HOME | DD
three-forces — HPC Magnum
Published: 2010-08-10 21:23:45 +0000 UTC; Views: 1897; Favourites: 38; Downloads: 53
Redirect to original
Description
High Performance Combat Revolver: HPC MagnumThis submmission [link] by ~soongpa should be enough visual explanation to explain my magnum here.
...one moment please...
Related content
Comments: 37
Hmm. This gun-design gives me my ideas for a gun-design of my own. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
actually I'm getting rid of this soon and summitting a couple accurate concept drawing as this pic is thowing everyone off
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Bah. It's not throwing me off. I get what you're trying to show with this gun. Although having four 'laser-pointers' attached to the barrel for aiming-purposes would be a great alternative to other aiming-methods.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
talked to a few people who had the same idea. i got something waaaaaay better than a whole buch of laser pointers. but I can't have that on this gun, its an older model and I haven't even drawn the original yet. you'll have to wait. (i do things in order)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Eh, that's alright. I plan on using the 'laser-pointer' idea on a few of my own guns, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i have nothing left to teach you, now go forth...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heh heh. That's funny. I think I heard that line before, from wither a game, or from a movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Funny, I've been keeping up you both with of you guys today, and even when Spiral was smashing you with the critic hammer, I had to agree with everything he said. Even after all of the misreadings, the misinterpretations, and the overall misfortunes of this conversation, I still can't agree with this design to be a functional weapon. Even if this is DeviantART, no amount of your arguing or logic will validate the proper function of this weapon. (Yes Three-Forces, I'm mainly talking to you)
Now, if from the get-go, you stated that this weapon was purely made for fun and only created to look cool, then you have succeeded. At a glance, the gun looks pretty nifty, and would be welcome in an kind of Sci-fi setting. Why? Because in those universes, sometimes you're allowed to make up crazy crap and not have to worry about mechanics or function; its all about form.
But, considering that you put so much psuedo-mechanics into this gun, and tried to base it off of current principles of military technology and physics, I still have to agree with Spiral's rage posts: this gun sucks.
No matter how you spin it, whether the back of the weapon is resting on the wrist or not, the recoil of the weapon is GOING to mess up the operator's hand. AND, this bullpup design will not negate recoil, but only enhance it.
Simple physics word problem: How you do counter muzzle climb? You try to resist the upward motion of the barrel with a downward motion, or resist it with weight. The first solution is proven by the KRISS .45, the second with muzzle compensators. In the case of your weapon, you've put weight behind the trigger, "15-18" rounds worth of weight in your cylinder, or drum, or whatever the hell you want it to be. This means with the upward climb of the muzzle, and the already downward weight of the "Ammunition Holder", the gun will want to spin backwards. This means that it will either strike the holder's wrist, or even if it was already resting on it, want to twist the trigger finger. In short? Your design is impractical.
Oh, and one more thing. I'd like to recall Spiral's accusations of you not knowing what the hell you're talking about. Case in point? When i mentioned the .45 Liberator, i was not referring to it's weapon class. I won't bore you with it's history, since you can be a good boy and look it up yourself, but the few people who used the Liberator claimed that they would rather hit their target over the head with one then shoot it, because it's horrible design would actually hurt it's operator.
So please, if you want to stand by the design of your weapon as something fun to see in a video game or comic book, then I have no hostilities to you. If you do, however, continue to try to put validation and defense into a weapon that could not exist without some sort of prototype that we could watch you stumble around with on Youtube, then I suggest you come up with a new design.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So what do you sudgest I do about YOU, huh? Block you? Come to a compromise? Defend my argument? Snap? Huh, what will it be? Or is this all another test? Because I honestly respect you critisim and I understand your opinion, but frankly I dont have the fucking patience for fucking unnessesary hostility, and I DONT KNOW WHAT YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM IS TO HAVE TO TALK TO SOMEONE THAT WAY OR ABOUT SOMEONES ART, DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING MANNERS, IS IT THAT FUCKING HARD FOR YOU SIMPLY CORRECT SOMEONE IF YOU THINK THEY ARE WRONG OR TO ASK TO EXPLAIN BETTER THAT YOU GO OFF ON SOME BITCHY ANGRY TANGENT AGAINTS SOMEONE JUST CAUSE THEY ARENT CLEAR OR DON'T MAKE SENCE TO YOU? DID YOU EVER FUCKING THINK, OR DID IT EVER CROSS YOU IGNORANT AND RIDICULING MIND TO EVER TRY TO SAY "I deeply disagree with your design and thats that", THEN I WOULD HAVE GOT THE FUCKING HINT BUT YOU DONT SAY SOMEONE DOESNT KNOW WHAT THERE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW WHO YOUR TALKING TO. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT SAY YOU DONT AND MOVE ON, OR DONT SAY A DAMN THING AND
GET
THE FUCK
OUT
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your frustration pleases me ^___^
But besides my sadistic nature, yeah, we pretty much did say, "We disagree with your design", but you kept defending it. Hence, we disagreed with your defense, and now you're CAPS RAGING all over this conversation.
