- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
- memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
- memes@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/16877130
Fuck both of us
Shamelessly stolen from @SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Sorry I’m too 21st century to understand gun jokes
Could you explain the 18th century jest here?
Sir Chad carries a twelve pounder hand cannon, and when he ignites the powder the ball sails true into the main deck of the pirate, but the recoil capsizes his vessel.
Guns have recoil. An equal and opposite reaction to the light bullet going forward really fast is that the heavy gun goes backwards.
The 45-70 round was originally made for rifles, it would take a standing person’s entire weight and strength to fight against the force of the bullet going forward.
If you take that same bullet but remove the weight of the rifle, and put it into a little handgun, you will be blown back from the force of the bullet.
Follow my onlyfans for more gun info.
The Energy of the .45-70 is 3867 J. For comparison: 9 × 19 mm NATO, used in guns, has 481 J, 5.56 × 45 mm NATO and 7.62 × 51 mm NATO, both used in rifles, have 1800 J and ~ 3600 J, respectively.
So, a derringer is a small pistol, usually with two shots, made for close-range self-defense. Normally they use, well, pistol rounds, like a 9mm, which has like, 700 joules of energy or someshit like that. When you fire a lightweight gun, you definitely get some kickback from it, even with a pistol round.
A 45-70 is a big-ass rifle round with something like 4000 joules of energy behind it. You uh, you put that in a little derringer and pull the trigger, both you and your target are gonna feel it.
i don’t understand it myself.
A very energetic rifle round (where the mass of the rifle helps control the powerful recoil) being fired from a very low mass handgun would feel quite a bit like holding onto an exploding grenade.
Really more of anachronistic 19th/20th century century jest. There are two components here. The handgun and the cartridge.
The your of handgun depicted is called a Derringer, which is typically a small, concealable gun that typically fires 2 shots before requiring reloading. Generally, Derringers fire small calibers because even something like a full 9mm will cause substantial recoil when there is no semi-automatic action or mass to absorb some of it. We’ll come back to the particular Derringer shortly.
The .45-70 is a copper-cased, centerfire rifle cartridge developed for the US military in the late 19th century. The full classification of the original load being .45-70-405. This meant a .45 caliber (11.4mm) nominal bore diameter, 70 grains (4.54g) of black powder, and a 405 grain (26.25g) projectile. At the time of its adoption, it was recorded as having an effective lethal range of 1,000yds (910m). In 1879, a 500 grain projectile variant was developed with a legal range of 3,500yds (3,200m) - just to repeat this craziness, in 1879, the US military created a blackpowder rifle round capable of causing lethal injuries to those 3.2km away.
In modern times, the .45-70-405 is considered sufficient to hunt all big game in North America, including grizzlies and polar bears.
Now, back to that firearm. It appears to be an American Derringer Model M-4 Alaskan Survival. I highly doubt that any of the designers for a moment thought “a .45-70 Derringer is a good idea” and instead likely made it for novelty or to see if it could be done. I found some fun data on the M-4. It has a 4.1" (104mm) barrel length and, firing a 300 grain projectile, exerts 76.18 ft•lbs (103.29 joules) of recoil energy on its user. By compare, a similarly sized Glock 19 9mm firing a 124 grain projectile exerts 5.77 ft•lbs (7.83 joules) and the iconic Magnum Research Desert Eagle in .50AE only exerts 25.46 ft•lbs (34.52 joules) with a 300 grain projectile. So, the risk of injury to the operator is likely rather high and the manufacture and sale is likely rather irresponsible.
For someone who has no physical experience with guns. Would the problem be the recoil kicking the gun into your face or would you break your hand? What kind of injury would you expect from this?
Very good questions. While I’m a pacifist, I know a lot about firearms, how they mechanically work, etc (likely an “on the spectrum” thing as a direct sibling has an autism diagnosis).
