A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

The place to discuss all things Receiver.
User avatar
Katemonster
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Camp Cheney, Spokanistan
Contact:

Re: A Gunsmith's Critique (Updated for RC7)

Post by Katemonster » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:05 pm

Hello guys.

Zamza: Don't worry, we don't bite. :] Mostly. Anyway...

First, fanning the hammer on a double-action revolver doesn't actually do anything. On a single-action design, the ratcheting pawl is attached to the hammer, so repeatedly cocking the hammer will rotate the cylinder. On a double-action design, the ratchet pawl is attached to the trigger, so holding back the trigger will leave the cylinder locked in the same position and the hammer will repeatedly drop on the same, fired chamber. So, this won't do anything with the Victory, but it would with the Super Blackhawk if that gets added.

Second, fanning the hammer on a revolver is very hard on the lockwork and can damage the revolver. It also makes it basically impossible to hit anything. A similar and more legitimate technique is to hold the gun firmly in both hands, hold the trigger, and repeatedly pull back and release the hammer with your support-hand thumb (rather than with your dominant-hand thumb.) This isn't as hard on the gun as fanning and allows you to do some level of rapid-fire while still being able to actually aim. This does reduce accuracy versus conventional, single-action fire, and failing to pull the hammer all the way back will fail to rotate the cylinder fully to the next chamber.

Anyway, I suppose you could replicate this on the Super Blackhawk by holding (LMB) while the hammer is decocked and quickly tapping (F) to fire, however the game would need to differentiate that from using (F* -> LMB) to decock the hammer. Could be useful for panicking when face-to-face with a taser drone, I guess.

BunnyBlu and Orlok: I really don't want to get into great detail about US federal and state gun regulations partly because they are outside the scope of this discussion (gun realism in video games) and because they are fractally convoluted and it would take me forever to explain in detail. However, yes, if you're over 21 and have a clean background, a lot of money, and a lot of patience, you can buy any Title II NFA weapon you want, barring state-level regulations. This includes sound suppressors, machine guns, Destructive Devices (very-large-caliber stuff like grenade launchers and mortars,) AOWs ("Any Other Weapons" which is exactly as stupid as it sounds,) short-barreled-shotguns, and short-barreled-rifles. It has been this way since 1934.

The issue with the converted Glock 17 is this thing called the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owner's Protection Act. The Hughes Amendment declared that the ATF will no longer approve and process the paperwork on civilian ownership of machine guns not made and registered (for civilian ownership/transferability) before 19 May 1986. So, for example, if you want to buy an M16 rifle, you totally can, but it has to be one made and put into civilian hands before that date. You cannot legally buy a machine gun made after that date, nor can you build one. This finite supply has also had a ridiculous effect on the prices of legal machine guns.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no licensing you can get to allow you to buy the stuff anyway; if you get the necessary Federal Firearms License and pay the Class 3 Special Occupational Tax to be a machine gun dealer, you are expected to actually do business of selling machine guns to local law enforcement agencies and whatnot. If they see that you're using that licensing just to boost your own collection, it will be immediately revoked along with all the weapons that you obtained under that licensing.

So, the issue here is that all of these Glock autosear conversion plates were made after that date, so they are government and law enforcement only, period. There are also only a small handful of transferable Glock 18 pistols on the civilian market. The same applies to any new designs like the FN P90, H&K MP7 and G36, etc.; that stuff is all completely off-limits.

--Katemonster

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

User avatar
orlok
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:26 am

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by orlok » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:10 pm

As usual, splendid comprehensive info!

Rgds

LoK

User avatar
Aleph
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:26 pm

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Aleph » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:05 am

I've posted this somewhere else before, but I think the FP-45 would make an interesting addition to the game.

User avatar
orlok
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:26 am

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by orlok » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:55 am

Hello there

Whilst certainly an interesting little side arm, I think Kate's gonna point out several reasons pertaining to its ineffectiveness.

I do like the complex loading mechanism though. The 8 yard effective range I'm not so keen on :)

Rgds

LoK

User avatar
Katemonster
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Camp Cheney, Spokanistan
Contact:

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Katemonster » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:18 pm

My only issue with the Liberator is that it just wasn't made to survive more than 10 shots without exploding. It has the metalurgical engineering of a cap gun. The original version also has no rifling, so it would be shotgun-slug-accurate. Also the fact you need to punch the shells out with a pencil is annoying.

Incidentally, that's also a problem with revolvers that take rimless ammo on stellar clips/moon clips. You can insert cartridges into the chambers and fire them just find without the moon clips (assuming the chambers are properly cut and you're using the intended ammunition, like, you can't fire .40 S&W in a S&W Model 610 without a moon clip because they fall too far down into the 10mm Auto chambers,) but there's no way for the extractor star to punch out the fired shells without the clip, so you have to knock them out from the front end with a stick.

--Katemonster

User avatar
orlok
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:26 am

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by orlok » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:28 pm

Hello there

I had never heard of moon clips before, Iv'e learnt something new!

rgds

LoK

User avatar
StefanMajonez
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:04 pm
Location: Earth, Europe, Poland

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by StefanMajonez » Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:57 pm

This is possibly the most awesome topic I have ever read.

Anyways, I'd like to ask if it would be interesting if a flintlock pistol was added. There could be a whole new mechanic of loading the gun with different amounts of gunpowder and all that.
Of course that kind of weapon wouldn't be accurate and would take some time to load, but the possibility of blowing my face off with too much gunpowder would definitely be worth it. What do you think?

forestwolf42
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:39 pm

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by forestwolf42 » Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:48 am

Is that a cowboy type revolver where you have to cycle the roundy spinny thingy (technical term) to load each bullet? A guy that teaches people to shoot at the FBI once showed me how to operate one of those lovely devices, I'd like to see it in the game, and could we make 'five beans to a barrel' a thing you'd want to do? Like, if you take a fall or run into something hard, the gun could misfire if it's on a loaded chamber? Then you could also do the thing where you load the last chamber and cycle it the proper amount of times to get one last shot out of it before the long reload process.