So, what should you do? That's easy, since I even gave you options: stand by it as a purely fictional design, or take our advice to how the real world works and redesign it to try to fit those rules.
If you chose option B., then take heed to our suggestions on the design of the weapon, and go wild; add a wrist brace for stability, adjust the capacity or caliber of its ammunition, hell, you could even add a targeting device like a laser point or a mini camera under the barrel so it wouldn't be necessary to have to have line of sight over the cylinder.
And in case you're wondering, the reason why we're riding you so hard is because you simply wouldn't accept or suggestions. You as an artist are allowed your own views, but you must also be open minded enough to realize when others are right or wrong about your creation. I would encounter this in class all the time (I'm a senior at the Savannah College of Art and Design), and it was frustrating when we'd say, "Change this, or adjust this so it'll look better," and their response was, "No, that's the way i want it, you can't change it cuz you don't understand." Consequently, they wouldn't advance in their craft, whether it was a comic page or a character design, then they'd get angry that they weren't getting any better.
So again, instead of raising your blood pressure over an internet argument, either claim 'fantasy design' and leave it as it is, or come back with an "HPC Magnum Mk.II" with our suggestions.
A first draft is never enough boss, there's always room for improvement.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
that is... kind of sick i agree
Getting to the point.
I realize that this PMG design has way too many problems with it in terms of scale and the parts i used, thus making this completely inaccurate of a model of this gun. So to solve this problem I will not use PMG, i'll draw it the way it should be. But first i'd like to point out other problems in terms of the picture, not the design. One, the cylinder IS huge and is not an accurate model of barrel-to-cylinder ratio. two, the "Halo M6" style hand guard is NOT in my design, I just left it there because I didnt think it interfered. three, the rear of the gun is too far back from what I wanted. And four, the bottom of the rear of the gun is missing gell padding. These among other problems will be solved in the final draft.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There you go, just draw it out. Show what you want us to see
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Revolver: Small firearm composed of a built-in drum magazine. Single-action requires the hammer to be cocked before every shot. Double-action cocks the hammer automatically after every shot.
Pistol: Semi-Auto, Automatic small firearm. It's feed by disposable magazines holdin' all the aviable rounds, from which the mechanism draws a round per every shot.
That's all you need to know. That and:
.-All weapons has built-in sights necessary for succesful aim.
.-Most small firearms are recoil operated. The high preassure of the shot brings back the case ejectin' mechanism, thus cockin' the hammer and drawin' a new round from the mag.
.-Recoil operated firearms places the system quite above the waist to avoid injuries produced by the gun after every shot.
.-Blowback action uses the gases produced by the shot instead the recoil.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know all of this, whats your point? would you like me to walk through the whole gun for you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, that's basically stuff you might find handy when designin' your guns. I don't want to be like the other guy sayin' "I did do this. You should do that" with other's designs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
well thank you, i'm glad someone around here has some decency
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I still would like to help you understand the cylindaer design. Now is it the different sized cylinders that confuse you or just the "15 to 18 rounds" size range?
PS; Half of this design was inspired by the Mateba revolver and the other by my top loading bullpup single shot "magnum rifle"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm actually pretty critical of this. I don't think you really know what you're talking about. But, it's a "design" for a reason, so I'll just point out a few errors:
#1: Hitting your wrist to keep it steady? Yeah, that'll work for all of one shot, and then you break your wrist. However, this could be fixed by coming up with some sort of attachment to a bracer that ran all the way up your forearm and had a slide track on it-although it would limit your ability to aim.
#2: That really doesn't decrease the actual recoil at all. If anything, it would INCREASE the recoil-because now you not only have the very large charge going off but the slide of the gun going back as well.
#3: A .357 magnum is NOT a big round (in comparison to other types of magnum slugs, it's actually the SMALLEST one). A .44 or .45 magnum is BIG.
