Why didn't anyone think of this sooner?

why didn't anyone think of this sooner?
instead of a mechanically complex continually revolving barrel column just have a simple mechanism that automatically changes the barrel when the current one gets too hot
an order of magnitude simpler and cheaper
it's probably a more reliable system as well

Attached: Dp0Sfm_UcAApd9L.jpg (1248x606, 74K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dkHeKRQ7R4s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Quick change barrels save complexity and weight.

That looks significantly more complex though.
Also don't you have to stop firing to change barrels?
What about point of impact shifts?

So a continuously revolving barrel column?

>Thread

minimi already weights like 11 lb unloaded

>turret
>quick change barrel
What?

it doesn't revolve continously. You shoot the gun until the barrel gets hot, then you rotate the mechanism to install a fresh barrel. Repeat.

Of course there would be POI shifts involved, but that doesn't really matter. It's a weapon for supressing fire, not a sniper rifle.

there are applications where a quick change barrel is inferior, for example .50 cal
>That looks significantly more complex though
uhh have you seen how ridiculously complex a minigun is? this is just an M3 with a rotating barrel column added
>Also don't you have to stop firing to change barrels?
yes but it only takes a few seconds so you can just do it between bursts or whatever
>What about point of impact shifts?
an issue but probably not as bad as with a continuously rotating barrel column
i meant this system in comparison to a minigun or something similar
vehicles don't give a damn about a few extra pounds

I assume user's point was that a traditional quick-change barrel acheives everything that OP was bitching about without the need for this level of complexity.

>quick change barrel is inferior
>for example
>.50 cal
Ahem

Attached: M2.jpg (800x571, 104K)

>M2
>quick change barrel

youtube.com/watch?v=dkHeKRQ7R4s

Yeah probably. He doesn't seem to know the RMG 762 is meant for turrets.

At that point why not just go back to water cooling?

If we're talking turret guns only, can't we use the vehicle's engine to power a pump that would cycle air around the barrel?

In order for water cooling to work the actual barrel needs to be quite thin. This is really bad if the water jacket gets punctured because the barrel will rapidly overheat and deform without water.

Attached: 1560785379515m.jpg (1024x1024, 31K)

Why not keep the barrel thiccness the same since a system like this would only be vehicle mounted?

Thermal shock due to the inside being very hot and the outside being relatively cool.

The spinning barrels provide heat dissipation by forced convection.

>carrying around extra barrels on the end of your gun 100% of the time for no reason

just change the barrel retard, it takes like five seconds

Gives a whole new meaning to the name "spinboi"


Op created a spinboi thread

Or just make them rotate and triple the duty cycle along with looking fucking badass.

>>just change the barrel retard, it takes like five seconds
Yeah let me climb outside the fucking APC in the middle of a firefight and do that.

Except no because the barrel is constantly submerged vs spraying with a hose after 400 rounds
It's like saying cylinders in an engine get thermally shocked

On a gatling style gun, sure. But that gun does not have spinning barrels. It's not a rotary cannon, it just resembles one.

The cylinders of an engine are cooled with oil instead of water.

Why not just use a three barreled gatling gun then? This obviously isn't a weapon that would be fielded by an infantry unit, but instead mounted on vehicles. Maybe give the Gatling gun a selectable fire rate to reduce heat build up.

Armor the water jacket.

because hand cranked guns are sooo 19th century

If you bind the barrels together like that they're all going to get hot at once even if only one is firing.

We've had this shit down for quite some time, man. Keep them separate. Look up the mg42 for the most famous example.

>Why not just use a three barreled gatling gun then?
More complex. Takes more space. Probably weighs more. Probably longer sustained fire (how much 762 ammo do ifv turrets carry anyway?). You're overthinking this, all this is supposed to be is a MG3 which can in a sense fire a lot longer.

Also, I can't think of any three barreled 7.62 gatling guns in existence.

>If you bind the barrels together like that they're all going to get hot at once even if only one is firing.
nigga wtf

Just broengineering, an offshoot of broscience.

>metal attached to metal
>what is heat transfer
Not saying they're going to get hot at the same rate, obviously, but it'd be enough to defeat the entire point.

this level of retardation is only possible on Jow Forums

>oh no I was caught being retarded
>I cant explain this one away
>better just keep saying lol retard and hope he goes away

Cool it with oil.

gay

what the fuck kind of idiot videogame fag shit are you babbling about?

you should actually kill yourself for saying something so stupid, I mean seriously, holy shit kid what a dumbfuck nigger-tier thing to have written. shouldn't you be drinking lean and stabbing your kids somewhere instead of weighing in on this discussion?

>what the fuck kind of idiot videogame fag shit are you babbling about?
idk you tell me

Attached: Pansarterrängbil_360_Revinge_2015-7.jpg (1024x698, 142K)

Fun fact about armored vehicles, they can move easier than static gun emplacements.

Fun fact, changing the barrell on a coax is pure hate