I just had a ludicris idea

[the Schwartz]

The idea, if it could be made to work, would NOT require a special revolver.

Not true. Revolvers—unless they've changed drastically in the last 3 weeks since I fired one—have cylinders that index, aligning the next chamber, once per trigger pull whether the function is double action or single action. Such a cartridge, would require significant redesign of any revolver chambering and firing it.

Not only is the suggested cartridge design very complex, but so would a revolver designed to fire such a cartridge.

What problem or need does the proposed munition design solve or satisfy, respectively?

If someone requires a handgun that fires 12, instead of six, cartridges at a single loading, it is far more cost-effective and simpler to acquire a semi-automatic firearm of quality manufacture.

Semi-automatic pistols are every bit as accurate, reliable, and even easier to clear of malfunctions than revolvers, especially one so convoluted and arcane in design.

[the Schwartz]

Just to make sure you actually understand what I'm suggesting, a shot shell fires all it's projectiles at once. The round I'm discussing would fire one projectile with one strike of the primer, then fire the second projectile with a second strike of the primer. If you understand that, and still think the idea is nonsensical, that's fine. I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

Increased complexity is not necessarily congruous with improvement. While I do understand the design that you are proposing, the amount of complexity introduced into two relatively mature technologies (small arms munitions and revolvers) lacks a justifying benefit in its favor.

In other words, the 'juice' ain't worth the 'squeeze'.

[Joe in PNG]

For a bullet to work good, it needs to send a bit of heavy metal at a particular velocity. Too light or too slow, and it's not that useful. One can make a lighter bit of heavy metal go faster for about the same results, but that brings us to our second problem.

To do bullet things, a quantity of material has to burn really fast to build up enough pressure for the bit of heavy metal to go fast. But if the pressure is too high, you get a thing that goes 'kaboom' and not bang.

For your concept to work, you need to put two bits of heavy metal and two quantities of really fast burning material in the same amount of space that a single bit of heavy metal and a single quantity of really fast burning material normally occupy. This means that you have to put in a really, really, really fast burning version of the really fast burning material to make your bit of heavy metal go and do bullet things. Which means the pressure is way, way, way more high than with the normal amount of the really fast burning material- and that means you're going to get a thing that goes 'kaboom' and not bang.

But even if the first go around on the New & Improved double cartridge doesn't go 'kaboom', another problem arises. The second bit of heavy metal has just experienced a really, really, really high amount of pressure between it and the first bit of heavy metal. Now, most of the pressure has escaped behind the first bit of heavy metal as it has left the long spinny bit- but Newton's Laws are still in effect. So that second bit of heavy metal has been pushed backward into the second bit of really, really, really fast burning material. That compresses the really, really, really fast burning material even more, and as any reloader can tell you, that pretty much guarantees you'll have a thing that goes 'kaboom' and not bang.

But can't one just make a stronger case? Nope. The case has to be of a size where the bit of heavy metal inside fits the long spinny bit so it can go do bullet things. Making the case stronger also means making the inside of it smaller, which means you need even more really, really, really fast burning material. Which makes it even more likely you'll get a thing that goes 'kaboom' and not bang. After all, it's the other spinny thing that the cartridges go in that has to hold most of the pressure, and you want to use regular revolvers, not something special.

[Joe in PNG]

Then there's the nightmare of the ignition system, which is an electric ignition system triggered by a strike on a piezo sensor in the primer pocket.
This needs to be able to reliably make the two parts of the cartridge go bang in the right order. If the idea is just piezo crystals to ignition filaments, there's not much to keep it from making both parts of the cartridge go bang at the same time. Anything that keeps it from going bang all at once is likely to keep it from going bang the second time.

Now, adding things like batteries or circuitry to make it work gooder brings us back to the problem of not much space, where the not much space makes the possibility of 'kaboom' instead of bang more likely.

[UNK]

What if you had a ignition hole through the cylinder in two spots for the front and back load. The electronics routed through the top strap and it fired all 6 front loads first then fired the back 6 loads. Instead of powder you can use c4 😎
ETA The hammer strikes the back of the topstrap depressing a plunger with gives the electric charge. If we keep this up it will be production ready in a week.

[Hambo]

The idea, if it could be made to work, would NOT require a special revolver. The idea is that any existing .357 magnum revolver could fire the round.