#4: The bull-pup design may be a unique addition, which also increases barrel length, which is a very good thing-however, including the slide of a semi-auto/auto pistol makes it so that it is no longer a revolver. This is actually an automatic pistol, of bul-pup design with a drum mag.
#5: The mag. It's just stupid where you put it. It would make putting sights on the gun impossible. Well, if you actually want to hit anything. An easy fix to this is to make it so the mag would not go on the upper side, but lower-which is perfectly normal and conventional for a gun of bul-pup design.
I actually like the idea of a bul-pup revolver, and it's something I'd never even considered before-but this isn't it. Also, pistols have no need to be shorter-they're the smallest sidearm you could get.
Here is how I would take this design, and make it into something a little better/more realistic:
#1: Remove the slide, it serves no real purpose.
#2: Make it so that the mag is positioned downwards, so that sights may be put on the gun.
#3: Mount a top rail on it, and elongate the barrel.
With a bul-pup design keeping the forward part of the barrell long would greatly increase the accuracy and effective range, without adding any really huge size to it.
#4: Now that the barrel is longer, add a bottom rail-attach a foregrip for better control of recoil and aiming.
#5: In order to make this an actual revolver, remove the drum mag and put in an ACTUAL revolving mechanism.
All of a sudden, you've got a beast of a gun! Hope that is helpful
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
#1 its not hitting your wrist, its resting on it, and the slide doesnt touch your wrist ether
#2 the slide is very light and thin and serves no other perpose then to have the feel of a normal handgun, its optional
#3 here i was throwing words around but you still got my point, a "big round"
#4 read #2, its not realy a drum
#5 READ ARTIST COMMENT, and the "cylinder" not drum, would be to awkward to hold with it on the bottom, plus its a "hand gun" not a rifle, and it would look like an smg, not what im going for
I don't know what you mean by "shorter", i wasnt trying to change the size
im skipping the first two
#3 a rail is not a problem, if you want a rail, it can come with a rail, as for a long barrel you just attach one, as this is the first model, newer ones can have longer barrels
#4 now you just have a freaking semi-auto smg, killing the whole perpose of this gun
#5 there was no cylinder in PMG, i had to improvise, but its is a cylinder, not a drum
and thank you for you time. but i thought about all of that already
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry but the majority of what you've written PROVES you don't have a clue in shit about what you're talking about. You also contradicted your own artists comment in this response.
#1: That's the contradictment. YOU SAY, in your artists comment, that that is the whole point of it. Therefore, I'm assuming you're a dumbass.
#2: Actually, the slide is quite very required if you think it's going to be semi-auto/auto, and if it was thin and light, it would break. Guns must be sturdy and strong, or they are useless.
#3: Further proof you don't know what you're talking about
#4: I don't even know what you're trying to say here.
#5: You're contradicting yourself once again, as you fail to understand your own words.
If you focus on looks, you're not going to get what you're going for. Obviously this wasn't meant to be a realistic design at all, because what you're making isn't a gun, it's a piece of shit.
What it looks like doesn't matter at all, it's the internals and design that matter.
Otherwise, you're just some dumb kid playing around drawing fake guns that don't exist and never will.
Just because it may resemble a rifle or SMG, does not mean it suddenly becomes one-which is clearly your current understanding in your response to part 2 #4.
If you seriously want to get a decent design out of this, you have to realize that a new gun of such design is going to look a little outlandish, because it is a new design-therefore it is highly improbable it will resemble what would be considered a normal hand gun.
skipping three as it requires no response
#4: Again, you have NO IDEA what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, not one did I say it was semi auto. All this says is to put a grip on it. It does not ruin the purpose whatsoever, in fact it is perfectly common for handguns with large recoil. I don't know where the fuck you got an SMG out of that, but that just proves your gun stupidity. Please, if you're going to try and take critisism properly, at least look it up when you clearly don't have a clue in fuck what I'm saying.
#5: You don't seem to understand the concept of what you're doing.
Please, don't try to make it seem like you know what you're doing when you clearly don't. You're just making yourself look like an idiot.
In your response you show lack of knowledge of the internals of a gun, including both mechanisms and even some of the conventional externals. You also don't seem to understand that a design is not just a drawing. I'm very dissapointed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
OOOOOOOH I See the problem, let me explain.
I have a habit of "correcting" my artist comments when I reply to the comments of others.
Lets walk through your numbers again, but slowly this time, and hopefully at the end of this, you won't get the title of "troll", because im hoping this was just a misunderstanding because of errors made on my part.
