Accurate Portrayal Of Frontier Planets

POSTED BY: DakotaSmith
UPDATED: Thursday, June 10, 2004 13:04
VIEWED: 25056
PAGE 4 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 1:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

Still the auto. In most instances. Spring steel or music wire springs are the parts most often broken. The Revolver wears down where the hand pulls the cylinder. If you don't have a new ejector star, you must build it up by welding and then file and heat treat by eye to repair. One mistake and..."starting all over again, is gonna be tough..."

Jeff
Who has seen some pretty crude weapons in museums, but no crude revolvers.

So you're saying that auto technology is basically much simpler than revolver tech. But if that's true, why did revolvers appear first?

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

TINYTIMM

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

So you're saying that auto technology is basically much simpler than revolver tech. But if that's true, why did revolvers appear first?

Because very early revolvers started out in the days of the flintlock ignition system. Sam Colt made his first revolvers for the percussion ignition system. See http://www.emf-company.com/1851-colt-navy-revolver.htm

Semi-autos had to wait for fixed cartridges and smokeless powder. Black powder gums up the works and only cartridges feed reliably from magazines. See the 1896 Mauser http://arms2armor.com/Firearms/germ1896.htm

Winston Churchill carried a Mauser and was quite fond of it.

Jeff
Who has never managed to shoot a 96 Mauser.

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 1:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

Because very early revolvers started out in the days of the flintlock ignition system. Sam Colt made his first revolvers for the percussion ignition system.

Semi-autos had to wait for fixed cartridges and smokeless powder. Black powder gums up the works and only cartridges feed reliably from magazines.

OK, that makes sense. So what made the semi-auto feasible had nothing to do with machining (which was my ignorant assumption) and everything to do with chemistry.

So that takes us back to the question: why does Mal pack a six-shooter? You explained to us before why a revolver might be a superior weapon on a space ship, but he also uses it for groundside fighting. It can't be an ammunition issue, since he's obviously not using black powder. (Unless fixed loads are hard to come by, and that doesn't seem likely.) Perhaps he's just a revolver bigot?

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

LOONYTOON

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:03 AM

No, its not simpler. It does wear down on the cylinder and star, but there are quite a few 100 year old revelvers, most actually, that still work fine, with all original parts. As for reliability, An autos parts all must work in balance for it to perform a delicate balance, to cycle properly, whereas a revolver can be quite worn out, it might have horrid accuracy, but it will still function.

As for power, show me a auto the size of the old vestpocket pistols, or the new NAA mini .22s. Show me a auto as powerful as the smith mountain gun in .44, or the old high standard bulldogs.

There is a reason outdoorsman, and Patton, choose revolvers.

MILLERNATE

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:19 AM

Quote:

Trains VS. Planes: if you had ANY idea as to how much fuel a C-5 galaxy, C-17 globemaster or ilyushin IL-76 burnt per hour, you would not be using this argument. It doesn`t strike most people in civilized countrys, as most people are affluent enough to afford plane tickets, but look at amtrak! plus, train tracks haul more cargo per dollar of construction than a road. easier to build to.

Since I'm the main person on the anti-show side of the argument I'll address this (and also since I don't know beans about guns so I can't participate in that discussion with any degree of intelligence). My point wasn't actually about trains vs. Planes. My argument was based on the fact that the individual settlements on the planet seemed to be extraordinarily far apart thus potentially making a spacecraft more efficient than a train. This is especially true when it comes to time management (which would be very important to a struggling frontier planet as it is likely to be stretched thin in regards to personnel). Think about it: Spacecraft - one stop maintenance, you really only need to look after the vechile itself. Compare this with a train - untold miles of, in this case, highly technical track (the train flew, which implies tech) this would take up a ton of available man hours that would be better spent elsewhere. They'd be paying in time which is just as important as money to a struggling area and, since the trains operations are technical, the cost savings would be negligible.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

LOONYTOON

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:31 AM

I disagree. All the track would have to be is a ferrous rail, the train creates the power. And did you know that many modern jets require up to or over 40-50 man hours for every flight hour. They are much more expensive, the main reason trains are still used for freight is because they are massivly cheaper than aircraft. It just wouldn`t be feasible.

MILLERNATE

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:44 AM

For a Flying Train? The track would likely have at least some technical work (especially since I have a half decent suspicion that the idea of it flying was a play off on high speed rail, which would definitely need the tech.). And considering that they already need spacecraft to drop off things? Far cheaper to just have the spacecraft drop them off at the individual areas since there seemed so few of them.

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

DELVO

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:54 AM

Did the train even have a track on screen? If we didn't see one, we can't assume it's there. (But we can be pretty sure it is if we saw it. )

MILLERNATE

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:56 AM

Well I remember seeing it if that helps, of course I could rewatch the episode but I hated that ep. and I don't want to put any more wear on my tape than is necessary (for some reason my VHS tape seems to be degrading rapidly, ).

Nathan
"It looks like a great adventure...That's what it is; that's what it feels like. When I saw the pilot, it was really engaging. It was exciting. It was unusual. It threw me off every now and then. I think people will be grabbed by it." - Ron Glass, on the pilot, during an interview with the Indianapolis Star

DELVO

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 2:58 AM

A "when things go wrong" note on gunds: I've been told repeatedly by a bunch of guys who know their guns better than me that the procedure is very different if a revolver misfires versus if a semiautomatic misfires. With a revolver, the procedure is to pull the trigger again; it goes boom and the bullet comes out. With a semiautomatic, you call time-out and perform minor surgery on it. I figure any time I can afford that luxury is a time I probably had no reason to pull the trigger in the first place.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE