Enjoy your 50 pound trigger pull

>>29488938
have you sent this to kel tec yet?

>>29488949
I'm thinking 5 shot cylinder to reduce travel, rotating and camming forward done by the same part, etc. to reduce trigger pull.

Or just make it an auto revolver.

>>29488957
I'm going to way out-compete Kel-tec once i get someone to fund all my autistic gun ideas.

>>29488949
>>29488938
You could use the force of the recoil to recock the hammer a la Mateba.

>>29488938
What's the point?
You realize that even with a suppressor on this is going to be loud as all fuck, with lots of muzzle blast, right?

>>29488938
Beyond the end user concerns, like trigger pull, the biggest issue I see is caming the cylinder forward and back the distance of the expanded crimp which is much longer than the Nagant's lip. If done by caming off the trigger pull, it would be an impossibily heavy trigger.

The best I can think of would be to have the cylinder rest in a forward position and then use a short recoil mechanism to unlock it and set it back to cycle and then releasing it under spring compression and locking it forward.

>>29489122
Its a .410. I assume the crimp is about .410/2 so ~6mm. It doesn't seem too far to cam forwards.

>>29489078
Whut? Putting a large suppressor on it will contain most of that, especially if the shells are optimised for a short barrel with fast burning powder.

I really don't get your objection.

>>29489365
No, it really won't. Any factory loaded .410 ammo is going to spew large amounts of burning powder out the muzzle, causing flame and noise that the suppressor can't stop, and fouling the suppressor in the process.

IF you use it 100% exclusively with hand-loads, and use smaller amounts of faster burning powder, I still doubt it would work very well. All other things being equal switching to fast burning powder would only result in out of spec chambre pressures and ultimately cylinder failure. You drop that charge down to an amount the weapon can safely take and you've seriously compromised the power of your .410.

I think you're trying to be everything to everyone with this design. Stealth and heavy-artillery firepower just don't go together. Pick one and you'll do all right. Either a heavy shotgun-pistol OR a suppressed revolver, but not both in the same gun.

>>29488938

I wouldn't mind a design like that for .357 so that subsonic 9's,.380's, and .38's could make use of a detachable silencer

>>29488938
Any idea how much velocity .410 loses because of the cylinder gap? I remember reading that 7.62x38r gained velocity equivalent to an extra inch to inch and a half of barrel, and if that holds true for .410 that should be a quite noticeable difference.

>>29489676
>an extra inch to inch and a half of barrel
Can you please rephrase that in a proper unit?

>>29489700

Velocity is lost as barrels get shorter and is measured in 'inches of barrel' or 'inchbarrels'.

I made that last part up.

>>29489728
Oh ffs, NOW I understand. Couldn't have formulated it more ponderously.

>>29489738

I wasn't the original guy you were asking to splain loss of velocity, but I would guess a 4 or 5 inchbarrels would be a fine place to start.

>>29489334
6mm is a lot. A Nagant is like 1.25mm.

Also, shotshells vary a lot. A rolled crimp on cardstock will have a crimp of like 2mm, just as an example.