Message from @QuakeIV
Discord ID: 527383072451330048
and I wanted to use it in a game...
Fallout 2 has it, as well as a fictional Gatling in the same ammunition
Holds up better than Fallout 4 by today's standards
Electronic ignition is pretty simple, arguably more so than mechanical, and can be pretty effectively ruggedized, but electronic operation doesn't seem worthwhile IMO
ignition just needs contacts, close a circuit, send a pulse to the primer, done. Electronic operation would require servos or something equivalent to them, and it doesn't really add anything over gas operation
i think electrical locking would be very easy to achieve
you could recharge the system via a crank driven by the bolt as mentioned earlier
its potentially just a coil to shove the locking mechanism around
You could, but that's not what matters, what matters is why you would
easier, no need for a gas piston
no need for super finely toleranced systems designed to release the locking at the exact right time off of gas pressure alone
that take years to perfect
You're replacing one simple mechanical piece with several more complicated electromechanical assemblies
That is not a net benefit
its maybe two moving parts
little locks on either side of the bolt that extend and retract
Modern gas operation systems do not require years to perfect, that work is already done
insofar as you arent making a new gun at that point
Why reinvent the wheel?
either there is a fair bit of fiddling to do as your particular gas system is refined
well because potentially it would be cheaper
to have something that doesnt need these super toleranced parts
even the g3 needs a huge amount of machine work to make it precisely enough for it to run right
Have you seen how cheap AR15s are now?
on the order of hundreds of bucks
The tight tolerances aren't in the gas system
They're in the locking system
Regardless of how you unlock and cycle the action, you still need those tight tolerances in the locking system
Fancy new systems don't make things cheap, economy of scale does
i mean thats kindof objectively not always true
computerized control has made a lot of things cheaper
It's true enough
because its way less effort to make it work right
you just tell the machine what you want and it does it
Computer control only works in the first place because of economies of scale
in terms of timing and such thats a fairly good deal
yes and you can use the same sorts of parts
everywhere
because they are pretty general purpose transformers of input into arbitrary output
you dont need a new computer for every application generally speaking