In the early 1990s, Knight’s Armament was approached by an unnamed agency looking for a very specialized weapon. It needed to be a repeating firearm that left no brass behind while being effectively silent and capable of shooting a 1.5″ group at 100 yards. To meet these requirements, Knight’s chose to begin with a .44 Magnum Ruger Redhawk revolver. They added a stock, suppressor, and scope mounts easily, but to be functionally silent they had to seal the cylinder gap of the system. This was done by making a unique new cartridge with the bullet held in a sabot. Upon firing the sabot move forward a tiny fraction of an inch and a rubber o-ring on the front of the sabot sealed it against the back of the cylinder. After the bullet left the bore, the firing pressure abated and the sabot retained enough clearance for the cylinder to revolve. After extensive work, they were able to manufacture this ammunition well enough to meet the accuracy requirements.
In total, about 100 of these revolving rifles were made, for two different clients. One batch used .30-caliber bullets and the other used a 7mm bore. The project was called “r-squared” at Knight’s; a shortening of Revolving Rifle.
Thanks to the Institute of Military Technology for allowing me to have access to this very interesting piece and bring it to you! Check them out at:
http://www.instmiltech.com
Presumably a new narrower-caliber barrel was installed?
Reduced-caliber cartridges based on .44 Magnum are nothing new.
https://static.hornady.media/site/hornady/files/obsolete-data/357-44-bain–davis.pdf
Most suffered from the same problems as the .22 Remington Jet in a revolver, namely firing causing the tapered/bottlenecked case to set back against the recoil shield/breechface so hard that cylinder rotation was prevented.
One solution used with the .357/.44 B&D in Ruger single actions was to use an unmodified .44 Magnum cylinder, with a polycarbonate “sleeve” or “collar” around the bottlenecked part of the case. In effect, giving it the profile of a straight-walled cartridge case and avoiding the setback problem.
Of course, if some Nimrod absentmindedly put a .44 Magnum round in it, and then tried to fire it, that 250-grain, .429in bullet might be swaged down to .357in going down the barrel. Then again, it might just split the barrel wide open, and even if it didn’t it would raise unholy Hell with the forcing cone. I’d expect to frame to fracture at the barrel threads in about ten rounds, maximum.
The “rubber O-ring” trick sounds a lot like the B&D polycarbonate sleeve stunt to me.
I think the only way you could make it work would be to make the case profile the same as the Russian 7.62 x 38Rmm Nagant revolver case. No actual “bottleneck”, just a smaller-diameter case mouth that was inserted into the barrel leade’ by tracking the cylinder forward for each shot.
In fact, there was revolver that did exactly this;
https://revivaler.com/cz-model-zkr-551-target-revolver/
In .38 Special Mid-Range Wadcutter for Olympic centerfire pistol competition.
clear ether
eon
Great video. I would like to know why Knights went to the trouble to design a new cartridge and not just riff off of the Nagant design? Seems like a “Nagant + O-ring” would have solved for X.
It’s obviously an assassination weapon, so there might be importance to using sabots other than gas sealing. As long as the sabots themselves were never recovered, the projectiles recovered from the deceased would have no rifling engraved on them and be untraceable/deniable. Otherwise, why not use a lot more conventional approach, such as a Ruger 96 or Marlin 1894 lever action loaded to 44 Special level with a really, really good brass-catcher?
I dunno if you caught it, but the sabot never leaves the weapon. It stays in the chamber.
This is basically a two-piece implementation of the Nagant technology. The sabot would more accurately be termed a “sliding piston” than a true sabot.
Fascinating bit of tech I was completely unaware of before today. I knew that Knights had built something like a silenced revolver, but the implementation never came across my view, so I had no idea how they’d accomplished it.
Very interesting tech, but almost certainly a dead-end technology that will remain as a footnote in history books about unusual firearms.
About the only way I can think of to make this work would be to use a specially-built .44 Magnum case with a “battery cup” setup in the case mouth, sized for the smaller-diameter bullet. In effect, a case that was bottle-necked inside, with a “lip” to keep the bullet from being dropped back into the case by recoil, but full case diameter on the outside.
