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.

Been watching movies again. And some teevee.

In both Kingsman, and Battlestar Galactica, we see pistols with something mounted beneath the barrel.

Whilst I don’t think we find out what it doesn’t in Kingsman, in BSG it seems to be for a heavier, explosive and possibly armour piercing round. But to my uneducated eyes, it looks like you might be able to fit a single shotgun cartridge in there.

Recoil and “ooyah, me wrists!” aside? Is that just a cool greeblie to futurise a gun, or are they based on actual real life attachments?

Most common attachments that come to mine would be flashlights, IR pointers, and laser sights. I'm not aware of any underslung weapon in under a pistol so that might be rule of cool

In BSG it's a FN Five-seveN with underslung micro-grenade launcher. In Kingsman it's a Tokarev TT-33 with underslung single-shot shotgun. In real life there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any sort of integral underslung projectile weapon on a handgun since the LeMat revolver of the mid-1800s.

 catbarf wrote:
In BSG it's a FN Five-seveN with underslung micro-grenade launcher. In Kingsman it's a Tokarev TT-33 with underslung single-shot shotgun. In real life there hasn't been, to my knowledge, any sort of integral underslung projectile weapon on a handgun since the LeMat revolver of the mid-1800s.

The LeMat wasn't really underslung because the shotgun barrel was integral to the design.

As for pistol-grenades, I'm reminded of the flip-top ones from Aliens the size of a AA battery.

I was pretty good with the M203, but only got to use those funky orange chalk rounds. Our in-brief cautioned us to use great care when loading the training rounds since the contents were under pressure, and a few weeks before an overzealous private slammed the round into the chamber when it was slightly out of alignment, rupturing it.

He looked like an orange smurf.

In theory you could eventually have some sort of rail mounted grenade launcher that could fit on a pistol, or be built into it. but you'd need to have some very powerful but compact propellent and a very strong but compact explosive charge to make any sort of projectile that small be worth it. And for those short ranges and presumably small kill radius it might just be better to shoot them with a normal bullet. Or just an explosive bullet.

Bring back the gyro jet!

 Grey Templar wrote:
In theory you could eventually have some sort of rail mounted grenade launcher that could fit on a pistol, or be built into it. but you'd need to have some very powerful but compact propellent and a very strong but compact explosive charge to make any sort of projectile that small be worth it. And for those short ranges and presumably small kill radius it might just be better to shoot them with a normal bullet. Or just an explosive bullet.

It would be easier to mount a handgun onto the launcher than the other way around. I'm thinking M-79 with underslung revolver - sort of the LeMat on steroids.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
In theory you could eventually have some sort of rail mounted grenade launcher that could fit on a pistol, or be built into it. but you'd need to have some very powerful but compact propellent and a very strong but compact explosive charge to make any sort of projectile that small be worth it. And for those short ranges and presumably small kill radius it might just be better to shoot them with a normal bullet. Or just an explosive bullet.

It would be easier to mount a handgun onto the launcher than the other way around. I'm thinking M-79 with underslung revolver - sort of the LeMat on steroids.

Some launchers actually do have some integrated gun in a normal caliber. Usually as a spotting weapon loaded with tracer rounds which have the exact same ballistic arc as the launcher's projectile, allowing for you to spot yourself before firing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Some launchers actually do have some integrated gun in a normal caliber. Usually as a spotting weapon loaded with tracer rounds which have the exact same ballistic arc as the launcher's projectile, allowing for you to spot yourself before firing.

I'm not surprised. I wasn't aware of specific grenade launchers, but I know that tanks and anti-tank guns had spotter rifles to confirm the range. Didn't recoilless rifles have them as well? There was a time when those were all the rage, now not as much.

Ontos for the win!

Just thinking, are their any rifle scopes integrating a telemetry device? I mean, that'd be the best you can get at least in terms of measurements.

For recreational shooting you could still have got one hanging around in a pair of binoculars, as I know those to exist.

Like this? https://talonprecisionoptics.com/technology/how-it-works/

I also thought that the smart optics was one of the cornerstones of the US next gen rifle gubbinz.

Not exactly, as apparently you still have to estimate or measure distance. I was thinking of some kind of binoculars that include a laser telemetre in them, as I had in the army, but built into a scope.

That's a pretty impressive optic set I wasn't aware of though, thanks for sharing!

