Gun grips.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Feed problems with the magazine? I respectfully disagree. All I did was change the magazine's angle to be like just about every assault rifle in existence, and they don't have any significant feed problems that any semi-automatic pistol doesn't also have.

[Sgt Muffin]

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have been shooting since I was a very young little tike, and there is no way in the depths of hell you could aim from the hip and hit a target that is more than 10 meters away from you, unless it was set up like a dual where the person just has to shoot the same spot every time. If i gave you my PT92, you could not run a fire course and hit any of the targets from the hip, hell lots of people have trouble when firing down the sights.

And for waving a gun within two inches of someones face. I have done training with the police and army through the cadet system and you never engage someone in under 3m (10foot) with a firearm.

And a pistol grip is the most ergonomic way to hold a firearm, yes it acts as a pivot and the barrel rises, but if there was no pivot then the gun could not fully cycle and load in another round, that is just how a gun works. A mouth grip could work if it was just an attachment to the original gun design, but other than that... Nada, wouldn't work.

You would also find that if you had the trigger set off to one side like you do in the picture, every time you fire a round the gun would shift it's self to the left and you would be off target within 3 rounds. To counter act this you could have a shoulder stock on it, as a ponies head is practically inline with the shoulder when lowered. Place the stock into the shoulder, lower the head, eye is inline with the site, push(?) off a few rounds. But again you would have to build it up from a humanized firearm to get it to function properly.

I would also like to sum up the fact that just because the ponies made the weapons, doesn't mean that they couldn't have been used by the Humanized Dogs (Diamond dogs), Griffons and small dragons. They all have hands (Claws) that are designed to operate a human weapon. If the ponies can either levitate them, or attach something to allow for mouth firing then why make a design that only ponies can fire when the world has other creature that use them.

Anyway. My gun-nut side has come out a bit here and I think I am getting carried away. If you want me to stop then I will, if you want to keep going at it I am happy to do that too.

[Sgt Muffin]

hi hi

Feed problems with the magazine? I respectfully disagree. All I did was change the magazine's angle to be like just about every assault rifle in existence, and they don't have any significant feed problems that any semi-automatic pistol doesn't also have.

When a banana magazine finally reaches the breech, it is parallel to the barrel. Your design has it pointing up, and if you know guns, then the bullet will be on an angle of about 50+ from the horizontal and this would lead to missfeeds and potential explosions in a non-closed breech. That would lead to gun shrapnel and potential death.


What happened to my AutoMerge?

[icekatze]

hi hi

When a banana magazine finally reaches the breech, it is parallel to the barrel. Your design has it pointing up, and if you know guns, then the bullet will be on an angle of about 50+ from the horizontal and this would lead to missfeeds and potential explosions in a non-closed breech.

50+ what? 50+ bananas? 50+ parties? degrees? radians? Perhaps that diagram was freehanded without the aid of a CAD program. Perhaps, as I said, it was a rough draft. Perhaps it wasn't 100% clear. But the magazine follower is parallel to the barrel no matter what the angle of the magazine itself is. It isn't tilted into the chamber until it is stripped by the breach block, and by then, its already halfway into place along the magazine's axis. Its really a trivial design issue that doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand, which is that its entirely possible to place a trigger behind the magazine.

When designing new things, it is important to not only know how things work, but why things work. If you know why things work, you can come up with ways they could work.

Firearm pivot is not necessary to fully cycle and load a new round. Thats how many firearms do work, but its hardly necessary. They can be reloaded by electric motor, for example. The recoil of a firearm is due to Newton's third law of motion. "The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear." (Recoilless guns can also work round Newton's third law by expelling a counter force the opposite direction of the projectile.) The tilt in a firearm is due to the fact that all vertebrates are constructed out of joints that pivot in one direction or another. The kick up of a gun isn't going to be significantly more or less disruptive to aiming than kick sideways would be for a mouth held firearm. (The neck and jaw muscles on ponies are really quite strong.)

The pistol grip is ergonomic, but it is hardly the ideal way to hold a firearm. With a pistol grip, it is really very easy to lose proper form if you let your hands relax. You're not going to get ideal without using a machine, and anything less that that needs to be tailored to the user. I suspect that ponies might have grooves in their grips that match their teeth for proper alignment.

