Iconic Aircraft Aviation Forum

Son had some instruction on this weapon while in the States .Someone took this sequence of him firing the weapon











They may be out of sequence but do show the recoil in at least 1.Poeple may think they only have muzzle flame those make it obvious they don't

Isn't that a .357"

Well spotted that man I didn't check he had wrong one in his info arse kicked now.

I wonder how much the performance could be improved if they could make the gap between the cylinder and barrel smaller of seal it while firing? It seems that there is a lot of energy being lost. Thoughts please.

Nickolas wrote:I wonder how much the performance could be improved if they could make the gap between the cylinder and barrel smaller of seal it while firing? It seems that there is a lot of energy being lost. Thoughts please.

I guess it's a balance between leakage and reliability ~ smaller gap = less room for expansion and greater risk of jamming.

I reckon the manufacturer has probably optimised it pretty well.

Sooty655 wrote:

Nickolas wrote:I wonder how much the performance could be improved if they could make the gap between the cylinder and barrel smaller of seal it while firing? It seems that there is a lot of energy being lost. Thoughts please.

I guess it's a balance between leakage and reliability ~ smaller gap = less room for expansion and greater risk of jamming.

I reckon the manufacturer has probably optimised it pretty well.

You really don't need to seal any more in, as Sooty says it really is working rather well, I suspect that was not a full load as having fired them and the bigger .44" Magnum the weapon ends up well above your eye line due to the massive recoil.