[Handy]

I remember reading and seeing pictures of DA revolvers modified so the barrel matched up to the bottom of the cylinder and the hammer worked appropriately.

I couldn't see a downside to this. The barrel position need not affect loading. The sights could be made lower and the gun more compact. Best of all, the muzzle flip would be dramatically reduced with the bore height lowered an inch.

I realize this is no minor customization. Besides the Metaba auto, has anyone made a short production revolver of this type? And, why not?

[Tamara]

The sights could be made lower and the gun more compact.

How? The cylinder would still be in the way. ("Upside-down" revolvers use tall barrel ribs to allow the sight axis to clear the cylinder.)

Besides the Metaba auto, has anyone made a short production revolver of this type? And, why not?

Mostly that a pivoting hammer needs to be of X length to achieve reliable strikes without going to an exorbitantly heavy mainspring. One can get much of the same effect on an enclosed-hammer Centennial by choking 'way up on the gun (so that the web of one's hand is about even with the squared corner on the "hump" of the gun.)

[Jim Watson]

Just to give you something to scout around for, there are Matebas with manual operation, not just the "automatic revolver" some of the distributors are selling now. I don't know of another, offhand.

The Soviets once brought out an inverted .22 automatic for ISU/Olympic target shooting. It put the barrel, bolt, and recoil vector right in line with the forearm bones. Looked funny with the tall rib to bring the line of sight above the hand, but it worked well enough that the ISU added a rule that the bore axis had to be above the shooter's hand, effectively banning the upside down gun.

[Handy]

Tamara,

You wouldn't need a top strap and the hammer would be out of the way. So you could lower the rear sight 1/4" at least. The sight notch could be level with the top of the cylinder. So probably closer to 1/2" savings.

As to the hammer problem, typical revolver hammers are longer than auto hammers from pivot to top. I'm sure they could be shortened reliably. You could also use a long firing pin that angles down to the primer. Or you could make a double ended hammer for more inertia. Or you could use a striker. Or a wider, heavier hammer.

Jim, do you have a link? I can't find any Matebas that aren't autos.

[Grant C.]

Jim, do you have a link? I can't find any Matebas that aren't autos.

Well, that's true - because the only Matebas being imported are the auto-revolvers.

Mateba has a history of making absolutely innovative revolvers. In fact, the current Mateba Auto-Revolver is a serious disappointment to me - because it's a ripoff of the Webley-Fosberry, not an original Mateba design like it's predecessors.

(I find it ironic that most people today associate Mateba with the Auto, and not their groundbreaking MTR8/2006M and MTR6+6 guns. It's a little like the time a few years ago when I was talking to a younger person who was a big fan of Paul McCartney. I mentioned the Beatles, and this person exclaimed "you mean he was in a band even before Wings?" Sheesh...)

Anyhow, I digress. The MTR8 placed the cylinder in front of the triggerguard, firing from the top chamber of the cylinder. However, due to the low/forward placement of the cylinder the bore axis was just about even with the top of the trigger. It had a concealed hammer ala the S&W Centennial, but had a lever that cocked it for SA firing. This gun was designed with the express purpose of ISU shooting. It was an 8-shot gun in .38/.357, though supposedly a 12-shot .32 and a 14-shot .22 were offered.

The second major design was the MTR6+6, which placed the cylinder in the "normal" position, but fired from the bottom chamber - again, making the bore axis very low. The MTR6+6 was also unusual in that the cylinder opened upwards, rather than down!

Both guns are loaded with an ammunition "plate", similar in concept to a moon clip but substantially thicker; the gun will not work without it.

One of the gun magazines did a test report on both guns in the late '80s; I still have the issue around here someplace, though finding it may prove to be difficult.

Hope you found this bit of history illuminating.

[Handy]

Grant,

I was searching the internet, and still not finding anything, including on Mateba's site that wasn't an auto.

And it might be the same concept as the Fosbery, but a very different execution. Low barrel, no indexing grooves on the cylinder, etc.

