Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Cpt_Cupcake

Incorrect patch name

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles

5ac95e7c1c5fc_crossednavalrevolvers.jpg.2822180777a4a37125d88c2c27ab803b.jpg

These are not double barrel shotguns... but a brace of pistols. 1860 Army revolvers to be exact.

(example of 1860 army revolver.)

Spoiler

5ac95f048cff4_1860revolver.png.999ce15a3d9ed559ea936a8bf03e835c.png

Don't get me wrong, I like the style of this patch and get the Hitchcock eques styling... but how could this have been confused for a double barrel shotgun?

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,432
[HINON]
Supertester
18,903 posts
12,435 battles

Well, can those revolvers fire shot?

Then they are shot guns. Theyre are two of them, so they are double shot guns. And they have barrels, so ... Double barreled shot guns. >.>

j/k, you are ofcourse 100% correct.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
4 minutes ago, CarbonButtprint said:

Either there was a translation error or someone really doesn't know anything about guns. 

I assumed it was a combination of the two.

 Ie. Double=two, they have barrels, and they shoot a "shot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
4 hours ago, Lert said:

Well, can those revolvers fire shot?

Then they are double shot guns. And they have barrels, so ... Double barreled shot guns. >.>

j/k, you are ofcourse 100% correct.

 

4 hours ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

I assumed it was a combination of the two.

 Ie. Double=two, they have barrels, and they shoot a "shot".

You're fast on the draw lol.

Edited by Cpt_Cupcake
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
853
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,803 posts
4,224 battles

But what if they're actually 2 Sawn-off double-barreled shotguns, but we can't see that because we only see the side angle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
7 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

But what if they're actually 2 Sawn-off double-barreled shotguns, but we can't see that because we only see the side angle?

their silhouettes' match the 1860 Army, perfectly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,688 posts
7,230 battles

One could argue those were 1851 Navy instead of 1860 Army.  My son owns one of those, and I know it like the back of my hand.  I actually had to take it apart a dozen of times or more, to replace a part that I had to manually fit with a file...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
7 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

One could argue those were 1851 Navy instead of 1860 Army.  My son owns one of those, and I know it like the back of my hand.  I actually had to take it apart a dozen of times or more, to replace a part that I had to manually fit with a file...  

I discounted that, look at the styling of the 1851 loading arm. It doesn't make the silhouette profile of the patch while the 1860 dose.

 

On the issue of replacing parts, the arm that actuates the cylinder seems to be my biggest issue. The mainspring I can make my self out of scrap binding metal. Both the 1849, 51, and 60 I own are fun to shoot. Right now, I'm looking for a used LeMat in 44 cal... but alas, no joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,688 posts
7,230 battles
3 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

I discounted that, look at the styling of the 1851 loading arm. It doesn't make the silhouette profile of the patch while the 1860 dose.

 

On the issue of replacing parts, the arm that actuates the cylinder seems to be my biggest issue. The mainspring I can make my self out of scrap binding metal. Both the 1849, 51, and 60 I own are fun to shoot. Right now, I'm looking for a used LeMat in 44 cal... but alas, no joy.

I concur.  The build in leaf spring on that arm is a major design flaw.  Once it breaks off, it’s a royal pain in the neck to either fix it or fit a new one.  And the darn things do break when in heavy use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
7 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

I concur.  The build in leaf spring on that arm is a major design flaw.  Once it breaks off, it’s a royal pain in the neck to either fix it or fit a new one.  And the darn things do break when in heavy use.

I wish it was some kind of wedge to keep the tension instead. I truly wonder why he made that design choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,688 posts
7,230 battles
6 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

I wish it was some kind of wedge to keep the tension instead. I truly wonder why he made that design choice.

Apparently steel coil spring was only invented in 1853, and was pretty large one - used in chairs.  So Colt designs were all build on using leaf springs all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
201
[-BRS-]
Members
877 posts
7,315 battles
12 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

Apparently steel coil spring was only invented in 1853, and was pretty large one - used in chairs.  So Colt designs were all build on using leaf springs all over.

I suspect it might have been a patent issue or an economical reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×