Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

We are very close to achieving my vision of a polymer-stocked lever gun with a top rail.

Ahem...


Lever action belt fed .44 magnum

Wait wait wait. Wouldn’t the right arm’s position interfere with the belt feed?

 Grey Templar wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

We are very close to achieving my vision of a polymer-stocked lever gun with a top rail.

Lever action belt fed .44 magnum

Yeah, that's not my vision. Not at all.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

We are very close to achieving my vision of a polymer-stocked lever gun with a top rail.

Ahem...


Lever action belt fed .44 magnum

Wait wait wait. Wouldn’t the right arm’s position interfere with the belt feed?

It could be set up for a left-handed user.

 Haighus wrote:

It could be set up for a left-handed user.

That thing looks like its sole purpose is to burn up money.

I mean I get it, Desert Eagles exist for a reason, but this takes it to an entirely new level of absurdity.

If the goal is conspicuous consumption, gold-filled hollow points would do the trick.

Speaking of which...

What shamelessly extravagant firearm do you own, or would you own if you could own it?

I'd like one of those Bergmann-Bayards. Magazines in front of the trigger guard are cool.

IIRC that is actually made for British gun laws, but yes it is totally absurd.

 Haighus wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

We are very close to achieving my vision of a polymer-stocked lever gun with a top rail.

Ahem...


Lever action belt fed .44 magnum

Wait wait wait. Wouldn’t the right arm’s position interfere with the belt feed?

It could be set up for a left-handed user.

Wouldn’t that just make it your cheek getting in the way?

I genuinely don’t know myself because I’m an uninformed idiot.

i can't get over the bipod personally on the lever action, i just can't, especially since it is so ... short?

Also if it were for a left hand set up? Shouldn't what i assume the eject not be where the rest of your body is?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Wouldn’t that just make it your cheek getting in the way?

I genuinely don’t know myself because I’m an uninformed idiot.

If it indeed were left handed, and this is the ejection , then i would be more concerned about hot brass casings hitting the operator.

Good point. Is it possible the component is ambidextrous, has ports on both sides, and this particular firearm has been configured to eject from the unseen side for a left-handed user?

Edit: it is already enough of a Tactistein's Monster that anything seems possible. Including just being a dangerous or non-functional design.

 Haighus wrote:
Good point. Is it possible the component is ambidextrous, has ports on both sides, and this particular firearm has been configured to eject from the unseen side for a left-handed user?

Edit: it is already enough of a Tactistein's Monster that anything seems possible. Including just being a dangerous or non-functional design.

Let's not forget that it's using rimmed handgum ammo as well. In a belt.

Admittedly .44 Mag has plenty of juice and with a longer barrel, one would see considerable improvement, but a big point of the PCC is that you can swap ammo between the long weapon and the handgun.

Does it come with a matching belt-fed revolver?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Good point. Is it possible the component is ambidextrous, has ports on both sides, and this particular firearm has been configured to eject from the unseen side for a left-handed user?

Edit: it is already enough of a Tactistein's Monster that anything seems possible. Including just being a dangerous or non-functional design.

Let's not forget that it's using rimmed handgum ammo as well. In a belt.

Admittedly .44 Mag has plenty of juice and with a longer barrel, one would see considerable improvement, but a big point of the PCC is that you can swap ammo between the long weapon and the handgun.

Does it come with a matching belt-fed revolver?

How would that even work? No really, does something like that exist?

I personally prefer the stgw 90 but then again not everyone has had the "privileg" to get conscripted.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Good point. Is it possible the component is ambidextrous, has ports on both sides, and this particular firearm has been configured to eject from the unseen side for a left-handed user?

Edit: it is already enough of a Tactistein's Monster that anything seems possible. Including just being a dangerous or non-functional design.

But at that point, why not buy a massproduced working semiautomatic rifle chambered in a Nato calibre? f.e. the civilian version of the STGW 90? Or are the gun laws so absurd wherever this thing is from that you couldn't get a 5,56 x 45mm semi automatic rifle but this thing is?

Speaking of which...

What shamelessly extravagant firearm do you own, or would you own if you could own it?

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Good point. Is it possible the component is ambidextrous, has ports on both sides, and this particular firearm has been configured to eject from the unseen side for a left-handed user?

Edit: it is already enough of a Tactistein's Monster that anything seems possible. Including just being a dangerous or non-functional design.

But at that point, why not buy a massproduced working semiautomatic rifle chambered in a Nato calibre? f.e. the civilian version of the STGW 90? Or are the gun laws so absurd wherever this thing is from that you couldn't get a 5,56 x 45mm semi automatic rifle but this thing is?

Well, if the following is true...

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC that is actually made for British gun laws, but yes it is totally absurd.

British gun law prohibits semi-automatic ("self-loading") weapons in most cases. Bolt and lever actioned firearms are allowed with a standard firearms license.

I see no competent answer in which the self-loading bit could be considered as reasonable compared to bolt / lever systems beyond a complete and utter lack of understanding of ammo wastage and accuracy that already starts to appear on users using semi-automatic and even worse automatic firing weapons as compared to lever and bolt actions.

