What would the drawbacks be of a modern supressable revolver?

Oh, forgot the Stechkin -- captive-piston cartridges like the QSPR

(and then Jow Forums died)

Attached: OTs-38.jpg (600x434, 78K)

Sam as the drawbacks of a regular revolver; abysmmal reload time and low capacity.

>doesn't have a pic of the round

Attached: IMG_3605.jpg (793x600, 202K)

Attached: Peters Suppressed Model 624.jpg (660x402, 35K)

Attached: Peters Suppressed Model 6242.jpg (960x422, 37K)

Attached: Peters Suppressed Model 6243.jpg (960x715, 56K)

Attached: Peters Suppressed Model 6244.jpg (954x960, 77K)

Why do the Russians spend so much time and money on coming up with stupid ideas?

Attached: Peters Suppressed Model 6245.jpg (660x343, 48K)

Well, the easiest way to do this is to use special ammunition that only works with that particular gun, but that really sucks. Assuming you could avoid that, there's really nothing wrong with a suppressed revolver. The reason we don't have them is simply because they are difficult to make. You have to find some way to seal the gap between the cylinder and the barrel so that you can actually capture the gas inside the suppressor. Pic related, revolvers are quite leaky.

Something that might interest you is Crye's Six12 shotgun - it uses a (I think) completely unique system for solving this exact problem (with the Six12, the cylinder is right next to your face, so it can't be leaking any shit between the cylinder and the barrel). Basically, after the cylinder moves the next shell into position, a little sleeve around the barrel moves backwards, mates up with the front of the cylinder, and seals the gap. Whether you can adapt this to something as small as a handgun is another matter. Some of the special ammunition I referenced earlier does something sort of like this.

Attached: maxresdefault (7).jpg (3076x1730, 197K)

Inefficient.

It'd be like putting bicycle tires on a skateboard, if you want bicycle tires just buy a friggin bike.

What's even the point of revolvers nowadays?

It is a revolver.

Same drawbacks as any revolver
Slow reloads
Capacity

the nagant that op posted moves the cylinder forward, sealing the gap
gas-seal revolvers were a bit of a meme a while ago, it's been done

So a faggot can complain about it on a Bavarian crochet forum

See
Both shitty unnecessary solutions. All you need to do is use some rubbery material around the front of the cylinder, have it extend forward, and move it forward each shot to achieve a gas seal. Or you could try that same idea with just the firing chamber.
Because big brother needs his secret police well equipped.

Well, limited capacity of course, and a heavier trigger.
On the upside, you take cycling out of the equation which gives you more leeway with lighter/lower velocity loads.

Yeah, that definitely seems practical and worthwhile.

Carry guns for fudds who can't let go of the past.

Trump voters, basically.

>Using a revolver instantly marks you as a guy who can shoot

Attached: main_1500.jpg (1500x1089, 341K)

Attached: 8f8d5c46eb0a6097182a4e76373e6f3d.jpg (1800x3177, 407K)

Attached: e36bd85985e32115f75c096e1ae78eeb.jpg (594x800, 98K)

>Not using a speed reloader
>Needing more than six shots

Who cares. They look cool.

>slow reloads
not with a speedloader, which can fit in your pocket

>speed reloader
>not using strips
Enjoy looking like you have a tumor in your thigh.

maybe if you're a fag that wears skin-tight jean shorts

Yet people carry 1911s all day long? 357 mag vs 45 yeahhhh ok.

or just someone that doesn't wear cargo pants that are two sizes too big and who also carries other things in his pockets.

These actually aren't silenced. Not saying that tunnel rats didn't prefer a revolver over an automatic, and to reduce the noise and flash by at least a little.

The Nagant revolver's ammunition has a weird design so that the casing can expand to form a pseudo gas seal. I'm not sure you could even get it to work properly on a more powerful round and in any case its going to limit the power of the round compared to a standard round of the same size.

About an inch or so.

For tiny-handed manlets like me, double-stacks aren't the most comfortable fit, so if I'm getting a single-stack with a 6-7 round capacity anyway, may as well look cool while doing it.

>Needing more than one .44 round for self defence
Once they see their friends head explode they gonna run.

Because it so alpha male to toting revolver with cigarette hanging from your mouth.
And silencer are for faggit tacticool wannabe operator.

More reliable, more powerful cartridge ceiling, universal and simple manual of arms, retains casings for criminal types, better ergos, usually more accurate given most autos do not utilize a fixed barrel. Not suitable as a military sidearm, but eminently suiyable for literally everything else.

Also mousefart loads. But I guess it is an advantage with a silencer.

Some people eat tide pods.
Doesn't make it smart.

Additionally, police in breaching teams that carry ballistic shields like them because if the first round fails to fire you can chamber and fire the next round with your shooting hand alone. I know this is French police doctrine at least.

I like it

Literally why the R8 was made

>tfw under US law the ammunition itself would probably be a suppressor
>$200 tax stamp + waiting period per round
>can't reload, has to be done at factory

You would look like a faggot

Yeah, that's actually one of the biggest reasons I was hoping the HPA would pass. With suppressors reduced to Title 1, you could make your own captive-piston ammo from scratch (or maybe buy an "80%" reloading kit), and keep reloading it. Additionally, even if I were made out of money such that $200/round wasn't an issue, there's some real issues with adding serial numbers (and the other required markings) on ammunition, but homemade Title 1 firearms don't have any marking requirements.

Am I dumb for thinking a suppressed would be a stealthier weapon then a a suppressed semi-auto handgun?
Not that a suppressed revolver is a better weapon overall to a suppressed semi-auto handgun.

Attached: 1518391867826.jpg (1024x716, 150K)

>Am I dumb for thinking a suppressed would be a stealthier weapon then a a suppressed semi-auto handgun?
...yes?
I assume you're thinking of less action noise, but for handguns in normal cartridges, with reasonable sized suppressors, the report is usually substantially louder than the action noise.

They were "silenced" if using reduced loads, but then the stopping power was compromised. Using full power 38 Special round, the revolvers weren't as "silenced" as the US Army wanted them to be according to an unclassified document from 1967.

the fact it’s a revolver is inherently a drawback

you are better off supressing a coonan 357, and that still asks the question of what difference does subsonic 357 have against say subsonic 9mm

Yeah, it really was a no-win situation in terms of design. The inherent cylinder gap fucked the rounds' effectiveness in a traditional revolver.

>U can seal the gap with some gum, the old wild west trick.
WTF? Sources?