- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
Shamelessly stolen from @SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Any explanation for those of us who are not gun enthusiasts?
So, a derringer is a small pistol, usually with two shots, made for close-range self-defense. Normally they use, well, pistol rounds, like a 9mm, which has like, 700 joules of energy or someshit like that. When you fire a lightweight gun, you definitely get some kickback from it, even with a pistol round.
A 45-70 is a big-ass rifle round with something like 4000 joules of energy behind it. You uh, you put that in a little derringer and pull the trigger, both you and your target are gonna feel it.
Above PugJesus talks about the energy of the round being very large. There’s more to it.
The derringer design lacks any technology to absorb and extend the impulse of recoil, most importantly the slide found on any modern semi automatic.
Not only is there extreme recoil, there’s also absolutely nothing to help the shooter deal with it.
And this tiny little grip looks about big enough for a finger a half.
i’m imagining someone pressing the trigger and the gun shoots backwards with the bullet just flopping out unceremoniously
Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?
The spring can’t be all that strong since they can be assembled by hand, and what does the slide weigh? (Granted the slide is being accelerated, so I assume that’s where the bulk of energy is dissipated, MV^2 and all).
What’s the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?
(Really I’m curious what the numbers are, as I’ve read this many times but have no idea what the comparison is like).
Remember conservation of momentum. The only way the machine can absorb part of the impulse is through friction, heat, and by redirecting the existing chamber pressure after the bullet has left the barrel.
Remember the human body. Magnitude matters much more than duration. Extending the time of impulse by implementing a slide lessens magnitude, the areas under the impulse curves roughly equivalent.
I’m going to apply the above to answer your questions to say it again :)
Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?
For a properly functioning, modern, and typically-designed pistol and a status quo definition of “significant”, the answer is: No. That’s not what it’s designed to do. But, energy can be dissipated slightly if the pistol is compensated: a redirection of chamber pressure from near the end of the barrel, upwards, counter the torque component of the recoil impulse.
What’s the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?
It’s not quite a good question. The maximum force during the impulse is what a human cares about when analyzing a slide. That’s what’ll effect accuracy of the next round and how sore your hands will be in the morning.
If minimization of total impulse is what’s being analyzed then one would want to compare rifles. Rifles have larger rounds, longer barrel length thus more time to use chamber pressure to mitigate recoil.
You’ve good questions for coming into the middle. Go to the beginning: rounds and various types of actions, rifleman 101. Come back to the hard science.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I’ve heard many times that revolvers or semi-auto have less recoil than the other, hence the question about slide mass/energy, as the only element I could see being different which could possibly explain why people hold this opinion.
Do you know of any actual metrics/tests done that show this clearly? Or is it just a perception issue?
(And yea, we’d have to agree on a definition of what we’re measuring/comparing). Do any gun magazines run proper tests occasionally to make comparisons?
I admit my physics classes were a long time ago, but at first glance it seems felt recoil would only be marginally different between a revolver and a pistol using the same round. If anything, I’d expect the revolver to have a greater felt recoil, given the mechanics of a pistol… But I could very well be wrong.
deleted by creator
There is significantly more recoil in a revolver. It’s not just the slide, but the additional weight also helps reduce recoil.
Every revolver I’ve ever held has been heavier than a similar semi-auto. The cylinder is rather massive
Do they typically even use something with as much energy as a 9mm? I thought they were typically smaller rounds like 38 or 22, since it’s a close range gun?
I really don’t know anything about them, would be interesting to see a chart of them.
Mostly I was just grabbing a pistol cartridge that I was vaguely familiar with to demonstrate the difference between a ‘normal’ round for a handgun and a 45-70.
Thanks :)
Why the %^&* does that huge bullet even fit and work in that pistol? From the pic it’s obvious the 45-70 is so much wider than the 9mm
Oh, so it’s custom-made as a joke, not an off-the-shelf model that you just put the wrong bullets in. That makes more sense.
You know how some people’s like having a ridiculously huge truck just to show off to other people that have a ridiculously huge truck? Some gun enthusiasts are like that. It’s not uncommon to see novelty guns like this made, sometimes custom or sometimes by a factory. Stuff like a revolver that also shoots shotgun shells or a pistol with two barrels to shoot two shots at once or a bolt-action pistol to shoot the (basically) largest rifle rounds.
I think this happens in any hobby. I’m sure there are bird watchers with $5000 custom hand-ground binocular lenses or something.
Hey, I’m down for gun enthusiasts getting weird guns. It’s more environmentally friendly than a huge truck, that’s for sure.
Good point.
The ULR 50 is only a pistol by the broadest possible definition of the term.
Oh, for sure. I’m surprised it’s made at all.
modern loadings do that, but the original loadings were black powder and had energy comparable with today’s 5.56. 5.56 still has much less recoil because it’s lighter
Ah, smokeless powder! Ensuring mankind has more power than we know what to do with since the late 19th century.
Also doubles as moderately smokeless rocket propellant
Make me wonder how it would compare to a 410 round. I have shot those and they were not fun in a pistol. That pistol was considerably heavier then a Darringer too
lmao the absolute madman
This just in: Steve reports he has a stress fracture of the wrist.
Sounds about right
Jesus, he almost hit himself in the head with the recoil his arm snapped so far back
Mvp
Kentucky Ballistics did a whole video on this gun.
Holy shit, the unburned powder on the ballistics gel block!
This one should bookend that rifle with the crazy long barrel they keep sawing pieces off of while monitoring muzzle velocity.
Very big bullet, much recoil. Very ouch. They’re rough to shoot in a heavy rifle, there would be consequences shooting then out of a light pistol.
Never bring a knife to a bomb fight.
So how do I get an Idea to the Helldivers devs? They did the grenade pistol, what about an derringer with an AC-8 round. Better ve wearing explosive res armor
deleted by creator
Both shoes off. That means dead right?
Actually what’s the cons
Every bone in your hand and wrist broken? I carry a .45-70 rifle when I hike and it kicks like a mule.
EDIT: This is what I carry (Marlin 1895 SBL). Same ammo. Notice the slight size difference, and this is meant to be compact and easy to carry.
And probably some severe bruising to the face, if not broken bones there too.
Had a friend that had a single shot, it was basically a tube with plastic stock. I shot it once. It left a bruise. Any big cartridge I’ve shot since has been from a heavy gun.
deleted by creator