You would also likely need a setup like the Dan Wesson revolvers, with interchangeable barrels, so you could adjust barrel/cylinder gap to the absolute minimum without causing the cylinder to bind against the forcing cone in rotation.
Yes, it would be a PITA to maintain, but if you really, really want a silenced repeating carbine, that’s about the only way it’s likely to work as advertised.
Unless you just get smart and use one of these.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Model_96
Since everybody and his brother has takedown versions of the ruger 10/22 carbine these days, I wouldn’t think a takedowm 96/44 would have been that difficult to make.
And building one with a special suppressed barrel in a .30/.44 bottleneck case or equivalent shouldn’t have been a big problem either.
clear ether
eon
“(…)takedown versions of the ruger 10/22 carbine these days, I wouldn’t think a takedowm 96/44 would have been that difficult to make.(…)”
I am not sure about that, but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcHH24yKNn4 shows 96/44 mated with folding stock, though I do not know if this render said weapon compact enough for your purposes?
Not my purposes, the Agency’s. My one prof who was ex-Field Division (Think sort of a real-life James Phelps) said that the tech division was OCD about everything being as small, break-down capable, and concealable as possible.
He suspected it was mostly a holdover from the wartime OSS and SOE, which were some of the most gadget-happy types you could imagine. Only MIS-X was more into compact and hidden gadgetry, and theirs was intended to facilitate POW escapes.
The “Foldy-Glock” we discussed here a few days ago
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/foldy-glock-the-full-conceal-m3d-history-and-shooting/
Would have been entirely typical of TD’s brainstorms. Or SOE’s for that matter;
https://www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/j5254w/folding_revolver_made_for_british_commandos/
As W.H.B. Smith once said, such inane devices crop up in any wartime period.
Even the Cold War.
BTW, my prof’s chosen sidearm? A Colt Commander. He actually had three, one each in .45 ACP, .38 Super, and 9 x 19mm. Which one he carried depended on where he was, taking account of ammunition availability and local regulations.
The 9mm was perfectly reasonable in most of Europe, the .38 Super was legal all over South and Central America, and the .45 ACP was the logical one to have anywhere U.S. forces were present, like Vietnam- or West Berlin.
cheers
eon
@eon,
Y’know… The Army used to have this nifty concept they called “supply discipline”, wherein you were supposed to make wise choices about what level of supply stocks you held at various levels. Company commanders were encouraged not to hoard resources, or have so much on hand that they’d be forced to abandon them during a withdrawal, and so that scarce stuff would be available for everyone.
Useful concept, that.
I think that the US military and government, across the board, badly needs to start thinking in terms of “gadgetry discipline”, because this crap is both endemic to everything they do, and apparently unavoidable. Americans love them some esoteric gimmicky toys, and that goes right back to the beginning when they thought “Why bother training people to do Euro-style stuff in combat, when that takes time and training, while we could issue some gimmick that would enable anyone to emulate the British standard of three volleys a minute…?”
Which is how we got the Hall-pattern weapons. That’s how far back it goes; the love affair with “gimmick” is apparently beyond overcoming, and here we are.
They need to start thinking and acting differently; there’s no damn point to having this uber-toy in the supply room if the actual utility of it isn’t there along with the use-case for it.
I mean, what the hell is the point of all this Mission Impossible crap, if they’re just going to let it all go to hell anyway? Did any of our toys stop the collapse of Afghanistan, which was mostly political here in Congress?
They need to stop buying toys, and start buying common sense by the bushel basket to give to the leadership.
@ Kirk;
I’ve spent most of my life (since first learning about it in Small Arms of the World and Guns of the World at age 13) trying to figure out WTF the “case” was for the 1815 Hall breechloader.
A smoothbore musket, then a rifle, then a smoothbore dragoon/cavalry carbine, and finally (just before the Civil War, a full half-century later) a breechloading rifled cavalry carbine bought by John C. Fremont because there was literally nothing else available. (Meaning “not enough Sharps 1853 Model carbines to go around”.)