And if this is about ease of use for unsavory means... those people anyways will get what they need if they really really want it or find other means, potentially even more dangerous than a firearm.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I see no competent answer in which the self-loading bit could be considered as reasonable compared to bolt / lever systems beyond a complete and utter lack of understanding of ammo wastage and accuracy that already starts to appear on users using semi-automatic and even worse automatic firing weapons as compared to lever and bolt actions.

And if this is about ease of use for unsavory means... those people anyways will get what they need if they really really want it or find other means, potentially even more dangerous than a firearm.

Eh. British gun law follows three main tenets and is pretty consistent on them:
1) Guns cannot be owned for self-defence
2) Guns should not be easily hidden
3) Guns should not have a high rate of fire
Anyone who wants an exception to this needs to prove why with a good reason under UK law (a section 5 license). The weird one is pump actions, which are also prohibited for the most part.

For whatever reason, that dividing line for rate of fire has been set between bolt-action and semi-automatic. I think it is hard to argue there is no benefit in killing humans for semi- and fully-automatic weapons over bolt action weapons, because every military that can has adopted the higher fire-rate where possible. It may be fairly marginal but it clearly exists.

A debate on the efficacy and justification of such laws is veering into politics and beyond the scope of this thread.

The end result is that the kinds of rifle available for general use in the UK are quite restricted to particular actions.

 Haighus wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I see no competent answer in which the self-loading bit could be considered as reasonable compared to bolt / lever systems beyond a complete and utter lack of understanding of ammo wastage and accuracy that already starts to appear on users using semi-automatic and even worse automatic firing weapons as compared to lever and bolt actions.

And if this is about ease of use for unsavory means... those people anyways will get what they need if they really really want it or find other means, potentially even more dangerous than a firearm.

Eh. British gun law follows three main tenets and is pretty consistent on them:
1) Guns cannot be owned for self-defence
2) Guns should not be easily hidden
3) Guns should not have a high rate of fire
Anyone who wants an exception to this needs to prove why with a good reason under UK law (a section 5 license). The weird one is pump actions, which are also prohibited for the most part.

For whatever reason, that dividing line for rate of fire has been set between bolt-action and semi-automatic. I think it is hard to argue there is no benefit in killing humans for semi- and fully-automatic weapons over bolt action weapons, because every military that can has adopted the higher fire-rate where possible. It may be fairly marginal but it clearly exists.

A debate on the efficacy and justification of such laws is veering into politics and beyond the scope of this thread.

The end result is that the kinds of rifle available for general use in the UK are quite restricted to particular actions.

There is a reason for drill though, hence why the higher firerate isn't a boon to an civilian beyond niche cases.

Many thanks for the explanation though.. still seems willfully lobotomized but thems the breaks i guess.,

Apologies if this veers into politics, but I guess part of the U.K. not having anyone really pushing against our gun laws is our (mentioned earlier in the thread) lack of a particular hunting culture.

Farmers can still have firearms for pest control and Deer culling. And up in the Highlands you can do for a (sodding expensive) hunting weekend where you stalk Deer.

But….that’s about it. We absolutely do have tracks of untamed wilderness, but we don’t really have the wildlife in the same way.

And so those who need firearms for their job/vocation are allowed them, and nobody else seems especially fussed.

Is what it is, and this post should not be interpreted as passing any kind of judgement.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Apologies if this veers into politics, but I guess part of the U.K. not having anyone really pushing against our gun laws is our (mentioned earlier in the thread) lack of a particular hunting culture.

Farmers can still have firearms for pest control and Deer culling. And up in the Highlands you can do for a (sodding expensive) hunting weekend where you stalk Deer.

But….that’s about it. We absolutely do have tracks of untamed wilderness, but we don’t really have the wildlife in the same way.

And so those who need firearms for their job/vocation are allowed them, and nobody else seems especially fussed.

Is what it is, and this post should not be interpreted as passing any kind of judgement.

Well, and you can easily get a firearm adequate for hunting anything in the UK- there is nothing bigger than red deer or feral ponies in most the country, with a couple of boar reserves.

Shotgun licenses in particular are fairly straightforward. My dad holds one after my parents inherited my granddad's shotguns, and my dad has fired a gun about 3 times in his life. The shotguns are something of a family tree with them being condensed from various relatives (and one family friend), so we didn't want to sell them. Getting the license was pretty trivial once the storage box was bolted to the wall.

Reminds me I need to look through and ID those shotguns at some point. Some of them are apparently over 100 years old. There were also some WWII home guard cartridges floating around at one point, not sure what happened to those.

There's a lot of shooting going on in the UK, target shooting is v popular with both shotguns and rifles.

 Haighus wrote:
British gun law prohibits semi-automatic ("self-loading") weapons in most cases. Bolt and lever actioned firearms are allowed with a standard firearms license.

Interesting to note that just over 100 years ago, British and American guns laws were remarkably similar. Full-auto belt-fed machineguns legal for private purchase in both countries.