[gumshoe4]

I think Tamara has photos of her Mateba. I've also seen photos of a Mateba with a short barrel, maybe on this website. Pretty interesting revolvers. I'd definitely like to shoot one, but unlikely here in California.

Would be nice if someone would post some photos.

Bob

[Stabby]

Hi
http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/stabmaster_j/Colt_man_1045649471_matiba44mag6nickel2.jpg
http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/stabmaster_j/Colt_man_1045650092_Imatiba44mag8nickelblem1.jpg
http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/stabmaster_j/matmir1s.jpg
http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/stabmaster_j/Matebarifle.jpg
http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/stabmaster_j/MATEBAbig.jpg
http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/stabmaster_j/Mateba-MTR8.jpg

[pbman]

Welcome to the boards.

All they all auto's?

The ones on top look like they coud be regular revolvers.


:cool:

[Stabby]

Yeah they are all autos. All variations of the 6 Unica. The one on the bottom is the MTR8 that Grant described above

[Tamara]

See the third one down? The one on the green towel? With the CRKT Mirage? That's mine. (Don't have the Mirage anymore, though... ;) )

[gumshoe4]

Thank you, Stabby. Those are very kewl.

Bob

[gumshoe4]

Tamara, that is a seriously cool piece of hardware.

Do you remember seeing that picture of the Mateba with the short barrel?

[Tamara]

Far as I know, the MTR is a conventional DA, not self-cocking.


Handy,

See the problem with the design now? Not a very svelte package for a given barrel length & caliber compared to a J- or K- frame. Like a shark or alligator, the modern DA revolver may be an old design, but its well-adapted to its niche and quite refined, in its own way.

You could also use a long firing pin that angles down to the primer. Longer pin means bigger frame; angled pin more prone to breakage. Or you could make a double ended hammer for more inertia. Where would you put the bottom half of the hammer? In the grip? If so, then where would you put the mainspring? Or you could use a striker. ...necessitating a frame extension or overhang running back over the top of your hand, or moving the cylinder forward like the MTR and reducing barrel length for a given OAL. Or a wider, heavier hammer. ...which would require a wider, heavier frame.

Is there a revolutionary revolver design in the future? Maybe. Probably. Has it happened yet? Outside the rarefied air of ISU target shooting, no.

I'd recommend buying a Unica 6 while they're cheap; they're fascinating guns, and it'll give you a chance to see both their advantages and drawbacks vis a vis the Ruger DA and S&W Hand Ejectors.

[Stabby]

Here (http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=8309293) is the snubby. Kinda ugly.

[Tamara]

It'd look better without that compensator on it.

*sigh* Now I want a 3" tube for mine... :(

[Handy]

Tamara,

I have never met a gun enthusiast who puts so much energy into arguing against innovation.

There is nothing in particular about the basic revolver lockwork that is even minorly space efficient. A revolver uses the space under the coverplate and the entire grip area to accomplish what autos have to do in less the 1/3 the same space. I'm not even suggesting scaling down the lockwork that far, just moving it a little.

Your opposition to any change to any design is ridiculous. You even own a revolver that fires from a low barrel, yet you're insisting that it can't be done easily. Obviously not.

My list of alternatives was just to demonstrate how many different starting points there are to solving the incredibly minor hammer problem. For the life of me, I don't understand what your problem is.

[Tamara]

I have never met a gun enthusiast who puts so much energy into arguing against innovation.

Who's arguing against innovation? All I'm arguing against is change for change's sake. Show me an honest-to-god improvement, and I'll buy it. Heck, I'll even take a chance on something to see if it really is an improvement or not. How does your Mateba shoot?

There is nothing in particular about the basic revolver lockwork that is even minorly space efficient. A revolver uses the space under the coverplate and the entire grip area to accomplish what autos have to do in less the 1/3 the same space. I'm not even suggesting scaling down the lockwork that far, just moving it a little.

Really? Where does an auto pistol keep the hand to rotate the cylinder? "Moving it" is fine. "Moving it where?" is the question. Look at that picture of the MTR above, again.

Your opposition to any change to any design is ridiculous. You even own a revolver that fires from a low barrel, yet you're insisting that it can't be done easily. Obviously not.