The Hall wasn’t really “out of date” in 1862, because it was actually a few decades ahead of its time in the 1820s. It took until Simeon North got hold of the patents in 1857 for the production capabilities to catch up to the dimensional tolerance requirements to manufacture a safe, reliable version. (Prior to the Hall-North version, firing one was a good way to get singed eyebrows- or worse.)
Look at the Hall-North, then look at the “Cosmopolitan” aka “Gwyn & Campbell” aka “Grapevine” aka “Ohio” carbine of 1861-64. Not a lot of difference, in terms of operating principles, except the tolerances on the Ohio-built carbine were tighter, because by then machining accuracy was a lot better than it was when Andy Jackson fought the Battle of New Orleans.
The same holds for Colt or Remington Model 1860 revolvers. Why weren’t they made thirty years earlier? Because the industrial base of 1830 or so was stretched to the utmost to manufacture the Colt Paterson. Charles Dickens’ article on Colt’s London factory from 1855 is interesting, as he points out that the innards of an Adams revolver looked downright medieval compared to a London-made Colt 1851 Navy. Same sort of product, same sort of workmen, just a radically different “way of doing things”.
The moral is that before someone OK’s a new design for anything, it’s probably a good idea to find out first if the “tech base” can deliver it on time, in the quantities needed, and with appropriate safety factors at the user’s end.
I consider the entire set of the M60, M14, M73/M219, and M92/M9 debacles to be prima facie evidence of what happens when basically inadequate designs collide with fundamentally inadequate manufacturing bases and completely inadequate quality control.
I’m sort of expecting the NGSW project to be more of the same.
clear ether
eon
@eon,
Now, here’s another happy little quirk of US small arms “thought”:
Do note the M240B fielding process. That was delayed considerably, because the idjit types thought that a major deficiency of the M240 was that there were no heat shields on the barrel and gas system, and that presented a risk for the troop’s little fingies getting burnt.
No other military in the world that fielded the MAG58 found that to be a problem.
They mostly trained around it, and conditioned people not to touch those hot things. Not good enough for the chowderheads running things in the US military, noooooo… Literal year or so delay while they added weight and more parts to break to the guns, before making them general issue.
Makes sense, right? RIGHT?
Now, consider that this is right after, in terms of timeline, having issued a weapon in that role, for decades, which could be put back together wrong in about six different ways. More, if you consider all the permutations.
Something that took considerably more time to “train around” than “Barrel hot, don’t touch”.
You have no idea how many hours of time over the course of its career as a mainstay weapon that the M60 ate up, because the jackasses designing it couldn’t be arsed to design out all the little foibles that their epic half-assery built into that gun. Hell, I don’t either, but I know it had to be a lot: About a third of training time you spent with people was usually “Don’t do that; the gun won’t run…”, plus all the reinforcement out on the training ranges when you had to diagnose why “..she no shooty…”
Can you say “Institutional Schizophrenia”? I knew you could…
If you’re looking for good, clean common sense decisions in about anything the US military does with regards to small arms, my advice would be to abandon all hope before entering the circus funhouse. There is no hope of that, ever. It will always, always be “gimmickry and gadgets”, all the way down…
This is common logical fallacy; if the projectile is so peculiar of having no rifling marks, then all one needs to do is discard 99.99% of normal firearms that leave marks and only search for this one unique unicorn, finding it there is no doubt whatsoever that it fired strange bullet.
This way of fallacy was also seen in mythbusters “untraceable” ice bullet BS.
I am not an intelligence operative. I don’t know any talkative operatives who were ever out on the pointy end of things, either.
So… What I’d like to know, and likely never will, is how many of these brilliant little ideas like this one and the captive piston deals the Soviets built were ever really, y’know… Requested by the users. As opposed to them being BS thought up at Headquarters, and then foisted off on the operational side as “Hey, look at the great idea we had… Aren’t you grateful? Why aren’t you grateful, you ingrates…?”
So much of WWII intelligence BS came out of the minds of men like Ian Fleming (who, oddly enough, went on to great heights in the post-WWII men’s fantasy realm…), and when you look back on the historical success and relevance of those operations, you’re really left going “Was this worth the effort…?”