[otherunicorn]

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have been shooting since I was a very young little tike, and there is no way in the depths of hell you could aim from the hip and hit a target that is more than 10 meters away from you.

What part of "close range" didn't you read?

What part of "modern movie bullshit" didn't you read?

You would also find that if you had the trigger set off to one side like you do in the picture, every time you fire a round the gun would shift it's self to the left and you would be off target within 3 rounds. To counter act this you could have a shoulder stock on it, as a ponies head is practically inline with the shoulder when lowered. Place the stock into the shoulder, lower the head, eye is inline with the site, push(?) off a few rounds. But again you would have to build it up from a humanized firearm to get it to function properly.

Oh my, whatever could that silver thing under the 10mm be. it's a shoulder stock, well fancy that. It would also have a compensator on the muzzle.

And ponies did design something to compensate for the eye-barrel offset. It's called the Eyes Forward Sparkle, though in these post holocaust days not all ponies have access to it.

[Sgt Muffin]

hi hi


50+ what? 50+ bananas? 50+ parties? degrees? radians?

That would be Degrees, we are taking about angles.

Perhaps that diagram was freehanded without the aid of a CAD program. Perhaps, as I said, it was a rough draft. Perhaps it wasn't 100% clear.

Okay, I guess. I was a bit harsh in not taking into account how it was a quick hand drawn thing.

But the magazine follower is parallel to the barrel no matter what the angle of the magazine itself is. It isn't tilted into the chamber until it is stripped by the breach block, and by then, its already halfway into place along the magazine's axis. Its really a trivial design issue that doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand, which is that its entirely possible to place a trigger behind the magazine.

In your design you have the magazine coming in from an angle that has lead to feeding problems in the past. Yes the follower is parallel to the barrel as it comes up, but that is where you have the problem of jamming. If you look at the H&K UMP you will notice that the magazine follows the same principal as your (sketched out) design. The UMP today even has feed problems if you touch the magazine while firing, because it's not the best position to feed from.
To go with the jamming you also loose space inside the magazine for potentially more ammunition.

Firearm pivot is not necessary to fully cycle and load a new round. Thats how many firearms do work, but its hardly necessary. They can be reloaded by electric motor, for example.

Most blow-back firearms (excluding things under .32ACP) will not feed properly unless you are holding it and allow it to rotate when recoiling. This is because there is too much force going backwards that things break (extractor/ springs/hammer/firingpin/guiderod) it moves to fast (Not enough time for the ejected rounds to remove it's self, not enough time for the next seated round to hopup and be loaded) or the gun just won't feed properly and you get rounds catching on places.
Placing an electric motor inside anything smaller (and it's not small) than a M134 (that would be a minigun) and you are going to make it impractical to hold and use. And yes I know there are miniguns in it and I am not going to dispute that they are not logical, because they could be if the ponies are carrying battery packs and large quantities of ammunition.

The recoil of a firearm is due to Newton's third law of motion. "The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear." (Recoilless guns can also work round Newton's third law by expelling a counter force the opposite direction of the projectile.) The tilt in a firearm is due to the fact that all vertebrates are constructed out of joints that pivot in one direction or another. The kick up of a gun isn't going to be significantly more or less disruptive to aiming than kick sideways would be for a mouth held firearm. (The neck and jaw muscles on ponies are really quite strong.)

It may seem that way, and that may be how physics describes it, but if you hold a gun "Gangsta" style and start shooting:
First: Your gun will jam because rotating the arm (this is for humans) does not give you a good grip to take in some of the gun's excess force (look up to my last quote).
Second: You will be pulled right off target and because it is going sideways and the gun is in your mouth, you will lose all sight of the target.
Third: Because you are going left or right you cannot make a follow up shot. If you are pulled up from the chest, you will find that you are in roughly the exact location to put a round through the head.

This also brings up the fact that even with a normal pistol design, the pony would still be firing it from the "Gangsta" position. Which is why i said:

A mouth grip could work if it was just an attachment to the original gun design.

If the mouth piece went behind the gun not off to one side then it would fix that problem but you would need to make some sort of "off to the side" aiming system that lined up with the eyes.

