Comments: 18
WiorkaEG [2018-05-04 13:29:21 +0000 UTC]
Well, I have question: what do you want to go with shell ejector if this is piston revolver without shells?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HighlanderFX [2018-05-04 05:25:29 +0000 UTC]
This is badass! My only critique is that it looks like the tail of the hammer might block your view of the rear sight? But that's pretty nit-picky..great job either way!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
zxczxczbfg In reply to HighlanderFX [2018-05-07 23:12:09 +0000 UTC]
Most historical revolvers did that as well. Cocking the hammer usually brought it out of the way of the sights; in fact, some designs had the rear sights built into the nose of the hammer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HighlanderFX In reply to zxczxczbfg [2018-05-07 23:19:27 +0000 UTC]
Does that mean whoever wants to shoot it double action is out of luck then?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
zxczxczbfg In reply to HighlanderFX [2018-05-07 23:21:56 +0000 UTC]
From the looks of this, I'm not even sure this thing *has* a double-action function.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
HighlanderFX In reply to zxczxczbfg [2018-05-07 23:25:36 +0000 UTC]
Oh ok, I'm not a revolver expert..but my dad has a .38 special and it does have double/single action so I sorta assumed all revolvers do that. Is there something that indicates double action or is it just something that is explicit to a certain model of revolver?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
zxczxczbfg In reply to HighlanderFX [2018-05-11 14:07:15 +0000 UTC]
It's not usually visible on the outside; generally you'd have to crack open the trigger housing to see for certain. However, this particular design seems to be a kitbash of the Colt Dragoon (a single-action cap-and-ball revolver) with a few extraneous features like an ejector rod; it being a double-action design is rather unlikely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
bondbrother11 [2018-05-04 01:21:36 +0000 UTC]
Beautiful craftmenship
👍: 0 ⏩: 1