I’m sure some things were. Capture the Enigma codes? The Normandy deception operations? Absolutely… But, the rest? How much of that was down to upper-class wankers playing games with each other, as opposed to doing productive war-making?
The whole thing strikes me as a dubious proposition, just as a lot of modern “intelligence operations” strike me as being a waste of time. Not to mention, serving to enable a hell of a lot of damage to our civil liberties.
I’m a huge fan of openness. I think that the intel bubbas ought to be in the business of teasing out all the secrecy, and then putting it out in the open for the public to see. Nothing is served by all the obfuscation; a blind man can see, for example, how the Saudis and Pakistanis had to have had knowledge of 9/11, if not outright control over the course of events. So, why the secrecy? They should have put all of that out in the open, and let public opinion do its work. Concealment of this stuff is just counterproductive, and sadly, much of the most valuable work is done out in the open anyway.
I’ve read that the velocity difference between a 7.62 Nagant, and a nearly identical revolver designed and mfgd’ by the same guys where the chamber does not cam forward was around 200 FPS in a standard Nagant barrel.
~~~~~
I’ve got a Nagant sold as “used.” Well, it has never been fired. Tula 1943. Holster, cleaning rod, lanyard, all the goodies.
It probably cost about $70 35 years ago when there were zillions being imported.
I just seem to luck out getting “used” weapons that are unfired. Over and over.
is it a coincidence or are we seeing a “silent night” theme here for the holidays?
I was in Gov’t service in the 1990s. A “rumor” was that the customers were also looking for no clickity clack sound from the recoil system of a semi-auto weapon, but still have a repeating weapon.
Wonder if you could do that/Soviet pistol thing, sort of backwards… That HK underwater pistol; base, the darts though have a piston… Thinghi ma jig… Hammer – hits, cap at front, reverse soviet cartridge lark; PLOOOP! Piston hits your hand so to speak… Out it, goes. Why, I don’t know… Poision frogs.
Might not be able to fit it in… .22’ish… But sort of self contained cartridge if you could – Volcanic pistol’ish but… Well more for powder, if not the other bits; might be room for the other bits. Niche application… Silent fruit shooters, who like darts. WHACK!!! Might work, dart size dependant. Or sabot it sort of… Fire the lot out the barrel, but then seperates. Nazi sentries on, one of those computer games – Dutch bridge, WW2… Ps2 was it. Hey I have been trying to learn Welsh, not played computer games for while.
Aye, I know what I mean – Dart in – Hammer hits – WHACK!!! “Backwards” sabot fletchette, poison frogs… Anyway! 1 wk and it’s nearly Jesus’s main birthday!! Like… Yay!!!
Ok… Er… Well, the barrel, would provide, a “case” while said round was travelling through… In regards, said dart, sounding flimsy, and not having enough room for the soviet pistol, piston parts. So that may be able to slim it down a bit. S’meh… Tree frogs.
Might not work when it exited the barrel; burst thing/bang… Although, maybe with some sort of rotating silencer. in a pepperbox manner. Acheives, er… Well a cylinrical device that doesn’t eject rounds. Aye thats it, would need a detachable pepperbox silencer thing which caputures the dart… Case. Bit complicated? Suppose you could always throw a full ejected “silencer” at someone… No… Be along those lines, he he. Ok so what do you get? A tube… Gun, a tube. See… Something.
“(…)self contained cartridge(…)Volcanic pistol(…)more for powder(…)”
If you need such ammunition then use 7,62 mm Gerasimenko cartridge in VAG-73 https://modernfirearms.net/en/handguns/handguns-en/ukraine-semi-automatic-pistols/gerasimenko-vag-72-vag-73-eng/ be warned that unlike Volcanic VAG-73 is select-fire weapon and use detachable magazine with capacity 48.
“(…)Hammer(…)hits(…)at front(…)”
If your requirements stipulate such layout then use Gyrojet https://modernfirearms.net/en/handguns/handguns-en/u-s-a-semi-automatic-pistols/gyrojet-eng/
Er… Contin… Rod warhead lark… Each mini dart whacks into a slot on said exanding design and sends it out, expanding; drones… Probably not much range… Maybe wee rockets forget the silencer lark… Stuff.