The pistol grip is ergonomic, but it is hardly the ideal way to hold a firearm. With a pistol grip, it is really very easy to lose proper form if you let your hands relax. You're not going to get ideal without using a machine, and anything less that that needs to be tailored to the user. I suspect that ponies might have grooves in their grips that match their teeth for proper alignment.

Well look how pistols have changed in the last 500 years:

This design was basically a rifle sawn-off to be smaller. Holding that gave very little supportive grip and could probably only be fired from the hip, which mean you would have had to load it with grape shot and it is now a shotgun.

You then started getting things like this:

Now the grip is getting more and more like a banana (something else from that time that fit into the hand properly. Historians actually think that is where the design came from, bananas.) but again you do not have a proper grip on this firearm, and firing it not from the hip with a full load can lead to pulled muscles in the hand/wrist and even broken bones.

Then it went from flint lock/percussion cap to revolving cylinder:

And you can see that the handle is now a lot more vertical. The only reason it is so far back from the body of the gun is because you needed to use your thumb to cock the hammer and fire the round, unlike more modern revolvers where it is double action and you do not (although it is still better to) cock the hammer before firing.

Then you get into the self-loading pistols and things had to change. Unlike ever other pistol to date, this gun was recoil operated and you needed a good grip on the weapon so that it would function properly. Take for example the Luger.

The Luger's handle is designed to fit the hand, but it also has parts that are designed to help with the recoil and cocking of the gun. Take the rounded lip at the back of the hand where the webbing between your thumb and first finger would sit. it is for comfort, keeps your hand away from the slide coming back, but also allows for the firearm to rotate a little on your hand. You will also notice it on the Browning Hi-power and the 1911A1

Now you are probably picturing in your mind one of these sporting pieces of junk:

Now yes they work for their job: firing a very low powered round (.22LR) at a target only 25m away, with one hand. They do not allow for any movement between the hand and the gun, because it is only a low caliber round and you want to keep the pistol a steady as possible. Now, you will also see this type of grip on Revolvers, but they too do not have a recoil driven cycle system, and if you fire a revolver with a normal grip compared to one of these sports ones, you will find that there is a lot more felt recoil in one with the weird grip.
The most sportardized grip on a 1911 styled gun would be this:

But this still allows for movement between the gun and the hand. Oh NO! A compensator on the front!... the compensator on the front only comes into play after the firearm has nearly fully cycled, after all the energy has left the weapon and it pulls the front end back down. Has nothing to do with recoil at all, it just put the gun back on target.

Now I think that covers icekatze. On to otherunicorn.

What part of "close range" didn't you read?

What part of "modern movie bullshit" didn't you read?

Okay. Close range implies anywhere from 10-100m. Now. I have just been down to the gun range today (it's a Saturday, that is what i do on Saturdays). Now with my PT92 (that's a Beretta M92fs clone) I could not hit a target 40 meters away from the hip. I then got two other guys who have been shooting for the better part of 30 years to have a go. They each got 2 out of 10 rounds onto the target, and they nearly missed as it is. It is impossible to fire and accurately hit a target with a pistol from the hip.
Now, the barrel of a pistol is very small, and being small, if you are only half a degree off of where you think you are aiming then you are not going to hit anywhere near there. Pistol shooting is an art, it takes a good long time to be able to fire a pistol accurately using your hands, trying un-aimed... it's just not possible. Not, if you had the the mouth piece behind the gun like you and I have stated before, and the sights came up to eye level or there was another set of sights that lined up with the eye, then sure, maybe you could start hitting targets beyond 10m.

Oh my, whatever could that silver thing under the 10mm be.

To be completely honest with you. I thought that was some sort of lever that acted as a trigger.

it's a shoulder stock, well fancy that. It would also have a compensator on the muzzle.

Okay then, tip top. You got me there.

And ponies did design something to compensate for the eye-barrel offset. It's called the Eyes Forward Sparkle, though in these post holocaust days not all ponies have access to it.

EFS was designed by Stable-Co. It was given (following Fallout story) to the people after they went into the vaults, designed to enable the the dumbest of people to shoot and kill animals for food.
It is never stated that EFS was around before the bombs were drop, and it was never stated that it wasn't. Thus you cannot really bring that up in your argument that they were designed that way with EFS in mind.

Now, only Lil'pip and SteelHooves seem to have EFS in the wasteland and that's because of the pip-buck and armor, so that means that everypony else firing at the group probably didn't have it. Yet, why are they so accurate? They would need some sort of aiming system.

For my Fic, set before the bombs, I had to come up with some way for full length battle rifles to be fire. I thought up the HAFT (Hoof Assisted Firing Tab) that allowed the ponies to fire the weapons sort of like how you would fire one with your hands, but this meant the pony had to steady them selves and stop moving so they could aim and fire. That is the only way I could see it working. Other then that they still fire pistols from the mouth and I have them doing that with great difficulty, as in, terrible accuracy and nearly falling over due to recoil.


Wow.... that is one long post.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Ok, so I looked at the H&K UMP like you suggested, but the only reports of feed problems I could find was in USC/UMP conversion kits where the barrel ramp and follower weren't adjusted properly. According to Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement, the H&K UMP performed well under continuous use, firing 1000 rounds without a single stoppage.

This is because there is too much force going backwards that things break

Firearms don't require a blow-back mechanism at all. That was my point. The material limits of a weapon are a separate issue, and the problems you are describing are mostly a result of spring strength. All springs wear out over time, but plenty of fully automatic weapons regularly feed bullets without significant per-bullet kick up.

Placing an electric motor inside anything smaller (and it's not small) than a M134 (that would be a minigun) and you are going to make it impractical to hold and use.

We're in a setting with laser weapons and energy pistols, powered by light weight magic batteries. Electricity is not a serious issue.

It may seem that way, and that may be how physics describes it, but if you hold a gun "Gangsta" style and start shooting...

First of all, we're not talking about humans, and we're not talking about guns that were designed by humans or for human use. I am well aware of how stupid "gangsta," style is for people. However, a pony's neck is quite flexible and can rotate sideways over 180º. In fact, its sideways rotation is superior to its vertical rotation. Also: whether or not it jams really depends on the specifics of the design, for instance, the Springfield Government Model 1911A1 can be fired sideways, weak hand, or even upside down without risking stoppages.

Second: Eyeballs can rotate and stay on target, while the nose can be used as an indicator of firing angle deviation. Real horses have a 350º line of sight. However, even if they work more like humans, humans have a 120º binocular forward field of vision. (ie, not including peripheral vision.) while the average kick up from a 9mm pistol seems to be less than 45º.

Third: Thats what neck muscles are for. Even using gravity to assist, humans overcompensate for individual shots up and down, but police officers still regularly empty their entire magazine without pausing.

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting... In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were: Less than 3 yards ..... 38% / 3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5% / 7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

- New York Police Department Firearms and Tactics

An attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached. The US Army recognizes that there is a disconnect. Its training manual, FM 23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship techniques.

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an
armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than
15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same
during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going
back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in
75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Well look how pistols have changed in the last 500 years

This is a pretty good example of something like hindsight bias at work. Given the accuracy percentages of in combat pistol usage, it is clear that even the modern pistol is far from an ideal delivery system for projectiles.

[Sgt Muffin]

hi hi

Ok, so I looked at the H&K UMP like you suggested, but the only reports of feed problems I could find was in USC/UMP conversion kits where the barrel ramp and follower weren't adjusted properly. According to Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement, the H&K UMP performed well under continuous use, firing 1000 rounds without a single stoppage.

Well I can't bring up internet proof to that, but from the police officers at my gun club. They found that if you touch the magazine while you fire the weapon, it will jam.

Firearms don't require a blow-back mechanism at all. That was my point. The material limits of a weapon are a separate issue, and the problems you are describing are mostly a result of spring strength. All springs wear out over time, but plenty of fully automatic weapons regularly feed bullets without significant per-bullet kick up.

