one of those questions where the answer is "yeah that might work, but why would you do that?"
It's not the strongest design and doesn't offer apparent advantages over existing proven designs.
Could you argue the panzerfaust is a CQQ weapon? What would its charge do to a human torso?
cqb
perhaps
imma hijacking this thread
can you make a ramp at a steep angle in the receiver, with a roller that rides along it, that is in turn connected with an arm to the bolt? after firing the bolt pushes back on the arm, which makes the roller push against the ramp to delay the opening, and when pressure drops enough the roller clears the ramp and opens the bolt. basically delay horizontal movement of the bolt with a vertical obstacle
savage a17 works like that
Yeah, it is in the same line of thinking as the roller delayed blowback system. But instead of two rollers acting against a steep angle inside the trunnion, it is a singular roller acting against a steep angle inside the receiver
behold
Ok, hear me out. A horizontally fluted chamber could possibly allow the brass to expand and lock in long enough on a low pressure cartridge to kind of work like a blowback design. Maybe use something with really tough brass loaded to lower pressures like .454 Casull loaded to .45 Colt pressure.
so what? it would shoot the case out the back?
In theory, yeah. Like a blowback mechanism. I'm sure there's flaws I'm not considering and there's a trillion better options, but I bet you could get it to work in a limited capacity. May need a special case design to allow early expansion while still keeping the case head intact.
Done and tried, in general, not a good idea
So like a chamber ring blowback
Exactly, but even more exaggerated to compensate for a complete lack of bolt, besides maybe a really fricking heavy hammer spring and a plate surrounding the point of the hammer to support the case head a tiny bit more.
Yeah, this is all an exercise in being so obsessed with whether or not you could that you never stop to think whether or not you should.
Ackley did some experiments with, IIRC, 30-30 Improved, where the brass gripped the chamber hard enough to completely handle the bolt thrust, no chamber grooves/flutes/rings required. Of course, it only works when it's clean and dry.
If a bullpup actuated a transfer bar in tension instead of compression, wouldn’t that resolve the trigger issue?