For starters, I DO have a clue of what i'm talking about involving the inner workings of a firearm, though I do not know the names of all the inner and some outer parts, I have a vast knowledge of how these things work.
Now im going to bite my tongue and ignore the whole "dumbass" statement and move on to why I believe that me saying; "read artist comments" upset you so much, starting with #1.
#1 My artist comments states: "when you shot a big .357 round, the back of the gun hits your wrist, stopping the gun from swinging back." When I ment "read artist comments", I assumed that talking to me corrected any error in my artist comment that you already pointed out to me, however, i did not anticipate that you would "cross reference" me, with my own artist comment. This is proof that there is a communication error created on my part, making you assume that I'm a dumbass, I would have done the same. When you commented on my art, I assumed that when my reply contained "its not hitting your wrist, its resting on it", that it immediately, corrected "when you shot a big .357 round, the back of the gun hits your wrist, stopping the gun from swinging back.". Now seeing how you read that, I myself, can understand your fustration.
#2 Here I completly agree with the importance of the slide, however the slide is only important in magazine/clip loaded weapons, for its perpose is to eject the spent shell and load the next, in which case it would then be called a "receiver", being that this gun uses a revolving mechanizim, such a thing is useless and is only for looks, as I intended. All that should prove my knowledge of a modern hand held firearm. This also explains why you call it a drum (other than looks) and not a cylinder, because you thought this gun used a receiver/slide, when in actuality, it does not. as for why there is a slide and how it shoots. As you said, it needs to be sturdy, or it could break,this is still true with my gun, however it does not and cannot effect the gun's firing mechanism. My gun uses a modern version of the classic style firing "hammer" used in revolvers. Because the hammer is pushed sooooo far back, the trigger must use a "rack and pinion" gear in order to move the hammer from that distance, by inclosing all of this except the hammer, it removes any problems with it' structure "breaking". But what about the slide? With my statement about my the "hammer", we can just go on and say that the slide just "snaps on." When I said "automatic" I ment "semi-automatic" as in "shoots like a handgun" a "revolving handgun", if you still have any doubts about my "gun knowledge".
#3 Again I DO know what im talking about but again I understand where your comming from. I admit, I have trouble grasping the "size of rounds", I put .357 because it was the first thing that came to mind when I wrote this and that it "sounded big". Again I admit that I never payed attention to the OBVIOUS fact that .45 an .50 are bigger than .357, its one of those things that just never crossed my mind, even though it was clear. I would have noticed it eventually sence I used an uncommon .33 instead of the common .22, knowing that .22 was smaller, i just didn't want to go that small. Also this:".33 to a 7.62 cartridge without modification" should tell you that I knew 7.62 was bigger than .33 and that this part:"without modification" made it clear that I not only knew how significant the size difference was but that 7.62 is a common rifle round used by many assault rifles, and that the .33 is a small, uncommon pistol round.
#4 I was trying to say that its not a semi-automatic magazine fed pistol, and that that big huge thing on top is not a drum, its a cylinder.
#5 Again I see what you mean, but let me clear things up.
I keep saying its a cylinder, but it clearly says;"from 15 rounds to 18, the cylinder is now a drum", a clear contradiction, this is because I failed to explain this one part, probably from laziness,here we go. Is it a cylinder or a drum, it can't be both because of aplication, so which is it? In truth, its a cylinder, but in a way its both, in short, there's an outer ring and and inner ring of rounds, as for how those rounds cycle, THAT, you are free to criticise and or debate with me for.
Oh, and I did not fail to understand my own words, I just didnt read them while I was commenting, I rushed.
I was not focusing on looks at all. And this is a realistic design, it is a gun, AND KNOWONE SHOULD CALL ANYONES WORK ON DEVIANT ART A "PIECE-OF-SHIT", IF YOU DON"T THINK ITS "REALISTIC", THEN ITS JUST "ART." And if you don't like it, either give positive critisism, or GTFO.
I agree with this statement here.
Here you called me kid, which I find funny.
That is not my understanding, its just preference, I want to feel like Im holding a handgun, not an smg, I may have to explain this part again. So spare us both the hastle and skip this one.
This, I agree with.
As for this, I don't know if this is good or bad. Im probably going to have to explain "this" response too.
Now here I was hostile, but your response made me angry, but as I understoot what you ment and how big of a communication error I caused,I had to laugh, But Im pretty sure I cleared all this above. If not, calmly ask me so we can walk through it piece by piece.
