Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Revolvers and Submarines...
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 01:28:10 -0400
On Tue, 25 Apr 1995, Bob Ooton responded to the following question:

> >> I`m not much of a guns expert, do revolvers like the .36 etc recock
> >> automatically after being fired?

> Ummm, well...revolvers are always kind of cocked in a matter of speaking.
> You can pull back the hammer, setting it to a "hair trigger" or you can
just
> pull it back which will be a little harder, but will still work easily
> enough.

Almost right. It depends on whether the weapon is a single-action
revolver, or a double-action revolver. Most modern revolvers are
double-action.

Double Action
In the uncocked position, the weapon can still be fired,
but the draw will be heavier, on the order of six to ten pounds force to
pull the trigger to its breaking point. Also, keep in mind that as you
pull the trigger, the cylinder will rotate. This ensures that the hammer
will fall on the next chamber in progression. It can also be used as a
safety feature in the following way: the hammer rests uncocked above an
empty chamber so that in the instance of a sudden jolt, the hammer won't
spring out slightly only to fall back on a live round
In the cocked position, the hammer is fully ready to fall. The pull
is much easier, with generally only about two pounds force being
necessary to reach the breaking point. Again, keep in mind that the
act of cocking the weapon manually will rotate the cylinder.

Single Action
Same as above, but the shooter needs to manually pull the hammer
back (thus rotating the chamber) to ready the weapon every time he or
she intends to fire. Pull is again somewhere in the two pounds range. If
the hammer is all the way down, pulling the trigger will do precisely
jack.
Note that this gives rise to a phenomenon known as "fanning" the
hammer in order to speed up the process of firing. It's what you see in
the archtypical western gunfight where the hero rapidly cocks the hammer
with the palm of his other hand. Fast but woefully inaccurate.
Single action revolvers are a pain in the ass.
Also note that many revolvers have a "half-cock" setting, also
generally used as a safety feature. If the hammer somehow (jolt, jump,
or drop) comes away from the rest position but doesn't make it to the
fully cocked position, the spring would naturally pull the hammer back
down to rest. If the jolt is severe enough, the hammer may go far enough
back to put enough potential into the spring to detonate the round when
the spring pulls it back. This is known as "inertial detonation."
Half-cock gets around this by stopping the hammer just before the pin
makes contact with the bullet. So if the jolt is too small, the hammer
won't go far enough to do any harm. If it's bigger, it will go fairly
far, but will be automatically stopped at the half-cock setting on it's
return stroke. If the jolt is totally outta hand, the hammer will get
all the way back into the cocked position and stay there, ready to be
fired. It takes a pretty hefty jolt to move the typical hammer
very far, though.

> From my experience the pulling of a revolver's trigger is the same
> as pulling an automatic's.

Again, it depends. Most modern automatics are classified as
"single-action/double-action," which means that the first pull of the
trigger, the hammer will be brought from rest all the way back and then
dropped, taking the typical six pound double-action pull. The recoil then
pushes the slide back and ejects the shell. The return spring then
pulls the slide forward again, shucking a new round into the chamber and
returning to the ready position. The hammer, however, is also pushed
back by the recoiling slide, but is left all the way back in the cocked
position. Every pull of the trigger after that is technically a single
action pull (two pounds) since the hammer never needs to be brought back
from rest by the trigger again. It's already brought back by recoil.
Is this making any sense? It's simple to see it but it's a
little tougher to explain without actually showing it to you.

> The difference is in what the recoil is like. Auto's design absorbs
> some of the recoil whereas revolvers pretty much send it all to your
> hand/arm/etc.

Yeah, this is pretty much the way it works. The same force is
being applied to you no matter what. But with an automatic, the
compression of the return spring serves to lengthen the time over which
the energy/momentum is transferred to your hand/arm. Thus, there's not
so much of an instantaneous jolt and the recoil action feels much
"smoother."

> >> When cars go aquatic can they fire guns mounted, what sort of
> >> modifiers and armour ratings would water giveif you were A> firing
> >> through it or B> firing at someone underwater

> If my car goes aquatic, I'm looking for a new car and possibly some driving
> lessons...

I think he's talking about cars that are specially modified and
sealed for submarine operations, as per the modifications rules in the
RBB. In which case, Bob's answer of a Barrier rating of 1 per meter of
water fired through is a reasonable estimate. Also, bullets don't travel
through water well, and have a tendency to veer off in odd directions. I
would add a modifier to the roll in addition to the barrier rating
thing. I'd also cut down the rage, but then the barrier rating already
effectively does that.
In other words, I'd make it pretty much as damn near impossible
as it would be if you actually tried it. That's providing that the
weapons would fire at all.

Marc

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Revolvers and Submarines..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.