You are correct, "Firearms" do not require a blow back design... However, pistols do require a blow back design because if you were to use a gas system the pistol would rip it's self to pieces. The only gas pistol on the market that works to date is the Desert Eagle. You also have to take into consideration that lead projectiles (like the ones used in most handguns) cannot be used in a gas system because molten lead gets into it and it jams up.
Automatic weapons are different. Most Automatic weapons are gas operated, with only some light machine-guns and SMG's being blow back. The machine-guns have massive weighted parts and counter springs to absorb the excess recoil where SMG's have a fixed stock and buffers to stop excess recoil. You will also find that SMG's and other blowback fully automatic weapons will not feed unless you use the ammunition they are designed to take, the amunition puts out just the right amount of force to make the weapon work and if you put in your own loads it wont work.

We're in a setting with laser weapons and energy pistols, powered by light weight magic batteries. Electricity is not a serious issue.

Okay, electricity isn't, motors though. A small motor, no matter what is powering it or what it is made of, still does not put out much torque.

First of all, we're not talking about humans, and we're not talking about guns that were designed by humans or for human use. I am well aware of how stupid "gangsta," style is for people. However, a pony's neck is quite flexible and can rotate sideways over 180º. In fact, its sideways rotation is superior to its vertical rotation. Also: whether or not it jams really depends on the specifics of the design, for instance, the Springfield Government Model 1911A1 can be fired sideways, weak hand, or even upside down without risking stoppages.

You go shooting a .45 1911 with military ammunition upside down, with one hand, and you are going to hurt your self, and then it will jam. A 1911A1 require a very good grip on the weapon to make it cycle properly.

Second: Eyeballs can rotate and stay on target, while the nose can be used as an indicator of firing angle deviation. Real horses have a 350º line of sight. However, even if they work more like humans, humans have a 120º binocular forward field of vision. (ie, not including peripheral vision.) while the average kick up from a 9mm pistol seems to be less than 45º.

Imagine getting slapped in the face, can you keep your eyes on a fixed point? No, you can't. That is what it would feel like.

Third: Thats what neck muscles are for. Even using gravity to assist, humans overcompensate for individual shots up and down, but police officers still regularly empty their entire magazine without pausing.

Whole load of stuff about how bad Cops are at shooting.

Bringing up statistics on US police was a bad idea. US police are considered some on the least trained and skilled police in the world.
And this:

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers reported that they used instinctive or point shooting... In 1990 the overall police hit potential was 19%. Where distances could be
determined, the hit percentages at distances under 15 yards were: Less than 3 yards ..... 38% / 3 yards to 7 yards .. 11.5% / 7 yards to 15 yards .. 9.4%

Is a great little bit of evidence to show how poor your shots will be if you do not sight your weapon. Which is the argument i am having with otherunicorn.

Now this:

The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than
15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same
during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going
back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in
75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

You need to understand the difference between shoot out with cops and military styled shooting like what would happen in a war (like what the weapons in FO:E would have come from). Police walk inside buildings and get shot at very close ranges. In the spilt second it takes for you to see the target when going round a corner you don't have very long to aim, and a cop who is not an expertly trained combatant will just point and fire. Police will also walk up to someone to detain them, put their gun away to get handcuffs or zip ties and then be shot at point blank by the unknowingly armed person.
So all the information you are bringing up about police pistol usage is pretty pointless because I'm talking about it in a military way, where the pistol is used because your rifle is jammed or you are out of ammunition.

This is a pretty good example of something like hindsight bias at work. Given the accuracy percentages of in combat pistol usage, it is clear that even the modern pistol is far from an ideal delivery system for projectiles.

You did not take into account the skill of the police, as in not a combat persons. Police are not trained in handgun marksmanship. They give the pistol to the cop and say "here go to the range fire till you can hit that target over there." and then that is what they do. Police are given a pistol as a deterrent, as in, "He has a gun, I don't want to fuck with him!"


Anyhow. I think we are a tad off topic here, and even in this argument.

My argument is that:
-You cannot fire a firearm accurately with out aiming
-Having the gun in the pictures provided would not allow for accurate fire.
-Gun mechanics are damaged by taking them away from what they are today.

[otherunicorn]

Third: Because you are going left or right you cannot make a follow up shot. If you are pulled up from the chest, you will find that you are in roughly the exact location to put a round through the head.

Ponies are horizontal creatures when viewed from the side. Having your gun kick sideways would be relevant for the very reason you give as your counter argument!

[Sgt Muffin]

...and if you are facing them head on?