Dardick pistol question


August 11, 2007, 06:30 AM
I'm throwing it here since there was a revolver made, but it might work better in general.

I'm working on something for a project I'd like to do eventually, and I was having difficulty with the loading of the gun mechanism. It's a railgun, to let that out now. Anyway, I was looking at ways to cycle the weapon aside from a single shot mode. The projectile needs to be moving when it hits the rails, so the setup would be a compressed air nozzle at the back of the chamber. This adds some bulk to the back, and would make it harder to do a traditional reciprocating action, so I was looking at the rotary system in the Dardick guns. The idea would be similar, but with no ejection port(since the rounds are self-contained). Cylinder moves round into position, blast of high pressure air fires it into the rails, where 99.99% of the acceleration is theoretically done.

I was thinking about how this would go together, and go stuck on the magazine design. I was wondering if anyone knew how the Dardick stripped rounds from the side rather than the front of the magazine. Pictures would be great, I wasn't able to find much online. Everything was going on about the cylinder and stuff, and ignoring the magazine-cylinder interface.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dardick pistol question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim Watson
August 11, 2007, 07:11 AM
It might not be much help, but Numrich has a parts breakdown of the Dardick

Note that the Dardick does not have a detachable magazine, it is internal, gate loaded. I bet there is no retention of Trounds in the magazine, they just push up aganst the cylinder and snap into an open chamber when cylinder rotation brings it by. No stripping, as such, required.

I think.

Look up the patent at

An old magazine article that shows a cross section of the magazine and cylinder in operation

August 11, 2007, 11:52 AM
could always try a gatling gun system, much easier to machine in the end and design. Or you could go fancy and do what the government did for the big belt fed grenade launchers and have that breech system.
For a rail gun, that would be best as you dont need any real chamber pressure to speak of. Although the faster a projectile is when it hits the rails the more efficient it is.
Lot less energy is required to make it move.

Just why a rail gun tho?

August 11, 2007, 04:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardick_tround has some drawings.

You may also want to look into a coilgun initiation stage, so that the gun uses electricity only, no air required. Something like a steel core plastic slug wrapped in aluminum foil would work.

August 11, 2007, 05:17 PM
You may want to study H&K's G11 caseless rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11). It may provide more ideas for function than the Dardick system...

August 11, 2007, 07:53 PM
I was looking at the modernmechanix page, didn't see that other picture. Thanks.

I had an idea about how to do the rail gun. Main problem is the rail erosion issue, which has two points: Erosion per shot, and erosion over time from rapid fire. Rail gun doesn't do you much good unless you can at least equal the rate of fire of an equivalent power weapon. This also relates to reloading time. I don't think there'd be much interest in going back to stripper clips for an infantry gun, and artillery and other large systems can handle more complicated loading mechanisms, like a linkless belt.

I was looking at what would essentially be little more than a primer on the back, which would provide the injection force, which could be electrically primed, but that involves primer compounds and such, and would generally lead to being a gun, and I don't really want to deal with the bureau until someone like the pentagon is backing me up, which will probably mean building a compressed air prototype, though a solenoid injector does sound appealing.

Jim K
August 11, 2007, 08:26 PM
Why "deal with the bureau" at all, if you mean BATFE? Work out the concept in a single shot mode, then if all goes well, work out the feed mechanism on paper and get patents so you will be able to "deal" with the money people. (One idea not much explored is belt feed without removing the rounds from the belt, using two cylinders with the round between them at firing time. No reciprocating bolt, very fast.)

"The Pentagon" is not really interested in buying from, or financing weapons development for, small inventors. They basically deal with needs; they see a need, then work out a concept and then put out a Request for Proposal (RFP). The proposal itself is a horrendously complex proposition, that can really be gotten together only by a large team. The contract itself essentially says "do what you said in your proposal you could do." If everyone is lucky, the thing works; if not, the contracting officer gets his picture in the Washington Post testifying before some Congressional committee about how he poured $2 or 3 billion down the drain.

So the question you need to answer is whether what you have in mind will 1)fill a real need and 2) do it better than what is available now? Assuming it works, to whom will you take it for further development and possible manufacturing? Just a "neat idea" is not quite enough to gather a lot of interest.


August 12, 2007, 05:18 AM
Yeah. I just don't feel like dignifying them with the full name. Nothing against individuals, just overall. Putting in propellant makes it a firearm, and that's not something I want to deal with right now. I've thought about the mechanism some more, and I'm thinking a gravity fed system would work for a prototype.

While I would love to fantasize, I'd imagine I'd either get a gig at a larger contractor, or be contracted by such a company. I have ideas for how to solve a couple of the problems, I just need to build something to test it. The purpose of this mechanism would be to allow feeding of multiple rounds.

Jim K
August 12, 2007, 09:28 PM
I don't know what your status is, but I strongly recommend that if you have not already done so that you attend college going for a BS degree in engineering or physics. (A masters or doctorate would be even better.) You can take courses angled toward firearms (metallurgy, for example), then choose whether you want to build better bridges (there will be a lot of work in that field) or better guns. I saw an ad not too long ago where Remington was looking for graduate engineers, so there is room in the gun field. Other companies, like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin (aka the owner of the United States Government) are heavily involved in weapons development.

Ideas are fine, and developing an idea in a home workshop and getting big companies interested is not impossible, but it is darned difficult. Every gun company (and car company, and truck company, etc.) gets letters that begin something like "My hobby is ... and I have a great idea and if you just send me a check for a million dollars, I will develop it and you can use it..." I need not tell you that even if those letters receive a polite reply, the million bucks will not be enclosed.


August 14, 2007, 01:40 AM
I'm getting started on my EE. I'll probably also get an ME eventually, but I've a ways to go.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dardick pistol question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!