StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Would that work like the Nambu family, (with no slide), or is it just a design feature? Why the different height for the sights?

LaCroix wrote:Would that work like the Nambu family, (with no slide), or is it just a design feature?

Yes, you pull back the grip on the back to cock it.

Zor

A Double Barreled Handgonne, both ends are loaded before the battle, shoot once, turn it over, shoot again.

Zor

A Matchlock Pistol made with a barrel taken off an old handgonne

Zor

Tribal Orcish Caplock Musket

Zor

An Arquebus

Matchlock Pistols

Beowulf wrote:The handle on the revolver looks like it's curved too strongly to be comfortably held.

Reminds me of some of the early revolvers not made by the big famous gunsmiths. And remember what many older designs looked like, e.g. 17th-18th century flintlocks. I'm not sure why, but it took people quite a while to realise weird grip shapes didn't help accuracy or comfort when you pulled the trigger.

SpottedKitty wrote:

Beowulf wrote:The handle on the revolver looks like it's curved too strongly to be comfortably held.

Reminds me of some of the early revolvers not made by the big famous gunsmiths. And remember what many older designs looked like, e.g. 17th-18th century flintlocks. I'm not sure why, but it took people quite a while to realise weird grip shapes didn't help accuracy or comfort when you pulled the trigger.

there could also be that such designs were easier to make or maintain, don't quite me on this as I'm just speculating but it would that those handle of those early designs could have broken of if made similar to modern designs due the materials it was made of.

Lord Revan wrote:there could also be that such designs were easier to make or maintain, don't quite me on this as I'm just speculating but it would that those handle of those early designs could have broken of if made similar to modern designs due the materials it was made of.

Sounds plausible. Another speculation, those early guns just weren't all that accurate beyond a fairly short distance; the bullets and the insides of the barrel were nowhere near as consistently manufactured as they've been for the last 150-odd years. At least part of the accuracy of modern guns comes from the grip design naturally pointing the thing in the right general direction if you hold it properly, but this would be offset by the uncertainty in how the bullet comes out of the barrel — even if you clamped the gun to a stand and fired it a few times, the shots would still spread. With that situation, would there be any pressure to change the grip design?

SpottedKitty wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:there could also be that such designs were easier to make or maintain, don't quite me on this as I'm just speculating but it would that those handle of those early designs could have broken of if made similar to modern designs due the materials it was made of.

Sounds plausible. Another speculation, those early guns just weren't all that accurate beyond a fairly short distance; the bullets and the insides of the barrel were nowhere near as consistently manufactured as they've been for the last 150-odd years. At least part of the accuracy of modern guns comes from the grip design naturally pointing the thing in the right general direction if you hold it properly, but this would be offset by the uncertainty in how the bullet comes out of the barrel — even if you clamped the gun to a stand and fired it a few times, the shots would still spread. With that situation, would there be any pressure to change the grip design?

I dout it, how ever most early firearms seem to have evolved their grips from those of crossbows so it could be that until you could make modern rifled barrels there wasn't a large about pressure to change the grip design

Wheel-lock pistols (one of the most common forms for pistol firearms, matchlock pistols were never a big thing) do demonstrate some commonality with crossbows:





These are from a Google search.

I think it's more a matter of basic simple ergonomics than anything else, though. It's easier to make a slightly curved piece of wood than a radically curved one, and the firepower and accuracy at stake were not worth trying to make the pistols much more ergonomic than they were.

Note also that many early pistols were designed with two things in mind as well as the obvious single-handed firing stance. On occasion for greater accuracy they could be pressed up against the shoulder. I'm not positive on that point, I haven't read much about it, but it does make some sense. I won't stand on it though but it is a point to consider. And once expended, if there was no time to reload, turn them around and use them as a mace. This gives you forms like so:



A broad butt that can be braced against the shoulder, then gives it more heft in the club.

You can't brace that gun against a shoulder - the handle is simply too short, it's barely long enough for the hand. This is, much like the brass cap on these guns

simply to improve striking power when used as a club, as you mentioned.

To steady the gun for improved aiming, you would either take hold of the barrel like with a rifle, or lay the barrel into the crook of the left arm (if you are really brave - that brings the pan flash very close to your face).

Still, you can see that everyone had different ideas about what made a good grip. Some were quite similar to the drawn revolver.

Elheru Aran wrote:Wheel-lock pistols (one of the most common forms for pistol firearms, matchlock pistols were never a big thing) do demonstrate some commonality with crossbows:

An interesting variation; I think I've always seen pictures of wheel-locks with the wheel and the spring arm the other way round. Wouldn't this way tend to throw sparks in your face just when you most need to be able to see what you're aiming at?