And yes, the ammo would be significantly more expensive than normal .357 rounds. But the shooter would get two shots per round, so if it's twice and much, the shooter would break even. It might even cost more than twice as much. But the added utility of doubling the shot count of an existing gun, and for guns not know for their high capacity, might be worth it to some shooters.

Apparently you have a serious ego investment in your self-described ludicrous idea. We all understand what you're saying; you're not understanding what we're saying.

FWIW, I had some really cool ideas while on pain killers. When the drugs wore off, my creative genius just seemed funny.

[the Schwartz]

Apparently you have a serious ego investment in your self-described ludicrous idea. We all understand what you're saying; you're not understanding what we're saying.

FWIW, I had some really cool ideas while on pain killers. When the drugs wore off, my creative genius just seemed funny.

You must have been in the hospital room next to mine several years back when I was hospitalized before an ulcer. Under the influence of what I suspect were some high quality narcotics, I was convinced that I was the funniest guy on the planet.

My wife assured me that that was most certainly not the case.

[BBMW]

Not true. Revolvers—unless they've changed drastically in the last 3 weeks since I fired one—have cylinders that index, aligning the next chamber, once per trigger pull whether the function is double action or single action. Such a cartridge, would require significant redesign of any revolver chambering and firing it.

Not only is the suggested cartridge design very complex, but so would a revolver designed to fire such a cartridge.

No, a new revolver design would not be necessary. You're still missing the point. A DA revolver cylinder rotates one chamber with each pull of the trigger. It will do this whether the round fires or not. So with this round, starting with six full chambers each with a fresh, unfired, two projectile round, each pull of the trigger would index the cylinder to fire the first projectile in the round. It would keep doing this until all the first projectiles had been fired from all the cylinders. After all the first projectiles had been fired, the next trigger pull would index the cylinder to a round where the the first projectile has already been fired, but the second projectile ready to go. The hammer hitting the piezo igniter/primer would fire the second projectile. Subsequent trigger pulls would fire the rest of the second projectiles, until it indexed to an empty case. So the shooter gets 12 individual triggered shots out of an ordinary six chamber revolver without having to reload. The only new technology involved is in the round itself.

What problem or need does the proposed munition design solve or satisfy, respectively?

Doubling the shot count from an existing revolver.

If someone requires a handgun that fires 12, instead of six, cartridges at a single loading, it is far more cost-effective and simpler to acquire a semi-automatic firearm of quality manufacture.

Even if the rounds are pricy, lets say $2 or more per round, this would be defensive only ammo. It would only shot very occasionally on the range for familiarization. This would very much not be range ammo shot in bulk. So if someone already owns a revolver, they don't have to buy a new gun. A cheap high cap auto is in the $300+ range, and someone could easily spend $500+ or more. And, of course there are a lot of revolver heads who don't want to carry autos. So now, instead of getting 5-6 shots out of their carry revolver, they get 10-12, without having to buy a new gun. Eventually, the cost of even the occasional shooting of the ammo I describe will cross the cost of a new gun (but of course buying a new gun means buying ammo, albeit cheaper ammo than what I'm describing.) And buying a new gun and learning to use it, especially if it's not what the shooter is used to using, is NOT going to be simpler than just dropping a new type of ammo in your revolver's chambers and shooting it.

Semi-automatic pistols are every bit as accurate, reliable, and even easier to clear of malfunctions than revolvers, especially one so convoluted and arcane in design.

The issues with the design being more complicated than standard ammo would only be an issue in design and manufacturing. For the end user/shooter, they'd be no more difficult/complicated to use than standard ammo.

To be fair, I have no problem with high cap autos. I actually prefer them. But there are a lot of people who prefer revolvers, and will give up the capacity advantage of autos to sick with them. With this design, they can have their cake, and eat it (at least some of it) too.

[Borderland]

Increased complexity is not necessarily congruous with improvement. While I do understand the design that you are proposing, the amount of complexity introduced into two relatively mature technologies (small arms munitions and revolvers) lacks a justifying benefit in its favor.

In other words, the 'juice' ain't worth the 'squeeze'.

You may be missing a golden opportunity here to invest in a startup.

[Joe in PNG]

You may be missing a golden opportunity here to invest in a startup.

Is Liz Holmes busy at the moment? I know she's currently in prison, but maybe that can occupy her time?