Sort ot a better spread, shortish range. As oppose an explosive version – Room for the rod; well six cylinder revolver lark, so beneath them. Sounds a bit shit… Less shit, six of them as a rocket launcher; six barrels, so it fires 6 expanding circles out in wobbly concentric manner. Probably hit a drone…
Fliegerfaust sort of arrangement, why not a bomb to expand… Range, wee rockets… Send them… Anyway, meh! Two things there, modify. Burp, out.
Shit sized rockets… This is the cartridge idea comes in fire “Possibly” fire them – Rockets take over… Ok, start from what we know fliegerfaust rocket size. To slot into the rods, blast them out, etc, etc… Might get somewhere. Ok bigger, not shoulder launched now. But, make as small as possible. Lot of… Might not work, but… Rifles, shotguns, going to have be a very good shot there like, can see it being difficult. Anyway I will shut up, but thats now basically 6 fliegerfaust I.e. One per barrel. Light/small as possible, you drop them everywhere, by other drones. Like a sky mine.
S’meh… If that doesn’t work, try them with the fuel air bomb lark… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_of_Steel
Batteries eh, who could have known they’d have any other use than dildos.
Flying objects… Obvious really, must say it passed me by. Pneumatic bayonets on the end of a Sten gun; take that gerry.
Upscaled, so use a fliegerfaust as one revolver cylinder, the rod now sits beneath those 6 barrels.
Confident the fuel/air thing would work, drop a million per sq km. Bang. No drones. At that point.
Ok I have waffled about Terminators, fuel cells not triple AAA’s batteries or whatever; flying little shits.
“(…)will shut up(…)”
So how I should interpret all message poster after that declaration?
“(…)Rod warhead lark(…)”
Please cite reliable source which claims that such warhead was planned for http://www.astronautix.com/l/lark.html
Pdb tends to be whimsical after his strolls with Baccus. A highwire act without a net tethered to too evident facts. Think of it as online performance art
Well, we’ll still have to come up with a way to address flying “Dildo” bombs. So I am not appologizing, I have prior. But I am not for that. Pressing issue. Better not be wee Green men on Friday either, as I would be going haywire. He he.
“(…)wee rockets forget the silencer lark(…)”
I presume wee is corrupted way of writing V, therefore please explain clearly how Nazi V rocket (V-1, V-2) are combined with silencer and https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/sam-n-2.html
It’s not, it’s Scotch for small.
English for piss, a wee, smaller of the two human eject waste mechanisms. No idea what it is in Welsh. But probably along said lines.
Pisio. Apparently. Nice. Small is fach, bach; mutatations… Welsh. Wasn’t on Duolingo, well not yet – Piss. Pisio Lawr, big piss. I think. S’meh, all good.
Point of potential interest, Wee being snall, as oppose a poop… Being big, in comparision is quite “Welsh” in away, being an old language… Un-refined, sort of compared to English. You do find that, I feel “Not an expert” but sort of concepts I.e. A piss is smaller than a poop. Thus wee… Somewhere along the history of common parlance…
Could work with the darts I think, not quite as remembered it the self contained cartridge silencer lark… But along the same lines – Dart could be special projectile. Actually I will watch that again, but it is along those lines “Whack! Plooop!” must be. Might not be… Anyway! Good isn’t it, the Soviet idea. Playing with fire a bit now though aren’t they Russians, I mean the French… The rest of us are probably reasonable. But their ersrtwhile prior to WW1 mates… I mean, Britain is next to France you know Vlad and the French are well known as being crazy.
You know, unreasonable and mental. Unlike say, Finns, or Germans, Danes, some others. The French, we all love them; but it is a point, probably.
You know, like, setting fire to their own towns, smashing everything up and just generally not acting like everyone else… Er, some sort of bribe… Maybe.
I know it was “Britian” Boris, but we get bullied by the French; you have met French, folk… Sooo…