One of the important aspects of technique of firing a gun is the hold. Handguns are held differently from rifles and different types of handguns, sometimes even models of the same category, must also be held differently. This is both for marksmanship and for safety. For example, holding a revolver like one holds most pistols puts the support hand in front of the cylinder, which can cause burns or potentially digit amputations (I’ve heard of but have but haven’t read any case studies of the later) due to hot gases and metal escaping from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel or holding many models of pistol too high on the backstrap is likely to cause the slide and/or hammer (if present) to “bite” the hand in the web between the thumb and forefinger. “Hammer bite” is painful but not usually a cause for great concern.
Bear with me (rawr) for a bit here because this stuff is relevant to your questions. Derringers, however, are notorious for a number of safety-related issues. First, they are small and seem unthreatening to those who are new to firearms. This is bad because they are also cheap and rather more prone to pose accidental dangers than other types of handgun.
Most basic Derringers are built cheap and simple. This means that, unlike modern revolvers, they rarely have mechanisms like a trigger safeties (mechanism that prevents the trigger from being pulled if a “sub-trigger” isn’t also pulled), safety switch/catch (“normal” safety mechanism found on pistols, rifles, and shotguns that prevents the mechanism from firing until switched to “fire”), or transfer bar safety (a relatively new safety mechanism that reduces the likelihood of a hammer-fired gun going off if dropped). Do note that none of these mechanisms are infallible (see: Tiger King for a disturbing example of a transfer bar failing to function). Additionally, Derringers frequently do not have trigger guards. Their cheap and handy size leads many new owners to put Derringers directly in their pockets, without a pocket holster (a vital piece of safety equipment for ALL pocket carrying). With their lack of safety mechanisms, this has led to numerous and not infrequently fatal unintentional discharges (self-inflicted severing of femoral artery).
In addition to all of these, Derringers are frequently hard to hold correctly, due to their compact size. My thoughts on possible injuries from the .45-70 Derringer in particular are mainly related to the recoil. Because there is only the mass of the Derringer and curved handle to mitigate the recoil would be one getting full-on punched in the hand.
The force is exerted along the bore axis (if you do the physics vector chart thingies, the arrows point straight back down the barrel). The handle has a curve to encourage it to roll but that first impulse is likely going to hit on the tiny bit of the arc furthest back before it starts to pivot. Without extra padding in gloves or another way to deflect, dissipate, or distribute that energy, fractures to hand bones are well within the range of possibility. There are further dangers of holding the firearm incorrectly, like getting smacked in the face and/or dropping it, which could lead to accidental discharge.
Overall, this firearm is a fabulously terrible idea.
Thank you. Now i learned why Revolver handles are curved as opposed to straight like pistol or rifle handles.
You’re very welcome! Also, look at the shape of handguns prior to the advent of self-contained cartridges. They also tend to have a curve to them for the same reasons. You may also see a tendency in modern large-frame revolvers and some 20th century combat revolvers to sometimes have a straighter grip. The goal there being to make re-acquiring the target for a follow-up shot faster. The former use the mass of the gun and sometimes advanced elastomers to soak up some of the recoil, while the later used the mass of the gun and not giving a fuck about the soldier firing it for that purpose.
In the other thread, someone posted this lovely video of someone firing this exact gun.
He’s clearly not some weedy kid firing a gun for the first time, but he’s visibly dreading the recoil. When he does fire it, it kicks up pretty high, and if he had a less firm grasp, he very well could have hit himself in the face with it (you hear of people breaking their noses or getting black eyes that way every once in a blue moon, firing a handgun they have no business handling). According to the description in the video, the guy later found out he got a stress fracture in his wrist.
So, this has two barrels, but you can only fire it once.
You can fire it twice, but the guy only loaded one shot because he knew just once would be painful.
Firing it a second time with a broken wrist strikes me as a terrible idea.
Tools that maim you when you use them may well be poorly designed. But maybe that’s just me.
It’s uh, definitely not a PRACTICAL gun. But some guns are made for the “Because we can” factor.
Someone needs to show this to Kentucky Ballistics so we can watch him nail steel at 100 yards one handed with it
Now it’s time to shoot some red cabbages!