In the butstock department some more modern guns have hollow frame butstocks which are designed to be as light as possible and are impractical for bashing, my brother is a Marine and was talking about how the Marine Corps are thinking of switching over to that kind. (Because they have bayonets anyway)

And as a final note, although I disagree with melee weapons, I would like a wrench for dissection, especially if we encounter more kinds of drones, and or other electronic devices of importance, I'd like to be able to pry these things apart and see exactly what they're made of and how they work, to work out the best approaches to destroying them.

I haven't read all of what you've posted yet, but I plan to, it's very insightful.

Isaak
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:43 pm

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Isaak » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:41 am

I'm not sure why some of you are so fascinated with the FP-45 Liberator, not only is it a relic from WWII, but it has no logical reason to be found in the type of environment that is Receiver.

I think we can all agree that Receiver is most likely set in the near future. Why would a 70 year old weapon, made to basically be the cheapest possible way to arm resistance fighters, have any business even being present? Might as well give the player a spear while we are at it. :lol:

This goes for some other weapon suggestions I've seen.
Chainsaws? Mosin–Nagant rifles? Flintlock and gunpowder?
I only ask that some of you take at least a minute to think about Receiver's theme here.
Your now a member of a secretive organization (cult?) and they have given you a weapon to defend yourself from robot drones, whats more likely and easier for them to get to you?

It's only logical that the weapon had to be concealed on the players body before the mind-kill.
Not a rifle, or anything large. Too cumbersome, harder to sneak around with and conceal.
Pistols are small, light, and easy to conceal. Perfect for getting into the hands of the player.

If I were to suggest a few weapons for Receiver I might pick something like the:
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pmr-30/
Or since some of you REALLY want a rifle, how about the:
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/rifles/sub-2000/

I don't believe it's asking too much that some of you please try to keep theme in mind and suggest more modern firearms, because that is where Receiver sits.

User avatar
Count Roland
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Galapagos Islands, rodeoin some turtles.
Contact:

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Count Roland » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:11 am

*posts about outdated guns not fitting theme of game that originally only had 1911*
sorry, I had to.

User avatar
orlok
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:26 am

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by orlok » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:17 am

hello there

The non cannon weapons issues is due to the fact that many folk play the game not because of it's setting, but because the game sports a far better representation of weapon handling than almost any other game.

The storyline behind the game, for many, is largely irrelevant.

*This* was one of my reasons for suggesting "weapon packs" so those who want WW2 weapons could have them.

Likewise those who wanted pure "cannon" weapons also could have those.

And any in between.

That way everyone is happy and we can all be friends :)

*hugs*

LoK

Isaak
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:43 pm

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Isaak » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:50 am

Count Roland wrote:*posts about outdated guns not fitting theme of game that originally only had 1911*
I know you are posting in jest, but considering how the 1911 design is still in production from multiple manufacturers, depicted in tons of media and can be found in any gun shop, the 1911 really is an exception in that it can still be considered modern, even after 100 years.
orlok wrote:The non cannon weapons issues is due to the fact that many folk play the game not because of it's setting, but because the game sports a far better representation of weapon handling than almost any other game.
This may be true, but it doesn't really disarm what I said above. Thankfully any final decisions are in Wolfire's hands, I just want to encourage people to put more thought into their suggestions.
orlok wrote:The storyline behind the game, for many, is largely irrelevant.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you here, the story is what helps bind the game together, it's what sets the tone, the mood, and the players purpose. If Receiver didn't have a story, well it would honestly feel more like a tech demo than a game. Remove the story, you remove purpose, without purpose people get bored.

User avatar
Katemonster
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 3:31 pm
Location: Camp Cheney, Spokanistan
Contact:

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Katemonster » Sun Dec 09, 2012 7:09 pm

Huh. New posts. I should probably, like, reply to some of these.

Sorry guys, I've been extremely ill for the last month, that's why I haven't been around much. I'll get back on this eventually.

User avatar
orlok
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:26 am

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by orlok » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:59 am

hello there

noticed you'd not been about for a bit. Get well soon, your health is a little more important than our gun talk!

Take care

rgds

LoK

Zuriki
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:46 am

Re: A Gunsmith's Analysis (Updated for RC7)

Post by Zuriki » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:33 am

I can't say I'm interested in guns in any meaningful sense, it's always seemed like a very American thing, and I'm a very British man. I prefer Tea and Crumpets to Lead and Sulfur. However I find this discussion to be interesting regardless, and some of the suggestions given, particularly in regards to fall-safe and drop-safe, would never have crossed my mind if I were the one developing this game - but they have a potential to change the way the game is played completely.

One thing receiver doesn't do very well is interaction with anything other than the gun, the game is single-minded - focused on the gun at all times. This leaves much to be desired in how the player interacts with the world even in cases such as movement. It would be nice to have the ability to climb chest high-ledges (which I've tried to do in certain cases and had a hard time getting it to work adequately, sometimes something as simple as a step "trips me up" so to speak).

Interactions such as climbing, hanging (to drop from ledges for example) and partial damage (& dropping held items) from large drops, would all be interesting features for a later release. Although I am very out of practice with coding I might try giving it a shot myself - though I wouldn't expect much.

Post Reply