I can't be too opposed to it, else I wouldn't have bought one. Speaking of lockwork space efficiency... Both of the below are six-shot .357's that eat from the same speedloader. (Incidentally, the Mateba's downward-flipping cylinder release is inacessable while the hand is in a firing grip and necessitates two hands to open the cylinder; the ambi feature is nice, though...)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=223229

My list of alternatives was just to demonstrate how many different starting points there are to solving the incredibly minor hammer problem. For the life of me, I don't understand what your problem is.

I don't have a "problem" Handy, but I also don't have this fixation on the fact that existing stuff sucks and needs replacing. ;)

I have put my money where my mouth is; if I'm talking about Matebas or BDM's or gas-seal revolvers or straight-pull bolt guns or P7's or what-have-you, it's not idle speculation. Do all these various innovations offer advantages? Yes. Do they offer enough advantages to overcome their disadvantages WRT other designs? Apparently not.

[Handy]

Tamara,

I posted about low barreled revolvers. Your posts didn't indicate that low barreled revolvers were a bad idea, in themselves. Instead, you attempted to demonstrate that they were technically unfeasible due to the placement of the hammer, of all things.

That has nothing to do with innovation for innovations sake. You're nitpicking.

[Tamara]

Your posts didn't indicate that low barreled revolvers were a bad idea, in themselves.

They aren't a bad idea, in themselves. In certain settings (ISU competition, for one) they seemed to be a rather good idea, so good that they were banned. ;) Most solutions to the problem, however, have the drawback of space inefficiency. (Move the hammer, then you have to move the hand. Move the cylinder forward and you have to shorten the barrel. et cetera...) Some folks obviously don't care about size & weight efficiency, else Ruger would have gone under years ago, but in many uses, it's a big deal. My list of comments on your hammer idea was simply to make the point that it's easy to say "Oh, just do this", without then working it through: What would it look like? How would it work? Can I draw a picture of the idea? Are there any unintended consequences?

Interestingly, S&W's Centennials, a 1990's resurrection of an 1880's design, allow one to achieve an extremely low bore axis simply by choking up one's grip on the gun; an unintended consequence of the design, but one that I believe contributed to its popularity.

Anyhow, back to low-barreled revolvers; for a pure paper-puncher, I think the concept is swell (and I'd dearly love to own an MTR8), but outside of that realm, the various workarounds create more problems than they solve.

[gumshoe4]

Thanks for finding the photo of the short barrel Mateba, Stabby.

I'm sure glad there's not a law against owning impractical, oversized, inefficient, poorly designed or executed firearms. I'd surely be in jail by now.

I admit to never having seen or handled a Mateba, but it certainly doesn't look like a piece of junk. Not something I'd CCW because of its apparent size and weight, but do all handguns have to be for that purpose?

Just a thought.

Bob

[Tamara]

but do all handguns have to be for that purpose?

Of course not! :cool:

My Unica 6 is a fun range toy for two good reasons:
1) It shoots well.
2) More importantly, it's really fun to let other people shoot. ("Ever shot an Eye-talian semiautomatic revolver?" "Go on! There's no such thing!" "No, really! Here, try it!" :D )

[gumshoe4]

Yup.

Like I said-I'd love to shoot one, but probably will never get the opportunity to do it here in California.

Oh well. Maybe I'll retire somewhere else, and THEN I'll buy one. Just for laughs. Meanwhile, I think it's very cool that the rest of you can buy and shoot Matebas!!!

Bob

[max popenker]

http://supergun.webzone.ru/1-47.files/008.jpg

http://mail.guns.ru/Lists/firearms_r/Message/442-03-B/nosorog.jpg

this is the AEK-906 "Nosorog" (rhinoceros) revolver, made in Russia in the mid-1990s for 9x17mm (.380ACP) cartridge. Also available in 9x18 Mak, IIRC.

[TonyB]

Mateba is a sin against nature:D and that rhino thing.......a commie polt to take over the world:uhoh:

[BigG]

Do they come in gold plated? Like the flashhider, but needs a bayo lug.