As for this one, Like I said Pimp My Gun did not have a revolver cylinder available, so I used the closest thing that LOOKED like a cylinder, OF CORSE I know its a drum/ magazine but thats all I had to use for the IMAGE, not the DESIGN.
And this one AHAHAHAHAH! Man did I fuck up, "I" might have actualy APOLOGIZE for not being clear in my artist comments, because NOW, you won't event believe me, this is fucking hilarious, Im trying to make ammends to what obviously appears to be an asshole and I can't even do that. what a day.
And this one, all i can say is why didnt you speak to me like that in the first place.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
#1: That makes MUCH more sense now, and I can see what you were trying to get across now. This is good.
#2: I see the error I made there, now that it is better explained I can see what you mean, and it makes A LOT mor sense. Also, that was a much clearer and thorough explanation of how EXACTLY the part was intended to be used. I would suggest putting this into the artists comment, it was well done
#3: This is good that you noticed that, and I can see I must've missed a part of the artist comments when I was reading as I did not see the quoted section. Information well displayed and recieved, you're meeting the challenge much more well now that you understand
#4: Now this is one thing that you still made an error in-however it seems I have the error-which was in my own communication. I keep calling the cylinder a drum 
#5: That's certainly an interesting concept, I'm not really sure quite how that would work. I guess we'll just have to wait for a different model to see now shant we?
As for this part, again, I can only base my critisism on what I am seeing and reading, and the point is to be harsh for the realism of the critique-because any real critic will not resist the urge to tell you your art is shit. Your response to this is alright, however I still disagree that it is realistic for two reasons:
A) The cylinder (caught myself that time 
B) Because of the awkward combination of a slide and a revolver (However, I like the combination in the fact that it is unique and I have never seen the concept before)
However, I did not call you kid-although it was somewhat detached, the full message would be that if you do not have enough knowledge of both the internals, and the actual practical use of the weapon, you might as well be doodling Goop Shooters. Although, you have displayed in the previous that you DO have an understanding of the internals, but were too rushed to give a proper description of them-however, thanks to this you have had the right questions and an amount of time to do so, and I think it will do the design good-it will also be easier to communicate to others who may offer critisism exactly what your gun and its functions are.
That part was explained clearly, I don't believe we need to go over it, that's what I was trying to get across.
I don't understand what this is a response too as I said nothing about the program, but It is still useful information.
Now here is where you lose sight of the critique. Remember, this was written under the assumption of the previous, crappy responses. Which, assuming all I can from those, would make my statement perfectly true.
However, in these responses you have clearly shown your understanding and knowledge, and it is obvious that you are NOT an idiot, and I gladly resign such accusation after receival of significant proof.
Don't even worry about it. I know I'm an asshole-that's part of why it's easy for me to give critisism, I don't care if it's mean or not
As for this-it didn't really fit until now. I am certainly far more satisfied now that I've heard a more detailed version of the gun, although I'm still curious as to just how that cylinder is going to work, you'll have to keep me posted
(Also, an easy way to get people to put the extra effort into something to make it better, is to piss them off so they have something to prove 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
now, before i reply, im going to be the bigger person and explain that i was not being hostile, and im also going to ask whats with your hostility?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not hostility, it's a hardcore critisism. If your work is considered good enough to be featured in the group, I am going to critique you as such. I am treating you as if you were a professional, and I a critic, nothing more, nothing less. In the professional art world, you will find critique to be very harsh. It's not hostile, it's realistic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Got this comment late.
Thank you for the critisim, I like being challenged.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Now you're catching on
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My biggest problem is sighting: how the hell do you hit a target with that giant cylinder in the way?
And also, unless there was a wrist brace (such as the type that you see on modern slingshots), having the back of the weapon hitting your wrist would be murder, especially with that pointy bit. I think this would be more punishing to operate then the .45 Liberator =/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
for sighting, read artist comment
its not realy hitting your wrist, its resting on it
that "pointy bit" is the cocking mechanism, plus the slide is very wide, so you can place your wrist to one side or the other
and the .45 liberator isnt event the same type or class or size of gun
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love it! It's auto or semi-auto? And what about the sights, it's like the Calico where sights ar attached to the mag?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes, but it depends on the size of the cylinder your using
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Uh-oh, I smell impracticability. A flaw like that might cost you the contract to a military.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
why exactly.
PS: for any questions you may have, please refer to the "HUG" argument I had with ~x13spiral13x.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
