unofficial intro to my cod oc / self insert !! he is a very very silly guy and he likes working w demolitions and semiautos
dynamics w/ the 141
john price + qiu li yang : neu-strong positive
price is a father and mentor figure for qiuli, and they work very closely together . a lot of his morals are based off of price’s, and he generally seeks advice from him . price does regard qiu as a very capable individual, though sometimes he can be overbearing protective of him . he often worries that qiu li is taking on burdens to quickly and is getting in far more dangerous situations than he realises .
kyle garrick + qiu li yang : strong positive (in relationship)
kyle and qiuli are very close . often stay around each other in joint missions , hang out in each others offices , and have a shared flat . kyle helped coax qiu out of his shell a lot, and looked after him in his early days . qiuli has been a very strong supporter of gaz , acting as his rock and one of the closest people to him .
simon riley + qiu li yang : neutral (positive ?)
qiuli is still quite nervous to interact with ghost, but simon does act as his mentor figure . very little words are exchanged between them , and when seen together it’s either qiu getting simon to test run a weapon or simon teaching qiu how to navigate certain situations . ghost sees himself in qiu through some of their shared experiences and ideologies, and he worries . they both want to befriend each other but neither has said anything regarding it .
johnny mactavish + qiu li yang : strong positive
soap is the first person in the 141 that qiu befriended . bonded over demolitions in the early days of their friendship . qiu enjoys soaps liveliness and personality , and soap enjoys qiu’s curiousity and calmness . soap is the first person qiu calls when he wants to test weapons.
20 notes
·
View notes
Hello there. I have a question, or rather a doubt, regarding long arms specifically. Are bolt-action rifles more powerful than, say, semi-automatic ones since they use the entirety of the energy to propel the bullet and send it downrange instead of redirecting the gasses to cycle the action and chamber the next round? And would it be useful or feasible at all to have a precision rifle that could work as a semiauto/straight-pull bolt-action by choosing its operation at will? Excellent work, BTW
If I just take the question, “are bolt action rifles more powerful than semi-auto rifles?” Not really, but that comes with a lot of caveats.
You do lose power from the gas tap. But, the power loss from a semi-auto rifle can be more than compensated for by mounting a slightly longer barrel. More than that, and this is really important to remember, it doesn't matter. If you take a high power rifle round fired from the next zip code over, it will not matter if it was coming from a bolt or a semi-auto, it will still wreck your day. When you're discussing the amount of power behind a bullet, you're really worried about how far you can throw a chunk of metal, it's not like the gun does less damage on impact.
Similarly, bolt-action rifles often have a reputation for being more accurate, and again, this is kind of true, but it's a little misleading. As with the power loss from bolt to semi, the accuracy loss on a precision semi-auto not particularly significant.
The central differences that results in larger discrepancies, is that, with all things being equal, bolt action rifles are lighter, and cheaper than semi-auto ones. (Technically, the, “cheaper,” benefit comes from them being mechanically simpler, which also results in a more reliable rifle, as there's less that can go wrong.) This means, you can mount a heavier barrel, which in turn can support higher pressure rounds. (Either, larger caliber, or just hotter variants of the same rounds.)
For example, the Barret M82 is a semi-auto .50 cal anti material rifle, it weighs about 30lbs. The Barret M95 is a bolt-action equivalent, and weighs slightly over 20lbs. And, when mounted with their standard 29” barrels, they have roughly the same effective range (slightly over a mile.)
While you're sitting here thinking about the relative accuracy and the value of a bolt action, remember that the record for longest range sniper kill set in 1967 using a scoped Browning M2 (at 2500yds) stood for over 35 years until it was unseated by someone using a Tac-50.
There's a real danger with firearms in thinking that the relative differences between gun designs are far more extreme than they actually are. In the Vietnam War, a sniper sitting on a machine gun, set a world record for their long range kill that stood until 2002. When we you're seeing someone saying, “x is more reliable than y,” or, “x is more accurate than y,” understand that these are usually incredibly minor differences.
Now, when you start talking, specifically, about sniper rifles, then you get into a situation where those tiny accuracy and power differences start to become more significant. When you're looking at sending a round more than a mile away, yes, an almost imperceptible difference in accuracy can become the difference between hitting or missing a human sized target. Of course, at those ranges, inclement weather, and the rotation of the Earth can throw off your aim, so there is a lot to consider, and there is a reason why the Tac-50, in spite of being a bolt action, is still a fifteen-thousand dollar gun.
As for your solution, those exist. Technically in two different forms, with very different intentions behind them.
What you're not talking about (nor explicitly interested in) are semi-automatic firearms designed with the ability to lock the bolt closed. The Makarov PB and some prototypes for the Mk23 SOCOM (which would eventually become the H&K USP) come to mind as immediate examples. Notably, these are both handguns, intended for clandestine use, and the reason the bolt can be locked closed, and then manually cycled by the user, is to reduce the noise made by the pistol when firing. (As a general rule, it's harder to suppress a handgun, than a rifle, because of the shorter barrel. You need to deal with more unburnt gas trying to escape), so locking the bolt, and preventing gas from venting out the action is one place you can cut the sound dramatically. I could swear there's a late Soviet era rifle with a similar design, but I can't remember what it is (and I'm relatively sure it's not one of the 9x39s. Though, I might be thinking of an AS Val or VSS Vintorez prototype variant that never made it into production.)
Hybrid-semi auto/bolt action rifles were experimented with in the first half of the 20thcentury. The only specific example I can point to off hand, is the SIG SK-46. This was a semi-automatic rifle, with a visible bolt. When the bolt was lowered, the rifle operated semi-automatically, while rotating the bolt up would lock the bolt... into the bolt... yeah, conventional firearms terminology stumbles a bit here, because most guns don't have two separate bolts. So, bare with me. Locking the bolts together would, engage a gas cutoff, and at that point the rifle would function as a straight-pull bolt-action rifle.
My understanding is that there were Italian and Swedish experiments with hybrid-semi/bolt action rifles, and I suspect there were other experiments with this idea, that are far more obscure.
I don't have any concrete explanation for why these rifles never saw widespread use, but I can guess. Remember that two of the major advantages for the Bolt-action rifles were their lower weight and mechanical simplicity. In the case of the SK-46, it's actually more complex than a contemporary semi-auto rifle. So, it amplifies the disadvantages of a semi-auto rifle of its day, without really replicating the benefits of a bolt-action. It's important to remember, there were less than 20 SK-46 prototypes made, so I'm looking at a video of Ian McCollum taking one apart, somewhat obviously, I've never even seen one in person. (And, judging by the content of the video, it sounds like this is one case where he doesn't have much background either.)
These hybrid rifles existed, but as far as I know, none really made it out of experimental testing. As I said earlier, I can guess why, but as far as I've ever seen, most of these experiments weren't particularly well documented publicly. This suggests, to me, that the experiments did not provide any meaningful value, and were quietly scrapped.
As a fun aside, if you're a sniper, you probably do not want a straight-pull bolt-action. The reason is, these have a bad habit of the bolt kicking into your face if you try to cycle it while maintaining a sight picture. You need to pull your head away from the rifle to cycle it, meaning you lose sight on the target. (Or, you can let the bolt bash your teeth in. That's technically an option as well.)
The short answer is that, first the differences aren't that extreme, and second the hybrid rifles did exist, but never made it out of prototypes.
-Starke
This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get early access to new posts, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.
67 notes
·
View notes