A belt-fed revolver is of course an oxymoron, unless you want to lump in rotary weapons like a Gatling Gun.

The "tactical lever action" is becoming in thing in the US in part because of loopholes in certain jurisdictions' gun laws. The problem with a lever action is that its sustained rate of fire is about the same as a single-shot weapon; it's real strength is a rapid burst when needed, which could prove decisive in a short-range firefight.

Now, automatic revolvers actually became a thing...

Over to you, my British cousins!

Isn't there regulation ammo in the UK though?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Now, just to keep this on topic, do you think a velociraptor would prefer a revolver, or is he more the semi-automatic type?

In the book version of "Jurassic Park," the big game hunter (who lives through it) uses anti-tank rockets against them and they are indeed effective.

I mean, that comes down to a lot of the issues with critters vs guns. Yes, trying to take down tyrannosaur with a snub-nosed .38 is going to require exquisite shot placement, but a Maxim gun would certainly make an impression. I don't think I'd go lighter than 7.62mm, though. Something like a Garand might make an impression. Or a BAR.

This is why the Pacific Rim sort of movies amuse the heck out of me. If such a creature popped up in the real world, it would be obliterated by over-the-horizon artillery fire, not helicopters that literally fly within arms' reach.

I JUST EXALTED YOUR POST! FOR WHATEVER THAT'S WORTH!

 Adeptekon wrote:
Isn't there regulation ammo in the UK though?

Not as much as there used to be - "Expanding" ammunition used to be a separate thing you needed permission for, but they did away with that.

With a FAC (firearms certificate) you are limited to the max number you can possess at any one time in each calibre, but for a target shooter that is normally a fairly large number, and then reloading components can be held in store to replace them as you need.

 Slinky wrote:

 Adeptekon wrote:
Isn't there regulation ammo in the UK though?

Not as much as there used to be - "Expanding" ammunition used to be a separate thing you needed permission for, but they did away with that.

With a FAC (firearms certificate) you are limited to the max number you can possess at any one time in each calibre, but for a target shooter that is normally a fairly large number, and then reloading components can be held in store to replace them as you need.

The maximum number of rounds is whatever you can fit on the property over here. I think some people take it to an illogical extreme, but when looking for a rare or out of production caliber, snapping up a can or two when you can find it makes sense.

New game from the most uninformed idiot in this thread.

Edited on feedback to be less Mod Bothering.

For whatever reason, you can only keep two firearms you currently own.

Which two do you keep, and why?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
New game from the most uninformed idiot in this thread.

For whatever reason, the law changes, and for the purpose of this hypothetical there’s nothing to do be done to overturn the decision. The new law requires that no more guns will ever be sold to the public. And for those with existing guns, you can only keep two.

Assume the law will be enforced and you’re willing to comply. And that there’s no grace period for non-gun owners to enjoy fire sales and that.

Which two do you keep? And if you can be bothered, why?

The way the question is phrased has (regrettable) political overtones and in the current environment, few people will be willing to announce their intention to circumvent future changes to the law.

A better way of phrasing it (to Americans at least) is:

Your ex-wife totally took you to the cleaners in your latest divorce. Which two guns do you shelter from her in the property settlement?

That’s a fair point. And my next task is to edit my post accordingly, and adapting your alternative, and Less Mod Bothering scenario.

But thank you for entering into the spirit all the same


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edited the previous post. I’ll leave it to CvT and/or Mods to modify CvT’s quote as they see fit.

I’m here to learn and try to understand, not cause trouble

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
New game from the most uninformed idiot in this thread.

Edited on feedback to be less Mod Bothering.

For whatever reason, you can only keep two firearms you currently own.

Which two do you keep, and why?

Well, since I presently own three five shot snub nosed 38s, I keep two of them.

Move to another state.

 Adeptekon wrote:
Move to another state.

In my scenario, I'm sure the property settlement will still apply.

Some years ago I was browsing in a gun shop and found several high-quality firearms on consignment for outstandingly low prices. I asked what was wrong with them and the salesperson just laughed.

"The owner got them from her ex-husband in a divorce settlement, and she wants to sell them as quickly as possible without regard for price. She wanted them even cheaper, but I told her people would think they were broken or stolen. Do you want one, because I don't think they will be here by the end of the week."

Alas, I was short on funds, so I could not profit by the poor fellow's misfortune.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Good point. Is it possible the component is ambidextrous, has ports on both sides, and this particular firearm has been configured to eject from the unseen side for a left-handed user?

Edit: it is already enough of a Tactistein's Monster that anything seems possible. Including just being a dangerous or non-functional design.

Let's not forget that it's using rimmed handgum ammo as well. In a belt.

Admittedly .44 Mag has plenty of juice and with a longer barrel, one would see considerable improvement, but a big point of the PCC is that you can swap ammo between the long weapon and the handgun.

Does it come with a matching belt-fed revolver?

How would that even work? No really, does something like that exist?

Actually, yes, there were such things as belt fed revolvers. They never caught on, for obvious reasons, but they were an experiment to get higher capacity into a handgun before someone thought up the stacked magazine.