I'm not sure you do. If you wade through the verbiage on the page it implies that the system monitors target distance and various other ballistic factors. Also the mock up of the HUD seems to have a distance marker on it. I've never (and likely never will) used one so I could well be wrong.

It is kinda surprising there hasn't really been a bunch of scopes with integrated rangefinders built into them. Given that you can get a handheld laser range finder for super cheap, integrating one into a scope should be no big deal. It would be a lot bulkier than a normal scope, but not excessively so.

Then you could have a scope that in theory you could zero at a fixed distance(like 100 meters), get the windage dialed in, and then with the rangefinder and built in distance ticks you can adjust to just about any distance. Or even possibly have a scope that automatically adjusted to the distance measured. Should at least be doable for most rifle calibers and most distances within 5-600 meters.

Rangefinder, that's the word I lacked. I'm also pretty surprise to have found none after a brief googling.

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Rangefinder, that's the word I lacked. I'm also pretty surprise to have found none after a brief googling.

A bit more than a century ago, a "rangefinder" was likely a hapless bloke told to hammer some stakes out in front of the line - hopefully before the shooting started.

Anyone who has looked through vintage surplus sights has to marvel how anyone actually scored a hit. I'm thinking it was shot density rather than precise placement.

Does anyone have a particular favorite among vintage surplus arms? Rifles or pistols (or MGs! We don't judge.)

Rangefinding devices have been around a lot longer than some people think.

https://blueteesgolf.com/blogs/news/the-history-of-rangefinders-and-how-they-work#:~:text=The%20very%20first%20rangefinder%20was,first%20electronic%20rangefinder%20was%20used.

The first modern range finder was in the 1880s, but even the Romans had range measuring devices(The Roman Dodecahedron) where you could use references against known objects and math to gauge the distances.

The basic premise is you have some sort of tool you can look through to see what an object of known height in the location you want to know the distance to, then extrapolate that measurement to get the distance. Usually you'd measure the height of enemy soldiers and that would tell you roughly how far away they are.

I would also suspect that people in the past had much more cause to practice distance estimations and so most people could guess ranges at least to within "good enuff".

Yeah, I used incremented charts in my tank optics as a backup, but they're not rely laser precise, to be fair.

Surplus preference is my SvT40, although I would love my own MAS36.

A TT33 for pistols. Too much grit in a single firearm

 Grey Templar wrote:
Rangefinding devices have been around a lot longer than some people think.

I was not entirely serious.

We tend to think of rangefinders in terrestrial terms, but naval gunnery - with its far longer sightlines - is where it really took off.

However, how many of us are going to have mast-mounted observation stations and a gunnery clock for our handguns? Quite a bit for the accessory rail.

On home/personal defence?

What would you consider the minimum practical calibre?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On home/personal defence?

What would you consider the minimum practical calibre?

Personal defense? What ever you can comfortably carry and hit with.

Home defense? Whatever you can keep available, mount a light to, and hit with.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On home/personal defence?

What would you consider the minimum practical calibre?

.380

.32, .25acp and the various .22s are too risky in the lethality department and honestly if you can't control .380 and are forced to go smaller there probably isn't anything that could save you. .22s are also jamomatics.

 Grey Templar wrote:

.380

.32, .25acp and the various .22s are too risky in the lethality department and honestly if you can't control .380 and are forced to go smaller there probably isn't anything that could save you. .22s are also jamomatics.

Several armies carried service pistols in .32 ACP. France during WW I was buying as many Rubys as they could get. After the war, they chose a .30 caliber pistol. Go figure.

NYPD was using .32 Long for quite a while, which is even less powerful. Teddy Roosevelt felt that superior shot placement was more important that brute force, especially in an urban environment.

The biggest cause of failure for defensive gun use is failure to bring the weapon into action. Either the defender couldn't draw it or get it to fire. One has to dig deep into the weeds to find cases where hits were scored but they didn't do enough damage.

I've seen some stats by caliber, but it was only sorted by bullet diameter, which isn't helpful. That is to say, .380 got a nice boost from .357 Magnum and 9mm +P.

I think the key is solid training so that you remain calm and can successfully deploy the weapon and hit the target.

That being said, I wholeheartedly agree about .22 LR. I have had too many failures with .22 rimfire to ever trust it for personal defense. It is inherently less reliable than centerfire ammo. In a steel frame, .32 ACP is quite mild, and .32 Long revolvers are a dime a dozen. If you're really in need, .25 ACP is ballistically the same, but guns in that caliber are hard to find and ammo is expensive.

If someone is really sensitive to recoil and noise, I'd say go find a revolver capable of .32 Magnum or .327 Magnum and fire .32 Long through it. Smooth as silk.

And four times the horsepower of .22 LR.

Changing subjects a bit, I saw that Ian and Othais have dueling versions of which WW I autoloading handguns are the best.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/top-5-pistols-of-world-war-one-response-to-crsenal/

I have a problem with this entire concept. Limiting this to autoloaders is simply silly. WW I was the last conflict where revolvers were viable military sidearms and if they are included my top five would be:

1. Colt M1911
2. Luger P08
3. Steyr 1912
4-5 (tie) Colt M1917, S&W M1917

When you get beyond the top 3, the advantage in additional ammo capacity and reload speed becomes less pronounced. The fact is the M1917 models represented the final form of the military revolver. You have a hand-ejector, a swing-out cylinder and of course full or half-moon clips using rimless .45 ACP, making reloads as quick and efficient as using the typical heel-release common at the time.

One could arguably put the revolvers ahead of the Steyr, which used stripper clips, but I'm going to concede that for that time and place, stripper clip handling was more instinctive than it is for us.

Honorable mention: Mauser C96, which while larger, hit harder and hand longer reach than any of these, as well as a deeper magazine. Had the Schnellfeuer been available, it would have been a heck of a trench clearer.

Limiting it to autoloaders is not silly. Revolvers were horribly obsolete even by WW1. They only stuck around due to institutional inertia, mostly on part of the British who were reluctant to pay to replace all their sidearms.

Hand ejectors, swing out cylinders, etc... are the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Desperate attempts to stave off the irrelevance of Revolvers.

You'd only use a Revolver if autoloaders were available if you were 1) too poor or 2) too stubborn to switch/too cheap to pay.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Limiting it to autoloaders is not silly. Revolvers were horribly obsolete even by WW1. They only stuck around due to institutional inertia, mostly on part of the British who were reluctant to pay to replace all their sidearms.

Hand ejectors, swing out cylinders, etc... are the proverbial lipstick on a pig. Desperate attempts to stave off the irrelevance of Revolvers.

You'd only use a Revolver if autoloaders were available if you were 1) too poor or 2) too stubborn to switch/too cheap to pay.

You'd seriously prefer a .32 Ruby to a M1917? Many of those autoloaders didn't have manual holdopens, so you'd have to undo the heel release (both hands), insert new mag, and then cycle it. Safeties were also sketchy.

I agree that the British in particular beclowned themselves by refusing to abandon revolvers, but at that time, I think Colts and Smiths would have been preferable to a Roth-Steyr.

Another candidate would be the Browning M1910, but that's in .380. Would trade 6x.45 ACP for 8x.380?

The fact that some autoloaders were garbage doesn't mean that revolvers weren't obsolete relics. There are plenty of garbage revolvers out there too.

No Templar, "six for sure"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe I saw that discussed on tfbtv a long while ago, and it pretty much boiled to this iirc: revolver could use the argument of reliability back to ww1 era, I suppose mostly due to the state of western trench era battlefields. All the mud, dust and stuff could probably cause malfunctions to many of these earlier models. However it was probably overplayed a lot to justify not actually trying to improve (and pay) for better handguns.

As soon as autoloaders became fully reliable, which I think is not to far away from WW1, revolver had no excuse anymore.

I say that owning a revolver over an autoloader because they have style to spare.

Yes, six for sure. But good luck fumbling around reloading that during a battle.

It really just was either individual officers being Fudds OR governments using any slim justification to pinch some pennies that kept revolvers around. No legitimate justification existed.


This is generally why people hadn't switched over to semi-auto rifles either. Nobody was willing to put $ into trying to get a design off the ground despite it being technically feasible and quite obvious to everybody that everybody would eventually switch. Particularly by WW2 there was no justification other than "Its expensive" for people not having tried to switch over.

The fact that it was the US who did it first is actually kinda surprising. Congress was extremely cheap with $ at the time. You would have thought the British would have done it first, given they had the smallest army and it would have been cheapest to equip everybody.

Whats even weirder is that many countries after WW1 abandoned SMGs till WW2 broke out. Some got rid of their entire inventories.

But then you are up against needing the tooling and trained workers to make what you already have that is well established against the investment needed to make a whole bunch of new stuff that is untested and unfamiliar with the troops. By the time we got to properly rearming it was too late to upgrade.